Duplicate tropes discussion thread

I mean, I swear that the trope is supposed to be for both sides of the coin.

Edit: So yeah the description only talks about doing the right thing, which is def odd because I do remember it originally being able to go both ways... but I have no proof that this ever WAS the definition

Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2023 at 2:02:29 PM

"disagreement between the description and the laconic"

As always, then the laconic should be changed.

Aegis and WJ: Fair observations. I guess I was thinking more about a different criterion to distinguish them, as I'm a bit more familiar with Secret Test of Character, where the character has to realize that there's an action or choice they have to make to prove their worth in some regard, even if that action or choice seems counterintuitive or would normally lead into failing or giving up. The other trope doesn't happen as part of any test (when I commented about the outcome of the character's actions, I meant to say that the character is tempted to consider a different choice for a personal gain, or at least is thinking that doing the right thing will work against them for some reason).

EDIT: Some posts were written while I was writing this one.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on May 11th 2023 at 2:11:57 PM

Changing the laconic doesn't do much if it's already being widely misused. And if it's being misused (which given that 3 different people here thought that it was more like the laconic than the def, I think there's a very high chance it is), having the laconic exist as it currently does allows us to easily point to the likely cause of the issue.

Because depending on the widespreadness of the misuse revealed by a wick check and the evolving convo from a TRS thread, the outcome may be "yeah remove the misuse and make the laconic match the description" or it may be "actually keep the laconic and expand the definition to include the misuse".

Edited by amathieu13 on May 11th 2023 at 2:14:24 PM

The laconics default to automatically match the description. If the description needs to be changed, TRS will change the laconic as well.

My point is that just changing the laconic isn't a solution to the problem of misuse I was pointing out, which is how you're comment came off. It may "solve" the disagreement, but that doesn't change or address any existing misuse.

Edited by amathieu13 on May 11th 2023 at 2:17:48 PM

And I'm not addressing the misuse, I'm just saying if there's a discrepancy then the laconic is in the wrong.

So, the laconic is as old as the trope and it was always about "moral choice, free of consequences" though it had gone through re-wordings over the years. I'm trying to find if there's a point at which the trope description stopped matching, though I'm having trouble.

Here's the draft that backs this up. I don't know if there ever was a shift, but if the laconic is as old as the draft itself, the misuse is also probably as old as the trope, given that we know people don't read descriptions/are more likely to go off of the laconic.

Edited by amathieu13 on May 11th 2023 at 2:23:18 PM

Yes, that's what I remember the trope originally being like: two alternative options for the hero to go down, revealing whether or not they're actually a hero. That draft makes no claim that the hero must choose the heroic choice.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2023 at 2:24:26 PM

...I just spent way too long with the Wayback machine only to discover that the trope description never changed. As in, it always has and still does allow for the hero to make morally gray choices.

See this paragraph:

"Usually they are, because doing the right thing in the face of great temptation is a mark of great heroism, whereas doing the wrong is only bog standard, baseline villainy. When the wrong path is taken, this is usually the lead to more impressively villainous acts. Occasionally, it is to prove Can't Get Away with Nuthin': a character loots a corpse, only to discover it can be identified."

There's nothing here that actually DOES say the hero has to choose the "correct" path. It flat out says that they can take the villainous path and go down an evil route.

I did say I could be wrong and I was lol.

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity vs. Fame Through Infamy?

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity is YMMV, while Fame Through Infamy is In-Universe.

Edited by SharkToast on May 14th 2023 at 6:52:53 AM

What is the difference between "Alternate Aesop Interpretation" and "Accidental Aesop?" I feel that they can be used interchangeably.

Also, what's the difference between "Love to Hate" and "The Scrappy." When does a character become the former, a fascinatingly evil villain like Disney's Frollo, and when does a character become the latter, like Jar Jar Binks?

Ostensibly, the distinction is that Alternate Aesop Interpretation is "here is a different lesson than the one the story intended", while Accidental Aesop is "the story intended no lesson at all, but here is one anyway".

As for Love to Hate versus The Scrappy... "I hate this character, which improves the work" versus "I hate this character, which makes the work worse"? The former is a reaction authors might actually be seeking out, while the latter is typically not.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on May 15th 2023 at 6:09:12 AM

Tried finding an answer on the list of subtle differences page but no one came around.

Also not sure if someone asked already but Google didn’t give anything.

What’s the difference between No Body Left Behind and Not Enough to Bury?

• No Body Left Behind: The body vanishes on death, just cuz.
• Not Enough to Bury: The character was killed so brutally there's not much left of their corpse.

... actually, now we have questions about the distinction between Fading Away and No Body Left Behind. The fading causes the death versus the death causes the fading? Is this a real distinction?

Edited by wingedcatgirl on May 15th 2023 at 6:15:17 AM

So basically while both results in no body left behind, not enough to bury is only used if the cause of death is violent?

So does that mean if the cause of death is unknown but it does leave no body behind, then No Body Left Behind can be used as a Super-Trope, with Not Enough to Bury as the Sub-Trope?

As for between fading away and no body left behind, I recall a Justice League episode where because Chronos messed with time, Diana was fading away as she discussed what to do next. She was still talking like she wasn’t feeling anything.

I feel as though No body left behind can be applied even after the person died whereas Fading Away can only apply if the person is alive when it happens.

Yeah. I got tripped up. Thanks.

Edited by AlicornGaia on May 15th 2023 at 8:03:02 PM

that wouldn't be Not Enough to Bury at all; NETB is when there is something left behind but it's so mangled and dismembered it barely qualifies as a corpse. they don't really overlap, and the name makes it a bit confusing, but it's the more common real-life term for when that happens.

bringing this back because i didn't get a response

So "Accidental Aesop" is when a supposedly non-message movie makes a surprisingly insightful point?

Is "Alternate Aesop Interpretation" when a heavy-handed film can be viewed through a different lens?

And a "Love To Hate" is a character meant to be hated, while a Scrappy can be heroic/villainous and doesn't add anything to the story.

Well, Love to Hate and The Scrappy are both reactions, so they can (and in the case of Scrappy, must) be unintentional. The difference is in what the hatred evokes. Love to Hate type characters are more like fun villains who do awful things, but with enough charisma and personality to make the audience enjoy seeing them, even if they don't want them to win.

The Scrappy can be any character, and they actively make the work worse because the audience hates them in a far more serious way — it's not fun "evil villain" hate, it's legit "I wish this character didn't exist" hate.

As an example: Love to Hate -> Darth Vader, The Scrappy -> Jar Jar.

Just to clarify, And Man Grew Proud (post-TRS) vs. Soiled City on a Hill? I'm assuming the first refers to the destruction primarily, and the latter the city? Am I missing something?