Discussion PlayingWith / BloodstainedDefloration

Recap:

• Example:
  Enforced Trope: The writer knows full well that this trope is mostly a myth, but wrote it into Alice's first time anyway because they believed audiences expect it.
• History: last time we discussed this

My objection to this example is that it hinges on a ridiculous and implausible strawman. An audience expecting and wanting this trope to such a degree that not including it would noticeably harm a work's popularity or marketability is just so far outside the realm of reality that it doesn't make sense.

What have you done to either address this concern, or argue that the concern is incorrect? I'm not seeing anyone in that thread saying either it's a good example or that my objection was unfounded.

It doesn't matter whether I personally like the example, but the example does need to serve the function of a Playing With page. If it's implausible, then it fails to show what an enforced example of this trope might actually look like.

Frankly what I'm objecting to is you seeming to think you get final say on what does or doesn't get added to a page once it's on the wiki. Enforced Trope examples are always written something like this. You don't get exceptions just because you were the TLP sponsor: we're past what you personally think is a plausible or implausible example at this point. One troper in the other thread suggested an edit, I applied that. This is a wiki and you're outvoted.

I mean, an enforced trope can also happen because an Acceptable Breaks from Reality and a bloodstain on the sheets is the most common ways to depict a woman losing her virginity that most people can think of. Maybe we can tweak the example to mention that the author wrote it because it was too practical to pass.

Enforced Trope lists Acceptable Breaks from Reality as a potential reason, so I don't see an issuse. "popularity or marketability" also wasn't mentionedd, so I don't get the counter-argument.

^^Sorry, what do you mean by "too practical to pass"? Not understanding your phrasing.

^ Convenient for the writer because it's a common misconception?

↑ Yeah, pretty much. It is so simple and easy that doing it any other way would be too cumbersome. Sorry for the troubles.

"the most common way to depict a woman losing her virginity" thing is actually interesting. A different enforced example could probably be built around that.

A single shot of a bloodstained sheet may be the quickest way to signify loss of virginity? If the loss of virginity is an important plot point, and it's a visual medium with strict time constraints, this might be the only way of conveying that they have time for?

^^Thanks for clarifying.

Okay, so, that's pretty much my thesis with this example: the writer feeling like they needed to include the trope whether or not they wanted to because (so they believe) their target audience expects it.

(Also, full disclosure, I just added The Coconut Effect, which I had potholed in the example at issue, to the Acceptable Breaks from Reality index because, unrelated to this discussion, it seemed like it belonged there and I was mildly baffled it hadn't been added. Maybe a bit of Trope-Namer Syndrome?)

Is this example supposed to suggest that an audience might actually expect Bloodstained Defloration so much that they'd react negatively to its absence?

Or is the parenthetical "so [the author] believes" an acknowledgment that's the scenario wouldn't actually happen — but the author's mistaken belief about the audience is still enforcing the trope?

"that they'd react negatively it's absence" it's not saying that and it's not required. Just a portion of viewers expecting it should be efficient.

It sounds to me like you're saying, "It's an enforced trope because it's a storytelling convention audiences are used to seeing." Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, that's what I've said.

That doesn't sound like an enforced trope to me. That just sounds like a trope. The whole point of tropes is that audiences are familiar with them, and may even expect to see them. The whole concept of Subverted Tropes basically hinges on the fact. "It's a storytelling convention audiences are used to seeing" is an accurate statement you could make about any half-common trope.

Then you are welcome to try to take the concept of Enforced Trope to the Trope Repair Shop. But as currently defined, an Enforced Trope is a case where there is a known, specific out-of-universe reason a trope was used in a work. Audience expectation, perceived or otherwise, is a specific out-of-universe reason.

^^I'm going to reiterate this from your ATT thread: All "examples" on "Playing With" lists are by design just hypothetical: they don't need to be concretely, definitively, actively reflective of reality, especially if you're trying to narrow it down to a specific, subjective view that you want to define it as. They're simply to illustrate rough scenarios and contexts in which tropes can be applied and occur in. I don't know why the obsession of policing of it as being "unrealistic" when that's not what the point of these lists are meant to be.

Just to be super clear before this goes any further:

• The example is: "Audiences are familiar with it, so they expect it, so a mixed up author could get the notion there's an obligation to provide it."
• It seems to me that this is incredibly generic and could be equally applied to virtually any common trope. You don't disagree.

Is this a correct summery of what was said? Or did I misunderstand something?

Yes, by that logic most tropes are enforced, and yes, it's the problem with Enforced Trope for including Acceptable Breaks from Reality.

.

Well then. That's weird and flawed. I guess I'll leave you here and I'll take that up with the appropriate people when I have time.

Yes. It's broad, but it's still applicable, and given the precedent behind this trope in particular and its state of occurring despite being being put under increasing scrutiny, it's not unreasonable logic even beyond the realm of hypothetical contexts.

For the record. Acceptable Breaks from Reality was added to Enforced Trope by a troper this year without a reason (Mar 10th 2023 at 4:59:20 PM)

Oh... Blankygoof. A troper who got suspended for weird edits and never appealed. Yeah I think we should question anything they added.

Let's not do this here. What would be the appropriate place to create a new thread and discuss the proper definition of Enforced Trope?

Trope Talk.

I removed Acceptable Breaks from Reality from Enforced Trope since it was an unexplained unilateral addition. But yeah, it's starting to look like a Trope Talk thread about Enforced Trope as a whole (instead of for just this trope) might be a good idea, especially since I'm pretty sure that way of Playing with a Trope has caused issues/misunderstandings in the past.

^I mean, I occasionally see it get misused for Justified Trope or Invoked Trope, but hardly as routinely as Subverted Trope. The definition seems to be pretty clear: it's just a specific, known out-of-universe reason a work creator used a trope. The listed sub-varieties are just common forms it takes, regardless of whether Acceptable Breaks from Reality belongs on the list.

And taking it to Trope Talk is still not a resolution to the current dispute.

Well without getting the above clarified at Trope Talk I'm hesitant contibuing my line of thinking, because what's remaining imply that it's something a creator is forced to add due to factors not in their control.

Any further discussion about the concept in enforced tropes overall, take it here https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=17038931050A47322600&page=1

I think that would depend on how the work frames it. If Alice and Bob view fingering as sex, then it's played straight. If they view fingering as just quasi-sex, then I think it would be fair to call it downplayed.

I think that it's pretty difficult to think of an actually good exaggeration. Okay, so large amounts of blood isn't exactly an exaggeration, but I really wasn't putting that much thought into it. I'll try finding different exaggerations that's not "comically or horrifically large amounts of blood", but for the mean time, this is probably the only exaggeration that comes directly to my mind.

No worries. And when we can't think of a good example of a variation, it is ok to leave it blank.

👍

~Grand Cheese Could you please read this discussion? And would you mind having your exaggeration deleted?

Also tl;dr for the discussion: Overdrawn at the Blood Bank isn't really a good exaggeration. It's either used as a joke or as a point of horror. Not exactly "this trope but even more so".

No, it’s alright to get rid of it.