Complaining: Thud And Blunder

This is just passive-aggressively complaining about and dissing certain fantasy works, mainly sword and sorcery, for not having enough depth or world building or being written like other kinds of fantasy. It says it is a style of writing, but it feels more like a label. How can we be sure the original page starter didn't just group and label things arbitrarily?

There's some decade-old discussion in the discussion page, where the Trope Namer essay is stated to be misused/misinterpreted, and the former "best example" - the original Conan the Barbarian stories - isn't really that. Later edits have corrected the latter. Seems like the one who started the page had an axe to grind, and if he/she built the page on a misconception, what value does it have?

Maybe the most important part currently - that it seems to stem from Lost in Imitation works of the original Conan stories - could just be integrated into the Conan franchise page, and the namespace could just be deleted.

I've edited it myself recently but the whole premise seems dubious and most examples have zero context. It's just shallow/bad, take our word for it. Since the whole page is criticizing works for having no/little depth, for most cases it doesn't really explain why, and what little explanation some entries have is just to contrast said works with other works in the same series.

Edited by Estvyk on Feb 16th 2020 at 7:26:06 AM

Yeah, noticing the issues you are talking about. The third paragraph does not help.

We may be backlogged in TRS, but a complaining page can move up in priority. Opened for discussion.

It seems like a legitmate term + definition that we can use, if nothing else.

Yeah, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed. As a category, it is perfectly valid, but it is heavily contaminated with complaining mixed in with otherwise valid context and description. A lot of the examples seem to say that not only is this apparent genre "avertable", but that averting it is a good thing. I am unaware of other genres that can be averted.

Probably a definition page would be the way to go; the description can cite works that inspired the original definition?

Yeah, definition-only page is our best bet.

I'm fine with definition only.

Sounds to be a good course. I'm for declaring it a definition page.

Honestly, I feel like declaring it a definition-only page might be overcorrecting, but I can't say I'd be particularly disappointed if it's the course of action we end up going with.

Yes, but the term originates from an essay that was critiquing trends at the time and is not really used in marketing or work analysis as far as I can see (googling the term brings up more results for the rulebook of the same name). Most works aren't going to advertise themselves as "simplistic heroic fantasy" (unless it's pure Testosterone Poisoning maybe). Determining whether something "counts" as it seems like a subjective game.

I agree that there is some value to the definition (the description does mention that the term is sometimes used affectionately, so it's not pure complaining). It could be worth it to clean up the examples, though I'm not completely opposed to making it definition-only either.

Aversions are definitely not noteworthy here.

That last point I'm sure we can all agree on.

I agree with cutting aversions, since this isn't an Omnipresent Trope. As for the complaining, I think we could at least modify the description and clean up the examples.

I support modifying the description and cleaning up the examples. This page would be useful to keep around.

3 days are up- crowner.

Do we need to wait for results before removing the aversions, or should they go ASAP since everyone agrees that they don't belong?

It would probably be faster to take care of them while going through the rest of the examples, but it probably wouldn't hurt to cut any if you come across any separately from this thread.

I was occupied... I'll look up the Related pages to see how it's used elsewhere. What changes should we make? How should it be defined without dipping into complaining? Any fantasy story where action is the focus? For instance, a zero context example I removed was Gurren Lagann. Why? No explanation. The whole article seems to be giving value judgements.

I've moved the current description to Sandbox.Thud And Blunder. We may need to remake it from scratch, but it may be just as easy as changing some of the language.

I moved some stuff around for better flow and took out the more complainy phrases.

Bump. How does the sandbox look?

I like it. It's less long-winded than the current, but it still gets the point across.