Needs Help: Dangerously Genre Savvy

The problem is a). how would your proposed new definition discourage the current misuse (confusing intelligence with narrative smarts) and b). how would it be different enough to warrant a separate trope (would examples under Genre Savvy for villains be moved/renamed?).

Can you offer a specific example (from a series) of this revised definition?

If we want to keep Dangerously Genre-Savvy, examples must cite the tropes are being subverted, defied, or exploited.

You said (correct me if this is out of context) "Those look majorly different to me. To the extent that I would have trouble showing why they are at least slightly different." If what you are saying is your definitions of Genre Savvy and Dangerously Genre-Savvy look so different you can't explain why they are different, that looks like a continuation of the muddled definition/distinction that is the current problem and makes cutting/redirecting look like a better option.

How about this: Genre Savvy is for people who are aware of cliches and the such, but Dangerously Genre-Savvy is for those who preempt those situations?

A man who admires many forms of fiction.

^ That does not sound like any more splittable a distinction than "Genre Savvy, but for villains."

Besides, someone who comments on genre conventions without actually doing anything about it is already covered by Meta Guy.

Yeah, I don't see how Genre Savvy But-For-Villains is a trope at all. I see no evidence that villains use genre-savviness any differently from anyone else.

I do think there are different grades of genre-savviness, and thus room for some subtropes, but those seem to apply to characters across the board: good, bad, or shades of gray.

Even if Genre Savvy But-For-Villains were a trope, the current name would be highly misleading, since it suggests something more like "weaponized genre-savviness." Which might actually be a valid subtrope, and worth keeping the name for, if we can sort out examples that fit (probably not too hard). But I won't insist on it (though I would probably be willing to help with sorting if the idea isn't rejected out of hand).

If we don't want to keep the name to use for the weaponized-genre-savviness subtrope, then redirecting it to Genre Savvy seems like the best solution.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I'm not particularly good with examples. I can't think of any other than the page image, and the Evil Overlord List.

Evil overlord Xykon hands down literature on common mistakes made by grunts and how to avoid them. This shows that he A) reads the literature, B) Sets out to subvert tropes in order to win instead of lose like normal, and C) He is right genre savvy.

Also, any of the numerous examples where the time has come for the gloating and plan reveal, and the hero prompts the villain for it and the villain explicitly responds, "yeah not falling for that". This shows that A) they read the literature, B) Are actively subverting a trope to win over the hero, and C) Are usually right genre savvy here.

Again, for the distinction, Genre savvy is usually, for example, arguing against splitting up the party, as that is always bad for people in horror stories. That would be wrong genre savvy if the story is not a horror story. That would be meta guy if the person commented on splitting up instead of arguing about it.

A heroic version of dangerously genre savvy would be refusing to discuss the plan, as if the plan is discussed out loud, it is doomed to failure in most fictional stories. the hero has A) shown that they read the literature, B) Are actively playing into a trope to win over the villain, and C) are right genre savvy.

A Villain about to go through a door may stop. Why? because it is the type of circumstance where the first one through is usually killed right away. So they send someone else through first, such as the hero. This is not dangerously genre savvy, as the villain is doing this for reasons of survival, and not winning over the protagonist. It may not even be genre savvy unless the villain comments on how it usually goes in fiction.

edited 3rd Jul '16 7:58:30 PM by war877

Obviously a villain can be genre savvy, but that doesn't mean that genre-savvy villain is a trope. A taxi driver can be genre savvy, but that doesn't mean genre-savvy taxi driver is a trope.

To show that genre-savvy villain is a trope, you need to show that genre-savvy villains are different from other genre-savvy characters in some way other than the fact that they're villains. (And no, being able to quote from the Overlord List doesn't count, since non-villains can do that too.)

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I didn't mean being able to quote from the evil overlord list. I meant the evil overlord list itself.

And I was arguing the second position there. as requested by the page topper.

Sounds like is we want to fix the definition of Dangerously Genre-Savvy, the Evil Overlord List is the best example of what this trope is.

However, the opening statement ("However every Evil Overlord I've read about in books or seen in movies invariably gets overthrown and destroyed in the end. I've noticed that no matter whether they are barbarian lords, deranged wizards, mad scientists or alien invaders, they always seem to make the same basic mistakes every single time.") may make it just a case of normal Genre Savvy per its definition (familiarity with in-universe fiction). Except that Genre Savvy is a no real life example trope (because it's too universal in real life?), which may be a basis for distinction.

As for what qualifies as in-universe fiction. Would knowledge about toon tropes in Who Framed Roger Rabbit qualify as this, given that toons are real within the story, yet create "fiction" about themselves? If not, what would such knowledge fall under (Functional Genre Savvy perhaps)? Whatever kind of savviness that is looks like the the basis for Dangerously Genre-Savvy.

I'd say for redefining:

• Create a list of tropes that people should see if their examples fall under instead.
• Require examples to cite the precise tropes that are being intentionally subverted, defied, and/or exploited (though I think exploited tropes would make it too broad).

That is interesting. Functional Genre Savvy never got an example section. The only thing to recommend against it is being an omnipresent trope. Except that that is not a thing that forbids example sections.

One thing to remember about redefining tropes is that it's one of the most extreme actions we can take. When people are familiar with a trope, they often do not check the trope page itself every time they write an example on another page. Unless the new definition is a broadening of the old one, a redefinition will cause misuse from people more familiar with the original definition.

A redefinition — particularly of a well-established name like this one — is usually only done when people are already using the existing name for the new definition, either in general speech or in wicks — i.e., when the original name was fighting against intuition or an established meaning.

This is not to say that we can't change the definition of Dangerously Genre-Savvy while keeping the name, just that except in the case of a strict broadening, there's a substantial proof necessary to show that the redefinition won't just make the situation worse or cause an entirely new mess.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Given how interpretations are all over the place on this one, I think perhaps this is not so much redefinition as it is specification.

This is particularly the case if the basic definition is indeed the same but more specific of genre savvy. Either we change the definition or we cut and redirect. These are the choices on the table.

If I find evidence of more uses that work under the new definition than work under the old definition, will you support a redefinition?

Any "redefinition" would have to go through TLP anyway because I'd bet my left eye that the current name would continue to attract misuse. Genre Savvy still does even after it got a TRS thread because people use it to gush, and this name attracts the same type of sentiment.

Since cutting isn't an option due to the stupid inbound count, just make it a redirect.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Yeah, I'm good with making it a redirect. If someone really wants a Weaponized Genre Savvy trope, there's always the launch pad....

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Since the whole problem is that it's not distinct from Genre Savvy, making it a redirect seems like the most sensible solution to me.

Is it time for a crowner to that effect?

Unless there's evidence that an overwhelming majority of use is for a particular definition that deserves to be troped, I think making it into a redirect and then purging the wicks is going to be the most sensible option.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Created a crowner. Hollering to have it hooked.

I am not done analysing this one, so I am voting down for now.

Well, since it's crowner time, I will set aside arguing for solutions at this time and shift to arguing against a cut.

This trope means a lot to a lot of tropers and audience members. It is highly romantic. There is no logical explanation why it matters in this way, but it does.

Secondly, this is one of the major tropes for the site. It is a part of the site's legacy. Doing nothing is a superior option to cutting in this case. Cutting is akin to destroying part of tvtropes.

Third, cutting is an extreme action. You think it is going to save you work? Just as many wicks are going to need to be cleaned up as with any other action we are discussing. You are voting for a mess.

Sorry for the somewhat extreme comparison, but this trope is akin to cancer the way it is. It was left unchecked for so long and is now a widespread blight on our site.

It attracts shoehorns, has a horrible The Same But More Specific name (which attracts further shoehorns due to how it's worded), and it's probably not even tropeworthy anyway. We honestly don't benefit from its presence on our site outside of the inbounds (which would be preserved via redirecting), and it needs to die.

We've cleaned up huge wick numbers before, it would be nothing new. ~4,000 probably isn't even the largest purge we've had to do, and it easily could get done in a few days if 10 people devoted an hour of their time each day to kill 100 wicks.

You seem desperate for excuses to keep this around.

edited 7th Jul '16 1:44:22 AM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Not desperate, that's the entire list.

If it is actually the same but more specific, there is no additional reason to keep it around.

The crowner here puts the votes to redirect this trope to Genre Savvy and purge all wicks at 10:2 for. At what point do we act upon it?

Well it should be attached to the thread first...

Someone changed the description. Purging all wicks would be against the rules.

I must have been dreaming.

edited 11th Jul '16 10:27:16 PM by war877

Purging the wicks is standard procedure for redirects.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:34:57 AM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Sorry then. I thought that you had to merge examples when turning a subtrope into a redirect.

That's also a part of the process, true, but Genre Savvy gets so much misuse that a lot of examples will probably just be straight-up deleted if this vote passes.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?