Tropes Are Not Bad Rewrite Needed: Reptiles Are Abhorrent

Reading this article, it is obvious that it was either written by a fancier of reptiles as pets, or else at one point suffered a serious edit by someone who was such. The page is snarky, sarcastic, and biased towards the use of reptiles as villains, toward anyone who doesn't like snakes, and to anything but a positive, rainbows-and-puppies view of the noble creatures.

I think the thing needs an overhaul. Discuss.

Worldmaker, the trope is that "reptiles are nasty". Of course it's going to go into more detail about that than about how spiffy-cool they are in real life.

No, you misread my post: whoever wrote or edited it went overboard in the "anyone who really thinks reptiles are nasty is stupid and prejudicial and a poo-poo head" direction. The way its written right now is less "reptiles are nasty" and more "reptiles aren't nasty, but people think so anyway". Half of the examples include a Parabomb insert explaining how not all reptiles are bad, or how "in the book, he's a good guy" or "the movie also includes a heroic turtle, so you can ignore the evil crocodiles", and so on.

I mean, seriously... one of the examples argues that the crocodile is the true hero of Peter Pan.

edited 31st Jul '11 3:49:24 PM by Worldmaker

Hmm. I'm not really seeing that, except for the Justifying edit under the bit about the snake in the Bible and most of the paragraph about why Dinosaurs are Dragons (all but the first two sentences are "interesting, but irrelevant".

Oh, I didn't look at the examples. I thought you were talking about the description. My mistake.

Natter, parabombing and justifying edits don't need a TRS thread to approve a clean-up. And it's not so universal as to merit "aversions".

edited 31st Jul '11 3:52:37 PM by Madrugada

I wasn't sure of the procedure when it involved a pretty-much whole-page edit.

Go for it. Take out all the "aversions", and any "subverted"s that really mean "the reptile was a good guy all along" or "The reptile wasn't a bad guy" unless he really is set up to look like a bad guy at the beginning.

I'd do it in chunks, by type ("aversions" first; then "subversions" that aren't; then Justifying edits; and so on) saving the page between each chunk; and leave good clear edit reasons.

edited 31st Jul '11 4:07:28 PM by Madrugada

Okey doke. Don't have time to invest tonight, but I've to-do-listed it and will get onto it tomorrow.

I agree that this needs a rewrite. It's angrier than most articles about racist tropes, for crying out loud.

A good third of the examples can be cut with prejudice, as they are not examples at all.

An aversions section or an alternative "heroic reptiles" trope could be launched to keep all the justifying edits and reptile championing away from the primary examples.

With as many aversions as are listed, it's pretty clear that this is not an omnipresent trope; one that is so widely used that aversions should be listed.

If you want to YKTTW "Heroic Reptiles" go ahead, but you need something more than "these characters are both heroic and reptiles". That's a coincidence, not a storytelling convention.

There is a YKTTW called Heroically Aligned Reptile, which is about all the aversions and subversions of this trope.

Just being aversions and subversions of a trope does not make something tropable unless there is more binding them together.

What the fox said. Also, "Kind Red Eyes" was specifically cut because it boiled down to Aversion Of Red Eyes, Take Warning, and didn't carry any tropable meaning on its own.

Well, the thing about the negative reactions to this trope is that they aren't entirely unjustified. The problem with "Reptiles are Abhorrent" is that, with the way it is used in fiction, it often crosses the fine line between an genuine trope and a cliche' or stereotype. Anybody who has either worked with, or studied reptiles (and not just the people who fancy them) knows that they aren't really deserving of the evil portrayal they often get in fiction. It becomes even more of a Wall Banger for these people when you realize that a number of the mammals that get portrayed as cute and cuddly in fiction and media are, in reality, *at least* as dangerous as the species of reptiles that get vilified in fiction.

But, the bigger problem with this "trope" is that it has negative consequences in real life. The pervading belief that reptiles are some sort of abomination often leads to people senselessly killing them. This is bad because 1) no species of reptile really deserves that and 2) reptiles are an important part of the ecosystem and wiping them out (as many people want to do) would do some serious ecological damage.

I don't see a real problem with the description, but the examples were pretty terrible and natter-riddled. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to keep that from coming back?

Yeah, but we're not a wiki to complain about people using a trope. It's a good thing to mention in the description that reptiles aren't as bad as fiction makes them out to be, but its also important to note that something about human nature gives alot of people the ebbie geebies when they see them. Writers can utilize that for making a villain or horror monster.

edited 14th Aug '11 5:53:08 PM by DrStarky

But, what I want to know is, when does a trope stop becoming a trope and become a cliche'? The point I was making earlier is that "Reptiles are Abhorrant" may cross this line on many occasions.

Um, "cliche" does not mean "bad trope".

Yeah, I know. It means a stereotype, which I think a lot examples of "Reptiles are Abhorrent" are. So, again, what I want to know is when something crosses the line from being a trope to being a stereotype.

And I don't understand what you take the difference to be. One of the indexes we have this page on is called Animal Stereotypes. We've got pages on stereotypes about human beings, like Greedy Jew - they may be offensive and wrong, but they're tropes that appear or have appeared in media. I really don't see what difference it makes if this page is a "stereotype" or not.

And that's what I'm wondering about. If tropes are not suppose to be stereotypes, then why do we have so many obvious stereotypes listed at tropes?

Because they're story telling tools.

Not all black men are scary, but intimidating black men are still common in fiction.

Because they are present in the minds of audiences and are used in fiction. We can play around with audiences expectations with them.

Because they happen in fiction at all, really. They don't have to be true, justified, or even good - remember, Tropes Are Not Bad's original intention was primarily about preventing Not A Subversion type stuff ("No! My Favorite Show couldn't have played this trope straight!") just like Tropes Are Not Good was intended to prevent Square Peg Round Trope stuff. It doesn't mean that there aren't some tropes that can be pretty fairly considered "bad", such as the "Rape Is Okay When It's X" family.

Again, though, I'm not sure how any of this relates to this trope.