A different defintion seems widespread: Hannibal Lecture

How much of an advantage is it suppsoed to appear to give?

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

Here is a more mindrape-y hannibal lecture/reason you suck speech. .hack//GU spoilers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExtIPRiNBJs

I approve of this example.

"Joker's monologue to Dent doesn't have any characteristics of a Mind Rape at all—not even some mild, non-extreme variant that is related to it but not quite the trope, either."

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I suspect that problem is actually with the Mind Rape trope, as in, its definition including the "mundane variety" — I doubt that examples that that definition attracts are going to be nearly as extreme as the magical ones, as it would have to be a very extreme case where you talk to someone and it's like rape.

"That's because, if I understand the trope well enough, that wasn't actually a Hannibal Lecture. It was manipulative, yes, and it was deconstructing the other heroes, but it wasn't doing so to Harvey, nor was it meant to break Harvey down."

Break him down as in to make him evil, break down what was left of his former values. That makes the "breaking down" vague, yes, but that's nothing new with tropes.

"The time where The Joker tells the cop guarding him in the cell how he killed all of his friends is much closer to an example, and whenever he talks to Batman, it's meant to be this."

Pretty much.

Anyway, I will repeat, and please pay attention to this part: The definition I have in mind is at least approximately "a speech meant to break someone down or gain an advantage over them by saying things they can't deny just then". That about says it all already; examples can be helpful for understanding the definition, but you should look at the definition to understand the definition, not just the examples.

A couple more examples: Bun-bun talking to Calix in Sluggy Freelance in these two comics: http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/20050415 http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/050417 What is relevant about these is "the crush your soul" part; the exact means of doing it (pointing out that what happened was his fault) is inessential but one example of how it can be done.

Another example where people immediately started calling it "Hannibal Lecture" was in the beginning of the Season Two of My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic. The background is that each of the ponies represents one of the Elements of Harmony (including Honesty, Laughter and Kindness for the following examples), and Discord is manipulating them so that they won't be able to use the Elements against him any more. (Not that he has to do it like that, mind you, he's Just Toying with Them.) Here's the episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eHhZytVkH0 and the examples start at about 12:07, at 14:30 and at 17:54. Not that these are the best examples, because the first two ones are partly nonverbal and the last one fails (though it is an example by the definition I gave, since the intention is relevant, not success). Also, the magic mind control isn't part of the trope, it just shows he wouldn't need to use the trope at all if not For the Evulz.

Talking the Monster to Death seems to be close to this, by the way, only done by saying positive things/by the hero (I'm not sure about the exact definition here, if it exists). The good counterpart, as it were.

Anywho. I know there are lots of people around who know what I mean, since they keep using it that way.

edited 4th Nov '11 12:47:47 AM by VVK

Here's what I think the description might look like if retooled, with larger additions in bold, and some things obviously removed too - now edited to give the definition right away. Note also that this has the interesting side effect of turning the original first paragraph into an example in its own right, rather than just a preamble to the real thing. Oh, and notice that Im actually using a new proposed definition for "The Reason You Suck" Speech here as well, I didn't even realise. Anyway:

---

A speech made by a character to another that is meant to somehow break down the recipient or gain a psychological advantage over them by claiming uncomfortable things that they can't deny.

Obviously, this is easier to pull off from a relative position of power. Police, psychiatrists, kidnappers, superheroes, shadowy government conspirators, and crazed vigilantes are all masters of Perp Sweating. Not only does the prisoner confess, they are often tricked or brainwashed into agreeing with their captor. Particularly successful Perp Sweating forces the captive to realize they have Feet of Clay — they're not the terrifying badass they thought they were, but a pathetic loser who is nothing compared to the one who holds them captive.

But this works both ways, and only a fool tries Perp Sweating on a sociopathic Serial Killer, a Manipulative Bastard, a Psycho for Hire, an evil Warrior Therapist, a Nietzsche Wannabe or just a master of psychological deconstruction. These loonies know all the tricks, and will turn the tables until it's the interrogator who winds up agreeing with what the prisoner says. And the loonies always do this the same way, every time. They start out with a few seemingly-innocent questions about the captor's life or even appearance — "why did you go into law enforcement instead of medicine like you wanted?" or "why aren't you married?" Then, slowly, the prisoner asks more questions, which turn into comments, which turn into declarations, about how the captor has failed in different ways. Pretty soon, the prisoner is doing all the interrogating and all the answering, with the poor captor doing nothing but nodding their assent and crying. Frequently, the captor must admit they are Not So Different morally.

The form of a Hannibal Lecture is typically a kind of "The Reason You Suck" Speech, telling the other character how pathetic they are or perhaps how guilty of something terrible, but there are other ways of breaking someone down by talking. You could for example instead deconstruct the world, other characters, or their relationship with the victim. The important part is that they can't deny your words, at least not in the heat of the moment, and you gain a psychological advantage over them. Results when successful range from the mere chance of getting to smirk in a satisfied way for rattling someone in an otherwise superior position; to bringing about a Break the Cutie, Heroic BSoD or even Face–Heel Turn or More than Mind Control situation. The most extreme form would be Mind Rape by just talking, but be wary of automatically calling every Hannibal Lecture that.

Usually, this doesn't work on long-established action heroes; the story will often imply, however, that the villain still has a damned good point. If the hero is suitably awesome, they may even be able to Hannibal Lecture the bad guy, or subvert an attempt by a bad guy to lecture them by turning it into a lecture right back; yeah, the villain might be sharp, but that doesn't mean that the hero can't point out a few things about how pathetic the bad guy is in return.

Named for Dr. Hannibal Lecter of the 1988 novel The Silence Of The Lambs, who set the standard for this trope when he was immortalized onscreen by Anthony Hopkins in the 1991 film adaptation. The trope was originally defined as being about "a captured or cornered villain deconstructing the hero psychologically", but its use widened in practice to better fit the current definition.

The distilled version of this is the Armor-Piercing Question. If the declarations used as a weapon come from simple clues, this is a form of Sherlock Scan. Can be done as part of Evil Gloating.

The opposite effect is done by a "World of Cardboard" Speech, when the hero tells about his own flaws and how they don't matter now. The reverse or "good counterpart" is the Kirk Summation or Talking the Monster to Death.

See also: To the Pain, Talking Your Way Out, Just Between You and Me, Shut Up, Hannibal!, "The Reason You Suck" Speech, Critical Psychoanalysis Failure, And Then What?.

edited 18th Dec '11 12:35:29 AM by VVK

So... halfway past the description, we tell the reader that what they thought was the definition was actually an Example as a Thesis?

Better to just tell them the real definition up front.

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

You have a point. The reason why I put it that way was because a) I had difficulty rewriting and b) it's not worked like that before with this article, as people haven't understood the definition the way it was meant anyway.

But I've been having an issue myself with trope "descriptions" just going on and on about a situation you're supposed to picture and not giving a definition, and have been putting the definition first elsewhere, so I shouldn't do this here either, that's true. Maybe I'll try again when I have more brain power to use.

edited 18th Nov '11 8:36:07 AM by VVK

Okay, done. This might work. Sorry I don't have time to come here to do this more often.

I like that. Since its not a major revision do we need a crowner to implement it?

I don't know enough about details like that. But it does change the definition, so I would have thought of that as major.

How do you even make a crowner? Well, if someone would make one - feel free to go ahead - I would phrase the question (assuming it's to be posed as a simple yes-no question) about like this: "Hannibal Lecture was originally defined "A captured or cornered villain psychologically deconstructs the hero." However, it's often being used with no regard for whether the one character is a villain (though they usually are), whether they are in fact captured or cornered at all, and whether the actual content of the speech is about psychologically deconstructing the other character or saying something else. This use also encompasses many interesting cases that are not covered by any other trope nor by the current definition. A definition that seems to capture the way the trope is actually being used is "Any speech by one character meant to break down or gain a psychological advantage over another." Should the definition be changed to this?"

edited 3rd Dec '11 2:04:33 AM by VVK

Crowner created. Hollering for a hook.

edited 4th Dec '11 9:29:42 PM by ChaoticNovelist

Eh, I'm still against. Expanding the definition along these lines would make "The Reason You Suck" Speech redundant. And make the trope name itself warped and less meaningful.

edited 4th Dec '11 10:10:32 PM by SeanMurrayI

Well, they're separate concepts (whether "The Reason You Suck" Speech is changed or not), and the other trope does not cover all these examples. And as for the trope name, people are already recognising it as this. I'd say it refers to a recognisable example that people then equate others with, but not by the criteria it was originally intended to have. I'm just glad I was able to make up a definition that does seem to match the strong intuition.

Would it be considered bad form to solicit for attention for this vote somewhere, since if I did, it would probably be somewhere I might expect to find "yes" votes? (Or for some other reason?) Like in the discussion for a page where it's already being used this way?

You can advertise for more votes here. Also, the current page description seems to (somewhat ambiguously) support the definition as being any such lecture by a captive to their captor (with villains simply the usual ones to do this), which would make the definition on the crowner incorrect.

edited 6th Dec '11 1:08:02 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

That definition is simply the laconic version, I think word to word. Of course, that doesn't mean it's automatically correct. But it's the best I can do by the way of finding an exact definition stated somewhere.

No matter what else happens, the definition needs a trim. It's way too long as-is — both the current one and the proposed new one.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

That doesn't necessarily make it legitimate. We really shouldn't be pandering to illegitimate misuse.

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

I thought it looked long too, but I can't really say where the line goes for too long and which things aren't supposed to be there, so I haven't got much to say about that. I just made sure not to make it even longer. (The text as a whole is a description, not definition, though. The first sentence in my version already gives the whole definition, and I've honed it for so long that I think it does cover everything about the concept. But that's probably not the relevant thing here.)

What I'm saying (this time) is that the name works for recognition. Of course, this does sound similar to some of my reasons for why it's a good idea to change, such as that the Trope Decay has come up with a unified and evidently intuitive concept.

edited 10th Dec '11 12:55:54 AM by VVK

Well, while nothing's happening, I found just a little that I could remove in the proposed new description.

The whole point of this trope, and why it's even named after Hannibal Lecter, is to highlight when a villain states something to turn the tables on the person whom the villain is speaking to, like what Lecter would do when it appeared others had the upper hand over him.

Remove that part from the trope, and this shouldn't even be called Hannibal Lecture anymore.

edited 18th Dec '11 12:13:30 PM by SeanMurrayI

But is there a point to it being named such right now, considering all the misuse?

^If we were already discussing a rename, I'd support you on that.

But since we're only discussing redefining what the name means, I think that option should be poo poo'd until a new option gains momentum.

edited 18th Dec '11 3:50:19 PM by SeanMurrayI

It exhibits issues common to character-named tropes, so yes, it should get a new name.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

I can see a different point to the name, which I have already tried to state. It seems that when people think of Hannibal Lecter in connection with the name, they think about the kind of thing that he did to have the original trope named after him. In that sense it works as the prototype for what the trope is about, provided this proposed change is made to make it fit what they actually think about. The difference is simply that it is not seen as being narrowly about turning the tables when you're the underdog, but more generally being able to cause such a great psychological effect on someone just by talking. It's only a small difference on that level. So I say the Hannibal Lecter example still works perfectly well as the trope namer.

edited 18th Dec '11 4:26:56 PM by VVK

That assumes people are familiar with the (twenty year old) movie that he's from, and aren't thinking of one of the dozens of other people called Hannibal.

edited 18th Dec '11 4:29:00 PM by Spark9

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!