ShaggyDogStory

So I posted this in the Duplicates Trope Cleanup thread, and it seems that "Shaggy Dog" Story and All for Nothing has almost exactly the same description. Currently, the only apparent distinction between the two is that one is Played for Laughs and the other is Played for Drama.

This might need to go to TRS, but I'd like some more opinions about this.

"Shaggy Dog" Story is definitely not exclusively played for laughs, and there are many examples on the page of more tragic manifestations. Far Cry 5 is a good example, where everything you did was pointless because of a sudden nuclear armageddon.

All for Nothing generally has more of a focus on a character's work being undone, while "Shaggy Dog" Story has all the events of the story being rendered null and void due to some sudden outside circumstance negating it. For example, if the guy brought the shaggy dog to the residence, only for it to be long abandoned with no further leads, then he would have to go back home with the shaggy dog - right back to square one. That wouldn't be a "Shaggy Dog" Story. Meanwhile, if Bob, instead of falling off the wagon after becoming sober for the sake of his family, instead died soon afterward of sudden liver failure due to the damage that's already been done, that would be a "Shaggy Dog" Story - that doesn't undo Bob's sobriety, but renders it meaningless because, well, he's dead, and dead people are generally sober by default.

Edited to add an explanation and because I suck at formatting.

Another edit because of something I realized: "Shaggy Dog" Story and Shoot the Shaggy Dog are two separate tropes, while both are named after the exact same thing. It seems Shoot the Shaggy Dog is just ""Shaggy Dog" Story but tragic". I don't think the two are distinct enough to warrant separate tropes, especially since having very similar names based off the same story will cause confusion (shooting the shaggy dog is the basis of both tropes, after all.)

Edited by AGuy on Jan 28th 2021 at 5:39:18 AM

AFAIK, Shoot the Shaggy Dog is when the hero dies before or right after achieving their goals/dreams, making their journey pointless because they can't enjoy the pay-off of their story arc, even if they technically succeeded—e.g. a man is convicted of a crime he didn't commit and is sentenced death. He tries to either clear his name or escape from prison... only to be hit by a truck and die after doing that.

The second hypothetical you wrote would be an example of Shoot the Shaggy Dog in that case.

I'm not sure I understand your first example (a person follows a lead that turns out to be a dead end, and has to start all over again). Why wouldn't that be an example of "Shaggy Dog" Story?

And if we have a story where, say, a guy goes through a long, difficult, and often life-threatening journey to find a treasure, only to find that it's already been taken by someone else, or he loses the treasure after finding it, would that be an example of All for Nothing or "Shaggy Dog" Story?

According to the list of subtle differences, All for Nothing involves a character's actions becoming pointless because of another character's actions. "Shaggy Dog" Story is for stories that end because of a random occurance rendering the character's actions pointless. It doesn't look like a very big difference, but there is a difference.

Also of note, Shoot the Shaggy Dog is a variant of "Shaggy Dog" Story where the protagonist dies as well as their efforts becoming pointless.

Is that a worthy distinction, though?

One could make the case that "Shaggy Dog" Story is the audience's investment in the story going to waste while All for Nothing is doing the same to the character's investment in their quest. Both can obviously overlap.

My not-at-all-backed-up-by-any-usage-stats impression is that "Shaggy Dog" Story is specifically a plot or subplot structure while All for Nothing is broader.

Hmm, looking through the examples, I think "Shaggy Dog" Story is the broader one, as it includes things like "Could Have Avoided This!" Plot (e.g. heroes travel through a Death World to reach a destination, only to find after arriving that there is a shortcut that could have spared them the trouble) or Aborted Arc (e.g. heroes go through a dangerous journey to obtain a MacGuffin, but the MacGuffin is immediately forgotten about).

So I suppose one is a subtrope to the other?

Edited by Adept on Jan 31st 2021 at 7:10:10 PM

It looks to me like "Shaggy Dog" Story is an Ending Trope. It's how the story ends. There's no 'happy ever after here'; everything the character hoped to achieve is null and void. That usually means the point of the story isn't about someone overcoming the odds and getting their dream but something else (the futility of life, the transience of life, a deconstruction of the hero's quest, etc.).

All for Nothing has an identity problem because it starts as if it's a character trope then morphs into a full blown story trope. It also acts like it can happen at any point in the story as long as the key factor is that everything a previous story arc or character arc was trying to achieve has been completely undone. In situations where it's not an Ending Trope, I would imagine that it could lead to the story undergoing Cerebus Syndrome (for example) or characters affected by either the undone story arc or character arc experiencing (for example) Start of Darkness, Face–Heel Turn or Despair Event Horizon, etc. Either way, it doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the story or the character.

It therefore feels like "Shaggy Dog" Story should actually be a subtrope of All for Nothing — a specific kind of story-specific Ending Trope scenario of All for Nothing. Shoot the Shaggy Dog seems to be ""Shaggy Dog" Story + Death Trope version", making it a sub-trope of the sub-trope — which is possibly not enough distinction to justify being a separate trope.

In short:

• Super-trope: All for Nothing seems to incorporate both character arcs and story arcs, doesn't have to occur at the end of a story, and characters can live or die.
  • Sub-trope: "Shaggy Dog" Story seems to be only a story arc and is an Ending Trope. Characters can live or die.
    • Sub-Sub-trope: Shoot the Shaggy Dog seems to be "Shaggy Dog" Story that ends with character death, making it both an Ending Trope and Death Trope.

If All for Nothing is a character arc trope only, then it's still set up to be able to happen at any point in the story, including at the end. At which point, we have:

• Missing super trope covering both story arcs and character arcs, and which can happen at any point in the story, including at the end. Characters involved can live or die.
  • Sub-trope 1: All for Nothing: character arc only, but can happen at any point in the story, including at the end. Characters concerned can live or die.
  • Sub-trope 2: "Shaggy Dog" Story: story arc only and ending trope only, but the character concerned can live or die.
    • Sub-Sub-trope 2: Shoot the Shaggy Dog: story arc only, ending trope only, death trope only.

That would make All for Nothing and "Shaggy Dog" Story sister tropes to a missing super-trope.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 31st 2021 at 1:47:16 PM

I'm pretty sure that a "Shaggy Dog" Story—at least as defined beyond this wiki; I'm not sure of our definition—doesn't necessarily have to be an "All for Nothing" story—the events of the story needn't be undone by the end.

Except perhaps in a meta sense, in which the audience has invested in a long and involved narrative, only to be rewarded with a huge anticlimax at the end.

Take for example the classic "Shaggy Dog" Story joke, condensed of its details here for the sake of not making the point too over-long in being established:

~

The story tells, at length, of a town in which a mafia operation has established itself. Specifically, this particular mafia is using a local flower-shop to launder their money. However, this same town was also home to a group of friars, who likewise ran a (legitimate) flower-shop.

Now, the latter flower-shop was easily the more successful—a fact that threatened the mafia-group's money-laundering.

To deal with this, the mafia sends out various enforcers to convince the friars to close down. (In the full joke, the efforts of the enforcers are described more specifically.) None are successful: the friars just pick themselves up each time and keep on running their shop.

Eventually, the mafia turns to one last enforcer, a fellow named Hugh. Hugh employs tactics unlike those of his predecessors—and they work: the friars give up, and close their flower-shop.

The joke closes, then, with the following line (or one to similar effect):

"Thus we see the truth of the old idiom: Hugh, and only Hugh, can stop florist friars."

~

Which is to say, the whole long and slightly-dramatic story was told entirely in the service of one groanworthy pun.

This is, of course, quite anticlimactic—thus making the joke a Shaggy Dog Story.

However, I might argue that nothing has been undone—while the friars gave in eventually, they did last for some time, and the mafia succeeded in their goals.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 31st 2021 at 4:45:38 PM

I thought a story like that was a Feghoot, not a "Shaggy Dog" Story.

yeah, that's a Feghoot. I'd argue a feghoot is a distinction of "Shaggy Dog" Story and one of the most famous feghoots, Asimov's Shah Guido G is titled after a pun on shaggy dog

Edited by Libraryseraph on Jan 31st 2021 at 10:03:14 AM

Hmm... I'm not familiar with that term—interesting!

However, looking at Wikipedia, I'm not sure that the distinction is so clear. Their article on Sha Guido G. categorises it as a "Shaggy Dog Story", and indicates that Asimov likewise categorised it.

Perhaps a "Feghoot" then is a specific sub-class of the broader "Shaggy Dog Story"?

Either way, going back to Wikipedia, the definition given there indicates only that the ending is anticlimactic, not that it's "all for nothing":

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Feb 1st 2021 at 1:37:22 PM

They can be both. A Feghoot is a long, drawn-out pun, but doesn't have to be anticlimactic. A "Shaggy Dog" Story doesn't have to end with a pun ("Doesn't look so shaggy" isn't a pun).

Edited by crazysamaritan on Feb 1st 2021 at 9:33:10 AM

That makes sense. (And thank you for chiming in!) In that case, I argue that my original point—that a Shaggy Dog Story needn't have an "all for nothing" ending—stands, as does the original example.

Pretty sure YMMV and Audience Reaction tropes aren's supposed to apply to real life people.

Sorry wrong thread.

Edited by Adept on Feb 2nd 2021 at 6:08:02 PM

... I'm not sure to what you're referring. What real-life person am I applying the trope to?

[edit] Especially as ""Shaggy Dog" Story" doesn't appear to be a YMMV or Audience Reaction trope?

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Feb 2nd 2021 at 12:10:25 PM

Well, this has been an interesting discussion. I didn't realize that "Shaggy Dog" Story was a pre-existing term, although looking at the definition outside this wiki, it does seem to lean towards a comedic use ("a long, rambling story or joke, typically one that is amusing only because it is absurdly inconsequential or pointless") and relies on subverting audience expectation by not meeting it at all, or meeting it in an absurd manner.

The examples given in the other Wiki's page is completely different from the examples listed here (being more similar to Random Events Plot, Bait-and-Switch or Anti-Humor).

...That really doesn't clear things up.

Ah, fair enough!

I think that the simplest definition that one might devise is that a "Shaggy Dog Story" is a long, often rambling, tale that derives its final punch by virtue of ending on an anticlimax.

This does tend to lend itself towards humour, I imagine, but I daresay that it can be used to dramatic ends:

I could imagine an example in which someone's life-long struggle to create something is detailed at length, and the creation of that thing is accomplished—only for the thing in question to be dismissed almost in passing by those to whom it's presented. Done well, and with some theme that it's supporting, such a narrative could be heartbreaking, I feel.

My parents use the term "shaggy dog story", and it is very clearly for what we call a Feghoot. This existing usage may complicate matters; I could see us merging shaggy-dog in All for Nothing and making it into a redirect for Feghoot.

An existing example could be the oldest known written story, The Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the great hero fails. Other epics have a similar arc of "hero fails and grows wiser from it", but what is notable in this one is the very anti-climactic ending, likely to hammer in that his quest for immortality is futile.

I would suggest that a Shaggy Dog Story can be neither an "All for Nothing" tale, nor a Feghoot—there are other sorts of anticlimax, I feel.

Combing through the examples on the ""Shaggy Dog" Story" page, I found this one, for example:

It's not "all for nothing", as the plot of the internal tabletop game is resolved, and presumably the prior actions of the players do lead up to that resolution. And it's not a Feghoot, as it doesn't built up to a pun (as far as I'm aware, at least).

It is, however, rather anticlimactic: the players get to the end of the game... and are railroaded into a supporting role while NP Cs play out the actual climax.

In addition, even where a Shaggy Dog Story does have an "All for Nothing" ending, I feel like it's a sufficiently distinct and prominent form that it's worth describing separately. Or looked at from another perspective, I might argue that some Shaggy Dog Stories use the "All for Nothing" trope in order to achieve their anticlimax.

I asked my father, who I trust to know broad word usages, what "Shaggy dog story" means to him. He said it is a long, rambling, and not-too-interesting-on-its-own story that ends with a punchline, but an intentionally underwhelming one; often but not always a pun. So he recognises shaggy-dog as a supertrope to Feghoot, but with a particular style.

I think something like this may work:

All for Nothing is when a character's work, that took up some part of the story, is rendered pointless. It is disappointing, to the character and (if sympathetic) to the audience, but can be a climax in its own way. Rebuild of Evangelion 2.22 has Shinji put all his efforts into a vain rescue that only makes things worse, and the audience is well aware of it, but boy does it make for a spectacular climax.

A "Shaggy Dog" Story is a particular genre of Antihumor, where the whole story has a mundane and rambling quality, with the punchline capping this by being underwhelming and tangential. It is always played for laughs, but might come with some pathos if it is part of a longer story. I came across a good example in Vampeerz, where a whole chapter has Aria complaining of aches in her groin and trying to relieve them in a very awkward way, and in the end she farts. A plot-irrelevant chapter, but it contributes a bit to painting the cast.

SDS is a subtrope to intentional anticlimaxes. Other subtropes could include anticlimax played for laughs after a genuinely engaging story (or at least one that follows a conventional structure), and played for drama. The latter often involving All for Nothing, but there are other ways. The Man Behind the Curtain is one form.

I could see going with that.

As I said, I personally would open up "Shaggy Dog Story" to dramatic examples (like the hypothetical one that I gave, above), but I'm not significantly opposed to splitting the concept into two tropes.

I would suggest that "All For Nothing" be less a plot or structural trope than an ending trope: that is, that any ending that negates the work done before it would be included.

Under this formulation, the example in the post above me would be included, as would Shaggy Dog Stories that happen to include such negation in their endings.

The trope feels more useful to me, this way.

I would drop the word "mundane" here, myself—I know of one that includes the slaying of a dragon and a cyclops, and the fantastic drama of such things serves, I feel, to make the incredible mundanity of the punchline only that much more effective.

Rambling, yes, that is a common feature!

Note that the current use of the trope already includes non-comedic examples, and the description does seem to support that kind of usage. I haven't checked the usage yet, but at a glance it would seem that there are more non-comedic examples than the comedic one.

I suppose it's fine to let it stay as a broader trope about a mundane/underwhelming resolution to a seemingly greater set-up, but then it seems redundant to Anti-Climax.

Edited by Adept on Feb 5th 2021 at 6:13:50 PM

An anti-climax can happen at the end of pretty much any build-up; one can have a single line, followed by an anti-climactic second line.

A Shaggy Dog Story is a story that is long and rambling, calling for a fair investment on the part of the listener—only for it to end in an anti-climax.

Or looked at from another perspective: an anti-climax isn't a story by itself—it's an element of a story; a Shaggy Dog Story is a story that includes that element, amongst others.