Markup View

Author: SolipSchism

May 18th 2015 at 11:05:35 AM

Your complaint seems to hinge on the fact that every single example of the trope would need to state exactly why the rich people have a lot of white stuff in order for it to be an example, which is absurd. Just look at the example list and you will see exactly how this trope manifests, you'll see that it's hardly TooRareToTrope, you'll see that it's a consistent pattern that is still prevalent today regardless of what social factors may have contributed to its inception however many centuries ago, and you'll see that it is a meaningful convention that conveys information to the audience--namely, telling them (or reinforcing an already-known idea) that the person or persons in question ''are affluent''.

This is not a complicated concept and it really, truly, does not matter what gave rise to the trope thousands of years ago or whether that factor is still a factor in its use today. A trope is a trope whether or not it is always used in the exact same context (in fact, explaining the ''unique'' context of a trope in each example and being able to identify the recurring patterns within that larger context is part of what ''makes it a trope in the first place'') that it was used in a thousand years ago. Stop harping on about it.

It's exactly like AGlassOfChianti or WhiteHairBlackHeart; it's an appearance/behavior trope that uses a very simple, quantifiable action or appearance to convey a very specific detail to the audience. It is very clean-cut and easy to understand. What is ''not'' easy to understand is ''exactly what you are complaining about''.