Not Thriving: Ominous Mundanity

Ominous Mundanity is a solid concept with a pitiful amount of wicks that, according to my wick-check, are mostly used correctly. The issue is that, well- there's only 34 of them, a pitiful showing for a trope 11 years old.

I think this is a good trope, but as pointed out here, the name sounds like it should be broader, and not just about a naming convention. At least three wicks believe it to be a broader trope than it is, and though it's only three wicks, it leads me to believe that the name is capable of fooling people into thinking it's not just about mundane names for evil characters/groups.

That said, my main concern is obviously that the trope is underperforming, which may or may not have anything to do with the non-indicative title.

Here are some possible solutions:

• Create a broader super-trope under the current name and make a newer sub-trope with the current definition.
• Send back to TLP (not mutually exclusive with the first option)
• Rename to be more clear and cleanup the misuse; no other action.

Meesa hypocrite, adding to the backlog I asked others not to add to

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 31st 2020 at 8:56:45 AM

Sorry for the wait, ~War Jay 77. Opening for discussion.

Whoo hoo.

So yeah, where do we start?

I think this is a generalized name for a specialized trope. I support the rename option. It already seems to have a supertrope in Special Person, Normal Name. This apparently is more like "Scary Person Normal Name" (or "Ominous Object Normal Name") so I guess I suggest something off that snowclone if not an outright new name.

Edited by WaterBlap on May 3rd 2020 at 2:45:51 PM

I agree.

I say create the supertrope and Trope Transplant, with the existing trope's name being something like "Mundane Name, Ominous Being"... assuming that is not already covered by Tom the Dark Lord.

Many of the listed entries in the wick check are people (like Alan the Vampire Baby), so they probably go better in Tom the Dark Lord, leaving not-so-many examples for the would-besupertrope. I wonder if it would just be better to expand TTDL to include organizations and locations.

Edited by Synchronicity on May 3rd 2020 at 4:42:51 AM

Or make the split-off trope using the new name a supertrope to Tom the Dark Lord.

Bump; should I just make a crowner or wait for more activity?

Eh, here's a crowner, feel free to add anything:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/PageAction/OminousMundanity?open=all#jjlayvby

I'll also take the time to note that I've a dormant TLP draft for MundaneMadeScary, a current attempt at the missing supertrope. Not really sure what to do with it now that this thread is opened, so I'm just bringing it up as something that does sort of hinge on this thread a bit (but not as a priority).

Crowner hooked.

Man, that was fast, I hollered 2 seconds ago. Thanks!

... Did you mean to hook an Image Pickin' crowner?

...Huh. Never seen that before.

Bah, fixed. Sorry about that.

Are 'name the supertrope Ominous Mundanity' and 'merge Ominous Mundanity into Tom the Dark Lord' mutually exclusive? I'm reiterating my concern that looking at the wick check, quite a few 'correct' examples seem to fit Special Person, Normal Name and Tom the Dark Lord, so the ones that don't can go onto the supertrope draft.

Edited by Synchronicity on May 27th 2020 at 9:40:14 AM

Not sure actually, people seemed to want to keep Ominous Mundanity as a trope but still create a supertrope at the same time, while others just wanted to merge the two concepts, which is why I described the options the way I did.

But what would be the scope of said trope?

There is an active crowner with an option in consensus range, so call and star?

Edited by Synchronicity on Jul 2nd 2020 at 12:10:57 PM

So I do have that supertrope draft in TLP. Should we use that as our basis? It's a bit undercooked right now.

Clock expired; closing.