TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Rename: Surreal Masochism

Go To

Hylarn (Don’t ask)
#1: Oct 31st 2010 at 3:53:24 PM

Nothing to do with surrealism, just standard Did Not Do The Research.

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#2: Oct 31st 2010 at 4:37:51 PM

Two points:

  1. "Surreal" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the art style surrealism. Webster's dictionary defines the word "surreal" as: "1. marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream; also : unbelievable, fantastic <surreal sums of money>"

  2. Only Type A, the "misinformed" kind, is connected to Did Not Do The Research.

Sackett Since: Jan, 2001
#3: Oct 31st 2010 at 6:08:17 PM

We already have Safe, Sane, and Consensual, Bondage Is Bad, and Casual Kink.

Why do we need this one? How does it add to the wiki in any way?

Not to mention the rather defensive tone of the whole thing.

Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#4: Oct 31st 2010 at 8:26:17 PM

There may be examples out there, but the trope is currently not well supported by its examples:

  • Preacher — not enough details are given to know how this works as an example. Sound more like a personal complaint about mixing SM with outright violence.
  • Small Favors — not an example: not surreal SM but SM in a surreal setting.
  • Slave World — probably an example: again no details but if it wouldn't work outside a fantasy, that sounds right.
  • In Tom Leherer's song "The Masochism Tango" — could be an example, but it is more Rule of Funny exaggerating for effect.
  • Dave Allen joke — not an example, not surreal — just a joke about the ultimate sadist being one who refuses to do anything to a masochist.
  • Dungeons And Dragons — probably better as an example of Combat Sadomasochist, in the absence of relevant details?

edited 31st Oct '10 8:43:16 PM by Camacan

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#5: Oct 31st 2010 at 8:49:11 PM

Preacher is an example. You don't want more details. Trust me. Dungeons And Dragons, or at least the Book Of Vile Darkness is as well.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#6: Nov 1st 2010 at 12:04:33 AM

I trust you.

On balance I too think this one should be cut: it is far too subjective. There is no dividing line between a SM scene with psychological elements claimed as possible only in fantasy and complaining about Bondage Is Bad. It is a natter attractor, and like Sackett says, we cover the pertinent elements elsewhere.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:04:53 AM by Camacan

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#7: Nov 1st 2010 at 12:26:36 AM

No, this is not covered by Bondage Is Bad, and the other two tropes Sackett suggests has even flimsier connection.

Bondage Is Bad portrays BDSM et cetera as something, well, bad. While Surreal Masochism portrays BDSM et cetera in a way that is, well, surreal - in the dictionary sense quoted above.

The trope is the same as the "hollywood..." line of snowclones, and no more subjective then those tropes.

The reason I didn't name the trope "Hollywood Masochism" is that the trope seem to be most common in books and comics, Not even one of the examples is a film, and the "hollywood..." line of snowclones is primarily about films.

Antheia Whatever of Breath (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
Whatever of Breath
#8: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:50:37 AM

I for one don't think the page should be cut, but it does need a rework. I do see this in the media - the idea seems to be that since masochists find pain enjoyable, all masochists must enjoy any and all pain regardless of context

I'd say the focus of the description needs to be more on what the trope looks like, and less on why it happens. At least, these lines:

In fiction, there are no such hard limits. Psychology as well as the physical world works in whatever way the author imagine it.

This can lead to masochism being portrayed in a way that is very unlikely/rare or outright impossible.

... need to be elaborated upon.

Also, the trope could have used a lot more YKTTW input before launch.

Sackett Since: Jan, 2001
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#10: Nov 1st 2010 at 7:33:51 AM

It doesn't look like it was getting input on YKTTW. I think we're better off just fixing it here and now and being done with it than treating it like Somebody Else's Problem and throwing it back there. Yes, the trope needs a bit of cleaning up, but I have seen it as a real trope.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#11: Nov 1st 2010 at 9:44:53 AM

Thanks for the input, Antheia!

I'll start in that end, got some ideas now and I'll update later tonight.

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#12: Nov 1st 2010 at 4:01:54 PM

There!

I have replaced the division that was based on the author's knowledge and intention with a division based on in what way the scene is far removed from reality.

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#13: Nov 1st 2010 at 4:46:18 PM

Hrrrm, what is the trope about. BDSM not represented realistically? The definition looses itself in the long, pointless diatribes that keep going "authors misrepresents BDSM and are terrible for it!" (Seriously there's almost a paragraph of the stuff). Also fails Tropes Are Not Bad for one.

The whole thing could do a re-write, just not sure what the base trope is supposed to be. (Is it even a trope, or more like the You Fail X Forever an audience reaction?)

Twilightdusk Since: Jan, 2001
#14: Nov 1st 2010 at 4:57:22 PM

[up] The core of the trope seems to be "Masochism depicted in an unrealistic fashion." Everything past that is fluff.

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#15: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:02:07 PM

So really just cut it down. If the trope can summarize in three sentences, lets do it.

"Masochism portrayed unrealistically in fiction, either through ignorance of psychology, physiology or even physics. This can be due to ignorance or simply with the author taking creative licence."

Anything else the trope description really needs?

EDIT: And the page needs the YMMV tag all other Did Not Do The Research pages have.

edited 1st Nov '10 5:03:21 PM by Ghilz

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#16: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:15:55 PM

Maybe something short on what is realistic or at least the other related tropes. Since taking this trope to extremes is more common in fiction than normal kink and people might not know what normal is.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#17: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:21:34 PM

[up][up]Agree, its a YMMV trope.

[up]We don't need to document what is normal in this trope: we have Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Which I note says: "while people doing BDSM in an anti-SSC way falls under Bondage Is Bad" which is why I suggesting this trope might be covered there — unfortunately re-reading Bondage Is Bad I see the text there isn't as clear as I thought. Or rather Bondage Is Bad is more "bad people do BDSM in fiction". The Bondage Is Bad examples however seem to have several cases of BDSM taken to excess in fiction.

If we keep it, it needs a new title: Surreal is usually taken as: "bizarre or dreamlike", not any unrealistic fiction. BDSM Does Not Work That Way, or Somewhere A Masochist Is Crying. One advantage of sending it back to YKTTW would be the opportunity to get an better name.

edited 1st Nov '10 5:26:12 PM by Camacan

Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#18: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:25:32 PM

All the tropes called "You Fail X Forever" are being renamed (or were being renamed, dunno what became of that) to X Goof (ie: Physics Goof)

So, Sadomasochism Goof (or just Masochism Goof)?

Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#19: Nov 1st 2010 at 5:44:18 PM

Should this be one trope? It seems to have a few subtropes only related by "Masochism isn't really like that". I'd call "Masochists enjoy any pain, in any context, ever" Hollywood Masochist.

BTW, I'm a chick.
Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#20: Nov 2nd 2010 at 3:15:12 AM

So, we have two issues here: The name issue and the merge vs split issue.

The name options are:

  1. Surreal Masochism
  2. Hollywood Masochism
  3. Masochism Goof
  4. BDSM Does Not Work That Way
  5. Somewhere A Masochist Is Crying

As for the merge vs split issue, the trope currently cover two fields, and combinations of them:

  • A) Physical/biological/anatomical issues
  • B) Psychological issues

There's also a third field, that's been on a YKTTW of it's own since August, under the rather clumsy title ""Any Kink Is All Kink":

  • C) Kinks that are not off the scale in themselves are assumed to be combined - if you enjoy one kinky thing, you enjoy all things that are kinky.

These three fields could be categorized as one, two or three tropes. The name issue kinda depends on what path we chose. Lets start with getting rid of name option number five: While clever, it's also confusing and doesn't work well with any of our three merge vs split options.

  • If we split it into three tropes, name number four would generate confusion since it covers the first two tropes.
    • Masochism Goof isn't very good for trope A, because the Goof line of tropes really only cover the more extreme cases of type A. However, it's still the best title we got for it.
    • For trope B we got either Surreal Masochism or Hollywood Masochism. I think Surreal Masochism is much preferable in this case. Type B was really what I hade in mind when I picked the name.
    • For trope C we are stuck with it's current awkward title.

  • If we keep A and B as one trope, the options are Surreal Masochism and Hollywood Masochism. In this case, I'm leaning towards Hollywood Masochism. BDSM Does Not Work That Way is also a good option in this version, but IMHO less preferable. Trope C is still stuck with it's current name for now.

  • If we merge it all into one trope, then I think Hollowood Masochism becomes very preferable and quite frankly the only of the five name options that fit the trope at all.

As for the merge vs split issue itself, I'm really leaning towards having it all as one trope: A and B and C are often combined in the same example - two of them, or all three at once. The gray area distinction between the three types can also be problematic even in some cases where it's not a clear combination.

So: My current position is merge it all under the title Hollywood Masochism, keeping Surreal Masochism as a redirect. If I still like this idea tonight, I'll start working on a sandbox draft for the merged trope. :-)

edited 2nd Nov '10 3:23:10 AM by Xzenu

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#21: Nov 2nd 2010 at 5:43:52 AM

Camacan,

Interesting observation regarding Bondage Is Bad. I think two processes are going on here.

One is the simple principle of shoehorning: When people have a example to add, they are likely to squeeze it into whatever trope seem to fit least badly. I'll look into Bondage Is Bad examples after we are finished with Hollywood Masochism, and maybe move some of them.

The other is the cheap art of circular reasoning propaganda. The author want to cast Bob as a bad person.

(The second answer files under Type B.)

This interaction effect if something I should keep in mind when I write the merged trope Hollywood Masochism.

Game_Fan Since: Sep, 2009
#22: Nov 2nd 2010 at 12:28:43 PM

The topic seems more suited to a Useful Notes page than a trope.

Twilightdusk Since: Jan, 2001
#23: Nov 2nd 2010 at 2:46:15 PM

[up] It might help to list Real Life info in a useful notes page and have a trope page for examples in fiction, like we did with You Fail Economics Forever.

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#24: Nov 2nd 2010 at 2:59:01 PM

Good idea, Game Fan. I'll do that.

And this is actually how I have handled it twice before, first with The Golden Rule and later with Safe, Sane, and Consensual. So I guess it's becoming a habit. :)

As the work with those tropes progressed, the useful information just kept piling up. Information that was vital for the trope, yet was stealing spotlight from the actual trope. So I dumped the information over to the Useful Notes pages The Golden Rule and Consent, expanding it there.

Xzenu Since: Apr, 2010
#25: Nov 2nd 2010 at 3:51:36 PM

Sounds good, Twilightdusk. :-)


Total posts: 28
Top