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.
I find it annoying and sometimes a bit rude to just dismiss a question as "the writers screwed up".
Keet cleanupIn some cases, it can also be considered Creator Bashing.
Current Project: The TeamI don't think there's an official rule on this.
... That said, who goes on Headscratchers just to tell people "it happened that way because the author said so"? That sounds really boring.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.There is no official rule on this. However, unduly lame responses like the one ^ should probably be avoided.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanOn the other hand, if there's no in-universe justification for a certain plot-point (e.g. Artistic License), answering the question by making up your own fictional rules of physics/biology/chemistry/etc. that's not actually supported by Canon seems really skeevy to me. That belongs to WMG rather than Headscratchers, no?
In Headscratchers for videogames, I think that some doylist answers may be relevant if they are related to gameplay, level design, balance... issues. For instance:
Why [thing that doesn't makes sense In-Universe]? — Because [change which would make sense In-Universe] would result in the game being too easy (or too hard).
Edited by Psychopompos007Games are a bit different from non-interactive fiction, in that the mechanics are much more visible and the players are usually aware of the mechanics. So in that case, a "Doylist" (we're using the term loosely here) answer could be motivated.
On the other hand, I think that when it comes to e.g. literature or movies, the person asking the question is usually asking from a Watsonian perspective and providing a Doylist answer is not just lame, but can be outright rude and condescending.
"Why didn't the hero kill the villain the first time they met"? is a Watsonian question and the Doylist answer "Because otherwise the movie would only be half an hour long" is quite condescending, as if the viewer was too stupid to figure that out for themselves.
I guess the Doylist way of asking such a question would be "Why didn't the creator explain why the hero did that?", and then maybe a Doylist answer might be in order.
I think Doylist answers are okay as long as you explain why you are having to give that answer. Show your reasoning, as my old maths teacher used to say to me. Because sometimes the only reason you can give is to reference the Bellisario's Maxim, especially with older works from a different age of television.
Or Word of God explicitly is that A Wizard Did It and they just do not care, and the complication or contradiction is just too great to find an in universe explanation, but you need to explain that if you are using it as a reason (and also at least try and come up with an in universe reason too, if you can).
Edited by CrypticMirrorIf the Doylist answer is less than obvious, then I'd say that it should be mentioned.
Naturally, if somebody asks why there are medpacks lying around everywhere in a video game that takes place in an ancient abandoned cave, then the Doylist answer is such a basic part of how video games work that spelling it out is meaningless. But if there's one bizarrely placed medpack in a game where they're usually placed logically, then it might be worthwhile to answer "Because there simply was no place in this stage where it would have made sense for the medpack to be placed, story-wise."
I agree that doylist answers should be acceptable if they have some not-obvious reason to explain. There may be behind-the-scenes trouble that not everyone knows, or sometimes it's a convention of the time modern audiences don't understand. Making up fanwank to explain some plot hole is WMG territory. Besides some Headscratchers start off with a doylist question. We should certainly delete answers that come across as condescending, but they can be like that without being doylist.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.I've seen Headscratchers that amount to a near endless string of, "Why didn't the villain do these 107 steps, each of which would have stopped the heroes?" where, eventually, the answer has to be, "Look, the villain can't have a perfect plan and execution because he's supposed to lose." I think in cases like that the Doylist answer is acceptable.
^In that case, the Watsonian answer "the villain isn't perfect and can't think of anything" would perhaps also do.
Doylist answers are sometimes relevant. Like, if someone asked why Heihei the chicken in Moana was a realistically stupid animal rather than the typical intelligent Disney companion, a Doylist perspective on this being to make Moana emotionally isolated on her journey would be more relevant than a Watsonian justification for why this chicken is stupid in-universe. Same goes for supplying legitimate behind-the-scenes circumstances behind creative decisions. But saying the work just messed up sounds like bashing or invoking the MST3K Mantra and has no place on a Headscratchers page. (Conversely, demanding Watsonian explanations for things that were patently just real-world mistakes is also an exercise in futility.)
Edited by 8BrickMarioBut isn't demanding Watsonian explanations for things that were patently just real-world mistakes what most of the Headscratchers questions are about?
I'd say it mainly depends on how plausible the explantation is.
Back when I first started editing tvtropes, I have a memory that someone told me that Headscratcher questions were intended to be answered only from a Watsonian perspective because one can always say the writer or the animator or the director made a mistake as the answer to any question posed.
I agree that part of the fun of the Headscratcher section is to try and come up with plausible in-universe answers to the questions. However in reviewing the Administrivia here on tvtropes, I haven't seen anything that spells out the exact rules and/or restrictions for answering a headscratcher question.
So is it truly for Watsonian replies only? Or is it anything goes and you just accept that the Doylist answers will tend to be less satisfying because there are always mistakes in any creative work and saying "the writer screwed up" doesn't really help much?