Klex
Full Member
[REDACTED]
Posts: 170
|
Post by Klex on May 28, 2009 14:08:09 GMT
I think we should go on this little debate while not cluttering up the City Face thread. Feel free to delete and repost what you posted there.
Formulas/tropes can be helpful to discuss anything, they're shortcuts to express a specific idea. The problem you have is to discuss the functionning of tropes AND specific works at the same time, feeling that it's reducing them to concepts, but they're both parts of general savviness and are enjoyable as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on May 28, 2009 15:31:29 GMT
Well, okay, didn't want to clog up the City Face thread with my two cents, but if there's going to be one over here, what the heck. Most complicated human concepts eventually evolve both technical vocabularies and informal jargon. This seems to be a natural consequence of them being human occupations; we need to communicate, and we like compression, so we come up with terms that allow us to communicate large and complex ideas more rapidly with other people who are interested in the same concepts. I'll use the unrelated field of computer science as an example. Let's say I want to talk about network packets. I could write six paragraphs explaining what a network packet is, but it would be kind of ludicrous to do so, even in this context where I'm speaking to a community that might not know, when I can simply link to a pre-existing explanation. That term exists because people don't want to have to write out the long explanation or even a relatively shorter three or four sentence explanation that would suffice for most technical people; they want to use the term and then move on to the main point, whatever it might be. Now, that's all basic background; I don't imagine many people are going to dispute the idea that you need something like that while discussing technical topics. The question is, do you need to it to discuss art? And the answer, fundamentally, is: some people do and some don't. It's like this: some people experience art as a gestalt thing; you don't dig into it, it just hits you all at once and you experience its effect as a single indivisible unit. You look at something like, say, Gunnerkrigg Court, and you feel the way the story moves you; maybe you experience worry for the sake of a character you particularly empathize with, or maybe you laugh at a joke about terrible robots, or whatever it might be. That's one way to consume art, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some people, on the other hand, experience art as a series of connected elements. It's not just the story, it's the pieces of the story. Here's a plotline about Annie's father. Where is it going? Who is he? What is his relationship to each of the existing cast members? It's all about picking the individual lines apart, like dissecting a frog to examine the internal organs or taking apart a computer to see what the processor looks like. This is a way to consume art, too, and there's nothing wrong with this, either. Now, the thing is, most people partake of both these tendencies. It's not an either/or thing with analysis on one side and passive enjoyment on the other - there has to be some gestalt, because you can't use a computer when it's in pieces, but on the other hand, everyone wants to dig into things a little more than the story itself provides - that's why we have three "questions for Tom" threads on this forum. This is also one reason that Gunnerkrigg Court is a high-quality piece of entertainment - it offers a lot to both sides of the spectrum, as both a beautiful piece of art and a well-structured piece of art. So, yes, let's talk about TVTropes. TVTropes is a site for a specific group, that is to say, literature analysis geeks, the people on the analytical end of the spectrum, and it reflects their temperaments and outlook. It's a site that exists to examine common plot elements that are used in many stories. It doesn't exist to reduce the story to those elements, only to discuss the fact that they exist and discuss what they mean to the overall process of narrative. It also collects terminology, to provide a technical vocabulary and jargon to describe these individual elements once they have been pulled out of the story. Many of those terms (I'd go so far as to say "most") didn't originate with that site - Cerebus Syndrome, for instance, was a term invented by Eric Burns in his Websnark blog quite some time before the site existed. People have been doing this kind of analysis for years - it's just that now they have a web site devoted to their pastime where their thoughts are collected. Getting angry at TVTropes about all this is like getting angry with Wikipedia about the Second Boer War. It's perfectly reasonable for some people not to enjoy the kind of discussion that happens there, because for some people analyzing a story in this way doesn't add any value to it; to those people, I would say: don't go to the site. If you're going to get upset that there's a site out there that expresses opinions you disagree with, you're going to spend most of your time on the Internet in a state of blind rage. In a community like this one, where you're going to find people from both ends of the spectrum, the key thing to remember for each group is that the other exists and that their opinions should be respected. It's easy for people who enjoy analyzing stories to go too far, and try to cut things into smaller bits than they really need to be. (For instance, people could get too obsessed with trying to figure out things like whether Reynardine could possess a bedsheet if you cut holes in it to make eyes for a ghost costume, or whether a throwaway joke in the first volume has some connection to Campbell's theory of the monomyth.) It's also easy for people to yell "shut up and enjoy the story" every time anyone mentions that an element here resembles a common plot element from elsewhere or wonders who Jones is. Neither thing is healthy. Each group has the other to let them know when they're going too far, but if the community is to remain sound, that needs to be done in a gentle, respectful way, not by shouting. There's no reason to be upset that someone else enjoys something in a different way than you do. Hum. Maybe that was more like ten cents than two. ETA: typos, typos. |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2009 16:12:51 GMT
Tropes as short names for phenomena in plots are only useful if everybody know what they mean. Those who don't care about tropes will not know what a chekov's gun is. They are also useless because they are only roughly describing plot phenomena. This description rarely allows for any interesting insight. The tropes I've seen so far are mainly just patterns in plots that somebody has noticed or believes to exist. The fact that a plot device (vaguely) resembles some trope isn't worth anything either, because the enormous amount of tropes in existence leads to the situation that almost anything is a trope. So people will always see tropes (no matter whether they're there or not) and it will never mean anything. What it will do is accuse the author of recycling ideas and not doing anything new. PS: I'll read the post above when I have a holiday or something  |
|
|
|
Post by bisected8 on May 28, 2009 16:15:03 GMT
All I'm going to say is; if you don't like TV tropes then at least read the main page, which more or less addresses the main criticisms that I've seen. I personally like it (it's how I found my way here, in fact) but if you (the person reading this, that is. Not anyone in particular) don't that's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on May 28, 2009 16:27:57 GMT
PS: I'll read the post above when I have a holiday or something Well, if you want the short version, it's this: the fact that you don't find tropes (the concept or the site) useful or interesting does not constitute a reason to get upset with people that do. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 28, 2009 16:29:04 GMT
There's a broad difference between what tropes aim to be in their pure form, and how they're actually used in everyday parlance by many (the majority, in my own observation) of the self-professed "tropers" out there. That latter group has, in my opinion, in an effort to demonstrate their amazing knowledge of tropes, tended towards tropizing everything and trying to shoehorn every nuanced and delicate plot point that any author comes up with into some ill-fitting trope-category. Whether or not it was originally intended as a means to condescend and diminutize an author's work, I would argue that in the hands of the general public, that's exactly what has transpired.
I mean remember, this is the same general public that a large portion of which will still try to categorize people's personalities into one of twelve "tropes" based on when they were born, for pity's sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on May 28, 2009 16:32:56 GMT
That's certainly a fair criticism of some people that use the concept (the minority, in my own observation), but I imagine you'd agree that jumping to the conclusion that anyone who references the site is engaging in that behavior would be a poor idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 28, 2009 16:53:17 GMT
Sure... if I thought that, I'd have said that.
I will however follow up to say that, from my own perspective, it felt to me like those who were tropizing Tom's comic the other day were engaging in that which I will now call trope-shoehorning.
|
|
|
|
Post by bisected8 on May 28, 2009 16:56:51 GMT
Again, Casey; I was not being serious.
Also, did you just tried to generalise all instances of a single behaviour under a phrase which you made up yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 28, 2009 17:12:41 GMT
Whether or not you were being serious, I was referring to where the conversation went from there. Don't take it personally.
And no, I shortened the longer term "shoehorning an idea in a work of fiction into a trope that it doesn't fit well" into the shorter "trope-shoehorning" because it's easier to type.
Listen, if this conversation is getting you upset, we don't have to have it...
|
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on May 28, 2009 17:23:54 GMT
I will however follow up to say that, from my own perspective, it felt to me like those who were tropizing Tom's comic the other day were engaging in that which I will now call trope-shoehorning. Let's see. I might be thinking of a different instance than you, but what I saw was someone referencing the Cerebus Syndrome article, which is about comics that begin as throwaway humor strips but ultimately outgrow themselves as time goes by and plotlines accumulate. I think that's actually a pretty useful trope, personally, since I've seen it happen in many works of fiction, and regular-format comics are particularly prone to it for a variety of reasons. That said, I agree that it hasn't happened in GC - this comic has mixed serious and comedic material from the beginning, and Tom seems to have a long-term overall plan as to where he's going with things. I believe the intention of the original poster was to say that the City Face comic had SUDDENLY BECOME SERIOUS and, you know, isn't that always the way with these funny comics, ha-ha. From my perspective, though, the thread did not go from "I see this common element of many comics appearing in this comic" to "I disagree" or "I do not think your joke was funny", but in fact to "people who say they see common elements in comics are stupid, especially if they reference a web site that talks about that idea", and that's the only part I object to. Saying "hey, guys, you're overanalyzing" is totally legitimate, it's just attacking the idea of analysis itself that doesn't add anything to the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 28, 2009 17:31:09 GMT
From my perspective, though, the thread did not go from "I see this common element of many comics appearing in this comic" to "I disagree" or "I do not think your joke was funny", but in fact to "people who say they see common elements in comics are stupid, especially if they reference a web site that talks about that idea", and that's the only part I object to. Allright, so if I'm following you correctly, then your main concern is that you feel the entire concept of "troping" has come under fire here. If you want to turn the conversation towards that, a useful dialogue about that might result... I however would be unqualified to take up that argument because I don't think I really had any part in that in the original conversation. And I guess the only reason I'm in this conversation to begin with is because I like to type... so go ahead and address those greivances and I'll go back to watching the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by bisected8 on May 28, 2009 17:59:45 GMT
Whether or not you were being serious, I was referring to where the conversation went from there. Don't take it personally. And no, I shortened the longer term "shoehorning an idea in a work of fiction into a trope that it doesn't fit well" into the shorter "trope-shoehorning" because it's easier to type. Listen, if this conversation is getting you upset, we don't have to have it... I think the thing is, you're confusing tropes with clichés. Clichés are copied from earlier stories (not that cliches can't be tropes). Tropes are patterns that genuinely do emerge in fiction, usually from combination a sort of convergent evolution and a sort of "code" that the audience (the whole audience, not just those pointing it out) understands rather than a lack of originality. For example before speacial effects came about people accepted that the stage hands in the theatre weren't there, it doesn't mean there was anything wrong with having a stage hand dressed in black standing in front of a black curtain pick something up and say it was floating. TVtropes isn't the first time its been done either (The term "MacGuffin" has been around long enough, and considered notable enough, to have it's own wikipedia article). No one means to show any malice or snobbery, its really one of those things people do with fiction. Some tropes aren't even "plot devices" they're events that often occur, such as the way studios are run or the ways in which fans react. As for the issue of people "trope-shoehorning", I agree it can be rather annoying but then; some people drive drunk, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with cars. The website TVtropes itself is fairly resistant to it as far as it's articles are concerned (there's a special page for submitting new pages) so things that aren't tropes tend to be removed or not allowed to have pages in the first place. Similarly names for tropes are discussed (although there is some divide between people who want "clever" names and those who just want literal descriptions. I personally fall into the later). Anyway, yes I am quite reluctant to continue the conversation. Not because I'm getting upset, but because I can't shake the feeling that things'll get out of hand (I've been on the internet too long I guess  )...alright I suppose that is getting upset, but I meant in a different way to what I assumed based on the context. If people don't like it I won't mention it. Live and let live and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 28, 2009 18:06:03 GMT
I think the brunt of my argument is that -I- am not the one confusing tropes with clichés... it is the tropers who followed after your original comment on the other thread who, again in my opinion, reduced the tropes they were referring to into clichés. Believe me I have no problems with distinguishing between the two. My complaint is the rampant tendency for those who claim to be tropers to appear to be unable to distinguish between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on May 28, 2009 18:11:51 GMT
Allright, so if I'm following you correctly, then your main concern is that you feel the entire concept of "troping" has come under fire here. If you want to turn the conversation towards that, a useful dialogue about that might result... Yep. That is, in fact, exactly why I wrote that huge novel up above. I'm not used to coming to this forum and seeing that kind of venom directed at things, so it threw me a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by bisected8 on May 28, 2009 18:12:38 GMT
I think the brunt of my argument is that -I- am not the one confusing tropes with clichés... it is the tropers who followed after your original comment on the other thread who, again in my opinion, reduced the tropes they were referring to into clichés. Believe me I have no problems with distinguishing between the two. My complaint is the rampant tendency for those who claim to be tropers to appear to be unable to distinguish between the two. Then in that case, I don't have anything further to say. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 28, 2009 22:21:54 GMT
I would like to apologize for having helped to unwittingly cause this trouble. I was inspired by the earlier comment on "City Face" apparently taking a serious turn to speculate whether "Gunnerkrigg Court" might ever go in the reverse direction (it opens with a reasonably serious atmosphere of Annie roaming the darkened corridors of a creepy school and finding that she's acquired a second shadow that needs her help - but the parts of it that seem to have increasingly drawn the most attention are usually not Annie's continuing exploration and growth, but such things as a parody of black-and-white sci-fi movie cliches and a set of hopelessly incompetent robots) - but then made the mistake of coining a term based on one borrowed from TV Tropes to describe it, and confusing at least one of my readers. Please forgive me for having helped cause this trouble through my carelessness. (As I said elsewhere, at the least, I should probably have typed "**REVERSE**-Cerebus Syndrome" rather than "Reverse-Cerebus Syndrome"; better yet, I shouldn't have used the term at all.)
|
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 28, 2009 23:25:21 GMT
First off: Klex is not only pointing to that single use of a trope yesterday. There was a phase in this forum were tropes were really popular and suddenly everything was a trope. This is annoying, even more so for the artist who tries to come up with a plot line and then someone comes and dissects the plot to show that it is in fact made up of known modules and patterns. People think they have found something interesting to share while actually they didn't achieve anything, considering how easy it is to find a trope that fits.. because there are tropes for everything. It's sad. Instead of mentioning tropes, you might as well write down a sentence of the current page backwards or something similarly pointless. What I would find interesting is a discussion about one particularly fitting trope - but I haven't seen this happening yet. edit: However, I still accept tropers as otherwise nice people. |
|
|
|
Post by olivia42 on May 29, 2009 4:07:12 GMT
I think tvtropes are funny.  In its defense, there's nothing wrong with deconstruction, even if it builds on the work of others. Sure, it's armchair literary criticism, but it's criticism nonetheless. I say if it gets people to think about creative works with more than just a passive acceptance, it's a good thing. Did this whole thing come about because Tom called a trope link retarded? Boy, that's textbook Balance Theory if I ever saw it. See what I did there? |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on May 29, 2009 6:18:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbobbowilly on May 29, 2009 7:03:30 GMT
You can extrapolate a lot from that trope's name. Not so obscurely retarded, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by monkmunk on May 29, 2009 7:43:59 GMT
The argument in favor of tv tropes seems to be that they are a useful shorthand for literary or artistic analysis, but i never see any actual analysis when tv tropes are invoked. The site itself seems to collect examples of themetic or structurally similar elements, without actually unpacking any of the meaning in the structural or thematic similarities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max on May 29, 2009 9:05:18 GMT
The site itself seems to collect examples of themetic or structurally similar elements, without actually unpacking any of the meaning in the structural or thematic similarities. Sometimes the headers do a good job of explaining why some of the more problematic tropes are actually bad. I enjoy reading that site a lot, and I think a lot of them aren't written derisively, but I can understand why people would get insulted having their work reduced to a list of tropes, or why people would get annoyed at having to look up what Thingamajig Doohickey Syndrome is in order to decipher some forum post. |
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 29, 2009 14:32:08 GMT
My feeling is that basically Tropes are fine on the Tropes page, as are tropers.
Tropers are welcome to chat w/me in non-trope language or chat with each other in trope language, just not around me. It's not like I'm going to the Tropes page and attacking them there, I just don't really have any interest in talking about tropes, ever, so I would really prefer to have them keep their stuff to themselves.
It's like any other internet meme, like chan talk. It just gets old.
Tossing out rivers of slang is no fun for people who don't know the slang. Tropes have additional problems as others have detailed above. I don't understand why tropers don't get that it's not polite to speak in a language other people don't understand when you're in a public forum, and how it's not polite to a creator to reduce his work to a simple and boring sounding set of storytelling elements (usually inaccurately).
|
|
melru
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by melru on May 30, 2009 17:15:56 GMT
I'm not going to bother to add anything directly myself, but I would recommend this link. |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 30, 2009 18:11:17 GMT
Tropes are not tools. Even if you find afterwards that a story contains some trope, doesn't mean it's a tool.
There are tropes that just happen because the author didn't have the time/knowledge/creativity needed to do it right which is the exact reason why tropes are no fun for the author and part of the non-trope-seeking readership.
Yes, analyzing stuff is in the human nature, but telling the author "You used this pattern", while he didn't, is just rude. In particular if that pattern implies flaws in the plot or storytelling.
Try putting tropes to good use by really discussing the story instead. (A one-liner mentioning a trope doesn't count as "discussion")
|
|
|
|
Post by bisected8 on May 30, 2009 18:16:40 GMT
Tropes are not tools. Even if you find afterwards that a story contains some trope, doesn't mean it's a tool. There are tropes that just happen because the author didn't have the time/knowledge/creativity needed to do it right which is the exact reason why tropes are no fun for the author and part of the non-trope-seeking readership. Yes, analyzing stuff is in the human nature, but telling the author "You used this pattern", while he didn't, is just rude. In particular if that pattern implies flaws in the plot or storytelling. Try putting tropes to good use by really discussing the story instead. (A one-liner mentioning a trope doesn't count as "discussion") You just basically summed up the article he linked to. Not the one line he posted. The article he linked to. I believe the title of the article in question refers to the idea that they can be used as tools rather than being always used as such. |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 30, 2009 23:28:08 GMT
No, I extracted the correct parts! .. I believe the title of the article in question refers to the idea that they can be used as tools rather than being always used as such. Maybe they're talking about the entirety of tropes rather than single tropes. I hope you know what I mean. edit: I have long since read idonotlikepeas' post. didn't want to add another post after dohimura's |
|
|
|
Post by duohimura on Jun 1, 2009 22:23:38 GMT
Personally, I think idonotlikepeas pretty much addressed everything that needed to be said in his first post.
I will say that, as a writer, and as a literature-nerd-type, I find TV Tropes an excellent resource and a convenient shorthand. I can understand disliking the jargon, and I for one don't particularly reference the site outside of talking with friends, but I think in some cases the ideas are self-evident enough that they don't require lengthy explanation (mind you, Cerberus Syndrome is not one of these).
I would not really care if someone threw tropes at something I'd written, as long as it's not "Jumping the Shark," but then, I'd probably be the first one to suggest it. Admittedly people should use tropes correctly, and use them as a means of discussion not just to say "Ahah! A trope!"
Still. I think we should all take it a bit easier on the generalizations. But yeah, anything else I might want to say was pretty well covered by idonotlikepeas (I agree with your name wholeheartedly, but can we come up with a shortened form?).
In conclusion: Read giant posts (or skim them at least)! They are good for you! Well, not always (see, I'm not generalizing), but certainly don't comment to say that you didn't read them. (Some people don't like tropes, I don't like "tl;dr" or any variant thereof... though I do commend those who know to use a semicolon there)
|
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on Jun 2, 2009 14:41:23 GMT
Well, okay, it seems like there are two major points of contention here. One is that people (although not bisected8 in the City Face thread) might randomly drop trope names into conversation without explanation, turning the thread into a mire of impenetrable garbage to people who aren't familiar with the site. That's a valid concern; while I said up above that I'd talk about network packets, I'd bring it up in the context of explaining something that uses that concept and I'd link to some kind of definition. Using six other jargon terms in the post would be a bad plan if I wanted someone without a CS background to understand what the hell I was talking about. That said, it's easy for people to get excited when they encounter another person who shares their interests and start babbling away without thinking about it. I'd recommend civilly calling their attention to the fact that they're doing it and that it would be a good idea to stop (again, as opposed to OH EM GEE TVTROPES IS FOR LAMERZZZZZ). The other is that people seem to fail at finding tropes that apply to Gunnerkrigg Court specifically. Well, okay. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen, but I'll pick one and run with it and you guys have nobody but yourselves to blame if I ramble on incoherently for four more paragraphs. The most obvious trope to pick out is this: Magic Versus Science. I barely need to link to that one, because if you guys haven't seen this before you probably haven't read any kind of science fiction or fantasy, ever. This is something that crops up in all kinds of works across virtually every medium, from the collected works of Studio Ghibli to the Shannara series to White Wolf RPGs to Harry Potter to Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura to Star Wars ("Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."). As a story concept, it's got a lot of meat on it, because it's something that reflects a conflict most human beings have experienced, between the hard rules of reality that most of us are familiar with and the more fanciful or emotional qualities that arise inside our heads because of or in spite of that life. Most people put down stakes somewhere in this territory, whether it be on the "all the magic/story/unexplained stuff is really just science waiting to happen" side or the "there are some things that are beyond the powers of human explanation" side, or somewhere in between. It also provides plenty of opportunity for conflict and the resolution thereof, while allowing the creator of the work to put good or bad people (or people who are neither good nor bad) anywhere on the chessboard they like. It's a very solid type of background trope. The particular section on the page linked above says this about GC: "In Gunnerkrigg Court, the conflict of worldviews is the reason for friction between the Court and the Wood. One of the Court's major fields of research is Etheric Science (that is, the science of magic), and the Court makes prominent use of Etheric technology: Robots that function with no visible drive systems, and magic spells by the elder Donlans which turn out to be computer programs. (On the other hand, some members of the Court are distrustful and disparaging of magic-users.) This is contrasted with the magical denizens of Gillitie Wood, who espouse Ethereal Tenet (which, in the words of the author, boils down to "It just does, okay?") and take umbrage at man's attempt to learn more about the world." I think that's not a completely terrible summary of things. So the question is, what's Tom doing with it? And we really don't know yet. We've seen some hints, but this paragraph and the next are fundamentally speculation. One thing Tom seems to be trying to avoid is straight-up evil characters. The closest we have right now is Ysengrin, and he'd be more likely to be described as crazy or angry than actually flat-out evil. The traditional story structure involves a protagonist (with which we are well-supplied) and an antagonist that is the source of that person's troubles. In this case, however, while we have antagonists for limited periods of time (Coyote and Ysengrin in some parts of the story, Eglamore in others, Reynardine elsewhere, Jeanne very briefly), we haven't seen a global arch-nemesis that's there causing all the trouble in Annie's life. I believe that the role of antagonist is, fundamentally, being filled by this conflict between science and magic. That is to say, the conflict itself is the problem, rather than any individual involved in it. Annie's role has been to end conflict and build bridges; it's been implied that this is what a medium does for the Court (and the Wood), and when we see Annie make use of her etheric abilities, they involve asserting reality and creating new channels of communication. When she engages in physical conflict with other characters, she relies on throws and holds rather than more direct and violent attacks. This is not to say that she herself is a neutral presence; she's a fully-developed character and, as such, has moments of distress and anger, but on balance she seems to be aiming for the idea that the conflicts of the story (most of which directly or indirectly have their source in the magic/science conflict) are stupid and childish. This element is played up, of course, by the fact that her best friend is someone who is deeply entrenched in scientific principles. So that's what people like me use tropes as tools to do. That is, to pick the story apart a bit and write a lot of random gibberish that makes us happy. Now, does the fact that I think Tom is making use of this trope mean that I think he's being unoriginal or that I'm denigrating his work? Come on. When you get down to something that basic, it would be like trying to insult an architect for using bricks or putting in supports to hold up the ceiling. Structural integrity is so last year, man! Try something original, like libraries made out of pudding! Tropes are just recurring themes or patterns of use that show up in many stories over time. The fact that a story contains one doesn't make it unoriginal; nobody's going to be able to write a story without using a number of these things. It's what the author does with the trope that makes the story interesting. |
|
)...alright I suppose that is getting upset, but I meant in a different way to what I assumed based on the context. If people don't like it I won't mention it. Live and let live and all that.
