The laconic is wrong - Symbolism exists for mere mentions of symbols.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'm a bit confused with your point here. Right now, the laconic states "themes or imagery inserted for symbolic value." That means, there's nothing truly wrong with my pointers.
All the Christ imagery that's often shown is a quick symbolic way to show how the title character's trying to play and defy god, and also demonstrate how egotistical he is. Also Jesus Christ himself is famous for being raised from the dead. This means if Frankenstein is playing God by raising the dead, then the Jesus figure would be the monster he's creating.
Would about that wall of eyes shown at the very beginning which basically represents how Henry Frankenstein wants to be God as all-knowing, and all-seeing?
I thought those were great examples of symbolism, and that's just two examples. I had five if you were curious.
Also, I'm looking at the description, but I don't see "symbolism exists for mere mentions of symbols".
Wouldn't "symbolism exists in a work" be too broad to be troped? Then again, the on-page examples are just that.
Lost in Space
Ugh. Yes, "Symbolism exists in a work" is much too broad a topic to have useful examples. It absolutely is a trope, of course, but it's omnipresent.
Part of the problem with Rule of Symbolism may be the title. What is this rule, exactly? It's far too vague. There is room for "symbolism busts through the suspension of disbelief" as a concept, but it's necessarily subjective.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
...does that mean my examples were bad? Because I can take a new route if you want. Also, you may want to check the Ro S page in general.
Lost in Space
I just looked at Rule of Symbolism and the description directly mentions Willing Suspension of Disbelief. A trope's description always supersedes its laconic. It's still not written very well, since it fails to give any concrete rules for determining when something applies.
The above notwithstanding, if your writeup for an example goes beyond three sentences or takes up more than three lines on a 1080p monitor, you should take a hard look at it for conciseness.
Put simply: the wiki is not for writing college lit-crit essays.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 5th 2021 at 10:33:50 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Okay, I'll find a way to shorten my examples.
Should I turn this over to TRS?
Eh, I don't think we need TRS yet especially since it's so crowded already.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lost in Space
It'd probably be more immediately useful to take Rule of Symbolism to the description cleanup
to add clarity.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 5th 2021 at 6:14:07 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
But do we know what the trope should cover? The examples don't fit the stricter description suggested here. It's a mess.
The description of Rule of Symbolism talks about symbolism that stretches out Willing Suspension of Disbelief. The laconic merely mentions symbolism exists in the work. So what are the criteria?
As an example: Today some user added several Wall of Text examples of Rule of Symbolism to Frankenstein (1931) which describe scenes and the symbolism behind them. The scenes are not stretching any Willing Suspension of Disbelief. Is that covered by the trope?
Edited by eroock on Apr 3rd 2021 at 11:11:45 AM