whosit
Full Member
So totally a self-portrait.
Posts: 105
|
Post by whosit on Jun 11, 2010 6:34:31 GMT
This is so good, I thought it worthy of re-posting. Hey, I've got an idea! Annie is Annie - it's her POV; Zimmy is Zimmy - who else would she be? Gamma is Gamma - Zim's always beside her. Jack is just Jack - but minus the spider. Guessing is futile - we don't know enough. Wait until Friday - it isn't that tough. Oh, but it IS, it IS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 11, 2010 8:34:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jun 11, 2010 11:27:29 GMT
It's from an in-joke in the Lost fandom. In the first season, one of the sillier fan theories was that the trees on the island were shaking because they had epilepsy.
|
|
|
Post by cheddarius on Jun 11, 2010 15:42:25 GMT
Ah. I thought it had something to do with Sudowoodo.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 13, 2010 6:43:01 GMT
What the hell is an "epileptic tree" anyway?? Is that another one of those damn TVTropes nonsense things that Tom hates so much? Tea-San hates epileptic trees? Really? Awwww, but it's so much fun to imagine that Jones is a Terminator robot cyborg from the future, reprogrammed and sent into "our time period" by either: a) Future-Kat or b) Future-Jack, depending on whether her intentions ultimately prove to be benign or not XD
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 13, 2010 7:01:45 GMT
Tea-San hates epileptic trees? Really? Well, I don't know about that, since there's no such thing as a fricking epileptic tree, but, he's expressed his distaste for the idea of "tropes" in general, and tvtropes.com in specific, on numerous occasions--opinions that I happen to share.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 13, 2010 18:44:24 GMT
ah, alright. that's sort of what I was getting at. the "epileptic tree" trope. obviously trees can't get epilepsy. I think.
I've never seen the harm in tropes; I mean, no matter how creative, clever and original a writer or artist may be, there are certain repeated themes that exist and have existed throughout the whole history of storytelling. that's all that TVTropes really does, they point out these various themes and shared human concepts, and if they have a little bit of fun doing it, it's not really meant to be at the creators' expense.
I suppose it might be a tad frustrating to a writer to think that all possible twists and turns have been covered, or that there's somebody out there revealing all their secrets, like some sort of Masked Magician; but a truly good writer ought to be able to find ways to make old tropes new and interesting.
knowing how a puzzle works shouldn't necessarily make it any easier to solve, and I think Tea-San has done an excellent job of building a puzzle which has been very difficult to unscramble, and he has planted the seeds of many epileptic trees himself by leaving behind some very misleading clues.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 13, 2010 19:21:12 GMT
there are certain repeated themes that exist and have existed throughout the whole history of storytelling. that's all that TVTropes really does, they point out these various themes and shared human concepts Oh I get exactly what a trope is... sort of an in-crowd way of saying "meme"... but I hardly think that that is all TVTropes is trying to do. And you really admit as much yourself with your next line... Really? I would argue that it would be up to the creator to decide whether any harm or expense comes from it, not the "troper". This isn't meant as an attack on you personally, but rather on the attitude of TVTropes in general, but... that's a pretty arrogant position to take. The frustration comes from having every idea marginalized by being shoved into some "trope" jacket, however ill-fitting, and then turning around and putting the blame for the frustration on the -writer-, for not coming up with material that can't be trope-ized? You're essentially saying "if you can't come up with plot elements that we can't stuff into pigeonholes, you aren't a truly good writer." The idea that you promote in your last sentence really reveals the problem, I think. Even IF a writer found a way to make an old trope "new and interesting"... it's still going to be shoved into that old trope, because those people just HAVE to trope-ize everything, to feel superior in their ability to categorize and thus marginalize I guess. I mean, saying that the plot of a story is "just" this trope or this trope, is sort of like saying that gravity or evolution is "just" a theory. It's belittling, and that's insulting. and BTW I noticed you just had to use a trope "Masked Magician" in your very post about tropes. Is that how it eventually becomes for tropers; every aspect of life becomes something they can stick in a box and put a label on? That ceases to be literary analysis, and becomes rampant nihilism. Fitting for the ADD, Insta-bored Generation, though.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 13, 2010 20:03:58 GMT
I think "pigeon-holing" is oversimplifying it a bit.
All of life follows certain patterns. These shared experiences, these shared and common elements are sort of the glue which holds all of humanity together. These moments are the things that we search for when we try to make connections with other human beings; without them, we'd be as random as rain or snow.
Being able to define and recognize these patterns, these ideas, these common threads in a story doesn't make the story any less special, any less unique or any less individual, but it does allow us to connect with the story, and perhaps with the writer, in a way which says, "oh god, I've been there". Even in a fantasy setting, we recognize and appreciate these common elements, and TVTropes celebrates this idea.
It's all very oddly encyclopedic, because the Internet has a habit of cataloguing things, but that's just how these things work. It collects and it analyzes.
Every word that Tea-San has written can be found in a dictionary, it can be defined, and organized. That doesn't mean it's less interesting to read.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 13, 2010 20:40:58 GMT
I think there's nothing wrong with tv tropes as long as one understand that referring to them one discusses the trope, not any particular instance thereof.
Unfortunately I've seen many times where, in response to comic pages, people in e.g. the Sluggy Freelance forum linked to a bunch of TV tropes pages, and were thinking they were contributing in a discussion about the comic. Ofcourse they were not. They were detracting and distracting from such. Making a weak comparison of a single element with how a slightly similar element was used in a hundred different comics, distracts and detracts from how that element applies to the SPECIFIC work.
So my view in a nutshell: Tropes are harmless and fun when discussed for themselves, they're harmful when people treat them as if they mean anything in regards to a *specific* work. Let me quote from an episode of House MD:
House's point was when there's a specific case you should be looking at, look at the specific case. There's nothing wrong with statistics, but it is BAD to apply them to specifics.
Tv tropes like that. I love going and seeing how different comic series or films used a particular scenario. But I don't use them to discuss *specific* comics - that'd not just be rude, it'd be inefficient.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 13, 2010 22:50:06 GMT
well now, I agree with the House example and I do agree that it is possible to overdo it. Yes, it is silly and ridiculous and rude to rely on TVTropes that heavily.
I can't imagine looking at a specific work and saying "well, here he's invoking Trope #456 and here is an obvious textbook example of "Why Not Eat Gilligan' "... and so forth. (Although even professional critics are prone to using tropes. Roger Ebert came up with a whole list of movie cliches, and when a film strays into one, he will not hesitate to point it out. And of course, MST3K thrived on this sort of thing.)
When used properly, TVTropes can be a very useful resource for examining pop culture. I've learned stuff about my favorite TV shows, movies, books and Web comics by reading TVTropes. (As in, "oh I see. That's a British-ism." Or, "oh I see. That's a reference to Japanese mythology.")
It takes itself much less seriously than say, Wikipedia, and maybe that rubs people the wrong way; people who treat fictional worlds as SERIOUS BUSINESS. I don't think its meant to be mean-spirited, any more than Mad Magazine, Mel Brooks, the Wayans Brothers or Weird Al are, just to name a few examples of people who make a living poking fun at pop culture.
Many "tropers" are genuine fans of these shows, and if the creator of a Web comic gets annoyed at the overusage of "tropes", well it comes with the territory. I sincerely hope that's not the case with Tea-San, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jun 14, 2010 1:33:55 GMT
Oh hell, are we having this discussion again? This isn't meant as an attack on you personally, but rather on the attitude of TVTropes in general, but... that's a pretty arrogant position to take. The frustration comes from having every idea marginalized by being shoved into some "trope" jacket, however ill-fitting, and then turning around and putting the blame for the frustration on the -writer-, for not coming up with material that can't be trope-ized? You're essentially saying "if you can't come up with plot elements that we can't stuff into pigeonholes, you aren't a truly good writer." The idea that you promote in your last sentence really reveals the problem, I think. Even IF a writer found a way to make an old trope "new and interesting"... it's still going to be shoved into that old trope, because those people just HAVE to trope-ize everything, to feel superior in their ability to categorize and thus marginalize I guess. I mean, saying that the plot of a story is "just" this trope or this trope, is sort of like saying that gravity or evolution is "just" a theory. It's belittling, and that's insulting. and BTW I noticed you just had to use a trope "Masked Magician" in your very post about tropes. Is that how it eventually becomes for tropers; every aspect of life becomes something they can stick in a box and put a label on? That ceases to be literary analysis, and becomes rampant nihilism. Fitting for the ADD, Insta-bored Generation, though. Hi Casey. I'm a troper. Not just any troper: I go by the name Meta Four over there. I'm the jerk responsible for the existence of TV Tropes' article on GC, and for the comic's current popularity among the wiki hive mind. It has never been my intention to "marginalize" the comic by analyzing its usage of literary devices, plot elements, character archetypes, etc. If you think that any mentions on the wiki have done so unintentionally, then I'd be interested in hearing about them so I can fix them. We do have some guidelines on proper troping; the most relevant to this discussion would be " Tropes Are Tools" (i.e. these plot devices etc are inherently neutral, and can be used equally well for good or for stupid) and " Square Peg, Round Trope" (i.e. Stop Trying To Shoehorn Examples Into Articles Where They Don't Belong, Dummies). In other words, the stuff you're complaining about is the sort of stuff that we tropers are trying to keep off the site in the first place. I won't dispute that there are goofballs out there who misuse the site, like Aris Kastarsis points out, but holding us responsible for the existence of these people makes about as much sense as blaming wikipedia for every goofball who uses the Asperger syndrome article for self-diagnosis (rather than consulting a doctor). The accusation that this sort of analysis is antithetical to enjoyment of a story? Try telling the same thing to a scientist, that their understanding of how the physical world works lessens their appreciation for their chosen field. Or telling a professor of literature that their understanding of themes and symbolism sucks the joy out of reading novels. TV Tropes is trying to do the same thing, albeit on a much more informal and haphazard basis. In conclusion, I'd like to link to the first time this subject was debated, just over two years ago, and the second time this was debated almost exactly one year ago. And point out a quote on the TV Tropes front page:
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 14, 2010 1:38:51 GMT
I can't help thinking we might have avoided a lot of trouble if whoever had used the phrase "epileptic trees" on this thread had written "wild speculations" instead.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jun 14, 2010 1:52:32 GMT
Yes. I don't share Tom's hatred of internet slang, but I can sympathize with it, so I try to avoid troper-speak as long as I'm playing in his house.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 14, 2010 2:58:27 GMT
I can't help thinking we might have avoided a lot of trouble if whoever had used the phrase "epileptic trees" on this thread had written "wild speculations" instead. Of course, the two mean exactly the same thing. The difference is a completely superficial preference towards or dislike against the Web site TVTropes, or about as useful as an argument over whether honor/ honour needs a 'u' in the middle. I would argue that it's not quite the same as yelling [ironically, AOL-speak automatically edited by the message board] at the message board, but it's not my board, either. = Acknowledging the existence of "tropes" or whatever you prefer to call them... well, that's a completely different matter. The "Lion King" stole/ borrowed themes and ideas (or "tropes" if you prefer) from "Kimba The White Lion" which stole/ borrowed ideas from "Hamlet" which stole/ borrowed ideas from previous, largely unknown plays. In a world where the lines of "originality" are far too frequently blurred, TVTropes has very conveniently and helpfully listed each of these individual, independent productions, their creators, and the various themes used in each, allowing for either: meaningful discussion and comparison, or trite and ridiculous diatribes on any of the above; love fests or hatred. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 14, 2010 3:30:42 GMT
I can't help thinking we might have avoided a lot of trouble if whoever had used the phrase "epileptic trees" on this thread had written "wild speculations" instead. Of course, the two mean exactly the same thing. The difference is a completely superficial preference towards or dislike against the Web site TVTropes That's completely not true. In one, everyone knows what you're talking about. In the other only a select in-crowd knows what you're talking about. And the decision to use an expression that only a certain in-crowd understands, rather than the more public friendly version that everyone understands, is exactly the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 14, 2010 3:36:50 GMT
Oh hell, are we having this discussion again? This isn't meant as an attack on you personally, but rather on the attitude of TVTropes in general, but... that's a pretty arrogant position to take. The frustration comes from having every idea marginalized by being shoved into some "trope" jacket, however ill-fitting, and then turning around and putting the blame for the frustration on the -writer-, for not coming up with material that can't be trope-ized? You're essentially saying "if you can't come up with plot elements that we can't stuff into pigeonholes, you aren't a truly good writer." The idea that you promote in your last sentence really reveals the problem, I think. Even IF a writer found a way to make an old trope "new and interesting"... it's still going to be shoved into that old trope, because those people just HAVE to trope-ize everything, to feel superior in their ability to categorize and thus marginalize I guess. I mean, saying that the plot of a story is "just" this trope or this trope, is sort of like saying that gravity or evolution is "just" a theory. It's belittling, and that's insulting. and BTW I noticed you just had to use a trope "Masked Magician" in your very post about tropes. Is that how it eventually becomes for tropers; every aspect of life becomes something they can stick in a box and put a label on? That ceases to be literary analysis, and becomes rampant nihilism. Fitting for the ADD, Insta-bored Generation, though. Hi Casey. I'm a troper. Not just any troper: I go by the name Meta Four over there. I'm the jerk responsible for the existence of TV Tropes' article on GC, and for the comic's current popularity among the wiki hive mind. It has never been my intention to "marginalize" the comic by analyzing its usage of literary devices, plot elements, character archetypes, etc. If you think that any mentions on the wiki have done so unintentionally, then I'd be interested in hearing about them so I can fix them. We do have some guidelines on proper troping; the most relevant to this discussion would be " Tropes Are Tools" (i.e. these plot devices etc are inherently neutral, and can be used equally well for good or for stupid) and " Square Peg, Round Trope" (i.e. Stop Trying To Shoehorn Examples Into Articles Where They Don't Belong, Dummies). In other words, the stuff you're complaining about is the sort of stuff that we tropers are trying to keep off the site in the first place. I won't dispute that there are goofballs out there who misuse the site, like Aris Kastarsis points out, but holding us responsible for the existence of these people makes about as much sense as blaming wikipedia for every goofball who uses the Asperger syndrome article for self-diagnosis (rather than consulting a doctor). The accusation that this sort of analysis is antithetical to enjoyment of a story? Try telling the same thing to a scientist, that their understanding of how the physical world works lessens their appreciation for their chosen field. Or telling a professor of literature that their understanding of themes and symbolism sucks the joy out of reading novels. TV Tropes is trying to do the same thing, albeit on a much more informal and haphazard basis. In conclusion, I'd like to link to the first time this subject was debated, just over two years ago, and the second time this was debated almost exactly one year ago. And point out a quote on the TV Tropes front page: Your response indicates that you identify yourself with a certain faction of tropers... let's call them the "good" tropers for clarity, whose intentions are noble and not condescending at all. And I do believe such people exist. However there are other tropers as well... if there weren't, then you wouldn't need such front-page assertions of what not to use TVTropes for. You say "the stuff you're complaining about is the sort of stuff that we tropers are trying to keep off the site in the first place" but those other people, they identify themselves as "we tropers" too, despite their goals being opposed to yours.
|
|
|
Post by strangethoughts on Jun 14, 2010 4:51:02 GMT
Of course, the two mean exactly the same thing. The difference is a completely superficial preference towards or dislike against the Web site TVTropes That's completely not true. In one, everyone knows what you're talking about. In the other only a select in-crowd knows what you're talking about. And the decision to use an expression that only a certain in-crowd understands, rather than the more public friendly version that everyone understands, is exactly the problem. That is of course under the assumption that what was said was a conscious decision rather than an off hand use of a term that has become part of someone's normal lexicon. In the same way that someone might use regional slang that not everyone will be able to understand, it's not a decision to exclude people from other areas. It just happens because it's the way they speak. Any reference to any thing, no matter how popular the work may be, always carries the inherent risk of going way over someone's head. It isn't an example of being for a "select in crowd" unless someone refuses to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Jun 14, 2010 4:51:24 GMT
However there are other tropers as well... if there weren't, then you wouldn't need such front-page assertions of what not to use TVTropes for. You say "the stuff you're complaining about is the sort of stuff that we tropers are trying to keep off the site in the first place" but those other people, they identify themselves as "we tropers" too, despite their goals being opposed to yours. And opposed to the stated opinions of the site admins.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 14, 2010 8:50:20 GMT
That's completely not true. In one, everyone knows what you're talking about. In the other only a select in-crowd knows what you're talking about. And the decision to use an expression that only a certain in-crowd understands, rather than the more public friendly version that everyone understands, is exactly the problem. That is of course under the assumption that what was said was a conscious decision rather than an off hand use of a term that has become part of someone's normal lexicon. In the same way that someone might use regional slang that not everyone will be able to understand, it's not a decision to exclude people from other areas. It just happens because it's the way they speak. Any reference to any thing, no matter how popular the work may be, always carries the inherent risk of going way over someone's head. It isn't an example of being for a "select in crowd" unless someone refuses to explain it. Case in point, the infamous "iron leaning" from Zimmingham/ BirmingJack. That one went over a lot of people's heads, including my own. Now, that one might have been an in-joke intended for readers who know Birmingham, and yet I didn't get a sense that anybody felt left out. I certainly didn't. I simply accepted it as "must be one of those Brit things" until I finally saw the explanation showing that yes, there is a sculpture/ statue thingy in the middle of Birmingham, and then I was like "oh yeah, that makes sense. Okay, cool." And note that it didn't take long before an explanation was offered. Artistic freedom must allow for a few items that only a select few* will get. We all do it, even Tea-San. (* And the definition of "a select few" is extremely elastic. The United States is a huge country, with millions of residents and a ridiculously huge international media machine, and yet it's amazing how easy it is to step outside and discover that many people outside the US completely fail to understand American culture. )
|
|
|
Post by Snes on Jun 16, 2010 0:00:45 GMT
Your response indicates that you identify yourself with a certain faction of tropers... let's call them the "good" tropers for clarity, whose intentions are noble and not condescending at all. And I do believe such people exist. However there are other tropers as well... if there weren't, then you wouldn't need such front-page assertions of what not to use TVTropes for. You say "the stuff you're complaining about is the sort of stuff that we tropers are trying to keep off the site in the first place" but those other people, they identify themselves as "we tropers" too, despite their goals being opposed to yours. I see the front-page disclaimer as a handy way to say to people like you, "Look, see? We aren't trying to mock or belittle any creators or works here." TV Tropes doesn't wort to marginalize or dissect, it's an effort to analyze so people can gain a greater appreciation for the common threads in fiction of all sorts. The majority of tropes aren't bad things for any writer to use, and TV Tropes never claims that a list of tropes is all you need to know about a work. As for the epileptic trees vs. wild speculation fiasco, I for one have started using common trope lexicon in my daily conversations. I'll complain about how they dropped a bridge on (needlessly killed-off) so-and-so and how I only liked Avatar because of the scenery porn. It's not to make me look smarter, it's just what happens when you spend a lot of time in an online community, especially one so prone to making up phrases to describe such common place concepts. I try to keep the trope-speak to a minimum here because obviously some people are not as familiar with the site as I am. It's part courtesy and part convenience; I hate having to explain what every new phrase means. So yes, it probably would have been wiser to just say "There's a lot of wild speculation" here, but it most likely wasn't done with any selfishness or ill-intent.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 17, 2010 14:33:28 GMT
I see the front-page disclaimer as a handy way to say to people like you, "Look, see? We aren't trying to mock or belittle any creators or works here." TV Tropes doesn't wort to marginalize or dissect, it's an effort to analyze so people can gain a greater appreciation for the common threads in fiction of all sorts. Oh, I get exactly what the disclaimer is -saying-... but I see it as a convenient thing that tropers point to every time their community at large is called out for violating those very principles. Maybe it's just that I don't go there as often and I'm not as inured to it as you guys seem to be, but, from an outsider's point of view, I've never read an entry anywhere that I didn't feel GREATLY marginalized the work it was referring to. Forest for the trees, man. You're too close to see it. I actually wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore at all, but then I just had to post again because I nearly laughed out loud when I saw this new entry in Tom's formspring:
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 17, 2010 14:50:59 GMT
What do you even call marginalization??? What does that even mean really??? The pages do not claim to be exhaustive, to sum up all that is contained in this or that work.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 17, 2010 14:53:11 GMT
Would trivialization be a better term to use?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 17, 2010 14:54:12 GMT
No, wait, I know... generic-ization.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 17, 2010 14:55:54 GMT
Oh I've got it: suck-all-the-originality-out-and-compartmentalize-with-trite-little-in-crowd-jargon-then-complain-about-the-lack-of-originality-in-modern-storytelling-ization.
Yeah, that'll do.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 17, 2010 16:27:38 GMT
Some tropes are interesting, because they describe a very specific plot device that occurs in conspiciously many works of art. Sadly, those seem to be the minority. The others serve no purpose other than implying a lack of creativity.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 17, 2010 17:30:16 GMT
Oh I've got it: suck-all-the-originality-out-and-compartmentalize-with-trite-little-in-crowd-jargon-then-complain-about-the-lack-of-originality-in-modern-storytelling-ization. Yeah, that'll do. Nobody is doing that, especially the last part; large sections of tvtropes are dedicated to point out originality in works, to aknowledge the original appearance of a type of character or narrative device, to demonstrate how a good show plays with the expected components of its genre and turn them on their head, to compliment authors who bring a new life to a kind of story by taking a new, interesting perspective on it, to highligh creations that defy genre classification by mixing many elements of different genre in a novel way… as far as I can tell, tvtropes is mostly about love. I never understood how aknowledging that a given story uses elements that have been used before (the very reason why the audience can rely to these elements and thus to the story) would automatically imply this story is completly unoriginal, or, in a more general way, that it is impossible to write original stories. It shows, on the contrary, that stories aren't created ex nihilo, there is a legacy the writer is part of, and that's not an unfortunate flaw, it's beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Jun 17, 2010 18:08:48 GMT
I can't stand tv tropes. The only good thing about that site is I can look through the examples and find new works I've not heard of before.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 17, 2010 22:15:57 GMT
I think that Tom's biggest reason for disliking the tropes is the jargon - which means that those who don't know the meaning of the terms are confused. Looking back to the confusion about the term "epileptic trees" on this thread, I think he has a point.
Tom also dislikes abbreviations, probably for the same reason. I remember someone referring to Ysengrin (back before we learned his name in Chapter Fourteen, when we knew him only as the "Very Nice Man") as the "N.O.M." - an attempted abbreviation for "Nice Old Man" (the abbreviator had misremembered Robot's term for Ysengrin); the confusion over the abbreviation probably led to the abbreviation leading to more time lost than had been saved by using the initials.
|
|