Do you have trouble remembering the difference between Deathbringer the Adorable and Fluffy the Terrible?
Do you have trouble recognizing when you've written a Zero-Context Example?
Not sure if you really have a Badass Bookworm or just a guy who likes to read?
Well, this is the thread for you. We're here to help you will all the finer points of example writing. If you have any questions, we can answer them. Don't be afraid. We don't bite. We all just want to make the wiki a better place for everyone.
Useful Tips:
- Make sure that the example makes sense to both people who don't know the work AND don't know the trope.
- Wrong: The Mentor: Kevin is this to Bob in the first episode.
- Right: The Mentor: Kevin takes Bob under his wing in the first episode and teaches him the ropes of being a were-chinchilla.
- Never just put the trope title and leave it at that.
- Wrong: Badass Adorable
- Right: Badass Adorable: Xavier, the group's cute little mascot, defeats three raging elephants with both hands tied behind his back using only an uncooked spaghetti noodle.
- When is normally far less important than How.
- A character name is not an explanation.
- Wrong: Full Moon Silhouette: Diana
- Right: Full Moon Silhouette: At the end of her transformation sequence into Moon Princess Misty, Diana is shown flying across the full moon riding a rutabaga.
Other Resources:
For best results, please include why you think an example is iffy in your first post.
Also, many oft-misused tropes/topics have their own threads, such as Surprisingly Realistic Outcome (here
) and Fan-Preferred Couple (here). Tropers are better able to give feedback on examples you bring up to specific threads.
For cleaning up examples of Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard, you must use their dedicated threads: Complete Monster Cleanup, Magnificent Bastard Cleanup.
Edited by Synchronicity on Sep 18th 2023 at 11:42:55 AM
she/her
So I cutlisted the SF Debris page, and I see someone else cutlisted the History of Power Rangers page. I'll go through the rest later today and put them in a sandbox page, because I'm sure there are going to be some questionable examples that I'll need additional input on.
I removed examples from TheReasonYouSuckSpeech.Atop The Fourth Wall. Some of the remaining examples are directed toward writers. Should these examples be removed as well?
Short-Term Projects herald
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'd say yes.
he/him | Image Pickin' regular
No, I think a reviewer towards a writer counts as a "The Reason You Suck" Speech, especially since the Real Life section maintenance thread voted to keep real life examples.
Edited by rjd1922 on Dec 1st 2019 at 4:46:27 AM
Keet cleanup
she/her
I have two issues with "reviewer tears into writers of a show they don't like".
- It's complaining by proxy. The tropers who put these examples up almost certainly agree with the speech and the reviewer's opinion of the writer, and by quoting the reviewer's speech, they're putting up complaining that technically someone else wrote, so the tropers themselves aren't complaining, right?
- Judging from the specific types of speeches on the main page, I think a critical requirement for the trope is "the target must be able to hear the speech". There's no guarantee that the writers are going to go on YouTube and look up rant videos where the reviewers tell them what terrible people they are.
Anyway, I took a first crack at sorting the examples on the web original page: Sandbox.The Reason You Suck Speech. I would like some input on the things I tagged as questionable examples.
Edited by Serac on Dec 1st 2019 at 5:25:13 AM
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I agree, I don't think those examples fit the spirit of the trope.
Is it Rhetorical Question Blunder if the rhetorical question fails because the listener doesn't know the answer?
"The Reason You Suck" Speech examples involving people giving a negative speech toward the work's writers or a character within the work always came off as stealth-complaining to me, and after reading the description, they don't really fit the nature of the trope.
Edited by ADrago on Dec 1st 2019 at 8:43:31 AM
Short-Term Projects herald
Same here. Especially given that Mr. Enter is a very divisive figure, as well as one whose thoughts are not fictional, we should have pulled that page earlier, but there it sat for 5 years.
Also, all three of the questionable examples can be cut, too.
Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!
I thought sharks were my friends.
Does anybody want to weigh in on my Kick the Dog example?
RIP KissAnime.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
It's definitely misuse. Kick the Dog is when a villain or antagonist does something pointless, that only serves to prove they're evil.
I thought sharks were my friends.
Understood, I won't add it. I'll also delete the Jerkass Woobie example.
RIP KissAnime.
~@Twiddler
Looking at Rhetorical Question Blunder myself, I don't think whether the listener knows the answer to the question matters. I'm understanding it as a question that doesn't need an answer is asked but someone tries answering it anyway. Whether the answer is right or wrong is irrelevant.
Edited by sgamer82 on Dec 1st 2019 at 8:07:55 AM
Hm. Well, the exchanges I was considering for the trope are:
- "Does water freeze quicker than mud?" (meaning yes)
"I'm not sure...does it?"- And later, with the same characters:
"Does hoarfrost kill a good juniper crop?" (meaning yes)
"Does it?"
[first character's thoughts] Guess they don't have the same sayings here.
I believe that "The Reason You Suck" Speech doesn’t really need folders (except for maybe DBZ Abridged) or subpages for each Web Original anymore when you cut out all the bad examples in each folder and subpage.
Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!
Tough call. They count in the sense that they're taking the rhetorical question seriously, but it's more like asking for clarification than trying to give an answer.
Is this My Beloved Smother?
- Kowai Beach City: When Garnet announces that Steven got hurt, Pearl and Amethyst wince as the latter moans "hoo boy". A now much more panicked Rose rushes to Steven's side, crying cup-fulls over the tiny scrape on his knee as Steven tries to calm her down.
No, that doesn’t demonstrate controlling or stifling behaviour.
- Hilarious in Hindsight: Tyler Hoechlin's next role in a comic book adaptation was very different.
Ugh... "Actor plays a different role in a different work" sounds like People Sit On Chairs.
Oh god, it's an intersection of the two worst shoehorning habits on the site - abusing the hindsight tropes and "ACTOR HAS BEEN IN MORE THAN ONE THING!!" Also it's basically a ZCE.
Cut with extreme prejudice.
Edited by nrjxll on Dec 2nd 2019 at 2:29:26 PM
Guess I rewrote it for nothing... Ah well, its gone. Moving on, does this (from the same work) have enough context?
- Infodump: A comic released in the middle of the first chapter details a TubeTube video of Ronaldo talking about the myths and legends behind Rose Quartz, detailing her once being a shrine maiden gifted with the ability to see yokai, rumored to have been blessed by the gods themselves to protect humanity in exchange for an unnaturally long life.
Could use more context to show how long or wordy it is.
Another exchange for consideration for Rhetorical Question Blunder (same work/characters):
“Is holly safe to eat?”
“Yes?”
“No! It’s poisonous.”
Didn't get a response for an inquiry I asked previously.
Troper pikachu17 removed this from Hazbin Hotel
- All Gays are Promiscuous: Played straight by Angel Dust, who embodies this old homophobic stereotype to a T. Subverted, however, by Charlie and Vaggie being a lesbian couple who don't exhibit any promiscuous traits (though Vaggie was a prostitute in life). The implication then is that Angel Dust isn't in Hell for being gay, but for being a slut (and a drug-abusing mobster); so "all gays are promiscuous" is untrue of the series, it's just that this particular one is.
They also removed this from All Gays are Promiscuous
- Angel Dust from Hazbin Hotel is a Camp Gay spider-demon with zero sense of shame. His first interaction with Alastor is to offer him a blowjob and he immediately starts hitting on Husk when he joins the hotel staff. This is averted with Charlie and Vaggie, who are a lesbian couple, yet display no promiscuity. The implication here being that Angel Dust isn't in Hell for being gay, but for being an open slut and an unapologetic mobster. While this trope is untrue for the series, it's just that this particular one is.
Their reasons for removing were basically if literally not all gay characters are promiscuous then it doesn't count.
The All Gays are Promiscuous page however says otherwise based on several entries, its laconic, and its playing with page. It seems that all that's needed to qualify for the trope is simply a gay character in a work being promiscuous as per the stereotype, not necessarily literally all gay characters in a work being promiscuous. This appears to be the case based on a number of entries in the trope that are similar to the ones pikachu17 removed.
Based on what's presented in the actual trope, the entries that pikachu17 removed actually do qualify. Correct?
I recall seeing this brought up somewhere else, and it seemed like people were fairly unclear overall as to what the trope is supposed to be.
~Serac, be my guest. Chop away at anything that doesn't fit. In the words of Johnnie Cochran, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit".
That said, "The Reason You Suck" Speech is listed on Sandbox.Keep Real Life Examples. Personally, I'd this to be re-evaluated; not only is this inherit misuse as it's not between characters, but it also leads to drama importation of the type you described.
Edited by Brainulator9 on Dec 1st 2019 at 11:18:33 AM
Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!