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 think the entry oversimplifies things. Hayward is never presented as being in the wrong that Wanda's dangerous (she's absolutely shown that she is), but that he handles it comically poorly. Which he objectively does.
And that he seems to think that "terrorism" means "causing terror" which it doesn't.
In other words, emeriin's right, here. The entry is built on an inaccurate foundation. Hayward does have many valid points... which are also shared by the other characters. It's just that every point where his opinion diverges from theirs (that there's no negotiating, "let's shoot missiles at her," "I don't know what terrorism means," "she's clearly 100% in control and evil and there's no reason to look into why this might be happening past that") he's objectively wrong.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I can kind of understand where this entry is coming from, I do think Hayward came across as more sympathetic than he may have intended to though at the same time many of his actions are just plain wrong, clearly bad decisions as Larkmarn pointed out. Maybe the Informed Wrongness entry could be kept though it also seems to be that he is intended to have a point, not sure on this one.
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
Well now Storygirl 000 deleted the Informed Wrongness entry claiming it was more Jerkass Has a Point, but I'm pretty sure the narrative has to acknowledge the point as correct for it to count, and it's not clear to me (a non-fan) if the narrative wants Hayward to have a legitimate point here.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
As a fan, I would argue Hayward has gone through trauma. That being said, he's shutting everyone out who doesn't agree with his ideas.
I'm going to link to this
query, where people are having a similar conversation.
You know there's a problem in your series writing when a lot of people sympathyze more with an antagonistic character rather than the main characters.
These people will try to find ways to add their dislike of Monica, Jimmy and Darcy and their stance into the YMMV page until we put a Warning note.
^ IDK, I'm seeing more of a Broken Base than a majority sympathizing too much with this character.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Also, regarding Hayward. Yes, Wanda seemingly holding a town hostage is a bad thing, and yes, the five years between the snap and the blip were traumatizing. These are absolutely true points.
The problem here is, you can sympathize with Hayward and see where he's coming from WITHOUT also painting Monica, Darcy and Jimmy as wrong. Because they're ALSO RIGHT, Hayward going straight to "shoot first, ask questions never" is escalating the situation and making everything worse.
Just because there's reasons to sympathize with an antagonist's view, doesn't make in "unintentional", sometimes the intention is "yeah, I see where you're coming from, but..."
I agree that this should be moved to Broken Base.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
Only if debates continue 6 months later. This is an ongoing work and these debates reek of episodic troping; maybe all will be clear in the next two episodes.
We'll surely see how much of a threat Wanda actually is, and how right or wrong Hayward was in the next three episodes.
The series pages are completely run amok with speculative and episodic troping when this is a series that's meant to raise new questions every week. There's only three episodes left, we need to be patient.
Yeah, I'd just comment the entry out until the season is done; as is it'll probably end up getting changed every episode.
Reaction Image Repository
Commenting out would violate the rules. If it's not valid, it shouldn't be there at all.
My thought was more that since the nature of the situation in the show can change drastically from episode to episode, we don't know how valid the example is until the season is over.
Reaction Image Repository
^^^Makes sense, remove for now and after the season is over if valid re-add.
There appears to have been an Edit War over the entry on YMMV.Wanda Vision Episode 5 On A Very Special Episode over an Unintentionally Sympathetic entry. I don't have context for the show, but I figured it was worth bringing up to those who did.
Lighthammer added it as follows:
emeriin removed the entry with the edit reason, "they're not saying she's not being awful just there's something more (like massive trauma) than just 'terrorism'."
Dragon Master 408 re-added it, while also adding more context to the entry. Their edit reason was "Unintentionally Sympathetic is about characters who are unintentionally sympathetic. And as it stands, I think there's a good case for Hayward being this, especially since Darcy herself describes him as a dick before it cuts her off, so it seems like we're supposed to find him in the wrong."
Then The Goddess Is Dead tweaked and moved the entire entry to Informed Wrongness saying, "It's not about sympathy for characters. It's more about the fact that the episode accidentally presents that Both Sides Have a Point when they clearly only intended for Woo, Darcy, and Monica to be right."
Not sure if it needs to be discussed further as Goddess seems to have found a compromise but it felt worth noting.
Edited by mightymewtron