I think a large part of it stems from how it's often impossible to prove authorial intent, especially as that intent may not be conscious in the first place, as you described. So yes, you can definitely use any trope, whether it's subjective or not. An Audience Reaction is different, though, since it's not a trope, and specifically about how the audience perceives and reacts to it.
But I think it's ridiculous to assume something isn't consciously used by default. It's not like the words appear on the paper randomly without the writer's intervention. Unless perhaps she's very drunk. There's also a difference between consciously writing it one way without knowing it's a trope, and unconsciously following a pattern you've seen before, though probably not a difference you can demonstrate.
Check out my fanfiction!Writers may not be aware that they're using a particular trope, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That said, this is yet another one of those issues we experience between prescriptivism and descriptivism, or Watsonian versus Doylist to a certain degree: the question of whether we're supposed to be documenting what actually happens or how people interpret what happens.
We have tropes about both kinds of things: you can't really argue about the existence of a Repeat Cut or a Big Bad, but Shipping drives fans into rabid fury.
I've found that people who believe in Death of the Author tend to get very defensive about their pet interpretations of a work, though. That annoyance factor alienates me from their argument, however good it may be.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I actually strongly believe in Death of the Author, but it's a matter of interpreting it for yourself. If your interpretation is how you enjoy the work the most, go ahead. But don't go claiming it's the one and true way to interpret it, since then you're essentially declaring yourself the author, and thus breaking the principle of Death of the Author anyway.
Check out my fanfiction!You may be able to hold that distinction, but many can't, which is the cause of my annoyance with the concept. I have my own interpretations of the works I read/watch, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that I insist they must be true and yell at anyone who says otherwise.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To specify the discussion on Acceptable Breaks from Reality, it came from The Big Bang Theory thread and an episode depicting Dungeons And Dragons and how they left out a second dice roll from the DM to determine damage (leaving only the player rolling a die to determine if they made a successful hit). For me it was obvious it was to simply the gameplay for the camera and it was otherwise accurately portrayed. The other person felt their Willing Suspension of Disbelief was lost because of that inaccuracy and thus the trope was invalid, while I explained that how well any trope accomplishes its purpose is irrelevant.
It just got me thinking that even objective tropes could be turned subjective if sufficiently analyzed.
edited 16th May '13 1:08:43 PM by KJMackley
Acceptable Breaks from Reality is a meta-trope anyway. It talks about the differences between reality and fiction and how well audiences receive them. We get away with calling it objective by having its various subtropes stick to facts as opposed to opinions, but if you get someone arguing that it's not "acceptable" because they didn't agree with it, you know you're dealing with a hardcore prescriptivist.
edited 16th May '13 1:14:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Certainly. Relatedly I was one of the people who managed to push Big-Lipped Alligator Moment to become YMMV because while the elements of the trope were objective, in the end it required a judgement call on how well it flowed with the tone of the story.
There will probably forever be a dilemma when it comes to how trope observation works in a perfect world versus people interpreting it according to their own background and opinions.
It's certainly a large part of our troubles, but it's far from the entirety of them. I feel that prescriptivism is strongly linked to the all too common sense of personal entitlement that many people feel. "It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, and it's clearly better than your opinion."
edited 16th May '13 1:50:54 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I am of the opinion that tropes are writer's tools, but the Bad Writing Index and the Error Index have lots of things that are closer to Audience Observation than Writer's Tools.
I find it plausible they are both.
Writers have clearly used certain tropes to structure their stories for a very long time. Character types, types of plots, and other mechanics of a story. Hooker with a Heart of Gold is old, Deus ex Machina is another old one, there are more then a few rather old tropes that have been part of story telling mechanics. They are also frequently knowingly and deliberately used by authors in various fashions. A lot of what happens in a story is part of a deliberate effort of an author regardless if they know what they are writing is defined or not.
Also some tropes I believe come about because all fiction is at least partially interactive. Things like personal feelings, favourite characters, favourite moments etc. All exist outside the mechanical frame work that makes a story. There are people who love the villain despite his deliberate role in a story namely being a villain.
However I feel there is a difference between a story mechanic and fan/audience obsersations and reactions.
Authors can only control their story directly they can't directly control the human factor involved in them. This is how we get things like misaimed fandoms and unique audience interpretation that is seperate and often different from what the author intended.
Personally I think the mechanics of the story are more important then the reactions but noting and studying reactions can also potentially help us understand the mechanics better.
So in short both can exist and both are useful in varying contexts.
edited 16th May '13 7:35:05 PM by TuefelHundeNIV
Who watches the watchmen?I brought Adorkable to TRS, so obviously you can tell where I stand on that issue.
Part of the problem is that the only real way to eliminate prescriptivism towards fiction is to hold that it's fundamentally bad in general, and never act that way (or appear to act that way). However, prescriptivism is insidious, and often comes where people don't expect to see it (and sometimes where they do). I could point out the obvious elephant in the room here (which was mentioned above), but instead I'll just note we have an index on Newbery Medal winning books, which probably should not exist.
If we can't keep our house clean, it's really difficult to expect new people not to follow our example, and not be prescriptivist.
edited 16th May '13 8:13:30 PM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)The point I wanted to make has been made, but I think it is primarily healthier in analysis to go with the idea that what you observe is what was intended. Cause I've seen some, both in and out of the wiki, who like to console themselves by believing the writers did not put forth any effort into their work and that is all the analysis that is needed.
Not only does that run into Moff’s Law but as that trope explains, artistic criticism in and of itself is a form of why we are entertained by art. I was talking to a friend and she admitted that she enjoyed the Transformers movies for what they were, even though now they are practically synonymous with the over-saturated Hollywood factory films. It was rather refreshing to me because I view every movie I've seen, good or bad, as having something of worth to take away. It can be hard to find someone with such an open viewpoint on critical analysis.
Moff’s Law is indeed an issue to consider, but you can still evaluate and review a work without invoking prescriptivism. To me, the problem is when you stop being able to separate your opinions about a work (or worse, its author) from the work itself. It's like claiming all Harrison Ford films are bad because you don't like Harrison Ford. note Or that magic is unrealistic, therefore Harry Potter sucks. (The latter is covered under Anthropic Principle.)
The same problem occurs when people retroactively apply modern values to works set in the past, or take their dislike of a game's developer out on the game itself.
edited 17th May '13 7:24:09 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"By this wiki's very nature, it pretty much has to consist of audience observations; indeed that's how it started. When you consider what was said about many tropes being unintentional or subconscious, it's pretty much inevitable. That is, after all, what the phrase You Know That Thing Where is. This is one reason why I don't think the YMMV entries are as automatically "off-mission" or "not tropes" as is commonly said.
I have to disagree. Audience observation is how we find them, not what makes them. You don't really need an audience for a trope to exist unless it is one of the YMMV ones. The Hero doesn't need an audience to exist, just for a creator to make the character into that role.
The YMMV entries are the only ones that actually require an audience because they require a reaction to take happen in the first place.
Who watches the watchmen?What I'm saying is that, because audience observation is how we find them, it probably shouldn't be expected that we'll stick to keeping them writer's tools, and the existence of the YMMV section shouldn't be surprising. Most tropers are probably not writers, and subjective tropes and Audience Reactions are useful for writers to know about too. What you say about tropes not needing an audience to exist is why we have There Is No Such Thing As Notability.
edited 21st May '13 7:42:05 PM by MorganWick
There's nothing wrong with YMMV inherently. The problem is when people treat subjectivity as if it were fact. "I dislike a character, therefore that character is badly written." "I think Alice and Charlie should be together, therefore Alice and Bob's romance is Strangled by the Red String." "I don't like Sonycom's business practices, therefore all their games are shit."
Those sorts of attitudes destroy the integrity of a wiki or indeed any attempt to hold a rational conversation about media.
edited 23rd May '13 7:28:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There was a lot of pushback on the development of the YMMV tab but it wasn't just because people felt their "right to bitch" was being compromised. It was because they believed observing the audience response to a work is almost equally as valid of something to catalog. While I am also fascinated by observing those reactions, if we get too fixated on that we ignore the actual core of the wiki.
Years ago Paintball Episode was called "Paintball Error" and I worked hard to get it to become an actual trope. I was actually quite amazed when a few people said that "an episode where they play paintball" was not a trope while "a collection of factual errors" was the only thing of value. Those two bulleted lists on the page now came directly from a post I made on the validity of the trope vs. the observation of mistakes.
Sorry for double post, but that last post had a link to a post of mine in an old Wiki Talk threa, one that apparently borked the system. So I'll copy paste what the original post I was linking to said (which was an explanation of why people hated the YMMV move).
The problem comes in when people get attracted to the wiki by that secondary goal, by and large ignoring the primary one. To them, the tropes are just definitions...to define what their favorite works X, Y, and Z are. It doesn't help that outside sources (such as Wikipedia's list of alternative wikis) tend to paint us as such either.
This is probably the real root reason behind the backlash against the YMMV move, as well as problems with it and other sub-pages: most people don't care if something is in-universe, subjective, guessing, or what-not. To them, it's information about the work, and they want (or at least don't mind having) that information put in one place rather than spread across multiple pages. Their stance: the work's page is ideally where the work's information goes; what the heck does YMMV mean anyway? (I remember making a mistake like that with a WMG during my early time on the wiki, and Eddie himself deleted my edit.)
Since Eddie tends to see the secondary goal as, well, secondary, he's willing to set it aside when problems occur. Naturally, this draws the work page focused people out to complain, and the people who don't really care about the work pages as a whole out to defend his decisions.
Me, I think having some people like that (here for the works pages) around is important, to prevent parts of the wiki from becoming too neglected. Just so long as it doesn't go too far. That probably means Eddie, to a degree, will have to cater to those who prioritize work pages (and I do think he tries, although his efforts are misguided). As long as the rest of the wiki is kept in good shape, I see no problems with that.

This is just a thought I've been having lately. On another thread I got into an interesting discussion because another person insisted Acceptable Breaks from Reality should be YMMV because of the "Acceptable" part of the name, and I've noticed some tropes in TRS (specifically Adorkable) because editors are taking an idea that should be objective and turning it into a fan reaction.
Anyway, the general thing that's been going through my mind is a division of how we tend to view tropes. See from the moment I found this site I've looked at tropes as being tools to use in a writers arsenal as long before this site existed there have been studies and lessons on the ways to tell a story, a good deal of Alfred Hitchcock's legacy is that he started sharing those "secrets of the trade" with the common people like the MacGuffin.
But I've noticed that a lot of other people, even well outside of this site, believe that tropes are something that the audience observes and are not something consciously used by the writer. This leads to a dividing line attitude that believes the use of certain tropes and having factual errors is poor writing in and of itself. For instance while I understand All Just a Dream can be an annoying plot twist for many in other instances it is used for some amazingly memorable moments.
I guess that for me I look at all tropes, even YMMV ones, as being capable of being used by the writer for the purposes of their story. I do know from my own experience that you'll never be aware of all the tropes you are using but sometimes trying to subvert cliches actually hurts the narrative more than playing it straight and trying to be factually accurate in all things brings it to a crawl.
I imagine anyone's opinion on the matter comes down to what side you fall on, if tropes are something deliberately used by the writer or if it is something the audience observes from their work.
What are your thoughts?