Duplicate Trope: Pure Awesomeness

Wait, what did That Human suggest we do? I can't see the suggestion in their post.

I think it's pretty much that awesomeness in itself has a tangible effect.

In other words, if it's justified by something else (say, many things done by Rakan, who sometimes gives the appearance of only making things happen with awesomeness) it's not this trope.

Awesomeness Is Volatile is a subtrope where said effect is things exploding. However, it's not just "Pure Awesomeness + Stuff Blowing Up", since explosions are specifically used to signify awesomeness as a prominent recurring pattern.

Would "This character is awesomeness in person. Their mere presence causes awesomeness to happen" make a good first sentence for the trope?

The first sentence seems like it could attract "Mr X is this trope incarcerated!!!one!"

The second is great.

I see the problem with the description, it is vague but I get the picture, but it does seem like a legitimate trope that I am opposed to cutting or merging.

The definition as I am interpreting it is "Awesomeness is a force that exists in-universe and not just a subjective view" (which "causes tangible physical harm to their enemies"). However, the definition of Awesomeness Is Volatile is "Sufficient amounts of awesomeness causes explosions", which seems more like a Sub-Trope than anything ("several examples of [Pure Awesomeness] have a common element not seen in the other examples", i.e. explosions caused by overabundance, hence Awesomeness Is Volatile).

The best solution I see, and the one I propose, is merely to rewrite Pure Awesomeness to make it clearer. Even the Laconic version is unclear and makees it seem like someone who looks awesome.

And just in case you missed it, the definition as I see it is "Awesomeness is a force that exists in-universe and not just a subjective view".

Potholing to Viewers Are Morons while addressing other tropers isn't kosher. Do not do that.

I know this trope is distinct, but we'll need some heavy description rewrite and cleanup to make it work.

The examples should probably be trimmed. If it is not described as "Awesome" or some similar term in the story itself by at least narration if not any characters there in it should not be listed.

Okay borderline case. Would be like this.

• Motel Vontavious Porter, half man half amazing and one half of the tag team champions. He is so amazing he can three halves!

Borderline because amazing is similar enough to awesome and explains an impossibility away but it only half amazing, not pure amazingness.

In other words, this is not really related to awesomeness is volatile at all, this is a sub trope to It Runs On Nonsenseoleum.

Therefore Tron Legacy should probably be cut. Flin's effects are not described in terms of "Because he is awesome" there is a fairly rational reason for why he can do what he can do, both to the audience and to the people inside.

The trope namer here should probably be the measuring stick for all other examples. The legend of the legendary warrior whose kung fu skills were the stuff of legend. His pure awesomeness alone could blind his enemies.

edited 23rd Feb '13 9:24:41 AM by Cider

There does seem to be a pattern of being awesome makes stuff happen. There's actually a power in Vampire The Masquerade and Vampire The Requiem called Majesty/Sovereignty that basically makes you appear so awesome and commanding that no one can attack you.

I think the name may be contributing both to misuse for a subjective thing, and underuse for what the actual trope is. I think a name like The Power Of Awesome would probably work a lot better.

Awesomeness Is Powerful, Awesomeness Is Magic...

I think we would be better off it the subjective banner did not exist, was significantly shrunken or at least heavily discouraged if that is the truth. Anyway I think it needs a cleanup and maybe a tweaking of the description. More than repair I really think it just needs more clear examples. I will add one.

Edit: I will also request the deletion of examples that lack content or do not line up with the description. Real life examples could be possible, but both real life examples currently listed should probably be deleted along with the Tron one.

Crowning Moment Of Awesome? That should be removed from the description as it is a Sugar Wiki audience reaction/Just for Fun thing and should not be used to describe tropes. Something much plainer such as "Normally for people to consider someone awesome, that someone must do something"

edited 23rd Feb '13 9:35:16 PM by Cider

I agree.

I agree, except that a) this topic isn't for anti-YMMV soapboxing and b) Awesome is pertinent to this page, as it is an In-Universe simile to Awesome.

The fact that the awesomeness is in-universe is precisely why it should not be marked as subjective nor refer to subjective tropes in the description.

Neither of those things really gets at the real issues with the page, though, as has been discussed.

Hmm, is the "awesomeness" here the same as in CMOA, but In-Universe?

Not really... or, kind of, but it's misleading. As I understand it, it's basically the same concept as Awesomeness Is Volatile only awesomeness is causing things to happen besides explosions. Like a thing that is awesome generates an intangible aura of awesomeness around it, and when the field is strong enough or combines with other fields to become so it makes Stuff Happen^* technical term.

Yes, exactly. I think the best approach is "non-explosions supertrope of Awesomeness Is Volatile"

And I like the name The Power Of Awesome.

I do think, however that a distinction should be drawn between "awesomeness is a force that has a tangible effect on the world" vs. "X is so awesome that everybody is forced to react to the awesome by doing Y". In other words, I don't think the Vampire example is Pure Awesome, I think it's "I look so supernaturally impressive/royal that everybody reacts in-universe by doing Y".

Does that make sense?

edited 25th Feb '13 8:19:39 AM by ArcadesSabboth

I think the Vampire example is more just an example of Glamour.

What about Awesomeness Is Dangerous or Awesomeness Based Superpower?

Awesomeness Is Dangerous is too close to Awesomeness Is Volatile, in my mind. They both suggest the same sort of explosives hazard sign.

Renewing clock.

Awesomeness Based Superpower works. The current name really doesn't, because anything can be described as Pure Awesome in the spirit of Gushing About Shows You Like.

What Spark9 said. The current name is really unclear. I support ditching it.

Thirding Sparky's suggestion.

While I'd normally ask for some actual proof of misuse before arguing for a rename, if we're redefining or tightening it up, I think it might be reasonable anyway. Though I'd really want a name suggestion I like before fully supporting that.

Awesomeness Based Superpower kind of works, but it's very bland to me, and sounds more like a laconic than a name (all it lacks is a beginning "An"). Would just Awesomeness Superpower or Awesomeness Power still work?