Cleaning & Reorganizing Weaponry Tropes:

Right, a character using a weapon is not a trope. A character using an ax IS a trope. The AX is the pattern. That's the same dichotomy behind People Sit On Chairs versus actual tropes. A person sitting in a chair is not a trope. A Slouch of Villainy or Damn, It Feels Good to Be a Gangster! IS a trope. The character chooses an ax like a villain chooses to slouch.

edited 1st Dec '14 5:41:54 PM by KJMackley

Wrong. A character using an axe isn't a trope just the same as a character sitting in a red adirondack chair doesn't make it a trope. It's still People Sit On Chairs when you can see what sort of chair it is.

A character using an axe isn't a trope. A character using an axe because she's a fireman or woodsman is a trope. A character using an axe because it's a massive, choppy weapon is a trope.

^ An ax is a big, choppy weapon by its very nature. That's exactly what I mean by "a character uses an ax" in that "a character uses a big, choppy weapon." The use of the ax creates a distinctive appearance and usage in a story, regardless of who is wielding it. Now if there was an example that says "A medieval armor room has a statue holding An Axe To Grind..." then I would agree THAT is not a trope. It's just Cow Tools.

^^ We have Cool Chair because the chair is distinctive. Same thing with an ax. We also have Bare-Fisted Monk for when the lack of a weapon is apparent.

edited 1st Dec '14 8:32:58 PM by KJMackley

Axes aren't that big, actually. Well, real axes. Which was my point. Axes aren't massive and choppy unless they're made to be that way to convey a certain point. It's not "using an axe" that's a trope. It's "using an axe that's deliberately designed to be a massive and choppy weapon as a reflective element of the character wielding it" that's a trope.

Okay, Indiana Jones was given a bullwhip and fedora. Those items will forever be linked to him, but neither were chosen except for the interesting and distinctive visual effect. They do not say anything about his personality, neither does it need to.

Someone pulls out an ax, big or small, and we are meant to pay attention to the fact they have an ax. There are multiple subtropes you could find about WHY the character has an ax (Blood Knight, Barbarian Hero, Ax-Crazy, etc), but the subtropes don't invalidate the supertrope.

Someone sits on a chair, big or small, and we are meant to pay attention to the fact they sit on a chair. There are multiple subtropes you could find about WHY the character sits on a chair (Cool Chair, Chair Reveal, Super Wheelchair, etc), but the subtropes don't invalidate the supertrope.

Some things are tropes. Some things aren't. I think this is probably a trope. But it also might not be a trope. Or it might be a trope, but a slightly different trope than it's written up as. I'm not sure. My trope senses are definitely tingling, though.

I am personally not convinced that using a weapon is by itself a trope.

Also, I think people need to de-emphasize "author intent" during trope discussions because it's inherently guessing, and guessing is a bad basis for anything. Some things in works just end up there like that, without special intention or purpose. These things are very likely not tropes.

If the chair itself is given focus, certainly. That's why we have Cool Chair. A character sitting down with no focus on the chair, no. I can just imagine a very likely scenario where a hero loses their Weapon Of Choice and grab the nearest weapon they could find, and the climactic fight against the Big Bad has the hero wielding an ax. The ax means nothing to their personality because it isn't "oddly appropriate" but he still uses all of the visual aspects of the weapon, in a very important part of the story too.

Again, you can say the exact same thing about a chair. (By the way, it's not Cool Chair just because the chair is given any focus.) "Character using an axe" is not necessarily giving the axe any focus. Maybe someone drew an axe because it's shorter than a sword and fit better in a sprite in game. Maybe a character uses an axe because that's the prop that was available at the time.

There is a category of tropes about using axes, but that doesn't mean it's a trope itself. Cool Axe would be a trope if it was a pattern. Using an axe to say something is a trope. Using an axe to say anything could be anything. A trope, not a trope, or a third option. But it's not by itself a trope. What does it show? What does it say about the character?

And then, in your example, the hero sits down on a chair. It just happens to be there, but he still uses all of the visual aspects of the chair, in a very important part of the story too.

Why is an axe more special than a chair to the point where it's a trope and the chair isn't?

edited 1st Dec '14 11:45:22 PM by AnotherDuck

Battleaxes are certainly a Stock Weapon. And they do tend to show up more often with certain types of characters than with others. There's a strong association with Strength and Brute Force. I don't know if it's intention, but it's definitely convention.

Brutal Battleaxe might have some trope potential, but Battleaxe does not. The association makes all the difference.

Well the page as written does talk about the associations so...

Sometimes we don't know the reason why a trope is used. Law of Conservation of Detail means that every detail is important. If there is a decision to focus on an ordinary chair, it must be important. Maybe just for a Prat Fall, maybe it is a Cool Chair with no other purpose than to look cool. People Sit On Chairs is that something happens with no purpose behind it. I've offered the audio and visual aspect as being a purpose behind all these tropes, why an artist would chose to use it.

Ho-hum. There are plenty of things in stories that happen without particular significance. Things can happen "just so" without a specific purpose.

Keep in mind, tropes don't have to be conscious or deliberate. The reason they're tropes is right on our front page: They are "devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations". An author is not exempt from tropes being present in their minds and expectations. I might write a villain with a penchant for A Glass of Chianti without being consciously aware of what that is conveying about him. I might dress up my hero in a Badass Longcoat and no pants without being consciously aware of the subtext that goes along with those tropes. They're still present, they're still tropes.

But then you're subconsciously adding those details at least partially for those specific reasons. Those specific reasons are what makes it a trope.

But you haven't offered a reason why using an axe is a trope, with or without focus on it. The Law of Conservation of Detail isn't applied to every single detail in every single work. Everything is not important. Everything does not have a meaning.

Just because there are several tropes about axes used as weapons doesn't mean that just using an axe as a weapon is a trope in itself. It's like saying that just because we have Blond Guys Are Evil, Dumb Blonde, and Hair of Gold, Heart of Gold, doesn't mean "having blonde hair" is a trope. What we have is a collection of tropes involving blonde hair. "Blonde hair as a signifier" isn't a trope either, unless you specify what it signifies. Same with axes. What does using an axe as a weapon signify?

Who said "using an axe as a weapon" is the trope? The trope is the pattern in how axes are used. Anyone could theoretically choose an axe for a weapon, but not everyone does, and the characters who do have things in common.

And I do think a distinction needs to be made between axes designed as weapons and axes designed as tools but used as weapons, because those are definitely not the same.

Here's a simple example of why not all tropes are equal. A few weeks ago I left my apartment and while walking to my car I saw a couple of police officers in the complex parking lot talking to someone in the apartment through their window, which, sadly is not that uncommon (mostly breaking up domestic disputes). But when I got closer I saw another set of cops, one of whom had their gun drawn. Two extra cops and a drawn gun changed everything and I backed away.

The rule is, things that are commonplace do not catch our attention, but introduce something different and distinctive and the entire scenario changes. A blond person is commonplace, so tropes about blond people have to be distinctive. People sitting on chairs is commonplace, so tropes about chairs and manners of sitting have to be distinctive. An ax is not commonplace, you hold a conversation with someone randomly holding an ax and you are wondering "what the hell is with the ax?" Even if it's just to catch your attention, that's a trope.

Usage is also distinctive. Captain Kirk used an ax to chop wood in Star Trek Generations, that doesn't make him have An Ax To Grind. But in Dragonheart there is an entire "ax versus sword" fight scene, which was very different than the Sword Duel that preceded it. The ax creates a distinctive look to the fight scene in the exact same way Badass Longcoat gives a character a unique silhouette. Like I said before, all the tropes with "Badass" in their name say nothing about the characters personality other than the fact they look cool by having it.

The artist is not always aware of the tropes they are using, but the default assumption should be that they are.

You're essentially agreeing with me. Note my repeated use of the word "consciously", implying that such uses are merely unconscious.

I'm just countering what I am interpreting as suggestions that if the author didn't do it on purpose, then it's Not A Trope. Even if you use it unintentionally (and almost definitely subconsciously), it's still a trope.

edited 2nd Dec '14 1:52:04 PM by SolipSchism

If it's just to catch your attention, it could be anything. Doesn't have to be an axe. It could be a sword. It could be a chainsaw. It could be a teapot. It could be a chair. If someone is randomly holding onto one of those, it will catch your attention. If you're saying something specific with it, it could be a trope, but then you have to find out what it is you're saying that makes it different from all those other things.

You could make an argument for Axe Versus Sword being a trope. That I'm not arguing about. It's a specific and defined use of those two weapons to create a contrast. But the trope isn't "using an axe".

And I have no idea what that police example is supposed to illustrate.

KJ, at the top of this page if you want a specific instance. My point is that using an axe because you're used to using one for woodchopping and using an axe because you like to see heads fly when you swing it are two different tropes, but togther they don't make a supertrope, since that supertrope doesn't have a meaning in itself.

I assumed we were talking about the "as a weapon" part of the use, and civilian use isn't part of the trope, since it's about weaponry tropes to begin with.

That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with using one feature common in several different situations that in those different situations represent different things being called a single trope.

Badass Longcoat doesn't have to be a Badass Longcoat, it could be a Badass Longrobe or Coat Cape. In practicality they all serve the exact same purpose and are only minor cosmetic differences. A Cool Car is a Cool Car because it stands out from the other cars.

I'm saying all of this because I can guarantee if you don't have the baseline "ax shows up and used by someone" trope then atypical examples are going to find its way into other tropes. I've been bringing up the choice of the artist as being an important factor because if something is deliberately used by them then it is more likely to be a trope. For example, say you make a trope correlating The Brute having an ax, but a variety of stories decided to give the Dark Chick an ax because the artist liked the size difference (small girl, big weapon), or The Smart Guy an ax because of the personality contrast (intelligent character, brutish weapon), or The Hero is forced to use an ax for an extended period of time after their sword was broken. What is that, exactly? A subversion? Aversion? Or Missing Supertrope Syndrome? Where do those examples go, or are they doomed to be not cataloged because of our arbitrary rules on the trope?

So what I've been saying is take all of these weapon tropes and create specific supertropes, ones that outlines all possible ways a specific weapon can be used within a story. The visual look of the weapon including size, shape, specific use (occupational vs. combat), any unique sounds that would come from them (Audible Sharpness, whooshing noises when being swung around, the snap of a whip, the "chunk" sound when hitting something), how they would fair put up against a different type of weapon, etc. You can also speculate as to personality traits that generally come from making it a Weapon Of Choice, after all there is typically two or three directions you can go with any of them. That is the decision being made when an artist puts a specific weapon into the story.

So after putting all that on one page, tell me again why "Character uses an ax in a fight" is not a trope?

That's fine, I wasn't addressing that. I was solely addressing the "If the author didn't do it on purpose then it doesn't count" logic. Let me reiterate: I agree with what you are saying. We are talking about two things that are only indirectly related.

Because axes are a boring common generic fantasy weapon and not at all interesting on their own.