Follow TV Tropes
Averted Trope is currently referenced on over 6000 pages and it's redirect Averted on a good thousand more.
Since 99.9% of the time, all averting a trope means is that the work didn't use the trope, averted examples shouldn't really be listed on pages. It's just a way people Entry Pimp popular series and with some of the new relational stuff we're doing in TVT 2.0, it's going to mess up a lot of things if works are linked to a laundry list of tropes they did not in fact use. After all, if you're using example lists to look for recommendations and you want to read about a Darker And Grittier Manic Pixie Dream Girl with a BFG, you're going to be very disappointed if you get pointed to a work whose examples are all, well, we didn't actually use any of those tropes.
That said, the majority of aversions listed on example pages don't link to that page, but still need to be cleaned out. I need volunteers to get this under control.
Might want to use "Aver" as a search string - a lot of wicks contain the | separator that can break Ctrl+F. Plus, "averted" and "aversion" have frequently the same issues as "Averted Trope" or "Averted".
So the plan is to delete every single aversion because new database?
Of course not. It's just something that's overused, and now's as good a time to fix it as any.
"99.9%" isn't "overused". It's every single example with an insigificant amount of exceptions.
It would be helpful to say what the criteria is for cleaning while asking for help with cleaning. I mean, as far as using that example about being disappointed the trope isn't used, that would probably apply to subversions as well, if you're looking for something that actually uses the tropes. That doesn't paint a clear picture about what the cleaning is about.
Shima is just exaggerating out of annoyance. She's saying that she thinks 99.9 % are misused.
A correct example of an aversion is when we would expect a trope to be present in a work, and then it isn't (if it's set up and then altered, it's a subversion). Off the top of my head... I can't think of any good general examples. But this can be used correctly, it's not something that needs to be excised completely.
edited 25th Apr '15 8:12:57 PM by Discar
And I get annoyed at unhelpful exaggerations like that. Or I snark back because I'm helpful like that.
Anyway, thanks for explaining. That is how I've always understood it, which is not the impression I got from OP.
About linking and the new system, does that mean all aversions that are listed should have a wick to Aversion, so they can be catalogued and/or filtered properly? Sort of like how invoked examples can be listed on the main page if they're tagged as such even if the trope is YMMV?
Well, in Ass Pull examples, Foreshadowing is ignored without... well, Foreshadowing. But i am not sure if Foreshadowing is sufficiently common to list aversions.
edited 25th Apr '15 8:31:39 PM by MagBas
I was trying to avoid examples where the aversion of one trope is an example of another.
Huh. I always thought that aversions are only worth listing when you are dealing with an Omnipresent Trope or such.
@6's description of an aversion is more Subverted Trope: "A work makes you think a trope is going to happen, but it doesn't."
What I was more getting at with the 99.9% is that we have thousands of these listed on the wiki. A lot of those wicks actually have dozens of aversions apiece. Only one in a thousand that isn't on an Aversions and Subversions only page is actually something that should be listed.
And yes, setting up a trope and then not knocking it down is a Subversion, not an Aversion. An aversion is when a work doesn't use a trope. That's generally not worth mentioning.
edited 26th Apr '15 12:48:16 AM by shimaspawn
I'd agree with some kind of omnipresence, if only in the specific genre the work takes place in. You have to expect the trope to be used by a work like that, but if it goes as far as the work specifically setting it up as if it's going to be used but isn't, it's a subversion.
If those are the actual numbers you mean, I probably disagree.
That's what I'm saying. It's only worth mentioning if you expect it to happen, but doesn't. But yes, if the work intentionally sets it up and then knocks it down, it's a subversion instead. It's hard to articulate the difference, but it's very much there.
It's like Duck says: It's a genre and setting thing. A Space Opera story can avert Space Is Cold, but a story set in a ground war in the trenches can't, even if it's sci-fi.
Space Is Cold is one that's specifically mentioned as Aversions being a thing. Almost every trope that can be honestly averted says so in their definition. If you have one that doesn't already mention it in the page description, I'm willing to listen, but I haven't found a single good example of this that doesn't in all my time on the wiki.
If you think my numbers are off, clean up the examples, and we'll see how many good ones there actually are.
edited 26th Apr '15 8:29:05 AM by shimaspawn
Well, it's one of those things I've been checking and cleaning as I've done other things (although I've generally been more focused on Not a Subversion and formatting), but I've never really seen it as that much of a problem.
Edited by AnotherDuck on Oct 16th 2018 at 5:45:11 PM
Well, if aversions to tropes that are not tropes are best, the aversion to Space Is Cold really is a best example because of the lack of risk to said aversion be a trope in itself. About examples of tropes that not mention this in their description:i found Character Death and Karma.
edited 29th Apr '15 8:02:54 PM by MagBas
I agree with the top poster. While not all aversions are completely defunct, the number of them that are really needs to be fixed up - indeed, even removing aversions that are appropriate wouldn't damage most of the pages in question.
Inversions and subversions however are appropriate as they usually reference the trope, even if they don't actively use it. However they are far less common.
Zig-zagging is more complicated - you have to take into account whether this is one of those tropes where it must always happen to truly apply. Adults Are Useless is a problem here, as the 'zig-zag' is more likely to be the Only Sane Man, or it ends up being on an eposodic basis. Breakable Weapons probably shouldn't be zig-zagged at all - after all, some weapons don't realistically break and it's simple common sense that makes it correct - like guns and swords don't usually break.
Edited by Tightwire on Oct 16th 2018 at 7:00:45 AM
Two examples of significant averted tropes I can think of are Clock Tower averting There Are No Therapists, since it's unusual for a main character in a horror series to get therapy for their trauma, and Psychonauts averting Adults Are Useless, since you wouldn't expect a game set in a summer camp with a Kid Hero to have all the adults be badasses.
Never Say "Die" is one of the bad ones "This show says 'death' so that means that we have to mention every time they say 'death' and that the trope has to be mentioned as being averted."
What about when a work uses a trope for one thing/situation/person, but not another?
I don't see why noting that Betty isn't a Dumb Blonde is notable or relevant, even if Alice is. She's just not a dumb blonde.
For a work, it has to be more than one straight example for an aversion to be notable. Specifically, there have to be enough examples to create a pattern and an expectation that the trope will be followed, but not so explicit that it's set up as a subversion. It's a bit of a hard line to balance on, but in theory, it's there.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?