This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Seth: This doesn't seem all that useful, the example is just an Averted Trope and you didn't discuss it, just created a YKTTW and when people ignored you launched it.
- edited out unwaranted bitchiness (Bad day) - I think this should be Cut List'ed
Cassius335: Well, maybe provide a better example (or three), but it still maybe works as a word of caution.
Big T: This is useful, if only to be a place to redirect people who say a trope is subverted but it isn't. Which, if you'll check out the Fora, seems to be a common complaint, and, frankly, should be blatantly obvious to anybody who edits this wiki. The fact that this trope has only one example shouldn't be considered a problem, as most meta-tropes don't have.
The only thing I'm concerned with is whether this information is better put elsewhere. Subverted Trope has a lot of this information. But I do think putting this into nugget form might be a good idea.
Duckluck: I'm with Big T. It's a good idea for a page (I've actually been considering this very thing for a while now), it's just the implementation is a little iffy. As for the examples, there are plenty of accepted pages about this wiki that have even fewer. Let's keep this around for a while and see what the Wiki Magic can do with it.
Dark Sasami: This is a duplicate of Averted Trope, despite the fact that it says it isn't. Cut List time.
Austin: I disagree with part of the discription of this page. When I see, and use, partially/somewhat subverted, it's when a show mostly plays a trope straight, but they change one aspect of the trope that a person would usually suspect. If it's still wrong to describe those as partial subversions, then we need another term to describe an unexpected variation.
fleb: Right there, "unexpected variation." Use that.
Austin: It sounds akward, and I fail to see the harm in saying that it's a partial subversion. It sounds like meaningless nitpicking to me.
fleb: "partial subversion" unfortunately doesn't mean anything. It's like "being somewhat pregnant."
Austin: Except it's partially goes against the regular doings of the trope, and as such, can be argued to partially subvert it. Playing with a Trope doesn't seem like a good description for it either, because I usually see that applied to when someone plays a trope straight, but explores it from different angles. Not when they just go against a working of the trope.
fleb: Well all I can tell you is that that simply isn't what the word means, on this site. It's a binary, yes/no thing. You should bring that up in the forum thread
I made, though. (I don't think you need to register.)
Count Spatula: One thing I've seen on occasion is someone refering to a completely straight example of a trope as a subversion, possibly for no other reason than to have it stand out from the other examples.
fhqhwgads:I have an issue with the listed "weasel words". It IS possible for a trope to be "partially subverted" if the trope has multiple components. For example, Kleptomaniac Hero has two components:
1. The main character will go around collecting all the treasure and goodies they can get their hands on
2. The main character will end up seeming like a kleptomaniac, even though they aren't.
Marisa Kirisame, one of the two main characters from Touhou does go around collecting all the treasure and goodies she can get her hands on (and gets in-game bonuses towards item collection), but that's because she really is a kleptomaniac. In this case, the trope is only partially subverted, since the first half of the trope is played straight, while the second half is subverted.
ninjacrat: That isn't even remotely subversive of anything.
fhqwhgads: It's subverted because you presumably go out in each game to save the world, only to find the character talking about all the stuff they're going to steal once they get to the Big Bad's house.
ninjacrat: Before you were talking about how it subverted Kleptomaniac Hero (it doesn't). Now you seem to have free-associated onto whether it subverts some notional 'heroes are good people' trope. I'm not sure what to say.
Not doing a trope is not a subversion. Not doing part of trope is not a subversion. Slightly altering a trope is not a subversion. Parodying a trope is not subversion. Lampshading a trope is not a subversion. Being subversive is a subversion.
fhqwhgads: Fine then, if you're not going to listen to me then there's also an instance where Reimu (a Miko) goes around ransacking people's houses in Perfect Cherry Blossom. Are you happy now? Now to recap: 1. There is the assumption that the character's motivation is to stop the Big Bad. 2. The game involves item collection wherever you go. 3. The first assumption is subverted when you find out the character's motivation is really just to go steal stuff. Only #1. is subverted. #2. is played straight. Both #1 and #2 are parts of Kleptomaniac Hero, therefore the trope is only partially subverted.
ninjacrat: You have tied yourself in such horrifying semantic knots that it is no longer possible to follow what you are saying. I guess that ends the conversation.
(If you're just trying to understand the problem with 'partially-semi-somewhat subverted' tropes, there's always this forum thread.)
fhqwhgads:Ok. I'll try to explain it again. Kleptomaniac Hero is a combination of an articleless Super-Trope trope about how you collect everything that's not nailed down in AdventureGames, and a Sub-Trope trope about how such collection has no obvious explanation other than kleptomania when it's done in urban settings. If a game only subverts one of these component tropes, then it could be said to partially subvert Kleptomaniac Hero.
Black Humor: Just added a redirect from Not Subversions; could you guys who cutlist (cut) plural redirects not cut it, since it's not possible to make a plural in the normal way here? (Not A Subversions. See? Ungrammatical.)
