Follow TV Tropes
There\'s been a disagreement and Edit War over the use of Ambiguously Bi in regards to Yang and Blake. Here\'s the last entry.
We need a consensus on this trope and its use, and whether it applies or not, before this can be re-added.
Now that it\'s pretty clear Yang and Blake are moving in a romantic direction (supported by Barbara and Arryn dropping the pretenses of saying the enjoy the ship \'as fans\', talking about how it\'s happening and that it\'s been planned since the beginning - further evidenced when you consider that Arryn was the one who took it on herself to state that BMBLB didn\'t mean anything was happening because she didn\'t want people getting their hopes up over something that might not happen), maybe the ambiguous part can be dropped?
At least with Blake, because she does have that history with Adam (even though it was abusive) and this current romantic dynamic with Yang, casting her as Badass Bisexual is probably the way to go.
As for Yang - she\'s only got that one single instance in volume 1, which comes off more as a joke than anything, that suggests she might be into guys - and given the show was in its early days, could be chalked up to Early Installment Weirdness, especially as subsequent volumes have her uninterested and often unimpressed by guys - so qualifying her as bisexual when she only has that one minor instance in volume 1 that she might be into guys and the whole mountain of Ship Tease she has with Blake feels a bit disingenuous because she could just be a lesbian. So listing her as Ambiguously Gay simply because the text hasn\'t explicitly stated seems like the sensible way to go there too.
I am in agreement with Sir Adamus. Blake & Yang\'s relationship is heavily layered with romantic coding that I feel shows a clear Romance Arc and Friendship As Courtship starting with Yang seeking out Blake with great interest after Ruby points her out & Blake choosing Yang as her partner in the Emerald Forest being the starting points. This continues with Yang\'s flirty attitude towards Blake \"I love it when your feisty\" to their conversation in \"Burning the Candle\" where Yang seemed to go in for an Almost Kiss before hugging Blake instead, then winking to her & offering to save Blake a dance. Blake choosing Yang as her first dance (Dance Of Romance) and also being the only head to turn towards Yang while she was dancing with someone else which ties into Yang\'s comment claiming she would be turning heads at the dance.
Adding to the romantic coding, is Yang being the one who was shown when Adam (Blake\'s former Bastard Boyfriend) said he would destroy everything Blake loves, followed up by him trying to Murderthe Hypotenuse in Volume 3. Following that in volume 4 we see Yang holding a particularly unique place in Blake\'s hearts (her voice cracks when she talks about Yang) that stand out from her noted feeling of friendship towards others. We also see this in volume 5 with how they respond to seeing one another (Held Gaze) and with Blake\'s behaviour in Volume 6 constantly watching Yang and Yang\'s Flirting Under Fire during the first battle of the season, as well as the sun coming out and framing Yang when she assured Blake they would eventually be fine.
They also engage in a great deal of Holding Hands throughout Volume 6 which is done almost exclusively in RWBY between romantic couple from Salem & Ozpin, to Ren & Nora and even between Pyrrha & Jaune. One such hand holding scene is a near perfect recreation of Volume 4s between Ren & Nora. We also see Adam frequently fly into a jealous rage in regards to Yang, with him lashing out at Yang because she and Blake looked at one another, and screaming \"What does she see in you?\" when trying to kill Yang. He seems to regard Yang as a romantic rival and there is a great deal to be said for Blake & Yang holding hands and affirming their commitment to protect one another in the face of Blake\'s abusive ex who deeply wounded both of them and the two ultimately triumphing over him. This was also followed by Blake tearfully affirming she would not leave Yang and Yang cradling her head and assuring Blake she knew Blake would not.
I am in full agreement with Sir Adamus and capeclare. yangs and Blake arc are intertwined in ways very fitting for a romantic subplot, to the point where they start to mirror already established couples (the terracotta-arcs and Salem and Ozpin) and other heavily teased ones (Nora and ren). Yangs only proof of male attraction was ONE comment in 6 volumes meanwhile Blakes Adam arc is heavily centered around Yang and Adams own jealousy towards her, to the point where he said \"What does she even see in you!?\" like one can only refer to a potential romantic rival. After the fight they even are shown in very vulnerable positions with Blake reafirming her promise to Yang and tenderly headtouching included. It is impossible to deny the at the very least possibility of romance and as such ambigiousity of their sexualities.
In agreement with Sir Adamus, capeclare and Dragon Sun.
The romantic coding between Blake and Yang should get Blake moved to Badass Bisexual (or at least ambiguously bi) but she’s been staring at Yang, and catering to Yang for the entirety of the sixth volume.
Yang and Blake also parallel Ren and Nora (defeating a personal demon together, holding hands and cuddling on an airship). And Adam recognizes Yang as a romantic rival (“What does she even see in you?”)
They’ve held hands more than any other two characters in the last volume alone. Handholding has only been seen between romantic couples (Ren/Nora, Jaune/Pyrrha) as well as between Salem/Ozma in Jinn’s story (illustrating the romantic interest).
As for Yang? I’d move her to Ambiguously Gay. Her interest and flirting has been 100% directed at Blake from volume 2.
I am in full support of Yang being moved to Ambiguously Gay and Blake Ambiguously Bi. I am an huge fan of the show. Plus the Ho Yay section involving was deleted because it evolved beyond just that.
Sounds good to me. Perhaps a pruned down version of the last version of Ambiguously Gay would work.
I disagree about using Ambiguously Gay for Yang. The \'ambiguous\' part of Ambiguously Bi already covers cases where attraction to the opposite gender is ambiguous.
Also in general, I feel a good rule of thumb is to assume early details haven\'t been retconned unless they are contradicted later. And I just don\'t think \"only shows interest in their love interest\" contradicts \"can feel attraction to people besides them\".
Heck, if you go by the logic of \"she\'s only shown interest in Blake, therefore she\'s not interested in boys\", you could argue that it\'s a case of Single Target Sexuality, because she hasn\'t shown interest in other girls besides Blake. (To be clear, I\'m not arguing this.)
Anyway, tl;dr: I think Ambiguously Bi is a better fit for Yang than Ambiguously Gay.
I would argue Yang\'s general lack of interest and being generally unimpressed by guys in general (even as early as volume 2, where she\'s unimpressed by Sun showing off his abs as an excuse for not changing his clothes for the dance - a spot where it would\'ve been very easy to just have her enjoy the eye candy - and Neptune\'s general... everything) does contradict the \"early details\". Besides, using that single scrap of evidence as reason when it\'s not been followed up with or acknowledged (hell, some adaptations like the official manga and the TV edit of the Japanese dub skip over it entirely) since, feels like it\'s clinging onto something that doesn\'t reflect the now fully realised character six volumes in.
Please don\'t use the Badass Bisexual trope, I think the Badass clean-up thread is getting rid of that trope (and also Badass Gay as well). I put these tropes on the Is This An Example? thread on the weekend because of the Edit War.
The suggestion over there is that Blake should be Bi The Way because her bixsexuality is pretty much confirmed and that Yang should be Ambiguously Bi.
Personally, I would warn against the argument that Yang has only shown interest in boys once because, the truth is, she\'s also only shown interest in girls once, too. She\'s shown absolutely no general interest in girls beyond Blake. It just happens that, because Blake is her team-mate and a constant presence in the show, Yang\'s interest in her is sustained instead of one-off. If you\'re going to use the \'once only\' argument against Ambiguously Bi, you immediately put yourself in danger of Single Target Sexuality arguments regarding Blake (so, I agree with Twiddler on this point).
Since she\'s shown interest in the idea of dating boys but no interest in any of the individual boys she interacts with and interest in one, specific girl, but not girls in general, I have no problem with Ambiguously Bi. It makes sense. And, like Twiddler said, the \'ambiguity\' covers the fact we don\'t know if she\'s gay or not. An entry under this trope can easily make it clear that the ambiguity is between bi and gay, not bi and straight.
That said, if people end up choosing Ambiguously Gay, the current Ambiguously Gay write-up is awful and, in places, inaccurate. And it\'s definitely shoehorning Early Installment Weirdness (remember, in real life, people can show genuine interest in the opposite sex as teenagers only to later decide they\'re gay, so it wouldn\'t be weird for Yang to have shown genuine interest in the idea of dating boys and still decide later on down the road that, no, she\'s definitely gay).
I disagree with ambigously gay for yang as well. Ambigously bi is appropriate she has not done anything to suggest she does not like men romantically but oggling at boys indicates she at least finds them attractive and nothing later contradicts this. Being unimpressed by certain men she interacts with isn\'t enough. For Blake there has to be some sort of indication from her part (like blushing) beyond handholding. As Weiss, Ruby, and Yang have all held hands and hugged at one point too. I still we should wait until the dvd commentary comes out. The voice actors are not writers and most of them say they hope and think might happen but that is not canon confirmation.
The framing for Blake/Yang\'s interactions is undeniably romantic at this point, so I agree Bi The Way would be most appropriate for Blake. While I agree with Sir Adamus that clinging to to a single joke line very easily chalked up to Early Installment Weirdness versus the consistent build-up in her relationship with Blake feels like weak justification, I can also agree Twiddler is correct in that the \"Ambiguous\" part in Ambiguously Bi does, fittingly enough, go both ways. That said, Ambiguously Gay carries that sentiment of ambiguity too, along with the idea that it\'s something she perhaps just grew out of, as Wyldchyld describes. So overall, I feel like Ambiguously Gay is the better fit for Yang\'s characterization.
Excuse me, but I have to be the bad guy here and speak on behalf of others and ask how long this discussion will take? I for one fine with waiting but some friends of mine told they are not liking how long this is taking. Again I am fine with the wait, I am merely acting as a mouthpiece for others so please do not be angry with me, and if I have offended anyone I apologize.
^^ \"clinging to to a single joke line very easily chalked up to Early Installment Weirdness versus the consistent build-up in her relationship with Blake\"
What does one have to do with the other? Whether she is attracted to guys has nothing to do with whether she is attracted to girls.
Ambiguously Gay puts forth an assumption — either her attraction to guys was retconned, or she grew out of it. Ambiguously Bi requires no such assumptions. Assuming that a detail from earlier still holds up is the default.
^ We\'re not running on a clock here, and we\'re all doing this in our free time, so the only answer I can give is that it\'ll take however long it takes. Also it\'s only been two days since this discussion started — that\'s nothing.
Again sorry for asking but I was only doing so on behalf of some friends. Also in my opinion I think that Blake definitely qualifies as Ambiguously Bi, but given the context of the replies that this is not the main issue, but where to place Yang. On that note I do believe that she qualifies more as Ambiguously Gay since that single joke does not really entirely mean that she is attracted to men. The only person she really shows any definitive and genuine attraction to is Blake. She could easily be a Straight Gay Character, she would not be the first character in media to be like that.
^ What if she was checking out guys and girls in the pajama scene? What would you take from it? (Assume V3 E11 hasn\'t aired yet)
When a one-off joke at the very start of the series is the entire basis for an argument, it kind of makes for a weak case. And I disagree with Wyldchyld\'s assertion that the inverse is true, and her comparative emphasis on Blake a better argument for Single Target Sexuality than Ambiguously Gay, precisely because of Blake\'s sustained presence. Her interest in Blake, a member of her same sex, is an ever-developing constant. Her only expression of interest in members of the opposite sex was a literal joke. She never actually showed interest in dating them either, only teased Ruby about the co-ed nature of their dorm. Even arguing only for the case of attraction, as Adamus pointed out, it was never followed up on at any possible opportunity, even before the plans with Blake were evident. And if you\'re going to argue that she\'s never shown interest in any girls besides Blake, while holding up a one-off joke for general attraction to men, then shouldn\'t If Its You Its Okay be the most appropriate option?
The matter of her sexuality is ambiguous, lacking any concrete statement or history, but the primary crux is that she has a dedicated romantic arc with a member of the same sex, which would of course be the primary point to be made regardless of which trope is listed, and then a tacked-on note \"but she joked about checking guys out once.\" To me, that more casts ambiguity on her being gay, rather than ambiguously suggests she\'s bi.
I have long suspected that Yang is closer to gay then bisexual, but the question remains if Blake were a male would Yang still be attracted to her?
I\'ve added a preliminary version of Ambiguously Bi to the page under Yang. Feel free to change or remove as needed.
I would also support doing the same for Blake. Of course, we would have to use only explicit examples of affection towards both Sun and Yang in this case and cut out interpretation, since that would go to Ho Yay.
I have tweaked the Ambiguously Bi entry for Yang. Hopefully, that\'s okay. I\'ve also written up a Bi The Way entry for Blake — as her sexuality is confirmed and not ambiguous, she\'s Bi The Way, not Ambiguously Bi.
@jdixon0151: You shouldn\'t be posting on behalf of others. If they want to contribute, they should post here, too. Typically discussions on the discussion page will span several days because real life is a priority for everyone, and so may not be able to post multiple times a day, or even every single day. A week is a good rule of thumb.
Anyway, it appears to be sorted now to Blake being Bi The Way and Yang being Ambiguously Bi. Does anyone have any other changes to make?
Still don\'t really agree with the application of Ambiguously Bi vs Ambiguously Gay with regards to Yang, but with regards to Blake, I wasn\'t aware of any concrete statement having been made about her sexuality? I\'d say Bi The Way applies regardless, but if there\'s an actual creator statement on the matter then it might be best to link that?
Where is the confirmation that Blake is bisexual from the creators? Did Miles or Kerry make a statement to that effect? Otherwise its mere conjecture until we get actual on the record stuff from the writers. I suggest the Bi The Way trope be removed. Give me evidence or at least a link or I will remove the trope from her page.
In addition although Blake and Yang have grown close, everything Blake has done can also be interpreted as trying to repair a broken friendship with Yang and not necessarily an indication she is bisexual. Considering she hasn\'t expressed interest in Ilia or any other girl in the past either I don\'t think this trope is appropriate. There has to be concrete indication that she likes Yang in a romantic manner (love confession, kiss, blushing etc). Sun hasn\'t bowed out of her life as we can expect him to return in the next volume or the one after. Yang\'s page seems good and I agree to the changes so there\'s not problem there.
\"Interviews with the creators have confirmed that Blake is indeed bisexual.\"
Can someone please link the interview (or interviews) where this was confirmed? This trope seems to have been added recently, but this is the first I\'m hearing of Blake being confirmed as bisexual in canon or by Wo G. Not even the RWBY Wikia states this.
Adding on to this, you can\'t explicitly state that creators have confirmed this with no actual confirmation to this. This is straight up lying to watchers of the show, and if this turns out to not be true this source is letting down a lot of actual bisexuals with a blatant lie that is backed by no proof. No source. No credits.
Either add a source, it isn\'t that hard - it\'ll literally just be backing the point if this is done and hurrah, then T Vtropes isn\'t making things up!
What the... are you guys serious? There is no \"undeniably\" about Blake and Yang being romantically involved. What evidence do we have? Adam\'s jealousy? Third party\'s observation is no evidence, we have a whole page of people making assumption like that and being wrong. Hand Holding? Hugs? we\'ve had a dozen of hugs in the show, and most weren\'t romantic. Them being close? There is a trope for that. At this point there is nothing except a possibility in the future. Unless there is a source to the Word Of God, i see no basis for Blake\'s bi the way entry to stay.
Well there is saying that the relationship between the two of them is not romantic nor is there any saying the relationship between them is not platonic. You can\'t simplify define this kind of things with out definitive proof, but in life not everything is definitive so. So labeling both Yang and Blake as ambiguously Bi would probably be the best bet.
Imo, at this point it is clear, that both are romantically attracted to each other. RT isn\'t even subtle about it. Most of the staff just seems to affirms that something is going on between the two. Just recently they had released a RWBY themed Valentine\'s card with Blake and Yang. It\'s the only RWBY Valentine\'s card https://twitter.com/RoosterTeeth/status/1096107393040039937
I would say at this point, the question is not if the two are attracted to each other, but rather if they will act on their feelings.
Also Barbara confirmed that the fans are not seeing something. These moments are deliberate, it\'s just that not all of these moments are deliberate.
Question: Does Yang qualify as a hypocrite? She verbally tore into Ozpin for hiding the truth about Salem and that she can\'t be destroyed, but she\'s also hiding the fact that Raven was the Spring maiden and hasn\'t told anyone yet. I\'m asking because it was deleted due to apparently needing this to be acknowledged in the show itself or something like that (I can\'t fully remember the reason that was listed). Thing is, she\'s classified as a hypocrite on main page for the trope itself, so I have to ask if character pages have different rules or if it being on the main page is a mistake.
Considering the two situations aren\'t remotely the same - Ozpin\'s keeping secrets that could get them killed and is leading them, while Yang isn\'t leading and is keeping a secret that holds no relevance to their situation, and Ozpin\'s a thousand year old wizard who should know better and Yang is a traumatised teenager and that information about Raven is wrapped up in her personal issues with the woman - no, Yang isn\'t a hypocrite.
Hypocrite also needs to be raised in-universe. It doesn\'t matter what fans think, it\'s an objective trope, not a subjective one — if it\'s not raised in-universe, it doesn\'t count. No-one has accused Yang of hypocrisy over anything, so the trope doesn\'t apply.
I\'ve removed the entry from the trope\'s page for being misuse.
I moved my post to the proper discussion topic. Apologies!
Alright, got it. I was wondering about why it was in one place but not the other and needed to ask why. Thanks.
Added this after re watching volume 3 (chapter 9), where I noticed that Ruby\'s semblance can be matched by Mercury\'s natural speed, and after one kick, she was down on the ground.
I deleted my post
So Wyldchyld removed Four Girl Ensemble from the page. In order to prevent an editing war taking it here.
I still believe it counts. The reason for removal was that there was shoehorning of the members to fit the trope. However Four Girl Ensemble, unlike Five Man Band, isn\'t a fixed by-the-letter dynamic. The page description actually says \"This particular ensemble typically consists of\" not must consist of. Many examples listed aren\'t perfect matches and will have one or two members that half fit the \"standard\". The whole point of the trope is that the overall dynamic and varying personalities are there. For instance the sweet girl doesn\'t always have to be The Ditz they can sometimes just be The Cutie. The role of Team Mom can vary between the sexy one or admirable one. While the tomboy can sometimes be substituted by The Quiet One.
Although it would have been better if I listed Yang as the Cool Big Sis and Blake as The Quiet One.
The Is This An Example? forum thread would an option to get further feedback as well. I\'d link to it, but the Discussion Pages aren\'t cooperating on that the front. It\'s in the Trope Talk forum, first thread.
The problem you\'ve got with the trope is that the trope description is quite sparse and therefore entirely revolves around the concept of the list of \'typically consists of\' members. So that is all we have to go on for the point of the trope at all.
Now, this could be a trope description issue, which is why I\'m thinking that perhaps the Is This An Example? thread be better — and there is a trope description improvement drive thread as well.
However, if you\'re using other examples as a ballpark for how much of the trope description to ignore, that\'s not the way to go. Because, I suspect you\'ll find that if you start pointing out examples where only two members fit the suggested list, people are going to suggest that the examples you\'re looking at are shoehorns that need to be cleaned up or removed.
I actually did bring it up there. While I\'ve gotten people agreeing it may be an example of the trope, there was some disagreement on what each of the roles the girls fall under. I actually think there is a trope description issue as the definition is too vague.
I agree with you. Role placement was my problem (ultimately) with your entry, too. The girls\' are struggling to fit into the trope as it\'s currently written, but it\'s such a horrible trope description at the moment, that an argument can actually be made that it\'s not the girls\' that are the problem but the trope.
Is this confirmed or is it just fan projection?
I believe this trope applies, but the example isn't written well.
From the trope page: "it's a quick, easy way to show the audience that Nothing Is the Same Anymore". Ever since the fall of Beacon, nobody was the same anymore.
Ruby witnessed the death of her friends. Her top is similar to Penny's, and the placement of her sigil on her cape is similar to the placement of Pyrrha's sigil on her sash.
Weiss was brought back to her gilded cage of a home. She wears jewelry and impractical shoes (more high-class and less combat-ready).
If I sat here a bit longer, I could try to say something about Blake and Yang.
In V4/5 Ruby's cape is shredded, since she's no longer in the safety of Beacon. Weiss always had her ponytail off-centre as a form of rebellion, in V4 it's perfectly centre for the perfect heiress. . Blake ditches the bow that hid her faunus heritage, since she's no longer trying to blend in with humans, but instead goes home to a faunus country Yang is more difficult to say from clothing, but equally changed, she never goes past T-shirt/trousers (Shirt/pants to Americans) in V4 until she puts on that arm and goes out into the world again.
Actually, Weiss’s ponytail is still off-center in V4. The idea of her hair being straight came from her concept art, and the show itself disproved it.
I have a question regarding a potential trope. Should we count Yang calling out Raven in the finale of "Haven's Fate" as a true "Shut Up, Hannibal!" or not?
Rebellious Princess has been applied to Weiss, but the trope is about royalty specifically. It's even been hauled into the Badass trope clean-up thread to clarify all the Princess tropes (as a result of Badass Princess). Also, the Spirited Young Lady trope is explicitly for non-royal examples, and this trope is already on her page as a near-ZCE.
The show might treat her as some kind of 'corporate princess' but it's also gone out of its way to clarify that she's not a princess, and that royalty is something different — Weiss's first introduction into the show has Blake's first introduction to the show be to correct Ruby's sarcastic 'princess' reference, pointing out that Weiss is an heiress, not a princess (and when Banesaw later uses 'princess', he's being just as sarcastic as Ruby). We also know that monarchies have not existed since the Great War — while the King of Vale only directly ended the Vale kingship forever, he did reorganise the governments of all the Kingdoms, and monarchies from the other kingdoms haven't been heard from since (that we know of — for all we know, Jacques might have been descended from a family that used to be royalty back when Mantle had royalty (all of Weiss's 'royal' cracks are directed at him and we know the Schnee family comes from commoner stock), but 'descended from royalty' is something many aristocrats are, and they come under the Spirited Young Lady trope).
In short, she's Spirited Young Lady, not Rebellious Princess. This write-up is far better than the original one and can easily be moved to fix the already-existing Spirited Young Lady ZCE that's on the page with only minor tweaks. But it has to be pointed out that Weiss cannot be both Rebellious Princess and Spirited Young Lady. She has to be one or the other.
Pretty sure you can elaborate all of that into Spirited Young Lady.
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. We keep the example, but it needs to be Spirited Young Lady, not Rebellious Princess.
The Spirited Young Lady is already on the page, but is criminally short for an entry, and as is, is no better than a ZCE, so I guess you can take the above writeup and incorporate it into Spirited Young Lady.
This could work as well, I agree.
I just thought I'd mention that "This Life Is Mine" is the page quote for Rebellious Princess. It was added a few weeks ago without an edit reason. Considering that we've decided Weiss isn't one, should we make a discussion on that page or just revert the quote with this discussion as the reason?
I would leave it there. Ultimately, whether the character the quote is referencing is an example isn't as important as the quote's content and if it reflects the trope itself.
So, Rebellious Princess quote has been changed back to Aladdin, so without further ado, the Spirited Young Lady writeup above can go forward while deleting Rebellious Princess.
The rewrite works for me. And, yes, I changed the Rebellious Princess quote back to Aladdin the other day after a discussion in the General Page Quote Discussion forum thread. The page quote was changed without discussion, which was the reason it was switched back to the original quote. My edit reason states that the page quote needs to be discussed and agreed on that forum thread before changes are made.
She's been told it's a Grimm-killing power, not a villain-defeating power. She has been told that Salem can control the Grimm, but none of the protagonists fight Grimm except when Grimm cross their paths, they're too busy searching for their human enemies.
We don't know for certain why she hasn't asked, but we do know there's almost no-one she can ask, especially prior to Volume 5, and Episode 11 is the first time she's had any chance in-universe to find out that her silver eye power works on Cinder.
Now see, I would believe that Qrow doesn't know any more than what he told Ruby if it weren't for the fact that he said that she was special "in the same way [her] mom was". From that, we can infer that Summer had silver eye powers and that Qrow knew about it. But somehow he just doesn't know anything about their origins or how they work, even though team STRQ was together for a long time? Something's weird about that.
But let's assume for a moment that Qrow doesn't know anything. What about thousands of years old, magical, knowledgeable Ozpin? She's finally reunited with him in Volume 5 and he clearly knew about her silver eyes from the get-go. Even if they're more focused on their human enemies, Salem has clearly decided that Ruby's silver eyes are a threat if she was willing to send Tyrian after her, so you'd think that Ruby would feel compelled to ask some questions about this power that Remnant's local queen of evil is now interested in. And hey, who better to ask than Salem's now established arch-nemesis? But nothing, no questions.
Speaking of Ozpin, why does he never mention that Ruby's powers are useful against Maidens? I don't believe that he simply doesn't know about that weakness considering that, again, he's thousands of years old and the power of the Maiden's was originally his to begin with. A discussion for another time, I guess.
For the sake of argument, let's say that neither Qrow nor Ozpin know anything that can help her. I still think she qualifies for this trope because she hasn't even tried to learn about the silver eyes. At no point has it been established that she can't learn about them or that she's busy with other things. She's just shown a complete lack of interest in finding out anything since the end of Volume 3 and the show has made no attempt to justify this.
While I lean in favor of including the trope, it desperately needs to be rewritten, as right now it's coming off as complaining about Ruby not asking about her powers instead of presenting an example of the trope.
It does sound kind of whiny when I reread it. I guess my frustration towards the shows tendency to keep things mysterious by having the characters not ask basic questions bled into the writing.
It's been a couple of days. Are we still discussing it, or should I add the trope back to the character page?
I haven't been able to respond because I've been avoided spoilers until the new episode became available to be to watch, plus, it's always a good idea to get input from elsewhere if not many people are using Discussion Page.
I've reworded the entry you added back to the page because it's incorrect in places. There's no indication that Ruby (or even Qrow) had any idea the silver eyes worked on Cinder. That was knowledge possessed by the villains and audience only. She therefore only knew it was a powerful anti-Grimm device that the villains were unhappy about her possessing.
I've put the rewrite here:
Could Weiss's summoning fall under a avert of Transformation Is a Free Action. With the recent episode showing that she is vulnerable when trying to use her summoning. Or does it not fall under the trope?
I was thinking of moving the intra-RWBY Foil entries to the general section to avoid duplication, while leaving the rest in place. Thoughts?
I notice your edit reason when you made the changes were because you hadn't received any comments on the Discussion Page. That's probably because the latest episode had not been released to the general public on the 28th (the Saturday) when you made the changes. The relevance of that being that people would be avoiding the pages to avoid all the spoilers the sponsors (who get to see the episode immediately) are putting on the page.
The episodes are not available to the public until the following Tuesday (today), and only then to people who have free accounts on the RT website. Everyone else will only get to see the episode a week after sponsors see it (so, in four days time) when the episode gets uploaded to YouTube..
If you're looking to start a discussion about something when a new episode is about to be released (even if it's not about something in the new episode), it may be worth giving it around a week before deciding no-one is going to respond — and perhaps advertising it on ATT and/or the RWBY forum thread as well, so people know it's there.
I don't have any inherent objection to the trope being placed under the General section, but I do think we need to take the Foil entries to the Is This An Example? thread. The nature of the trope means it's not the kind of thing that should be used for every compare/contrast character in a work (which seems to be how it's being used for this show). If that's happening, there's something going wrong with the way the trope is being used for that work.
It seems like Weiss' Armor Gigas Summon or "Knight" is going to become a staple part of her fighting style in Volume 5 from what we've seen in the Opening and "Dread in the Air". Should we consider making a character tab for it like the weapons used to be under?
Revamping the structure of the RWBY Character pages due to the Monsters and Enemies page getting too unwieldy. This has been discussed and hashed out on the RWBY Forum, please see from this post onwards. Please note that any new tropes added to the old Character pages on the 19th October 2017 may not have been captured. Please check, and readd if I've missed it.
Okay, Four-Temperament Ensemble:
Team RWBY has been shoehorned into this trope for years, with fans constantly shifting the categories around that apply to each girl. The problem is because the four humours are colour-coded and the four girls have the same colour scheme. However, their personalities do not fit the trope descriptions for each humour.
At some point in the very distant past, there was a consensus taken that this was a shoehorn and the trope doesn't apply. However, that hasn't stopped the constant adding and shifting around of which character applies to which humour. In part, I think it's because there's no clear audit trail on the wiki (I just went digging), so I'm going to put this here, on the Is This An Example? forum thread and the show's forum thread to try and get a consensus decision that will stick.
The girls have shifted through the different humours (usually as ZCEs), as follows:
I think I've given it enough time. The general consensus from the two threads (see original posts for the links to both) is that Four-Temperament Ensemble is shoehorning. Just because the team has four characters, it doesn't mean the trope is in effect. Both the girls' personalities and the various categories for each 'temperament' have to be cherry-picked to make the characters fit the trope, which is shoehorning.
There's also a feeling that the Four-Philosophy Ensemble is a shoehorn as it is also arguable how each girl fits each philosophy.
As a result, I've put a commented-out note on the page stating the following:
%% Please do not add FourTemperamentEnsemble or FourPhilosophyEnsemble to the page as consensus agrees the trope is not in effect. Please see Discussion Page for further information.
Hopefully, this will address the situation where this trope gets an agreed consensus only for it to be readded at a future date.
Ambiguously Bi was removed with edit reason. Someone else readded the entry under Ambiguously Gay with references to flirting with boys removed from the original example. This looks like the start of an Edit War, so I've put both tropes here. Should she be one or the other or neither?
The two examples concerned are below:
I'd much rather she be ambiguously bi- I'll be honest, I don't know exactly WHY the other user thought the aforementioned bit of interest in men doesn't count.
The thing is that with Yang it's clear she has SOME kind of interest in Blake and MIGHT have a more general interest in men- the problem is that she doesn't have a confirmed interest in either. It might be best to put her down as BOTH tropes; we have reason to think she could be bi, but the overall hinting only really suggests interest in one particular woman.
EDIT: Also, I figured that the original editor MEANT to basically re-edit it into Ambiguously Gay, seeing as her point was that the displays of interest in men were so fleeting as to be irrelevant in any analysis of her sexuality.
At best, we've got Ambiguously Bi. Yang's interest in men to at least some degree was made very clear early on. While she's shown flirting with Blake, she has outright expressed interest in men when they were all sleeping in one room.
Sounds good to me- I was just worried about starting an Edit War before.
EDIT: I'm strongly against removing the Ambiguously Bi trope, though- her flirting is utterly transparent, what's not clear is if she really means it.
That's what makes it ambiguous. She's displayed unambiguous interest in men, but ambiguous flirting with Blake. Combining the fact she's flirted with enemies while in combat, and that she hasn't displayed any other flirtatious behaviour with women, we don't know if she's genuinely bisexual or Single-Target Sexuality for Blake.
It doesn't make sense to give her both Ambiguously Bi and Ambiguously Gay because that basically sends a signal that there's shoehorning going on. I completely agree that Ambiguously Bi is the best choice for now.
However, given that Gamermaster has changed the trope back to Ambiguously Bi without contributing to the discussion first, I'm going to double-check on ATT what the next step should be since it's now a clear Edit War.
I've added the Ambiguously Bi example to the Is This An Example? thread to see if it's possible to get more input than three people.
I removed the RWBY reference to Team RWBY for not being an example of Amazon Brigade, for the following reason:
This isn't a trope for listing any all-woman combat unit that might exist in storytelling. It's for listing any all-female combat unit that are the elites of their work's universe. Team RWBY consists of a bunch of kids who are still in school. They may be considered talented and the hope of the future, but as the teachers and their adult mentors keeping pointing out — they've still got a hell of a lot to learn about themselves and the world. That's not this trope.
I agree that they don't count, because Amazon Brigade isn't just about an elite force that is all-female, but also an elite, all-female army. RWBY is just a small, four-girl team, so they automatically do not count as an Amazon Brigade. This is shoehorning.
Four-Philosophy Ensemble and Four-Temperament Ensemble do not apply to Team RWBY. Way back in the day, there were frequent Edit Wars over which girl fitted which theme. At one point, three different pages listed the girls in three different ways under the same trope. If fans can't agree which theme fits which girl, it's a sure sign of trope shoehorning.
The latest iteration below tropes the girls against unsuitable categories (for example, Ruby is not The Optimist, she's closer to The Realist, Blake is closer to The Cynic than anyone, Weiss is more like The Apathetic and Yang doesn't fit any of them (not that the other three fit any of them decently either) and also has Examples Are Not Arguable problems in the second one (whose wording shows the shoehorning that goes on).
Anyway, that's why I've brought it to the Discussion Page.
Blake's Tsundere entry was deleted because "Their relationship behaviour isn't a Tsundere trope." That's it. Since i was the one who added this entry in the first place i'll say how i see it.
Blake may not be typical Tsundere but Tropes Are Flexible. The definition of Tsundere says that it's a character that switches between "harsh"(tsun) and "sweet"(dere) modes. Blake does act like that in volume 4 towards Sun. In ep3 she was in "tsun" mode slaping him in anger after the stalking incident, then in her next appearens she was pretty calm and nice to him being in more "dere" mode, except for that one time when Sun made idiot out of himself, then we got ep 8 and sun got slapped around again with Blake being Tsun, then we got Dere when Blake was pretty obviously distressed when Ilya stabbed him, trying to get him help. Then we got ep 11 when she gave wonderfull display of Anger Born of Worry yelling at him for getting hurt(Tsun) and after some talk she cat-smiled and said "my hero" setting again on Dere mode. It's hard to pinpoint standard mode since she switches all the freaking time, but she does alternate between these two a lot.
Edit War, so brought it here:
Volume 2 had already established that Weiss wanted to take over the SDC not because she wanted the money but because she wanted to redeem the family name. Jacques disowning her shocked Weiss not because she wanted that money and wealth, but because it destroyed her chances to redeem the family name through inheritance.
This reads far too much like it's trying to twist the trope.
i think the picture of Volume 4 Yang should be hidden, because it reveals MAJOR spoilers
Isn't it a rule now that all spoilers pre-Volume 4 are unmarked anyway?
To be truthful, Ruby does end up in a fight without her weapon three times - losing it in Volume 2 against the White Fang, not having it when facing Mercury in Volume 3 and losing it during her fight with Roman and Neo during Volume 3.
It is something of a major disadvantage to her as she seems to be completely over-reliant on the weapon and not much else - Weiss, Yang and Blake seem to be able to mix in their natural fighting talents with their Semblances and weapons. You never see Ruby use her speed Semblance for much outside of something like a Flash Step
If the character trailer for Volume 4 is any indication for how Ruby has grown since then, it's highly possible that this trope may still apply, but only for her Beacon Saga self.
It hasn't been focussed on much, but when it has been, it has been shown to be a major problem for her. The creators have said those scenes are deliberate because she's ace with Crescent Rose, but really needs to learn how to fight without it. This is the reason why the fandom keeps speculating that Crescent Rose will be destroyed at some point.
Everyone is weaker when you take away his standard weapon. I don't see entry for Green Lantern on the trope page because he cannot fight without his ring. Weiss also had lost her sword once and didn't even think about attacking untill she recovered it, and i've never seen Blake fighting without Gambol Shroud either. My point is, while Ruby is overspecialised(although even that is debatable since she's fully capable of using swords as well), it's in no way crippling. Keep in mind that this is when overspecialisation can cause problems in standard situations, not just very specific ones. Quoting the trope page:
"Don't confuse "having a weakness" or "not being the best at everything" or even "not being quite good enough" as being this trope. Don't be tempted to list something because it failed in some way unless you can point a finger at its crippling specialty! "
Ruby's reliance on Rose qualifies more as "having a weakness" rather than anything really crippling.
Of course everyone is weaker if you take away their strength. Yang is an example (the creators have confirmed her weakness against kick-based fighting and her strength at fist-based combat).
This is not what is going on with Ruby. Ruby is so completely specialised in fighting with Crescent Rose that she is unable to fight without it. Not only has this been shown in-universe, but the creators have confirmed that Ruby was deliberately designed this way because her character development will eventually include her being forced to learn how to fight without needing to rely on Crescent Rose.
Note: we don't know that she's fully capable of fighting with a sword because we never see her fight with one. She did pick up Penny's sword and hit a Giant Nevermore with it, but what she did was use her Speed Semblance to slam into the Giant Nevermore while holding the sword in front of her. The force pushed the creature back away from Pyrrha (without injuring it) and allowing Ruby to plant herself between the Nevermore and Pyrrha. After that, the Giant Nevermore is brought down by the other kids, not Ruby. She gets Crescent Rose back at that point.
The same creators who wished happy valentine's day just before killing of half of Fan-Preferred Couple? I wouldn't exacly trust everything they say about RWBY's future.
Anyway my point is it doesn't matter how unskilled she is without her standard weapon as long as she doesn't expect to fight without it. So far there were 3 situations where she was forced to fight without Rose only two of which were actually problematic(when she fought Black she just needed to get past him and she did.) the first of which was pure bad luck(falling into a random hole and losing weapon) the second of which was enemy who just happened to have weapon good for disarming opponents(and even then it wasn't easy) AND the fact that they were fighting on top of the airship and Rose was stuck in a side in a way that made it almost impossible to pull out without falling off, combination of unlikely circumstances that i don't think will happen again anytime soon.
As for standard situations Ruby doesn't go anywhere where she can expect fight without Rose, and when she doesn't expect fight but still is caught up in it there is still the rocket locker. Ruby's reliance on Rose is only weakness in a few very specific circumstances, when this trope is about overspecialising making useless UNLESS it's specific circumstances.
This keeps getting added to Blake's section despite being trope misuse.
At the moment, Volume 4 hasn't even started. All we have are pictures of Blake's new wardrobe and a teaser trailer, which includes a scene of her standing on a pier looking out to sea.
The trope isn't about listing any character that just happens to be wearing a long coat. The trope is about how the long coat is used to emphasise how the character is a badass. This will need Volume 4 to get under way and actually use the longcoat in a manner that accentuates Blake being badass for the trope to apply.
There are clean-up threads on the forum for both the badass and appearance/clothing trope families to address precisely this kind of misuse.
Listed as Image Song for Yang:
It's not clear who the singer is meant to be. The problem with it being Yang is these lyrics:
Yang would've been two when Ruby was born. Not exactly fitting lyrics for a 2 year old.
A two year old being excited for a new baby sister is pretty believable.
When I first heard the song, I assumed it was Summer's song. Knowing Raven had abandoned Yang just after birth, it's her vow to do no such thing to Ruby, the melancholy being that this is what a mother would say to her daughter if only she was alive to say it.
However, when Qrow made that crack about Ruby being 'daddy's special angel', my interpretation changed to it being Taiyang's song. I had this second theory before I learned that Jeff Williams made this song as a message to his own daughter. Either way, it sounds like a parent's song to a child.
Anyway, if people are debating, that means we don't know enough to trope it. I notice there been some shifting around of what song to apply to Yang as an Image Song. If people can't agree on that either, I suggest we don't yet know enough about Yang to know which song is meant to be her Image Song.
The problem with this trope is that Qrow isn't really her family tree. As far as we can make out, he's Yang's blood relative but isn't a blood relative of Ruby's.
Ruby's almost certainly going to be this trope, but I suspect we'll need to rewrite it with Summer in mind and the special power Ruby inherited from her.
White Rose probably counts but i'd wait with it until we learn more about her. We know she was capable huntress and silver-eyed warrior but from what i understand this trope requires ancestral hero to be big shot enough, and we don't know just how much White Rose was famed in-story. Anyway i agree that in contect of Drunkle Qrow it's clear shoehorn
Yeah, I don't think Summer can be troped on much right now.
Action Girl is zero context and doesn't explain how the trope is being used.
Egocentric Team Naming is misuse. The trope states the the namer has named the team after themselves. Ruby had no say in the name of her team and even once states it causes confusion. The team was named by Ozpin, who named every team.
I'd consider Action Girl... insufficient context. Not zero, but not quite there. "Huntresses-in-training" is effectively meaningless (you can be completely shit at something and still be "in-training"), and "very capable fighters" is not enough to describe the trope alone.
The other one's more complicated. In a meta sense, Egocentric Team Naming applies. Let's face it, they wouldn't be called that if her name wasn't Ruby. But I don't think it's a character trope because of that, and should go on the main page.
Egocentric Team Naming is not just when a team is named after one of its members, it's when the member themselves was the one to name the team. That's why it's called Egocentric Team Naming.
Yeah, my understanding is the same as Twiddler's which is why I removed it.
An example of Egocentric Team Naming would be, say, in Friends when the gang are playing a game that Monica joins late but takes control over, and she yells out "Let's go, Team Monica!", much to everyone's annoyance.
That doesn't happen in RWBY. Ozpin chose the team names, Ruby had absolutely no say in it, and she is the person who later states that the team name is causing confusion.
By the same token, Team SSSN (led by Sun) would also not be an example, but this time through lack of knowledge. We simply don't know who names the Haven teams.
Tropes Are Flexible. Just focus on the spirit and not the letter.
The Egocentric Team Naming example is a shoehorn. Again, Egocentric.
Since Egocentric Team Naming specifically says it doesn't count when the person doing the naming names it after someone else, the trope isn't flexible enough to cover it.
Examples of Foil that were removed as misuse (notes in brackets added by me):
Explanation of why these are misuse?
I'd like to know why, as well. Especially in regards to Cinder being a foil to Ruby, considering I'm the one that added the entry in the first place.
Anyone want to explain why their clearly complimentary aspects and conflicting positions don't qualify as proper foiling?
The Foil examples that are on the page are:
As far as I can see from Twiddler's list, the three that are missing from the page are:
As far as I understand the Foil trope, a foil are when two characters are designed in a way where characteristics of the one character highlight characteristics that are in/lacking in another character (and vice versa).
Those three missing examples look like they're just listing things that happen to be able to be contrasted between two characters rather than things that are definitely emphasising something about the paired character.
The Ruby/Cinder example could be a genuine one, given one is the protagonist and the other the Big Bad, but the example seems based on, as much as anything, assumptions. For instance, is Cinder illegally in Beacon? What if she has been signed on as a "legit" Haven student and is therefore waltzed into Beacon legally? Everything so far has set up Cinder to be connected to Haven, but we don't know anything about the legitimacy of that connection (although it looks like Volume 4 is going to start exploring that).
Cinder hasn't really cited a strong desire to change the world - her stated motive is to become strong, powerful and feared. Yes, she's given speeches that play to her audience, but we don't know if that's part of her machinations or whether she truly does want to change the world. She's still mysterious, although there's no doubt she is enjoying the chaos she's causing.
At the moment, the example is justing how they contrast but isn't saying why contrasts are important - which is my issue with the example.
Weiss and Yang seem pretty shoehorned to me. They haven't been set up in any strong manner outside of one tournament fight. It certainly doesn't explain how it's important for characterisation or story role.
The same goes for Yang and Mercury. Yes, they're exactly opposite in fighting styles, and, yes, Monty has said Yang is supposed to be weak against kick-boxers, but the example isn't saying why this is important.
I was concerned that the sheer amount of foil entries were turning into a list of contrasts and comparisons, which is heading into Chairs territory, because it's easy to find contrasts and comparisons with most characters in most works. I've never read a work with so many genuine foils.
It could be that these are examples, and I'm fine if they are and need to go back on the page, but I do think they need to explain why it's important instead of just listing what they are.
Thank you for your reply. I'll be returning the entry for Ruby/Cinder with some different wording.
I've got no problem with that. You might need to add it to the trope page as well. I probably removed it from there, too.
Yang's entry, which was removed for already being on the YMMV under Les Yay, and readded with an edit reason that didn't address this issue.
There is nothing under Blake's entry that addresses Yang, and examples should be stand-alone any way. They should never require a person to visit another location to understand how the trope is being used.
Ship Tease is confirmed tease occurring within a work while Les Yay is how the audience chooses to interpret certain scenes. These scenes cannot be both Ship Tease and Les Yay at the same time, and are already on the YMMV page as Les Yay, due to the fact the entry is based on Audience Reaction.
What COUNTS as a Ship Tease anyway?
The fact that ship tease isn't a YMMV trope is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
This was removed for shoehorning one, single scene into the trope, but added back without an edit reason. The person who turned up for Blake was a main character who was both Blake's paired partner and team-mate. She was also (as we know from previous scenes that covered the subject) the only team-mate who was in a position to actually search for the missing Blake. Meanwhile, Blake's love interest (Sun) is a secondary character who does not appear in all episodes.
Yeah, that's a shipping-based shoehorn. Cut it.
Are tropes not allowed to be used for singular scenes?
Because in that scene, Yang definitely performed the role typical of a love interest. Blake's psycho ex-boyfriend showing up promising to destroy everything she loves and Yang runs into the scene. I'm arguing that the role is easily a love interest role.
I don't think this will actually go anywhere, or that it's real ship tease. But you can't deny that Sun would make a lot more narrative sense to play that part.
Yang makes the most narrative sense given that she and Blake are main characters as well as being official partners within the show's titular team. We know from Volume 1 that the four-person teams are created out of two designated pairs (Team RWBY is created from the Ruby/Weiss and Yang/Blake pairs choosing the exact same chess piece during the cliff test). Previous scenes made it clear that both Ruby and Blake were missing, and Yang and Weiss split to locate their respective paired partner.
The profound impact on Yang's normally devil-may-care personality from her injury seems to be the beginning of a character arc for her. Adam is a profound piece of Blake's past come back to haunt her and her response is the apparent reversion to a character flaw she once stated she hated (running when situations get heavy), which appears to be the start of a character arc for her. As two of the four main characters, character development isn't simply likely, but pretty much mandatory.
Sun is a secondary character who does not appear in every episode, and doesn't necessarily interact with Blake in a romantic way even when he does appear (in other words, while he is Blake's love interest, he is not a Satellite Character that exists in scenes solely to function as Blake's love interest).
I'd argue the point about Sun, given that I really can't recall a scene where he isn't acting as a love interest ( or at least being set up as one by the narrative). Even the fight his team has ends with him reinforcing the shiptease.
As for Yang, I don't see why those argument disprove the entry. The key lines from the trope that got my attention : " may have an actual love interest, but they will usually be less significant than this character" which seems to be true if Rooster Teeth is using Yang as the character whose maiming hurts Blake. Yes there's a narrative reason for why Yang goes after Blake, but Sun in-universe has a just as good reason for going after her. (Actually, why does Yang not show more concern for Ruby than Blake? And Sun not offer to go with her to get Blake?)
For me at least, Adam's rant revealing his creepy love for Blake and the immediate contrast with Yang's arrival means she's taking up the narrative role of most important person to Blake, the person she "loves" most. Which should be Sun's role if he's the love interest.
So, since Yang is replacing Sun for that scene, I'd argue that she's the not-love interest of the episode.
Yang was concerned about both Ruby and Blake. Yang and Weiss separated according to who their designated pair was (Blake for Yang and Ruby for Weiss).
Sun does not have just as good a reason for going after Blake as Yang. Yang trumps Sun in every way given that she's a much more important character to the show than Sun. Blake and Yang are also no less significant to the show than the other - they're two of the four main characters who form the team that gives the show its name.
There is no narrative role in Adam's scene for someone who classifies as the "most important person to Blake". Adam never said he would target the person she loves most, or the most important person to Blake. He said, to quote, "I will make it my mission to destroy everything you love". Yang just happened to be the first person on the scene that Blake cared about, so Adam decided to start with her - and he made it clear that Yang was just the start.
Adam's statement isn't even limited to people. It's "anything", which could include any location that makes her feel happy, safe or connected - such as Beacon Academy. In terms of people, that threat should cover all of Team RWBY, all of Team JNPR, and Neptune as well as Sun. It may even include her teachers.
From a Doylist perspective, it is significant that they choose Yang to show up first. Yes, there's a narrative reason for so, but it'd be very odd story telling to have the person show up be someone they only cared about as much as others.
And that's my point, that Yang's importance to the plot also means her importance to Blake is more important than Sun, or at least that Rooster Teeth wanted to emphasize how important Yang is to Blake.
Yang, as Blake's partner, takes up the role of most important person to Blake. Which is why it makes narrative sense that she runs in when Adam threaten's to destroy what Blake cares about. I'm saying that the scene would ordinarily be performed by a love interest character. But Yang performed it.
It would only ordinarily be performed by a love interest if the story is calling for the important character to be the love interest. The role isn't automatically or ordinarily performed by a love interest except in stories that require a love interest plotline to be driving the storyline, or one of the driving forces of the storyline.
So far, RWBY hasn't been that kind of show. If love interests crop up along the way, they'll crop up, but it isn't a show that is driven by love interests - it's a show driven by team work and unity, even the villain's motives seem to be about unity (as in 'divide and conquer'). This story has been focussing on the paired partners and the team groupings, which is also what happened in this scene.
This keeps getting added and removed for Yang for some reason. Discuss.
The show has never claimed Yang is the slowest member of her team. That's fanon. What we have seen is that she's as willing to engage in acrobatics as anyone else on her team. Even if she did end up one day being confirmed as the slowest member of her team, the Mighty Glacier trope isn't for athletic, acrobatic characters who just happen not to be the fastest character in the team.
As to having trouble keeping up with anyone with any degree of speed, that's a very YMMV statement to make. Many of the characters have had trouble with something that, at some point; Yang has not been singled out for this in any way, and even the few characters who do have the ability to augment their speed, have been shown to sometimes struggle with speed in battle.
The only girl in their group that has "natural" speed is Ruby - and even that is Semblance-powered. Weiss uses glyphs to enhance her speed. Both of them are therefore using special abilities to enhance speed for (so far, short) periods of time and have actually never been shown to be significantly faster than any other characters when not using their Semblances. Comparing any character's natural or non-augmented speed to that (including Yang) isn't a level playing field. Even Weiss and Ruby have found that their speed doesn't always given them an advantage over their opponents' reflexes.
There is nothing in the show that singles out Yang as Mighty Glacier. The trope is being shoehorned on the basis of fanon.
Anyone she can't keep up with, everyone else seems to have trouble keeping up with. I get the idea, but no.
I do understand the fanon. Yang's a powerful, physical fighter who gets powered up by tanking some pretty nasty hits. That type of character is often portrayed in works as a Mighty Glacier, but Yang's so far not been that kind of stereotype.
^ Well, it's more that there's no good way to compare beyond audience interpretation of what's going on.
Does the show have to spell out everything? Because the show certainly expects you to pick up a lot from the combat.
I say shoehorn. She's not slow enough.
^^ I'm a big fan of shows leaving the audience to figure things out for themselves, but Yang's abilities and behaviour in battle do not fit the Mighty Glacier trope.
Yang's a Mighty Glacier in comparison to the rest of her team. To everyone else, she's a Lightning Bruiser.
^ That's what I meant by "relative"
Mighty Glacier is only relevant to Yang if her Semblance kicks in and decreases her speed and mobility while increasing her strength and power. The show hasn't claimed this is the case.
A Semblance temporarily enhancing Ruby or Weiss's speed no more makes Yang relevant to the Mighty Glacier trope than Yang's strength-enhancing Semblance makes Ruby and Weiss Weak, but Skilled. That's shoehorning.
Ruby Rose example:
This was removed with the edit reason that if she's still trying to save the world, she hasn't been broken, so the trope doesn't apply. This has been readded without edit reason, so I've brought it here.
Does this trope apply?
Ruby so far seems to be anything but broken, so no, it doesn't
I'd consider leaving that in as a subversion?
Weiss entry that keeps getting edited. The point in question I've put into bold. Most people tend to view the Volume 2 finale as a summoning, or partial summoning, but this has been edited to say that she is creating the sword by using Ice Dust.
So, to stop the edit warring, we need a decision: was this partial summoning or ice dust?
The shape of it seems to match up with the summoned swords. I took some screenshots, but where did the image uploader go?
Edit: Okay, I made a quick comparison thing and uploaded it to tumblr: ◊ Note the shape of the blade (including how it narrows near the hilt) and the rings on the hilt.
(Btw, the sword from "Breach" appears at 3:12, if anyone wants to check it themselves)
The Media Uploader?
Yeah, what happened to it? It's not in the sidebar, and http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/imguploader.php returns a 404. Was it moved?
It's a sword made of Ice Dust. Weiss is incapable of Summoning until Volume 3 after her training session with Winter (barely) and saving Velvet (more, but only the arm and sword of the Knight)
Twiddle's image comparison◊ shows quite clearly that sword wasn't a summon but an ice creation. Yes, the shape is the same, but the texture clearly is not (one looks like ice, the other like solid light). Furthermore, the ice sword is not wielded by anyone, unlike the one shown in the season 3 finale.
But ultimately, the whole point of Weiss scene of her sister is she not being able to summon at all. The whole scene makes less sense if she could already make partial summons.
I'm going to give this a week, just to allow people time to respond.
Okay, I said I'd give this a week.
This was added back at an earlier stage while the example was still under discussion, so there's no need for me to add it back. The description text describes the scene as being Ice Dust not summoning, so I don't need to edit the content of the example.
Is everyone happy with that as an outcome?
From Yang's section:
To me, this sounds like Miles making an offhand joke. Can some folks with access to the commentary weigh in?
I haven't seen the DVD Commentary, but I do remember an interview (Afterbuzz, maybe?) where they discussed this very subject. In that interview, they certainly were joking around when they discussed it, so I guess it's up to fans to decide whether it was just part of the banter, or a point that should stick.
Personally, I think it's a joke based on the interview that I witnessed. However, I haven't seen the DVD Commentary, so I don't know if they've decided to roll with it, and turn a joke into a "fact". If anyone has seen the DVD Commentary, a response on this would definitely be useful.
Edited: Sorry, I misread your original post slightly, so I've amended my response accordingly.
I have heard the commentary at a friend's house, and he points to when Ren blocks Yang's kick. Ren has line-of-sight up Yang's skirt, and she flashed him.
So yeah. He gets flashed by Yang, Miles wasn't joking regarding it.
Cool, looks like they decided to roll with it then. Works for me.
It's kind of like how Girls und Panzer snuck a Panty Shot into it despite the director saying there will be done.
In-Universe ones are fair game, as long as the viewers don't see them. Other characters? Perfectly fine.
That's not a Panty Shot, though. You can't have a panty shot without, well, a shot. It's a filmography technique. Flashing someone isn't a panty shot.
In response to Zaptech's removal of Forgot About Her Powers under Ruby:
"Can we get an actual example of this? When she was captured by Roman she tried bolting twice at superspeed, and the first time Roman was quick enough to just catch her. When she's confronte dby Mercury, she immeidately tries to speed away, but he's fast enough to intercept her."
First a few qualifiers as to how fast Ruby is shown to be capable of moving:
-In Volume 1, Episode 1, Ruby dodges a continuous spray of automatic gunfire during her fight with Roman's thugs for a full two seconds.
-In Volume 1, Episode 5, she quite literally vanishes from Weiss's sight, leaving her unable to see where Ruby went.
-Again, in Episode 6, she manages to materialize directly in Weiss's line of attack before the Beowolf, or Weiss could react.
-In Volume 2, Episode 1, she conjures winds powerful enough to lift all four members of Team JNPR off the ground and pin them to the far wall of the cafeteria simply by running past them.
-In Volume 2, Episode 4, she is able to approach Roman's Paladin and attack it before it's laser sensors can register her presence (note how often the machine evades similar attacks from Blake and Yang).
And in accordance with forgetting what she is truly capable of:
-In Volume 1, Episode 8, Ruby charges a Deathstalker head-on, and summarily swatted out of the air before she can land her strike.
-In the same episode, moments later, she is unable to remove herself from the line of fire of the Nevermore's rain of feathers.
-In Volume 1, Episode 16, she is completely blindsided by Roman's attack, despite previously evading similar attacks with less warning at a much closer range.
-In Volume 2, Episode 10, she is captured effortlessly by two White Fang mooks, when she attempts to fight them unarmed instead of simply running away.
-In Volume 3, Episode 1, there are numerous instances where she could have used her speed to disengage from her opponent and back up her allies instead of allowing them all to fight their opponents one-on-one, but doesn't.
Instances like in Episode 9 of Volume 3 where Mercury stopped her escape cold have thus far proven to be the exception, in that it was the first time she engaged an opponent who demonstrated the reflexes necessary to keep up with her speed.
So... examples, yes?
They're not guaranteed to be examples.
Volume 1, Episode 8 was a situation where there was clearly too much going on for the kids to keep up (until later on). Ruby was focussed on running from the Deathstalker, not watching what the Nevermore was doing which was firing from upwards and behind her - which is why it was her cloak that got hit.
Volume 1, Episode 16. You've just described her as being "blind sided".
Volume 2, Episode 10. Completely in character for Ruby - she is always more likely to attempt a fight first rather than running away.
Volume 3, Episode 1 could be for a whole range of reasons of which this trope is only one possibility.
Since Zaptech was the person who removed the trope in the first place, you should make contact with him and discuss his reasons for removing the trope. You shouldn't just add the trope back to the page because no one responded here. Perhaps nobody realised you'd put this question here?
1) Doesn't explain why she didn't use her speed when attempting to hit the Deathstalker in the first place, just like she did against the Paladin and the Beowolf. Nor is it any excuse to NOT use her speed to clear the area as fast as possible, regardless of what the Nevermore was doing.
2) She dodged the exact same attack from Roman in the first episode, when she had no idea the attack was coming, at a much closer range.
3) When she is armed. When she is unarmed (as when facing Mercury) she avoids conflict.
4) Such as?
Lastly, that approach implies that the discussion page is the wrong place to create discussion. And considering how this appears at the top of the page, you can understand how I find it difficult to miss.
When you are in a life-threatening situation and you have a power that could save your life, yet it seemingly doesn't occur to you to use it, this trope qualifies. Lord Knightcon is right, Ruby could've used her Semblance many times and seems to have simply forgotten about it. That's not a TERRIBLE thing, and in her defense, she gets better about it.
And Wyldchyld, whether something is in character doesn't affect whether or not they have the power or not, which is what matters. It's in-character for Weiss to not always use Dust, but she still apparently forgets she can use it during her fight with the White Fang Lieutenant because...?
...because she gave her magazine to Blake to use?
You have to remember that every time an ability isn't used, is not automatically an example of the trope concerned. Like I said, the person for you to talk to is the person who removed the example in the first place and discuss their reasons for doing so.
It's not just a matter of an ability not being used. All of the examples I listed are a matter of not using it when there was no logical reason not to, except to preserve dramatic tension in the scene.
To answer Silence's rhetorical question about Weiss and the Lieutenant: She didn't use Dust on him because the fight would have been over in two seconds if she completely encased him in ice or set him on fire from across the room.
If there's another trope that more aptly describes these situations, then by all means do tell.
Given that it's been removed and re-added perhaps a dozen times since the start of the show, I think it's time we come to a consensus on whether or not Ambiguous Disorder belongs on Ruby's character entry. I'm of the opinion that it does, and given that this is an Edit War that's been going on for about a year and a half, I've done my research, complete with citations that should be publicly accessible to everyone. Bear with me, because this is going to be an extremely long and detailed post.
I was, to the best of my knowledge, the first person to add that trope to Ruby's entry, back when it was called "Ambiguously Autistic" and I did so largely because certain mannerisms of hers felt familiar to behaviors I've noticed in myself. I am (professionally) diagnosed with what would now be classified as Autism Spectrum Disorder, and got the diagnosis at age 16, six years ago at this point. I've since attended and graduated from college, and am in the process of applying to medical school. Reevaluating my position, I've found that I'd still consider Ambiguous Disorder to apply to Ruby, and here's why.
We'll use the most objective metrics possible for this sort of thing: the actual diagnostic criteria for the disorder in question. I'll be using the DSM-4-TR criteria, along with extended criteria from the Adult Asperger's Assessment, which are denoted with a *.
While DSM-5 is newer, there were initially, and continue to be concerns regarding the criteria used for diagnosing cases of ASD on the high functioning end of the spectrum, at least compared to the DSM-4, to the point where the vast majority people diagnosed with Asperger's under the DSM-4 would no longer qualify in early drafts. This was partially alleviated by an addendum that recommended all previous diagnoses of disorders categorized as part of the Autism spectrum under the DSM-4 be updated to ASD, regardless of whether or not the individual would actually qualify for ASD under the new criteria. (3)
It should be noted that the diagnosis of Asperger's—low severity ASD under the DSM-5—in adults or adolescents is significantly complicated by the fact that in many cases, traits associated with the disorder will be masked by learned behaviors, which can be facilitated by a supportive upbringing and by professional coaching. (1) Now for the actual criteria (2)(4):
A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. Marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. Failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. Lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people
4. Lack of social or emotional reciprocity
5. Difficulties in understanding social situations and other people’s thoughts and feelings*
B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. Encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. Apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms
4. Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
5. Tendency to think of issues as being black and white, rather than considering multiple perspectives in a flexible way*
C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language e.g., single words used by age two years, communicative phrases used by age three years).
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development.
F. Criteria are not met for another specific pervasive developmental disorder or schizophrenia.
In addition to these criteria, there are two additional lists, from which three of four symptoms must be present, either at the present or at some point in the past.
Additionally: Qualitative impairments in verbal or nonverbal communication with at least three of the following symptoms:
1. Tendency to turn any conversation back on to self or own topic of interest
2. Marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others.
3. Cannot see the point of superficial social contact, niceties, or passing time with others, unless there is a clear discussion point/debate or activity.
4. Pedantic style of speaking, inclusion of too much detail
5. Inability to recognize when the listener is interested or bored
6. Frequent tendency to say things without considering the emotional impact on the listener
Additionally: Impairment in at least one of the criteria relating to childhood imagination:
1. Lack of varied, spontaneous make believe play appropriate to developmental level
2. Inability to tell, write or generate spontaneous, unscripted or unplagiarized fiction
3. Either lack of interest in fiction (written, or drama) appropriate to developmental level or interest in fiction is restricted to its possible basis in fact (e.g. science fiction, history, technical aspects of film)
Now as far as our protagonist is concerned, from list A, I would argue that items 2 and 5 are present. Item 2 insofar as there is no indications—for example phone calls to old friends—she had any close friends prior to attending Beacon, other than family members like Yang and Qrow. She mentions a “gang back at signal” at one point, but since then, there's been no other mentions of other signal students Ruby knew, and Yang had encouraged her to go out and make friends of her own, making me suspect they weren't particularly close, perhaps more like cordial acquaintances than friends. They can see Signal from Beacon, so there's nothing that would prevent her from spending time with old friends if she wanted to. Either way, that's not really indicative of proper development of age appropriate friendships. This has obviously changed in the 8 or so months since the start of the series, but as with the other items in the list, having historically met this criteria counts.
Item 5 is less prominent, but still clearly present, particularly in Ruby's interactions with Weiss and more recently Winter. More specifically, I'm referring to Running Gag of Ruby completely misinterpreting the intent behind something Weiss says—for example her haughty "Can I?" as a statement of doubt rather than confidence—or failing to recognize Weiss's unsubtle attempts to cue her to shut up, as was the case when Ruby was goofing off in class, and when she was embarrassing Weiss in front of Winter. Another example that comes to mind is Ruby randomly abandoning Jaune to go sit with Yang during Ozpin's welcoming speech to the Beacon freshmen
From list B, I would argue 1, 4 and 5 are present. Ruby's intense interest in weapons—and the hunters who wield them—seems unusual even to Yang, and the first time she met Jaune, it was literally the first conversation topic, right after an exchange of names, that came to her mind. Much later, we see her distracted from a rather somber encounter with Penny by a presentation of new Atlas military hardware. Item 4 requires some explanation, because the wording does not really convey what's actually meant by “persistent preoccupation with parts of objects”. Essentially, this symptom is the tendency for individuals on the autism spectrum to “miss the forest for the trees”; oftentimes, when someone with ASD finds something interesting about what someone says to them, regardless of whether it was pertinent to the conversation, they will fixate on that part of the statement. (1) I can think of two specific examples of this: Ruby telling Yang she doesn't need help to grow up because she drinks milk, and “correcting” Qrow about there not being any medals for almost. Item 5 appears in the form of Ruby's idealistic and rather naïve view of the world, which is the lighter side of this sort of black and white mindset.
C does not appear to be the case as of the present, but she was very clearly struggling adjusting to life away from home, particularly in terms of socializing. If the speculation about her lack of close friendships prior to attending Beacon, than this would have clearly been the case earlier in her life. As for D and E, were such delays actually to be present, the main difference is that the diagnosis would be High Functioning Autism rather than Asperger's (1). F is largely irrelevant for our purposes.
From the first additional list, I see a case for items 1, 3, and 6. 1 and 3 were present in the first few episodes of the series, with Ruby initially expressing no desire to make friends of her own at Beacon, and, after starting their conversation by noting he threw up on the zeppelin ride in, immediately changed the topic of the conversation to weapons. Both have seen improvement since the start of the series. 6 shows up frequently in her interactions with Jaune; immediately upon meeting him, she identifies him as the person who threw up on the zeppelin, then, based on the cut to them still talking about it some distance away, made a big deal about it, and ended up calling him vomit boy at least once more. Later on, the first half of her attempt at a motivational for Jaune was clearly making him feel worse, not that she seemed to notice.
The second of the additional lists is largely concerned with a person's childhood, and the vividness or lack of vividness of Ruby's imagination hasn't really been touched upon, so we can't really say whether or not any of these items apply, though Ruby's view of fairy tales as an ideal to be aspired to is suggestive of item 3.
Now that we've gotten through that gargantuan explanation, I'm going to conclude by saying that this is largely semi-novice conjecture; I took one year of introductory psych courses, which were newly added requirements for the 2015 update of the MCAT exam, but my area of expertise deals more with physical healthcare than mental healthcare. This ended up being way, way longer than I was expecting when I started writing, which I did alongside a rewatch of the series.
Anyway, the gist of this whole psiel is that I think there's more than enough of a basis to say that Ruby might be autistic, high functioning obviously. That's what the trope is generally used for, and there's certainly far more questionable examples currently on the page. Now obviously all this would be cleared up significantly by a flashback to Ruby's early childhood; you'd expect, under this assumption, for the issues she had/has to be much more pronounced. All we've gotten so far is a flashback of Yang's wherein she was asleep the entire time.
(1) Asperger's Syndrome in Adulthood http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695286/
(2) The Adult Asperger Assessmen (AAA): A diagnostic method. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331530/
(3) ASD in DSM-5 http://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ASAN_DSM-5_2_final.pdf
(4) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment she's autistic. I'm high-functioning myself and I know how to socialize, I just don't like to. I think she's just an awkward teenage girl surrounded by people older than her and is easily flustered.
Dumping this here while I'm at it because there was no consensus.
The point of it being "ambiguous" is that it applies whether or not you know how much it applies, right?
As the original poster of that which was dumped, I'll also level my own two cents.
I am also a high functioning autistic on top of having OCD. I've studied the concept for years as a means of understanding where I was most challenged socially to figure out ways of subverting my own tendencies to better connect with other people. In a sense, I studied the language of regular people and memorized it rather than being naturally fluent.
Most of the tendencies that were listed are ones I had in common with Ruby during my teenage years, particularly unusually focused interests and literal thinking.
Captain Capsase gave an excellent support argument in favor of Ruby's autistic tendencies and there's not all that much I can say that would add to it.
Karxrida, what you need to remember is not all autistics are the same. Some choose not to communicate with others and some have no choice but to struggle socially. I'm not satisfied with saying she's merely awkward when she's exhibited textbook examples of the behavior well after she's acclimated to Beacon's atmosphere.
So, how do we get a consensus going?
I remember this being addressed back when Volume 1 was still airing, and a consensus was reached back then as well. I can't remember where it was discussed, it might have been the forums.
I'm going to respond to a couple of Captain Capase's points. Please don't think me unsympathetic. I have a number of relatives who are on the spectrum, and manifest Autism and Aspergers in different ways. Ruby's behaviour is also very similar to my own. In fact, I struggle to socialise much more than Ruby does, and I definitely am not classified as being anywhere on the spectrum.
I appreciate the links, I think they're a good idea. Like Captain Capase, I'm hardly an expert in this area and wouldn't pretend to be. Obviously, I'm addressing points individually because of the limitation of posting. I know you'll say that this is what the pattern adds up to, not isolated points. I appreciate that, and I'm also looking at the pattern things add up to. I'm just seeing a different pattern to you.
Please let me know if I use any terminology that makes anyone uncomfortable or upset. It's not my intention, but I'm not expert and I might make mistakes. I will rewrite my post where necessary.
Let's avoid guessing about what we don't know. What we do know is that Ruby states she has friends back at Signal. She doesn't like the fact she didn't get to bring her friends to Beacon with her. She's been pushed forward two years, and has had to leave her friends back home. So, she's writing to them. We don't hear anything about those friends ever again.
Yang did get to bring her friends from Signal with her. Aside from two mentions of them in the first few episodes of Volume 1, they're never mentioned again either.
No other character (Weiss, Jaune, Pyrrha, etc.) ever has any reference of friends back in previous schools mentioned - not even once.
I don't feel the writers have treated Ruby unusually here compared to any other character. On the contrary, Ruby and Yang have actually been given more back story here than any other character, even if it was just one or two references that are never mentioned ever again.
The "Can I?" moment was written for pure comedy - and the comedy was at Weiss's expense, not Ruby's. I don't know if you want to view that as some kind of Unfortunate Implications, but it's worth bearing in mind that this is the first team work exercise the girls have together and they're still basically strangers at this point.
Goofing off in class was a story point - not only did it emphasise that Ruby is two years younger than everyone else in the class (and fifteen year olds goofing around in boring classes is very normal behaviour), but, if you notice, Yang and Blake were sniggering right along with her. More importantly, this was a plot point to set up Ozpin's later lecture to her about taking the responsibilities of leadership seriously. She only needed that one lecture to change her behaviour, and was later able to pass that wisdom on to Jaune when he was also screwing up his leadership responsibilities.
Ruby abandoning someone she's only just met for the only person she knows well isn't unusual behaviour for a child or a teenager. It's pretty normal behaviour. In fact, I've seen it happen quite regularly among adults, too. It's a comedic moment, but it's seems pretty "human" to me.
The writers appear to be trying to portray her as a geek. To me, she just appears like the standard storyteller's attempt to convey a geek. In her case, she's a tech-head, which in this show translates to huntsman weapons.
Jaune isn't a good example of anything that's normal at this point as he doesn't have the combat background, so he has no idea what's going on as it's all completely new to him.
Ruby's "I drink milk!" exclaimation is an example of childishness. To me it was a sign that the writers were trying to convey in the early days that Ruby was two years younger than the rest of student cast, and therefore less mature. It was a key point of Weiss's concern over her leadership, that she was so immature compared to the rest of them.
I have noticed in interviews that the writers are viewing even the seventeen year old characters as "children" - and indeed have had various adults point out they're just children (Ironwood asking if Ozpin thinks his children can fight a war or Ozpin reminding Glynda after the food fight that they're just children, even Cinder's speech about Penny being a robot in Volume 3, Episode 9 was couched in terms of children).
Whether you think the writers are doing a good job of writing the character ages is a different matter entirely, but the story has been putting a great deal of constantly repeating emphasis on just how young all these characters are, that they are innocent children and that they aren't viewed as adults.
Her comment to Qrow was just a joke. Probably to ease tension. It's exactly the same joke I would have made - in fact, I was thinking exactly that as Qrow said it, so I did find Ruby's come back funny for that reason alone.
From what the writers have said, Ruby was designed to be the Wide-Eyed Idealist whose youthful innocence has yet to be broken down by experience of the realities of life. Stories about children losing their innocence as their experience of life grows is very common, and fifteen is a very common age for protagonists to be when these 'coming of age' stories begin. Especially in anime, which is what this show is inspired by. I don't see anything unusual here.
I really don't think her socialising has been as much of an issue as some fans think it is - it was an early thing that was quickly resolved. She recognised her own past behaviour when she met Penny, and she was actually quite smooth when meeting Mercury, Emerald and Cinder for the first time (as Haven students).
This initial socialising didn't last long, just when she was new student at a new school. She and Jaune bonded extremely quickly, I thought, and once the team were together for the first time in a non-fight situation, Ruby, Yang and Blake seemed to be bonding quite quickly - it was Weiss who was struggling, mainly because she wanted to be the leader. The writers constantly referring to the theme of "strangers are just friends you haven't met yet" is something I've heard a lot in stories aimed at children and teenagers, and a sentiment I've heard parents and teachers express (in different words) when dealing with any children or teenagers who are facing a new environment (school or university, for example).
Being put off at the idea of having to start from scratch and make new friends all over again isn't that unusual, especially in children and teenagers. There are plenty of teenagers who find the idea of going to university very daunting because they won't know anyone, their friends won't be there, and they don't want to have to struggle to make new friends.
Yes, it's great to be one of those people who can waltz in to new situations and make friends at the drop of a hat (Yang is implied to be that kind of person), but it's also very normal for people to not be like that and to not look forward to meeting new people. Yes, certain conditions can make this more difficult for people, but it's very common among people who don't have any conditions as well.
We must not forget that this entire story is fairy-tale themed. Ruby herself is based on Little Red Riding-Hood. For the show's protagonist to make a shout out to this is to be expected, and her view on fairy tales isn't particularly unusual for a character who is starting the show as a Wide-Eyed Idealist.
If the consensus was reached two years ago back in Volume 1, it needs to be readdressed. There's far more evidence in support.
Writing off a situation of misinterpreted sarcasm for humor does not invalidate it as evidence, otherwise 60% of Castiel's behavior from Supernatural would have to be completely ignored because it served a punchline. Autism can be funny in some circumstances. I'm in no way offended by that idea.
We actually have seen visual conception of her imagination on at least one occasion, that being her trek through the Emerald Forest while she considered potential partners in Jaune and Blake. While it deliberately was meant to evoke RTAA in style, an argument could be made for its odd simplicity.
In addition, you can't dismiss Ruby's social difficulties as her "just being and awkward teenager" when supported by much more specialized examples of her behavior being pointed out. I was certified on the spectrum for near exactly the same reasons as have been covered in this argument. Take it from somebody who has it, the evidence is strong.
And, as it has been pointed out already, it's called Ambiguous Disorder meaning it doesn't have to be an absolute sure thing. There are already a plethora of characters on the page less qualified than Ruby who haven't gotten this sort of resistance.
I might as well ask with how this has been going on for so long. What is everyone's problem with the idea that the protagonist has some kind of disorder? It doesn't make her inferior in character to the rest of the cast. It doesn't make her any less able to fight the good fight in her state.
Just to point this out: using other examples on the trope page is never a good idea because it's not a guarantee that the other examples are correct. An entry has to stand on its own merit, not when compared to entries from other works.
This shouldn't come into it. People discussing whether or not the trope applies should not be interpreted in any way as an statement on the real life "disorder" itself or real life people who may fall into the discussed category.
The only thing that matters to the discussion is whether or not the character fits the trope.
Fair enough, let's look at the parameters of the trope instead of narrowing it to simply autism, then. After all, the trope itself doesn't have to fit any specific Real Life disorder as per the whole ambiguity part. Each point will be a direct quote from the page's primary description.
1) It's way beyond mere ordinary quirkiness. No reasons are given for the strange behaviour. No specific diagnosis is ever mentioned in the story.
While we've never been given a solid explanation for why Ruby is the way she is, several characters (namely Yang and Ozpin) have remarked on her social difficulties (one coming to mind is Yang asking her why she doesn't try making her own friends after Ruby mentions how seeing new weapons is like meeting new people "but better"). So, as per trope definition the oddness has been noted by other characters even though there has never been a solid diagnosis.
2) The disordered behaviour will often be Played for Laughs.
As seen by Ruby's responses to Weiss' sarcasm, in addition to various other things such as her RTAA themed imagination and pretty much whenever she really starts to geek out about weapons. Comedic effect does not remove the example from the table.
3) In the instances where this trope is played seriously, the character usually overlaps with The Spock, Pinocchio Syndrome, or Tin Man and focus on this character's struggle to befriend people or otherwise fit into society.
See Ruby's character development from Volume 1. She wants acceptance and support in spite of her reluctant nature and awkwardness in social circumstance. To help the parallels with Pinocchio Syndrome "I just want to be a normal girl, with normal knees".
4) In fact, any resemblance to any real disorder is likely accidental; the character's symptoms are exactly those symptoms the writer wants them to have.
Any arguments about Miles and Kerry intentions for writing Ruby as having these eccentricities can be considered moot until Word of God says otherwise. What matters is what's seen.
To me, it does seem quite normal for someone of her age who is set up to be a bit of a geek. I know loads of people who were just like her at her age, including me. So she doesn't stand out as unusual to me at all.
But it hasn't been singled out as anything akin to a disorder. What I mean by that is that the show keeps contextualising it in terms of her being childish or immature or needing to grow up. Even Ozpin's speech to her about the responsibilities of leadership is just a very kind and gentle speech about needing to grow up and mature.
Yang has only mentioned her needing to make friends right at the beginning when she was new to school, and it doesn't seem like anything unusual to me that I haven't heard from all sorts of parents or teachers to shy children entering a brand new environment or shy teenagers entering a new school - or even being said to socially adventurous children just in case they end up feeling a bit nervous or shy later on. Back when I was Ruby's age, that sort of "you need to come out of shell" type conversation or message got used on me - and plenty other kids in my year group.
I even heard when I was in university, directed towards eighteen and nineteen year olds. I continue to hear that sort of thing in adulthood, too. Take workplace celebrations or parties, there have plenty of times when colleagues give a team mate a nudge and tell them they need to break out of their shell and mingle more or socialise more.
All these people are considered "ordinary".
More to the point, this idea about making new friends in the early episodes comes across almost like moralising in children's stories - the "don't be afraid to make new friends" aesop. Yang trying to break Ruby out of her shell only happens a small handful of times, and is often accompanied by nearby scenes where someone else is saying the same thing but in a different way. For example, Jaune comments that his parents told him to view strangers as friends he hasn't met yet.
It's exactly the same thing Yang's doing, just in a different way, and it's very normal advice that parents give to children or teenagers who may initially be nervous about making new friends or entering new situations.
It has not been a recurring theme with Ruby throughout the show. It only happened at the start when she was entering a new situation and had to make new friends. And, as she pointed out to Yang, part of her problem was that she was very nervous about her ability to blend in, she was afraid she'd be singled out for having been advanced two years.
And just because there is evidence of geekiness being played for laughs, it doesn't mean that someone has some kind of disorder. I don't see any attempt to display her as anything other than a writer's cliche of how geek characters behave in stories. Even then, she's not a strong example of nerdiness. There are one or two incidents that are played for cuteness as well as comedy, but most of the time the subject never even crops up - so it's again, mostly early introduction stuff.
We may just have to disagree on the subject of Ruby's responses to Weiss's sarcasm because, depending on incident, I've interpreted it as her being funny in her own right, taking the high road over Weiss's tone, some early episode childish mockery or snit at Weiss's attitude, and only very occasionally genuinely not sensing Weiss's real attitude.
That all seems to be a normal, acceptable range to me, including sometimes not getting someone else's mood - which even the biggest social barfly can miss or get wrong. No-one is perfect, no-one reads a person's mood right all the time, and I don't see Ruby as missing social behaviours and cues on a regular basis. She's done it once or twice - and plenty of other characters in this show have done it once or twice as well, so it all comes across to me as the writers just portraying kids who are growing up.
She feels like she's being singled out because she's just been jumped up the school system by two years. I consider her fears completely normal given the situation. Not only have I seen plenty people have fears like that (including me) when it's happened to them, but it's also only an initial fear she faces. Once she's in the school and being treated normally, she's thrilled (hence her "normal knees!" relief in the students first fight with Grimm.
I agree, but as far as I can see, I'm watching a pretty normal show for teenager 'coming of age' stories, with pretty common cliches thrown in and very human behaviour that I can relate to, having had many of the same experiences as some of these characters when I was their ages (all the fantasy enemies and threat of war aside, that is :) ).
These posts are how I've been interpreting the show and the character (and other characters). I do find it genuinely interesting that something I view as completely normal behaviour, not just for an individual but also quite normal (as in contextually explainable) within the boundaries of the show we're watching, is interpreted by others as being not normal behaviour, and the reasons given for why that interpretation exists.
I'm beginning to see a serious issue with tropes using the word ambiguous. How exactly are those in favor supposed to lock this down when, without word of god or an in series diagnosis, all someone has to do is say "I consider the behavior completely normal" and every piece of evidence becomes moot?
I suppose I might as well restate how these exact traits when I was Ruby's age were enough to certify me as autistic, so the personal experience angle can go both ways.
These "Ambiguous" tropes are a bulk of nonsense that gets drowned beneath speculation. Do note though that Ambiguous Disorder is not about plain ASD.
@Septimus: Until such a time as they are deleted, that's just your opinion, unless I'm mistaken about how the wiki works. Currently, there is no character trope for Aspergers or ASD, just a Useful Notes page, and Hollywood Autism clearly doesn't apply, and the vast majority of character tropes on any given character sheet come exclusively from fan interpretations of the character's actions and dialogue rather than a Word of God description of their personality. There is inherently a certain measure of speculation when it comes to populating character sheets with tropes, and I don't see any reason to hold the "Ambiguous" tropes, the ones that apply to characters at least-to a higher standard. Not when virtually every character trope is already subjective. I'd also like to point out that all but three of the diagnostic criteria I attributed to Ruby were not predicated on speculation regarding off-screen behavior, merely observations of her interactions with other characters during the course of the series.
@Wyldchyld: One of the issues I'm seeing is that you seem to interpret what me and Serape are interpreting as Literal Mindedness as being jokes Ruby is consciously making. Sure, it's almost always been played for laughs outside of one occasion in the Nevermore fight, but that doesn't mean Ruby is aware of the fact that she sounds foolish. Given that this particular gag is specific to Ruby (and probably also Penny), I think it's pretty clear that being Sarcasm-Blind is a deliberate part of her character. As far as her behavior being what you view as "normal", many of the individual traits associated with autism can be found in perfectly ordinary people, and that's particularly true regarding traits found on the high functioning end of the spectrum. It only becomes a disorder when enough of them are present at the same time.
As far as author intent goes, that's pure speculation both ways and will probably remain that way, but there was clearly parallels being drawn between Ruby and Penny's behavior in the first episode Penny appeared in, and Penny is much closer to the popular conception of how someone with high functioning autism acts.
Finally, regarding previous consensus on this trope's usage, the consensus was "I can see it, go ahead and add it" (that was made on the forum topic and after a back and forth PM or two) the first time around, back when the trope was called "Ambiguously Autistic" and was explicitly about ASD. Then it got changed to Ambiguous Disorder, and got removed at some point between volumes, then re-added and removed a few more times after the page split before we reached the current impasse.
Capsase, you're a godsend in all this.
No, I'm saying I'm seeing a range of different things going on and it's not just one thing or the other. I may have to re-watch the show with this specifically in mind, but I really don't remember seeing very many Sarcasm-Blind moments from - not significantly so compared to other characters that have also had such joke moments, anyway.
That's a point I am addressing. I'm talking about people that have most, or all, of Ruby's traits who are regarded as completely normal people. Myself included. That's a problem I'm seeing with trying to resolve whether or not Ruby is supposed to be an Ambiguous Disorder character. People can see the symptoms of recognisable disorders, but people can also see completely normal behaviour that exists in people who have never been, and will never be, diagnosed with anything.
I won't respond to the rest because I think we need far more input to get this trope resolved once and for all, and I think everyone's made good points so far. Including the problem with dealing with tropes called "ambiguous".
I have to ask, you said you weren't on the austistic spectrum but shared many traits/quriks with Ruby? Is that an assumption you've made on your own, or is that the assessment of a mental health professional? Plenty of cases of ASD on the high end of the spectrum go un-diagnosed into adulthood, and it's fairly common for the most telling signs of the disorder to be masked by learned coping mechanisms by that point. This can be further complicated by co-morbidity with or misdiagnosis as ADHD, and by the gaps most people have in early childhood memories, which can make diagnosing an adult quite challenging.
As far as the Sarcasm-Blind / Literal-Minded gags, I don't recall any such jokes with characters other than Ruby or Penny, and as far as more generalized cases of Comically Missing the Point go, that's also been mostly restricted to Ruby and Penny to the best of my knowledge. While I doubt every episode has an example, there more than enough of them spread out over the course of the different volumes to say there's a recurring pattern. I re watched the series with this particular question in mind while I was writing the OP, so I'm fairly sure of myself saying this.
On another point you made, it's interesting to me that you perceive her behavior as childish. I don't disagree (she certainly doesn't act like a fifteen year old would be expected to), but "childish" is frequently how people with no knowledge of the disorder describe the behavior of someone with high functioning autism/Aspergers. Autism is, at its heart, a developmental disorder, and while missing early childhood developmental milestones is the most well known manifestation of this, it's not the only one.
Wyld Chyld seems to have opted out. I ask again, how do we reach consensus?
He's waiting for other people to respond. I'll link to this on ask the tropers if nobody else wants to weigh in.
And I've put it on Ask The Tropers here hopefully more people will reply to it there.
I'm actually responding to the way the creators have other characters raising that subject. I appreciate that can be a problem with the way people handle this in real life, but my approach is more about wondering whether the creators are mis-portraying an attempt at childishness. One thing (among many things) adult creators are well known for doing badly is portraying childish or immature behaviour.
Apologies extended to SerapeWF. I did mention on the RWBY thread, but I should have clarified here as well. I think it needs more than just us to ensure a firm consensus is reached. As I said on the forum thread, although I've argued my stance quite strongly, I really don't mind what decision is made at the end. Given that this has cropped up a few times in the past, I just want to make sure that we've aired everything that could be said so that a final decision will stick if it's ever queried again in the future. The more input we have from people, the stronger the decision will be.
I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.
I don't mean any offense, but after looking through the history of the page, you're the only one who ever removed the trope until the most recent occasion when it was pulled for discussion; it was added by around 4 different people.
For once I'm in favor of keeping something removed.
Most people just aren't that knowledgeable about things like autism, or indeed most disorders, and I would wager that includes the writers/character designers of RWBY. The widely assumed consensus is that she's just young, excitable, and naive. I would never have even imagined RWBY as autistic (high-functioning or not) if I hadn't seen this discussion post.
It doesn't seem like something set up by the writers, or intentional at all, I would leave it off the page. It could easily be construed that Yang has a violent streak or rage issues based on her behavior...but that's obviously not intended out-of-universe.
Ambiguous tropes are prone to overuse, and this is no different.
Plain and simple, in this case, I don't think Ruby is intended to be autistic by the writers. And if it's not intended and is just an armchair diagnosis, it shouldn't go on the page.
Ambiguous Disorder in general tends to see a lot of misuse in basically any slightly atypical behavior or quirks = Ambiguous Disorder. She's a somewhat quirky young girl. That doesn't mean she has an undiagnosed disorder. From all the overuse this trope gets I feel like tropers think that anyone who has a personality is autistic.
It could go on YMMV under Alternative Character Interpretation, but it has no place on a main page.
Silence In The Library Ambiguous Disorder doesn't have to be set up by the writers, beforehand. That's part of what makes it ambiguous, as I've already stated. In addition, you assuming someone doesn't have knowledge of autism is pure speculation on your part.
Larkmarn, we've countered every part of what you've said in earlier points of the discussion. In addition, saying "I feel like tropers think that anyone who has a personality is autistic" seems a bit odd, considering we're discussing exactly one character. No one is debating Weiss, Blake, Yang, Jaune, Ozpin, or Zwei's potential autism. Just Ruby.
^^ ... no, it needs to be set up by the writers, not based solely on fan-interpretation. Otherwise it's an Audience Reaction and thus doesn't belong on the page. "Ambiguous" in the name doesn't mean "it can go in no matter what."
Go read the description on the Ambiguous Disorder page before you declare that.
I have. For example, "We don't want to start any sessions of "armchair diagnosis," since that kind of speculation about real people inevitably leads to controversy."
Keep this in mind as well:"the character's symptoms are exactly those symptoms the writer wants them to have." The writer may not have a particular disorder in mind, but they're intentionally writing the character to have some sort of disorder. That's the point.
@Larkmarn: That particular line you quoted is the rationalization for banning real life examples on the page. Putting it on YMMV would be a good idea. IMHO, it was a mistake to remove Ambiguous Disorder from the YMMV category in the first place, and this whole discussion is a testament to that.
I would be happy with it going on the YMMV page. That sounds like a good compromise.
Regarding an earlier comment. You're right, it usually was me who ended up removing it, but that was usually after discussion between several people had agreed to removal, and I just happened to be the poster who did the removal each time.
^^ That's the specific context, but it still is clear we don't want an armchair diagnosis. And like I said, author intent is necessary. Otherwise it's Alternative Character Interpretation. Which I suggested a long time ago.
Thinking of adding this to Blake's section:
I don't think I'm wrong to add this, but I'm going to put it on the discussion tab anyways.
I've checked both pages and I don't think it's Moral Myopia. It's not exactly the biggest problem exhibited in RWBY, but it's still big and noticeable. It's not Angst? What Angst? because Blake does angst, just not about the things that are really relevant. Discuss.
Firstly, aversions aren't notable unless they're an omnipresent trope.
Secondly, it reads as complaining, as from this context alone it sounds like "she supposedly cares, but isn't showing it enough." I could very well be wrong, but that's how it sounds without knowing more context.
Well that's why I brought it up. I can already see people wincing because it sounds too harsh or critical to be applied to Blake, although I don't think the trope itself reflects terribly on her. I'll try to edit it to be more gentle, but...well ya know.
Is Protagonist-Centered Morality even applicable to characters?
I'm listing the original entry and the replacement entry. The question is: does she have a Fatal Flaw, and is it either of the two options listed below? Even if it is either of the two listed below, both entries have write-up problems.
I was the one who posted the second one so I'm leaving my two cents on the topic. The other one said "not fatal yet" so I took it as not a fatal flaw and replaced it with something else. It's not that I don't agree, it's that the original one admitted to be not a fatal flaw so I saw no point in leaving it there.
As for my own point. It's becoming some sort of running gag: Weiss judges a person, she's proven wrong, she gains a new opinion on them and doesn't learn the lesson at the end.
Ruby had to almost die by the stinger of a Deathstalker to get Weiss to drop the ice queen act and work together with her. And the whole issue was with Weiss, not Ruby at all. She saw Ruby as a weak and naive girl in a battlefield alongside people who are far above her level. And as Ruby said: "You don't even know me." This bad judgement from Weiss was born even though she knew nothing of the girl apart their first meeting but she had already labeled Ruby as a weakling. And that's only with Ruby. Jaune, Blake, Sun and even Neptune have all been a victim of this. It's a bad habit of hers that has caused her troubles thus proving to be a "flaw".
I'd caution that you're letting Ruby off scot-free, given that Ruby also needed a whack from the wisdom broom to stop being so childish (and she's still got an impulse problem). However, that's an aside. I haven't seen Weiss do anything that relates to the Fatal Flaw trope. Where has Weiss ever been in a position where, as a result of her personality flaw, she's a Tragic Hero who has either failed to succeed or suffered a Tragic Mistake? I don't think I've seen any of the characters do anything that could be that trope. Not yet, anyway.
I'm sure her snap judgements are some kind of personality flaw trope; I just don't think it's Fatal Flaw.
I agree with you about the first example.
It's not much about if Ruby's at fault or not here. It's about knowing to have a bit of mercy instead of being so pessimistic such as Weiss only snapping at Ruby when her team was cheering for her at class. Her bad treatment was exclusive for Ruby and while she has a few reasons to doubt the girl, Ruby has proven herself already for the most part but Weiss simply refuses to acknowledge her good qualities.
It's an important part of Weiss' character that affects a lot of her decisions during the entire series and brings her problems. If she didn't have that, every single issue she has dealt with so far would have never happened. Sure, there is no tragic mistake and she's no tragic hero but as far as I've seen in the Fatal Flaw page and its examples, that has little to do with it. It's more focused on the idea that the flaw itself brings a lot of issues to the character and takes part in the story. That being said, let's see:
Weiss' flaw is a running gag? Check
Weiss' problems have been caused by her flaw? Check
Weiss' flaw affects her role in the story? Check
Fatal flaw it is.
Weiss makes snap judgements about people. It hasn't caused any major problems beyond giving her some embarrassment and a learning curve about the individuals she's made snap judgements about. It hasn't done anything on the scale the Fatal Flaw trope describes. If you've seen Fatal Flaw examples that don't seem to live up to the trope description, you have to consider whether you've encountered examples of trope misuse.
Her snap judgements have not affected everything she's done. It made her a bit slow to bond with Ruby, it caused an argument with Blake - that she mostly resolved in her own head, off-screen so that she gave a resolution 'all friends again' speech to Blake the very next time they encountered each other. She misjudged Jaune on the basis of him trying way too hard and coming across as an idiot (combined with what's implied to be personal off-screen experience).
So far, her snap judgements haven't done anything that's not beyond the norm for teens learning how to interact and socialise properly.
I have not seen her snap judgements be used as a running gag. On the contrary, where it has cropped up, it's been discussed quite seriously.
If we consider the show's writing and its focus, these kind of things are indeed a big deal. A mistake doesn't need to be fatal for the audience but fatal for its characters.
The show has been focusing a lot of the relationships between the characters and how these are developed. Most of the time, things get rather out of hand because the characters are flawed thus resulting in the issue becoming a bigger thing than it should. If the show focuses about killing monsters, then, the death of a character because of someone's flaw would turn that flaw into a fatal one. And so on, in a drama, if a character ruined the relationship he was pursuing because of his flaw, then, it's also a fatal one. The difference is the type of focus both series have. In RWBY's case, not being able to interact and socialise properly can be considered a Tragic Mistake given that it's one of the main focus of the series.
I call the snap judgements a running gag because Weiss never seems to learn the lesson. Not in the literal meaning but to express that it's a more common thing than you'll expect. Even after she was proven wrong four times, she still has these snap judgmenets thus proving to be a part of her personality like Ruby's childish nature or Jaune's stubbornness. It is an important part of her that, while doesn't cause any real Tragic Mistake, it still has a big impact on the story.
But if the thing is that it can't be considered a Fatal Flaw but it's still something very important about her character, then, what should we call it? What trope suits a character who has a bad habit which causes a few troubles but never does anything that can be considered tragic outside RWBY's standards?
Nothing the kids have done have reached Tragic Mistake proportions. The closest thing we've come to a Tragic Mistake in the show so far is the breach incident and Weiss's habit of making snap judgements about people she doesn't know has nothing to do with what happened in that situation. The only character currently being blamed for that incident is Ozpin thanks to Ironwood's perception of the situation. Even that can't currently be labelled as a Fatal Flaw example for either Ozpin or Ironwood, let alone anyone else.
Weiss has not been proven wrong four times. The character she's been most wrong about has been Jaune and that's partially been Jaune's fault as well, which is why other characters have (in a kind way) addressed that with him. Her concerns about Ruby were valid and Ruby had to learn lessons of her own about that. Weiss's concerns about White Fang are valid for the personal history she has. Given her history, she's actually warmed to Blake (and even Sun) extremely fast and easily, especially since her first encounter with Sun was as a witness to him engaging in genuinely criminal behaviour.
So, yes, she makes snap judgements, and it is a personality flaw. It's not been an excessive flaw to date, and she been learning. Given how short the show's been so far, we haven't seen massive learning curves from any characters yet. The two biggest ones have been Ruby and Jaune knuckling down to their leadership responsibilities, but that didn't automatically address their wider personality flaws.
Weiss isn't any different to any other character we've seen. She's not perfect, and so far it's just been rounding out her character rather than a major plot point to date. The nearest thing to a major plot point it's ever been was an excuse to reveal Blake's history - and that's the one situation where the story's told us that Weiss has a big Freudian Excuse in her back story that needs working on. Even that didn't cause any problems beyond a bunch of teens falling out with each other and making up by the end of the weekend.
That's ignoring several important plot points of this series. First of all, the other characters never addressed Jaune's stubbornness, quite the contrary, they encouraged him. Her concerns about Ruby were not valid. Her reasons for that concern were born from her wish to take the leadership from her although initially Ruby had done wrong but a mistake doesn't define who she is which is what Ruby tries to make Weiss see during initiation. Her concerns about the White Fang are valid, however, even if she saw Sun engaging in genuinely criminal behaviour, stealing a Banana and stowing away hardly have something to do with terrorism. Not to mention that Weiss acknowledged that Sun was a hunstman in training who came in for the tournament. Are you telling me that it makes complete sense to believe that a huntsman should be suspected as a villain because he stole food once while ignoring their long time of training to finally start protecting the innocent? And finally, the only one who refused to hear Blake and prefered to get rid of her was Weiss.
Weiss made mistakes and all those mistakes were born from her own flaws. If it wasn't true then all the characters would have a agreed with her but no one did. They all think she's in the wrong every single time.
Weiss is different, just like everybody else. They all have their own motivations and flaws. As I said, maybe her mistakes didn't cause anyone's death but a mistake is a mistake and can't be ignored as something trivial especially when she made that same mistake five times already.
This is T Vtropes and it takes every single part of a character and tries to define it through tropes for better exposition and understanding of that character. To ignore Weiss' snap judgements and the consequences of it as some trivial teenager stuff would be an fatal mistake. That's ignoring what this site is trying to be.
An observation for the wrong motivation can still be an accurate observation. Weiss's issues with Ruby's immaturity predates Ruby being made leader. Ruby's immaturity has been acknowledged by Yang's behaviour, too. It was also a trigger for Ozpin's very kindly worded 'grow up and take responsibility seriously' speech.
'A mistake is a mistake' sounds to me like an argument for claiming all mistakes are equal - and, in the case of the trope we're discussion, that all mistakes are therefore chronically, dramatically, dangerous enough to be a Fatal Flaw. At no point have I ever ignored or denied that Weiss makes snap judgements. But this show has so far not put a single character in a position where any of their mistakes have been as dark and dramatic as the Fatal Flaw trope needs them to be. Perhaps one day a character will fall into this trope, but nothing we've so far seen comes close.
Just adding my two cents: if a terrible mistake is necessary for Fatal Flaw, consider her fight with the White Fang Lieutenant, who got the drop on her despite her combat superiority, given that she never bothered to use dust or even her semblance until near the end.
Blake's Fairy Tale Motif entry was given this as a new example:
What's the consensus on this?
We know that the characters were inspired by various fairy tales. Since Blake is a literal cat person, it's pretty probable the creators looked into cats from fairy tales, and it's not unlikely they would find the Cat Sidhe in there and take cues when designing the character's appearance.
Her outfit isn't completely black barring the chest, but that would be a bland looking outfit compared to the rest of the team and would be difficult visually. The additional white gives her outfit more pop and makes the animation easier to follow, especially during the fast-paced fight scenes. A resemblance doesn't need to be perfect to be indicative; that her outfit is primarily black and has white rather prominently on her chest, she is linked to cats, and fairy tale motifs were a deliberate design choice provide a significant amount of evidence to indicate that the resemblance was intentional.
What about her alternate "Intruder" outfit, then?
Well obviously the Cat Sidhe reference would only apply to outfits that actually resemble the Cat Sidhe, in this case her default outfit.
She's black-and-white with purple tights. Cat Sìth only have a small white spot on their chests and the entire rest of the body is black. Blake has a huge amount of white in her colour scheme by comparison. Her 'Intruder' outfit has even more white.
The name 'Blake' has two main contested origins - a word meaning 'dark' (black) and a word meaning 'pale' (white). We don't know if that's why she's black and white, but that's a theory, too.
It sounds like you're better off WMGing this connection for now.
Her tights are purple near the bottom, but they are black from the knees up. I acknowledge that her outfit being both black and white is itself significant, but the inclusion of more colors does not invalidate that the Cat Sidhe could have been an influence on her design. It's like if I have a single RWBY shirt in my wardrobe; the fact that I only have one out of, say, twenty other shirts doesn't mean I don't actually like RWBY, it just means that I've let other things influence what I wear. Blake's designers deliberately gave her an outfit that is black around the torso with a white chest, and when you consider her strong connection to cats and the strong influence of folklore on the characters and their designs, it's both probable and reasonable to assume that the Cat Sidhe was an influence.
And of course this all ignores the fact that numerous references to and interpretations of the Cat Sidhe in other media are not purely black with a single white spot either.
I've made some reasonable arguments, but I find your few rebuttals lacking. If no one else chimes in within a couple days I'm going to put it back.
You originally directed people to read the Wikipedia description as evidence of your claim, and that description is what I have responded to. However, I consider your argument to be an example of shifting the goal posts.
I'm not saying you're wrong because I have no idea if you're right or wrong. I'm not Rooster Teeth. I'm saying you're using flimsy guesswork to apply a trope that usually is rooted in some kind of Word of God or Word of Saint Paul basis, or has so many deliberate clues in the show that all the fans agree there's no other interpretation possible.
Right now, it's just you and me having a disagreement. Two people disagreeing is no basis for making a final decision about the fate of a trope's example.
Thanks for a response that is well-worded and clear. Such things are important in debates.
The Wikipedia article was meant as a reference for people unfamiliar with the Cat Sidhe, not some kind of doctrine.
I'd hardly call my reasoning "flimsy," but I understand what you mean about assumptions and as such am willing to stand down on account of a lack of direct evidence.
Well, that's why I was hoping for more input from others. If there is a consensus in the fandom, then there's probably no issue with adding it. At least, that's my understanding of how it works.
Edited to add: I've put an edit reason note on the page to flag this discussion. If a few more people give input, it might help. Someone who listens to Rooster Teeth more than me might even know what cat motifs the creators were inspired by to come up with Blake. That would be great.
This is a Ruby entry that was removed as a shoehorned example and re-added with no edit reason. Clarification?
The reason for the shoehorning statement: this is a like-attracts-like trope, particularly for romance, but the key point of the trope description is that the similarities draw them together and they struggle to compensate each other's weaknesses.
Ruby was introduced as socially awkward and avoidance-oriented and gifted in terms of weapons and combat. Jaune was introduced as a social try-hard and with no weapons and combat skills. They gravitated together via kindness - Jaune, playing his try-hard chivalry role, offered her a helping hand, they got talking. As to their weaknesses - Ozpin advised her on her leadership insecurities and she passed on the same lesson to Jaune. They both learned from it, but in their own way and their own story arcs.
They are not an example of like-attracts-like: their social issues aren't even the same.
Thought you removed it because you think it's strictly a romantic trope.
I don't even think it's that. Ruby wouldn't have befriended Jaune if he hadn't approached her first, and he wouldn't have approached her if she hadn't by lying on the ground by herself (giving him a chance to swoop in and play hero to the damsel). So, really, their friendship kicked off because of the kind of person he is. Ruby doesn't rush to make friends, but she doesn't turn away people who want to talk to her. Jaune wanted to talk to her.
I've removed the following example from Ruby's Worf Had the Flu entry because that trope implies the person would function much better under normal circumstances but was having an off-day for a specific reason.
Is this Crippling Overspecialisation?
Someone else has pointed oit rhat she can fight without CR as seen in thw Food Fight.
Someone else has pointed out that she can fight without CR as seen in thw Food Fight.
Except that right now, the food fight isn't an example of what is normal for her, and while it parodies some of the genuine fighting styles we've seen, it's hardly the best example to use of 'real' fight scenes, look at Pyrrha's use of her semblance. Unlike Pyrrha, where the staff have made no comment on the difference between her use in the food fight and more secretive use in real fights or combat training, the staff have (since the food fight) pointed out that Ruby cannot fight without CR and will have to learn how to move beyond this issue.
Technically, she can punch a grown man as seen in V 1 E 1. She does have CR on her possession though.
This entry is written in a way that makes it sound like it's falling under Examples Are Not Arguable, so I've brought it here for discussion.
Is Ruby an example of this trope? The only person who couldn't believe it was Jaune, a confirmed Fish out of Water because of his non-combat history or education. Ruby made it clear that this is the norm for all Signal pupils, not something special to her, and the reason she's in Beacon early is stated to be the skill she displayed wielding the weapon, which isn't this trope.
It would appear my edit reason has been misread. I did not say Blake was not going to be Heroic Self-Deprecation, I said stuffing one, single occurrence into that trope was premature. I also noted that the kids are still in an unproven trainee status - they're not heroes yet; they're still only at the start of the journey and currently questioning why they want to become the heroes of the future. All I said was that assigning the trope, right now, is premature.
I also did not say this event was an example of You Are Better Than You Think You Are. I said that, for all we know, it might end up being that instead. It could even be something else in the end. It's not like the situation that led to her comments has ended yet, it's clearly designed to cover at least a few episodes.
There really is no need to jump on something as soon as it's released and attempt to stuff it into a trope as fast as possible. Sometimes it's worth waiting a little while and see where characters and the story go before deciding if there really is a trope going on and which trope it is - especially if it's part of a situation that's still unfolding.
Perhaps I should have commented it out instead of taking it off the page.
Usually Heroic Self-Deprecation is a one time thing as a part of someone's Character Development. It is a trope about someone not feeling they are worthy of the mantel they have, someone gives them the You Are Better Than You Think You Are speech and after some battle or self reflection they get better.
As of right now Blake does not feel she is a hero or even a good person, but a coward who runs from all her problems. While she may eventually get over this mentality, the trope still applies as it is a generally one time use trope.
Also being in school, or a hero-in-training, does not exempt one from hero status. Blake and her friends are currently trying to thwart the plans of villains so by default that makes them the hero's. Blake being down on herself is Self-Deprecation. Hero + Self doubt = Heroic Self-Deprecation.
Yes, Blake is certainly heroic, even though she doesn't feel like one. In the Black trailer, she did save the people on the train from Adam. Also, she, along with Team RWY, have gone so far as to sneak around the teachers' backs to fight the Big Bad of the series.
Judging by the trope description, it's not a one time thing, it's a pattern of behaviour - no matter what the hero does, no matter how good they are, or how many lives they save, or situations they resolve, or how many times people point all this out, they simply don't think they're worth anything. Then you finally get a moment when everyone's words get through to them and they do something amazing... and then the cycle starts all over again. The trope even points out that the repetitiveness of this can get annoying if not dealt with properly.
You Are Better Than You Think You Are is the trope that can be a one-off situation. While it can be a climax to Heroic Self-Deprecation (ignoring whether or not the cycle kicks back in afterwards), it can also be a more limited, one-off event.
While being in a school, in certain stories, doesn't exempt people from already being heroes, this show has not set these characters up to be heroes from the beginning, but to be people who want to be heroes and who are destined to become heroes. We've been shown from the beginning that these kids are the heroes of the future, not heroes of the present. They have the instincts, but they still need to be developed. The last two episodes especially have been about putting the girls onto the right path to becoming real heroes.
If Blake's lack of self-belief becomes a pattern and the girls become more established as being heroes instead of just being on the path to becoming heroes, then I'd say the trope definitely is in effect. At the moment, it's a single moment right at the beginning of their real journey.
^ Call it downplayed, then.
I kinda don't agree with the "pattern of behavior" notion... It can, and should, also work when a hero has done something far greater than he expected and he doesn't deserve that much potential praise.
Do you guys mind if I make a “Tropes applying to the team” folder for tropes that apply to the entire team? I plan on moving some of the tropes that are in each of the individual character’s sheets (e.g. Color-Coded Characters, Dark and Troubled Past, Fairytale Motifs) up here and listing the individual descriptions under bullet points.
[[folder: Tropes applying to the team or each member of Team RWBY]]
Go for it.
I've seen many other character pages do it too.
For Four-Temperament Ensemble, wouldn't Weiss be either Choleric or Melancholic?
Yeah, probably, Weiss would be Choleric, while Ruby Phlegmatic and Yang Sanguine (YANG-uine?)
I've never yet seen a convincing reason for creating group tropes on character pages. All it does is clutter up pages, make navigation and layout worse, and very often causes tropes to be pointlessly repeated in multiple places. Trope work pages already do the job of gathering tropes that apply to setting, story and groups of people, doubling up can end up being space-wasting. While I know some works use group sections on character pages, I've also seen other works keep them away from characters pages for all these stated reasons.
RWBY already puts both individuals and separated weapons tropes for each individuals on their character pages. The pages are already long, and getting longer. This will just add to the mess.
Team RWBY doesn't fit the Four-Temperament Ensemble without shoe-horning the characters to do so. Given the trope description of each section, the characters only slightly fit some of them, often only some of the time, and often fit multiple (again, often only some of the time). Not every four-man(woman) team is going to fit a four-team trope.
While I agree with some of your points, I have to ask does not naming the same tropes for every character also add to the length and clutter?
A general would lessen the clutter more then add, plus it can make some tropes easier to find, add, or delete, instead of going through every character.
Generally speaking, different characters will need different writeups of the example text. A lot of misuse problems stem from people trying to treat different characters in the same way.
^ But does that mean writing generalized writeup will always lead to misuses?
Well, in addition to Septimus Heap's point, the main RWBY trope page is already 'group' troping. Where a genuine example occurs of writing a trope where multiple characters form an example of how the trope is used in the story, the main RWBY trope page already does that kind of job. Why do the same job in two different places?
Maybe I'm wrong for thinking this, but I always view character pages as a dedicated collection of how a character is portrayed in a work (it puts all that character's examples in a single place which gives an overall picture of that character). If we're going to divorce a character's trope from that character's dedicated list just to make to make it easier to find, we're back to doing exactly what the main RWBY page is doing - collecting RWBY tropes in an easy-to-find alphabetical list.
^ The team itself can be considered an entity with its own tropes, i.e those that pertains to the whole team. That's the main reason for the "general" section.
I think it's primarily a matter of opinion whether you put up a "general" section or list its tropes in the main trope list.
Brought from Ruby's section to here:
I don't see anything about her behaviour right now that stands out enough to be targeted for tropes such as Ditzy Genius. Right now, she's having a well-balanced characterisation - she's nervy in some social situations (but hardly "highly inept" as per this trope) and pretty great in others (pep talking Jaune, handling Penny's panic in recent episodes, etc.,).
If anything she applies more to Sacrificed Basic Skill for Awesome Training, since the reason this trope was added was because the troper saw a great imbalance between Ruby on the Battlefield and Ruby in social situations.
I changed all tropes that state Summer Rose is dead, to that she is missing. There is no evidence she is dead, or at least that anyone really knows if she is dead. The only thing we do know is that Yang said "She left for a mission and never came back."
I agree with that. It's premature to assume both mothers are dead.
Considering the events that transpired in V2S5, do you guys think that Blake could be considered a Broken Bird? It's shown now that the events going on are leaving her miserable, angry, and fatigued, and she is implied to have a Dark and Troubled Past.
"Heroic RROD: Due to overusing her Semblance. She faints, but only for a few seconds, long enough for her to fall in the path of a speeding truck. Before that, she is seen making pained facial expressions while jumping from wall to wall."
Is it sure that Ruby lost control due to overusing her Semblance? We in chinese Forums for Animes etc thought Ruby lost control during her "Speed flight" due to Penny's weight, since she admitted she is "not a real girl", and from the faction she comes from, she might be either a robot or a cyborg, and thus being very heavy. And she didnt made a pained facial expression while jumping from wall to wall, she made it when she was holding Penny and tried to launch the flight, and the metalic sound when Ruby dropped Penny supports that theory. Well, all unless Roosterteeth already said is due to Ruby overusing her ability.
It looks like fandom guessing to me.
while it probably is overuse of the Semblance (the same thing happens to Weiss in episode 8 creating the glyphs), we don't have confirmation yet.
@Wyldchyld it is just guessing now, since we dont have any clear confirmation yet
@jboone93 We did take the possibility of overuse Semblance (like Weiss in epi 8) in consideration, but seeing how its at least 2 nights past the food-war, and Ruby only used it once during the "fight". Unlike Weiss, she used her glyphs alot, making an Ice barrier, "Magic Shoots" against Nevermore, Freezing, launching Pad for Ruby, and the tons she made for Ruby to run up the cliff.
Well, hope the next episode reveal the truth.
Another possibility is that she simply hasn't mastered that level of speed yet.
Nothing she did in Volume 1 comes close to how she's used it in Volume 2 and even in the food fight, she skidded somewhat at the end and had to brace herself against the wall (which seems to be why it cracked) - her clean landing was only after she dodged her own maelstrom.
That use wasn't as extensive as her use in this episode where she also seemed to lose her balance upon trying to stop or slow down.
So, that's three ideas on what it could be - all of which is guessing for now.
From Weiss's section:
I've moved them to here because the first is based on conjecture given that we don't know how much of the company is an issue - company or select individuals. Board members have been dying - are they innocent or corrupt? We don't know.
The reason I've moved Unwitting Instigator here is because it's currently written in a way that brings it under the Examples Are Not Arguable problem. By admitting it's not the start of the fight, it begs the question of why it's even listed in the first place. However, it's also trope misuse as it's about a character whose small role in setting off something big earns the hatred of the fandom. This obviously isn't what happened the case of the food fight.
Remark removed - wrong place.
Community Showcase More