TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Ender's Game: Playing Both Sides vs. Running Both Sides

Go To

Rotpar Always 3:00 am in the Filth (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Always 3:00 am in the Filth
#1: Feb 13th 2011 at 2:00:06 AM

I was reading through the Playing Both Sides examples when I noticed the following:

in the Enderverse, a subversion occurs where peter and valentine wiggan are writting for opposing views on every subject imaginable. a subversion in two ways; first, they actually ARE two different people, who merely collaborate on what they each "think"/write on each topic. second, they actually start out writing something very close to each others "real" POV. so, to quote wikipedia: "While Ender is away in Battle School, Peter implores Valentine to "work with him". As young children, they write political commentary under pseudonyms ("Demosthenes" for Valentine, and "Locke" for Peter). The former would be demagogue who called for war with the country's coalition partners, especially Russia, while the latter would be a mild intellectual who advocated diplomacy — a decision at odds with both writers' actual personalities. Demosthenes becomes extremely popular, whipping the public into a xenophobic frenzy and moving the country closer and closer to war."

I was simply going to rewrite it to clean up the messy grammar, spelling, and a copy-pasta quote off The Other Wiki. But I got to thinking about whether or not it's a proper example or if the subversion is correct. The facts as I understand them are:

  • Playing Both Sides: Two parties are in conflict. A third party is manipulating them for their benefit.
  • Running Both Sides: Two parties are in conflict. Their leaders are collaborating for their mutual benefit.
  • Peter and Valentine are genius children using primitive, pre-Internet Sock Puppets to manipulate the major political thinkers. They are working together in this, their "debates" are completely fabricated for the same goal. They are also writing their sibling's political stance rather then their own, Peter advocates Valentine's agenda and she argues his. They're also successful, their pseudonyms became major players in politics, people flock under one's banner and rage against the other's.

If I recall, Peter is really the driving force here. It's his idea because the kid has actual plans for world domination. I don't remember if he bullied her into helping or if she goes along for the hell of it. Peter is the one meant to benefit from all this.

The troper who added the example claims it's a subversion of Playing Both Sides because:

  • The third party manipulator are two children rather than a single person.
  • Their manipulations are not "actually" what they want. Peter is manipulating politics by arguing what Valentine wants of the world, not what he wants.

So what exactly is going on here?

  • Are they Playing Both Sides or Running Both Sides?
  • If Playing, is the trope subverted in any way because the third party are two people? Isn't the third party manipulator...the third party manipulating, regardless of who exactly composes it?
  • Is the swap in political views relevant at all to these tropes, least of all subverting them?

A post preview, my kingdom for a post preview...

Edit: As a side note, neither trope has Laconic/Playing With entries.

edited 13th Feb '11 2:04:56 AM by Rotpar

But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you.
troacctid (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#2: Feb 17th 2011 at 3:52:51 PM

It's Running Both Sides because they are the sides. Playing Both Sides would require two opposed factions manipulated to a third party's benefit.

Add Post

Total posts: 2
Top