Ambiguous Name: Mainlining The Monster

To-do list:

• Mainlining the Monster was rewritten to cover exploiting supernatural beings that are nonsapient/nonsentient for profit in general, so examples that don't fit the revised definition need to be either moved to another trope if another trope applies, or removed if they don't fit anywhere else. If a Plot Twist reveals that the creatures were sapient (and the harvesters didn't know that), then list those examples as subversions of Monster Organ Trafficking.. When the nonhuman being itself volunteers their own organs to be used for profit or to create something, it goes under Human Resources. The only kind of creatures that apply are those that aren't sapient (human-like or superior cognition).

Original post:

Neither the description nor the majority use of the trope references the injection part. The majority of uses (among examples with enough context) have no drug reference at all. I would like to discuss whether renaming this trope is in order and also clarify the trope's scope.

Wick check:

• Examples with explicit drug injection reference: 2 (4%)
• Examples with some sort of drug reference. Possibly implied injection for some?: 15 (29%)
• Examples with no drug reference. Possibly implied for some?: 26 (51%)
• Inline, ZCE, or unclear: 8 (16%)

Scope consideration (some examples I'm "?" on are on the wick check):

• The "monster" ("monstrous creatures" - inhuman/nonsapient/dangerous/bad) part of the description sounds like it really matters, but some of the wicks checked don't involve monsters. These include:
  • Roger, an alien from space, one of the family members from Family Guy
  • Axolotls, real life aquatic amphibians
  • Smurfs
  • Humans with superpowers
• Whether the monster is killed before the resource is taken - do killed monsters count? I was picturing the trope image (hydra with endless supply of parts) as correct, but the trope may be far more expansive than the description suggests.
• Does selling your own body parts count? There were two such examples in the check.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 30th 2022 at 2:28:36 PM

Maybe broaden the trope to cover exploiting supernatural/"exotic" beings of all types for profit? Dunno about the selling your own body parts examples but I guess that can count as a variation.

EDIT: Also, I forgot the name but there was a TLP draft a couple of months back about a character selling supernatural body parts/secretions from their friend.

Oh found it: Farm To Folk.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 15th 2022 at 3:44:58 PM

I'd be fine with expanding it to cover exploiting supernatural beings for profit in general, as well as supernatural beings doing that to themselves.

As for whether killed monsters count, I don't think it should matter whether the monster survived (though it probably would if the monster is doing it to themselves instead of being an unwilling victim).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 15th 2022 at 2:49:04 PM

Sorry for the double post, but I tagged the page.

Wouldn't Living Battery cover supernatural and Human Resources muggle examples?

Also since the OP problem was about the non-indicative name, I think it'd be a good idea to rename to reflect whatever definition we're going with. Also being wary of Item Farming.

I don't think Living Battery necessarily has to involve profit since it's mainly about generating energy, and I'm not sure if Mainlining the Monster even allows examples involving non-monstrous beings, so I don't see any overlap with Human Resources (but I think they'd count as sister tropes).

I've meant those (plus perhaps Fantastic Livestock and Fantastic Medicinal Bodily Product mentioned on page) are something to pay attention to if Mainlining the Monster scope is expanded.

Hm, maybe we should just keep it limited to drugs derived from supernatural beings, and just remove the injection aspect (possibly renaming in the process), make it irrelevant whether the supernatural being survives, and allow examples of supernatural beings willingly giving people drugs that came from them.

I was wondering if we were going to run into issues with broadening. Keeping the drug limitation and expanding to cover supernatural beings in general makes sense.

Creatures as Fantastic Drug supply?

Edited by Amonimus on Aug 15th 2022 at 3:20:08 PM

I think that sums it up.

Farmed From Folk (the TLP draft mentioned earlier) can be used for the non-drug instances.

If we're going that route, a rename may be in order. I am sure very few can connect the dots from "mainlining" to drugs. Expanding to cover other supernatural beings would work.

Edited by Berrenta on Aug 15th 2022 at 9:07:46 AM

tbh I had to look up what "mainlining" means, not sure how common the word is.

I assumed it referred to factory production lines.

Yeah, my first read was that it meant "Infusing (perceived) value from a monster directly into the local economy".

My initial assumption was train lines...

I think if we decide the drug part of the definition stays, metaphorical examples such as count if the work explicitly makes that connection — if people are using shaved-off cow-demon horns to use as garden fertilizer and people who aren't involved go, "Wow, it's like they're addicted to this stuff" and are also deemed "straightedges" for not joining the craze.

I've also voiced opposition in the wick check thread for examples where the target was killed for the resource, since if you're killing a critter and dining on its meat for sustenance, that's just... hunting. That's survival. I've been looking at the trope with more of the "profit" angle.

Ah. Killing intelligent creatures/beings for their resources is Sapient Fur Trade.

Somehow the first things that come to mind at the word "mainline" is church denominations.

...A rename would probably be really helpful.

I forgot what this thread was about before popping back in and thought the name was referring to sports teams or something.

A rename would probably be good.

Renaming this.

Rename

Rename

for renaming

I'm also in favor of renaming, but I think we should also clarify the definition as I mentioned in this post, since Tabs wasn't sure if some of those aspects were valid when making the opening post, so I was thinking we could run a crowner with both renaming and rewriting the trope.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 17th 2022 at 10:54:04 AM

We can crowner both, but the actual renaming should be done after the definition is settled, as there were questions of "limiting to drug(-like) usage" and "expanding to other supernatural creatures".

Edited by Amonimus on Aug 17th 2022 at 7:10:59 PM

Sounds good. So a crowner for the definition/scope of the trope followed by yes/no crowner on renaming, and if that gets enough yes votes, a crowner with new name suggestions?