Fountain of Expies, Mountain of Problems

Coming in late, but I don't think this paragraph helps your case as much as you think it does. My problem with the various "Expy of X" tropes is that, in the end, they mostly all read the same. Even though copying each character means bringing in different sets of tropes, if that's enough to make it not The Same, but More Specific, I might as well say that an Expy of any character deserves to be a distinct trope. Admittedly I'd have to find double-digit examples to get out of the Launch Pad, and that might be enough to get them listed as a Fountain of Expies, but all it means is that any character popular enough to be copied or parodied enough times would get their own trope; it doesn't necessarily mean anything. (This is why, for instance, I hate a lot of the superhero parody/expy tropes we have, especially when certain works will copy/parody a lot of superheroes at once and so rack up the example count for those tropes without making them any more distinct from one another.) For a lot of these pages, we might as well be better off creating a ParodiesOf/ or ExpiesOf/ namespace, similar to ReferencedBy/, and creating pages for each character there. Heck, that's even assuming we couldn't just stash them in ReferencedBy/.

(It doesn't help that many of these pages are very uncreatively named, with some of them trying for creativity through the use of a process so formulaic and repeatedly-used it ironically comes off less creative, picking a synonym for "not the original" that happens to be alliterative or rhyme with or pun off of the character's name or catchphrase, and if one can't be found defaulting to a more prosaic word like "clone" or "parody", even if it doesn't make sense for what the "trope" actually covers. Guess what category of parody/expy trope is particularly inclined towards that sort of thing?)

In my view, simply being a copy of another character, or being "character X in all but name", is less tropeworthy than whether or not the base character can be considered the founder of an archetype. Any character can be copied; the question is whether there's anything noteworthy or special about being a copy of this character that warrants putting them in a special category beyond that of copies in general.

This is not to say that copies, parodies, homages, and other characters patterned off of a specific character can't be a trope without being an archetype, but it usually requires some combination of sheer volume, iconicness, Stock Parody Jokes (in other words, tropes that are common in the specific context of expies/parodies of the original), uniqueness/distinctiveness of the original character, common motivation/reason to copy/parody this specific character, and other things.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

~Morgan Wick

Any character can be copied, but not any character gets copied.

You don't see much expies of Ken the Eagle from Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, for instance, and maybe some guys here would like to think Ken is a pretty popular character for a Tatsunoko hero, he has appeared in a few videogames here and there and so on, but the fact he's just not that popular enough to be copied by the hundreds or thousands of times by other authors, was enough to NOT guarantee the existence of "Ken the Eagle" as a distinct trope in and of itself.

Now, you said: "This is not to say that copies, parodies, homages, and other characters patterned off of a specific character can't be a trope without being an archetype, but it usually requires some combination of sheer volume, iconicness, Stock Parody Jokes (in other words, tropes that are common in the specific context of expies/parodies of the original), uniqueness/distinctiveness of the original character, common motivation/reason to copy/parody this specific character, and other things."

And to that, I say we had such an extremely popular character archtype trope as Darth Vader, and we already shot him down. If such a popular character as Darth Vader is not allowed to be a trope in and of itself (i.e. Darth Vader Clone), then I ask you, what kind of character is effectively in that position?

To me, the fact that you can say "this character B is just character A in all but name" (along with several other expies similar to B from other authors through diverse media forms) was just precisely the point of character A being a trope in and of itself.

Just saying a work is a copy from an original, and not a unique thing on its own and thus is "not being trope worthy", is just non-sense imho. I can say that about literally ANY trope in existence. "Oh look, this villain had a Redemption Equals Death ending! Hmph, how unoriginal, I've read that before in novel X! This author is just ripping off another author's work! Anyone can do that."

Edited by dvegaj on Sep 10th 2022 at 3:28:23 AM

Dog, please, you were already told (by a mod) that this is not the place to debate about the cut.

Morgan's post was very clearly a general statement and not about DVC, so please stop bringing it all back to that trope.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 10th 2022 at 6:45:03 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

You can call me dvegaj, if you're trying to address me.

And you're getting the wrong idea, but I refuse to talk back at you if you keep insulting me like that.

Edited by dvegaj on Sep 10th 2022 at 4:15:32 AM

It was a nickname fam, like "dude" or "bro", it wasn't an insult. It was me trying to be casual that's all no offense intended.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 10th 2022 at 7:16:18 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I take it as namecalling. I.e. an insult. A dog is an animal with less intellect than a human. It doesn't matter what you say, that's what it is. Stop making excuses for the namecalling.

Edited by dvegaj on Sep 10th 2022 at 4:25:49 AM

Man it's literally just slang

I'm not having this conversation if you're going to accuse me of insulting you. I'd never do that and I'm sorry you took it the wrong way but it really was not my intention and a simple google search will tell you that "dog" can be used as a casual slang term similar to words like "dude/buddy", as in "you sly dog" or "s'up dog". Yes it can be used as an insult but I wasn't using it as such, it was literally just a slang term that came to mind when I was responding. I also use fam, mate, dude, friend, g, buddy, etc, so I didn't see any problem with using a term people also use for the same context and definition as those words.

Anyway if you're gonna yell at me for using slang you personally find offensive that's on you so bye

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 10th 2022 at 7:33:06 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Fam, dude, lad, mate, etc etc are "slang" words. And I would have accepted them.

But not "dog".

So goodbye, I guess.

reminder that you can literally google it and here's a link to make it even easier so that you can see I'm not fucking lying to you (But remember it can be both negative and positive so actually read the links and don't just go off the first definitions they show ok cool)

Now into the void I go before this derails into a flame war since you conveniently ignored what I actually said and people aren't gonna want to show up just to debate the offensive nature of a single word

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 10th 2022 at 7:41:57 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

x8 to bring it back to the main convo, you're missing the rest of Morgan Wick's point, which is that Expy tropes are flawed (they are often filled to the brim with shoehorns and ZC Es that are near impossible to verify requiring constant upkeep if we wish to avoid them degrading, amongst other issues) and may be better off captured elsewhere, like using the Referenced by... tab. Especially if we end up with a slew of "characters like this character" tropes which would be nearly identical save for the character in question.

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 10th 2022 at 7:44:24 AM

~Tropers/amathieu13

We can fill in the ZCE's. We can discuss if a character verifiably copies/homages/references another in their respective Discussion page. That's not something we cannot do.

That we already have a "slew" of "characters that are like this character X" should be seen as something arguing for the existence of "character X as a trope", not against it.

Not really. As has already been said, see The Same, but More Specific. Having essentially the same trope, whose meaning and relevance in a work doesn't change across the different versions because all it requries is a reference, is something we try to avoid on the site. That points to the tropable pattern actually lying in the underlining concept and not in any of the derivations.

The ZC Es can be filled, but if we have a trope that attracts many of them, that's a sign that there's an issue with the trope itself. This was part of why several Appearance Tropes were cut and dewicked in the past.

And again, part of the ZCE issue is the shoehorning. As WarJay and MorganWick pointed out, the criteria for what qualifies as an expy are murky and have ranged from a similar personality (and that's it), similar styling in clothes (and that's it), similar narrative in the story (and that's it), or being an explicit Word of God inspiration for a character even if that character ends up being very different from the inspo. the singular pattern of meaning behind the reference that would make the trope a trope is not there.

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 10th 2022 at 9:05:05 AM

Thanks, Gaston.

I'll say that I feel bad for letting this thread derail (and if I legit offended dvegaj then I do feel bad about that as well) but I felt like I needed to defend myself and got a little tense as a result. I do want to go back to the matter at hand; last page T. Rexpy was brought up as having problems and we should resume that discussion.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 10th 2022 at 8:35:36 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

It's alright WarJay, it's like what's similarly happening with the VTuber cleanup thread digging up past debates again and again when things have already been settled. Oh well. *shrug*

As I said before (just to reiterate so we don't have to flip back and forth between pages) from a cursory glance it seems that examples are failing basic expy requirements, namely the duplicate/copy one and I wouldn't be surprised that examples should actually be wicked under Whateversaurus instead. I'm also curious as to the validity of T. Rexpy — if we have this trope, what's to stop someone from TLPing an expy draft for brontosaurus or triceratops or any other popular dino?

E: For some more thoughts because I remember this being brought up, I believe the name just came about from being an easy, cutesy play on T. Rex. If it had been named differently would that have made the misuse(?) so obvious, I don't know. What I do know is that, by its name, it operates under Expy criteria and is failing to abide by those criteria.

Edited by Hello83433 on Sep 10th 2022 at 11:51:13 AM

CSP Cleanup Thread | All that I ask for ... is diamonds and dance floors

(The irony is that I could see the argument that Darth Vader clones would fit the category described in my last paragraph, but it's not clear that the page as it stood was workable.)

I mean, that was a big part of why I opposed the cut - if it had been literally just "100 percent clones of Darth Vader" I'm not sure it would have been tropeworthy. But w/e.

More to the point:

I dunno if this argument holds up. A trope name that puns or references another trope name doesn't necessarily mean it must abide by the same rule (although it often leads to shoehorning in general). I don't think T-Rexpy needs to actually be a literal subtrope of Expy.

This is the exact same problem that Fountain of Expies itself has. Very few if any of the tropes listed on it are subtropes of Expy.

Question: is Suck E. Cheese's really a subtrope of Fountain of Expies? The description makes it pretty clear that FOE is for characters, but Chuck E. Cheese's is a business, not a character.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Suck E. Cheese's is not a charater trope, so it fits Stock Parodies more than Fountain of Expies.

Yes, it has occured to me Stock Shout-Outs, Stock Characters, Stock Parodies and Fountain of Expies have some overlap.

Edited by Amonimus on Sep 11th 2022 at 4:43:15 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

The parodies are easier to understand tho since all the guesswork is gone; like, at least you don't need to try and figure out whether the character is based on another.

Honestly the other thing that has always annoyed me about expies is that instead of trying to find a recurring character archetype they just attribute the usage of these tropes to imitation, when isn't it more interesting to call it a new character type that was maybe just codified by the original character?

Anyway, IDK much about how we can fix the T. Rexpy stuff other than that maybe we just need to allow overlap or do some cleanup.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 11th 2022 at 1:27:17 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

So should I remove Suck E. Cheese's from the Fountain of Expies list?

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Actually, this sort of makes me wonder whether we need a broader reconsideration of the nature of Expy itself. Like, I don't think T-Rexpy not being about character copies hurts it as a trope; probably the opposite. And not to beat the Darth Vader Clone drum again, but as I've said part of the reason I opposed cutting it was because I felt the differing nature of the examples helped to demonstrate that it was an archetype rather than a list of literal copies. And I've felt in the past that most Fountain of Expies tropes aren't even meant to be copies in the first place, so much as "inspired by."

I'm not sure if we should necessarily redefine Expy itself, specifically because of the uncommon nature of direct character copies. But I do sort of wonder if maybe its various subtropes are fundamentally misguided about going in that direction instead of focusing on "types of characters derived from an original codifying character."

Edited by nrjxll on Sep 12th 2022 at 8:15:38 AM

we're rehashing the same convos....

but to respond to your point, one of the solutions people have proposed for these expy tropes is to rethink them as archetypes, i.e. whenever characters of this archetype shows up in a work they have a distinct and reoccuring form and function. The problem, however, with many of these tropes including Darth Vader Clone, is that for many of them there is no coherent archetype to be had, the reference to the inspo character being superficial and often not going further than "their look is very inspired by them". The narrative similarity was removed. In these cases, the Referenced by... page has been suggested as the best place to house them because the inspo is superficial

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 12th 2022 at 11:46:49 AM