On The "Fail Forever" Pages

In this thread, discussion has turned to the You Fail X Forever pages, and the renaming thereof. This thread is to discuss the notion of splitting them into in-universe and real-life versions, and using the new name for the latter. A big part of the motivation for the rename is to make the titles less editorial and not be as negative towards errant authors, but I propose to keep the titles for errant characters, who don't need this protection.

So:

• Bob flies by flapping his arms because the author thinks this is possible: currently You Fail Physics Forever (as applied to the author), soon to be changed.
• Bob tries to fly by flapping his arms because he thinks this is possible, though the author knows better: currently You Fail Physics Forever (as applied to Bob), what I am proposing to keep.

Well, Achievements in Ignorance is if Bob does fly. Lampshade Hanging and Wrong Genre Savvy are different things, and I think Cloudcuckoolander is too.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

'porting this over from the other thread...

• Achievements in Ignorance is when people are able to do impossible things, just because they didn't know they were impossible. as bob didn't get off the ground, this one does not apply.

• it would be Wrong Genre Savvy if bob went "but i've seen superman flying, so i know i can do it too." as i described it, though, that's just bob being massively stupid.

• Lampshade Hanging: sure. but which trope are you lampshading?

• Cloudcuckoolander: bob could be one, yes. it could also be that i went with the most extreme example possible to make things clear. you could have a character be completely ignorant when it comes to X subject, but fairly savvy and well-centered with everything else.

i think a situation like this can legitimately happen. i'm just not sure if it happens enough to make it tropeable (obviously it would have to go through YKTTW), but if it does, i think it merits its own trope.

The problem with your example (Bob flapping his arms) is that it's something pretty much anyone who is not a toddler knows to be stupid. As such it's not one trope, but many tropes, depending on if it works, if it's played for laugh, if other characters know that Bob is suggesting something clearly stupid. So, if Bob thinks flapping his arms will make him fly, and it doesn't, bob is either Too Dumb to Live, or a Cloud Cuckoolander. It's not You Fail Physics Forever, or whatever, because anyone with a working brain could likely tell you this won't work.

Now, let go for another example. Alice firmly believes that C4 can explode if set on fire (Dynamite does after all!). Alot of viewers no doubt could believe this, as most people aren't explosive experts or will never see C4 in their whole lives. She has zany antics till someone tells her this is not possible. C4 does not behave this way. Now this we do not have a page for.

The problem is, is this a trope? Ignorance does occur in real life, and a character being ignorant of some detail of Physics or Biology or whatever, well, that is People Sit On Chairs. Now, if a special meaning was attached to this; for example, the viewers are made aware that C4 requires an electric current to explode before the fact, and Alice's mistaken belief, along with our current knowledge, is played for laughs (for example, in trying to keep the C4 away from fire, she puts it on top of a sparking fusebox), then yes, this would be a trope. Otherwise, plain ignorance is not a trope in and of itself.

edited 14th Oct '10 12:14:14 PM by Ghilz

You're actually flirting with Reality Is Unrealistic there, because people expect Stuff Blowing Up when C4 is involved.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yes, but the point remain, replace the c4 thing with whatever scientific detail that is not common knowledge. Ignorance of such details is not a trope, unless there is a meaning attached to it, plain ignorance is People Sit On Chairs. Reality Is Unrealistic is a trope, because it plays with people's expectations.

To put it another way:

• Bob is a nuclear scientists and makes accurate descriptions of nuclear science - That's a trope. Not everyone is a nuclear scientist, Bob's knowledge is characterization and the author having Shown Their Work only helps make Bob's character believable.
• Alice knows nothing about Nuclear science, makes widely inaccurate claims, which Bob points out or corrects. -> Alice's ignorance is not a trope. Being a Layman is not a trope, it's People Sit On Chairs. Bob and Alice's interaction, however, IS a trope.

edited 14th Oct '10 12:21:41 PM by Ghilz

I'd say it's a subtrope of Shown Their Work if Alice is ignorant and Bob points it out in work, particularly if it's Chekhov's Gun  ^*

or something similar. I agree that being Alice (to continue with the same people), getting it wrong, not being corrected, and having it never come up isn't a trope, that's just fluff. However, Bob getting it wrong and being proven right can be taken as either Like Reality, Unless Noted or Did Not Do Research, depending on how it's marketed  ^*

^{The Core was touted as being "scientifically accurate", when it most definitely wasn't, meaning Did Not Do Research)}

. The Did Not Do Research tropes strike me as more an Audience Reaction Trope than anything else. It throws people who are experienced with the subject out of Willing Suspension of Disbelief due to being Dan Browned (whatever that became). It also functions as a drinking game if you get a bunch of people together.

edited 14th Oct '10 1:52:36 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

Dan Browned is "they touted it as accurate and factually correct; it wasn't."

The level of inaccuracy can fall anywhere on the spectrum from a glaring error any body who's made it past fifth grade will spot, to things that only a specialist or dedicated hobbyist will see. The important thing is that it was noticeably claimed to be accurate.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

That reminds me, do we have a trope for the old (other?) meaning of Dan Browned, "A work that is just accurate enough to throw off a layman but which is obviously unresearched to an expert"?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

No, because the whole idea of "how expert do you have to be to count as "an expert"?" was deemed unfixably subjective.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

i think hershele used an example about bob not knowing how to use computers in the previous thread. i'm going to hang on to that. so:

bob is absolutely useless with computers. can't even play minesweeper. can't distinguish the enter button from the space bar. the trope would be when something happens because he doesn't know how to use the computer (be it dramatic— e.g., needed to save someone by opening the door via computer, but couldn't do it— or funny— tried to access the internet yet only managed to open a porn page right in front of his boss, then couldn't turn down the speakers so everybody in the building was subjective to very loud moaning, etc). that would be "you fail I.T. forever" or something along those lines.

edited 15th Oct '10 10:03:17 AM by carla

Negative. That's a trope about someone in a story being computer illiterate. I'd swear we have this, something along the lines of Walking Techbane but less severe, but we may not.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Walking Techbane is something else, beyond mere illiteracy.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Thing is, again, being Computer Illiterate itself is not a trope, it's People Sit On Chairs. Making comedy out of it, now that is a trope.

^ exactly, hence my saying "when something happens because he doesn't know how to use the computer."

edited 18th Oct '10 11:18:47 AM by carla