Not Tropeworthy: Dynamic Character And Static Character

I'm really kicking myself for not finishing the wick check, because neither was getting healthy use, but I can't prove that so... guess I will have to concede it would be a bad idea to change Static Character and Flat Character at least.

Edited by Tonwen on May 10th 2022 at 8:32:44 AM

Eh? Why would it be a bad idea?

Because there have been some good arguments raised as to keeping them, and this was done mainly on principle of the tropes' scope rather than wick checks or real evidence of any misuses or issues.

I'd probably ask to close the thread up at this point as I've been completely convinced the other way, but it's out of my hands now so it will have to come down to the vote, although I'll still keep poking away at the Dyanmic And Static Wick Check during this time.

So far the arguments presented boil down to "it's notable", which as I've already explained isn't really even true? Like, at all? People tend to forget that minor side characters even count for these things, but of course they do, and it's very rare for any of those characters to be deep and developed — why would they be?

Flat and Static is just as omnipresent and basic as Round and Dynamic, I assure you. No need to do a complete 180, you were right the first time IMO.

So maybe make it No Straight Examples, Please!?

Edited by mightymewtron on May 10th 2022 at 11:10:57 AM

That would be a decent compromise, though I haven't seen it played with much personally.

I'm with WarJay on this. The argument that the trope hasn't been played with so it's tropeworthy doesn't make sense to me. You play with tropes when you focus on a character long enough to play with that trope.

As WJ pointed out Flat and Static are omnipresent. Every NPC or side character that shows up in a work is going to be Flat or Static. The only time you'd ever really focus on them is if they're a Necessary Weasel and are required for a genre.

A solid case can be made that Static Character is needed for the classical sitcom for example, but even then, I think it'd be far more useful to have the examples in their proper context i.e. on the work page for the work in question (the concept is also covered by Status Quo Is God which makes the use for examples on the Static Character page even less needed)

Edited by amathieu13 on May 11th 2022 at 10:54:46 AM

That's not a bad solution. I second that.

I agree. That might work.

I'd prefer to see 10 or so existing examples before approving "No straight examples". Hard no on aversions and probably a no to subversions, too.

Yeah, that's the thing. It's not a bad idea, but whether or not it'd work in practice is another thing entirely. What sort of "played with" examples do we have?

I have an incomplete wick check right here and have yet to find a single played with example in my searches.

Edited by Tonwen on May 11th 2022 at 3:56:29 AM

I've seen an example of Flat Character being lampshaded in The Disastrous Life of Saiki K. but that's all I remember at the moment.

There's also the thing where some characters from an enormous cast have a character development while others intentionally don't even though they are equally as important. Minor characters don't count.

Why don't minor characters count? Why do people keep intentionally ignoring them when it comes to these tropes?

Why wouldn't a minor character count? In fact, most Flat Characters and Static Characters are minor characters simply by merit of being space fillers or fulfilling minor story roles without need for depth, motivations, or development.

Edited by Tonwen on May 11th 2022 at 7:30:57 AM

agreed. none of these tropes are protag or major character-only

And the fact that they aren't is exactly why I think they should all just be def-only. Too many of these arguments rely on ignoring minor characters, which is inherently flawed logic.

Reminds me of Generic Doomsday Villain discussion that almost stalled, even if that trope had more conceptual components to it.

The X Character are hardly tropes, they are literary terms that nearly always happen. Whatever uses they get currently (Flat Character primarly) could be own actual tropes (like Satellite Character, Gang of Hats, Always Chaotic Evil, The Pollyanna).

I'd be interested in the end of wick checks for Static Character, Dynamic Character, Flat Character, Round Character to see if they have examples that could go elsewhere.

Edited by Amonimus on May 12th 2022 at 10:24:22 PM

I added TRS banners to both pages.

Well, should we make them all def-only? I still believe No Straight Examples, Please! is the best choice here.

Would this work for crowner?

• Add Static Character to No Straight Examples, Please!
• Add Dynamic Character to No Straight Examples, Please!
• Add Flat Character to No Straight Examples, Please!
• Add Rounded Character to No Straight Examples, Please!
• Add Static Character to No On-Page Examples
• Add Dynamic Character to No On-Page Examples
• Add Flat Character to No On-Page Examples
• Add Rounded Character to No On-Page Examples
• Add Static Character to Definition-Only Pages
• Add Dynamic Character to Definition-Only Pages
• Add Flat Character to Definition-Only Pages
• Add Rounded Character to Definition-Only Pages

Edited by Amonimus on May 13th 2022 at 10:53:34 PM

I don't see the point of the "No Straight Examples" options until we have proof such examples even exist.

Otherwise I'm sure people will vote for it as an easy way to keep the tropes, and then lock us into another "what now" situation.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 13th 2022 at 3:14:55 PM

Tbh me as well.

I don't know if those tropes can even be played with. Like, if a Flat Character gets any development that moves them away from well being flat they would either Dynamic or Rounded.

I think we were thinking that only lampshadings and parodies would be allowed. I can think of one example (Friendship is Witchcraft, where Rainbow Dash admits she has no depth to her character).