Follow TV Tropes
Wyldchyld is saying that a Creator Backlash entry of Miles regreting Volume 1\'s Jaundice episodes doesn\'t count because \"It\'s for creators who come to hate a work that is popular with fans.\"
Except the page doesn\'t say that. In fact it says this: \"See, the creators are people too, and even if they\'re the origin of a particular work, that doesn\'t stop them from holding a negative opinion about it. This is what is referred to as creator backlash. It\'s the most high profile form of hatedom possible, since it\'s the very creator(s) of the work denouncing it.\"
Nothing in the page description says that it has to do with the creator condemning their most popular work specifically. It also goes against the trope\'s usage on other pages where it is used to show creator hatred of any product, even if it is not popular. To say nothing of how Jaundice is far from a popular plot and even many of Jaune\'s fanbase regret the episodes.
so uh wtf wyld
I read both the trope description and the laconic and used them in combination. However, I never once claimed it had to be their \'most popular work\'. I\'m not sure where you got that idea from.
If you look at the trope description, it is talking about work popularity among the fans. The first paragraph talks about how a work that\'s popular among fans would be assumed to be popular with the creator to an equal or greater degree. The second paragraph talks about how the creator denouncing the work can trigger a sense of betrayal or resentment in fans. The third lists some of the reasons why the trope might occur. The fifth paragraph mentions that the reasons can be as many as the reasons why fans like the work. And the seventh paragraph makes the snide observation that creators who go through this trope tend not to give back all the money they\'ve made off the work.
In the comparison section, it points out that Old Shame is an example where a work never caught on in the first place and didn\'t have many redeeming qualities.
The trope description goes about discussing a work that\'s popular with fans being disliked by its creator in a very wordy way, but the laconic does appear to summarise the trope in a relatively decent way.
Your words were \"Creator Backlash is not about creators who can look at flaws in their work and wish they\'d done things differently. It\'s for creators who come to hate a work that is popular with fans.\"
The page bluntly describes it as \"When a creator grows to dislike parts of their material.\" The stuff about popularity is to lead in to the whole idea of creators hating their past work. It\'s like an essay\'s intro paragraph.
Everything about popularity just reads you abusing a loophole and makes wanting to edit them really tiring because you just nuke everything you don\'t add yourself so whatever, enjoy your gatekeeping.
That\'s because a discussion page affords more space to write a more comprehensive response than the edit reason field does. That said, my edit reason did not mention anything about a creator\'s \'most popular\' work either.
Since we\'re at an impasse, I\'ve asked on ATT if someone can help clarify the trope and whether the entries are an example.
So basically you kicked the can down the road and did nothing, got it. Great job.
They evidently never got back to you, so I\'m re-adding the backlash.
Are spoilers on or off on this page? I ask as in the Assended Fanon section we have Team RNJR in the open but in the I Knew It section most of V3 is spoiler taged. Do we remove them and keep any new V6 info spoliered or just flat out say No Spoiler Tags?
Ok cleared ALL pre-V6 spoiler tags on the page and added the \"Beware spoilers\" warning. We can still add spoiler tags to Volume Six material, but we need to remember to repeat the clean-up, for those tags, when V7 comes out.
I Knew It! example:
I removed this because Jaune explicitly corrects the perception that his Semblance has anything to do with healing. His Semblance is Aura Augmentation. It boosts the target's Aura beyond its natural boundaries. As a result, the boost he gave to Weiss's Aura caused her Aura's natural healing abilities to be boosted and at the same time boosted the attack power of her own Semblance, which she used to impale Hazel.
In other words, Jaune didn't even single out her Aura's self-healing to boost. He just boosted her Aura and all the things her Aura can do (which includes, but is not limited to, healing) were boosted along with it. Therefore, saying that Jaune's Aura has anything to do with healing is both shoehorning and ignoring the episode's own clarification that this perception is wrong.
Now, some fans did guess that Jaune's Semblance was some kind of Aura Boost ability. They would be the fans who can call I Knew It!.
Okay, I removed this for being trope misuse before I realised this has been Edit Warred in the past (other people have removed it for trope misuse, but it keeps being added back).
Trope misuse; the entries are Out of Focus events which is not what the trope is about. It's for situations where the character is relevant to the plot but for some real life reason, the character cannot be written into the scenes their character should be involved in. For example, if an episode was focussed on the Schnee family mansion, with the plot centring on Weiss's imprisonment, loss of inheritance and desire to escape... but Weiss didn't appear in the episode at all, that might possibly be a candidate for this trope.
Query about the following. If this was Actor Allusion wouldn't it mean that the reason Casey and her mother are singing the song be because something happened in their lives that the lyrics are connected to? As far as I know, they duet the song because they happen to be a mother/daughter singing team, which gives extra characterisation to a song that's about a mother and daughter. Wouldn't that be the opposite of the Actor Allusion trope?
Brought to the Discussion page the following What Could Have Been entries; no matter how calmly worded any example might be, the source is biased, unverified and this wiki has rules about importing drama. No matter what the truth of Shane's letter may or may not be, using its contents on this wiki would be importing drama. I think the wisest course of action is for all of us to avoid trying to pull any tropes out of his letter.
I agree, we can't use part of the letter without triggering the flame bait that goes with it.
Can we leave the Flame Bait aspects of Shane's letter out of this page? His claims are currently unfounded and very clearly biased.
Agreed. I think it's best if fans don't go looking for any tropes in that letter and leave it as an issue the individual and his former employer need to work out between them.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?