This is a comedy trope, so it's not sarcasm. It's Rule of Funny.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Oh, I don't get that from the title or description at all. Maybe I am just unfunny.
It says "This mostly occurs in Speculative Fiction."
Are we working harder than the YKTTW to make sense of this trope? Is it worth it?
edited 17th Nov '10 12:20:00 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
What about that one Calvin And Hobbes arc where Calvin uses his duplicator to create a "good" clone of himself to do all his chores and schoolwork, and his mom sees the clone acting all good and she's like O_o
The thing is, the explanation is impossibly mundane. Yes, the reason why it is impossible is a character thing, but the point is that the mundane explanation is assumed to be impossible, and thus the fantastic explanation is considered accurate.
Just look at it: all your examples (and the ones in the trope proper) fit this.
Everyone Has An Important Job To Do"Impossibly" in that context describes the degree of how mundane something is, as it's an adverb.
Out Of Character Mundane Explanation would be more accurate (but perhaps not the best one).
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.I don't understand why conversation moved forward without addressing that question. It seems like a very relevant question.
We don't know what Impossibly Mundane Explanation is supposed to mean, for sure. We don't know if it's supposed to be serious or funny.
Is this worth it? I say no.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I'm not sure why you're saying that what it's supposed to be is unclear. It's right there in the description:
"The leading theory is extraordinary — maybe he's possessed, or maybe his Evil Twin has taken his place. Someone will propose a mundane alternative like, "He read a book about it". Everyone rejects [the mundane explanation] out of hand because it would be out of character for Bob, and they return to the extraordinary theory. "
"I'm not sure why you're saying that what it's supposed to be is unclear. [...] Everyone rejects [the mundane explanation] out of hand because it would be out of character for Bob."
Isn't that different from what DQZ is saying? I thought there were ~60 posts of people trying to decipher the meaning, which I think means it is unclear, whether or not there is a particular clear sentence in the description. I am aware that one possibility is that I am just not getting something.
Oh! Okay. I get it. I was in fact not getting something. It's Reject The Mundane Explanation. But that still seems unclear to me. What would be a more straight/plausible example (say not involving aliens or fairies)? Or is it always fantastic?
Also, whether or not it's clear isn't the same question as whether or not it's worthwhile. People Sit On Chairs is clear.
edited 17th Nov '10 9:14:01 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan."What would be a more straight/plausible example (say not involving aliens or fairies)? Or is it always fantastic?"
There might be real world possibilities, but they have to be very unlikely events, that are still more likely than the mundane explanation being rejected.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid."Albert is portrayed as really unlucky. * He wins the lottery. Either he got lucky (which is out of character) *, or he cheated *. He must have cheated."
Yes?
edited 17th Nov '10 11:37:43 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I would say that one counts. It's where an explanation that is perfectly plausible (he got lucky) is rejected because for the character, it is not likely (he was born unlucky).
Here's an example I can think of that is mostly mundane, but the plausible is discounted offhand: "Did you see Bob over there? He was wearing a suit, he must be in the middle of a conspiracy." "You sure he couldn't just have wanted to get dressed up?" "He wore jeans to his own wedding. No, he did not just 'get dressed up.'"
I would also say that it doesn't matter if the mundane answer is false or not, just that the other characters discredit it offhand because it isn't 'right' for the person in question. (Bob could, for instance, just have decided to 'get dressed up' but his friends believe that is impossible due to him being Bob.)
Who needs a signature, really?(Speaking of how this needs to be tied to Occam's Razor somehow, since it's the inverse...)
edited 18th Nov '10 11:46:04 AM by berr
Occam On is clever. Made me smile. Probably lacks clarity, though.
Yeh, that's why I added the second one.
If it were me, I'd call it It Cant Be That Simple with Occam On as a redirect
1. One sounds like Occam's Razor as a superpower.
2. "It can't be that simple" has a lot more uses than just this trope (like it actually is a simple explanation, but people don't believe it), so would have misuse.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.I know it's painfully boring but why not Reject The Mundane Explanation?
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Because that's just half the trope. It's more that the mundane explanation it too Out of Character to apply, and that is why it's rejected.
edited 18th Nov '10 4:14:37 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Reject The Mundane Explanation Because It Is Too Out Of Character To Be Plausible is long. Reject The Mundane Explanation was cribbed from people explaining the trope. Is there a suggestion you think is better? Good at all?
edited 18th Nov '10 4:23:34 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

"Fairies made Bob get to work on time, or Bob woke up early for once... I'm betting on the fairies."
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.