What it says in the title. EDIT: Link to auxiliary sandbox page
Some trope descriptions suffer from problems. Some possible ones:
- Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny!. A paragraph starts explaining element X of the trope, then it wanders off to explain element Y. Two paragraphs after that we're back at element X again. Nary a conjunction is in sight.
- Too long. Stuff that should go in analysis, or maybe in another trope, or maybe nowhere, going in the main space. Too much scrolling required before you can get to the examples.
- Fan Myopia. Some "this is how it happens in WRESTLING!" dissertation is taking up half of the page on a trope about white t-shirts. We already have a thread on that one
- discussion about the general phenomenon goes there, specific candidates to deal with go here.
- General lack of balance and order. Something is emphasized at the expense of the other aspects of the trope, even though it has no right to be. Consequences of the trope come first, then related tropes, then a mention of the Trope Codifier, then common scenarios where it comes into play...
- Failure to answer the fundamental question up front: What is this trope? Not what it "might" be or what can "possibly" happen - what is it?
- Not enough meat. Juicy stuff is missing, like: When is the trope likely to turn up? Why would an author use it? In what ways does the audience often react? Which tropes are related to it and how?
- Spelling and grammar issues.
- The first line which makes honest-to-god sense is below the fold. e.g. Example as a Thesis that makes you go "huh?" instead of "ooooh".
- Bad Writing. Purple Prose, pitching the trope, Wanton Cruelty to the Common Comma.
- Egregiously Fan-Myopic quote.
- Jaywalking.
Bring up trope pages here so we can work on them. If no one does in a while, I'll try to dig something up.
edited 22nd Sep '11 10:48:59 AM by TripleElation
The TRS for Newspaper Comics has requested
that the description of Comic Strips be rewritten to give a more general overview of the genre, not just newspaper syndication. I don't know enough about the medium to describe the objective better.
Strength, Sorcery, Finesse has this hidden note.
"If your example has four or more types of character classes, than it belongs in either Common Character Classes or Character Class System."
But the trope description itself has full elaborate section about hybrid classes, which suggest that four or more classes would be fine as long as they fit the three approach or their combination.
This trope is relatively new, made to replaced Fighter Mage Thief per TRS thread
, but I guess people overlooked this contradiction.
I think either the hidden note or the hybrid section should be remove.
Edited by Kuruni on Oct 19th 2024 at 12:39:44 AM
Considering that the TRS thread basically agreed to limit Strength, Sorcery, Finesse to a subtrope of Three Approach System, I think that the part of the description talking about hybrids should be cut, as do the examples that fall under those hybrids.
Edited by desdendelle on Oct 18th 2024 at 8:12:35 PM
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.Sequelitis needs to have part of its trope description moved to Analysis.Sequelitis.
It has a long list of what causes Sequelitis.
Kirby is awesome.Agreed, this is a really Long List.
Question: why is everyone misusing Zeppelins from Another World ? I keep seeing it on pages for Gaslight Fantasy or Steampunk works, while the very first paragraph in the trope description clearly says this is about characters crossing to a parallel world and being able to tell by the zeppelins in the sky. Rise of the Cybermen, yes. The Angel of the Crows (which does not mention interdimensional travel at all), no. The description is fairly long (could use shortening) and has one or two misleading places, but - rewrite or split?
Not sure if I brought this up in this thread before.
I'm still trying to make heads or tails of Rouge Angles of Satin's description - it always comes off as Word Salad to me. Every time I try to read it, my brain gets fried. I don't know if it's my undiagnosed ADHD kicking in, or if I have to read between the lines, so to speak.
Edited by JHD0919 on Oct 20th 2024 at 8:45:20 AM
x4: whoa... yes, having read through it, I feel that Rouge Angles of Satin's description could be slimmed down by half a dozen lines and made more focused. It doesn't really need several lines of details about different types of spellchecker-derived errors, funny as they may be. (I could see putting the more detailed stuff on the Analysis page.)
If people want, I can go through it myself and trim it.
Really? I don't see any misspellings (EDIT: Apart from the "stops being a fiend and becomes an enema" joke), just a lot of tangentially relevant trivia.
EDIT: Okay, I had to edit this post twice because I keep misspelling the trope. How funny is that?
Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Oct 21st 2024 at 5:59:56 AM
It's been discussed in its thread, but currently Hate Sink is kind of rambly and focuses too much on buzzwords like "vileness" rather than what keeps such a character within an enclosed, abnormal circle of hateability. Does my rewrite hold up?
The Hate Sink is not The Scrappy: the writers wrote the Hate Sink to be hated, while the Scrappy garnered a Hatedom on his own. But it is possible for a Hate Sink to become a Scrappy if the audience hates him for reasons other than what the creators intended. Example
So to summarize:
- The Hate Sink is a character created by the author with the express intention of being loathed by the audience.
- The Scrappy is a character which was not created to be loathed, but still is.Examples
Often overlaps with Complete Monster, which is a character whose vile deeds have cost them the audience's sympathy, though even a Complete Monster can be charismatic, while a Hate Sink never can. Also compare Anti-Role Model, where the character is designed to be a bad example to the audience, but not necessarily designed to be hated by the audience; Love to Hate, when the viewers actually enjoy this character because of how effective they are at being hatable; The Heavy, which is about the impact for the story; Jerkass, who may be unlikable but not necessarily loathsome, especially a Jerk with a Heart of Gold; and Jerks Are Worse Than Villains, which is when fans hate the jerkass character more than the actual villain.note
Contrast with Anti-Villain, when a villain has redeeming qualities; Unintentionally Sympathetic, when the audience likes the character even if the creator didn't intend them to (a character designed to be disliked is not necessarily designed to be hated); Evil Is Cool, when a villain shows cool qualities that make them entertaining for the audience; and Laughably Evil, when a villain is funny and thus entertaining. A Freudian Excuse often prevents a character from being a Hate Sink, even if the story establishes that a Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse, but exceptions do exist.
If all of the work's other characters hate this individual, they are Hated by All and not necessarily a Hate Sink, though the two tropes can and frequently do overlap — a character being Hated By All is often a good indication that the audience is supposed to hate them as well.
Notes: Just because a villain goes out of their way to be cruel doesn't necessarily mean they are a Hate Sink. A Hate Sink is a very specific type of character who is written to provoke the audience's disgust and loathing. You will never sympathize with their motives or acknowledge their Evil Virtues, only feel revulsion and want to see them get their comeuppance as quickly as possible (preferably in a cathartic, horrifying, and/or undignified manner). Villains like Emperor Palpatine and Voldemort lack sympathetic qualities and can be incredibly vile in their worst moments, but the audience is merely meant to root for the heroes to succeed against them, whereas Dolores Umbridge, Shou Tucker or the MCU iteration of the High Evolutionary embody the spiteful, petty, 'mundane' evil that you could experience personally — and possibly have. Not only can you hate them, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you should. Of course, absent a Word of God confirmation, it can be hard to determine if the character is meant to be hated, or at least hated to the extent that a Hate Sink is.
The Hate Sink is fundamentally distinct from The Scrappy: the writers wrote the Hate Sink to be hated, while the Scrappy garnered a Hatedom on his own. That said, the two aren't mutually exclusive; a Hate Sink can become a Scrappy if the audience hates them for reasons other than what the creators intended, such as the karma having its flames extinguished before it could touch the character, the audience finding it uncomfortable to stomach them as a whole due to how often they've ruined what was beforehand thoroughly set up to be a happy ending, and/or their actions coming across as so overdone in their realistic awfulness that they practically define the tone of the work.
So to summarize:
- The Hate Sink is a character created by the author with the express intention of being loathed by the audience.
- The Scrappy is a character which was not created to be loathed, but still is.Examples
Compare Anti-Role Model, where the character is designed to be a bad example to the audience, but not necessarily designed to be hated by the audience; Love to Hate, when the viewers actually enjoy this character because of how effective they are at being hatable; The Heavy, which is about the impact for the story; Jerkass, who may be unlikable but not necessarily loathsome, especially a Jerk with a Heart of Gold; and Jerks Are Worse Than Villains, which is when fans hate the jerkass character more than the actual villain.note
Contrast with Anti-Villain, when a villain has redeeming qualities; Unintentionally Sympathetic, when the audience likes the character even if the creator didn't intend them to (a character designed to be disliked is not necessarily designed to be hated); Evil Is Cool, when a villain shows cool qualities that make them entertaining for the audience; and Laughably Evil, when a villain is funny and thus entertaining. A Freudian Excuse often prevents a character from being a Hate Sink, even if the story establishes that a Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse, but exceptions do exist.
If all of the work's other characters hate this individual, they are Hated by All and not necessarily a Hate Sink — it's common for both tropes to overlap, but it largely depends on whether things like Blue-and-Orange Morality are present enough for the hateability to be understandable to a normal person, i.e. the viewer.
Edited by Coachpill on Oct 23rd 2024 at 7:31:07 AM
Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱That's pretty good, though we may want to elaborate on what sort of personality traits apply and get into the nitty gritty about actions alone not qualifying a character (given the constant comparisons to CM).
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWe may as well throw what you made into a sandbox, since it's pretty solid. My ideas are more of an expansion on your draft than anything.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI agree that there's a real problem with Zeppelins from Another World, but it goes deeper than misuse. The opening paragraph talks of characters stepping into another world, but everything after that suggests it's to convey to the audience, not a character, that this is no the world they know. So simply from the description, I can't say that "alternate technological history or pseudo-historic setting == airships" is misuse. This would need TRS.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.Double post time!
I've tightened the description for Rouge Angles of Satin: moved the more in-depth descriptions of spellchecker-derived errors to the Analysis page, and removed an odd youTube link at the end of the description. (For the record, the link was a five-second clip of Ramiel from Neon Genesis Evangelion. I cannot for the life of me figure out what it was about, except that it was an angel... with angles?)
Let me know whether it reads better now, or anything else needs to be done.
A while back,
I proposed a rewrite for Platonic Boy/Girl Heroes that explained additional reasons for trope implementation. I had been suggested to edit the last paragraph to make it clearer what wasn't counted as an example. I've finally done them, so I would like feedback on what I might need to further fix.
So why is it done so often in fiction?
One reason is to expand the potential audience. While some types of stories appeal primarily to one sex or the other, there are many types of stories, such as horror or Adventure, that have appeal to both sexes. To try to rein in kids who might not want to read a story about a member of the opposite sex, a character of their own gender is included. Sometimes a story that appeals primarily to one sex will include a character of the opposite sex to expand an otherwise limited audience.
Another reason is because many authors simply like seeing the way kids react when paired up with the opposite sex. It can be fun to see the interactions of two people who at times see the opposite sex as being like space aliens.
While groups of friends may be a mixture of three boys and a girl or vice versa, or an equal mix of members of both sexes, that isn't this trope, despite often being done for the same reason. This trope only refers to when a single boy and single girl are the main characters of the story. Why? Because that's far less likely (unless they're siblings) than a group of mixed gender friends, and therefore more starkly obvious, more clearly done for the sake of the story.
Note that the relationship must be platonic. Romantic relationships don't count, since those involve a more believable reason for two opposite sex kids to get together. Siblings don't count either, since that's far more common in real life and less likely to feel "forced" for the sake of getting a girl and a boy together.
This sometimes leads to a Toy Ship from the fandom. Compare Platonic Life-Partners, which this trope also falls into if the boy and girl have known each other for a long time.
Named after Blogger Beware's tally of the "platonic boy/girl relationship" in every single Goosebumps novel ever.
So why is it done so often?
One reason is because many authors simply like seeing the way kids react when paired up with the opposite gender. It can be fun to see the interactions of two people who at times see their counterparts as being like space aliens, especially if their interests intersect at times. As for why it's kept platonic, romance is typically thought of as something kids avoid until they're older, so the kids wouldn't consider it when they interact.
Another reason is to expand the potential audience. While some types of stories appeal primarily to one demographic or the other, there are many types of stories, such as horror or Adventure, that have broader appeal to both. To try to rein in kids who might not want to read a story about a member of the opposite sex, a character of their own gender is included. Sometimes a story that appeals primarily to one demographic will include a character of the opposite to expand an otherwise limited audience.
When done with older characters, authors may also do this to defy the expectation of mixed-gender duos needing to have a Token Romance. Young boys and girls are commonly expected to play with kids of their own gender, so if a boy approaches a girl or vice versa, it's often thought to be for a romantic reason; this is usually under the heteronotmative assumption that the kids would be attracted to the opposite gender in a way that a group of two boys or two girls wouldn't be. By portraying a healthy platonic relationship, it can open up opportunities for the readers to find things they may have in common or become more understanding of the other.
While mixed-gender groups do often appear in media and can be platonic, they are usually not considered examples due to the characters not being expected to have romantic feelings for every member of the group the way that close duos would. Similarly, this is also the reason why certain mixed-gender duos such as Sibling Teams or characters with differing orientations may get around this stigma; since they have a "reason" to not be attracted to each other, the pair staying platonic is acceptable.
This sometimes leads to a Toy Ship from the fandom. Compare Platonic Life-Partners, which this trope also falls into if the boy and girl have known each other for a long time.
Named after Blogger Beware's tally of the "platonic boy/girl relationship" in every single Goosebumps novel ever.
So why is it done so often?
One reason is because many authors simply like seeing the way kids react when paired up with the opposite gender. It can be fun to see the interactions of two people who at times see their counterparts as being like space aliens, especially if their interests intersect at times. As for why it's kept platonic, romance is typically thought of as something kids avoid until they're older, so the kids wouldn't consider it when they interact.
Another reason is to expand the potential audience. While some types of stories appeal primarily to one demographic or the other, there are many types of stories, such as horror or Adventure, that have broader appeal to both. To try to rein in kids who might not want to read a story about a member of the opposite sex, a character of their own gender is included. Sometimes this may be done to blend elements common to one demographic's version of the genre into the other.
When done with older characters, authors may also do this to defy the expectation of mixed-gender duos needing to have a Token Romance. Young boys and girls are commonly expected to play with kids of their own gender, so if a boy approaches a girl or vice versa, it's often thought to be for a romantic reason; this is usually under the heteronotmative assumption that the kids would be attracted to the opposite gender in a way that a group of two boys or two girls wouldn't be. By portraying a healthy platonic relationship, it can open up opportunities for the readers to find things they may have in common or become more understanding of the other, without feeling compelled to only approach based on romance.
While mixed-gender groups do often appear in media and can be platonic, they are generally not considered examples due to the characters not being expected to have romantic feelings for every member of the group the way that close duos would. Duos within those groups, on the other hand, may have that expectation. Similarly, this is also the reason why certain mixed-gender duos such as Sibling Teams or characters with differing orientations may get around this stigma; since they have a "reason" to not be attracted to each other, the pair staying platonic is acceptable.
This sometimes leads to a Toy Ship from the fandom. Compare Platonic Life-Partners, which this trope also falls into if the boy and girl have known each other for a long time.
Named after Blogger Beware's tally of the "platonic boy/girl relationship" in every single Goosebumps novel ever.
Edited by nanakiro on Oct 30th 2024 at 1:49:49 AM
Posting here to try to get a little help with an issue. Basically, TRS recently decided
to split Feed the Mole, limiting the existing page to be about taking advantage of the presence of a mole by giving the mole information that you want their superiors to believe. I've already come up with a draft description, but I've been unable to get any feedback in the TRS thread. I figured maybe I'd have better luck here. My draft description is below. Please let me know what needs to be changed, or if you think it's fine as is.
After all, if you control what information the enemy is receiving, then you can control what they're thinking. Just, make sure they don't figure out what you're doing, otherwise you could wind up in an I Know You Know I Know scenario. For this reason, many people feed their moles true but useless information in order to prolong their useful lifespan.
This is one of The Thirty-Six Stratagems, making it Older Than Feudalism. See also the Double Agent who is knowingly feeding bad information to one side. Compare Bluff the Eavesdropper and Staging the Eavesdrop.

Thank you, I'll implement the new description now.
"The only thing which is certain, is that something will happen".