Follow TV Tropes
Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea. Just be sure to do a wick-check.
Well crud, I didn't come back and see that instruction until I had already posted the thread. Is it too late now? I'm not very familiar with the process of doing a wick check.
Edited by MrL1193 on Aug 18th 2019 at 9:41:22 AM
It's not too late, just edit the post. With all the backlog, it could be a while before the thread gets looked at, so you do have time.
Wick checks are easy once you get used to them. Here's my personal process:
...however, Not Their Birthday only has 25 wicks, so your job will be even easier- just check all 25 wicks and record them, no randomization and numbering needed.
Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 18th 2019 at 12:49:43 PM
Well, I don't know if I did it right, but I gave it a shot.
Crewx has just added a lot of information to Knife Nut, and it made me realize a fundamental issue: All the description discusses is that "knives are used and here's why", not the character themselves- and that's bad, because Knife Nut is a character trope!
The description for Poirot Speak is missing a description. It just jumps right into talking about the Trope Namer and it being Truth in Television and related tropes without ever telling us what the trope actually is.
(This is my first time in this thread. Sorry if I'm not doing it right)
Edited by storyyeller on Aug 22nd 2019 at 2:19:12 PM
The laconic says "Otherwise well-spoken language sprinkled with a few inconsistencies here and there to show that the speaker is a foreigner."
I guess we can just slap that in there? Not unedited, but I imagine pretty close to.
I think Poirot Speak also has an image problem. The image isn't portraying Poirot Speak (which is supposed to be a very good command of the primary language that requires the odd grammar or foreign word/syntax drop here and there to remind the audience that this primary language isn't the speaker's native language). It's portraying mangled language and grammar akin to either You No Take Candle or Eloquent in My Native Tongue.
I agree that the bit Poirot Speak is missing could come from a rewrite of the laconic. The key points to convey is that the speaker clearly has excellent command of the native language, so the author/creator is using the technique of peppering the speaker's use of words, grammar or syntex with occasional errors to remind the reader/audience that the speaker is not currently speaking his native tongue.
I'd also like to flag Patchwork Kids as needing a rewrite.
The point of the trope is that, unlike Strong Family Resemblance where a child strongly resembles only one parent, Patchwork Kids is where the kid strongly resembles both parents, having taken identifiable traits from both parents instead of just one.
That's fine. That comes across as written. The problem is that the trope is currently written like a complaint; in places, it even sounds like it's bashing storytellers who do this, as if it's someone's pet peeve masquerading as a trope.
I think it needs a neutrality rewrite, especially given the fact that tropes are not supposed to be automatically bad.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 23rd 2019 at 6:10:55 PM
What a weird trope to have a complainy description. Definitely endorse a rewrite.
Yeesh. thirding a rewrite.
The caption for the page image probably isn't helping in that regard by implying that the child is some sort of abomination (although it is true that the parents make for a rather unusual couple).
Yeah, that description sucks.
On a less serious note, I came across the term "bacon sarnie" in the description of Straw Vegetarian. Apparently, "sarnie" is British slang for "sandwich," but I had no clue what it meant until I googled it. Would anyone object if I just changed it to "sandwich"?
While I'm American, I've literally never encountered that word in any media originating from Britain I've seen, which is not a short list. (In fact I had to repeatedly reread your post to correctly kern it). I'm inclined to say change it.
I agree with adding an expansion of Poirot Speak's Laconic to the description (ideally before the paragraph before the one about the Trope Namer) and using the more internationally recognized word "sandwich" for Straw Vegetarian's description.
Edit: Also, the description for Patchwork Kids has a chained sinkhole in the third paragraph in addition to the stuff mentioned before.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 24th 2019 at 7:58:40 AM
x4: I've complained enough about US terms that make no sense to people outside the US, so I think turn-about is fair play.
The reason some of you who are familiar with British media might never have encountered it is because it's very common, conversational English to use, but wouldn't be used in a formal setting and is often not used in a written environment because it can come across as lazy (depending on the context). In terms of conversational use, it can be used as innocent, every day slang, but it can also be used to cast shade.
Looking at its use in the Straw Vegetarian trope description, 'sarnie' is being used to pour scorn on the Strawman in that snooty, mocking, British style. So, the intent isn't going to convey on two counts: lack of familiarity with the term and lack of familiarity with the British style of casting shade with the written word.
So, in another example of neutralising a trope description, I agree that 'sarnie' should be changed to 'sandwich'.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 24th 2019 at 3:29:18 PM
All right, I made the change on Straw Vegetarian and linked this discussion in the edit reason.
I removed a now-inaccurate bit about Yoko Oh No from Die for Our Ship's description. The former was described as being the latter's equivalent for real people, but it's now NRLEP and IUEO (this was decided on TRS; I linked to the thread in my edit summary).
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 28th 2019 at 2:30:00 PM
Can the specific details in Good Weapon, Evil Weapon be put into an Analysis page?
Animating Artifact thinks as if the artifact only works by putting it into/onto the recipient's body. Some examples, however, works differently (like in Touhou example).
I'd like the description to mention other variants, as well. Heck, I'd like to rewrite them myself.
What do you guys think?
I am on deck to rewrite Patchwork Kids, but I wanted to clarify - the examples indicate that this trope applies to creators' works and fans' works, but the description as written only seems concerned with fan work (see "When writing Kid Fic..." and the repeated references to fans). Am I correct in assuming that the rewrite should reflect the broader use of the trope?
Here's my Patchwork Kids rewrite for consideration:
When two or more fictional characters reproduce, a logical next step for many creators is to concoct an appearance for the offspring. In the real world, a human child might resemble one parent more than the other, or have traits reminiscent of both—or they may resemble neither, since physical traits are known to merrily skip generations before reappearing further down the family tree.
Of course, fiction doesn't have to adhere to reality, so some creators have fun playing with LEGO Genetics. The parents' body types, hair styles, facial features, and other physical characteristics are patched together to create the child's appearance, with little regard for the complexity of real-life genetic lottery mashup. Maybe the child is an exact (if smaller) duplicate of one of the parents, or maybe they exhibit cloned traits from both parents—for example, Alice and Bob have a daughter who inherits her mother's freckles and exact hairstyle, along with her father's eye color and big feet. In some cases, the child might have two-toned hair or Mismatched Eyes, so that both parents' most recognizable characteristics are represented simultaneously.
Compare Gender Equals Breed. See Superpowerful Genetics for superpower heredity. Subtrope of All Genes Are Codominant. Contrast Random Species Offspring, when the offspring is a different species altogether from their parents, and Hollywood Genetics, when the offspring ends up with physical traits that neither parent has.
Edited by potshotbeta on Aug 29th 2019 at 5:01:19 AM
Are Literature Doorstoppers supposed to be single books only? Or can whole series count?
Doorstopper.Fan Works splits itself into talking about series and single stories separately...
Does this need to be in Kitchen Sink Drama?
Edited by Malady on Aug 29th 2019 at 8:57:17 AM
Found this line on All Girls Like Ponies:
"And even in North America and Western Europe, this is an Evolving Trope, which has been undergoing some highly unexpected developments since about 2010."
Evolving Trope is sinkholed to Sarcasm Mode and "since about 2010" points to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. In addition, it could stand to be merged into the previous paragraph. Thoughts?
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?