Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
It may have decayed at some point to just mean "audiences like this character for being crazy".
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Dont forget "This character is just really really awesome IMO"
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
I think it's sort of like Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard; it's a trope found in the work rather than an Audience Reaction, but it's so debatable that it's YMMV.
Keet cleanup
Like Magnificent Bastard, there's a problem of concept and execution/perception: a character intended to be unhinged and brilliant may come across as just stupid and succeeding by author fiat.
I wouldn't be against making it objective, but it might have to be renamed to something like Succeeding Through Insanity.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
^that sounds pretty similar to Achievements in Ignorance, it may not be different enough to warrant a separate trope.
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
The two are related, but distinct. A Crazy Awesome character may be quite intelligent and well-informed but with a very strange way of thinking, like many mad scientists. I would differentiate them by:
- Achievements in Ignorance is when someone does something they did not know was impossible.
- Crazy Awesome is when someone does something they know to be impossible, or have been told it is, or do something feasible in a way that others (in-universe) consider doomed to fail.
There will be overlap, but I think we could make it work in TRS.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
I believe there was a forum thread that talked about this, but I can't find it.
I believe Crazy Awesome is when their craziness is something that one expects to be a liability (reckless, poor planning) and leave them The Scrappy, but becomes endearing as it gets results.
YMMV because expecting it to be unpopular and at what point it outweighs that descends on audience reactions.
As I said in the now-closed TRS thread
, I think this isn't distinct enough from the non-YMMV trope Essential Madness, plus Crazy Awesome's name is significantly less clear (the TRS thread was for misuse; the duplicate thing came up later and the thread closed without there being much more discussion).
(Currently not in the mood to make a TRS thread myself, especially since I still have ongoing work with the backlog.)
Edited by GastonRabbit Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
The reason why it's YMMV is because, for some weird reason, a Crazy Awesome character has to be popular with the audience.
I had no idea why that requirement is there back when the previous TRS thread was made, and I still have no clue to this day. It's like someone arbitrarily decided to slap on a random extra rule for no reason. Like I said in the thread, "character succeeds thanks to being crazy" is a good trope on its own; the subjective aspect is as irrelevant here as it would be on any other character trope.
Why is Crazy Awesome YMMV? The trope's concept is "an insane character is great at what they do because of their insanity", which sounds like it's fully based within the world of the work.
Edited by Crossover-Enthusiast