"Both Sides Have A Point" heavily misused?

The title Both Sides Have a Point seems to suggest this is about a work presenting two opposing opinions with merit in each. However, if you look at the description it talks about a neutral character necessary to acknowledge/lampshade this fact. I have never seen it being used in this more restrictive sense, meaning tremendous misuse.

We had the same issue with Not So Different where the decision was made to change the name to "Not So Different" Remark in order to clarify the narrower meaning. Options?

Edited by eroock on May 16th 2022 at 5:31:28 AM

I think a work can present two sides as having merit without having a character explicitly state it. The larger issue I have with this trope (and most "X has a Point" tropes) is that people use these tropes to say what they think is a valid point regardless of what the narrative presents.

Come to think of it, I've been wondering if we need a cleanup thread for these tropes. We could call it "This Cleanup Thread Has a Point".

While that is definitely a thing a work can do, the description of Both Sides Have a Point is quite clear that it's talking about a position taken by someone in-universe.

I tend to correct entries and remove misuse if I come across it, so I think a clean-up would be a good idea. The misuse I see falls mostly into three categories (most common first):

• The audience thinks both sides have a point, making it a subjective reaction. This is pure misuse. It's an objective trope, for starters.
• A work portrays two sides as having points, but everyone involved picks one side or the other. This is misuse because there needs to be a person who does not pick any side, and who sees the merits of both.
• Tropers who realise that the point is about a character lampshading that both sides have a point, but believe the character chooses neutrality instead of picking sides. This is misuse because the character does not choose neutrality either.

This last point is significant because the point of the trope is that a character is expected to either pick a side or stay neutral, but refuses to do either by fairly pointing out the validity of both sides of the argument. People often miss that the lampshader is not neutral, even if they catch that the trope requires there to be a character who doesn't take either side.

If the trope gets cleaned up, I'd actually suggest getting rid of the neutrality angle (expanding the trope just enough to allow the third bullet point to be in scope instead of misuse) because I think that makes the trope harder to understand and may be making the concept of "neutrality" artificially narrow for the situation that's being troped. It ultimately shouldn't matter whether the act of inserting oneself into an argument solely to lampshade the valid elements of both arguments technically counts as "neutral" or not. That's just being needlessly pedantic when the point of the trope is that the lampshader has to be able to fairly summarise the valid points of both arguments without picking a side themselves.

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 20th 2022 at 7:39:34 AM

I queued this for TRS to decide if the "neutral in-universe observer" angle should be dropped or not.

There is a struggle with these kind of tropes because there may be indicators the trope is being used other than dialogue overtly saying so. Subtext is valuable but can be a hindrance to troping because audience interpretation often gets mingled in. Most of the "Has A Point" tropes have similar problems (Not So Different was renamed "Not So Different" Remark to point examples to something more tangible in the story) while only Strawman Has a Point is explicitly YMMV.

I do think the key part of the trope is that even when there is a bias to one side that the flaws of that side are still presented. Without that viewpoint, however brief, it's just Designated Villain or Villain Has a Point with more fluff.

Well, the trope certainly isn't limited to being portrayed solely through dialogue. The key is having that character who doesn't take sides because they can see both sides have valid points. That can be conveyed in a number of ways. It is true, however, that it's harder to spot the trope in play in some works compared to others. That's true for most tropes, however, which is why we have things like the Is This An Example? thread.

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 22nd 2022 at 3:59:59 AM

I wouldn't put it like that necessarily; it was renamed because the definition was always about people acknowledging their similarities, and most of the examples were just character comparison. So it wasn't about having something "more tangible", the trope was just egregiously misused.

^ I am with Emerald Source on this one. Tropes happen on a spectrum between implied and lampshaded. It's for us to set a marker on that continuum to decide how much tangibility we require for examples to count. Other "X Has A Point" tropes don't require the in-universe acknowledgment. That's not because of the nature of the trope but because we want it so. Misuse happens primarily against the markers, not the underlying concept.

Except Not So Different already had the requirement, people just didn't fucking read the description.

I made the TRS thread, I think I know why we made the rename decision. It had nothing to do with "tangibility", the trope was just extremely misused for something irrelevant.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 21st 2022 at 9:35:04 AM

So, are we talking about doing something akin to clarifying that Both Sides Have a Point is really Both Sides Are Valid Remark?

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 22nd 2022 at 4:04:29 AM

Either rename to clarify the current definition or broaden the definition to be in line with other similar "X has a point" tropes.

I wonder if we could split off an audience reaction for audiences interpreting things to have shades of grey that may or may not actually be intended. Seeing two characters as more similar than they might've been intended to be, seeing merit to both sides of an argument even if the creator wants one party to be unambiguously in the right, etc.

That's kind of covered by Strawman Has a Point isn't it? A character that was meant to be wrong is seen as being more reasonably by the audience.

And the "similar characters" thing is Counterpart Comparison, or JustForFun.Surprisingly Similar Characters.

I thought that was for characters from different works.

It is, but it's a case study in how people can't handle a YMMV concept like that. It just devolves into nonsense.

Eh, if it won't work, it won't work. I just felt like suggesting it.

Well whaddaya know, both sides of this argument have a point.