[003]
NubianSatyress
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
What do you mean \
to:
What do you mean \\\"the perfect trope\\\" has been found? Tropes are not mutually-exclusive or zero sum. You can mention the same context in two different tropes.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
Also, I disagree with this statement on the thread:
[[quoteblock]]it\\\'s not that the Semblance made Ironwood a BBC; it was because Ironwood was already a BBC that the Semblance description became so controversial — however, the fact that the Semblance description is vague, problematic and unhelpful is basically one thing both sides of the Ironwood debate agree on[[/quoteblock]]
This is a non-sequitur. It makes the presumption that A) once a character has broken a base, that they can\\\'t be broken any further and B) that consensus on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' point whatsoever, at all, means the base isn\\\'t broken. For example, you could have a character that half of a fanbase dislikes and then kill them offscreen in an over-the-top, horrific way that fans were split over because it was either hilariously extreme or horrifically cruel. Fans who were split about the character already can be FURTHER split; they may even all agree that killing the character offscreen was bad writing, but still disagree over whether or not the death was deserved, cruel, hilarious or any combination thereof. Just because the character was \\\"already a BBC\\\" does not discredit the fact that a further development further split the fans.
The same is with Ironwood here. The information about his Semblance is just another further split. True, nobody likes it, but the fandom is split on WHY they don\\\'t like it, as well as whether or not it humanizes or ruins his character further.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
Also, I disagree with this statement on the thread:
[[quoteblock]]it\\\'s not that the Semblance made Ironwood a BBC; it was because Ironwood was already a BBC that the Semblance description became so controversial — however, the fact that the Semblance description is vague, problematic and unhelpful is basically one thing both sides of the Ironwood debate agree on[[/quoteblock]]
This is a non-sequitur. It makes the presumption that A) once a character has broken a base, that they can\\\'t be broken any further and B) that consensus on \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' point whatsoever, at all, means the base isn\\\'t broken. For example, you could have a character that half of a fanbase dislikes and then kill them offscreen in an over-the-top, horrific way that fans were split over because it was either hilariously extreme or horrifically cruel. Fans who were split about the character already can be FURTHER split; they may even all agree that killing the character offscreen was bad writing, but still disagree over whether or not the death was deserved, cruel, hilarious or any combination thereof. Just because the character was \\\"already a BBC\\\" does not discredit the fact that a further development further split the fans.
The same is with Ironwood here. The information about his Semblance is just another further split. True, nobody likes it, but the fandom is split on WHY they don\\\'t like it, as well as whether or not it humanizes or ruins his character further.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
What do you mean \
to:
What do you mean \\\"the perfect trope\\\" has been found? Tropes are not mutually-exclusive or zero sum. You can mention the same context in two different tropes.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
Also, I disagree with this statement on the thread:
[[quoteblock]]it\\\'s not that the Semblance made Ironwood a BBC; it was because Ironwood was already a BBC that the Semblance description became so controversial — however, the fact that the Semblance description is vague, problematic and unhelpful is basically one thing both sides of the Ironwood debate agree on[[/quoteblock]]
This is a non-sequitur. It makes the presumption that A) once a character has broken a base, that they can\\\'t be broken any further. For example, you could have a character that half of a fanbase dislikes and then kill them offscreen in an over-the-top, horrific way that fans were split over because it was either hilariously extreme or horrifically cruel. Fans who were split about the character already can be FURTHER split; they may even all agree that killing the character offscreen was bad writing, but still disagree over whether or not the death was deserved, cruel, hilarious or any combination thereof. Just because the character was \\\"already a BBC\\\" does not discredit the fact that a further development further split the fans.
The same is with Ironwood here. The information about his Semblance is just another further split. True, nobody likes it, but the fandom is split on WHY they don\\\'t like it, as well as whether or not it humanizes or ruins his character further.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
Also, I disagree with this statement on the thread:
[[quoteblock]]it\\\'s not that the Semblance made Ironwood a BBC; it was because Ironwood was already a BBC that the Semblance description became so controversial — however, the fact that the Semblance description is vague, problematic and unhelpful is basically one thing both sides of the Ironwood debate agree on[[/quoteblock]]
This is a non-sequitur. It makes the presumption that A) once a character has broken a base, that they can\\\'t be broken any further. For example, you could have a character that half of a fanbase dislikes and then kill them offscreen in an over-the-top, horrific way that fans were split over because it was either hilariously extreme or horrifically cruel. Fans who were split about the character already can be FURTHER split; they may even all agree that killing the character offscreen was bad writing, but still disagree over whether or not the death was deserved, cruel, hilarious or any combination thereof. Just because the character was \\\"already a BBC\\\" does not discredit the fact that a further development further split the fans.
The same is with Ironwood here. The information about his Semblance is just another further split. True, nobody likes it, but the fandom is split on WHY they don\\\'t like it, as well as whether or not it humanizes or ruins his character further.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
What do you mean \
to:
What do you mean \\\"the perfect trope\\\" has been found? Tropes are not mutually-exclusive or zero sum. You can mention the same context in two different tropes.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.
