This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Cidolfas: I find it incredibly hard to believe that The Fun They Had was meant to be ironic. The second-last paragraph in particular extols the (almost universally accepted) benefits of going to school with other children, and the robotic teacher is presented as sterile and ridiculously boring. If it was meant to be ironic, it did a terrible job of it.
poptart_fairy: Why do the Horde examples under the Warcraft section keep getting removed, but the Alliance ones are left untouched? It's NOT because it's "already covered under the World of Warcraft" section, as the example is not just dealing with quests.
Monsund:Because its covering World Of Warcraft not the Warcraft RTS series. The new plague and the Royal Apothecary society are World Of Warcraft inventions. Put an example of Misaimed Fandom from the Warcraft 1-3 in the Warcraft RTS section.
Aki-Bara: Erm, In the example given for Sanji from one piece saying that he is most often in hetero pairings, I have to say that I think its a strange example considering the most popular fan pairing for one piece is sanji/zolo(or zoro) with the most popular het couple probably being nami/luffy. I normally read one piece fics on lj, but doing a simple pairing entry with no rating filter I got the folowing results:
sanji/zoro = 16 pages luffy/nami = 12 pages
sanji/nami = 4 pages sanji/vivi = 1 entry sanji/robin = 1 page
zoro/nami = 6 pages zoro/robin = 3 pages zoro/vivi = 1 page
luffy/vivi = 1 page luffy/robin = 1 page
So, as a result from this data the conclusion can be drawn that Sanji is actually below Luffy and Zoro in terms of het pairings. Luffy is the most popular with the most popularly paired girl and zoro comes in second while being first when it comes to vivi and robin. Either way, Sanji is not the most common. As such I am going to remove that bit from the page, but if anyone wants to re add it they may feel free to due so. However, to ensure it isn't changed again please put your reasoning here.
Bones: It may be because the entry was based on outdated data. For example, Sanji/Nami was probably the most popular heterosexual ship years ago, (Even to the point of getting some Fanservice in the anime) but it's popularity seems to have dwindled over time.
Sheek: Note quite. There was a relatively recent special (fourth one, actually.) that had Sanji/Nami Fanservice coming out of its pores, and it can be painful if you watch One Piece precisely because it's notorious for avoiding [[Shipping that sort of thing.]]
Black King: deleted the wesker and dark knight entries, people need to learn that beacause a villains is liked does not automatically make it a mis-aimed fandom
Ouroboros: I only cut one article, in regards to South Park, because the addition had nothing to do with the creators' views or opinionsbut a lot of clean up has to be done on this page. Dante could use a bit of work, far too much running commentary and 'well actually' additions.
ArtemusWolfwood: So...what, nothing on Invader Zim? Or any of Jhonen Vasquez's work in general?
It's there now; do a text search of the page. —Document N
Dalantia: Trimmed the sub on FFTA. I've never seen it anywhere else.
Steel Beast 6 Beets: Whatever happened to the tibbit 'bout Leeroy Jenkins? Did the author of said edit finaly realize that he was the one that got the wrong message?
Janitor: My sense is that lead has been buried in this one. Here's a proposed chop-up. It's fairly radical, so I thought I'd float it, first:
The writer has set up a satirical character. He took controversial turns and annoyed the Media Watchdog. It was worth it for "The Vision".
Then, in the writer's eyes, the loudest part of the fandom completely missed the point. They didn't see the subtext, but only the text-text. They liked the text-text.
This is the time when the author learns about how strange a fandom can be, and sometimes start to actively hate it.
... pretty brutal edit, but it seems more clear to me, now.
Janitor again, later. It sat here for twelve hours with no howls of outrage. Here comes the trigger.
Ununnilium: I like!
Seth: I understood it before pretty well but this edit is cleaner. I bow to seniority on this one anyway.
Semiapies: Hmm. Some of these examples put a bit too much blame on the fans. One example: All in the Family was always half-hearted on the nature of Archie's racism, shying away from making him genuinely unlikable by portraying him as ignorant, insensitive, and unintentionally offensive rather than hateful. His son-in-law, a character designed to present the POV of the writers, tended to come across to many people as a lazy freeloader who self-righteously lectured his host on a regular basis.
Nor do I think obviously perverse fan fascinations (like the Snape-o-philes) really count as "missing" a text or a subtext... I have a feeling there's more than one phenomenon here - ideas being miscommunicated between creators and fans and fans having their own ideas about the material that the creators dislike.
Jordan: I was wondering of the opposite occurrence where an author decides that they like a character originally intended as a villain. Two occurrences I can think of are Thomas Harris toward Hannibal Lecter and in this Flashman series by George MacDonald Fraser, the title character is originally intended as this extremely unpolitically correct anti-hero and coward but its obvious as the series progressed that the author came to use him as a mouthpiece. Is there a term for when this happens?
Tanto: Draco in Leather Pants. Or Ensemble Dark Horse.
Jordan: I don't think its either of those because at least in the second example, it seems more like the author's conception of the character has changed than that of the audience. I guess a related example would be how George Lucas screwed-up the Star Wars prequels.
Jordan: After giving it some thought, I've realized what I'm thinking of is something associated with characters who are Badasses in which the author comes to support the character's behavior, and wants to frame them as a loveable rogue, but their actions don't support that reading. One more thing, I was thinking that Jack Bauer is a great example of misaimed fandom in the way some conservatives will tout his methods as the ideal for dealing with terrorists.
- I find it interesting to contrast that with the show's entry at Designated Hero: "24: this troper did not know that the sociopathic Jack Bauer was supposed to be a good guy until he read a review.". I guess a logical conclusion is that it's hard to read the creators' intent from just watching the show. —Document N
Lale: "... something associated with characters who are Badasses in which the author comes to support the character's behavior, and wants to frame them as a loveable rogue..."
If Misaimed Fandom is "viewers take a liking to a character they shouldn't", then "viewers not taking a liking to who the author thinks they should" is either the opposite, or another way of saying the same thing. I'm sure it's almost always Writer on Board. And if the audience hates the character no matter what the author does, they're The Wesley.
Actually, I would just call such a thing Poor Writing. Good luck to anyone who thinks they can make a page for that within the limited time frame of their life span.
Jordan: I thought of something I think might be considered misaimed fandom- I've heard that the character of Eponine in Les Miserables the musical is very popular with some girls because of the possibility for shipping with Marius, although in the actual text, she is definitely someone you should pity not emulate (it's heavily suggested her father forced into prostitution). In fact, the whole point is that Marius himself has the author's opinion of her- he is sympathetic but pretty much considers her clingy and stalkerish.
Jordan: Another older example is there is a famous quote of the poet, William Blake on John Milton's Paradise Lost that Milton was "of the Devil's party without knowing it", referring to Milton's anti-heroic portrayal of Satan. I'm tempted to say that any who ended up viewing Satan as heroic after reading Paradise Lost were probably a misaimed fandom.
(random passer-by): Apropos of nothing, the main page here makes some rather strong statements about Neon Genesis Evangelion that would be considered controversial at the very least in the fan community. And something significant that whoever wrote that may have missed is that the anime may have been written by Hideaki Anno, but Anno has absolutely nothing to do with the manga. The manga is written and drawn by Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, whose sole connection with the anime is that he did the character designs (and he only did THAT after Naoko Takeuchi [Sailor Moon manga creator] turned down Hideaki Anno's offer—which may have been just as well; can you imagine Ritsuko Akagi with odango?). Anno and Sadamoto are using the same characters and setting, more or less, but emphasizing VERY different things and telling stories that differ significantly in certain details, especially where characterization is concerned.
[Another passer-by]: Oughta have some mention of Swift's "A Modest Proposal".
BT The P: I'd have to challenge on NASCAR fans not getting Ricky Bobby. It's a parody of sports movies, like Major League, but it just happens to not be about baseball.
YYZ: Exactly. It's a parody of every professional-racing movie since the original Red Line: 7000. ...Yes, professional-racing movies are a real genre - remember Days of Thunder? The only thing wrong with Talladega Nights is that it came along ten years too late - the genre's mutated into illegal-street-racing movies.
—-
(yet another passer-by): I think it's pretty arguable that Cervantes merely intended to satirize the idea of the knight errant. It's certainly not a wrong interpretation, but I would like to know if the person who wrote that actually speaks Spanish . . . not out of nationalism or anything, but there's this very old saying in Spanish that states "Kids, drunks, the crazy and the elderly always tell the truth." I think that fits Don Quixote well, and a lot of his adventures actually deal with real problems that existed in Spain at the time - some of which you wouldn't really know unless you studied the novel along with Spanish history, as history classes largely jump over Spain for a good deal of its history.
Again, not saying the troper's dumb or anything, but a legit interpretation of the text is that while Cervantes did in fact intend it to be a straight lampooning of the chivalrous novel, Don Quixote nonetheless is also an unassailable idealist. He's crazy, yes, but in his insanity he reveals a lot of underlying problems. (And this is from someone who thinks this book is analyzed too much.)
—-
Keenath: Some of the examples here aren't really examples of misaimed fandom.
For example, Cartman isn't; I don't think anyone likes Cartman because they authentically hate jews or agree with whatever other horrible opinion Cartman is holding in this episode. They like him because he's so outrageously and unappologetically *wrong*.
Likewise with Borat. People who love Borat like him because they "get it", not because they agree that Jews are a scourge on our planet who should be thrown down a well. The people who he gets to agree with him aren't misaimed fandom; they're just dupes. (I think more than half the time, people only agree with Borat to try to get the weird guy to go away, not because they actually agree with him.)
And "A Modest Proposal" isn't misaimed fandom unless some people folded their hands and said, "Yes, yes. Quite right. They SHOULD go eat their babies." Missing the sarcasm isn't enough to be Misaimed Fandom — they have to actually agree with the text-text.
William Wide Web: But it's the closest trope here.
Morgan Wick: Then maybe there should be a new trope.
Shazzbaa: Felt the need to clarify that bit about how some people like things even when they know they're being mocked:
After all, some people can appreciate being mocked if they're mocked cleverly; these people are simply good sports. However, those who actually don't realise that they're being mocked have become a Misaimed Fandom.
Is this okay, or am I missing the point? If it's unacceptable or irrelevant, feel free to zap it.
Shazzbaa: In regards to the trope confusion, trying to divide this up...
(a)Audience likes a work or character that mocks them: where they should have been thinking "Wow, so that's how stupid we look?" the work/character ends up being familiar and appealing to them. (eg, Redneck-y people loving "King of the Hill")
(b)Audience likes a character that they were supposed to dislike, or agrees with a character they were supposed to disagree with (eg, liking Snape or fetishising Rei Ayanami)
(c)Audience agrees with what they perceive as a work's message, without realising that it's sarcastic, totally missing the real point. (eg, the "America,F*** Yeah!" song)
(d)Audience takes a work at face value and misses the sarcasm. (eg, being outraged by "A Modest Proposal")
...I'd think (A) and (C) are definitely Misaimed Fandom, and (B) could go either way, but (D) definitely isn't. (D) is just "not getting it."
Document N: This might be a bit shoehornish, but I think A could be covered by Periphery Demographic, B by Alternate Character Interpretation, C by Insult Backfire and D by Completely Missing The Point.
Burai Went ahead and removed...
- * When A Modest Proposal was written a lot of people thought it was actually talking about eating babies.
JW: Could someone ellaborate how Type O Negative built is carreer around misaimed fandom?
Steelhead Tsotha: Basically, take the song Black No1 which clearly mocks Goths... but somehow, a lot of goths like Type O Negative. It's also up to debate exactly how serious their more relentlessly misogynistic songs (eg. I Know You're Fucking Someone Else) are.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Most goths have a better sense of humor about themselves than you'd think.
Big T: I'm not sure if this observation (by me) belongs on the main page, so I'm putting it here. Move it if you like it!
- At least one troper didn't originally realize that The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy was supposed to be satire, and actually liked it better that way.
You might call it an Indecisive Parody, but it seems unfair to call it indecisive just for not being a completely substanceless Gag Series, so I dunno either. —Document N
Pisthetairos: I added the Suddenly Last Summer example without any knowledge of the play, or in fact the actual movie - I just heard about it in a documentary. From what I gather, the movie might have suffered Adaptation Decay because of the Hayes code, or the character was changed from an amoral pedophile to a regular gay man (who received punishment even so), or even, the author of the play was a self-hating homossexual. Can anyone clarify what went on during the movie, or should I just remove the example?
That Other 1 Dude: I think Sephiroth is suppose to be under Draco in Leather Pants (Kefka can probably stay). Also the thing about "Money for Nothing" falls under Isn't It Ironic? and/or Repurposed Pop Song.
Daibhid C: How is Fonzie an example?
That Other 1 Dude: He was a Ensemble Dark Horse that was originally a lot meaner then he latter became, but that seem more like Draco in Leather Pants then Misaimed Fandom.
Daibhid C: Yeah. If he'd stayed a mean hood, and the writers had deliberately portrayed this negatively and he'd still been an Ensemble Dark Horse, that'd be Misaimed Fandom.
Natter ruthlessly excised by Vampire Buddha:
- This troper thinks Studio Gainax really had it coming, as Rei is so overly fetishized (and often shown naked and not giving a damn about it) in the anime. Yoshiyuki Sadamoto even overtly said that he saw her as "a fragile girl covered with bandages," which this troper views as a creepy sexist fetish.
- In fact, the whole of End Of Evangelion movie is frequently interpreted as a vicious retort to the fans who complained about the way the TV series actually ended, plus Anno's own disgusted conflict with the otaku lifestyle that had previously endeared him to fans. The original ending of the series, as planned by Hideaki Anno and revealed in the film, was even more confusing — and just to drive the point home, Anno reworked it into a Kill Em All Downer Ending. (This intention is marked pretty clearly in the film; several death threats received by Studio Gainax after the end of the TV series are flashed on the screen at one point, with the clear implication that these people deserve a Take That!.)
- Actually, only one of the letters flashed on screen is a death threat, and it was written after Death and Rebirth, not the TV ending. The idea that End of Evangelion is a Take That! is wholly untrue, not to mention petty.
- And the above exchange is a prime example of how even in this age of countless fansubbers we Westerners almost never get to know what the reactions of the Japanese public really were and what anime authors actually said in their interviews. And don't even get me started about those known for intentionally bullshitting their fans (i.e. Yoshiyuki "Minagoroshi" Tomino).
- Really I don't see why people disagree with Light so much, granted he is a bad person (to say it lightly -no pun intended-) but he was right dangit, as a direct results of his actions violent crime was almost non-existent and wars had disappeared. The being lazy thing I agree was too much, but surely one must realise that this is impossible for him to enforce.
- Hell the reason most people like Light is because he's just so deliciously evil, he uses people and discards them so heartlessly, with utterly no regard, in the earlier half he almost always thinks of everything and to top it all of he thinks he's both God and justice. Perhaps I should be clear here and say that my point is that Light's method worked.
- Maybe, but this editor was a Snape fan since he read The Reveal at the end of the first book, and kept expecting Draco to declare Even Evil Has Standards and do a Heel–Face Turn (or at least end up in an Enemy Mine moment).
- I'm ashamed to have taken it at face value even though I read it while still in school, and interpreted it as the future education being impersonal and antisocial, while the old education was more sociable and personal.
- Don't be. The irony is pretty subtle, and even in the future, education is still boring and tedious, even though it's supposed to be better at, well, educating. You just don't have other people around to either relieve the boredom or make things even worse. Asimov also held the opinions that if the reader doesn't get something, it's usually the author's fault for not being clear enough, and that the "correct" interpretation of a story is whichever one the reader thinks is correct. The straight reading is just as acceptable an interpretation as the ironic one.
- After reading the Wikipedia plot summary, this troper can't see it as anything other than an endorsement of her actions. The only way the story could be seen as an indictment of the pedophile scare is if the guy turned out not to be a criminal.
- However, after this troper read the summary, she seems to be not a vigilante (much less a just one), but a sociopathic sadist who was just looking for someone no one would feel bad for and could probably get away with killing. The fact that she took back her promise of removing the evidence that he was a pedophile even though the man agreed to kill himself so that she would really clinches that for me. I may be reading it wrong, so she there's a good chance could is suppose to be genuinely convinced for her cause — but she was definitely a sadist.
- This troper thinks that the character is one of those "let's kill someone just for the hell of it, but might as well make it someone who deserves it."
For the record, Chud.com is doing a series of essays largely based upon this phenominon.
Morgan Wick: The Romeo And Juliet example reminds me of a bit in The Sims 2. One of the neighborhoods in the game is called "Veronaville" and all the families that come with it have names from Shakespeare plays, or close analogues, and except for one family with the auspicious last name "Summerdream", all have last names of "Monty" or "Capp", and the neighborhood is set up so that the two families have a feud, except for the youth of the families, and specifically two teen sims with distinctly familiar names... Anyway, the point is, "Juliette" is a Family Sim, and Romeo is a Romance Sim (code for the local equivalent of Casanova) - canonically the absolute worst pair of Aspirations for a healthy romantic relationship (at least before the expansion packs). Perhaps the makers of the game were paying attention when they saw the play?
Patsy: I have half a mind to take Light Yagami off the page here. He's a Magnificent Bastard Villain Protagonist, so as far as I'm concerned there's no question that he's intended to be sympathetic and considered cool by fans of the show. I think the idea that by liking his character you're implicitly supporting his campaign of mass-murder would go better in Moral Dissonance.
Charred Knight: The problem is that some people tend to take him at face value, instead of seeing a power crazed mad man with a god complex who just happens to want to do some good.
—-
Trigger Loaded: Likewise, I'm tempted to take out Kefka's entry. Sephiroth makes sense, as some people do make him out to be far more sympathetic and tragic than he probably was meant to be. Everyone I've seen likes Kefka because he's such an great irredeemable villain. Bad guys being respected and interesting isn't Misaimed Fandom, it's when a bad guy meant to be unsympathetic and/or still evil is seen as a good guy or simply misunderstood. Least that's how I see it.
Charred Knight: Deleted it, I have yet to see a person who thinks that Kefka is the good guy for wanting to destroy the world for fun.
—-
- The song "Simple and Clean" by Utada Hikaru is the main theme song of the video game Kingdom Hearts, a fusion of Disney and Final Fantasy properties. As such, it's targeted demographic is the tweens. The song's English lyrics seem to be about living romance in the present and without doing things to complicate it.
Kalle: Haha, I was just going to ask about that as well. If anything, it sort of feels more like Soundtrack Dissonance than anything else. But yeah — explanation, please?
Andrew: Deleted the sub-point under the Vonnegut example, because it's overtly political Flame Bait natter which has no purpose here.
DomaDoma: For what it's worth, the viewership of my Death Note fanvid, entitled "The Tower Bells' Toll", is 41% male. I was surprised, too.
That Other 1 Dude: Any reason that someone removed the page quote that wasn't just profanity? —- Annwyd: Yanked the last line off of this:
- Gene Hunt is, as Sam Tyler puts it — "An overweight, over-the-hill, nicotine-stained, borderline-alcoholic homophobe with a superiority complex and an unhealthy obsession with male bonding" ("You make that sound like a bad thing"). Oh, and he's racist, sexist, and ableist to boot. This doesn't stop fans gravitating toward him though, perhaps because he gets the best one-liners.
- It's ironic how this quotation contains Unfortunate Implications and prejudice against overweight people, smokers, and alcoholics.
- And homophobes, for that matter. If you're going to preach tolerance...
- It's ironic how this quotation contains Unfortunate Implications and prejudice against overweight people, smokers, and alcoholics.
Because if it's a joke, it's not a very clear one, and if it's serious, it's Too Dumb to Live. Also edited the previous line slightly and nuked the entry for Omar from The Wire. He just doesn't fit—he's morally ambiguous, but then so is the vast majority of the cast, and the show pulls no punches in depicting him as just plain cool. Besides, I'm pretty sure that most of his fans don't actually think that making a living as a violent criminal is a good idea. Ensemble Dark Horse is not the same thing as Misaimed Fandom. Stringer Bell is the closest thing to actual Misaimed Fandom I can think of in The Wire, and I'm pretty sure even most of his fans will admit that he's a villain.
arromdee: For Iron Dream, why was this taken out? (It was mine, BTW)
- This troper interpreted it a third way: as a satire on "you can prove your idea is a good one by writing a book where, by authorial fiat, your idea works". The Iron Dream, then, shows the absurdity of that by presenting a situation where the writer is Hitler and the idea he's "proving" is racial inferiority. This contradicts Spinrad's stated intent (since he was trying to prove an idea — militaristic fiction is fascist — by writing a book where that idea is true), but otherwise seems entirely legitimate.
It seems to fit the definition; the book was supposed to have subtext about one thing and I saw subtext about something completely different that contradicted the author's intended point.
Andrew: I've become sort of an anti-natter Knight Templar in recent days; if there's a third sub-point and it begins with some variation of the words "this troper" or "in fairness" or "actually," I go into ax mode. If you want to weave it back into the entry, I won't cut it out this time.
Deleted the David Gonterman example, he's not being ironic or sarcastic, it's more of a case with people with REALLY bad taste.
- Most glaring in this troper's opinion is the continued use of the phrase "wear [ing your] heart on your sleeve'". Used by Iago, intentionally deceiving his lamebrained buddy Roderigo about lying to Othello. It's the complete reverse of what everyone takes it to mean.
Air Of Mystery: ...yyyesss, because the English language has not altered in any way at all in the four hundred or so years since the time of Shakespeare, and we should correspondingly pronounce our vowels like he did.
L Guardinal: I took out the Joker entry because he's not an example of this trope. Sympathetic? No, I don't think there's anyone that thinks that. Fucking awesome, however? Yes.
Austin: "Jhonen Vasquez repeatedly takes pages out of his Johnny The Homicidal Maniac and Squee series, in order to Take That to various people he feels are enjoying his comic for the wrong reason, especially one extended story in the former (about a serial killing fanboy of Johnny's). Note to authors... if you feel the need to explain why the reader shouldn't be enjoying your work in the way they do... you're doing it wrong."
In this case, I'd have to disagree. Vasquez's fans are known for being rather crazy and not seeing the horribleness of the characters he creates. The philosphy part of JTHM was prominent from the second issue onward, so those who think it was just a book about killing people aren't very persepective.
- Fight Club comes to condemn its themes of fascist nihilism, but in a manner that makes it easy to miss after depicting them as cool. "That's awesome, let's start our own fight club! The first rule of Project Mayhem..." The movie also has a great deal of straight-takeable misogynistic themes, which are intended to be the views of an Unreliable Narrator to highlight the main character's warped views of women.
I don't think it's this simple. While I haven't watched the movie in years and haven't read the book in even longer, it's certainly not a simple condemnation of "fascist nihilism"; the last act (and, more broadly, everything post-Twist) doesn't invalidate, or even really contradict, the point of the first. Indeed, the characters' approach to their culture is shown to be a valid one, one which works right up until the point where it devolves into a dogmatically nihilistic cult.
If I can be forgiven for jumping into some lit-crit wankery, the "Project Mayhem" half of the story is about jumping off the thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression at the "antithesis" stage. Project Mayhem is dysfunctional, the Tyler Durden personality's an immature, solipsistic nihilist, and the whole scheme is shown to be unacceptably destructive. But the story's first half is presented as necessary in order for the narrator (and, by extension, the class of men that he represents) to achieve his eventual catharsis. It's about growing up, like the link says, but part of that involves rejecting old values. That's what the "Fight Club" half of Fight Club is about; the rest of the plot is about completing the process without falling into the trap of nihilism.
—-
UncolaMan: Right Said Fred's (not bad grammar, that really is the name of the band) "I'm Too Sexy" was created as a mockery of pretentiousness of the fashion industry. Said industry promptly kind of adopted the song as their own... but I'm too lazy to do the research on what exactly was done. Someone out there with more work ethic than me?
Silent Hunter: Taxi Driver. IIRC, He didn't actually attempt to kill the guy directly. However, some of his activity is questionable...
George TSLC: Arguable natter ruthlessly excised by Ninjacrat while I was about to fix some punctuation, and NOT heretofore reproduced here until now (w/ spelling corrected):
- Why does anyone uphold Rochester as a romantic hero in the sense of desirable mate? In the text, he's explicitly willing to commit bigamy, and his treatment of his mad wife had become outdated half a century before the invention of the steam boat. After all, if a man locks up his pyromaniac wife with a drunk, who is responsible for the fire that follows? The madwoman, the drunk woman or the irresponsible husband? This troper knows what her answer would be! There are also implications that Rochester might have given his wife a push instead of attempting to save her, and Jane's pupil is his illegitimate daughter. Pretty romantic in the Byronic sense, but not really a happily ever after ending for the heroine, even discounting the blindness.
Jordan: I'm not sure if Don Quixote is really as good of an example as it seems. In my copy of Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews (the Penguin Classics version), the introduction talks about how Fielding based a lot of it on Don Quixote, and one of the characters, Parson Adams, sort of the Quixote Expy, is someone who is the victim of a lot of Comedic Sociopathy, but is probably the most admirable character in the book. Fielding's intent was to highlight how bad the world was through showing how badly Adams was treated, and I could swear they quote Cervantes saying prety much the same thing about Quixote. Thus, I don't think that admiration for Don Quixote is completely at odds with Cervantes, and at the very least, it isn't a 20th century creation (Fielding lived about a century after Cervantes).
Filby: About the parentheses in this bit...
- It's ironic how this quotation contains Unfortunate Implications and prejudice against overweight people, smokers, and older people (and, one supposes, homophobes).
I fail to see how it's unfortunate to condemn bigots. I suppose that if I say something nasty about the KKK, I should be ashamed of being prejudiced towards racists? I'm cutting that bit out.
Charred Knight: Uh What?... Haruka was never protrayed as a Homophobic bigot, and I don't see the purpose of this entry. Its someone trying to defend Shizuru, finding out they can't and the whole thing ends in rambling.
- Shizuru was a levelheaded character before rejection turned her into a Psycho Lesbian. It is quite open to debate whether Shizuru actually raped Natsuki in her sleep. Natsuki wakes up wearing a kimono and does not notice anything strange. The viewer did see Shizuru disrobing and crawling into bed with her, but that does not prove Natsuki was abused in her sleep. Shizuru later blushes when she carefully kisses Natsuki while she is taking a nap on the porch. That would be uncharacteristically coy if she had done far more intimate things to Natsuki the night before. Haruka did not deserve to die, but she showed herself to be a homophobic bigot. Nao had tortured Natsuki and fully intended to kill her. Taking her powers away even if it killed her comatose loved one could be justified. Trying to kill her while she was helpless, was obviously wrong. By the way, Wordof God changed its mind after the series ended and proclaimed Natsuki does love Shizuru that way. This troper is fine with either version of Wordof God.
Justice Gundam: And I'm pretty sure that, in Episode 25, Natsuki grabbed Shizuru in a Cooldown Hug and said explicitly that she didn't reciprocate Shizuru's feelings, but was still grateful for them. I never heard that Word of God changed its mind later, so I'm going with Shizuru's feelings remaining one-way. And I never said Natsuki was raped: the series gives ample suggestion that Shizuru stole a kiss from her, which for all intents and purpouses still amounts to forcing herself upon Natsuki.
Oh, and by the way... I don't buy the explanation that Shizuru was stable one moment, and crazy just one rejection later. She was obviously mentally unstable since the beginning, or she wouldn't have done what she did all of a sudden.
Nornagest: Edited out a whole bunch of Thread Mode silliness in the Harry Potter entry. Some of the following was deleted, some condensed:
- ** It can be argued that the movies are partly to blame for this. Before, people used their imagination to picture the characters and fully absorbed Rowling's vision of just how nasty Snape and Draco are. But then the movies came, and the characters were played charismatically by Alan Rickman and Tom Felton. Now even more fans love them, much to Rowling's chagrin.** Similarly, Slytherin House is clearly described from the very beginning as a bad-guy house — the founder, Salazar Slytherin, is presented as a bastard who was actively scheming against the other founders, whose world-conquering ambition was only held in check by the other founders, who actually initiated physical violence against Godric Gryffindor, etc. The characteristics associated with the Slytherin House are bad characteristics — elitism, ambition, a sociopathic disregard for other people's feelings, etc. This does not prevent legions of fans on the Internet from somehow bizarrely deciding that Slytherin House represents all the poor antisocial nerd kids who got picked on in high school and that Slytherin is where their spiritual home is (an idea Rowling described as "disturbed"). (All this despite the fact that Slytherin does *not* have any poor antisocial nerd kids in it whatsoever, the lone exception being the child version of Severus Snape, and is in fact mainly composed of stereotypical spoiled wealthy bullies.)*** Where is Slytherin ever described as incompetently as that? Answer from this troper to that one: Books 5,6 & 7, and the bad traits were described right in book 1, and his intention to mass murder children was revealed in book 2.*** At the risk of entering Thread Mode, ambition and cunning aren't bad, and nowhere is it mentioned that Salazar "actively schemed" against the other founders or wanted to conquer the world. Elitism and sociopathy aren't Slytherin traits, just Voldemort's.** JKR herself isn't immune to this, as she has recently admitted her mental image of Snape altered from the greasy-haired, homely misanthrope of the earlier books until the Snape of the latter books more closely resembled Alan Rickman's Snape.***Somewhat justified, as although mudblood status appears to have no impediment to one's morality or skill, being a straight up muggle makes you an evil, vile, cruel bastard. Even the Prime Minister is kind of an ass, but is too terrified to tell anyone about what he sees.*** The above is the perfect example of misaimed fandom. Nobody edit it.*** Exceptions: Frank Bryce, Hermione's parents, various innocent people the Death Eaters torture, etc. The reason for the Misaimed Fandom here is pretty obvious — Rowling starts out the story as a standard fantasy wish-fulfillment where the kid escapes from his horrible family to his glorious destiny, the former represented by Muggledom and the latter represented by wizardry. The fact that this trope is almost immediately subverted by the actual plot of the books (to the point of having Harry and Dudley reconcile in the final book) is still ignored by its oldest and most devoted fans.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here until someone explains why this belongs in Misaimed Fandom. We are missing the punchline.
- The song "Simple and Clean" by Utada Hikaru is the main theme song of the video game Kingdom Hearts, a fusion of Disney and Final Fantasy properties. As such, it's targeted demographic is the tweens. The song's English lyrics seem to be about living romance in the present and without doing things to complicate it.
There was a satirist in the 19th century who wrote a satire novel on American's views of Chinese immigrants by exaggerating the anti-Chinese sentiment. However, this was misinterpreted and the author was applauded by many anti Chinese. I forgot both the name and the title of the novel, but I read about it on Wikipedia and this seems like a great addition to your article.
Found it! It's called Heathen Chinee, and it's a poem by Bret Harte. It has it's own Wikipedia page. It was widely viewed as being anti Chinese when it was supposed to be a satire of the anti Chinese.
Frozen Wolf 150: I don't understand why this example under the Death Note entry had to be taken out along with the natter. No reason was given for taking out this part, and without it, the picture of L at the top of the page seems to lose its relevance.
- ** On a similar note, L is pretty much the anti-Bishōnen: his black hair is shaggy and grossly unkempt, he dresses like a bum and is completely insensitive, laconic, emotionally comatose and devoid of social skills, and his eating habits would kill a man in a couple of years... in short, something the fangirls would absolutely goddamn hate. Guess who are the bulk of L's fandom...
Landstander: deleted "It didn't make the cut to the movie...a rare example of restraint." cause that example was part of the tv show Da Ali G Show and not the movie Borat.
Doctor Nemesis: I removed the Stevie Wonder "Isn't She Lovely?" example, because it is an example of a love song - it's just not a 'romantic love' song. It's a song about how much a new father loves his newborn baby daughter, and as such people who read it as a love song are reading it correctly.
<random troper>: The examples really need to be cleaned up, an awful lot of them are Anti Heroes who do bad things but are still more or less protagonistic. There's a big difference between that and a Draco in Leather Pants situation where a totally repulsive character gets whitewashed by the fandom.
Charred Knight: A lot of times people don't seem to understand the whole "Anti" part of the hero. Is Rorsarch a hero? Yes. Are you supposed to think his stances are right? Not on politics, he basically treats Murderers and Rapists the same as Democrats.
The worst though is Light, a person who wants to stop crime, but considers a guy who stole a box of tissues to be a person who must get the death penalty. Anyone who commits a crime must die, and anyone who wants to stop him must die as well. Did we forget to mention that he has a God Complex? Your obviously not supposed to root for Light since the man's view of the world is so black and white that his one of the worst Knight Templars in fiction. That doesn't stop people from wondering why did Light have to lose when his the villain in a Shonen Jump manga.
Ronfar: Removed:
- Apparently, not many people know Power Rangers was originally meant to be satirical.
Cliché: So, how about PETA's Cooking Mama ripoff for the list? I can't be the only one that actually garnered much enjoyment out of torturing the dead turkey.
Space Drake: I've added a sub-entry to the NGE section of the article. While it's a little long, I also feel it's fairly noteworthy as it encapsulates the response people have upon hearing the news that either Rei or Kaworu were misaimed at all; I believe it's noteworthy to record such an apparent disconnect between what the writers & producers say was supposed to happen and what was actually broadcast and occured with such a massive section of the audience. If there are problems with it (it's a little too long, or if we note something like this for one show we invite doing so for a whole bunch of entries and thus cause the article to explode) then that's fine, but I'd prefer more than a ''one-word' explanation for a deletion, please.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Your sub-entry is Made Of Win, even if it's a bit long. If it does eventually get cut, then it should at least be posted on this discussion page so people can still read it.
Cassy: Say, the list is getting huge, does anybody agree to split it up into "Misaimed Fandom: Anime," ""Misaimed Fandom: Film" etc?
Space Drake: I'd have no objection to that.
Cliché: Can we not have stuff that says "um, that character's supposed to be evil, ya know!" We have other tropes for that.
Nobodymuch: * GE had a giant Wall Banger moment after using Sixteen Tons — a very virulant ANTI-COAL MINING ballad was in a pro-coal commerical full of pretty, coal-smeared models. Lyrics are as follows:
- You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store...
Cut because there's no Misaimed Fandom there. The makers of the ad were perfectly aware that it was an anti-coal mining song. The message of the ad was "Coal mining isn't as ugly as it used to be"
Zeke: Cut this. See below for reasons.
- Kurt Vonnegut's SF short story "Harrison Bergeron" is a frightening picture of the future in which the state has taken quite literally the line from the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal, and mandated federal laws that forbid anyone from being smarter, more attractive, or more physically capable than anyone else; various penalties have been instituted to ensure compliance (e.g. radios that prevent the smart from thinking and weights that prevent the strong from being graceful). Most people see it as a cry for respect for the rights and talents of the individual. Vonnegut originally intended it as a sarcastic caricature of what right-wing pundits and philosophers, like AynRand, thought America would become if the Communists took over.
One can easily blame his evocative descriptions for his readers Completely Missing The Point.
- In this editor's experience, "Harrison Bergeron" was taught in school without reference to either the larger Objectivist movement or to the rest of Vonnegut's work. It amounted to simplistic Objectivist sci-fi, & very appealing to a teenage mind as such.
- Similarly, this troper had "Harrison" literally combined with another novel (possibly "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") and all I wondered was "why dosen't Miss Moon-Glampers simply use drugs or lobotomies rather then complicated weights and radios to create her world of controllable idiots?" That the story wasn't really discussed despite being bound with the larger novel due to time constraints didn't help.
- In defense of completely missing the point, even the movie version played the story's message straight, and it was a fantastic movie too.
- In this editor's experience, "Harrison Bergeron" was taught in school without reference to either the larger Objectivist movement or to the rest of Vonnegut's work. It amounted to simplistic Objectivist sci-fi, & very appealing to a teenage mind as such.
As far as I can tell, the idea that Vonnegut wrote "Bergeron" to make fun of people's fears is just one critical opinion (and so far I've just seen the one critic express it). Yes, it would fit with Vonnegut's worldview. But the fact of the matter is, if he was trying to do that, he did it very badly. Every single person who reads that story thinks it's satirizing what we now call political correctness. Teachers, editors, students, everybody. I don't buy that Vonnegut would watch the whole world miss his point and never actually say anything about it.
(Confidential to the troper who liked the movie: What were you smoking at the time?)
Charred Knight: I don't remember a single thing that can be considered satire in Bergeron. It just comes off as a dystopian society caused by trying to make everything equal.When I think of satire I think of "A Modest Proposal" not "Harrison Bergeron"
Zeke: Okay, but unless you define satire exclusively as A Modest Proposal, I don't see how you can exclude "Harrison Bergeron". When I think of satire, I think of exaggerating something to the point of absurdity and presenting it seriously. (The dictionary definition is actually broader than that.) "Bergeron" definitely qualifies — Harrison is a 14-year-old built like a pro wrestler who can frickin' fly. Vonnegut wasn't trying to present a realistic dystopian future, he was making a point.
Charred Knight: Here's the thing it wasn't that absurd when you look at what was written by people like Orwell, and Rand
Henry Hankovitch: Malcom Reynolds from Firefly? SRSLY? Let's see...captain of the ship, central character of the show (as much as anyone is), cynical frustrated-romantic with a tragic past, with snappily-written dialogue and a heart o' gold toward [most of] his crew, and a strong personal sense of duty toward all of them? One flippant comment from comment from Joss does not a Misaimed Fandom create. He's the hero of the fricken' show; fandom is not misaimed for liking him for it.
- So, hearing no objections, I'm going to delete the following:
- Malcolm Reynolds on Firefly, who many fans misinterpret as the hero, whereas, he's really supposed to be an Anti Hero with a Chaotic Good leaning Chaotic Neutral mindset. For some fans Mal's philosophy of semi-anarchist libertarian vigilantism is a model way of approaching life, in spite of the fact that creator Joss Whedon has said in the past that there are many things on which he would disagree with Mal, whom he might not like to meet in real life.
Aris Katsaris: Whichever troper wrote about people being sympathetic to Syndrome's goals, they thins that we forget that he said "when everyone is super, nobody will be". That's in fact the whole reason people are sympathetic to his goals. Some of us DON'T like the idea of people being genetically superior, and would be glad to have technology give everyone abilities that only the genetically advantaged previously had. We're not conveniently forgetting that nobody will be SUPE Rior to anyone else, that's the very point. The troper wanted to present an ideological difference with mere ignorance or stupidity. That's just rude of him. He (and the movie creators) may like the idea of some people being genetically privileged, others (including Syndrome's character) don't like it. That's IDEOLOGICAL, that's not about either side conveniently forgetting anything.
—-
Rothul: Don't know when the following concerning Evangelion was cut, but it certainly didn't deserve to be, and at the very least deserves to be saved for posterity.
- On some level, though, it's rather hard to understand precisely why Anno and the other writers/directors thought that audience reactions would be any different from what they were. In Rei you have a girl with pale skin (keeping in mind that very pale skin has been seen as attractive in both Japan and the West for centuries), somewhat exotic features without being too alien, a figure (at 14!) that most supermodels would commit felonies for, manages to be one of the few principal characters that isn't a huge Jerkass to the main character at least occasionally, and an absolutely woobirific backstory for sympathy, and she's being preyed upon by the actual series Big Bad, provoking the obvious response in the audience. With Kaworu, you have a similarly exotic appearance (except for the other team), he's the only character in the entire series who is unconditionally nice to the main character, he makes a very interesting entrance and is neat to watch, and speaking of the Estrogen Brigade let's not forget let's not forget some of those other scenes for a certain part of the base. And then of course his betrayal is magnificent and full of impact and spectacle. So on the one hand you have an exotically beautiful woobie that the audience can easily feel defensive about, and on the other hand you have a exotically handsome love-interest villain... precisely how did the staff involved imagine people would react to these two characters?!
Inkki Bookman: I second the idea that the above comments about Rei and Kaworu should be keep for posterity as it explains quite nicely how Anno utterly failed in his attempt at creating a creepy emotionless girl, in fact in cases like his (Anno), we need a new trope for when it is more of the author's failure at communicating the message than the fandom's that the intended message was misread or even lost altogether.
Rothul: Having spent a couple of weeks looking in to the history and effects of Watchmen (cuz I'm a big ol' dork who's excited for the movie), I have edited the Rorschach entry for length and accuracy. The full entry pre-editing is preserved below. My reasons for changing it are the following:
- 1. Word of God says that Rorschach is mean to be the deconstruction of the clean objectivist heroes of Steve Ditko (specifically The Question, of whom Rorschach is a Captain Ersatz) with a little Batman thrown in, not a subversion ofgrim, vaguely sociopathic anti-heroes. In the entry below, Rorschach is credited with being a subversion of, but also the greatest inspiration for the '90s Anti-Hero, a claim that is both circular and (in theformer case) innaccurate. Rorschach was not a response to The Dark Knight Returns for the sole reason that they were published the same year. It is true that the both of the works were the inspiration for a lot of the problems with the Dark Age, but they did so in concert. The main concern is Lost in Imitation.
- 2. The bit on Justice League Unlimited is accurate, but irrelevant. Rorscach is a great character, and considering how The DCAU does so many other things right, it is not surprisingly they'd do well with a Lighter and Softer version of the character. However, no one has claimed that fans of The DCAU's Question are misaimed, so the discussion seems to be for another page.
- 3. The further examples of the example needed some condensing, becoming seriously in danger of Thread Mode and was a bit repetitive in its claims.
- 4. The main brunt of this example need to be focused on people who see Rorschach as unambiguous or a role model, not merely those who have sympathy for him or like him as a character. Like the best characters he has a mix of good and bad traits, and those who like him as a complex character or sympathize with his attempts to y'know figure out who killed a fellow hero, even when the world is ending around him, are not missing the point.
- 5. Yes, those who want to sex him up are strange, but no more so than any other targeters of Perverse Sexual Lust, and it cannot be objectively said that Dr. Manhatten or Silk Spectre are the "correct" characters to be sexed up (especially considering that Dr. Manhatten is a blue, Physical God, Creepy Emotionless Girl). If Wolverine and The Thing has taught us nothing, it's that being The Woobie can make up for a lot of physical ugliness in fan's minds. In any case, this is more of a Draco in Leather Pants argument.
- 6. Finally, as an unrelatedside mini-rant, it cannot be helped that ol' Schachky has an awesome costume, a great mask and name, and delivers most of the best lines in my favorite book of all time. If that's not a good enough reason to want an action figure of him, regardless of in-story Take That! to the contrary, then brother, I don't want to be right.
- Rorschach from Watchmen was intended to be a subversion of grim, vaguely sociopathic anti-heroes, such as the version of Batman introduced in The Dark Knight Returns. However, his troubled life story, his (insanely) strict moral code, along with his lack of social graces (hygiene, etc.), his inner strength in his crusade that gives his life purpose in the face of a bleak future, and his frequently ridiculous conspiracy-mongering, earned him the sympathy of the readers. His personality eventually became a major influence on the portrayal of The Question, the hero of whom Rorschach was a Captain Ersatz, in Justice League Unlimited, though thankfully it was more about being a crazy cospiracy theorist (who was actually partially right) than being a genuinely batshit-insane Knight Templar.
- Alan Moore has repeatedly expressed regret for even writing Watchmen simply because Rorschach became the template for the '90s Anti-Hero.
- He was reportedly disgusted to receive fanmail containing variations of the sentiment, "Our society needs people like Rorschach."
- The comic-book Question, on the other hand, had a brief story where he actually read Watchmen, noted Rorschach's similarity to himself, and decided to give the former's methods a try. It ended up with an escaped criminal, a badly bruised Question, and the conclusion "Rorschach sucks," something of a Take That! to everyone who missed the point.
- To be fair to the misaimed fandom, a major quality of Watchmen seems to be the shades of gray present for even the most despicable or praiseworthy of characters in the book, so it's not so wild to see some of Rorschach's redeeming qualities.
- Rorschach does have redeeming, even admirable qualities. What many fans seem to miss, however, is that he is not a role model. Rorschach was designed as a commentary on a character like Batman brought into real life (a vigilante psychopath bent on vengeance with a traumatic childhood and twisted standards of honor). As Alan Moore stated, Rorschach was in intense psychological pain with a "king sized death wish." Rorschach was designed to be pitied and understood, but not emulated. We're talking about an Ax-Crazy Woobie here. An understandably deadly combination for Draco In Leather Pantsing. It's those who praise the character as a creation of a conservative hero to imitate that are disturbing.
- The fact that most fans want to sex him up is in itself an example of misaimed fandom. He is described as being very ugly and not that respectful towards anyone, yet it seems like more people want him than the buff, always nude Dr. Manhattan or Silk Spectre II.
- Alan Moore has repeatedly expressed regret for even writing Watchmen simply because Rorschach became the template for the '90s Anti-Hero.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Removed, because it's an example of Springtime for Hitler, not this.
- An episode of Rocko's Modern Life had "Wacky Delly", a show-within-a-show whose purpose was to be something so shoddy and brain-meltingly stupid that not even a complete idiot would bother watching such crap. There are people in real life who claim they enjoy it.
Peteman: I suggest Misaimed Fandom becomes like Crowning Moment, Tear Jerker, and other, similar tropes where you have MisaimedFandom/ Anime or ComicBooks or whatever
Rothul: Agreed. The fact that the page is long is irrelveant: The internet is the exact place for no maximum length restrictions. No trees are dying here and pages are cheap. We gain nothing by being less thorough in our examples, and gain everything by being more thorough. Furthermore, capping which examples are "best" will be an arbitrary and subjective process likely to created heated and unneccesary edit wars, is biased against new users and media, and only works against a page that is fun to read.
Lamoxlamae: Length is not the problem- the problem is that EVERYONE under the sun is putting in anything they remotely think fits... including a lot of chatter. If when you open folders you get mountains of crap, the folders aren't helping (I've already added folders and it's not enough). If you want to debate about (insertcharacterhere) or rant about how much a series "rules" go to a FAN FORUM. Examples should be just useful and on-topic EXAMPLES... which it is not right now. I actually cut and pasted it into word and removed all the chatter and off-topic "examples" and the examples cut down to 25 pages from the current 42.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Even if the page needs what you say it needs - and I am certain it does not need locking - the Cut List is not the ideal place to make the proposal. The Cut List is for pages you want cut, and even you didn't ask for that!
Rothul: Addendum: There may be chatter on the page, yes, but way more than you are giving credit for is commentary: multiple examples from a single work, for which our loose style guide designates as proper to use bullet points, and it is worse to cut good content, then to let natter remain. Does Light? have a Misaimed Fandom? Of course. Does L also? Yes. To mention the former and not the latter is to be intentionally incomplete. Removing all bullet points removes a great deal of content, and it is rude to arbitrarily remove other people's work without discussion or reason beyond "The Pages Is Too Long". As for the amount of printed pages the article fills... who cares? Printed page length is an useless measure in meta-space: we could make all pages more or less compact by increasing or decreasing font size. The reason the page is long is because people like adding to it. Not to get all Serious Business, but I think it serves a useful purpose for writers (at least for me, and I think I'm not alone) in showing past works that have garnered unintended audience reaction, and how one might avoid such situations. This is a page that should be edited with a scalpel, not an axe.
Ethereal Mutation: TV Tropes isn't a forum. At the bottom of each page is something called the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License". What that basically translates to is "when you hit submit, you don't own that text any more". Saying it's rude to edit "someone else's work" is not a valid argument because this is technically everybody's work.
Anyway, this page is a giant mess of natter, finger pointing, and general jackassery. It seems to encourage the ugly aspects of fandom. In a few days, I'm going to just move everything with contradictory natter to the discussion page to be repaired or disqualified.
Really, there should be a ban on examples where the creator doesn't directly specify their intentions. Even if one of the characters is a blatant puppy kicking asshole, there's nothing that inherently states the author didn't want people to empathize.
Rothul: Point well taken. However, the obvious counter argument is that if it's everyone's work, no one person should have the authority to edit it so massively without discussion (save the site administrators etc.), which I think is the real problem here.
Charred Knight: You think that we should ban the ability to change the page unless we agree that the person is wrong? That's completely ridiculous and would turn this site into a beuracratic mess. Just today I saw Rose of Versailles on Guilty Pleasures where the troper talked about how excellent it was. For those not in the know Rose of Versailles is considered one of the greatest shoujo mangas of all times and I promptly deleted it. Discussion is only needed on massive re-writes, for example after discontinuity was turned into a complete mess where people just bitched about plot points that didn't like it was changed to what it was supposed to be which is plot points not well liked by the fandom, and even I consider the damn thing to loose.
Freezair For A Limited Time (interjecting here): Perhaps the wrong place, but I think the shoujo bit there is important. If you're a Perma-Stubble-and-leather-wearing biker who swears like a sailor and who watches Professional Wrestling religiously, yet you love a manga about princesses, romance, and high society life... Well, yeah.
Rothul:I make myself unclear. I mean I found it problematic in the specific example of Misaimed Fandom suffering such a massive rewrite by a single individual, as you describe, which I felt was poor move without discussion. I know that a wiki is a wiki is a wiki is a wiki, and edits for length, tone, and accuracy are to be expected and indeed encouraged. However, when the edit is just "DELETE EM ALL!!!!!111", without a reason given, then yes, I do think discussion is needed. As for the Creative Commons license, I think I'm correct in saying that that mainly covers the legality aspects of the enterprise, not the etiquette aspects, and though the "edit reason" is optional, I think that leaving a reason for an edit is just good form.
lee4hmz: Also of note: If a forum is what you want, we have one.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here. It's only misaimed if the author disagrees with you.
- One could make a decent argument that a great deal of Twilight is built on misaimed fandom.
- Specifically, teen girls who: A) Think they are "hard-core goffick" for reading "vampire" fiction, not realizing that the Cullen Clan are about as soft and cuddly (and sparkly!) as vampires come, B) think Edward is "so hott!11!@2!" and don't seem to realize that stalker behavior and a strong desire to eat your girlfriend are, in fact, the exact opposite of romantic, or C) both of the above. I profoundly apologize for all of the above on behalf of my gender and age group.
- Unfortunately, Stephanie Meyer herself seems to subscribe to B), which makes this not so much Misaimed Fandom as Unfortunate Implications...
- Specifically, teen girls who: A) Think they are "hard-core goffick" for reading "vampire" fiction, not realizing that the Cullen Clan are about as soft and cuddly (and sparkly!) as vampires come, B) think Edward is "so hott!11!@2!" and don't seem to realize that stalker behavior and a strong desire to eat your girlfriend are, in fact, the exact opposite of romantic, or C) both of the above. I profoundly apologize for all of the above on behalf of my gender and age group.
Ethereal Mutation: First round of natterfest cullings. Anything and everything with a disagreeing viewpoint will be moved here.
- This was part of the reason why Kurt Cobain killed himself. He only wanted his music to appeal to a limited, devoted audience a-la hardcore punk and college rock, never initially intending to acquire fame outside of his local scene. Kurt was especially disturbed by an incident at a Nirvana concert when two "wastes of eggs and sperm" in the audience raped a female attendant as the band was performing the anti-rape song "Polly." Kurt would later write a diatribe bemoaning the incident in the booklet for his Incesticide compilation album.
- From what this Troper has read and heard, from people who knew Cobain, this is almost entirely untrue. More than once, I have heard sources say that Cobain was incredibly driven to become famous and acted like a little taskmaster, controling everything his band mates even wore to specifically push an image of being a punk band. While he was no doubt shocked at the rape incident (and of course, who wouldn't be) his suicide had nothing to do with misaimed fandom and he most certainly did not try to hinder his fame. If anything he frankly sounded like a glory hound. Or at least that's what I've read, though I doubt anyone would lie about something so trivial.
- Team Rocket of Pokemon. They are the villains of the show, yet somehow they are more popular than the heroes. Even people who claim that the show needs to jettison Ash and get a new lead character claim that removing Team Rocket would ruin the show. But did you ever stop to consider what Team Rocket does? They've been stalking a bunch of preteen kids all over five regions, continually attacking them unprovoked, constantly kidnapping their Pokémon, and so on. Jessie and James had their Pokémon attack Ash — not Ash's Pokémon, Ash himself. Ash would've been seriously injured or died if not for his Pokémon.
- This has to be intentional on the part of the show's creators. Yes, they're technically the bad guys, but they're completely harmless, pitiable in their endless failures, and The Chew Toy to boot!
- O HAI THAR, CORI FALLS.
- In recent years especially, Marvel Comics supervillains Doctor Doom and Magneto have developed fanbases who seem determined to completely overlook that these guys are supposed to be the villains. It's not uncommon to see slogans such as 'Doom is Right!' or 'Magneto is Right!' used seriously. Given that Doom is a ruthless and scheming Evil Overlord almost completely driven by a fanatical need to prove himself superior to everyone else in the world and an unjustified and over-the-top grudge against his old college rival, and Magneto is a fanatical Knight Templar mutant supremacist who — for all that he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist at best — wants to reduce humanity to a second-class slave race ruled entirely by a mutant elite, and both have seriously contemplated and implemented near-genocidal plans of world domination to achieve their ends, the level of admiration that these two get at times seems a bit... wrong. Granted, both characters are written as and intended to be deliberately complex and three-dimensional with understandable and in many ways sympathetic motivations and backstories, as opposed to being mere one-dimensional stock villains; and both are Magnificent Bastards who have had more than one Crowning Moment Of Awesome. But a lot of people seem to forget that ultimately, they're still bad guys.
- When it comes to Magneto... no one's saying that Magneto's cuddly — just that, contrary to the massive Character Derailment in "Planet X" (which has since been retconned), he's not a Chaotic Evil moron with nothing more to him than "kill everything in sight just because I can." Also, "Sympathetic Holocaust Survivor" is an archetype the audience is more accustomed to than "Evil Holocaust Survivor".
- A lot of the characterization of Doom and Magneto varies Depending on the Writer. At some points, and under certain writers, they're portrayed a lot more sympathetically than others; all a would-be fan has to do is pick and choose which versions to accept.
- At least one user of the 'Doom was right!' and 'Magneto was right!' slogans is entirely aware that the two of them are villains. After the last few years of "darkening" in Marvel Comics, there seems to be no real difference between the two sides any more, save one: Doom and Magneto are at least willing to admit what they are. Their opponents are far too often self-deluded hypocrites re: their 'morality'.
- It should be pointed out that Latveria under Doom benefits from Doom's leadership in some respects in at least one continuity. According the The Other Wiki, the Ultimate version of that country used to be a bankrupt peasant nation until Doom made it the 9th richest country in the world. If you're a Latverian, Doom may be a benefactor, depending on the value you place on personal freedom vs. quality of life.
- Professor Snape and Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter series of books and films have been held up as objects of romantic and sexual desire, much to the befuddlement of J.K. Rowling, who intended for both to be utterly repulsive.
- JKR herself isn't immune to this; she recently admitted that her mental image of Snape drifted from the greasy-haired, homely misanthrope of the earlier books. The Snape of the latter books more closely resembled Alan Rickman's role, causing him to get redeemed in the final book... sort of.
- Similarly, Slytherin House is hit hard by the fandom. The characteristics associated with the Slytherin House are clearly villainous; while cunning and ambition are morally neutral, elitism, Fantastic Racism, and an ends-justify-the-means mentality are not. They're not Always Chaotic Evil because they're in Slytherin; they're in Slytherin because they're Always Chaotic Evil. The sorting is done by a magical singing hat, after all. Furthermore, while almost every major antagonist whose house is named came from Slytherin, not every named Slytherin is an antagonist. This does not prevent legions of fans on the Internet from bizarrely deciding that Slytherin House represents all the poor antisocial nerd kids who got picked on in high school and that Slytherin is where their spiritual home is (an idea Rowling described as "disturbed"). Slytherin is never shown to contain any socially inept Woobies whatsoever, the lone exception being the child version of Severus Snape, and is mainly composed of stereotypical spoiled wealthy bullies.
- There were severe mixed signals with Slytherin House. If there had been even one person like Harry himself shown in there — that is, cunning, ambitious, but clearly trying to be good — then there would not be suspicions that Slytherin is the "evil house." And if no one had thought Slytherin was meant to be the "evil house," then maybe misguided fans would not have tried to twist things to make Slytherin the "misunderstood house" ("people only think it's evil") and make Draco the sort of Slytherin who should've been in the House but wasn't.
- There even is a Voldemort fandom, with depiction of horrible life in orphanage, evil jokes from other wizards, etc. — basically along the lines of a "Voldemort as Vader" story. Many fans speculate that the sixth (and parts of the fifth) book were written the way they were specifically to combat this. It didn't work, if anything, it muddled the book series' theme of personal choice being paramount by pretty much showing Voldemort was born evil.
- One classic example: John Milton's portrayal of Satan in Paradise Lost was intended to show exactly how corrupt a heavenly being could become; to paraphrase CS Lewis, when an angel goes bad, he goes worse than any human being ever could. Unfortunately, in Milton's text, Lucifer can come off to the careless reader as a Bad Ass Anti-Hero swearing vengeance against an unjust Deity.
- Some scholars have theorized that this wasn't entirely unintentional. Milton worked for Oliver Cromwell and knew from experience what it felt like to be on the failed end of a rebellion. He clearly sympathizes with Satan, giving him a number of very eloquent inner monologues that express doubt over his actions, even if he doesn't intend him to be a true hero.
- Gul Dukat from Star Trek Deep Space Nine was built up to be sympathetic starting in about season 2 and especially in season 4, going from a cardboard cut out villain to a well-rounded character with a large family and a half-Bajoran daughter whom he brought back to Cardassia and gave up his high rank and social standing to acknowledge. However when he negotiates for Cardassia to join the Dominion in season 5, becoming truly evil again a lot of DS 9 fans felt the character was being given short shrift. Never mind that he'd always been depicted as the Star Trek equivalent of a Nazi, who had presided over a brutal occupation that featured slave labour and genocide amongst its horrific crimes against the Bajoran people.
- This troper never thought of him as a good guy, but was upset that a relatively complex villain with elements of the Knight Templar had been turned into a simplistic Ax-Crazy nutjob for no particular reason.
- This article, which demonstrates that the author a) utterly missed the point of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and b) should never, ever be put in a position of any influence in foreign policy.
- Seemed more like the author got the point just fine — he just disagrees with it. But b) is absolutely right.
- Deals with the Devil are never, ever seen as good or noble on Supernatural, especially not Dean's. While at least half of the fandom see it as heartwarming that he's nothing without his family and has no identity of his own, the show thinks it's needy (that's coming from the Crossroad Demon and Azazel), self-righteous, selfish, hypocritical, suicidal (all coming from Sam) and serves as an indication of just how unbelievably broken he is.
- Sam and Dean mess up almost constantly, Sam (even if he is smarter than Dean) pretty much always gets his information from the computer, they're both horny/slutty/kinky young men, if they were in the right state of mind then this wouldn't be Supernatural and they tend to lose the plot completely when it comes to Daddy Dearest. And not to mention all those times of rampant douchebaggery on both sides. Yet a good portion of the fanbase seems to believe they are both paragons of saintly virtue and any attempts of the writers to prove otherwise must be chalked up to them having it out for the character.
- One of the best examples of this would be the reaction to Metamorphosis. Both boys are completely fucked up and they both get their claws out, thereby showcasing all their worst traits that have actually been there since Day One. And what did the majority of the fandom do? They proclaimed it the worst episode ever, of course.
- The Supernatural fandom has a history of Completely Missing The Point. The writers have pointed out time and time again that Dean's need and overprotectiveness of his family is unhealthy ("You know, you fight and you fight for this family, but the truth is they don’t need you. Not like you need them." "The things I'm willing to do or kill for this family, it just... it scares me sometimes.") and the fact that he was willing to whore his soul out so Sam would be with him again should have been proof enough for anyone. So what do most fans think is his number one redeeming feature? His need and overprotectiveness of his family. Oy vey.
- There is woobification, sure, but a large part of the fandom love the boys for who they are, i.e. screwed up, broken, mistake-making humans. The fact that many love Dean's overprotectiveness of his family stems from a) their acceptance of his nature and b) the slashy subtext that so many seem to latch on to (which is a little creepy, in this troper's opinion). But whatever their faults, it would be a huge stretch to say that Sam and Dean were created to be hated.
- Ironically this was subverted with the episode "Yellow Fever." As Dean was affected by the sickness and Sam half-seriously told him he was "a dick", the fandom came out afterwards going, "Ok, so Dean is really a jerk". They were upset by it, but it was a message they couldn't ignore. The creator then stepped in and assured them that they had missed the point, and that this wasn't the case.
- This troper is a relative newcomer to the SPN fandom, and has always seen both boys as basically good people with more than their fair share of character flaws, due to having gotten more than their fair share of sucky, horrible life events. Sam is a little bit sweeter, but still deeply conflicted, and Dean is a Jerk with a Heart of Gold. He deifnitely has more than his share of jerk traits, but when the chips are down he's all about fighting the good fight.
- Sam and Dean mess up almost constantly, Sam (even if he is smarter than Dean) pretty much always gets his information from the computer, they're both horny/slutty/kinky young men, if they were in the right state of mind then this wouldn't be Supernatural and they tend to lose the plot completely when it comes to Daddy Dearest. And not to mention all those times of rampant douchebaggery on both sides. Yet a good portion of the fanbase seems to believe they are both paragons of saintly virtue and any attempts of the writers to prove otherwise must be chalked up to them having it out for the character.
- Richard Armitage, who plays Guy of Gisbourne on BBC's Robin Hood, has stated that he wanted viewers to be disgusted while watching his scenes with Marian (wherein he stalks, harasses, and eventually kills her in an attempt at romantic pursuit). Unfortunately, large chunks of the fandom love Guy, and are convinced that he was terribly wronged by Marian, who was sometimes forced to cave to his advances in order to further her cause. Accusations of her being "one of those bitchy popular girls from high school who teases the geeky loner" "a whore" and "a tease", and suggestions that she "had it (her murder) coming" are routine during discussions of the characters. Considering their relationship has fairly strong similarities to real-life domestic abuse . . . yeah. Fans also seem to have forgotten that this is the same Guy who abandoned his newborn child to die in the forest. He's really Just Misunderstood, guys!
- Granted this is also a problem with the writers themselves, who have claimed that Marian subconsciously wants Guy because All Girls Want Bad Boys. Or as they put it "Women like 'em a little rough." The actors, however, disagree with this, leading to some confusion, depending on who has the final say.
- The Dire Straits/Sting song "Money For Nothing" featured prominently on MTV when it began, despite it being noticeably anti-MTV.
- No. The song is about people who think that playing music "ain't working" and is making "money for nothing" — it was based on a conversation overheard in an electrical goods shop in Kansas. Mark Knopfler and company are no doubt well aware that it does take work to create and perform music. Dedication, devotion, turning all the nighttime into the day...
- The first video MTV ever played was "Video Killed The Radio Star" by the Buggles. There's nothing wrong with accepting criticism.
- Also, even giving the anti-MTV interpretation, keep in mind that "Money For Nothing" would then be far enough ahead of its time that MTV was likely flattered at the mere suggestion it could be as influential as the song implied.
- The song "Every Breath You Take" is done in the style of a charming love song, but listening closely to the lyrics makes it clear that the singer is a very creepy Stalker with a Crush. However, many people actually think of it as a genuine romantic love song, so much so that it's been played at weddings. These people either aren't hearing the lyrics clearly, or they really believe that Stalking is Love.
- The Police seem to have a thing for creepy ideas of "love." In addition to the above song, this contributor remembered hearing "Don't Stand So Close to Me" the first couple of times, and rather liking its tune until paying closer attention to the words.
- Well, the tune is fairly likeable. The lyrics are creepy as hell, but the tune is in fact likeable. This is a common problem. Many musicians end up writing depressing or Squick-inducing lyrics to a cheerful tune, or vice versa. It may even be intentional.
- Take a listen at the song "Pantie Shot" by Mindless Self Indulgence. If you haven't seen intentional squickery before, you have now.
- The Police seem to have a thing for creepy ideas of "love." In addition to the above song, this contributor remembered hearing "Don't Stand So Close to Me" the first couple of times, and rather liking its tune until paying closer attention to the words.
- One of Green Day's bigger mainstream hits, a surprisingly moving ballad, has been heard playing at everything from proms to weddings to graduations. Never mind the fact that the song is about a messy break-up (specifically, Green Day's messy breakup from hardcore punk fans who insisted that any sort of mainstream success is "selling out") or, more pointedly, that it sports the title "Good Riddance".
- It's likely that most listeners think the title is "I Hope You Had the Time of Your Life", based upon the refrain. This is exemplified by one of those anecdotes that's just too good not to be true: Apparently a serious dramatic television series was going to finish off a particularly sad story arc about a minor character dying by having his friend sing the song at his funeral. And so the script read, "Everyone is crying, Joe walks up to the podium, looks sadly at Bob's body, and starts to sing, Good Riddance".
- Admittedly, the title doesn't really have anything to do with the actual song, if I remember correctly. Billie Joe said something in an interview about slapping that name on because he felt that without it, it was too straightforward.
- "Waltzing Matilda" is about a guy who steals a sheep and then drowns himself when the police come after him. A significant number of Australians think it should be the country's national anthem (maybe it has something to do with the country's traditional anti-authoritarianism).
- Not to be confused with "The band played Waltzing Matilda", which is about parades on ANZAC day, and probably the most patriotic song about the pointlessness of war this editor has ever heard.
- This Australian troper would just like to mention that almost every person she knows over the age of about 13 understands that "Waltzing Matilda" is actually quite depressing, but generally loves it anyway. The misconception of it being a relatively jolly song does exist, however, and can largely be attributed to the common instance of the song usually only being played for about the first 3 or so verses.
- Not to be confused with "The band played Waltzing Matilda", which is about parades on ANZAC day, and probably the most patriotic song about the pointlessness of war this editor has ever heard.
- 2pac's song "Me and my Girlfriend" is often misinterpreted as a romanticized outlaw tale ala Bonnie and Clyde. However, the "girlfriend" of the title is actually his gun.
- Tupac is pretty much universally misunderstood... Listening to songs such as "Only God Can Judge Me" or "So Many Tears" seems to make it obvious that Tupac despises black-on-black and gang violence in general and wishes it would all end, and yet a recent episode of Mind Of Mencia had him coming back from the grave just so he could gun down Carlos.
- Carlos Mencia is an ass all around and likely understood 2Pac, but just didn't care.
- Might be a bit of Truth in Television. A lot of Tupac's stuff from his days in Death Row Records comes dangerously close to self-parody.
- Tupac is pretty much universally misunderstood... Listening to songs such as "Only God Can Judge Me" or "So Many Tears" seems to make it obvious that Tupac despises black-on-black and gang violence in general and wishes it would all end, and yet a recent episode of Mind Of Mencia had him coming back from the grave just so he could gun down Carlos.
- The song "Because I Got High" by Afroman was adopted as a stoner anthem, despite the fact that the lyrics describe somebody gradually losing everything he ever had because he's too busy getting stoned to actually do anything with his life.
- That's likely because it's sung in a lighthearted, sarcastic tone, in some places ridiculously exaggerates the consquences of smoking pot ("now I'm a paraplegic", etc), and has people laughing and saying things like "roll another blunt" in the background. The song is not an anti-drug PSA, it's a mockery of anti-drug PS As.
- Exactly. Note that one of the later songs changes the lyric from "Because I Got High" to "Because I'm High", suggesting that although the singer's entire life has been supposedly destroyed, he's still having a good time and hasn't changed a thing.
- Shel Silverstein wrote a similar song, "I Got Stoned And I Missed It," about twenty years earlier. If you don't listen closely, the cheerful melody completely disguises the message, and this troper has played it for several acquaintances who didn't even notice it.
- That's likely because it's sung in a lighthearted, sarcastic tone, in some places ridiculously exaggerates the consquences of smoking pot ("now I'm a paraplegic", etc), and has people laughing and saying things like "roll another blunt" in the background. The song is not an anti-drug PSA, it's a mockery of anti-drug PS As.
- People too young to have seen the original movie (where it was sung) often do not realize that M*A*S*H's cheery theme song is entitled "Suicide is Painless," and every verse is about the futility and pain of life, and how suicide looks like a better option all the time. This made it an especially disturbing choice as the theme song for the MASH (Make a Smile Happen) toy drive for underprivileged children.
- This editor heard an orchestral version of it over the speakers at a restaurant on Thanksgiving. He and his mother both wondered if the people running the restaurant knew what the song was called.
- This troper once read in New Scientist magazine that The Samaritans — a charitable group dedicated to providing emotional support by phone, and often dealing with the suicidal — made the same mistake and had actually been playing the tune to people on hold.
- And when this troper was a baby, according to family lore, she would stop crying and listen whenever the opening theme to M*A*S*H played — the show was re-run early and often at the time. It is currently her ring tone on her mother's cell phone because of said inside joke. She is never going to tell her mother that it's not really called "M*A*S*H Theme Song" for that reason.
- What makes the song even more disturbing? Its lyrics were written by Robert Altman's then-14 year old son.
- It is damned amazing how many people absolutely fail to detect the irony and deep depression saturating "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas". This troper found the message of the lyrics ("Boy this Christmas sucks but maybe next year will be better; and since we're all gonna die eventually we'd better enjoy this Christmas anyway") as obvious as anything back when she was a little girl. Her mother, on the other hand, loves the song and especially loves it — seriously — "when little kids sing it; it's so cute." (No offense, Mom, if you're reading this, but yowza!)
- Blame Frank Sinatra, who recorded a version of the song with lyrics that were much happier than the version Judy Garland originally sang. (A history of the song can be found here.)
- Not to mention the version Judy Garland refused to sing, because her character singing "Have yourself a merry little Christmas / It may be your last. / From now on we'll all be living in the past" to her little sister, while their parents were planning to move house, would have made everyone hate her.
- On a similar note to the above, this troper's grandfather hated the song "I'll Be Home For Christmas" because he heard it when he was serving overseas in WWII.
- Out of all the shows, in all the world, Supernatural is the one to use it right. It's a heartwarming moment, with Sam and Dean enjoying each other's company, but the fuzziness is seriously undermined by the depressing thought that this will be Dean's last Christmas and he'll be dead in a short time.
- The X Files used it fairly grimly in "The Ghosts Who Stole Christmas" as the thematic music for a comedic story about people being driven to murder-suicide on Christmas by a couple of ghosts wielding pop-psychology.
- Just another reason why The X-Files was amazingly awesome.
- The Godfather made very creative use of this song as well, playing the Sinatra version while Michael and Kay are doing their Christmas shopping, unaware that The Godfather has just been shot.
- Blame Frank Sinatra, who recorded a version of the song with lyrics that were much happier than the version Judy Garland originally sang. (A history of the song can be found here.)
- Eminem is loved by "gangsta" rappers and by people who want to be (or believe themselves to be) "gangstas". The fact that Eminem is a white family man who actually records Bowdlerized versions of his songs for his daughter to enjoy can't mean that he's doing satire, even though one of his best-known hits was obviously satirical. After all, a million of Media Watchdogs can't be wrong...
- Well, some years ago he had no cute little daughter and was full of rage.
- Avril Lavigne claims in interviews that her song "Girlfriend" was supposed to be a cynical jab at shallow boy-crazy girls that aggressively ruin relationships over territorial claims of men. Because it isn't immediately obvious from just listening to it (though some lyrics, like "I'm the motherfucking princess" and "soon you'll be wrapped around my little finger", do indicate the intended message) , it has become a favored song of the same shallow, stupid, aggressive, territorial boy-crazy girls that it was supposedly mocking.
- It's also become a popular choice for non-satirical AMVs focused on Die for Our Ship pairings.
- The music video for this song did not help very much at all either. Avril's "Bad Girl" was so dang cool this troper thought it was promoting obsessive boy-crazy clinginess.
- This editors' friend found the Serj Tankeran performance of the Dead Kennedys' song "Holiday in Cambodia" at a MTV award ceremony hilarious because "The song is talking about the people that the audience is full of."
- Considering both Serj and The Dead Kennedy's attitude towards MTV that irnoy was likely intentional.
- How often have you heard the phrase "as the Bard said..." followed by something from the mouth of Polonius?
- To be fair, Polonius's "to thine own self be true" speech is full of good advice. That this torrent of good sense comes from such an imbecile of a character is one of the more fascinating aspects of Hamlet.
- According to The Other Wiki, it might just be Obfuscating Stupidity.
- Another example of misaimed fandom from Shakespeare: In the play Henry VI, there is a Card-Carrying Villain, John Cade, who is fraudulently claiming royal blood in an attempt to become king. At one point in the story, while John Cade is giving a speech to his supporters about how great things will be once he is made king, one of his toadies, a Deadpan Snarker, interrupts by saying the famous line "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." John Cade agrees, saying that when he's king, he will do exactly that, because all lawyers are scoundrels that rob people with the Fine Print. Some lawyers have attempted to interpret the quote as being favorable to lawyers, claiming that the villains are planning to kill the lawyers because lawyers would be able to expose John Cade's obvious fraud, completely misinterpreting what is, in fact, one of the earliest known lawyer jokes.
- And then there are the people who take it as a suggestion... Think we're kidding? Go to any Slashdot story about lawyers. Or listen to The Eagles' song "Get Over It", which contains the lyrics, "The more I think about it, ol' Willy was right / Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight."
- Meanwhile some say that, in the language of the time, lawyers really means legislators.
- Lawyers of course claim that people who interpret the quote as a Take That! towards their profession are the real Misaimed Fandom. Just to make things complicated, one reply is that while yes, the line is given to a villain, it's meant as a ludicrous too-good-to-be-true promise.
- It's worth noting that shortly after the line, Cade and company actually kill a lawyer in a scene with similarly to the death of Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar is both hilarious and deeply disturbing.
- Iago gets this a lot too: most notably "who steals my purse steals trash" and "beware... of jealousy: it is the green-eyed monster".
- You do realize that the moral of ''Othello'' IS that jealousy is a green-eyed monster?
- Most glaring in this troper's opinion is the continued use of the phrase "wear [ing your] heart on your sleeve'". Used by Iago, intentionally deceiving his lamebrained buddy Roderigo about lying to Othello. It's the complete reverse of what everyone takes it to mean.
- To be fair, Polonius's "to thine own self be true" speech is full of good advice. That this torrent of good sense comes from such an imbecile of a character is one of the more fascinating aspects of Hamlet.
- Romeo And Juliet are not freaking standards for an ideal couple in love, and Shakespeare never intended them to be so. That so many people think they are explains a lot about why dating and marriage is so messed up.
- In fact, Romeo and Juliet could be seen as a shining example of what not to do in a relationship. The two fall in Love at First Sight, and throw themselves recklessly into it. Perhaps their love could have quenched the fires of the Feuding Families, but hell, they didn't know anything about each other beyond looks and a few kisses. They would have been horrible together for all they knew, and in the end they and most of the people they knew died within a week of them meeting each other. Not to mention the fact that previously Romeo was fawning over Rosaline (there is a reason a profligate lover is compared to Romeo today). If someone jumps to you like that, you should be expecting them to jump to someone else. The most reliable speech in the whole play is Friar Lawrence's "Love to moderation" speech, but nobody likes this bit because it's such an unromantic thing to say at a wedding.
- This makes it the fact that Stephenie Meyer compares Edward and Bella to R+J hilarious to the Twilight haters.
- The manner in which R+J is written is also misinterpreted. It's generally seen as a tragedy, through and through. It's actually written as a comedy, and doesn't resemble a classical tragedy until people start getting killed. On paper, it almost functions as a rather vicious indictment of hopeless romanticism.
- The only way Romeo and Juliet could possibly be seen as a literal tragedy is to make Friar Lawrence the "tragic hero." His arrogance is his tragic flaw, and he loses the love he hoped would blossom.
- Then again, if you (incorrectly) see Romeo and Juliet as a sympathetic loving couple, there is the typical twist in Act III (Romeo killing Paris) that causes everything to go downhill from there and results in their deaths, as often happens in Shakespearean tragedies. Shakespearean "comedies" generally do not involve such high death tolls, or the characters speaking of the events as tragic.
- Referenced in The Simpsons when Milhous says of a failed relationship, "We started out like Romeo and Juliet, but it ended up in tragedy."
- Also note that in the modernized version presented in The Sims 2, "Juliette Capp" is a Family Sim, and "Romeo Monty" is a Romance Sim — supposedly the most incompatible pair of Aspirations in the game.
- To be fair, in real life, many people do become attracted to each with the first impression or very short ones. Though its not easy for many to give very good impression.
- In fact, Romeo and Juliet could be seen as a shining example of what not to do in a relationship. The two fall in Love at First Sight, and throw themselves recklessly into it. Perhaps their love could have quenched the fires of the Feuding Families, but hell, they didn't know anything about each other beyond looks and a few kisses. They would have been horrible together for all they knew, and in the end they and most of the people they knew died within a week of them meeting each other. Not to mention the fact that previously Romeo was fawning over Rosaline (there is a reason a profligate lover is compared to Romeo today). If someone jumps to you like that, you should be expecting them to jump to someone else. The most reliable speech in the whole play is Friar Lawrence's "Love to moderation" speech, but nobody likes this bit because it's such an unromantic thing to say at a wedding.
- David Mamet's play Oleanna is a prime example. It's a play about a happily-married university professor of education who, one night, stays in the office late to help a girl in his class pass the course by giving her instruction and essentially reteaching her, because she claims that she'll have nothing to do if she fails the course. A couple of off-hand comments later, including "I'll make your grade an A", "I'm not your father", and an anecdote about the rich copulating with more clothes on, and the girl begins systematically destroying the professor's life by claiming sexual harassment. Turns out, she's part of an on-campus feminist group who wants the textbooks the professor uses pulled from the course... and, apparently, destroying his job, marriage and attempts to buy a house, as well as charging him with rape, justifies this. The kicker? When the play debuted, feminists in the audience felt the girl was totally justified, and gave her standing ovations. Completely Missing The Point doesn't cover it.
- It's a little more complicated than that. Oleanna was written specifically to not have a right or wrong side. Carol (the girl) is shown to be a little insane, very stupid and more likely completely under the control of said group (which is never shown to be explicity a feminist one). John (the professor) is a lot of the things he's accused of being, even if he's not aware he is. In fact, David Mamet created the play to aim at no fandom. This shows, because in other venues, John is given a standing ovation when he physically attacks Carol. Completely Missing The Point doesn't cover it because the point is "no one is right."
- Now where were people like you when we did this in English?
- It also doesn't help that when the play debuted, William H. Macy played John. Given Macy's usual roles, as well as his fame in comparison with a relatively unknown stage actress, it wasn't hard for audiences (especially men who identify with William H. Macy) to tend to see his side as the "right side".
- It's a little more complicated than that. Oleanna was written specifically to not have a right or wrong side. Carol (the girl) is shown to be a little insane, very stupid and more likely completely under the control of said group (which is never shown to be explicity a feminist one). John (the professor) is a lot of the things he's accused of being, even if he's not aware he is. In fact, David Mamet created the play to aim at no fandom. This shows, because in other venues, John is given a standing ovation when he physically attacks Carol. Completely Missing The Point doesn't cover it because the point is "no one is right."
- This troper knows members of the fandom who absolutely adore Kingdom Hearts for its biting satire on The Power of Friendship, the power of heart, and all that Disney/Shonen stands for. Then again, these same folks think that well written Slash Fic are parodies of the much more common poorly written ones.
- Not to mention those who actively hate the Disney aspect and/or are constantly wishing for its absence. Never mind that the entire reason Kingdom Hearts was ever produced was because Squaresoft producer Shinji Hashimoto wanted to make a Square-DISNEY collaboration. Or that the reason it exists is because a Squaresoft exec and a Disney exec ran into each other on an elevator.
- One word: Nobodies.
- Nobodies are an odd example in that they wind up being just as misunderstood by the people who consider them to be only unintentionally sympathetic. Neither side seems able to reconcile three important facts in canon — the Organization is meant to be sympathetic (they wouldn't be getting a Gaiden Game otherwise), Sora is told (and believes) that they're basically equivalent to TheHeartless, and their plans are destructive enough to justify killing them to stop them. It's much easier to either stick the Nobodies in leather pants and claim Sora was wrong for killing them or to claim the sympathy was just read in by fans than to accept that the game really does want you to sympathize with the characters it's asking you to kill in spite of the heroes' reactions. Apart from attraction to the characters (some of which actually are portrayed as less sympathetic and therefore subject to MisaimedFandom), though, it's unclear why the fans would rather see the game as inconsistent.
- The series never really goes into why the Nobodies should be looking for their hearts in order to convince the players that they are sympathetic, nor do Sora and Riku acknowledge their plight in their Shut Up, Hannibal! retorts, so it's that much harder to pick up on.
- Super Robot Wars is what happens when Misaimed Fandom has the money to make games based on this. Gai from Nadesico can survive, ignoring the entire point of his death, Shinji Ikari can be a badass, and most deaths can be removed by meeting certain conditions. The main reason is that the SRW series is an idealistic series frequently dealing with cynical anime.
- Super Robot Wars has the problem of having angsty, war-hating protagonists having to fight demonically evil Villains, and having Hot-Blooded idealistic heroes fighting against angsty, troubled-past-afflicted enemies. Hell, it has to have the Hot-Blooded heroes interact with the angsty kids. And it's also heavily affected by the winds of fandom, who like Gai Daigouji and want Shinji to be Brightslapped.
- Those are merely fanservices, since most fans have already seen the original. I'm sure if you asked the creators they would more than recommend you watch them in their original forms, with whatever "point" that may come with them.
- It's also worth noting that in some cases, these are realistic outcomes of the altered situations the characters find themselves compared to their source works — e.g. in MX, Shinji is being, well, Shinji when the team is prepping for the positron sniper rifle operation to take out Ramiel, which just happens to be at the same time as the GEAR Fighter Dendoh plot involving a plan to power the battery-powered Dendoh with electricity gathered from LOTS of spare batteries, with the remainder generated by the people of Tokyo pedaling really hard on bicycles. The pilots of the Dendoh are a couple of grade-school kids, who have their own doubts at this point (having just had their asses handed to them by badass rival Altair,) but who manage to pep each other up enough to just go and do it because they've got people to protect. Shinji realizes how exceptionally pathetic he's being when 10-year-olds are buckling down and giving their all despite being scared to death, and mans up a bit. The Alpha series is the most cited example of Shinji's taking a level in badass, but it also has decent reasoning — when Shinji first runs away, by pure chance he bypasses some of the Londo Bell pilots (especially the hot-blooded Super pilots like Kouji and Hyouma) in the city (he hasn't yet met them face-to-face, he realizes who they are only because they don't exactly keep their identities a secret.) He overhears them talking about how "that purple robot" was really awesome in the fight with the Angel, and it'd be awesome if it could travel with them and help fight the other hordes of Big Bads they deal with on a routine basis. This "there are people who need me!" moment (which does end up convincing him to return to NERV,) combined with the general presence, acceptance, and friendship of the Londo Bell pilots, both of the hot-blooded Super Robot variety such as Kouji and the fighting-because-you-have-to Real Robot variety such as Amuro, is what causes him to develop rather believably from the Shinji of Evangelion into the Shinji of SRW Alpha. It's probably also worth noting that by the end of Alpha 1, Shinji's already gone through the Evangelion plotline for the most part, including End of Evangelion, and still managed to come out on top with everyone's help, so by the time of Alpha 3, he's got good reason to feel a bit more confident, as well as the fact that series creator Hideaki Anno himself overrode company Gainax's original desire to keep Eva out of SRW specifically because he would not let anyone keep HIS creation from fighting alongside the likes of Mazinger and Getter.
- This editor admits it: he felt sorry for Bellamont in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Even though he had a huge Kick the Dog moment when he brutally tortures and kills fan-favorite character (especially with the ladies) Lucien, then hangs him in the house the player is sent to meet him at, the fact that Lucien Kicked The Dog first, when he killed Bellamont's mother and drove him insane, not to mention that I never liked Lucien anyway, cemented Bellamont as The Woobie instead of the Knight Templar he was intended as in my mind.
- That's not just the traitor's moment, that's all four of the remaining members of the Black Hand. The traitor hates all of them except himself, making him the most morally upright person in the room during that scene except possibly you.
- This troper actually felt bad for the Necromancers in Oblivion. While they do in fact do a lot of evil stuff in the game (killing people, trapping souls, etc.) one could make the argument that they were driven to this by the Mage's Guild, who cast out the necromancers from the guild and demanded they be declared criminals by the Emperor. So for years it has been legal to torture, kill, and loot anyone even suspected of necromancy. Their stated reasoning for doing that? They thought zombies were gross, and that necromancy was disrespectful to the dead. Is it any wonder the necromancers turned to evil? The only reason this troper believes this fandom is misaimed is that literally nothing in the story hints that the developers believe the Mages were even slightly wrong in demonizing the necromancers. Hell, at the end of the Mage Guild quest arc the current Archmage, the man who ordered the genocide against the necromancers, before they started killing people and trapping souls is given the treatment of a messianic Christ figure, when he martyrs himself to help you defeat the necromancers' leader.
- Um, are you aware of the past career of Mannimarco? Suffice it to say he was a mass-murdering sociopath well before Archmage Traven was even born. Anybody chooses to follow that guy is a clear member of Team Evil.
- Mannimarco may have been a villain, but that hardly justifies outlawing an entire branch of magic any more than the crimes of Josef Mengele justify outlawing all doctors. Other games in the series, such as Morrowind, paint the art in a more neutral light and it is clear that the laws against necromancy have more to do with moral outrage at the perceived defiling of corpses than actual practical considerations.
- The trend from Morrowind to Oblivion was from portraying things from many different and contradictory angles (both morality and history) to making things very cut and dry (and cliche). In Morrowind, the Daedra are very alien, otherwordly beings with motivations outside what makes sense to humans; in Oblivion's main storyline they're portrayed as cliche demons and Oblivion as cliche hell...to name one example. Although it is partially justified given the particular Daedroth in question, and remedied somewhat in the expansion pack. Still, that trend was present in other ways as well.
- Before Oblivion begins necromancy was actually legal, though they basically only allowed the selling of corpses of those who were willing to be sold into that or criminals. During Daggerfall Mannimarco, the King of Worms, was presented less as raw evil and more a not so nice but straight forward political figure.
- Many Transformers fans, especially female ones, see the relationship between Megatron and Starscream as reminiscent of a marital relationship — more specifically, an abusive marital relationship. From this perspective, Starscream is a mere victim that constantly craves Megatron's affection and admiration and constantly tries to take over the Decepticons merely to earn his respect. While it is true that Megatron repeatedly beats or mangles Starscream throughout the series, this is usually because Starscream attempted to kill him five minutes earlier and Megatron isn't exactly happy about it.
- Speaking of Megatron, there are many that think that any given version is not some despot trying to seize power, but someone who is trying to lead an uprising against a truly oppressive government and genuinely cares about his troops. For instance, many take Transformers Animated Megatron's speech about "Autobot oppression" at face value—ignoring that he immediately switches to demanding all Decepticons submit to his supreme authority. The fact that the Autobot government is actually corrupt to some degree doesn't help...
- This isn't really misaimed fandom, it's alternate character interpretation. There are more than a few scenes, particularly in the new "Animated" series that suggest that the Autobots are not neccessarily perfect "Good Guys" and the Decepticons aren't just black hearted "Bad Guys".
- The fact that, according to the backstories of most animated incarnations, the Autobots are basically Communists might have something to do with that as well.
- Speaking of Megatron, there are many that think that any given version is not some despot trying to seize power, but someone who is trying to lead an uprising against a truly oppressive government and genuinely cares about his troops. For instance, many take Transformers Animated Megatron's speech about "Autobot oppression" at face value—ignoring that he immediately switches to demanding all Decepticons submit to his supreme authority. The fact that the Autobot government is actually corrupt to some degree doesn't help...
Prfnoff: Moved a Third Rock From The Sun example from here to Analogy Backfire.
Anonymous: A rewording of the Code Geass example is in order. Certainly Lelouch isn't as great as some of the fandom make him out to be, but a Byronic Hero? That's a little too far. He's probably more accurately a classic tragic hero, unable to overcome his character flaws.
Feral: Removing the Dept. Heaven example from the main article—the OP seemed to be whining about a character they didn't like, the edits replied are inviting an argument, and most importantly, the character in question was specifically intended by Sting to be sympathized with and felt sorry for.
Jupiter: OP here—actually, I really like Nessiah. I consider him one of the most magnificent bastards I've seen in a video game. As you say, he was supposed to be sympathetic and pitiable. Maybe I didn't understand right, but I was under the impression that Nessiah, along with most if not all of the other characters, was supposed to be morally ambiguous (as opposed to evil and scheming) once you knew his backstory. Hence his actions are justified but not admirable. My example was referring to those who consider him the actual hero of the game.
CA Lieber: Cut two example:
- With the focus Good Eats has on the science, history, and folklore behind food, it's attracted a Misaimed Fandom of obnoxious atheists who complain that Alton Brown doesn't spend time bashing religion and belief in God. They usually pop up when an episode mentions The Bible, or discusses past scientific misconceptions about the world (like the Earth being flat). Apparently, they didn't get the memo that Alton is a born-again Christian ...
- The song "Voices Carry" by 'Til Tuesday has a fan following as well, who tend to Mondegreen the titular lyric to "This is scary," but the song is about a woman contemplating getting out of an abusive relationship.
Taking them in reverse order: The second, it seems to me, is not misaimed. The first is neither misaimed nor fandom, unless you're telling me there are people out there who say "Good Eats would be a great show without all that cookng shit"
Drive By Editor: I'm the one who added the Good Eats example. If it doesn't qualify as Misaimed Fandom, then what is it? From reading the description of this trope, I had the impression that Misaimed Fandom covers any instance where fans like a show—or an aspect of a show—for reasons that the author did not intend, and want the creator to move in that direction.
Now, if Alton Brown didn't intend to make Good Eats a show with an Author Tract about the evils of religion (especially considering that he himself is religious), yet he winds up with a number of fans who expect him to do this just because his show spends much of its airtime explaining the science and history behind food ... How is that not a misaimed fandom? I'm not sure where I'm missing the mark, here. Can you clarify further?
CA Lieber: Well, as I said, people watch it because it's a cooking show. It's not like Adam Savage witnessing at viewers. If people who are upset Brown's a Christian are a Misaimed Fandom, it suggests that people who watch it for the religious content (?) are, um, properly aimed.
Crowley: Can I delete this? It's a combination of Complaining About Shows You Dont Like (you're standing on shaky ground when you call Watch Men and Neon Genesis Evangelion "terrible writing), Natter, and a little bit of egotism ("One could make a very good, sound argument" translates into "This Troper is right") It also misses the point of all of the entries it lists, making it Hypocritical Humor as well. Three Trope Special!
- One could make a very good, sound argument that all misaimed fandoms are the result of terrible writing. Basically, it is not the reader's job to understand the author, it's the author's job to make himself understood. Or else what is the point? Over relying on subtext leads to so much confusion that it can almost be demonstrably should to be pointless. In addition to the fact that 90% of these cases are caused by the author's "cause" being so faux-intellectual and impenatrable under the alleged satire that it's not even obvious that a parody is being made until he or she says so. The misamed fandom then, is not the actual fanbase who are only following the most obvious and logical idea behind the text, the misaimed fandom is that of the author whose views are either so obscure, or so asinine, or so terrifically poorly conveyed that they're impossible to discern. One need only read the Evangelion, Watchmen and Married with Children examples to see what This Troper means...at a cursory glance who would honestly think Rei is an "inhuman monster", or Ozymandias is the "hero" or Al Bundy is the "bad guy"?
Rothul: Deleted it. It does not describe an example, and thus does not belong in the example section. In any case, the main article states Misaimed Fandom is the result of a combination of poor reading and poor writing, in varying amounts, which seems a more apt description.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here, for now. This justification is arguing that Misaimed Fandom for Code Geass is impossible because the series has no aim but to skewer everything possible. Maybe, but the examples that had been listed above it seemed extreme enough that they might truly violate the spirit of what CLAMP was aiming for.
- It would be remiss not to note however, that part of the point of Code Geass is that it plays with the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism at every opportunity and that it practically BEGS the viewer to engage in copious amounts of Alternate Character Interpretation, while throwing My Country, Right or Wrong (or an otherwise sympathetic motivation) on nearly every character (resident Complete Monster and Psycho for Hire Luciano aside). This makes any concept of a Misaimed Fandom rather pointless, as the show itself ends up not taking a side in the main conflict (Lelouch VS Suzaku) in the end. Add in that around halfway through R2 the fanbase starts exploding and Wall Banger moments appear with increasing frequency and you end up with a gigantic cluster fuck that makes it hard to really hand out objective judgment to the cast, Lelouch in particular.
Crowley: Deleting this segment about Ho Yay. The reason for each part is, in order,
1) It's not a real example; it's not like the writers specifically had a message that's being misread. 2) Waaaaaaaay too venomous in tone. Not every male human is a raging homophobe; straight Male slash fans exist, damnit! 3) My own natter; sorry, guys.
- Almost all Ho Yay is unintentional. A common reaction when writers find out about it is to freak out and pull the paired characters away from each other, ASAP. *cough* Smallville *cough* Recently, however, writers are becoming more prepared to court slashers.
- Actually, it's not all that uncommon for Ho Yay to be completely intentional. Unfortunately, some individuals (*cough* Fanboys *cough*) are convinced beyond dissuasion that it must be unintentional, because it makes them uncomfortable, dammit, and anything that makes them uncomfortable simply must be the imagination of those craaaaaazy dumb wimmen. See No Yay for the ultimate Fan Boy response to Ho Yay.**
- Whether Hoyay is intentional depends entirely at the situation at hand; Fanboys are rarely involved, really. And No Yay is not a fanboy only response, to say the least..
- Actually, it's not all that uncommon for Ho Yay to be completely intentional. Unfortunately, some individuals (*cough* Fanboys *cough*) are convinced beyond dissuasion that it must be unintentional, because it makes them uncomfortable, dammit, and anything that makes them uncomfortable simply must be the imagination of those craaaaaazy dumb wimmen. See No Yay for the ultimate Fan Boy response to Ho Yay.**
Freezer: I'm not the one who deleted this, but I support the deletion:
- Over the years, Strong Sad in Homestar Runner has evolved into a caricature of the Homestar Runner fanbase. He's an overweight, whiny, extremely pedantic know-it-all loner...and the fans love him.
- Also, the Homestar Runner cartoon itself. According to its creators, it was supposed to be aimed at college-age students, but that hasn't stopped middle and elementary school kids from enjoying it.
Neither fits this trope: Strong Sad is clearly an Ensemble Dark Horse. The latter is at worst a Periphery Demographic.
Martyr Machine: Added clarification of the writup of eugenics, which is not so much an example of a misaimed fandom of darwinism as it is a victim of misrepresentation by the nazis.
Alright guys I don't want to start an edit war, but I strongly advise that we keep the Death Note characters off the list because the author made it explictly clear that their was no intention of making the readers feel that characters were good or evil ergo their fandom can not be Misaimed. If Light Yagami or someone else comes up again I'm going to delete them, m'kay?
whitetigah: No. Light is a Villain Protagonist. Fangirls going around saying that he's perfectly right in killing countless people = Misaimed Fandom. That is all.
The trope seems to be less about subjective morality and more about the message the author wanted to convey. I've already made my stance clear.
whitetigah: It's made clear in the series, multiple times, that Light is the bad guy. Also, the only thing remotely resembling your claim I can find is the "Character Alignment" entry in the Death Note article: "Word of God is that 'only Soichiro is good'" — to me, that doesn't sound like "Light is good", it sounds like "L and the others (except Soichiro) aren't good either." Unless you can find a more reliable source proving your claim that the authors did not intend to portray Light as evil, the fangirls are still misguided in thinking that he's good.
You're confusing the author's preferences to morality with the intent to push that morality in the fiction. S/he even says "Near's words toward the end about how justice is something that we all think about and decide for ourselves would probably be closest to my own beliefs. I understand the series brings up questions of right and wrong, but because the answers to those questions always eventually become idealogical I decided from the beggining that they wouldn't be part of Death Note." The point wasn't to make Light seem evil because there was no point. The Misaimed fandom are actually the people that insist that there is one.
whitetigah: Point conceded, you win the argument ;) I hadn't thought about how this trope is about authors who try to push an idea on their readers, but the readers completely miss the point.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Two things:
- If the writers themselves disagree on how to handle the Fascism of Judge Dredd and its associated works, then how can we list it here? We can't call something misaimed unless we know there's a place you shouldn't aim.
- (random passer-by): It has been many, many years since I read the Judge Dredd comics regularly. But the impression which remains after all these years is that the "fascist overtones" are intentional, because it is a parody of 1970s American crime/action films then popular in Europe, but set 20 Minutes into the Future just because. Europeans perceived films like "Dirty Harry" and "Death Wish" and "The Exterminator" as having fascist overtones. Judge Dredd is Dirty Harry Callahan with a helmet that hides his eyes and a flying motorcycle, in a cartoonish retro-futuristic nightmarish decayed dystopian city populated by cartoonish mutants, i.e., American cities of the early to mid 1970s as they were portrayed in popular American films of the time.
- Having worked through that Higurashi — um, the first point of the last example in the anime section — what exactly is the first example supposed to be about? I'm presuming it's not porn, so what is it supposed to be?
Shrikesnest: I'm really growing to despise this frigging page. It's an open invitation to read even the most complex parodies and dramatic stories as good-guys-versus-bad-guys fairy tales and then mock stupid strawmen who like the "bad guys" in the tale. Y'know, a lot of people who think differently than the author also have merit to their positions, and a mature author can realize and even include that. The best villains have some redeeming qualities. Some people appreciate those qualities, even though they realize that the character is the villain.
This page also suffers heavily from the assumption that people are just incredibly stupid. I understand that a lot of tropers are in their twenties and atheists, but even they should understand that their group of friends aren't the only people in the world with a sense of humor. People have been knowingly accepting parodies of themselves and their beliefs as their emblems as a way to declaw their detractors for millenia. There are entire ethnicities that call themselves by terms that were once slurs against their people by their oppressors.
I guess my point is that people are way smarter than this page and several others like to give them credit for, and it just infuriates me to see people get worked up about how 95% of the rest of the world is so stupid...
The Tambourine Man: I kinda see what you mean. I'm not sure why there's such a thing as liking something for the wrong reason. I mean, isn't anything considered So Bad, It's Good be considered misaimed fandom? What would it take to get this page taken down?
Lurkerbunny: Could someone please elaborate on the Hounddog example? How the hell could anyone see that as Rape as Redemption? Redemption for what? She's a child.
Sillstaw: "Sarah Silverman, especially when her fans drool over her looks, demonstrating one of the attitudes she mercilessly satirizes: 'I don't care if you think I'm racist, I just want you to think I'm thin.'"
How is this a Misaimed Fandom? Are they ignoring her jokes in favor of just going "OMG HOTT?" Isn't it possible that people think she's funny and pretty?
Leaper: Since my comment was evidently "natter," I'd like to lodge further protest against the "Good Riddance" example. As far as I'm concerned, Green Day deliberately wrote and titled their song TO be misinterpreted so they could laugh at the audience who took it at face value. Therefore, it has no place here.
Even without the words, how is the theme to M*A*S*H cheery? It seems at best melancholy to me.
Machiavellienne: If you're going to link to a Youtube video, please include something in the example identifying it. Otherwise your example becomes incomprehensible when the video is deleted.
BritBllt: Removing this one for now...
- What about the Klingons from Star Trek? They are violent, brutal, savage thugs, utterly undemocratic, and totally hypocritical; i.e. the antithesis of Roddenberry's (and modern western) values. At the same time, they are one of the most popular aspects of the entire series.
While some of them are like that, by the time TNG rolled around, they were also being presented as noble Proud Warrior Race Guys, and Worf was practically Sir Galahad with forehead ridges. I don't think there's much "misaiming" there: the Klingons aren't as noble as the Federation, but enough Klingon characters are treated as heroic badasses that the writers must've known what they were doing.
Korbl: Would the dissonance between the horror genre and how Horror RP Gs generally get played count? For example, Call of Cthulhu is supposed to be about a bunch of squishy normals investigating horrific things and going insane. In practice, I hear the elephant gun is used a lot.
ChrisStansfield: So, I removed the Billy Idol/White Wedding thing because it has been denied repeatedly by Billy Idol himself. I think there may even be a Snopes page debunking it. Someone else reverted my edit, and (out of spite?) went on to delete or rewrite everything else I put in. Again, I'm not gonna get het up over it since this isn't run the same way as other wikis, but I'm wondering what the general rule is when you want to unrevert something here.
qwyrxian: As a newcomer, I am disinclined to make sweeping edits. But why is it that the opening paragraphs automatically debunk the Death of the Author? Why does it assume that the author really does deserve greater deference than the "reader?" Am I misinterpreting the trope, and it really means that any time the fans go against Word of God, that Misaimed Fandom applies?
Eaver: Is the picture a Fandom Secret
? That's a site where people say things that they know are weird opinions, a lot of which are kinks. That seems like they get the point of it, but it still turns them on.
Grev: Question: Does anyone actually think the MASH theme is cheery? I don't think odd minor keys are all that uplifting, myself.
Lizard: Is supporting Dexter's vigilanteism "misaimed"? I can't imagine anyone watching the show and not seeing the authorial intent is that Dexter is the "hero" and his actions are justified in the show's context and according to its premises. People may disagree with this worldview, but it's not the FANDOM that's misaimed.
macroscopic: Removed the Ghandi quote. Jesus spent sufficient time preaching against hypocrisy that he wouldn't reject this kind of criticism directed at his followers.
- "I like your Christ, I do not like you Christians. You Christians are nothing like your Christ."— Mahatma Gandhi
I am usually very hesitant about removing other people's examples, but this one had to go: "The song "One Night in Bangkok" has nothing to do with prostitution, it's about a chess game!"
The song is from the musical Chess, and it consists of prostitutes and criminals trying to tempt the protagonist, who is responding by telling them that he is not interested because he is only in Bangkok to play chess. Except he gives into temptation at the end of the song.
