Hate Sink discussion

Recently, it's been decided that discussion involving Hate Sink will be moved here from TRS, so we can find a way to resolve the issues with it.

So, time to resume the discussion revolving its meaning and what counts as an example.

I think this trope is too broad. A character who's meant to be hated could apply to a genocidal warlord or an obnoxious rival. That's why I think we should convert Hate Sink into an index.

I'm starting to feel that way. My personal definition used to be very specific (the lightning rod in the void), but recently I'm starting to become less sure if that definition holds water and isn't covered by other tropes. And that also means that the trope might really just be "intentionally hated character", which is too broad of a concept to be a viable trope idea... or at least is too broad to have examples of, since the range is too much.

In my opinion, it should be:

• A character who is likely more of a jerk than an outright villain and definitely not a Big Bad
• A character with a high enough percentage of time in the work that it actually makes sense to want them to fail as much as you want the heroes to succeed (so, not characters that are only in one scene of a movie or one episode of a tv show)
• A character that does fail as part of a resolution, to prove that this was the intended role
• Likely part of a work with no truly villainous characters or with truly villainous characters who are more detached from the main cast

I think it's Broadness and that it could Apply to a Number of different types of charachters is a reason for it being a Trope then against, it means that there's no other big Trope that can fill the Role like some claim.

Or you know its a pointless to keep as is because we wouldn't make a trope about character meant to be likeable. So why have one for character is meant to be hated ?

That's kind of a stretch, IMO.

But that's the exact inverse of this in how broad a statement It is?

It's really not?

Like, a Charachter who's designed to be likeable would include most protagnists. Whereas a Hate Sink in the Definition of someone who's narrative role is to be Hated above all else would not Include most antagonists, as only certain ones are written to be 'Detestable A Hole like seriously fuck this Guy'.

Well said actually

Edited by Snoketrope on Jul 9th 2021 at 1:52:17 AM

You can't always reasonably apply inverse logic to tropes. Someone asked recently why we don't have Heroic Friendship when Villainous Friendship exists. That's because heroic characters having friends is expected, standard, unremarkable. The only reason the trope exists for villains is that we don't expect evil characters to have genuine friendships.

The idea behind Hate Sink is that the creators want this character to draw the audience's ire, generally to set them against characters that are expected to attract sympathy. One might consider it the inverse of Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Intentionally Unsympathetic. "This person is bad. You're supposed to dislike them. It's okay."

I don't think we can just get rid of Hate Sink, given how widely used it is. However, we could break it up into smaller tropes. Hate Sink could then be turned into a supergroup or an index.

I like an index personally.

Before we break it up, what distinctions would we make between these splits? Let's list out some of the ideas and examine them. The most frequent problem encountered with splitting large tropes is that examples end up overlapping across the subtropes. This is a much worse problem in my opinion than tropes being too broad.

Here are the ideas that came out of the old Hate Sink thread:

1. Characters where Word of God has explicitly stated that they are meant to be hated. Like Intentionally Unsympathetic, but it requires a statement from the creator. These characters are often subjected to a deserved punishment that would feel cathartic to the audience.

2. Characters that can't be sorted into villains/antagonists (maybe just a recurrent character) and are vile or detestable. Sort of Villainy-Free Villain but minus the villain part.

3. Characters who were initially unlikeable assholes but gradually become better after Character Development (don't know if this was proposed as a trope on its own or as a new definition for Hate Sink).

That seems like a reasonable summary? Perhaps making tropes for all 3 is the way to go here.

Splitting this trope may be the best solution. If we don't disambiguate Hate Sink, I think we could use the name for the original definition of "character intended to draw hate, usually away from a more prominent antagonist it would be inappropriate to hate or in lieu of an antagonist who can be hated". One book I read about filmmaking describes Beni Gabor in such terms; since Imhotep is too cool and sympathetic to be genuinely hateful, they introduced a cowardly backstabber with an unhealthy love of money so the audience has someone to root against without reservation.

Yes, a character designed for the audience to hate in the absence of an actual antagonist or to make the story's villain look sympathetic and likable in comparison is definitely tropeable. I'm not sure we can find enough examples for the first proposed idea, and the other two ideas are either too broad or covered by other tropes.

Edited by selkies on Jul 9th 2021 at 5:41:51 AM

Relevant is the most recent wick check, sorted by usage rather than misuse. It's here.

I don't think the Index idea would really be viable, this is not just some trope on the wiki but one of our biggest with the term widely used across the internet.

So I'll say I've never really come across an example I openly disagreed with, but I can understand that maybe the concept is too broad that any especially nasty villain qualifies and doesn't really have much to say about them.

I would say the core of the trope is about characters who utilize the anger and dislike they have from others for a purpose. Maybe they use it as a distraction, invoke it for manipulation purposes, embrace it for motivation, dismiss it as irrelevant or accept it as necessary.

The problem seems to be the focus on how much the audience hates them, which is far too generic because most villains are supposed to be disliked so there is joy in seeing their defeat.

The trope is about audience hatred though. That's the entire point. A character hated by other characters is Hated by All.

No, the trope is that the actions of the character are designed to invite contempt and ire (the audience dislikes a character is The Scrappy or enjoys disliking a character is Love to Hate). It's in a weird place that combines tangible storytelling devices, authorial intent and audience reaction. I think there are enough examples of "character chooses to direct others hatred at themselves for another purpose" that I think that is the most valuable part of the trope even if it is divorced from the ymmv audience reaction portion.

Right. Contempt from the audience. A character using their own hated status to their benefit doesn't count, because in-universe hatred is not a requirement.

As being discussed, "audience dislikes a villain for doing bad things" is a broad and rather pointless topic. You substitute the audience for characters in the story and you have an infinitely stronger trope. If the audience viewing the media itself matters that much to the trope than it should have been YMMV a long time ago.

Mate, I don't disagree with that, but I also don't think this trope should have anything to do with in-universe hatred because that trope is already covered by Hated by All.