Angry babby
Looked over the page real quick, and here's the first example that I'm questioning:
- How the Grinch Stole Christmas!: In the 2000 live-action version, while the Grinch is still the antagonist of the story, he is considered to be much nicer than Mayor Augustus. He bullied the Grinch when they were kids and even years later he still sees the Grinch as an outcast. When the Grinch was invited to partake in the Cheermeister Celebration, he was genuinely having a good time. He could have turned over a new leaf right there and then, if Augustus didn't remind him of the worst day of the Grinch's life and publicly proposes to Martha May just to pour salt in the wound.
Carrey's Grinch is made to be much more sympathetic than the mayor, who's pretty much just a lecherous Hate Sink. 2000!Grinch's more a Villain Protagonist than an antagonist (and even the villain aspect is debatable - maybe Anti-Hero would be more accurate, unlike the original story). So this is the intended reaction and not really notable.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Intended Audience Reaction I think still qualify as Audience Reaction, the real key here is that the Grinch is a Villain Protagonist- key word being "Protagonist". We're not intended to hate him.
The Mayor is definitely a Hate Sink.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
- Game of Thrones: Joffrey Baratheon is easily the most hated character even when compared to the likes of his grandfather Tywin Lannister, Ramsey Bolton, or the Night King himself. Though he and Ramsey are incredibly cruel and sadistic, Ramsey at the very least genuinely loved his family (up until he crossed the Moral Event Horizon) and only targeted his enemies, whereas Joffrey had tormented his younger siblings and ordered Eddard Stark's execution simply because he believes he could do anything he wants to anyone without repercussion. Tywin, on the other hand, is a pragmatist that will only engage in any kind of acts of cruelty when it's in his best interests to do so and otherwise strives to maintain friendly relationships with the other allied Houses. And the Night King is more of a force of nature than anything else.
Joffrey is most certainly a villain, even if he's a relatively small fish in a world with no shortage of them.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I guess the question is, can villains who are hated primarily for being jerkasses count if other villains in the same work are considered more fun and enjoyable?
In other words, is the deciding factor jerkassery, even if the jerkass is also a villain? Or does being a villain act as a disqualifier?
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Susjection!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
My opinion on this is that characters who get more hate than other villains despite committing objectively less evil acts can still count, even if they're also villains. What do you think ~Heavy Metal Hermit Crab?
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Thing is, this technically isn't a trope, it's an Audience Reaction. Tropes Are Flexible doesn't apply.
Very Spooky
Going to contest this example:
- Harry Potter: Dolores Jane Umbridge is perhaps one of the best known examples of this trope, maybe even the Trope Codifier. Lord Voldemort, the Big Bad of the series, is a genocidal maniac who's basically Wizard Hitler. Umbridge, however, has nothing to do with Voldemort and his Death Eaters, but is far more hated for her abuses of power and generally acting as a malevolent dictator more than a teacher or administrator, and even more so in the movie, thanks to Imelda Staunton's awesome portrayal of her. A lot of it has to do with the fact that many in the audience are more likely to know someone like Umbridge than they are to know a fanatical supremacist like Voldemort.
While Umbridge might not be the Big Bad of the series, she's still a major villain in the later books. I'd also say that her actions are far more cruel than just jerkassery; she's even listed as a Complete Monster. I'd argue that she's simply too evil to count for this trope.
Edited by jandn2014 on Jan 20th 2021 at 7:23:21 AM
back lol
Susjection!
Something that should be noted is that both Joffrey and Dolores Jane Umbridge were on the TLP draft.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Again, probably a holdover from the earlier days of the draft. Umbridge is also notable for being Realism-Induced Horror incarnate, but being realistically awful isn't the same thing as being a jerkass. She's a CM for a reason.
Goku Black
Joffrey is also seriously vile too even by a song of fire and ice standards which is why he's listed under Complete Monster as well. Don't think listing him Here is quite right either.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I admit, I got one of HOA's CM characters listed under this as well (Caroline Denby), on the basis that she's despised by viewers for her cruel, jerkass traits rather than her villainous acts. But if we're going with "CM don't count", I can delete that part.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I would like to have this example reviewed as well. It's one I suggested back in the TLP draft.
- Ys VIII: Lacrimosa of Dana: Sir Carlan is one of the castaways who is an Upper-Class Twit that views commoners as beneath him regardless of his current circumstance of being stranded on an island crawling with Primordials like everyone else, to the point that the game essentially treats him as a literal dead weight character. He's very stubborn, refuses to help out the village because of his perceived status granting him immunity from "commoner work", and doesn't treat anyone other than Laxia (who's a noble) with the same respect. For this reason, many fans consider Carlan worse than the Ax-Crazy serial killer Kiergaard and Theos de Endogram, the being inside the Great Tree of Origins who wipes out entire species off the planet in set Lacrimosa cycles to maintain the balance of life on earth. Fans weren't surprised when, in an act of desperation, Carlan attempts to escape the Isle of Seiren all by himself and ends up getting killed by the Oceanus, until it's later revealed he survived even that and got stranded on the small island in the center of the lagoon alone for days. But since finding Carlan on that island is an optional sidequest, some fans feel contempt to just leave him there.
Looking back, Carlan is just a Hate Sink, as Falcom intended players to hate his guts for being a snobbish jerk. It also ties into his Character Development much later in the game.
Edited by DivineFlame100 on Jan 25th 2021 at 1:34:34 AM
I have have been unsure about the Warhammer 40,000 example since the trope launched.
- In Warhammer 40,000, the most evil faction isn't generally considered to be Chaos, a collective of evil gods attempting to conquer and corrupt the whole galaxy. Normally, that honor goes to the Dark Eldar, a group of backstabbing, decadent, hedonostic pirates hiding in the Webway and sometimes going out to kidnap people in order to torture them to death in the most horrible ways possible to stave off the devouring of their souls by one of said gods. Mind you, they can always join their Craftworld brethren and instead stave it off through proper discipline, but that means giving up the hedonism and backstabbing.
- That said, in spite of how utterly heinous they are, the Drukhari do have a diabolical appeal. They are generally well-liked for being Machiavellian badasses with sleek, fast vehicles and technology so advanced that it looks like magic, plus their Glass Cannon nature means many players consider them the hardest army to play well. The Craftworlder Aeldari, however, are quite widely disliked for being supremacistnote , status-quo defending fairies.
While they have never been the overall villain, the Drukhari/Dark Eldar are the antagonists in around 80% of their appearances in the lore. I am guessing they don't count?
Edited by SebastianGray on Jan 21st 2021 at 8:54:55 PM
Knowledge is Power, Guard it Well
Kevjro 7: My line of thought is/was that there isn't always a whole lot of functional difference between an unsympathetic Jerkass and a Mook or a low-level villain — they're all antagonistic characters. So I added examples according to the idea that audiences often hate a character more for being rude than evil regardless of their position in the narrative.
In TLP, multiple people took liberties with the draft after I'd assumed responsibility for it, without asking permission, informing me of what was done, or respecting my request to stop. Since the TLP makes it impossible to track changes to a draft, I don't know how much of that draft was actually vetted by me and how much was stealth-added added by a third party. Hell, looking at it now, someone even did away with the description I wrote, so at this point my involvement in this has been reduced to "pressed the launch button". :P
Alright, so it appears that this trope's complicated history of being tossed around by different sponsors, each with their own set of views of what the trope should be, is the main source of the problem. I think the first thing we need to do is identify what the trope should be, settle on a clear and concise definition, and from there, we can remove any misuse.
Edited by DivineFlame100 on Jan 22nd 2021 at 4:36:39 AM
Goku Black
So what do we want this to be exactly ?
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Maintenance?
Isn't that what the Trope Repair Shop is for, or can we just unlaunch it again?
I wonder if it would work better as an In-Universe Examples Only trope covering at least one of the following:
- A Jerkass character is portrayed as objectively worse than the Big Bad.
- The belief that jerks are worse than villains.
- A Jerkass is considered In-Universe to be worse than the Big Bad.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
No and no:
- Recent launches don't get TRS.
- The trope was in TLP for years. Sending it back won't only lose a lot of post-launch work but also make things more complicated.
As for your idea, I'm not a fan of such a radical change. That would require unlaunching but is also ignoring that this is a legit Audience reaction and phenomenon.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 22nd 2021 at 9:56:18 AM
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I'm Sad Frogerson.
Just a quick question, do unintentional Jerkasses qualify for this trope, or is it only intentional ones? I know the trope is YMMV, but there seems to be a mix between "this character who's an intentional jerkass is viewed as worse than the villains" and "this hero came off as an asshole by accident, so the fans think they're worse than the villains".
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Tbh my original idea for this thread was just to go through every example individually, but we do need to determine right/wrong usage first.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Yeah, sure.
It feels to me like Jerks Are Worse Than Villains is trying to tap into an aspect of Reality Ensues (a problematic trope in its own right).
You've got a story where the villains are all busy being villains, but it's safe for the villains to engage in utter heinousness (the level of which depends on whom the story's aimed at) because there's something 'freeing' about the storytelling role that a villain plays. It's their job to drive the plot. That's what a villain is. So, their behaviour and actions are the reason there is a story at all. So, the audience knows that the point of the story is to address that villain in some way. It therefore becomes very freeing for both the creator and the audience — that the villain is free to do whatever the story needs them to do and that's 'okay' and even necessary. And that's why people feel free to enjoy the villain and how they move the plot or add colour to the plot.
Cue the mundane jerkass, and suddenly the story's been hit by a dose of reality: the character is uncomfortably realistic in terms of the everyday, mundane real life people experience in schools, work, family environments, etc. It's almost like saying this one character is subverting the villainy tropes by being a realistic arsehole instead of an actual story villain.
I don't know if I'm conveying this as well as I want to because I'm not saying that the villains themselves cannot be deeply realistic in very realistic stories. I'm saying that the point of this audience reaction is that the arsehole character somehow pulls the audience out from the 'acceptable role villains play in a story' feeling that the story is creating to being 'this jerk is far more jerk than expected; WTF!'.
As the trope seems to be saying (but is perhaps lost in too long a description), the point is the dissonance the audience feels between the expected norms of the story and the all too 'real life' awfulness of the arsehole in question.
The trope description itself is excluding villains and is very much focussed on audience having a dissonance reaction. So, it's dealing with audience perception of the role of a non-villain antagonist in the story concerned. If there's no trope re-definition going on, then excluding villains is probably going to be a must, and it's not going to make sense for IUEO either. It therefore seems like new tropes would need to be created for villain and IUEO examples, leaving this one as a sort of Jerkass Dissonance audience reaction.
Edited to add: Okay, I was very surprised to see Jerkass Dissonance didn't redlink and is already an existing audience reaction. Reading Jerkass Dissonance, that is an audience reaction where the audience unexpectedly likes a jerkass far beyond expectation or intended story role. So, Jerks Are Worse Than Villains seems like it's the reverse of this already existing audience reaction: it's the audience unexpectedly hating a jerkass far beyond expectation or intended story role. The main difference is that Jerkass Dissonance includes villains whereas Jerks Are Worse Than Villains excludes them (except as the bar by which the jerkass concerned is measured).
In fact, I notice that Jerks Are Worse Than Villains has been indexed on Jerkass Dissonance, and I think it shouldn't have been: since Jerkass Dissonance is uni-directional (it's about liking the jerkass more than people should), something that's about people hating a character more than they should, isn't eligible for being listed on that page.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 26th 2021 at 12:46:28 PM
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.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
What's being touched on here is more like Realism-Induced Horror, which this...might actually count as a subtrope of.
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?
A cleanup thread to run through and fix the misuse that Jerks Are Worse Than Villains appears to be suffering from.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness