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.
Bump? IDK if I should bring this to another thread or not, but the trope itself seems to be unclear.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Bumping again since I never got clarity, and Applicability seems to be used for both specific interpretations and for shows that have a lot of different interpretations, so the definition has me confused.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
The description for Applicability seems to read as "the author says you can interpret the work however you want", which is neither of these things and also not very interesting to talk about. Maybe take this to the description improvement thread
?
Yes, the trope description could probably be improved.
The way I interpret applicability is not that the author says that the work can be interpreted any way you want. It’s when the author acknowledges that the work can be treated as an analogy to real-world events, but it was not written to serve that purpose (that would make it an allegory or roman du clef).
Tolkien said that he didn’t write Lord of the Rings as an allegory of World War One, but acknowledged that it could be read that way and such a reading would make sense. It had applicability to WWI.
I guess that means that under the ”death of the author” paradigm, there are no allegories, but just applicability - are there any lit theorists around who’d like to comment on that?
Edited by GnomeTitan
But it rarely gets used in the context of an author confirming a work can be alternately interpreted in some way, but about the fans interpreting the work in some likely-unintentional way, regardless of author statement on the matter. So does any non-intentional audience interpretation fit this, even if it's not numerous interpretations? How distinct is it from Does This Remind You of Anything? which gets used similarly and objectively?
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Seems like a question for Trope Talk more than ATT.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
There have been a couple attempts at Trope Launch Pad to make an "autistic fanbase" trope but from what I can tell it hasn't really worked. These examples seem to be attempting to make an end run around the failure of those attempts.
^ yeah. I've said it everytime: Autistic People just don't have a big enough voice and don't create little niches in fandoms, so every attempt to trope this concept is based on generalizations or stereotyping ("people who have Autism love this work because it has worldbuilding", for example)
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
^ And the niche autistic fandoms we have don't have a particular culture besides "that character seems autistic and I like them." The autistic reading seems to fit Applicability, but the autistic fandom is a different story, which is why the Nostalgia Critic examples fall flat, especially the second which provides no context on why the character is interpreted as neurodivergent.note
Posted my query in this Trope Talk thread.
I didn't find any threads specifically for this trope besides a barely-used Trope Talk, so I'm coming here. From YMMV.The Nostalgia Critic (a page I desperately want to clean up, by the way):
I was initially confused because I thought Applicability referred to various, usually allegorical interpretations of a work, while these are pure non-allegorical autistic headcanons, the latter of which is incredibly low on context. (The autistic interpretation for these characters also isn't incredibly widespread, speaking as somebody in that fandom who supports these interpretations.) But then I saw YMMV.Steven Universe also lists a single autism interpretation under Applicability.
There is some difference there is that the Gems are aliens with different social norms than humans, so their autistic behavior would be allegorical. But I'm still confused because most of the on-page examples of Applicability discuss works that provide multiple interpretations, rather than just one. Some on-page examples don't even describe specific interpretations, but cite the author saying anybody is free to interpret their work however they want.
So my question is: can Applicability be used to describe a single interpretation that a lot of people (such as a particular subculture or marginalized group) share, or can it only be used for works with a lot of different interpretations? Or is it about creators saying that fans can interpret their works however they'd like? And what should I do with these examples, especially the former which doesn't read like correct usage no matter what the definition is?
Edited by mightymewtron