Description vs. examples: The Reason You Suck Speech

The description states that this is done by the villains, but this isn't the case in all of the examples, nor even all of the ones that made it to the quotes page. (Family Guy comes to mind.)

Furthermore, if we are to associate it with being done by the villains, that would still raise the question of how it is distinguished from Hannibal Lecture, except one thing mentioned in the description, "in this case the Villain clearly has done something that would seem to suggest he (the bad guy) really is the superior combatant" a distinction which is oddly specific for something whose examples are in practice so broad.

Perhaps it might be an idea to discuss what qualifies as a "The Reason You Suck" Speech and what does not, to clarify the distinctions from similar tropes like Hannibal Lecture (which may seem like a subtrope from the way they are used in practice) and to adjust the description accordingly.

Bumping because this really ought to be addressed.

I say drop the villain aspect, for the reasons you gave.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Agreed.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Okay, so how should we reword the description then?

EDIT: Also, even the "villains" aspect alone doesn't fix the ambiguity. The speech says it's deconstructing someone's motives, what if it's about moral condemnation of someone? Again, there's a bit more to narrowing down what qualifies than just the "villains" aspect.

edited 12th Apr '11 5:05:59 PM by neoYTPism

The archived discussion:

Oddly, despite not apparently having had a YKTTW, the oldest version of the page in the Internet Archive is from late 2008; I seem to recall the page existing earlier, but it's possible it was created in the span of time lost to the Great Crash.

I don't think it existed at the time of The Great Crash, but there were bugs for long afterwards: the launcher would sometimes fail to import the YKTTW discussion, or the YKTTW discussion link was rendered but not actually in the source for the old-style discussion page, so the link would disappear the first time the discussion page was edited. This is not to mention that a lot of YKTTW discussions were somehow purged, or that people editing old-style discussions could accidentally strip out the YKTTW info.

Apparently a similar subject is being discussed in another thread.

I think this and Hannibal Lecture might need to be rearranged somehow, maybe having a third trope added (or just changing HL). What a lot of people seem to have in mind when they talk about "Hannibal Lecture" is a speech meant to break someone down by presenting negative things they can't deny at that time. It's almost "The Reason You Suck" Speech, but the difference is that TRYSS might be just complaining without such a clear aim, and that this kind of "Hannibal Lecture" doesn't need to deconstruct the addressee's personality specifically, even though it usually does that, for obvious reasons. (An example where it doesn't would be the Joker talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital in The Dark Knight.) I think that probably should be a trope in its own right. You might even want to change Hannibal Lecture to mean that, since it seems a lot of people wouldn't even notice any difference.

Bumping because another question came to mind... what about a Passioned And Indignant Speech? (Name comes from how The Distressed Watcher described the prior example.) Would those count as a "The Reason You Suck" Speech or something else? If something else, would it be worthwhile creating a YKTTW for it?

I think I've said in a much older thread that the key difference between this and a Hannibal Lecture is that, while both are monologues delivered usually by villains, the Hannibal Lecture is usually spoken when the hero appears to have an upper hand over the villain (i.e. the villain has been "caught" or otherwise appears to have been "defeated," but, no, the hero is foolish; he may have won the battle, but he hasn't won the war...). On the other hand, "The Reason You Suck" Speech is spoken when the villain appears to have the upper hand over the hero (i.e. the hero was right where he wanted him the entire time and is now at the villain's mercy).

If you want to be a little more general, we can always use Alice and Bob. Alice delivers a Hannibal Lecture to Bob when Alice is in an apparent disadvantaged position, compared to Bob, and seeks to turn the tables on Bob through demoralization. Alice delivers "The Reason You Suck" Speech to Bob when Alice is in an apparent advantaged position, compared to Bob, and seeks to gloat about why Bob can't be in the advantaged position Alice can boastfully enjoy.

That's how I interpret the descriptions, anyway.

edited 14th May '11 9:23:15 PM by SeanMurrayI

That would be a pretty vague basis for distinction if you ask me. For one thing, level of advantage or disadvantage is more of a continuous scale than an all-or-nothing switch, and treating it like the latter would beg the question as to where we draw the line.

I would propose that the difference between the two is this:

A "The Reason You Suck" Speech doesn't have to come from a villain, and is specifically intended to point out the receiver's weaknesses and failures. It's not necessarily intended to convince or persuade the receiver of anything.

A Hannibal Lecture always comes from a villain, and it's main purpose is to convince the character receiving it to pull a Face–Heel Turn or at least stop standing in the bad guy's way. This speech doesn't necessarily involve pointing out the receiver's weaknesses or failures; it could just as focus on a theme of Not So Different, or be building up to an Armor-Piercing Question.

I think that's a perfect distinction. The current Hannibal Lecture article is much more specific (requiring that the Hannibal be in a weaker position), but yours is about how its being used. Should probably bring that up on the Hannibal Lecture TRS.

I tend to lean towards Sean Murray's explanation, myself. I've seen the Hannibal Lecture as being, basically, a showcase of the "Hannibal's" badassery and psychological insight, arguing from a position of weakness and turning it into a strength. Their comments will provoke a reaction from the other character, and they may provide insights to the audience as well, but the objective is more to establish the character of the person giving the speech than the person receiving it.

Wheras the objective of a "The Reason You Suck" Speech is to make a point about the character (even if it gets knocked over later), which really only works if you've given the audience some reason to think the person talking has some credibility on the issue. If they're at the other person's mercy, it doesn't fly. If they are the one on top, it does.

If you are in doubt, or things are neutral, it would be a "The Reason You Suck" Speech.

Is there still an issue? Everyone seems to agree on the distinctions. If there's still a few examples that need switching, does this get moved to special efforts?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'm still trying to get an understanding audience to comment on my proposed change for Hannibal Lecture. I forgot this was at issue as well, but I think the matching change here (which I've kind of been assuming already) is to say this has nothing to do with relative levels of power or advantage, just someone telling someone else why they suck. I guess that's how it's been used? I'm not sure what version of the distinction you say people are agreeing about.

What I (among others I guess) am suggesting would be a character making a point about a character, not the author, so that wouldn't apply, because only the character doing it needs to find themselves credible. Or maybe it still needs to be like that in practice, but since it's just in practice, that's an open question the answer to which need not be included in the definition because it is the actual examples that will answer it.

edited 4th Nov '11 2:12:40 AM by VVK

Could we have some confirmation one way or another on whether the "from the villain" part of this trope is officially dropped?

edited 4th Nov '11 3:01:41 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

The current description of the trope states that it dosen't have to be a villain giving the speech (or dosen't have to involve villains at all):

Heroes can also give defeated villains The Reason You Suck Speeches, [....] Alternatively, the speech is given by someone who's just frustrated with the other person.

About that part being officially dropped, I have no idea.

On a sidenote, would the following from Family Guy make a good page quotation?

---

->You see, Connie, you're popular because you developed early and started putting out when you were 12, but now you can't stand to look at yourself in the mirror because all you see is a whore. So, you pick on Meg to avoid the inevitible realization that once your body is used up by age 19, you're going to be a worn out chalky skinned burlap sack that even your stepdad won't want. How's that, am I in the ballpark? —>- Brian, from Family Guy

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

My instinct is to consider Hannibal Lecture a subtrope of this, in which a villain is doing it specifically to turn the tables from a disadvantaged situation.

• "Reason You Suck" Speech: One character verbally tears another apart.
  • Hannibal Lecture: A villain in a disadvantaged situation delivers a RYSS to their opponent, hoping to leverage the psychological intimidation into an advantage.

... /notices post date This isn't too much of a necro is it?

edited 26th Jan '12 9:58:48 AM by Incom