Pugs, Pedagogy, and Pizza
Over the past several months, I've been adding a lot of tropes for Wendy. Some of them, I'll admit, are a little bit of wishful thinking on my part since I love the character of Wendy. "Humble Hero" and "Indifferent Beauty", for example; the examples I give for them are reasonable but somewhat vague. What do you think about these entries for Wendy?
Why is Dipper's first name spoilered? Yes, it was never revealed in the show proper, but doesn't the wiki have a rule against spoiling names in the character page? (hell, Hey Arnold makes spoiling the title character's surname a running gag, yet House Shortman isn't immune to that rule.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
We had three entries added that say that Dipper became super-apologetic and apologizes all the time even when he did nothing wrong after "Not What He Seems". Where is this impression coming from?
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3. Hide / Show Replies
...I have seen some posts like this on tumblr, too. I guess it could be extrapolation from some of his lines? Let me look up the transcripts for the episodes...
Besides apologizing in "A Tale of Two Stans" for trying to stop Stan from using the machine, he has these: (In response to Ford trusting him with access to the Infinity die) "Really? Even though I got us into the whole game-playing mess?" and (after defending himself with the memory gun) "I tried to erase your mind. I'm so sorry."
...not sure that constitutes "Apologizes a Lot" just yet, but that is three out of four episodes where he apologizes for defending himself or something else that really wasn't his fault. So maybe if it becomes a pattern we should consider adding it.
In the first example, he feels responsible because of his distrust of Stan. He spent the entire episode badmouthing Stan and bought completely into the idea that the Universe Portal was a doomsday device like the agents suggested, when in actuality Stan was just trying to help his brother. Dipper feels guilty because he misjudged Stan as an maniacal despot attempting to destroy the world for lulz. It's a perfectly legitimate apology.
In "The Last Mabelcorn", Dipper betrayed Ford's trust by placing the helmet on him in the first place, something he explicitly knew was the wrong thing to do based on the line about being really good at rationalizing things to himself. He then flipped out upon what he learned, pulled the memory eraser on Ford in self-defense, and then fired it. The potential consequences of Dipper's choices could have been devastating if a) the shot hadn't rebounded and b) Ford didn't have his metal plate. As with Stan, he was too quick to assume nefarious intent and nearly ruined everything because of it.
That's three apologies in four episodes, two of which were very well-earned. I don't think that's probable cause for Dipper having a guilt complex and apologizing for everything.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
I have something I would like to add, but I'm honestly not sure what to put it under. Just like how Dipper shares part of his personality with both Ford (intelligence, drive to find out the secrets of gravity falls etc.) and Stanley (cynicism, stubbornness, care for his family above all else etc.)
I noticed Mabel to shares traits with both her great uncles. She has Stanley's Bunny-Ears Lawyer traits and more laid back personality, as well as being the more physical and some regards practical of the two. But she also has Ford's optimism, innocent insensitivity, lack of forethought for her actions and occasional selfishness.
I feel these similarities should be acknowledged, but I'm not sure what to put it under. I don't think Not So Different would count, as so far their similarities haven't been acknowledged.
Edited by MGD107
Ambiguously Bi was added to Mabel's folder. I honestly think it's fanon (since it only sites Mabel calling women "sweet honeys" as evidence), but I don't want to get hate for removing it and putting it in the Fanon section on YMMV. Should I remove it?
Hide / Show Replies
I am not sure about the most recent episodes, but i watched all the episodes prior to the apparition of the author, and none of the episodes in question actually hints that Mabel is bi.
Edited by MagBas
Shouldn't we move the Author's tropes here? I mean, if he's got his own folder and he's living in the Mystery Shack, shouldn't this be where his tropes belong now?
So, a while back (June 18th specifically, for anyone who wants to go through the history) I edited Grunkle Stan's entry updating with the info that Grunkle Stan is actually Stanley Pines while The Author is the real Stanford Pines, which was reverted since the source (IMDB edit) was shaky at best. Now there's officially released information (even if only from a promo) that backs this claim up (hiding link in a spoiler tag since the URL itself contains a spoiler) http://chrossrank.tumblr.com/post/122771538525/grunkle4grandpa-confirmed
, does this count as solid enough revert back to what I changed?
Sub topic: should the Strong Family Resemblance entry under Stan be removed since the resemblance should be obvious given that He and the Author are twins?
I think that's pretty irrefutable evidence.
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
I think we need to talk about this:
- Took a Level in Jerkass:
- In "The Deep End," he puts his lifeguard job over his friends and family out of fear of losing his job and to be with Wendy, who was also on lifeguard duty at the time.
- In "The Land Before Swine," when Dipper goes against Mabel's advice to be gentle when he tells Soos he doesn't want him to come along on a delicate mission, and harangues Soos for being nothing but trouble the whole time when he further meddles things up, and Dipper makes an indirect jab at Soos' weight.
- In "The Love God," Dipper shows shades of this at the beginning of the episode, joining the gang in ordering Thompson around and showing no compassion for Robbie's heartbreak because he and Mabel are finally "in". He sheds it, however, after seeing that Robbie and Tambry are really happy together and Robbie thanks Mabel for setting the couple up.
- In "Not What He Seems," after realizing Stan was a Broken Pedestal, Dipper in the climax refused to listen to his great uncle to leave the machine on and attempts to egg Mabel to shut down the device, while Stan pleaded with her not to. When Mabel chooses listening to Stan over Dipper, Dipper becomes infuriated that Mabel chose to trust the man whose been manipulating and lying to them all summer over her own brother.
This is from Dipper's folder, and a lot of this seems very Ron the Death Eater. For instance, in the first one Dipper was only doing his job and didn't know about Mermando, and certainly was not "putting his job over his friends and family," even if he was initially doing the job to impress a girl. And in the second, Dipper had every right to be furious at both Stan and Mabel, one for lying and risking the world to activate this strange machine they knew nothing about (other than the fact that it could potentially kill them all) and the other for going along with it and gambling all their lives on the word of a man who, for all they know, has never said a truthful word to them before. Being mad at that doesn't make someone a jerk, it makes someone legitimately and justifiably hurt. And we haven't even gotten proof of him actually being "furious" at anyone yet. Some of this stuff does have a point, but other parts sound just petty.
What do you all think?
Edited by Tuol Hide / Show Replies
- Aesop Amnesia: Prominently shown in Season 2. Among other things, she learns in Sock Opera not to push aside important people in her life for a guy and to cherish and respect her brother's efforts to balance her happiness and safety over his own while still maintaining progress in his own interests. However, she backslides in Not What He Seems, again pushing aside important people in her life for a guy and talking her brother into taking a life-threatening job offered by people they know are corrupt so she and her friends could go to a fancy party. She doesn't even thank him.
Pretty sure that's talking about Northwest Mansion Mystery, not Not What He Seems. And while the life-threatening bit is a bit up for debate, it's nothing some editing can't fix.
Once again, Mabel didn't know the job would put Dipper's life in danger when she asked him.
Besides the whole 'life-threatening' part and the incorrect episode listing (and the 'doesn't even thank him bit,' which sounds petulant), there is fact in the trope: her actions in Northwest Mansion Mystery did directly contradict the aesop she learned in Sock Opera. Sure, Mabel didn't know about the life-threatening bit, but controversial wording doesn't discount the other points and doesn't mean the whole trope should be deleted. That's what editing's for.
I wasn't arguing for removing it completely, I wanted to discuss that part here before editing it to avoid an edit war.
This is the editied version of the above trope, which I posted:
- Aesop Amnesia: In Season 2. Among other things, she learns in Sock Opera not to push aside important people in her life for a guy and to appreciate her brother's efforts to make her happy. However, she backslides in Northwest Mansion Mystery, again pushing aside important people in her life for a guy and talking her brother into taking a potentially dangerous job offered by people they know are corrupt so she and her friends can go to a fancy party.
Dipper notes ghosts fall on a 1 to 10 category, with "floating plates" only falling on category 1 and specifically says it's "nothing to worry about." It's when he confronts the ghost he realizes it's more dangerous than that.
Edited by beack7
But Pacifica hadn't told them anything about the haunting yet. Here, this is the full dialogue she uses to describe the haunting before Mabel talks Dipper into agreeing:
"Look. You think it's easy for me to come here? I don't want to be seen in this hovel. But there's something haunting Northwest Manor. (Takes off sunglasses) If you don't help me, the party could be ruined!"
That is all Pacifica had told either of them at the time. So neither Dipper nor Mabel had any information to judge whether it was dangerous or not besides the key word "haunting" until after Mabel talked him into agreeing so she could get the tickets, and the point still stands: the job Pacifica was offering was, as far as Mabel knew, potentially dangerous. Hence the word "potential" as in "having the possibility of being." So can we just agree to change it back? I don't even understand why it was edited out in the first place, because it's a fact not an opinion. Here's the aesop, here's what she did that went against the aesop later. Seems straight-laced to me.
Edited by Tuol
True, but while the scene were Pacifica described how bad the haunting was happened off-screen, it's most likely Mabel was there when she explained it and knew it wouldn't be too dangerous. Also, had Mabel and Dipper learned it was a more dire situation, they might have mutually backed down.
Edited by beack7
But it still happened. She still talked him into a potentially dangerous situation before they knew anything about it, which was my point. Whether or not there was a conversation afterwards, that scene where Mabel begs her brother to do a potentially dangerous job she knows nothing about so she can get into a party still happened, and still goes against the previously established aesop. It is fact. You can't deny visual, established fact with a scene that was implied to maybe have happened off-screen later, it doesn't change what happened before that on screen. Besides, maybe's and likely's and probably's are YMMV and WMG territory. An argument against something can't be based off a hypothetical scene we never saw. Pacifica and Dipper had plenty of time alone before confronting the ghost, Mabel isn't guaranteed to have heard and it doesn't matter if she did. She still did what she did earlier, and her actions still went against the aesop. QED: Aesop Amnesia. Why is this being contested?
I'm restoring the trope's text tomorrow when I wake up to the full paragraph, since I think I've proved my points.
Edited by Tuol
Another thing that occurred to me was the only danger Pacifica mentions when she asks Dipper to help her is the party being ruined, which wouldn't give Dipper and Mabel reason to think it's life-threatening.
Edited by beack7
...No, that always came off to me as Pacifica having skewed priorities. The entire Northwest family was, before that, portrayed as shallow with severely skewed priorities. They're known to prioritize winning and appearance over everything, it wouldn't be exaggerating to interpret that as them considering their party more important than anything else threatened by the ghost. This shallow skew of priorities is expected by the audience and the twins. And it is a billion-dollar party with millionaires and billionaires in attendance, the disruption of which could have a huge social and financial effect on the Northwests.
But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn't dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren't related. You can't assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn't in their place. In either case, Mabel didn't have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn't even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point. She wasn't thinking about what her brother would have to do, and even if it was a simple task of banishing a level one ghost, that still doesn't make her getting Dipper to work for her party tickets okay. Add that to the fact that she even didn't know what she was setting her brother up for, and QED: Aesop Amnesia. Not appreciating her brother's efforts to make her happy, but actively encouraging him to do more for her, which is so far against the aesop it's ridiculous.
Edited by Tuol
Changing it back now. Thank you for having this debate with me. Being able to defend it so thoroughly really helps my confidence in my stance, and I often have problems with that.
I feel like with what we learned in "Society of the Blind Eye" about Wendy's family situation and how it affects her emotionally, the "Took A Level in Jerkass" entries might be better moved to a "Not So Stoic" entry (ie, Tossing Soos' "Girl we Blanchin'" CD was a moment of passion for which she apologized immediately - hardly something to alter her character.)
Watching Waiting Shaping Faking Shocking Pumping Mocking Stopping Falling Stalling Warning Crawling Rejecting Perfecting Marauding Ending
Guys, can we please stop trying to add Ungrateful Bitch under Wendy's entry? Flipping out at Dipper for interfering with her and Robbie's relationship hardly qualifies. Give it up.
What is the source for Dipper's real name?
Hide / Show Replies