That new subjective message on Complete Monster

The definition seems to be rather clear and refers to a specific instance, so why is it subjective in this case? It seems that the only possible way the Complete Monster (fictional) could be seen as "good" is if Draco in Leather Pants changes parts of that same monster.

What constitutes a Complete Monster has been a constant war for many, many years. It is one of those 'degree' things nobody will every agree on. Subjective as hell.

edited 27th Sep '10 2:37:59 PM by FastEddie

So the problem is a sort of Edit War on the page trying to redefine it?

The problem is more that, no matter how we define it, people will continue to add their "favorite" characters to the page. When it becomes more about an individual's interpretation of a character than anything factual in the work itself, and it resists all attempts to restrain it, it's time to mark it Subjective and move on.

I still think some characters can be universally agreed to be this; at least if there's no debate on the work page it's safe enough to leave it on; I don't think anyone's going to try to remove Dread from Otherland or Pryrates from Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn.

So the problem was Trope Decay into something else.

Another problem is misuse. On a work's page you see things like:

• Complete Monster: Sleeping Beauty, for stepmother abuse and hogging all the apples.

edited 27th Sep '10 2:57:54 PM by FastEddie

While a note that it is subjective belongs there, the idea of keeping Complete Monster mentions to the Complete Monster lists is a questionable idea, at best. Almost ANY trope could leave uncertain what is an example and what isn't; to single out Complete Monster status, as something not to mention on a work's article, seems somewhat arbitrary.

How about we just say, from now on, "if you want to explain WHY certain characters are complete monsters, or see OTHERS' explanations as to why, then go to the Complete Monster article and the corresponding lists."

EDIT: And Fast Eddie, nearly any trope can be misused, and again, to single out Complete Monster for this seems somewhat arbitrary. If something isn't really an example, an explanation why should suffice. If someone persists in adding it in spite of the logic against doing so, then warn them, and if they continue to persist, ban them. Similarly, if you have strong enough reason to believe it was just a prank to begin with, warn them, and if they prank again ban them.

EDIT again: As for more ambiguous examples, I'd recommend a policy of "when in doubt, edit it out." Ideally with a note within the edit reason and/or the article itself (as in, using the percent symbol feature) saying to see a certain discussion page/forum thread/other article for the reasons why said character wouldn't belong. The very beginning of the Complete Monster article mentions that this title is reserved for the most depraved of villains. That should be a good indication to reserve it for the more clear-cut examples, and this is coming from someone who added Mr. Burns as a Complete Monster (at least in the show's article) and now agrees Burns doesn't qualify.

edited 27th Sep '10 3:54:54 PM by neoYTPism

Nope. I've been living with this for years. Complete Monster is and will be a natter magnet. It doesn't go in trope lists on works pages.

... why not? Do you have any particular counterarguments to my points?

Points? You are suggesting further fixes to the article and some sort of rule policing.

Serves no purpose. It does not matter if a character is considered a Complete Monster or not. The sum total of the information conveyed, when it works right at all, is that the guy behaves monstrously. The definition of the term requires two value judgments: 'complete' and 'monstrous'. We can't get people to agree on one value judgment, much less two, in combination.

Utterly, utterly pointless merry-go-round that has been going on and on for years. Just keep it away from the real stuff, please.

... again, plenty of tropes rely on multiple value judgements; why single out Complete Monster? I don't deny that it's subjective, but I would say that as long as we keep mentions of it in works articles limited to "is considered this" with a link to the respective list the explanation as to why appears in, subjectivity shouldn't stop it from being mentioned.

EDIT: Also, we'd be fighting an uphill battle if we tried to remove mentions of Complete Monster from all works articles. Granted, we'd also be fighting an uphill battle to remove all explanations from all works articles, but relatively less of one, given how many works articles just mention a character as one, leaving the explanations to the lists.

edited 27th Sep '10 4:56:42 PM by neoYTPism

It is not singled out. It is just one article having that label. There are several hundred others. Just because it is a big job doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.

We are about tropes, not opinions. We accommodate the opinion stuff because people find it fun, but it is not going to take the place over. One reason for that: most readers don't come to TV Tropes for the squabbles. They come for the tropes.

edited 27th Sep '10 5:00:52 PM by FastEddie

... so, which sounds easier to enforce, in practice? Keeping the squabbles out of the works articles, (banning the troublemakers should help with that) or seeking out all mentions of Complete Monster in works articles, removing them, and preventing them from being added again?

And I wasn't saying CM was the ONLY one singled out (perhaps I worded that poorly) so much as that many if not most examples of tropes are "open to interpretation" in some way or another, and it's hard to know for certain whether something is an example or not.

neo YT Pism, Complete Monster has been getting attention from Trope Curators for as long as I've been hanging around. It burns them out usually in six months or so. The definition has been stripped down, rewritten, clarified, tightened up, re-rewritten, argued about, made as objective as possible, re-re-rewritten, re-subjectified, reclarified, and re-re-re-rewritten.

People don't care what the description says it is. They want to add their favorite villain to it because they think that it's some sort of badge of honor, some sort of mark of cool, no matter what we do to make it clear that these characters are not admirable. "Other villains are just villains, but MY GUY is a COMPLETE MONSTER!"

It does nothing but cause problems when it shows up on a works page.

And in answer to this question"... so, which sounds easier to enforce, in practice? Keeping the squabbles out of the works articles, (banning the troublemakers should help with that) or seeking out all mentions of Complete Monster in works articles, removing them, and preventing them from being added again? " the answer is "Scrub it from the works pages and keep an eye out to keep it from being re-added."

It's intended to be a rather unusual character type — yet it's linked on nearly 6000 pages. Something is fundamentally wrong with the way it's being used.

edited 27th Sep '10 6:18:46 PM by Madrugada

... but if you could keep an eye on all the pages to see if Complete Monster is mentioned at all, couldn't you instead keep an eye on all the pages to see if Complete Monster is being misused, or descending into natter, etc...? If you could watch it that closely, wouldn't it be a better idea to just scrap the indirect approach?

As for people treating Complete Monster like a badge of honour, that's obviously Completely Missing The Point (I've previously misinterpreted it too, but not THAT badly) and the problem, then, is with those who misinterpret it that way... or maybe with the article. Right now the article is ridiculously tangential and confusingly worded. If it could be made more clear and concise that might help too.

... really, any trope could be misapplied like this, if someone misinterprets it; the problem is with the people misinterpreting it. Further standards on who gets to edit (ie. those who have a T Vtropes handle) would really seem to be a more direct and logical way of addressing this than trying to keep mentions of specific tropes out of works articles.

It's not a case of could be misused. It's a very clear case of is being misused.

Go up to the "search forum titles" bar at the top of this page, type in complete monster and just look at how many old threads we have about fixing that article.

What reason do we have to think that any new attempt to solve all the problems by fixing the article itself is going to fare any better than all the prior ones?

... that's not what I meant. Yes, it is being misused, but the problem is with those who misuse it, whatever their reasons. I fail to see why trying to remove all mentions of it from works articles is the best solution to this. I think a message of basic guidelines for new editors, (basically, "if you're going to add something as an example of a trope, make SURE you understand the trope reasonably well") followed by a warning to those who keep adding examples that aren't really examples, followed by a ban if too prolonged, would make more sense than keeping all mentions of a trope out of works articles. o.o

EDIT: And Meta Four, I'm not inclined to look through them, (about to go to bed soon anyway) but I think the most relevant question is... how much has conciseness in particular been discussedd? I had an idea for a much shorter version of this...

edited 27th Sep '10 6:30:54 PM by neoYTPism

No, you are not a Mary Sue who's wandering into TV Tropes with the solutions to all our problems we've had for years but could never solve ourselves for whatever reason. We've tried to fix Complete Monster. We tried again, it still didn't work. If you can think of it, we've probably tried it. The short answer is that this trope is highly resistant to repair, and ultimately the way people are using it is subjective, so the trope should be.

... how much of a try did you give the "conciseness" approach though?

(Just briefly woke up)

The reason Complete Monster is so wordy is because a lot of different people have a lot of different ideas about what Complete Monster is supposed to be about, and they all insist on having their definition put in the trope description.

For instance, there was a debate about what characters qualified as a Complete Monster a little while back. I and a few other people said that, to be a Complete Monster, a character had to display some evil traits while showing absolutely no good traits. A bunch of people insisted that, "No, simply having no good traits isn't enough; there has to be an aspect of repulsiveness, seriousness, and scariness to the character."

So I went "Fine" and created a YKTTW called "Pure Evil" so we'd have a trope for characters who are evil without any discernible good traits. Sure enough, the overwhelming response was: "No, we already have this trope; it's called Complete Monster." And some of these were the same people.

P.S. But I do think Complete Monster is a subjective trope, not matter which definition you use. They all involve judging the morality of a character, and no one has yet been able to find an objective way of doing that.

"The reason Complete Monster is so wordy is because a lot of different people have a lot of different ideas about what Complete Monster is supposed to be about, and they all insist on having their definition put in the trope description." - Raven

But the definition is already in the checklist, and even THAT can be made more concise. In spoiler tags is my suggested alternative for a shorter version of the article:

This is it. The Complete Monster is the most depraved of all villains. The kind whom even other villains in the same story as them will tend to be sickened by. But even being the most evil villain within their story doesn't imply that they are a Complete Monster.

The idea here is that such a villain engages in a series of horrible evil deeds, with no sufficient excuse for doing so... at least in the eyes of other characters. (Not counting some audience reactions.) They will not express any genuine remorse for these actions either.

Such a villain must also be irredeemable. A Heel–Face Turn would not make sense for such characters; the only way to get rid of them is through either a Karmic Death or a Fate Worse than Death. They are implied to have crossed the Moral Event Horizon either during the story or before it, and to have been remorselessly and inexcusably evil to a sickening extreme after crossing it.

No real life examples, please. Not even to call yourself one.

I would also suggest ending it off with some kind of acronym about the traits of a Complete Monster.

EDIT: And again, I already said I agree it is subjective. I'm just saying that that's no reason to keep mentions of it off works pages, especially when their might be alternative ways of discouraging misuse of the concept.

edited 28th Sep '10 6:51:10 AM by neoYTPism

You're tilting at windmills, Neo. This trope is too beloved by the TV Tropes fanbase to ever be cleaned up. No matter how you tweak the description, people will simply ignore it.

If you want to caretaker the page for a while, feel free. Come back when you're burned out.

But as I already pointed out, if people are going to ignore the description, that's THEIR problem. I fail to see why removing mentions of it from works articles is a more logical solution to this than removing editors who pay no attention to descriptions from the site.

The reason I even brought up my alternative description in the first place was because I thought it might be easier to read (and quicker to the point) than the current one.

Seriously, read through previous efforts. We tried making it concise and simple. We tried making it long and detailed. No dice.