Misused (alt names crowner 27 Jan 2021): Reality Ensues

Again, that seems like the more cynical outcome, but not an inherently more realistic one.

That's the issue here, isn't it? Cynicism being confused for Realism.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Oops, I forgot we were talking about definition 3. My bad ;^_^

---

I think you're onto something, WarJay... But then the question becomes, "how can we differentiate cynical outcomes from realistic ones, especially since in some cases, the cynical outcome is the most realistic one?"

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Now, I don't want to go pretending like I know the trope well enough to say definitively. I absolutely don't.

With that out of the way though, this is how I see it:

• If the work is going for realism, the outcome might be a more cynical one, but the intent to show how tropes wouldn't actually work out in the real world. This means that Reality Ensues works best with tropes that are inherently unrealistic, conventions that, in real life, would either be non-existent or would function completely differently.
• However, if the work is just being cynical, then it doesn't matter how realistic the result is or how realistic the trope is- what matters is just taking a negative approach to the subject. In the Alice and Bob example, the outcome isn't inherently more realistic as, while it can happen in real life, that doesn't mean it would. It is however a far more negative approach to the topic, portraying it as though Alice never had a chance of liking Bob and would only ever succeed in breaking his heart because she can't see him as worthy of her. That's a cynical way to view the character of Alice and the circumstances of her theoretical date with Bob, but it isn't inherently more realistic, as it's also possible for Alice to enjoy being with Bob and change her tune, or for her to never agree to the date at all, or for Bob himself to be the one to break it off, or any other potential variation.

So the difference I see is whether or not the example is based on applying the laws of reality to a fictional convention, or if it's applying a cynical view of what's being discussed regardless of the inherent realism of the subject matter.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

This is starting to sound like a discussion from Not a Deconstruction where people confuse Deconstruction with Darker and Edgier. I say it is not helping in differentiating Reality Ensues and Deconstruction.

I am going out on a limb here but can it be that Reality Ensues is just some shade of playing with a trope whenever a trope is contrasted with real life? The matrix could look like this:

Yeah, I'm also having trouble defining Reality Ensues in a way that doesn't rely on playing-with. How are these for Love at First Sight?

• Love at First Sight (straight): Alice sees Bob at the supermarket and falls in love with him. As is typical for a romantic drama, this is the start of their love story, which ends in Happily Ever After.
  • Reality Ensues: Alice falls in love with Bob at the supermarket, but like most supermarket encounters in real life, Bob doesn't really register her and the two of them never meet again.
  • Deconstruction: Alice falls in love with Bob at the supermarket, kicking off their romance, but it turns out that starting a relationship on a fleeting attraction without knowing a person at all is not sustainable.
  • Subversion: Alice falls in love with Bob at the supermarket, before realizing that his shopping cart is full of disgusting things. She is turned off.

If the Reality Ensues trope does end up completely overhauled, will a similar effort be made by the people doing so to go to the works that have a Reality Ensues entry and review them on a case by case basis, to make corrections?

^^ That would work in the example given. But how to generalize that into a rule that can be applied to other scenarios like the "jumping into a pool of gold coins" example? Some users think its both a deconstruction and Reality Ensues.

To clarify, I didn't automatically want it to be put into a 'Playing With' category. I was concerned that trying to pin down the trope description might run into the problem of pinning down a distinction between the trope and 'Playing With', especially if we start trying to define the trope in terms of how other tropes work — and especially if we want to accommodate the wider use (such as the jumping in the pool example).

I admit my post wasn't very clearly worded on that front and other posters have since worded that issue in a much better way, and I didn't consider the deconstruction aspect when making my post.

Can we identify what the trope currently claims it does in a set of bullet points. It might help to establish what exactly we've got, what we might want to keep, and what we might want to change. I might do that tomorrow actually. It's a bit too late for me to do it now.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

It's tempting to define RE as a Playing With category. However, the implication would that it could not be listed anymore as a stand-alone item. So any entry like:

• Reality Ensues: [Explanation]

would have to be turned into:

• Trope XYZ: RealityEnsued. [Explanation]

Edited by eroock on May 6th 2020 at 2:19:08 AM

I'm still not seeing a meaningful difference between Reality Ensues and just a deconstruction

^ Not sure if following differentiation is meaningful enough:

• Deconstruction: A trope is played straight but down the line we see consequences that were ignored by the typical application of the trope. Think Gone Horribly Right.
  • Example: Pooled Funds. The jumping into the pool of gold coins works fine but after years of swimming in gold, the character develops lung problems due to gold dust they inhaled.
• Reality Ensues: The trope is not played straight but fails already on application due to reality not working the way it does in fiction. Think Gone Horribly Wrong.
  • Example: Pooled Funds fails as the character hits their head on the coins.

Edited by eroock on May 6th 2020 at 7:55:33 AM

Right, that's the thing. Deconstruction is just breaking down a trope that's played straight to see the consequences of it occurring. Reality Ensues doesn't even let the trope play out; it sets up the convention and breaks it to show that the story is following real-world logic and the convention is purely a fictional one.

It has more in common with Subversion, IMO.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it. In the Love at First Sight example, the Deconstructed Trope plays out to a realistic consequence (shallow attraction = unsustainable relationship blah blah blah), but the Reality Ensues situation, the trope does not play out as it should, because supermarket meet cutes don't often happen realistically.

Edited by Synchronicity on May 6th 2020 at 12:23:09 PM

Would it be wrong to be listed like this?

• Reality Ensues
  • Trope A: Explanation
  • Trope B: Explanation
  • Trope C: Explanation

Also, because I like Reality Ensues and I want to avoid misuse on the Deconstruction vs Reality Ensues matter, would Reality Ensues not be in any situation with fantastic elements? It seems that in situations like "character with fire powers kills herself by accident via fire", "character tries to train a dragon but can't", "non-magic character goes against magical enemy and is overpowered immediately", etc might all be deconstructed because such things don't exist in real life.

Edited by iamconstantine on May 6th 2020 at 3:00:43 PM

Right. None of those would count as Reality Ensues, since, well, the convention wouldn't exist in reality to begin with.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Tbh it's weird how people misuse "trope decay" as though it's bad or inherently needs to be corrected. Especially since Trope Decay is a trope, and Tropes Are Not Bad.

Sometimes tropes just change meaning over time or their definitions become more vague to encompass variations on it. Idk why this site is so afraid of that, as if we have to stick to 100% of the absolute original definition with absolutely no deviation. Not to mention every time this issue is brought up it comes from a place of phenomenal nit picking (ie, "you must only use examples that fall into this exceedingly strict definition that I just made up". Seriously, OP's idea of what Reality Ensues is "supposed" to mean just goes unchallenged, as if the fact that they say it makes it true. I've never heard this trope defined in the stringent way they're referring to. And who made them the authority on what it's supposed to mean?)

Like, it's not that big of a deal. I think the way the trope is defined now is perfectly adequate. Seems useless to make a big todo about it.

Edited by Gotgunpowder on May 6th 2020 at 6:52:08 AM

Suspended for literally no reason lol

Trope Decay isn't a trope. It's more like a misplaced Administrivia page.

Furthermore, the reason nobody is questioning our take on the trope is that it's what the trope is meant to be. We're not just making shit up and expecting everyone else to go with it.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 6th 2020 at 9:55:40 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Because...you say so?

This is what I mean, what a trope is supposed to mean, or what even counts as a trope, is so nebulous and immaterial that making threads over whether or not the trope is being used "correctly" feel meaningless. There's nothing objective or empirical defining your analysis, it's just what the trope is "meant to be" because that's what you feel it's meant to be.

By this logic any "Playing with a trope" tropes are just "misplaced administrava pages". Or it's different because you say so. Again, nebulous.

Edited by Gotgunpowder on May 6th 2020 at 6:55:51 AM

Suspended for literally no reason lol

It's not. It's a definition page for the sake of wiki editors to understand a common issue. This is actually common. A bunch of pages in Main/ actually belong in Administrivia. Sure, just because I claim something doesn't make it true, but just because you dispute something, it doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 6th 2020 at 9:57:04 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

And although we could have the trope stay the way it is now, there's less of a point to it when it's used to describe just "realistic thing happens" and not the proper meaning.

back lol

...◊

Perhaps next time you can be less rude and aggressive about it, Gotgunpowder?

Trope Decay is good sometimes, yes, but in most cases it reduces the tropes affected to "this exists", and in every case it still leaves a huge mess to sort through.

I'd suggest you read People Sit on Chairs, by the way. it'll tell you everything about how "this exists" isn't in any way viable as a trope.

---

Anyway, I think we should take a look at the description, see what we can salvage from it, and go from there. It's unnecessarily huge, describes the trope as "author decides to factor a realistic outcome into the plot" with no explanation as to how the author can do so, and says things in ten paragraphs that could be condensed into three.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Alright, I guess the distinction is more clear to me now.

So what's the proposed fixes for this? I personally think that turning this into a Playing With category can work, otherwise this would be too broad. Not to mention, a lot of Slice of Life works, or works set in the real world, have plots that can plausibly happen in reality, which makes this meaningless in those settings.

If it becomes a Playing With trope, how would it be any different from Subversion?

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness