Discussion Main / WriterOnBoard

Altered the reference in Star Trek IV that referred to it as the "first and only" Trek film to feature no antagonist. This is paired with a justification that the unnamed "Whale Probe" operated under a deeply alien morality and thus cannot be considered truly malevolent.

This ignores the fact that the very same can be said of V'Ger from the first film, which began the story not comprehending that organic humanoids were a true form of life meriting any moral consideration and thinking of them as a mere insect-like infestation. Importantly, this isn't a malevolent philosophy but instead a genuine misconception. It literally does not know better, and over the course of the film the entity learns differently as it observes and communicates with the officers and crew of Enterprise. In the end, the solution to the threat driving the plot is not to thwart the entity, but instead to communicate with it and reach a mutual understanding. The protagonists figure out what it needs to understand and lead it to an epiphany, after which it leaves peacefully.

Thus, I changed the line to reflect that STIV is "one of the relatively rare examples" of a Trek story with No Antagonist rather than the only one.

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: This was probably inevitable, started by feotakahari on Aug 29th 2011 at 1:21:07 AM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Needs a better description , started by captainpat on Jan 14th 2012 at 7:22:24 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

As pointed out in one of the older entries on the the discussion page, a lot of the stuff on this page is from non-serial works, and therefore cannot contain characters being written "out of character" or "holding the idiot ball''. Also, the trope in its description is explicitly negative, which seems like it should be YMMV, if not Darth Wiki. To make the page comply with its own description, a lot of examples will have to be cut. In its current form, this page is Author Tract, but treated as always a bad thing.

Personally, I find it absurd to treat all instances of a story having a political/social message as a bad thing (which is what this page in its current form largely does, given the number of non-serial examples). A lot of these works are read in large part because of these messages.

Edited by StarformDCX The five best Superman writers are Dan Jurgens, Jeph Loeb, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek, and Peter J. Tomasi.

So many fanfic examples without titles. Should I remove them?

Also, one exmaple is about a Warhammer fanfic where everyone has been converted to Christianity, but the entry has stated it has vanished. How can I confirm if the work ever existed in the first place?

Some things in this are a bit politically biased. Phrases such as "PC police" should really be a red flag.

Did he not shit? Did he not DrerJ? He was only human, but yes, he was Chicken and waffles.

I removed the Dragon Age example, as it was being little too broad as to what defines this trope, not to mention an improper use of the phrase non sequitur

Hide / Show Replies

I'm not sure the Beast Machines entry fits on this page, since the show didn't have any overt message from the creators and the entry seems to belong on Executive Meddling.

Shouldn't this be a subjective trope?

Concerning "Glee" : I think YMMV concerning Cooter being portrayed as a nice guy previous to the abuse storyline. I always thought he kind of seemed like a - well, you know.

Nice picture choice, by the way. Make sure to keep that one.

Hide / Show Replies

In the literature section, there is an entry for the His Dark Materials books by Phillip Pullman, which is followed by 4 sub-posts of back-and-forth disagreement over how blatant the symbolism is in C.S. Lewis' Narnia series.

I believe all 4 sub-posts should be removed, because none of them actually relate back to the original post. In addition, C.S. Lewis is not even Writer On Board, because his work was less "religion/Christianty is good" and more just "bible stories with animals", unlike Pullman, who, as the original post points out, was actively pursuing a actual "organized religion is bad" angle.

Edited by Deepbluediver Hide / Show Replies

Since they are ineligible by the definition of this trope, I think all the literature, film, and almost everything not episodic needs to be gutted. Most of those would fit Author Tract, but do not belong here. It can't be this trope if there's only 1 writer, and/or the point the writer is trying to make is throughout the entire work.

Am I the only one that thinks that just because there's sexual and atheist messages placed in an episode of Doctor Who, doesn't mean that the writers have stretched the characters out of whack? The Daleks are insane and dogmatic with or without the Dalek Emperor as a god.

Hide / Show Replies

I don't think the Berman/Braga entry is valid. Seems to me that they moved away from the Roddenberry Suetopia mostly because there are more story opportunities in a Federation that isn't perfect.

''In the Living Greyhawk RPG, the "River of Blood" event featured bumbling villains who were kidnapping children in order to perform "Raxivort's Orgy" which was described as a wild party in celebration of their god. Individual judges across the country re-interpreted the party as a sexual orgy involving the rape of the kidnapped children. Even though it was not the author's original intention, the more offensive version was so prevalent that Wizards Of The Coast issued an apology and re-edited the event.'

isn't this just Unfortunate Implications and Accidental Innuendo. how is it Writer on Board?

Edited by joeyjojo hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies

Removed this entry because it is a very shallow reading of the books (Skimming the dust jacket-level) and combines multiple books into one. Potentially a valid example, but requires extensive reworking.

• Common in Tom Clancy novels, which are naturally packed to the gills with Straw Liberals. Potentially his most Anvilicious work is Executive Orders: Jack Ryan, using his everyman common sense and American spirit, solves the Arab Israeli Conflict in about a week and takes time out from a major terrorist attack to completely reform the US Tax Code.
  • Clancy's true soapbox moments are reserved for the military - where almost all military-types who are in the field are good soldiers, and as for the rest... He even has a line in Executive Orders where one admiral (a former Naval aviator who's also fought actual terrorists - he's Ryan's best friend) says to the new Secretary of Defense (in regards to the Pentagon): "There are two types of soldiers - operators and bureaucrats. Operators try very hard to stay out of this building." Message - REAL military men are out fighting, anyone in uniform who isn't somehow directly connected towards helping the fight is bad, and once you have to 'take the baton and lead', you have to work very hard to remember when you were 'a good soldier, with mud on your boots'.
  • In the prologue of one of Clancy's novels, an unnamed and unimportant terrorist who is about to blow himself up takes a solid 5 pages to silently debate himself on the merits of feminism and abortion (Ultimately coming to the conclusion that women wearing pants are A-OK, but they still shouldn't leave the kitchen). Had it been done with any kind of skill, you could call it characterization; given who the author is, it's a clear case of Writer on Board.
  • And let us not forget the Rainbow Six case, where the villains are an Animal Wrongs Group Turned Up To Eleven, who interupt their plan to wipe out most of the human race to prevent more polution with conversations to admit that hunting and eating meat are perfectly natural. So if you disaprove of it, remember, you are a worse nature-freak than an Omnicidal Maniac.