Subjective or what? This gets used in a lot of dubious ways.: Trope Codifier

Trope Codifier is mostly all right on the page itself, but outside, used elsewhere, a ton of the usages I've come across seem dubious — Older Than They Think and Fan Myopia are big issues for this trope. Part of the problem is that while this trope is sometimes objective and clear, it's also very very easy for a fan to decide that the first place where they personally saw a trope was the Trope Codifier, especially with a Cyclic Trope... and many fans are prone to attributing undue importance or impact to their favorite works in general.

I'm not sure what to do about it.

I've raised my eyebrows more than once at various designations for what is the Trope Codifier (it's much more rational, I think, to cite something as a Trope Codifier, although even that runs into issues about just when something was codified).

I personally would vote to wipe examples from the page, and put a usage note about how things seldom get sole credit for codifying a trope, and that citations should always use an indefinite article.

A true Trope Codifier is fairly easy to spot. It's the oldest work that uses the trope in its definitive form. If the trope doesn't have a single definitive form, then there's no Codifier, unless it's gone through several "definitive forms" — then it may have several Codifiers.

Like the Vampire: it went from

1. "a vile mindless undead bloodsucker" in the oldest folktales (no Codifier): to
2. "A Lugosi-Dracula-esque, suave but spooky Eastern European gentleman in formal wear: the blood-drinking is predatory" (Lugosi's Dracula being the Codifier): to
3. "a handsome, sexy, romantic vampire in spiffy clothing; the blood-drinking is as much or more sensual than it is scary", Codified by Anne Rice (although the morph started with Frank Langella's Dracula; to
4. "Sweet, teen-idol style, boyish hero who incidentally happens to drink blood when he remembers to" Codified by Twilight.

There are three Trope Codifiers for the character archetype "Vampire" depending on which style is used.

But true Trope Codifier is almost as rare as a true Ur-Example

edited 30th Aug '11 1:59:05 PM by Madrugada

You forgot Bram Stoker's Dracula. Or was that James Rymer's Varney The Vampire? There, you get into the question of which is more remembered and drawn upon for inspiration, and how much the former was informed by the latter. Regardless, you're missing at least one step in that chain about vampires.

And then you get into questions as to whether certain aspects of the vampire legend (particularly relating to sexuality of any variety) have always been present or always continue to be present. Was it always there as subtext, or did someone read too much into a given story and then teased it out explicitly, codifying a new take on vampirism?

Thus, I try to avoid using the term at all. Too much of a minefield.

I wouldn't get too dictatorial about it. In some cases there may be a clear, single codifier, or a small set of codifiers (as with Hardboiled Detective), so the definite article may be appropriate at times. Discouraging it would be good; forbidding it will just lead to rules-sticklers purging it willy-nilly. Remove it if you're fairly certain it's not the only one, but don't kill it on sight.

I agree that the concept is regularly abused though, and needs cleanup.

I might note that Trope Namer also has some pretty dubious uses around the wiki. I often see it applied to a common phrase or term that has widespread use, and the only thing making a particular example the Trope Namer is that that's the one someone happened to think of first. But maybe that's a separate discussion.

I wouldnt say Twilight was the codifier there really Anime was doing that for years. It was the first to actually take notice and made it big though.

There is also the Vampire Girlfriend type of Magical Girlfriend thats been gaining popularity I think Karin codified (or Rosario To Vampire). (I suppose those would be under Friendly Neighborhood Vampire)

edited 30th Aug '11 2:10:25 PM by Raso

"Made it big". That's the key to what the Codifier is, and why I said Twilight. That's the work that made it a standard, no matter how many amines had used it that way before Twilight came along. The Codifier isn't usually the first of its type. It's the most pervasive. It's the one that makes it big.

That the same reason that I didn't list Bram Stoker's book — it wasn't until the Lugosi film that "Vampire" got a set of widely-known, expected characteristics.

But yes, Trope Codifier should be used very sparingly. Most tropes don't have one.

edited 30th Aug '11 2:16:53 PM by Madrugada

BTW, we have Genre Popularizer now, which some of these misuses actually fit better.

My point is that a codifier is almost entirely subjective except in extreme cases of a super popularity explosion. Even then it might just be popularized in one medium or genre or flamewars of who popularized it first yada yada

Take the debate over Mons Codified by Pokemon or Shin Megami Tensei? The later never superduper popular but popular enough to get bunches and bunches of sequels and keep a company in business, which was doing Mons and OlympusMons 7+ years before Pokemon. Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest for JRPG etc

Keeping them all off the page and make them into Most Triumphant Example like pages would be good. (Trope Maker, Ur-Example, Unbuilt Trope should be that too. ) Maybe a separate They All Expies Of X or Follow the Leader type trope in it's place for objective ones.

edited 30th Aug '11 3:15:44 PM by Raso

It's not subjective, though. If a work is truly the Trope Codifier, it's very clear. Mons were Codified by Pokemon. It doesn't matter that some other game was big earlier; I'd wager that 75% of the people who know what Mons are know it in terms of Pokemon. (Digimon would run a distant second). Shin Megami Tensei may have inspired Pokemon, but it's Pokemon who pulled the concept into the public eye and defined it.

And Friday The 13th codified the Slasher Flick, as the formula wasn't really present in similar films before it.

I doubt that.

However it did bring the Slasher movie to the masses, which is why it's the codifier.

Do you have another film that follows the stock slasher flick formula that's older? Because just writing "I doubt that" isn't enough.

Agree that this is objective.

Gold Finger is the Trope Codifier for the formula for the James Bond films. From Russia With Love and Dr No both came earlier, and both are highly regarded, but aspects of both were combined with the third film into the distinct style that would be copied in the rest of the series and by all the imitators.

No one is denying the existence or quality of the earlier films; but they weren't stylistically Bond as we think of the films today.

fix'd for you

^ Whether they were "witchlike" or not, whether they "cursed their village" or not, or whether they were simply "vile undead bloodsuckers" depends on which folktales from which area, thank you.

edited 31st Aug '11 8:51:16 PM by Madrugada

Eh, that's what my "vampire literature" instructor told me. The only thing modern vampires had in common with the traditional slavic monster was A) being dead B) being transmissible C)magic powers.

^ Key word there: "Slavic". There were Vampire-equivalents all over the world.

edited 31st Aug '11 9:40:12 PM by Madrugada

And that's exactly the definition I was using. Since they came up with the word that was eventually corrupted to "vampire".

Pokemon codified mons as they are now so that later Digital Devil games became more like Pokemon. They really weren't that similar before. Dragon Warrior had monster catching before Pokemon too but then it came up with games that were more like Pokemon after Pokemon got popular.

Digital Devil saga maybe the trope maker for mons but not mons as they are now known. That's why trope codifier is objective...or rather what isn't a trope codifier is pretty objective, most tropes don't have one because Tropes Are Flexible.

Coincidentally, that also makes it a Trope Maker, yes?

Other good examples: Batman: who Codified The Cowl; Superman: who codified The Cape; Spiderman: who Codified the Unlucky-Everydude-Hero (do we have a trope for that?)

No, Halloween is. It's just FT13th set the typical stock formula.

I never really understood the need for this trope, and to the extent it's splittable from Trope Maker, I've never understood how that wouldn't end up merging Trope Maker and Ur-Example.

I think that's part of the problem the trope has had. I think it's generally perceived as Trope Maker But Later (or Trope Maker is perceived as Trope Codifier But FIRST!).

Maybe Trope Maker and Ur Example could be clumped together. We do have Unbuilt Trope.

Morgan: As Trope Codifier implies, the three have different places in the history of a trope.

The Trope Maker is the most important; it's the point at which the trope emerges fully formed, and all uses can be traced back to.

An Ur-Example is only an example of the trope in retrospect; usually, it's not important enough to the plot, the Ur-Example is marginal in some way, or the work was forgotten.

A Trope Codifier is a step down from a Trope Maker, but is still vital. The Codifier, when distinct from the Maker, is less original, but you can see its fingerprints on much of what follows.

For example, the Standard Fantasy Setting's Trope Maker is The Lord Of The Rings, but you can clearly see the markers of Dungeons And Dragons in almost all following uses. And yet there are Ur Examples of the SFS, forerunners that were missing one or more of the important features.

Or take the Slasher genre. There are plenty of movies that look a lot like a Slasher in retrospect, but only Halloween has all the components that make a full Slasher Movie. But the movie that almost every Slasher that followed used as a template was Friday The Thirteenth.

In other words, Codifier is defined by importance, Maker is defined by originality, and Ur is defined by being a forerunner to the trope. Maker and Codifier explicitly can overlap, but are separate often enough that they're worth separating in a taxonomy.

Thanks
Luc "Mildly Obvious" French

edited 2nd Sep '11 6:58:15 AM by Luc