On writing styles and full stops

In some of the pages I've read through, I've noticed that many of them share overlaps in the writing style. The queries I have are, for the most part, not violations of anything; I'm just curious to know why tropers use them so frequently.

My first query is that some example in that they have these very short, or even one-word sentences right at the beginning, especially if a trope is being played with. Some examples I've found while perusing the wiki:

• The Masquerade: Downplayed. (Rest of the example here)
• Diet Episode: Averted. (Rest of the example here)
• Unwanted Gift Plot: Subverted. (Rest of the example here)
• Zettai Ryouiki: Chisa's high socks.
• Artistic License – Gun Safety: Provided by Rize.
• Schoolgirl Series: As if this wasn't obvious already.

The last three examples are naturally zero-content examples and not encouraged, so I expand on them out further when I encounter them, but what about the first three? Are they acceptable or should the example be rewritten to do away with the full stops?

Another thing that I've encountered is the frequent use of "cue" (or any conjugation of cue), to the extent that it's word cruft:

• Cue instant cut to...
• Cue KO from...

What makes "cue" easier to use than other means of expressing something?

Look at Word Cruft for other cases of how we discourage example writing.

Naturally, word cruft is discouraged, and I try to clean up what I find. My question, however, is why this style of writing still endures to this day.

Because it's easy to do and we haven't done a good enough job of excising it, so new tropers see it there and imitate it.

You mean the "short words, full stop, rest of description"?

I simply see nothing wrong and neither should you.

It's poor style. You should write in complete sentences and affirmatively describe the trope example. Also, those little preambles are often meaningless and/or redundant.

• Trope: Subverted. Alex looks like he's going to do A, but does B instead.

This may seem short and sweet, but no English teacher would give you a passing grade on it, and you'd never discuss the trope with a friend that way. The example should flow like you're telling someone about what happens in the work, not like you're dryly enumerating facts. It should use complete, descriptive sentences.

• Trope: It looks like Alex is going to do A, but in a subversion, he does B instead.

This is better, because it flows like natural speech. Well, people don't typically use "subversion" in everyday conversation, but you can only do so much.

Like all rules, there are exceptions of course. I've written out complex examples that involve a Zig-Zagged Trope by bulleting each variation. That's fine if you know how to do it well and keep it entertaining.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 31st 2018 at 6:45:58 AM

I agree that it is a good style when the trope is played with a lot, i.e. there are multiple examples and some of them are straight, others subverted, inverted etc. In this case I usually do something like

• Trope:
  • Played Straight. (Rest of the example)
  • Inverted. (Rest of the example)

Edited by Asherinka on Nov 1st 2018 at 9:50:06 PM

To me that comes off as someone who can't describe an example properly. "Played straight" (which should be written with a lowercase 's') is the default, so saying something is played straight is redundant, as the trope being played straight is what's expected, and not the unexpected so you'd need to make a note of it to notify the reader.

So, it looks like that the use of full stops stems from being easy to use, and it's not really encouraged because it may not always explain something completely. I'm cool with this – I'll clean up where I can.

@4tell0life4 I'm not cool with being told what to think. Please elaborate as to why I should agree with you.

I'm talking about situations when it is not expected, say the same trope is subverted once, played straight once, inverted once. Or say, played for laughs and later played for drama.

If you give a generic example, I give a generic answer. And in almost all cases, it is the expected.

But there's still the issue that writing like that is bad style. It looks like it's written by someone who doesn't understand English very well. I don't that's the impression we want the site to have.

Because nothing in that writing style violates any proper grammatical structure.

Really, as long as people write things with good grammar, any kind of writing style should be allowed. You can't just make people conform to one style.

What you describe are formally known as sentence fragments, which does violate proper structure. In written English, a sentence minimally has a subject and verb in order to be an independent clause, or else has an independent clause if it it is a dependent clause.

• "Provided by Rize." What is provided by Rize? There is no indicator of this in the sentence itself, so it is bad grammar.
• "Subverted." What is subverted? Why should I make the reader wait for the answer? Good communication is about cutting to the chase and not wasting the recipient's time.

My aim is not to "make people conform to one style", it's to make sure writing is clear. As AnotherDuck above mentions, this is not about personal style, but about adhering to basic English grammar. If one cannot be bothered to minimally do this, then it gives readers little incentive to regard something as having weight, if the writer themselves do not give the impression that they care about the matter they are writing about.

Edited by Person0123452 on Nov 3rd 2018 at 11:20:56 AM