Unclear Description: Not Wearing Tights

This is a port from Trope Talk, where I asked for help understanding the correct use of the trope Not Wearing Tights and it was suggested I make a thread here to fix the ambiguousness.

Half of the description and examples seem to be about stories that use a lot of tropes, plots, and character types of superhero stories, but for one reason or another, are placed in a different genre instead. The other half is more about superhero stories where the characters don't wear traditional cape-and-bodysuit superhero costumes.

These seem like two totally different tropes, and it's not clear from the description which is the actual Not Wearing Tights trope

~Another Duck, ~Ashfire, ~Tropers/{{4tell0life4}}, ~eroock — This thread has been unlocked. You all (briefly) talked about it in the Trope Talk thread.

The trope as it's written is pretty clear that it is a superhero story it's about, regardless of which interpretation of the trope we're talking about.

Most of the description is about not using a classic superhero costume, for various reasons.

Part of it is also not using the costume, and at the same time the creator/marketing doesn't realise fits the superhero genre, or claims it doesn't, but if you analyse it, it fits squarely within the superhero genre.

The thing about the "use a lot of tropes, plots, and character types of superhero stories" is that all of that makes if fit the genre. Someone can claim it's not in that genre, but people can claim whatever they want; if the shoe fits, it doesn't stop fitting because someone says it doesn't.

So both definitions include the literal not wearing tights bit, despite being superhero genre stories.

Now, just having superpowers doesn't make it a superhero work. There are probably a bunch of examples that are similar to superhero works, but not actually in that genre. Those are not examples as the trope is written. I'm not sure that's even a trope either, since those are just a bunch of works that are similar to superhero works, but don't quite fit the bill. It's just natural that characters from those works would not wear superhero tights, which means People Sit on Chairs.

Edited by AnotherDuck on Jan 10th 2019 at 10:17:18 AM

Since the title is "not wearing tights", its definition should be "it's a superhero story, just without the costume".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the description does cover one trope and it's just misused a lot? Or are you saying it does cover two things, but not the things I think it does? Or?

How tropable is that, though? I feel like it would just go the way of a lot of appearance tropes- "Character X in work X is a superhero, but they don't wear tights"

I'm not sure what I think the solution is here, I'm mostly thinking out loud at this point.

While we shouldn't define tropes after their title, that definition is pretty much what seems tropable. I could maybe include not using superhero names and such as a figurative "not wearing tights".

It essentially covers one trope, but a lot of examples also include a specific variation (the claim it's not a superhero work), and a lot are misuse (although that's the case for a lot of tropes where the description or examples don't seem consistent).

It's essentially an attempt to distance themselves from the ideas people have about superheroes, or making it more "realistic", while still remaining within the genre.

But I'm afraid the moment we step into "figurative", that's when the flood of misuses will come.

Another good criteria is that it has to be a "superhero story" first and foremost; any other kind of story WITH SUPERHEROES IN ALL BUT NAME! don't count for the trope. (Which might mean not all Batman comics count.)

Closing as stale.