Follow TV Tropes
Something I want to know: how does this index define \"bad writing\"?
Hi I was thinking of something.
I was thinking that this index should have a \"Never Again\" Page, which shows what is definitely bad writing and definitely not bad writing.
Also I was thinking there should be a cleanup topic.
With regards to Chickification, Faux Action Girl, and Wimpification, the tropes themselves belong on this index; no question there. But I've seen multiple edits to these three entries trying to make them "feminist" or "LGBT" audience reactions, as if only feminists or LGBT folks will be upset about these tropes happening to care. That's not the case. The Chickification entry, in particular, has had several edits where folks have made the entry neutral, in terms of a general audience reaction, only for other editors to go back and add in wording that sounds like a sneer towards anyone who dares get upset over it.
Those tropes are NOT feminist- or LGBT-only reactions. They are general reactions. Most fans get heartily annoyed if a character suddenly gets wimpified, chickified, and faux-actioned, period.
Not only the sneer is incorrect, but is totally irrelevant to the index. If i am not mistaken,this index is not about disliked tropes, but yes tropes that are considered bad writing- and Faux Action Girl represents a lack of consistency between the that is said and shown. And Chickification and Wimpification represent changes without explication.
Someone added back Fantastic Aesop and Space Whale Aesop, which have been repeatedly removed from this page.
My impression is that they do not qualify since they can be used well as a more entertaining/easier to grasp allegory for more realistic Aseops. Is that so?
I'd like to get a final word on if they're bad writing or not since this is and ongoing issues.
ok, so this was removed on the ground that "it can be done well", but the trope descritption and the examples on the page proper treat it as unanimously bad - it's only "good" when the vice isn't compressed (as in, is shown to being a character treat before it's "treated" or is brought up again). And really, "Characters suddenly developing a problem for the sake of an aesop and said problem never being brought up again" is lazy and hacky writing, or at least I think more people would agree with that.
like, I won't fight if it gets removed again but that's my take on it.
Blaming the Railroaded Player Character definitely doesn't belong on this list. Like You Bastard!, it can be done well, and there are games that are praised because of this. It has to be inherently bad writing to count, not just potentially bad. Also, reading it a bit more, the trope is actually about the character being blamed (not the player), but the troper seems to be misunderstanding it.
I'd get rid of it, but it's already in edit war territory. Looks like the troper who added it really has it in for this trope judging from the tone of their edits.
Reading the examples, some of the tropes listed here sound closer to "scrappy trope"- in other words, a trope that is disliked, not a trope that is a signal of incompetence of the author. This not turns the index ymmv?
The following was removed for not being the inherently bad.
I was trying to explain the circumstances in which it would be a problem (like a Care-Bear Stare coming off more like Mind Rape if you think about it). Does it have to be more universally problematic to qualify for this list? Do the problematic instances fall under the tropes already on this list?
Should They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character be on this list, as it's often used as a strike against works? But on the other hand, such characters are often well liked. So?
I question Villain Ball being on this list, as it has several non-bad writing tropes that it can stem from, Fatal Flaw, Evil Cannot Understand Good, Machiavelli Was Wrong, Evil Is Petty, The Dog Bites Back, Laser-Guided Karma, and likely more. Why would it often turn out bad enough to be on this list?
If there is a reason, the entry could use a better explanation.
Isn't You No Take Candle about when writers deliberately make foreign or alien characters talk in broken English? Granted, the page includes real life examples, but that's not what the trope is generally about, and following that logic you'd have to add all the logical fallacy tropes here as well. The trope itself isn't "bad writing" by default. I'm taking it off for now.
This item is being edit warred over. Please discuss it here rather than edit warring.
I am personally inclined to leave it off. A Hand Wave is an In-Universe explanation ad hoc, but it has nothing to do with a Plot Hole except that some handwaves are there to plug plot holes. The example writeup makes no sense.
I'm sorry for edit warring over it. But the point I was trying to make was that most Hand Waves I've seen are there to try and worm one's way out of a visible plot hole; had the story been written well, then the author would not have to resort to a Hand Wave. A good author can explain a complicated plot point without interrupting the stories momentum.
Thing is, Hand Wave is more often used to cover minor issue than complicate plot point.
Hand wave is the lubricant that helps a given work pass a given individuates willing suspension of disbelief.
"Please note that Tropes Are Tools, and many highly acclaimed works have used these tropes successfully."
While I don't want to argue with Fighteer, I think the line above...
"When done unintentionally, these tropes are usually bad signs. When done intentionally, they're often signs of parody, comedy, or just the writer being ironic or stylized. Hopefully."
...cover this better, if thing can be done right without parody it, it should belong to Sturgeons Tropes.
Well, even if that statement would stay, I suggest that we should note that those in "TV Tropes Style" can't done right no matter what.
It finally cause problem...one troper quote that statement as reason why Handwave should be include here.
So this bring up one issue, if you can use tropes in Bad Writing Index successfully, what make it different to Sturgeons Tropes?
I say scrap Sturgeon's Tropes. Is redundant as all tropes can be used to poor results, so there is no need to make a list of tropes with egregious histories.
Bad Writing Index on the other hand list tropes that fit the Sturgeon's Law definition(90% of everything is crud) fulfilling the need to say that bad tropes are bad, but there is a chance that it could be good.
Scrapping tropes is properly in Trope Repair Shop's jurisdiction.
How exactly is an Audience Alienating Premise an example of bad writing?
I have a question. Is Satellite Love Interest an example of bad/lazy writing, or is it moreso Sturgeons Tropes? I'm thinking the latter but I'm double-checking to see which one it fits better in.
Removed some of the music tropes, since many of them fit Sturgeons Tropes and Discredited Trope better.
Can we change the page quote? It's a visual gag in its source, I don't know if it really translates all that well.
Isn't that exalting him there? As if he is the only one who can do it well. Think the line "unless you're Neil Gaiman And even he shows a great deal of respect for Canon while mangling it" should be deleted.
Both are always completely intentional and used to exposition.
Well, Explaining Your Power to the Enemy is something of an odd case, in that it's a rather blatant and common Idiot Ball situation, so I'd say the fact that it's a quite stupid thing to do puts it within the purview of this Index.
Thing is, it's rarely done by Too Dumb to Live character (unless for comical scene, often lampshaded). Most of time, it's done by either super arrogant guy ("Despite that knowledge, you can do nothing to stop me!") or honorable chivalry ("I known about your power, so it's unfair that you don't know mine"). While latter is Honor Before Reason, it isn't stupid.
...and face it, when some video game boss avert this, you complain in All There in the Manual ("How can I know without reading FAQ?!").
I'm adding Deus Angst Machina, because too much misfortune makes for a lack of Willing Suspension of Disbelief.
ALL the uses of Standard Female Grab Area are intentional.
Removed Purple Prose and Beige Prose, either of those examples of bad writing both are a stylistic choice of writing on the behalf of the author. Many works of both types have received just as much praise as criticism for being Purple or Beige.
Can you even call Shoot the Shaggy Dog a Bad Writing trope? It's badly done a lot of the time, but you can't say including it as the ending is inherently bad (cf. 1984).
Yes and no. It's frequently diagnostic of bad writing, or at least writing that pisses off the reader. It's a slight special case, as with IKEA Erotica, in that it can be done well, but if it shows up, it probably falls under the Bad Writing Aegis.
Sounds more like Sturgeons Tropes.
Although I can't see any way to do Ikea Erotica well unless you're aiming for They Plotted a Perfectly Good Waste.
Er, sorry. Brainfart. I meant to link to Coitus Ensues, not IKEA Erotica.
Removed Scrappy. Sometimes yes it can be caused by bad writing and sometimes it can be caused by fandumb.
It's considerably rarer to find a well-written character receive a level of dislike that the writer did not intend, though.
Saying that it's just Fan Dumb rather glosses over the gripes that cause the rabid, frothing hatred in the first place. Relena Peacecraft, for instance, is not the evil, soulless harpy that demented fans tend to portray her as, but probably would not have been so widely despised if the writers had had a better idea of how to incorporate a Badass Pacifist character into their mecha show.
Still my whole point is that yes sometimes it can be caused by bad writing but the trope doesn't belong here as well at the end of the day it can be caused solely by fandumb.
Alice the Hero for example could be an appropriately deep character and still be a Scrappy and recieve Ron the Death Eater treatment because of the fact she,let's say, killed the Ensemble Dark Horse who gets the Draco in Leather Pants treatment even though he is a Complete Monster who brutally goes around murdering orphans just because he looks good.
Edit: The point is that there are many reasons why a person can get widely hated and you cannot always rely on fans always being justified(see Fan Dumb and some cases of Misaimed Hatedom).
To continue from a previous post in archive; Unfortunate Implications isn't there because a good writer can be a horrible racist. H.P. Lovecraft and H.G. Wells come to mind. H.P. Lovecraft even put it in his fiction, yet people still believe him to be a great writer. And he wrote the only genuinely scary thing I have ever read (The Colour Out Of Space). A man disintegrating and falling to pieces while still alive is a horrid image.
Except that the reason that Unfortunate Implication is a sign of bad writing is that it, regardless of whether the writer is secretly a horrible bigot or not, would have creeped up in modern work where said prejudice is not acceptable. For example a work where the only members of Group X (assuming they were not Acceptable Targets today) were all subtly portrayed(accidental or not) as whatever negative stereotype would count as an Unfortunate Implication. A work where all of Group X were blatantly portrayed as whatever negative stereotype would not count as an Unfortunate Implication but as an Unfortunate Statement. The H.P. Lovecraft example would fall into the latter as he is blatantly saying instead of implying "(Insert whatever Group was the target in whatever book) are all (insert whatever negative stereotype he made them out to be)
You make a good point, but let's not forget Lovecraft is a horror writer. Eldritch abominations are scary in their own right, but racism and ignorance are things that can get you outside of books or nightmares. I think ol' H.P. was merely obfuscating racism. Pure dedication to craft.
Unfortunate Implications is "this thing offends my sensibilities". It is a sign of bad writing because i am sure- with the exception of Dead Baby Comedy writers and similar- it is not the intention of the author offend their audience.
Modern issues with Lovecraft are - mostly - a matter of Values Dissonance. That's rather different from Unfortunate Implications.
That said, the way we use it here, where Unfortunate Implications can mean any bizarre interpretation of a work, doesn't really require bad writing.
Community Showcase More