[002]
Jakob
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Another issue is the the definiton of the word \
to:
Another issue is the the definiton of the word \\\"awesome\\\", because, to many people, insanity in fiction can easily equal awesome, simply becuase of it\\\'s eye-catching, sudden, unexpected little turns to hilarity. While indeed nice to watch and crazy by all accounts, these are not examples of insanity that works, and therefore not examples of this trope. for example, River\\\'s awesome is indeed tied to her craziness, but her insanity isn\\\'t one that works. The main reason the word awesome is used in the first place seems to be that it\\\'s an catch-all term that doesn\\\'t limit the examples because of the way in which the characters quirks take form. Which is also the source of the issue.
In other words, this trope in it\\\'s current state is bound to be misunderstood pretty much no matter what.
I do not, however, want to give up on this trope, because when the convuluted examples are out of the way, there are still examples of this trope that are legitimate. While i agree that the name is rather ingrained, we need a name that has components that aren\\\'t this vague. Of the top of my head, i suggest Pragmatic Insanity or an equivalent, to remove the possibilty of a dual meaning but still not limit the way in which the character\\\'s insanity works.
In other words, this trope in it\\\'s current state is bound to be misunderstood pretty much no matter what.
I do not, however, want to give up on this trope, because when the convuluted examples are out of the way, there are still examples of this trope that are legitimate. While i agree that the name is rather ingrained, we need a name that has components that aren\\\'t this vague. Of the top of my head, i suggest Pragmatic Insanity or an equivalent, to remove the possibilty of a dual meaning but still not limit the way in which the character\\\'s insanity works.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Another issue is the the definiton of the word \
to:
Another issue is the the definiton of the word \\\"awesome\\\", because, to many people, insanity in fiction can easily equal awesome, simply becuase of it\\\'s eye-catching, sudden, unexpected little turns to hilarity. While indeed nice to watch and crazy by all accounts, these are not examples of insanity that works, and therefore not examples of this trope. for example, River\\\'s awesome is indeed tied to her craziness, but her insanity isn\\\'t one that works. The main reason the word awesome is used in the first place seems to be that it\\\'s an catch-all term that doesn\\\'t limit the examples because of the way in which the characters quirks take form. Which is also the source of the issue.
In other words, this trope in it\\\'s current state is bound to be misunderstood pretty much no matter what.
I do not, however, want to give up on this trope, because when the convuluted examples are out of the way, there are still examples of this trope that are legitimate. While i agree that the name is rather ingrained, we need a name that has components that aren\\\'t this vague. Of the top of my head, i suggest Pragmatic Insanity or an equivalent, to remove the possibilty of a dual meaning but still not limit the kind of workability the characters madness has.
In other words, this trope in it\\\'s current state is bound to be misunderstood pretty much no matter what.
I do not, however, want to give up on this trope, because when the convuluted examples are out of the way, there are still examples of this trope that are legitimate. While i agree that the name is rather ingrained, we need a name that has components that aren\\\'t this vague. Of the top of my head, i suggest Pragmatic Insanity or an equivalent, to remove the possibilty of a dual meaning but still not limit the kind of workability the characters madness has.
