Clarifying the definition: This Is For Emphasis Bitch

Swear jar note — this thread's gonna have a silly amount of swearing in it.

I'm wondering if we can get some consensus on the definition of This Is for Emphasis, Bitch! On the face of it, this is a quite straightforward trope: ending a sentence with a comma and "Bitch!", as a form of exclamation point in dialog.

Yet apparently there was some disagreement over the role of anger. An angry character also might end a sentence in a similar way.

An example might help: In Aliens when the alien queen has Newt cornered, Ripley makes a dramatic entrance and shouts "Get away from her, you bitch!"

Is this in the trope or not? Should we reserve the trope for strictly offhand conversational swearing-as-sentence-ending-punctuation? Or should we just go with all lines ending with a pause and the word "bitch"? (Given that divining intent can be rather subjective and characters can and do mix emphasis with anger.)

edited 11th Jun '11 8:29:39 PM by Camacan

I'm personally of the mind that 'you bitch' in that context isn't necessarily this trope, but is being used as a descriptor. This Is for Emphasis, Bitch! is when 'bitch' is used gratuitously as a sort of vocal punctuation mark.

edited 11th Jun '11 8:30:22 PM by savage

Want to rename a trope? Step one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I have problems applying that approach to examples like this one:

• Avatar: "You're not the only one with a gun, bitch."

Sans context I can see that as a descriptor and a gratuitous use of the word.

edited 11th Jun '11 8:35:13 PM by Camacan

Well it can be both. But what is the context of that line?

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

You know, are there any examples here that aren't just somebody calling someone else a bitch? Or, at least, can't be interpreted or misconstrued that way?

edited 11th Jun '11 8:37:00 PM by SeanMurrayI

The climatic fight. Trudy turns up in a aircraft, the humans think she's a friendly. Then she bushwhacks 'em, actually being on the otherwise un-gunned native's side.

(This one reason why I wish more people followed How To Write An Example and provided details with their examples.)

edited 12th Jun '11 6:55:05 AM by Camacan

Also shouldn't the page quote say where it's from (in this case Buffy The Vampire Slayer)

Then I think it would be an example.

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

@ clockwork, yes. The most common way is to pothole the name of the speaker.

Fight smart, not fair.

Resurrecting an old thread... even if to ask whether this◊ is a valid example (even for a new page image).

I think so. I dislike the name of the trope, due to being an example itself. I'd prefer Explicitive Emphasis.

As far as the definition, I want to distance this trope from emotionally charged statements. The description of the trope should allow it, but to prevent Trope Decay, we should not allow examples of it.

edited 30th Oct '11 12:53:59 PM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

There's nothing wrong with trope names being examples of themselves. And we're not renaming the trope just because you don't like the title.

Explicitive Emphasis wouldn't work as a name anyway because "explicitive" is not a real word.

edited 30th Oct '11 1:16:38 PM by Insignificant

Also, the ptitle needs to be moved, but the page is locked, so a mod will have to do it.

. As a rule, I prefer it. In this specific sense, I dislike it. I didn't want to post in this thread without stating that. And you're right, I misspelled it; expletive emphasis

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Expletive Emphasis is more generic but works. But I don't see why it would need locking.

Because it will turn into a list of every instance of a line ending in a cuss word. Which why the present version is locked.

BTW, the lock was a compromise between the people who just wanted to cut it and the people who saw some value in the thing. I was on the 'cut' side of the fence.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

This seems to be a more specific form of Precision F-Strike anyway.

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

There is overlap, but technically, I don't think that one applies outside of rated works. (Such as novels)

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Wait, what? I don't see that anywhere in Precision F-Strike's definition.

Another variant is when a movie limits its swearing in order to keep from getting an R rating, and so is forced to place it very strategically. If a movie uses the F word more than two or three times, it can easily get an R rating. If it's used up to two or three times, each in a non-sexual context, it usually stays PG-13.

The Dutch word for "cancer" (kanker), however, is considered the single most offensive curse word in the entire language, and will never be heard on television unless it's... well, a Precision K Strike,so to speak.

In some languages, however, expletives do not actually exist, or are so uncommonly used and/or offensive that they are not allowed on television/radio/etc.

A mention of radio, which still has rules for what you can say, based on air time, even if it lacks an official list of ratings. Emphasis on the values dissonance, not on why it is said. Plus spending an entire paragraph on how works self-police to keep themselves out of R-rated territory. That's why it looks like the trope is concerned with moral ratings, to me.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Is there any reason this trope couldn't apply to a Cluster F-Bomb? The page image certainly isn't a Precision F-Strike.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

However, that is not what Precision F-Strike is limited to - it can also include cases when a character who normally does not curse (regardless of whether he would be "allowed" to or not) suddenly does, normally as a way to show how badly he's been affected by a situation.

Or at least, I've seen it used that way. The description doesn't seem to indicate if either definition is specifically right or wrong, so I assume it includes both.

Which is included as exactly one sentence in the description, putting the emphasis on everything else about the trope. That seems more like another trope that also involves cursing being added in. My perception, of course.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I think it was more like a PG-13 can only use it once as an expletive, any more than that (or in any other context), automatic R for language. It's one of the few absolute "if-then" rules of the MPAA system.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Still means the precision is about Moral Guardians.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.