You should see deconstruction. That word is aaaaaaaaaaaall over the place. Somehow.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerPeople think that if their favourite work subverts a trope it's cool because it's not doing the same thing everyone else is doing. The other thing that they use it for is to shoehorn in works that don't use the trope at all. But they still want to be able to entry pimp more.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickNot to mention how "subversions" tend to become natter magnets.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerRight. Some tropes can't even be subverted anyway. I'm cleaning up More Dakka right now, which is a major fucking project, and I'm pretty sure you can't "subvert" a Rule of Cool trope. Nobody ever said dakka had to be effective, as long as there's more of it.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Exactly. That's a trope that there's no possible way to subvert. It's part of the issue I have with Playing With pages. Most of them are trying to play with things that can't be played with.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick^ This is especially true for truly medium-specific tropes. Sometimes people attempt to shoehorn examples from other media where the trope simply cannot apply in the first place. The first time I looked at PlayingWith.Last Chance Hit Point, 80% of the examples were Wrong On So Many Levels.
Another sticking point I have with misuse of the term is that it's not possible to "accidentally" subvert something; that's Not A Subversion.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Curiously, I've also noticed that some people take the lesson too much to heart, and shy away from labeling something a subversion even when it clearly is (usually in favor of "aversion.") I've even done that myself on a couple of occasions.
But Madrugada's point is also true. It's likely to be a neverending battle, but one thing we probably could do is note in the Playing With Wiki that not all tropes are necessarily inherently capable of having each variation. I don't think I recall seeing that point made before, but it's a good one. I think a lot of people, once they get started on a Playing With, figure it's a Gotta Catch Them All situation, and start shoehorning things in whether they fit or not.
Jet-a-Reeno!That is true, but I'd honestly rather they just list the example without editorial and let the reader decide if it's a subversion or a deconstruction or whatever. For the same reason I hate it when people write "played straight" instead of just listing the example. I've even seen "played even more straight" or "played straight to hell and back" or some other absurd hyperbole, which I believe is supposed to mean "this is an extreme example of the trope." Those I cut too.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.^ In that case, the proper term would be "exaggerated."
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulYes, that is definitely a problem. A few days ago I cut an example of Knight of Cerebus that was supposed to be a subversion because the character didn't actually hail a shift to a darker tone.
I think it is just another example of people trying to shoehorn their favorite tropes into their favorite works and using aversion, subversion and co as Weasel Words when the trope doesn't actually fit all that well.
As for how we can prevent this, we already have a page Not A Subversion. I generally put it in the edit reason whenever I cut something, maybe that helps.
edited 5th Feb '12 3:23:56 PM by eX
I have another long-time sticking point about Playing With pages: Listing every possible playing-with variation we have an article for, whether it's even possible for the trope to manifest in that way or not.
IMHO, I want them formatted as %% comment markers so you don't clutter up a page with a dozen blank entries that may or may not even "exist" for the trope in question, but there are certainly people on the other side of the fence, too.
edited 6th Feb '12 10:04:53 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
That's a good idea. You can change the Playing With Wiki Template accordingly, then, I suppose?
edited 6th Feb '12 11:58:49 AM by troacctid
... there's a template?
In that case, I would rather see the template itself discussed in a wider audience first.
edited 7th Feb '12 10:40:03 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up."Some tropes can't even be subverted anyway. I'm cleaning up More Dakka right now, which is a major fucking project, and I'm pretty sure you can't "subvert" a Rule Of Cool trope."
If someone fakes it happening, that counts as a form of Subverted Trope (heck, we could even split that off into "Faked Trope"). Or something might happen that could cause a person to think a gun is firing that way when it isn't.
So example that do stuff like that would be proper subversions, because these characters, and the audience, think it's happening until it's then revealed that didn't happen. Anything that's downplayed or outright averted, not a subversion of course.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.I have gripes with Double Subversion, too, namely how it boils down to "Subverted Trope BUT DIFFERENT"!
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
I don't know what your talking about.
Subverting a trope and making it look like your subverting a trope but then wind up playing it straight are validly distinct.
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian@DQZ - how would that work, exactly? How do you make the audience think high volume of fire is being used but then it isn't? Throw a bunch of firecrackers to simulate gunshots? That's not a subversion.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
It is if the audience isn't in on it. A subverted trope is playing bait and switch with a trope. The show makes it look like it happened, or will happen, and then it turns out to be something else.
However it it done is unimportant, as long as it is done. Perhaps some people are low on bullets, but have holograms, so they bluff the enemy with those. Perhaps a guy hears this in another room, and it turns out it's just the TV with a newly installed surround sound setup.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Yeah, if you can point me to an example like that, I'll buy it. Any of the "subversions" I cut from the page were nothing like that. It was all, "well they used a buncha bullets on this dood and dood dint die, so it's subversion!"
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Why does everyone want to subvert tropes? Do they think it makes them cooler or more legitimate in a favorite work? I don't think many editors who use the term even know what a subversion actually is. I also think tropes are only very rarely subverted at all.
The real question is, what can we do to curb incorrect usage of the word? The edit tip that says a trope can't be partially subverted is great, but apparently many editors either don't read it even when it pops up, or they just willfully ignore it. I see "a bit subverted," "partially subverted," and "somewhat of a subversion" all over the place. Again, I think the root problem is that people think a subversion makes a trope better and I just can't figure out why.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.