Laconic Description Improvement

The new laconic looks good to me.

She/Her | Currently cleaning N/A

Seconded.

---

Someone rewrote the Laconic for Too Clever by Half and it doesn't reflect the trope; it's not about committing a range of mistakes which the current suggests, the current doesn't mention that it can involve competence, and it's overall misleading. Can I change it back to this (though I tweaked it somewhat)?

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Mar 22nd 2023 at 10:33:06 AM

That doesn't really cover the trope either.

It's more like:

"A character's pursuit of exceptional success that's worthy of their great intellect or skill can lead to exceptional failure instead."

Edited by Wyldchyld on Mar 22nd 2023 at 2:38:32 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Was looking at the TRS Meta discussion for Literal Wild Card, and thinking of other ways to describe it. Its Laconic is currently:

"A card (or equivalent) that can be traded for any other card (or equivalent)"

Suggestion that uses less brackets and words:

Or something involving "placeholder" or "substitute".

Or swapping "game piece" for "object".

Edited by Malady on Mar 22nd 2023 at 9:34:31 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Actually, part of Too Clever by Half does involve the character screwing up. Plus, the character can be both skilled and intelligent. Regardless, I rewrote it because I realized I needed to add something else to it. Is it ok now?

That suggestion looks good to me.

Too Clever by Half

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 23rd 2023 at 4:46:52 AM

Why waste time when you can see the last sunset last?

I think that's pretty good.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

I double-checked, and the main page doesn't state the character has to screw up due to pride/overestimating their abilities. I also didn't say it mention anything about the mistakes being of a broad variety. So, I'd cut those parts, though it's good apart from that.

Or how about this?

Why waste time when you can see the last sunset last?

I'd cut "a much broader variety of" for the reason I stated at , though it's otherwise good to go imo

How’s this laconic for Motive Decay

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 29th 2023 at 2:28:42 PM

Why waste time when you can see the last sunset last?

I'd add in the fact that the motive needs to be understandable, which the main page states. The main page also suggests it can only involve one motive, not more than one.

Also, it should be fine to use the Laconic you brought up at using what I suggested at.

EDIT: Fixing an error per.

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Mar 29th 2023 at 10:34:19 AM

The suggestion already states that motive starts out complex so it would be redundant.

Why waste time when you can see the last sunset last?

My bad, I put in the wrong thing and I fixed it now. Thanks for correcting me.

Also, can I please use the Laconic at(x4)? (For the record, I'm asking because I'm trying to avoid an Edit War.)

I discovered PHD's laconic page. It says "Dilbert but in graduate school."

Well, that doesn't really do a good job of explaining what the premise of the webcomic is, does it?

"How could you stop an idea?" (Check out my troper wall if you can!)

It's a Recycled In SPACE, so it's not kosher. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the work so I cannot think of an ideal replacement.

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

Someone without an edit reason rewrote Laconic.Chronic Backstabbing Disorder and the made the Laconic unreliable; it currently states the character has to constantly betray people, however, that is not always the case as the character just has to do so repeatedly. It also removed the detail that the betrayals have to be successful.

Can I revert it?

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Mar 29th 2023 at 10:13:31 AM

Was going to move Laconic.The Accountant to Laconic.The Accountant 2016, but it's a bad X Meets Y style, so should we instead Cut and hope someone makes something better?

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Laconic.Undying Loyalty:

These potholes seem to exist only to explain what "no matter what" could entail. Perhaps we should explain that instead.

... Critical Existence Failure is a bad one in this context regardless.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

I'd just remove both potholes, they are not helping understand the trope.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

In 2020 on Laconic.Build Like An Egyptian, Eviler Than Thou changed the laconic from:

"Pyramids and the Sphinx in Ancient Egypt."

to:

"Ancient Egypt: The Theme Park Version"

I'm not going to lie. Even by laconic standards, this new laconic is an extremely reductionistic description of the trope, and borders on being a Recycled In SPACE snowclone. My proposed options are: Either revert to the previous laconic or suggest the following one:

"Despiction of buildings stereotypically associated with Ancient Egypt, such as pyramids and sphinxes"

Thoughts?

EDIT: My bad, I thought the change was recent because that's currently the second.to-last, but it's from three years ago and I only noticed because of a more recent (and also unrelated) edit. I still think the current laconic isn't very good, however.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Apr 3rd 2023 at 12:19:55 PM

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

The original was really bad either. I like your version better than either.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Macron's notes

Done.

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

Hoping to improve the Laconic description of The Incredibles:

Being a Superhero would actually suck... Wait, never mind, it's awesome again!

Not changing the little "unabridged" link at the bottom cause it feels perfect but how should this description be changed? Any suggestions?