Trope Description Improvement Drive

Wrong Turn at Albuquerque has a clumsy, ungrammatical sentence, and if anyone knows of the road in question I would ask that they clarify it:

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

I mean, I think I understand it pretty easily. Route 66 intersects... Route 66. So it's possible to take a wrong turn if all you know is to remain on Route 66.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 17th 2023 at 7:30:29 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I understand the general point, but it needs to be clearer, like "there was an intersection where Route 66 continued around a corner, which drivers did not expect". Looking at the history, it was added strangely late, in 2020, while the article goes back to 2010.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

Well, it depends on if it continued around a corner or if both roads remained being Route 66 (the latter is what the text is conveying to me, but your version is more realistic).

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Perhaps just reword it to:

Bigotry will NEVER be welcome on TV Tropes.

Still harping on about the Low Fantasy problem.

Is anybody going to object if I replace the current mess with my final draft?

For reference that would be:

Low fantasy is something of an evolving term. Initially it was used as a collective term for fantasy works set in the real world i e. historical and contemporary fantasy as opposed to secondary worlds, which were considered high fantasy. Although it is still sometimes used this way in academic circles the term is now more often used for fantasy works set in either the real world or constructed worlds that feature;

A deemphasis on the supernatural. Divine intervention is rare and never rises beyond maybe magic, maybe mundane levels and magic is similarly ambiguous, rare, or impractical. Some secondary world examples lack magic entirely.

Few or no non-human sentients. Many low fantasy worlds are peopled entirely by humans and even where there are exceptions they tend to be rare and the protagonists will still be human. It is worth noting that the same applies to classic fantasy creatures which, when they appear, are often depicted as exotic animals.

Character motivations that tend to be more personal and more grounded than in traditional high or heroic fantasy works. While works featuring anti-heroes or out right villain protagonists are fairly common this is not an integral part of a low fantasy setting.

Low fantasy works set in the real world are distinguished from Magical Realism by style as much as content. Low fantasy favours a less dreamlike treatment of its fantasy elements while in Magic Realism these elements are handled in a deliberately surreal fashion.

So, the Kimono Fanservice IP thread found the description to be contradictory.

It states that,

But claims at the end that,

This was added by a mod in 2011, but the reason is unclear. Was this a TRS or a Description Improvement decision?

Should the note be removed as it contradicts the description and makes the examples all become vague in which ones count and which don't?

There is a difference. I think the way it's worded is a problem. There is a way of draping a kimono over the shoulders in a certain way to expose more of the neck and shoulder flesh (or an undergarment that normally shouldn't be seen) without it being the more modern or western idea of it looking like it's falling off. The most well known, of course, is the way the geisha neckline drops at the back, exposing the nape of the neck and the skin of the shoulder blade. The other (which would be more more of a tayuu/oiran look) is to wear the layers wide so that the neck and part of the collar bone is exposed. Again, this isn't so wide that it looks like it's about to fall off, but it's got that "indecent" kimono aspect to it. Most examples I'm familiar with in the wide shoulder spread usually have an underlayer rather that full skin, but it's white to blend in with the white make-up so it creates the skin-exposed effect even when it's not.

So, I don't think this is entirely wrong:

But I do think it's very badly worded because it introduces language that blurs the line with the fanservice warning. It could probably using a reword along the lines of something like:

While I've read a lot about kimono over the years, I'm not Japanese, so my post needs to be caveated on the basis that I'm using academic knowledge only. If anyone with genuine expertise in the matter can weigh in that would be much better.

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 20th 2023 at 4:52:15 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

- Maybe spawn a Trope Talk thread for it, if you want focused discussion?

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

The problem with that is that the line is still pretty blurry. One of the reasons why the IP thread came to a standstill was because the two parts of the description made it difficult to determine whether or not a pic like this◊ counted as Kimono Fanservice, and even with the suggested revision in mind, you can still make equally strong arguments in either direction.

Be kind.

That's definitely fan service. The kimono isn't contoured and shaped to the body, and there's no well-presented layers. It's deliberately loose and hanging, it's well off the shoulders (around the upper arms) and even the leg is exposed. The kimono is lying on the body all wrong to produce the fanservice.

The point of exposure around the neck and shoulders with a kimono is about wearing the kimono "properly" but indecently — there's still "rules" to follow for how the kimono should sit for that titillation to occur. For example, there's some modern "gyaru oiran" trend examples here◊ and here◊ (I hope the links work), which is definitely not how a real oiran would be wearing her kimono. However, you should be able to see that the off-shoulder look is still very much fixed in place and contoured to the body, so it looks stable and placed rather than loosely falling.

Again, however, I'm throwing in the caveat that I'm not an expert on this subject.

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 20th 2023 at 11:24:23 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I feel like that's weirdly super-specific and still confusing. I want a clear and easy distinction between what's Kimono Fanservice and what's not Kimono fanservice or just plain fanservice.

Yeah, I don't see why it looking like it's about to fall off should disqualify it, either. Theiss Titillation Theory exists, you know.

Edited by badtothebaritone on May 21st 2023 at 4:41:49 AM

There was also confusion around if this trope was just "characters wearing kimono", "characters wearing kimono seductively" and "characters wearing kimono in a setting where you wouldn't normally expect kimono".

So I can't think of anything right now... meh.

Contested Sequel describes itself as a "sub-item" of Broken Base, but there's no reference to Contested Sequel on the Broken Base page.

Any concerns if...

• New wording is added to the Broken Base description, confirming that Contested Sequel is a sub-trope.
• The Contested Sequel phrasing is amended to talk about sub-trope and super-trope, rather than "sub-item"
• The NREP warning on Contested Sequel is standardized with the one we've just added to Even Better Sequel and Surprisingly Improved Sequel after NREP rules were agreed - it currently says it's inherited from Broken Base, but it's not exactly the same rule (Contested Sequel is a simple six months from release, Broken Base is the six months from release or six months from it becoming divisive within fandom, whichever is latest).

This is the warning I've just added elsewhere, as initially posted to the NREP thread:

All sound ok? (None of this is actually changing NREP policy, so it seems more suited to this thread than that one)

Edited by Mrph1 on May 22nd 2023 at 10:05:07 AM

That would be a fitting subject for the Trope Relationships thread. But on my part, if Contested Sequel is described as a Sub-Trope of Broken Base (and I agree it is), then it's only logical to add in Broken Base that Contested Sequel is a Sub-Trope.

The NREP thing should be consulted in the appropriate thread just in case, however.

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

I'll delete the note at the end of Kimono Fanservice that's causing confusion if no one objects:

Revisiting the Fan Nickname post a week or so back - a suggested change to the Sub-Trope text at the end of the Ascended Fanon description.

Current version:

Proposed version, splitting the Sub-Trope list to its own paragraph and adding House Rules and In-Series Nickname links:

Does that look ok?

Given what's emphasised in the description, I read the intent of the trope to be about the use of kimonos as fanservice according to traditional Japanese beauty standards. I think that's worth explaining (I'm fascinated by the variance in which arbitrary body part different cultures identify as the sexiest human organ), but that does make it rather more complicated than adjacent tropes on Fanservice Costumes, especially when what those cultural standards actually are isn't explained very well. If it's impractical to keep that part of the trope, I think it's at least good Analysis/ page material.

If I understand Wyldchyld correctly, though, Kimono Fanservice is something like Sharp-Dressed Man. The intent there is that the clothing is carefully tailored and well-fitted and demonstrates the wearer's tastefulness and attention to their appearance and that these qualities are attractive. An Unkempt Beauty with Perma-Stubble and windswept hair may also be eye candy, half-wearing the disheveled components of a three-piece suit that may or may not fall off, but by definition he is not Sharp-Dressed. It doesn't seem overcomplicated or too specific for Kimono Fanservice to be the same, but it does mean the name is misleadingly broad.

Edited by Noaqiyeum on May 22nd 2023 at 6:09:47 PM

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

Cultural standards that are relevant to the trope should be explained, even if briefly, in the description.

I still don't see how this requirement (?) is important. There's no other way to describe "wearing a kimono is used for fanservice purposes" than this way. A kimono that's worn seductively (off-shoulders, open, etc.) should immediately count.

It seems like it's due to the two / multiple meanings of Fanservice: The sexual, and the non-sexual.

A.k.a Kimonos Are Sexy vs. Pandering to the Base that wants to see kimonos?

Edited by Malady on May 23rd 2023 at 5:10:30 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I think the distinction is that the trope should be about the kimono itself to be sexy / Costume Porn-y. If the fanservice part is it falling off, it's Wardrobe Malfunction or some other fanservice trope. Thus, I think the kind of kimono that is somewhat more revealing than usual should count as Kimono Fanservice, but it actually falling off or looking like it's about to fall off is not. At least that's the original intention of the trope.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

I agree with this.

There have been a few different ways to describe it given in this thread. Which of them are you saying is the only one?

Edited by Noaqiyeum on May 23rd 2023 at 6:54:40 PM

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

That all still seems like a rather arbitrary line to draw. The way I see it, if there's a kimono being worn in a sexually suggestive way, it should count, plain and simple.

But then it's a TRS issue, not a description issue.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.