Rename proposed: Inspector Javert

"Inspector Javert is the well-intentioned law enforcement officer (or detective, or Bounty Hunter) who legitimately believes that the hero is a bad guy and doggedly pursues him in a Stern Chase, seeking to get him. "

I think the word we are looking for is Implacable. Inspector Javert is a subtrope of the Implacable Man. A case in which the Implacable Man is vaguely sympathetic because he represents the forces of law and order, is not corrupt (or unjust), and is pursing the hero because either he mistakenly believes the hero to be guilty, or the hero is legally guilty even if morally correct and the inspector sees his job as enforcing the law.

Implacable Inspector seems to grab the heart of it to me. This Inspector won't give up, not even if the Hero really had a good reason to break the law.

edited 4th Jan '12 7:45:22 AM by Sackett

The Sympathetic Inspector Antagonist can also be Implacable. That is not a distinct trope.

Pursuing the Wrongfully Accused is unjust. Breaking the law to capture a criminal is unjust. Punishing the innocent is unjust. Punishing a criminal who has paid their debt to society is unjust.

It is the realization at the end of the chase that the criminal he was pursuing was morally innocent that can cause him to break down, or suffer Heel Realization.

edited 4th Jan '12 8:33:43 AM by crazysamaritan

Pursuing the Wrongly Accused is not unjust if you have a valid reason for thinking they are in fact guilty. Being mistaken is not the same is being unjust.

Where did we get the term Unjustly Imprisoned, then? Just because the cop thinks you did it does not mean he can lock you up for that crime. They need solid evidence and a judge.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that this is only about cops locking people up without evidence and a judge. A person can actually be guilty of the crime they are accused of and the cop can be acting perfectly within the bounds of the law and the criminal justice system, yet it can still be a case of Inspector Javert.

Inspector Javert scenarios need not be about the cop doing anything wrong. It is about the disconnect between the moral character of the protaganist and the assumptions the cop makes about the moral character of the protaganist.

While I'm not particularly attached to "unjust", I think the disconnect in the current argument is over whether "justice" and "the law" are the same thing; they're not. Justice is an abstract ideal of people getting the treatment they deserve, law is a concrete list of rules which purport to be a means toward justice but may in fact be unjust. An authority figure following the law to the letter may still be acting unjustly.

Noir Grimoire, I'm still not seeing why this needs to be renamed. The premise that all character-named tropes must be renamed is not in accordance with how renaming works. Nor is the premise that we should rename tropes to align with another trope. Both of these ignore individual consideration of the trope.

• If Inspector Javert were a three-dimensional character, it would be a bad trope name. He isn't. To quote Kate Beaton, "Javert is like a robot in a cast of humans." It is possible to debate exactly what he stands for, but that's because he's a character in a work subject to lots of literary criticism, and literary criticism can argue anything. The character is singularly focused on the trope.

• If he were an obscure character, it would be a bad trope name. He isn't. A reader on the wiki might not have heard of him, and there's nothing wrong with that, but he is a important character in a significant work of literature, is the Ur-Example, is archetypical of the trope, and the inspiration for one of the most famous modern examples, Gerard from The Fugitive, among others.

• If the name was being misused or not getting used when appropriate, it would be a bad trope name. It isn't, unless you bring up the discussion in this thread, which is based chiefly on the semantics of "just", "unjust", "lawful" and different interpretations of ethics.

Can you please respond to my points rather than just claiming "it's already been decided?"

I'm fine with keeping the current name. Even if you want to say that the character is 3 dimensional, the trope itself is 3 dimensional. Like many character archetypes, it isn't as simple as a single factor that can clearly summed up in a simple adjectives-noun combination.

I did respond to your points, you just ignored them completely. And none of that addresses that character named tropes are against the rules.

edited 4th Jan '12 1:46:51 PM by NoirGrimoir

New character named tropes are against the rule. If there has been a declaration requiring that existing character named tropes must be renamed, it needs to be better advertised.

Inspector Javert is being renamed because of the same reasons Zenigata was renamed, if you want to see the discussion, go there and read it, and if you have anything new to add, then bring it up. Don't jump into the middle of something without catching up and demand everyone go backwards without having something new to say.

So let me rephrase this: Is there a list of Wiki Rules somewhere that says that all existing character named tropes are requred to be renamed? If so, please link. If not, don't claim character named tropes are against the rules.

edited 4th Jan '12 4:01:17 PM by Auxdarastrix

Character names are against the rules and a trope being named after a character is a completely valid point to bring up when considering a rename though it is not a primary reason to rename in and of itself.

It is not against the rules for a trope to be named after a character. That's just not a rule that we have. It's similar to some other guidelines that we do have, but it's not an actual thing.

I know all are rules are like guidelines, but it is documented here: Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Names as a reason to rename. Saying we don't have to rename a character-named trope, isn't the same as saying we shouldn't rename a character named trope. Saying it's not a rules is not an argument.

edited 4th Jan '12 2:33:47 PM by NoirGrimoir

Before this gets too mired down in policy debate, can we go ahead and run the adjusted description? No one has actually expressed objections to it.

What is the adjusted definition? I've heard several.

This one.

Something like Knight Templar Detective is sounding better all the time to me.

Being named after a character is listed as a possible reason for changing a name, not a requirement that it must be changed.

I've also seen guidance from Fast Eddie in some threads to the effect that you shouldn't name a trope something that depends on understanding another trope name. That came up when using Tsundere in a trope name was shot down. If you don't know how we are using Knight Templar on this page, you won't understand this because the Knights of the Order of the Temple of Solomon have nothing at all to do with the trope. They don't have much to do with the Knight Templar trope either, which makes them a bad Trope Namer for that, but it is so well established I'm not going to propse.

Replacing a Trope Namer that is an example with a Trope Namer that is not an example is not a move in the right direction.

My personal opinion: Keep the Name Unless a Better One is Suggested. The problem with "unjust" is that it much broader than the trope as described. Same with implacable.

Seriously though, we need a hard and fast Rules and Regulations page all in one spot that covers this stuff rather than us having strain tea leaves to interpret Word Of Eddie and precedent from various other threads. Figuring out policy shouldn't be like trying to do case law research.

@Noir Grimoir

You can't say: "Go see the reasons in this other thread why this should be renamed."

This is the thread for renaming Inspector Javert, so the arguments should be placed in this thread.

Also, you are incorrect, Inspector Zenigata was renamed for reasons that do not apply to Inspector Javert. Including obscurity, lack of wicks, and other signs of unhealthiness.

None of which have been shown about Inspector Javert. Perhaps someone should check that out first.

Going back to the "unjust" argument it is a misleading adjective because it is not a required part of the trope. In fact I'd argue it misses the point of this type of character. It's pretty clear actually that an Inspector Javert is not a corrupt cop who breaks the law to throw someone in jail.

He's an Implacable Man who simply doesn't care about the protagonist's excuses for his lawbreaking. Merciless yes, but unjust no. In fact it usually is his love of justice that drives him to incredible extremes in his attempts to capture the hero. That's why he's an interesting character.

Inspector Javert is the character that makes you realize there is nothing so fearsome as a truly just man. He has no pity, no mercy, no hesitation in making you pay fully for your crime- even if your crime is breaking your parole because everyone distrusts you once they find out you are a convict.

Demanding punishment for such a crime is merciless, but it is surely just.

We tend to think that because "justice" is a good thing that therefor it must conform to our vision of what the "right" outcome is, but that's not true. Justice says if you do the crime, you pay the time. Reap what you sow. Do unto them as they did to others. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life.

That's why Inspector Javert's such a powerful character in Les Miserables, he represents the truth about Valjean. Valjean is a criminal. Valjean did break into another man's house and robbed him. Valjean did break his parole. Valjean did rob a Bishop who had shown him mercy.

Valjean is not innocent.

Everyone loses sight of this fact because Valjean has changed to become such a wonderful person. But in truth Valjean is guilty. Inspector Javert's pursuit of him is just, not merely lawful.

That's why Inspector Javert is powerful character to have in a work despite being very 2 dimensional. Being 2 dimensional is his point. He forces us to realize the inherent limitations of justice, and thus why mercy is a good and necessary thing.

There is no justice without mercy.

Valjean paid his debt. Then society decided to punish him for being a criminal. He had paid his debt and was not freed from his crime. The crime Itself shadowed him, haunted him, blocked his very path. He paid the debt the law required for theft. Then the unjust society demanded he pay more.

When he was due penance, he gave it. When he was due mercy, he did not receive it. The story was about law preventing justice.

edited 4th Jan '12 7:06:49 PM by crazysamaritan

Well, it's got ~400 Wicks and inbounds, so not good, but not great. Even just skimming through the page though, the examples aren't consistently fitting the definition. They seem to be all over the place, at least the ones that are more than "X is this for Y". Even without doing a full wick check there's a strong current of misuse.

Gave it and then some. Five years sentence to forced labor for petty theft, 14 more for varous escape attempts and such. The prison system nearly broke him and he did not leave it a nice man, until the bishop's mercy and ensuing Heel Realization saved him.

This is one reason why I want Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! to be explicitly written into the definition: to do the right thing he had to break the law along with his parole and that's why Javert was hunting him.

edited 4th Jan '12 8:04:49 PM by Elle

This is a trope. What needs to be in the description is what is common to the trope, not necessarily what has to do with the Trope Namer.