Follow TV Tropes
This section from when it compares subversions to being played straight, oddly enough, seems to be a case of aversions being treated as subversions:
Subversion: The game ends anticlimactically.
Wouldn't a subversion of Down to the Last Play be the game looking like it was going to be a very close one, only for one team to get a clear advantage, and not just the game not being close?
Maybe it doesn't really matter, but it seems like, if I'm right about this, it should probably be corrected, as it might confuse people to see this part.
Is the "quasi-subversion" section at the end really relevant? It seems tangential at best and contradictory at worst. The specific example about Battlestar Galactica appears completely superfluous and does not demonstrate anything not covered already.
In fact, it looks like someone has added the section as a joke, and then someone else added the second example to explain the concept of a subverted trope. I have a few alternative explanations in mind, but never mind them. Am I just too sleepy to see the point of the section, or am I right to assume it doesn't belong?
The entries about the Subversion source control system— that's just weird. I don't want to just delete it, but why is it here, and... shouldn't it just be deleted? It's just the name of a product, it has nothing to do with tropes.
This discussion addresses the "partial subversion" concept well. In short, even a complex trope with a couple (not all) elements subverted is still "completely" subverted - rarely does a work subvert every single one. Also, optional elements simply don't count for subversion, since an example is still an example regardless of those elements. I believe that should be explained here or on the Subverted Trope page, and I'll add that section shortly unless there are arguments.
I'm guilty of putting in something like "kind of subverted" as an example. Now I go with this formula: If you think a trope's been partially subverted, list it as played with.
That's exactly what one should do in cases like that. Saying something is "partially subverted" is like saying that someone is "partially pregnant"; either it is subverted, or it is not.
If "played with" is supposed to be used for the vague cases, then why is Playing with a Trope a list of specific ways of playing with a trope that could and obviously should each be mentioned by their own name if they're being used? The way it seems to me is that "played with" is the new misused "subverted", used when people don't even particularly know what they mean by it. And I suspect the reader tends to know what is meant even less.
What about mentioning that a trope is "played perfectly straight"? Tropes Are Not Bad, Tropes Are Not Good. Unless it's a page where only the non-standard versions are mentioned, the "perfectly straight" bit is redundant.
That should go without saying, really.
It's still Word Cruft. If a trope is being played straight, there's no need to add "played straight", then.
Could be used when the trope is not usually ever played straight any more?
I don't think so. It's still word cruft because the entire reason examples exist is to show a work using a trope.
The 'partially-somewhat-maybe-possibly-half subverted' misuse is rampant and widespread. I don't think there's any stopping it.
It's not a misuse. People here just invented that it is. This is fiction, not science. There are no super clear cut lines. Just another arbitrary bullshit rule on tvtropes is all.
Rules are invented for the aim of achieving goals seen as desirable... such as to keep terminology used informative instead of having it decay to the point that you can just use the same expression for everything and it tells the reader nothing.
There are no clear cut lines, but some usage is just unhelpful.
Community Showcase More