Well, Christmas is approaching, so why not include a trope related to the holidays? And why not make it about one of the most prominent figures to adherents: Santa?
Santa Claus is an extraordinarily popular holiday figurehead, the very essence of the season wrapped in a jolly, overweight package. Most know him as the bearer of gifts to good children (and coal to naughty ones), though his history is naturally wrought with cultural evolution. Below are some cultural notes on the inspirations before we dip into the personification of Christmas himself.
Santa's earliest and primary inspiration is Saint Nicholas of Myra, a 4th century bishop of Greek descent living in what is now Turkey. Saint Nicholas (who would later lend his own name to the jolly elf) devoted his life to Christianity and is commonly depicted in European art donning his bishop robes. His remains were, according to legend and relics, taken by sailors from Italy during rotating conquests of the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Turks. His remains turned up in Bari, Italy, as a result.
Some parallels were given between Claus and Odin, a major god within Norse mythology, prior to Claus' Christianization. One such example was how children would fill boots with various foods fit for Odin's horse. Doing so would encourage Odin to repay their kindness with gifts and candy.
Beyond Odin, there is Dutch tradition, where Saint Nicholas is aided by helpers, who became Krampus (demons) in Germanic myths and friendly elves in the United States. According to tradition, they arrive by steamship from Spain containing notes on which children were naughty or nice. It's here where we see why Saint Nicholas is the most direct inspiration, although their looks differ (Saint Nicholas sported bishop's robes, as per traditional European depictions).
With the attention given to giving gifts to children, it isn't uncommon to depict Santa as a kindly gentleman, with patience of a saint. However, this isn't always the case. There are several ways to interpret the Bad Santa trope, as noted in the trope page. If it is Santa himself, he is decidedly stressed out, possibly hitting the egg nog fairly hard, and can't take it anymore. Alternatively it isn't really Santa, but an impostor that no one know is fake. Thirdly, it is a Mall Santa (hence someone we know isn't the real deal, regardless of whether Santa exists in the setting or not) and he happens to suck at his job.
As such, know how to play it appropriately when using this trope. It may not make much sense to play up the Mall Santa variety as 'potentially real' if there is no good indication he is; it can still happen, if paranoia and such are handled and used properly, but it isn't a guarantee. Establish the possibility early and with force, if so.
Also, remember the Show, Don't Tell rule: no one will believe you if your alleged Bad Santa is simple apathetic at worst. He may still be a decent Santa, just one seeing it as a job rather than a joy. Plus don't make him seem too likeable if you truly desire everyone to hate this Santa. Sometimes the wrong characterization can ruin any and all intentions.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Sword Limbo
All right, so you are reaching a pivotal scene - whether against the Big Bad or against a friend because the Big Bad convinced you to do so. You've built up the fight, hinting at it throughout the narrative. How is it going to be end up and will it be as awesome as you think it will be?
If the story is set up such that you can justify sword play, expect the occasional bouts of Sword Limbo. Basically an opponent (not uncommonly the hero) dodges a sword swipe by bending backwards as the sword passes over him.
Obviously for this to make sense, you need to establish that swords are appropriate for the setting. RPGs tend to exploit this very commonly, for example, especially for its heroes. This happens quite often, even if the opposition and the heroic mook army resort to such weaponry as phasers and rifles. To overcome the discrepancy between blade and bullet, it is also quite common to combine a sword with artillery (RPG enthusiasts will undoubtedly find this familiar).
Which does add a dimension worth noting: be sure to know when to fall more towards accuracy or cool when deciding to run with swords. Plenty of the techniques shown in media aren't exactly truthful to reality (enough sometimes to taint the audience's expectations) and can cause massive damage, if not kill a person outright, when performed in real life if they are even possible. Anything from Hammerspace to any variety of cool weapons cause physics to shrivel up into the fetal position but work because they are cooler to watch.
This explains why good fight scenes are so cathartic: they don't break willful suspension of disbelief when accuracy falls to the wayside. Obviously this doesn't always work but then again, sometimes even failure at this can be entertaining.
If the story is set up such that you can justify sword play, expect the occasional bouts of Sword Limbo. Basically an opponent (not uncommonly the hero) dodges a sword swipe by bending backwards as the sword passes over him.
Obviously for this to make sense, you need to establish that swords are appropriate for the setting. RPGs tend to exploit this very commonly, for example, especially for its heroes. This happens quite often, even if the opposition and the heroic mook army resort to such weaponry as phasers and rifles. To overcome the discrepancy between blade and bullet, it is also quite common to combine a sword with artillery (RPG enthusiasts will undoubtedly find this familiar).
Which does add a dimension worth noting: be sure to know when to fall more towards accuracy or cool when deciding to run with swords. Plenty of the techniques shown in media aren't exactly truthful to reality (enough sometimes to taint the audience's expectations) and can cause massive damage, if not kill a person outright, when performed in real life if they are even possible. Anything from Hammerspace to any variety of cool weapons cause physics to shrivel up into the fetal position but work because they are cooler to watch.
This explains why good fight scenes are so cathartic: they don't break willful suspension of disbelief when accuracy falls to the wayside. Obviously this doesn't always work but then again, sometimes even failure at this can be entertaining.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Biologically Inclined
Sometimes we make decisions regarding creative works that wind up contradicting real life. Whether it is biology, logic or any number of other topics, we realize sometimes what's real doesn't make for a riveting story. Naturally, sometimes this isn't that bad and we should just relax. Other times, it becomes borderline insane and we wonder if the producers were even aware of what they were doing.
Let's take a look at a few of the most egregious examples of people taking the Rule of Cool, Fnnny or Otherwise because they are what work (whether they succeed at using them or not is an entirely different matter). Remember, tropes are simply tools and can fall on any side of the beneficial/detrimental line. It's up to the author to decide whether or not the plot would benefit from the use of a trope.
Oh and be prepared for these to be predominantly biological in nature.
1. Four-Legged Insect/Four-Fingered Hands: Either of these tropes can fall into the Artistic License category, specifically biology. However, they are also acceptable breaks from reality, enough that we usually don't give them any thought when they occur. As such, they are as the name says on the tin: insects drawn with four (or six or eight) legs and characters drawn with four-fingered hands, regardless of (and quite contrary to) real life anatomy. This is often due to wanting to ease up on animation; four legs are easier than six, six easier than eight. It's worth pointing a trope becomes the former if the species of insect in question is drawn with less legs than it has in real life (four tends to be fairly common). The similar is true about four-fingered hands; three fingers may be this, such as it is with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
2. Square/Cube Law: Quite often when you are dealing attacks of fifty-foot anythings, the Square-Cube Law weeps silently to itself. Basically when an object experiences a proportional increase, its volume increase is equal to the cube of the multiplier (if you double something, the volume multiplies by 8 - 2^3 in other words) and its surface area is increased by the square of that multiplier (in the case of doubling, surface area is multiplied by 4 - 2^2). What does this mean for the object in question? Well, for living things it'll need a lot more muscle (more or less a function of surface area) to move itself around (weight is a function of volume) but generally won't get it if you apply the Law according. With attacks from the Fifty Foot Beasts, there's a good reason we ignore this: they would find great difficult getting from place to place if reality is enforced. More shows attempt an explanation - more or less hand-waving and/or lampshading - to get around this, as more audiences become aware of the gist of the Law, but it still means it happens.
3. Longest Pregnancy Ever: It's normally the span of a few months (6 to 9) for a human pregnancy to occur. However, not all stories exist in that sense of 'normalcy.' There are numerous reasons pregnancy may take longer or shorter than what is accepted in real life without any adverse consequences. Time may be highly compressed or stretched out, such that it took the author a year (or a week) to tell nine month's worth of events in-universe. Likewise, as is the case with One Piece (think Ace), sometimes everything is happening in real time (one year's worth of manga releases is one year in-universe, for example) and thus the birth really took that long (or short). For the former, sometimes it's due to letting the schedule lapse. Sometimes it's a matter of authors having difficulty with numbers.
Let's take a look at a few of the most egregious examples of people taking the Rule of Cool, Fnnny or Otherwise because they are what work (whether they succeed at using them or not is an entirely different matter). Remember, tropes are simply tools and can fall on any side of the beneficial/detrimental line. It's up to the author to decide whether or not the plot would benefit from the use of a trope.
Oh and be prepared for these to be predominantly biological in nature.
1. Four-Legged Insect/Four-Fingered Hands: Either of these tropes can fall into the Artistic License category, specifically biology. However, they are also acceptable breaks from reality, enough that we usually don't give them any thought when they occur. As such, they are as the name says on the tin: insects drawn with four (or six or eight) legs and characters drawn with four-fingered hands, regardless of (and quite contrary to) real life anatomy. This is often due to wanting to ease up on animation; four legs are easier than six, six easier than eight. It's worth pointing a trope becomes the former if the species of insect in question is drawn with less legs than it has in real life (four tends to be fairly common). The similar is true about four-fingered hands; three fingers may be this, such as it is with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
2. Square/Cube Law: Quite often when you are dealing attacks of fifty-foot anythings, the Square-Cube Law weeps silently to itself. Basically when an object experiences a proportional increase, its volume increase is equal to the cube of the multiplier (if you double something, the volume multiplies by 8 - 2^3 in other words) and its surface area is increased by the square of that multiplier (in the case of doubling, surface area is multiplied by 4 - 2^2). What does this mean for the object in question? Well, for living things it'll need a lot more muscle (more or less a function of surface area) to move itself around (weight is a function of volume) but generally won't get it if you apply the Law according. With attacks from the Fifty Foot Beasts, there's a good reason we ignore this: they would find great difficult getting from place to place if reality is enforced. More shows attempt an explanation - more or less hand-waving and/or lampshading - to get around this, as more audiences become aware of the gist of the Law, but it still means it happens.
3. Longest Pregnancy Ever: It's normally the span of a few months (6 to 9) for a human pregnancy to occur. However, not all stories exist in that sense of 'normalcy.' There are numerous reasons pregnancy may take longer or shorter than what is accepted in real life without any adverse consequences. Time may be highly compressed or stretched out, such that it took the author a year (or a week) to tell nine month's worth of events in-universe. Likewise, as is the case with One Piece (think Ace), sometimes everything is happening in real time (one year's worth of manga releases is one year in-universe, for example) and thus the birth really took that long (or short). For the former, sometimes it's due to letting the schedule lapse. Sometimes it's a matter of authors having difficulty with numbers.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Boss Subtitles
This is what I get for selecting 'Random' on TV Tropes.
Okay, so let's think back to our video game memories. My earliest are, as with many people's, during the '80s and 'early '90s that somehow refuses to die properly. It's a time when the Zelda series, name issues aside, introduces the world to a youthful hero trying to save Princess Zelda in all her various incarnations (except perhaps that version though even then). Mario, at least the Mario we all remember, first antagonized a gorilla to save another Damsel in Distress before beating up a lizard to save another Damsel (at least when he and his perennial adversary weren't goofing about). Sonic the Hedgehog taught kids various lessons in his Animated Adaptation (much like Mario really) while going insane with speed (even if other characters may run as fast as he can).
There are various tropes (some outlined above) associated with such early memories. One is the delightfully anti-immersive Boss Subtitle. This affects the kind of situation you expect it would, even if you fight them more than once. It is basically the name of the boss flashed on the screen for a brief while, with a brief description sometimes added to the mix.
This one can come across as too cheesy rather than invoke anything serious, though that isn't always what the author desired. After all, it's hard to argue Mario is far from the cynical end of the scale, even if it does raise certain questions about its inspiration. As such, be mindful of how you want the game to come across.
For example, certain genres have traditionally-expected elements where the Boss Subtitle would fit right in with. Platformers, for example, may have a bare-bones plot at best, if a plot at all, as well as the usual array of common enemies to offset the one boss at the end of it all. Without a deep story to compliment the game, an author may be able to get away with a Subtitle for the sake of providing a name (although providing none wouldn't detract from anything in this case).
Okay, so let's think back to our video game memories. My earliest are, as with many people's, during the '80s and 'early '90s that somehow refuses to die properly. It's a time when the Zelda series, name issues aside, introduces the world to a youthful hero trying to save Princess Zelda in all her various incarnations (except perhaps that version though even then). Mario, at least the Mario we all remember, first antagonized a gorilla to save another Damsel in Distress before beating up a lizard to save another Damsel (at least when he and his perennial adversary weren't goofing about). Sonic the Hedgehog taught kids various lessons in his Animated Adaptation (much like Mario really) while going insane with speed (even if other characters may run as fast as he can).
There are various tropes (some outlined above) associated with such early memories. One is the delightfully anti-immersive Boss Subtitle. This affects the kind of situation you expect it would, even if you fight them more than once. It is basically the name of the boss flashed on the screen for a brief while, with a brief description sometimes added to the mix.
This one can come across as too cheesy rather than invoke anything serious, though that isn't always what the author desired. After all, it's hard to argue Mario is far from the cynical end of the scale, even if it does raise certain questions about its inspiration. As such, be mindful of how you want the game to come across.
For example, certain genres have traditionally-expected elements where the Boss Subtitle would fit right in with. Platformers, for example, may have a bare-bones plot at best, if a plot at all, as well as the usual array of common enemies to offset the one boss at the end of it all. Without a deep story to compliment the game, an author may be able to get away with a Subtitle for the sake of providing a name (although providing none wouldn't detract from anything in this case).
Monday, October 17, 2011
Batman Grabs A Gun
Some heroes just don't carry guns. Each have their reasons, but the ultimate issue is the same: they forbade themselves from clutching a firearm whenever they can avoid it. As such, they work around this self-imposed limitations by any variety of means, such as technology (whether they are sane or otherwise), martial arts or a flat-out gimmick that saves them (ideally) from such a hindrance.
Naturally, this comes to a head when they are pushed to the limit and may actually need to, shall we say, get dangerous.
Welcome to the Batman Grabs A Gun moment, when all hell breaks loose and a character ignores his imposed ban on guns for the sake of fulfilling a goal. Note that he actually must actually possess a vow against using something on a fundamental level and not just somehow managing to avoid doing so due to coincidence. He has a rule, even if it would overlap with That One Rule metaphorically speaking when it comes to writing his character, and he will never violate it unless it hits the fans and pushes him to do so.
Note, also, that why 'gun' is part of the title, it needn't be firearms specifically. Killing is another example, allowing for characters such as Captain America as well as Batman to wind up in these moments. The basic point is that it is something they find so deplorable that they will not use it if they can help it.
As the trope page mentions, this is almost always a Crowning Moment of Awesome but never a Crowing Moment of Funny (though it can be, unfortunately, if handled inappropriately). It isn't merely a moment a hero's doing something he wouldn't normally get a chance to do - he is against doing so. It's very serious (making it justified and thus not a form of the more sarcastic Serious Business trope) and if done properly, people would say the same thing when it happens. Sometimes this can mutate into a Hell Yes moment so long as the hero (or villain, really) is in a situation where he's pulling the gun (or equivalent self-banned tactic, such
As such, it should be used sparingly and with all due consideration taken if you intend on keeping it a running concept. It is easy to fall into Narm territory, as mentioned above, since it isn't necessarily easy to write such moments (let alone act them, draw them, etc.). It is also possible to saturate this far too often, especially with long runners such as The Simpsons or Naruto.
It's also possible a character evolves to open up more to the idea of tactic he once loathed. As a hypothetical example, Batman may find that gun use isn't so bad after all and may simply find it an adequate means of fighting fire with fire. Obviously this depends on numerous factors and can lead to a 'they changed it now it sucks' attitude from the audience, particularly with such a long runner (remember, Batman debuted in 1939, a golden oldie alongside his compatriot, Superman).
Naturally, this comes to a head when they are pushed to the limit and may actually need to, shall we say, get dangerous.
Welcome to the Batman Grabs A Gun moment, when all hell breaks loose and a character ignores his imposed ban on guns for the sake of fulfilling a goal. Note that he actually must actually possess a vow against using something on a fundamental level and not just somehow managing to avoid doing so due to coincidence. He has a rule, even if it would overlap with That One Rule metaphorically speaking when it comes to writing his character, and he will never violate it unless it hits the fans and pushes him to do so.
Note, also, that why 'gun' is part of the title, it needn't be firearms specifically. Killing is another example, allowing for characters such as Captain America as well as Batman to wind up in these moments. The basic point is that it is something they find so deplorable that they will not use it if they can help it.
As the trope page mentions, this is almost always a Crowning Moment of Awesome but never a Crowing Moment of Funny (though it can be, unfortunately, if handled inappropriately). It isn't merely a moment a hero's doing something he wouldn't normally get a chance to do - he is against doing so. It's very serious (making it justified and thus not a form of the more sarcastic Serious Business trope) and if done properly, people would say the same thing when it happens. Sometimes this can mutate into a Hell Yes moment so long as the hero (or villain, really) is in a situation where he's pulling the gun (or equivalent self-banned tactic, such
As such, it should be used sparingly and with all due consideration taken if you intend on keeping it a running concept. It is easy to fall into Narm territory, as mentioned above, since it isn't necessarily easy to write such moments (let alone act them, draw them, etc.). It is also possible to saturate this far too often, especially with long runners such as The Simpsons or Naruto.
It's also possible a character evolves to open up more to the idea of tactic he once loathed. As a hypothetical example, Batman may find that gun use isn't so bad after all and may simply find it an adequate means of fighting fire with fire. Obviously this depends on numerous factors and can lead to a 'they changed it now it sucks' attitude from the audience, particularly with such a long runner (remember, Batman debuted in 1939, a golden oldie alongside his compatriot, Superman).
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Actor IS The Title Character
Ever notice how films occasionally heavily advertise the fact they star a particular film, to such an extent that they say this guy IS the character? Of course you have, it's a fairly common practice, whether in America or across the seas. The actor's name gets top-billing, even if the character only makes a brief cameo in the film to sucker in audiences.
Welcome to the world of Actor IS The Title Character, a fairly common sight in modern cinema. The implication is that the actor is so similar to who he plays that he basically is the character. A quasi-contrast to this is the fabled Alan Smithee defense, which works for directors (although Alan Smithee is no longer the only name permitted). It's meant to cash in on the celebrity actor's name to draw in audience, similar to how comics announce certain characters in an issue to get more sales.
This can easily allow for fourth-wall breaks and extremely hammy acting, depending on the script and actor involved obviously. It can also be lead into a case of false impressions even if the actor makes an appearance, however brief, though especially if the actor doesn't.
Welcome to the world of Actor IS The Title Character, a fairly common sight in modern cinema. The implication is that the actor is so similar to who he plays that he basically is the character. A quasi-contrast to this is the fabled Alan Smithee defense, which works for directors (although Alan Smithee is no longer the only name permitted). It's meant to cash in on the celebrity actor's name to draw in audience, similar to how comics announce certain characters in an issue to get more sales.
This can easily allow for fourth-wall breaks and extremely hammy acting, depending on the script and actor involved obviously. It can also be lead into a case of false impressions even if the actor makes an appearance, however brief, though especially if the actor doesn't.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
He Who Must Not Be Heard
Here's a quick one, to update this blog.
He Who Must Not Be Heard (contrasting He Who Must Not Be Seen) is a character who never speaks. There are three main varieties of this trope, each with their own reasons for being applied: those who wish not to speak, those who cannot speak at all and those who can speak but are incomprehensible to the audience. The latter need not be unintelligible to his or her fellow characters (think of R2-D2 or Chewbacca) but he or she sometimes might.
There are numerous reasons one can utilize this trope if need be. Someone wise beyond their years may feel it only necessary to speak when it is important, although they may also be quite mad. Sometimes it is to give a world flavor, especially to counteract the suspicious tendency of aliens being capable of speaking the language of the audience, and rather fluently at that. Some who is particularly evil can be driven to this or can drive someone else into this situation as an adequate demonstration of nightmare fuel (which is very rarely accidental).
It may also be used for humor, such as when a foreign language depicted often uses long speeches that translate into short meanings (and occasionally the reverse). This does provide a good deal of Bilingual Bonus when the character Who Must Not Be Heard is actually saying something rather than the silent type (assuming the language is actually intelligible, particularly important when the language is fictional). It could also potentially fall into Amusing Alien and Funny Foreigner, however, which may be a sensitive topic.
He Who Must Not Be Heard (contrasting He Who Must Not Be Seen) is a character who never speaks. There are three main varieties of this trope, each with their own reasons for being applied: those who wish not to speak, those who cannot speak at all and those who can speak but are incomprehensible to the audience. The latter need not be unintelligible to his or her fellow characters (think of R2-D2 or Chewbacca) but he or she sometimes might.
There are numerous reasons one can utilize this trope if need be. Someone wise beyond their years may feel it only necessary to speak when it is important, although they may also be quite mad. Sometimes it is to give a world flavor, especially to counteract the suspicious tendency of aliens being capable of speaking the language of the audience, and rather fluently at that. Some who is particularly evil can be driven to this or can drive someone else into this situation as an adequate demonstration of nightmare fuel (which is very rarely accidental).
It may also be used for humor, such as when a foreign language depicted often uses long speeches that translate into short meanings (and occasionally the reverse). This does provide a good deal of Bilingual Bonus when the character Who Must Not Be Heard is actually saying something rather than the silent type (assuming the language is actually intelligible, particularly important when the language is fictional). It could also potentially fall into Amusing Alien and Funny Foreigner, however, which may be a sensitive topic.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Disney Tropes
Plenty of Disney's animated fare are retreads of familiar fairy tales, with varying degrees of accuracy. From Show White to Tangled, there is no void of animated features detailing the lives of princesses, princes and fantasy characters. In fact, Snow White helped Disney out when they needed money, even when during production, people dubbed it "Disney's folly."
As such, there is little surprise they share a few tropes in common. In fact, they even named a few tropes (at the time of this writing any case - this may change). So, here are a list of tropes to look out for, with a bit of commentary as to why they may or may not work.
Disneyfication: Disney is prone to adapting fairy tales into softer versions of themselves. It isn't the first and likely won't be the last. The basic idea is the company removes any material they feel would be objectionable to the target audience (in this case, minors - or perhaps more accurately, the parents of minors). If done properly, it can be quite entertaining and serve as the antithesis to the other extreme, which undeniably would horrify some audiences. This isn't to say they won't try to sneak adult jokes past the censors of course, but generally they won't try it as often. There will of course be people who remember the bloodier versions of the tale and bemoan any attempts to lighten it for the sake of a story; in their defense. As such, be careful when attempting this. It's relatively easy to fall into the trap of assuming kids won't notice mistakes and thus not give a crap about fixing anything. Just remember that children love a good story as much as we do, even if it is true they are more forgiving, shall we we say.
Disney Acid Sequence: Oh dear, we're in strange territory now. Yes, Disney is known for including peculiar scenes that may or may not be drug-induced and may never be referenced again. It isn't difficult to see these scenes as fueling nightmares and prone to showing what animation can do where live action may not (which won't necessarily help quell nightmares, ironically). They may help teach a lesson, even if it gets broken in the process. Overall, this can be a tricky trope to implement. Make sure it suits the story and doesn't become to jarring that it slips into Nightmare Fuel territory, thus losing its intended effect (although combining this with Fridge Logic does a fine job as well). Of course, these also may not age well or come across the same way over time - think of the pink elephant sequence in Dumbo. Attitudes towards alcohol have changed and while it's true that anything in excess usually turns out wrong, in moderation it isn't nearly what Dumbo made it out to be.
The Good Guys Always Win: This perhaps goes without saying. It's classic Disney to let the good guys win in the end, similar to how Star Wars wound up the same way. Expect a happy ending where the heroes receive their just rewards and the villains (and it isn't uncommon for villains to be obvious villains in Disney films) will receive their comeuppance. This can sometimes lead to Nightmare Fuel, as is the case with Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, though it isn't always true. Subverting this can be tricky as it's easier said than done - especially if the death of a popular character is involved.
Scenery Porn: This may be a consequence of Disney's much-aped styles: the artists put some extra time into developing the scenery, giving us something that's aesthetically appealing. This can be particularly problematic if you spend more time describing/showing the scenery, to the point of halting the plot. Be sure to remember the Law of Conversation of Detail and, you know, the plot to curtail this.
As such, there is little surprise they share a few tropes in common. In fact, they even named a few tropes (at the time of this writing any case - this may change). So, here are a list of tropes to look out for, with a bit of commentary as to why they may or may not work.
Disneyfication: Disney is prone to adapting fairy tales into softer versions of themselves. It isn't the first and likely won't be the last. The basic idea is the company removes any material they feel would be objectionable to the target audience (in this case, minors - or perhaps more accurately, the parents of minors). If done properly, it can be quite entertaining and serve as the antithesis to the other extreme, which undeniably would horrify some audiences. This isn't to say they won't try to sneak adult jokes past the censors of course, but generally they won't try it as often. There will of course be people who remember the bloodier versions of the tale and bemoan any attempts to lighten it for the sake of a story; in their defense. As such, be careful when attempting this. It's relatively easy to fall into the trap of assuming kids won't notice mistakes and thus not give a crap about fixing anything. Just remember that children love a good story as much as we do, even if it is true they are more forgiving, shall we we say.
Disney Acid Sequence: Oh dear, we're in strange territory now. Yes, Disney is known for including peculiar scenes that may or may not be drug-induced and may never be referenced again. It isn't difficult to see these scenes as fueling nightmares and prone to showing what animation can do where live action may not (which won't necessarily help quell nightmares, ironically). They may help teach a lesson, even if it gets broken in the process. Overall, this can be a tricky trope to implement. Make sure it suits the story and doesn't become to jarring that it slips into Nightmare Fuel territory, thus losing its intended effect (although combining this with Fridge Logic does a fine job as well). Of course, these also may not age well or come across the same way over time - think of the pink elephant sequence in Dumbo. Attitudes towards alcohol have changed and while it's true that anything in excess usually turns out wrong, in moderation it isn't nearly what Dumbo made it out to be.
The Good Guys Always Win: This perhaps goes without saying. It's classic Disney to let the good guys win in the end, similar to how Star Wars wound up the same way. Expect a happy ending where the heroes receive their just rewards and the villains (and it isn't uncommon for villains to be obvious villains in Disney films) will receive their comeuppance. This can sometimes lead to Nightmare Fuel, as is the case with Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, though it isn't always true. Subverting this can be tricky as it's easier said than done - especially if the death of a popular character is involved.
Scenery Porn: This may be a consequence of Disney's much-aped styles: the artists put some extra time into developing the scenery, giving us something that's aesthetically appealing. This can be particularly problematic if you spend more time describing/showing the scenery, to the point of halting the plot. Be sure to remember the Law of Conversation of Detail and, you know, the plot to curtail this.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Fighting Spirit
It's surprising that this is one of the smaller entries (at the time of this writing); there are numerous connections one can make to other tropes.
Fighting Spirit is fairly simple, if not exactly define as one may initially think it is. The two can be combined, however, as the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Any case, Fighting Spirit is when a character's ki/chakra/what-have-you manifests in physical form to fight for them. It isn't difficult to connect this to magic or superpowers though it's a power that can also easily be assumed to be more spiritual than secular in nature. You really don't see superheroes using this that often either, though they can exist.
Immortal Iron Fist provides a good example of what one can do with a character utilizing Fighting Spirit and perhaps why you shouldn't. The West isn't immune to typecasting characters and there's a history of giving characters of Asian descent (whether they are from a country in the continent or not) these kinds of powers. This harkens partially to the likes of wuxia and thus we do see Fighting Spirit coupled with martial arts skills, whether or not said martial arts are accurately depicted.
As such, it's relatively easy to go this route and design a Fighting Spirit character that's Asian - and if the writer/producer/etc. is particularly bad at designing them, they may not know what country they should be from, making a stereotype even more likely as a consequence (especially if, you know . . .). Naturally remember Hanlon's Razor and don't go jumping the gun when it's easier to assume the people involved simply didn't realize they were doing it at the time.
Anyway, one way or another, there are a few character types that use this from time to time. Again, magic is a common thread, or anything magic-like in scope. Monks (and priests as well really) may sport this attribute, whether or not they also use martial arts. Ninja may focus their chakra into something fierce when prompted, depending how accurate to actual ninja abilities the material strives to be. Of course, said ninja may also taste the rainbow, causing them to stick out but that's what fantasy's for.
Fighting Spirit is fairly simple, if not exactly define as one may initially think it is. The two can be combined, however, as the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Any case, Fighting Spirit is when a character's ki/chakra/what-have-you manifests in physical form to fight for them. It isn't difficult to connect this to magic or superpowers though it's a power that can also easily be assumed to be more spiritual than secular in nature. You really don't see superheroes using this that often either, though they can exist.
Immortal Iron Fist provides a good example of what one can do with a character utilizing Fighting Spirit and perhaps why you shouldn't. The West isn't immune to typecasting characters and there's a history of giving characters of Asian descent (whether they are from a country in the continent or not) these kinds of powers. This harkens partially to the likes of wuxia and thus we do see Fighting Spirit coupled with martial arts skills, whether or not said martial arts are accurately depicted.
As such, it's relatively easy to go this route and design a Fighting Spirit character that's Asian - and if the writer/producer/etc. is particularly bad at designing them, they may not know what country they should be from, making a stereotype even more likely as a consequence (especially if, you know . . .). Naturally remember Hanlon's Razor and don't go jumping the gun when it's easier to assume the people involved simply didn't realize they were doing it at the time.
Anyway, one way or another, there are a few character types that use this from time to time. Again, magic is a common thread, or anything magic-like in scope. Monks (and priests as well really) may sport this attribute, whether or not they also use martial arts. Ninja may focus their chakra into something fierce when prompted, depending how accurate to actual ninja abilities the material strives to be. Of course, said ninja may also taste the rainbow, causing them to stick out but that's what fantasy's for.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Intimidating Revenue Services
They say there are only two certainties in the universe: death and taxes. There are various beliefs and personifications of death, enough to fill tomes. However, taxes are generally seen in a limited set of ways and there is one service in narratives that encapsulates the most prominent: Intimidatng Revenue Services.
It's little surprise that taxes are perceived as evil or impenetrable. Various names, ranging from gangsters to evangelists, have faced the law and lost thanks to evasive maneuvers during tax time. There are various reasons this happens and the two individuals represented aren't the only ones by far, as different as they are (not to mention the evangelist isn't necessarily representative of his group on this point; Al Capone is a different story).
So how should one represent a group such as the IRS in a story? First off, revenue services tend to be perceived (and thus shown) as highly and nigh-obfuscatingly bureaucratic in nature if they are a major force. Think Hermes Conrad from Futurama if you need a foundation. This lends itself to drama and comedy, as characters may inevitably face the turmoils within. It's effectively a foreign language to the public so it can be used effectively to accentuate the complications therein.
Characters in this setting needn't be emotionless and can may play the Spock role quite easily. This kind of character may be a villain, perhaps even a jerkass such as Walter Peck, though do be careful with this kind of villain. "Did not do the research" is a fairly easy trap to fall into with a topic as taxes and you don't want the audience to rooting for him if you screw up the characterization.
Making him on the side of good can provide comedic gold if you can handle him well. He may be the genius, even an insufferable one, prone to highfalutin speech and perpetually flabbergasted by rest of the cast's ability to keep on living. He may be unable to withstand the tribulations of socializing though too stoic to complain about it.
On a sidenote, the trope page does reveal a huge point: Fridge Logic. Be careful how you develop the setting, especially if you intend on introducing a taxman as an obstacle (if not an outright villain). Superheroes and supervillains, for example are notorious for standing up to adversity that would kill the average human being within nanoseconds. Superman came back from his own death at the hands of Darkseid. What hope does a taxman have if he went rogue? On that note, why would a taxman go rogue?
It's little surprise that taxes are perceived as evil or impenetrable. Various names, ranging from gangsters to evangelists, have faced the law and lost thanks to evasive maneuvers during tax time. There are various reasons this happens and the two individuals represented aren't the only ones by far, as different as they are (not to mention the evangelist isn't necessarily representative of his group on this point; Al Capone is a different story).
So how should one represent a group such as the IRS in a story? First off, revenue services tend to be perceived (and thus shown) as highly and nigh-obfuscatingly bureaucratic in nature if they are a major force. Think Hermes Conrad from Futurama if you need a foundation. This lends itself to drama and comedy, as characters may inevitably face the turmoils within. It's effectively a foreign language to the public so it can be used effectively to accentuate the complications therein.
Characters in this setting needn't be emotionless and can may play the Spock role quite easily. This kind of character may be a villain, perhaps even a jerkass such as Walter Peck, though do be careful with this kind of villain. "Did not do the research" is a fairly easy trap to fall into with a topic as taxes and you don't want the audience to rooting for him if you screw up the characterization.
Making him on the side of good can provide comedic gold if you can handle him well. He may be the genius, even an insufferable one, prone to highfalutin speech and perpetually flabbergasted by rest of the cast's ability to keep on living. He may be unable to withstand the tribulations of socializing though too stoic to complain about it.
On a sidenote, the trope page does reveal a huge point: Fridge Logic. Be careful how you develop the setting, especially if you intend on introducing a taxman as an obstacle (if not an outright villain). Superheroes and supervillains, for example are notorious for standing up to adversity that would kill the average human being within nanoseconds. Superman came back from his own death at the hands of Darkseid. What hope does a taxman have if he went rogue? On that note, why would a taxman go rogue?
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Bad Job, Worse Uniform: On-the-Field Practicality
Okay, so I briefly mentioned this trope in my previous blog. Seeing as it can easily fit in non-fiction and real life as much as it can for fiction, perhaps this is as good a time as any to add a new feature? For this, I have no set name but effectively it's simple: what happens when a trope appears in Real Life?
First things for Bad Job, Worse Uniform: chances are when you hear the trope, you think of a job along the lines of fast food restaurants or theme parks. The former can qualify under the cultural term McJob, which are generally considered dead-ends (and humiliating). These kinds of jobs, low-paying and with few opportunities for advancement, may emphasize workplace training over a university degree because chances are if you have a degree, you're overqualified for most positions in the workplace. These jobs aren't what most people become passionate about, save perhaps for the managers, and many may simply view them as 'day jobs,' hoping desperately they find the job they aspire to hold.
What kinds of behaviors might you see in such a job that invokes this trope? Well, depression is a formidable facet, given these jobs can (and generally do) emphasize menial labor. This can lead to chronic depression and weakened motivation to leave the job in favor of applying for a position that utilizes one's talents effectively and in an environment that generates positive attitudes. Also, the uniform can be one source of workplace violence, mostly if coupled with other factors; chances are it won't instill violence by itself. This is particularly problematic for jobs that thrust employees into regular contact with the public, such as the front counter of a fast food restaurant or being a mascot for a theme park.
Thirdly, dead-end jobs may also cause self-defeating rationalizations. There is a possibility the person involved doesn't know and doesn't care to know or is afraid to check anything about the job from opportunities to advancement to whether their degree in college actually gives them an advantage in career opportunities. They can subconsciously believe that it's safest to achieve 'job security' above all else, enough that they're willing to stay in a situation that can be harming them. This includes such issues as hypertension wherein enough stress to one's system increases the risk of cardiovascular and other problems, such as atherosclerosis.
All this does raise an important question: what qualifies as a bad uniform? We can answer this humorously of course though humor does raise an ultimate point: answers will on some level be subjective. There can be various reasons that drive a person to hate a uniform, from sexism to inaccuracies (among other reasons) to being enveloped completely while walking around in 100+ degree (Farhenheit) heat. There are numerous answers to that question and it depends on one's tolerance levels (along with cultural expectations) in the name of securing a job.
Beyond that, there are numerous other reasons that can influence how one feels about the job and the uniform. Some people don't know what they are capable of or what they truly enjoy doing. Others don't know what majors offer and guarantee, though it isn't hard to see why when even some of the most enticing ones might be a poor fit. Other times fear grips them so well that they mistakenly believe they won't have a chance elsewhere, enough that they're willing to tolerate a hostile work environment.
It's little wonder, then, why Bad Job, Worse Uniform exists as a trope. Obviously experiences can vary depending on the job itself but it has developed a reputation with specific employment, such as the Burger Fool. It's why there's a lingering perception that these jobs are jobs for teenagers or nerds (or both) and it is coupled with the perception that it is a dead-end job. Fiction commonly depicts such characters as Napoleon Dynamite or Jay and Silent Bob in such jobs (even if these specific examples don't exhibit that trope themselves), further cementing the misconception that only the socially-awkward apply.
First things for Bad Job, Worse Uniform: chances are when you hear the trope, you think of a job along the lines of fast food restaurants or theme parks. The former can qualify under the cultural term McJob, which are generally considered dead-ends (and humiliating). These kinds of jobs, low-paying and with few opportunities for advancement, may emphasize workplace training over a university degree because chances are if you have a degree, you're overqualified for most positions in the workplace. These jobs aren't what most people become passionate about, save perhaps for the managers, and many may simply view them as 'day jobs,' hoping desperately they find the job they aspire to hold.
What kinds of behaviors might you see in such a job that invokes this trope? Well, depression is a formidable facet, given these jobs can (and generally do) emphasize menial labor. This can lead to chronic depression and weakened motivation to leave the job in favor of applying for a position that utilizes one's talents effectively and in an environment that generates positive attitudes. Also, the uniform can be one source of workplace violence, mostly if coupled with other factors; chances are it won't instill violence by itself. This is particularly problematic for jobs that thrust employees into regular contact with the public, such as the front counter of a fast food restaurant or being a mascot for a theme park.
Thirdly, dead-end jobs may also cause self-defeating rationalizations. There is a possibility the person involved doesn't know and doesn't care to know or is afraid to check anything about the job from opportunities to advancement to whether their degree in college actually gives them an advantage in career opportunities. They can subconsciously believe that it's safest to achieve 'job security' above all else, enough that they're willing to stay in a situation that can be harming them. This includes such issues as hypertension wherein enough stress to one's system increases the risk of cardiovascular and other problems, such as atherosclerosis.
All this does raise an important question: what qualifies as a bad uniform? We can answer this humorously of course though humor does raise an ultimate point: answers will on some level be subjective. There can be various reasons that drive a person to hate a uniform, from sexism to inaccuracies (among other reasons) to being enveloped completely while walking around in 100+ degree (Farhenheit) heat. There are numerous answers to that question and it depends on one's tolerance levels (along with cultural expectations) in the name of securing a job.
Beyond that, there are numerous other reasons that can influence how one feels about the job and the uniform. Some people don't know what they are capable of or what they truly enjoy doing. Others don't know what majors offer and guarantee, though it isn't hard to see why when even some of the most enticing ones might be a poor fit. Other times fear grips them so well that they mistakenly believe they won't have a chance elsewhere, enough that they're willing to tolerate a hostile work environment.
It's little wonder, then, why Bad Job, Worse Uniform exists as a trope. Obviously experiences can vary depending on the job itself but it has developed a reputation with specific employment, such as the Burger Fool. It's why there's a lingering perception that these jobs are jobs for teenagers or nerds (or both) and it is coupled with the perception that it is a dead-end job. Fiction commonly depicts such characters as Napoleon Dynamite or Jay and Silent Bob in such jobs (even if these specific examples don't exhibit that trope themselves), further cementing the misconception that only the socially-awkward apply.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Bad Job, Worse Uniform
Some jobs just aren't given a good reputation. Whether it be a theme park, fast food establishment or kid-oriented restaurant, you know what these are. They are the jobs that are considered degrading, even if they really aren't (or the level of degradation is exaggerated).
This is where the uniform comes in.
There's a certain dress code, it seems, with the jobs you see on television. The Power Rangers, Sailor Moon and Neo from the Matrix all sport fabric people wish to emulate. Kings and queens prefer a little more shine in their clothes, because they can afford it and frills need company obviously. However, for the poor souls trapped in a menial job, they must relinquish their dignity in favor of a more 'unique' costume - even if it's nominally a uniform.
As stated, a Worse Uniform needn't be a costume necessarily; this is based on the job the character entails. It is meant more to reflect how bad the job is beyond the menial labor involved - and this type of uniform is usually involved with such jobs. As a result, you likely won't wonder what job the character holds while he is in uniform.
This is often implemented for characters who just want to get out of their 9-to-5 jobs, as well as those in their first jobs when they aren't experienced enough for hire in the glamorous ones. They may even hate the job enough to take action later, though until that happens, they're stuck with it or if they find a peaceful solution. A character in this situation may be the only sane employee and reflects constantly on how no one else seems to notice the job is hazardous to one's mental state.
This may also be used to give a character some much needed perspective. Not all jobs are as fascinating as they sound and a character with more naivety than anything else may suffer from the experience. Going in this direction depends on what moral you wish to impart, though do be careful with your Aesop. It also can depend on the mood you wish to develop, though it can present its own problems when you switch moods inappropriately.
Ultimately this may be depend more on the atmosphere you wish to present. It isn't unexpected that darker works, especially if it is a work changing its tone either during or after its original run, will take this trope incredibly seriously, enough that you wonder if it'll reach nightmarish levels. This is especially interesting for those works if they were originally very cutesy and nigh-diabetic in its sweetness only to become darker and edgier, whether due to Cerebus Syndrome in its own country or making the jump from one country to another and meeting culture shock.
This is where the uniform comes in.
There's a certain dress code, it seems, with the jobs you see on television. The Power Rangers, Sailor Moon and Neo from the Matrix all sport fabric people wish to emulate. Kings and queens prefer a little more shine in their clothes, because they can afford it and frills need company obviously. However, for the poor souls trapped in a menial job, they must relinquish their dignity in favor of a more 'unique' costume - even if it's nominally a uniform.
As stated, a Worse Uniform needn't be a costume necessarily; this is based on the job the character entails. It is meant more to reflect how bad the job is beyond the menial labor involved - and this type of uniform is usually involved with such jobs. As a result, you likely won't wonder what job the character holds while he is in uniform.
This is often implemented for characters who just want to get out of their 9-to-5 jobs, as well as those in their first jobs when they aren't experienced enough for hire in the glamorous ones. They may even hate the job enough to take action later, though until that happens, they're stuck with it or if they find a peaceful solution. A character in this situation may be the only sane employee and reflects constantly on how no one else seems to notice the job is hazardous to one's mental state.
This may also be used to give a character some much needed perspective. Not all jobs are as fascinating as they sound and a character with more naivety than anything else may suffer from the experience. Going in this direction depends on what moral you wish to impart, though do be careful with your Aesop. It also can depend on the mood you wish to develop, though it can present its own problems when you switch moods inappropriately.
Ultimately this may be depend more on the atmosphere you wish to present. It isn't unexpected that darker works, especially if it is a work changing its tone either during or after its original run, will take this trope incredibly seriously, enough that you wonder if it'll reach nightmarish levels. This is especially interesting for those works if they were originally very cutesy and nigh-diabetic in its sweetness only to become darker and edgier, whether due to Cerebus Syndrome in its own country or making the jump from one country to another and meeting culture shock.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Get a Load of That Square
Let's say you're running a business and you realize you can potentially attract the teenaged financial sector. What do you do?
You attempt to use current slang to suggest you keep a beat on current cultural practices. You see an epidemic of rock-and-roll singles hitting the Billboard Top 40 and everyone's referencing carefully-tailored lingo all around you. It may or may not matter if you're leery of what's popular in popular culture. What does matter is you find that teenagers are a lucrative source of profit and you need to convince them to buy your products - even if you aren't exactly 'with it.'
Whatever the aim may be, sometimes people screw the proverbial pooch and the target demographic realizes they aren't using slang properly.
This is the risk one plays with when attempting to sound Totally Radical. Plenty of shows, movies and games aimed at consumers 25 years or younger are developed by an older crowd, a crowd with a decidedly different childhood experience back in their days. This experience gives them, naturally, a very distinct reference pool for slang and popular culture, enough that it creates a lag between entertainment and reality. This isn't unexpected, as we tend to be our busiest prior to our 60s (or even 50s) and what sticks with us are those elements we found during our formative years.
This creates a disconnect between what a developer thinks and what is actually going on, whether it is happening on a conscious or subconscious level. As such, it bears mentioning: Popular culture tends to carry a lot of baggage and any outsider attempting to understand it generally won't grasp it entirely upon initial contact. This isn't to say s/he won't ever understand, of course, but merely that everyone previously unrelated to the phenomenon goes through a trial period where they necessarily won't know all the intricacies.
This means several things for a developer. Among them: first, while some slang becomes commonplace and even spoken to this day (how many times do people still say 'dude' well after its origins prior to the 20th century), new ones will always appear and are initially impenetrable to virgin ears. Second, cultures develop their own unique entertainment and developing unique twists on existing ones - to the point where any genre you might've known as a kid has blossomed to seemingly infinite variations. Third, people occasionally represent pop culture icons in a stage more primitive than their current state, thanks to several mitigating factors. Similarly, Popularity Polynomials can occur with or without warning, equally for well-known and obscure works.
Whatever the issues, the moral of the story is any given individual will be out of touch with modern popular culture for at least a brief period of time, when the Popularity Polynomial effect is against them especially. This isn't always bad - people can adapt and use cultural elements they aren't familiar with in creative and well-produced ways. However, it can cause a huge friction with others who may be fighting to remain relevant in an age when the Internet has gained impressive ground.
From a writer's perspective, this is a great way of illustrating how far a story has come if it's a particularly long-running series. As characters age and the timeline moves forward, the story will inevitably run into cultural evolution, assuming the author desires some realism in the narrative. Just as characters will experience culture shock when entering new environments, they can feel alienated by an old environment undergone various changes. Imagine how a hero might feel if he's returned home after a decade-long quest, only to find the kind of hero he represents isn't as popular as the dark, edgier, more Punisher-ier variant.
It's also a common comedy tool, wherein someone demonstrates how a character is out of place but is awkwardly trying to fit in. Parents in family shows may be victims of this, for example, as they try to be understanding of their offspring's interests. This can potentially lead to Author Tracts and Anvilicious stories, however, if the author is trying to paint one side as out-dated and, thus, irrelevant to modern sensibilities.
You attempt to use current slang to suggest you keep a beat on current cultural practices. You see an epidemic of rock-and-roll singles hitting the Billboard Top 40 and everyone's referencing carefully-tailored lingo all around you. It may or may not matter if you're leery of what's popular in popular culture. What does matter is you find that teenagers are a lucrative source of profit and you need to convince them to buy your products - even if you aren't exactly 'with it.'
Whatever the aim may be, sometimes people screw the proverbial pooch and the target demographic realizes they aren't using slang properly.
This is the risk one plays with when attempting to sound Totally Radical. Plenty of shows, movies and games aimed at consumers 25 years or younger are developed by an older crowd, a crowd with a decidedly different childhood experience back in their days. This experience gives them, naturally, a very distinct reference pool for slang and popular culture, enough that it creates a lag between entertainment and reality. This isn't unexpected, as we tend to be our busiest prior to our 60s (or even 50s) and what sticks with us are those elements we found during our formative years.
This creates a disconnect between what a developer thinks and what is actually going on, whether it is happening on a conscious or subconscious level. As such, it bears mentioning: Popular culture tends to carry a lot of baggage and any outsider attempting to understand it generally won't grasp it entirely upon initial contact. This isn't to say s/he won't ever understand, of course, but merely that everyone previously unrelated to the phenomenon goes through a trial period where they necessarily won't know all the intricacies.
This means several things for a developer. Among them: first, while some slang becomes commonplace and even spoken to this day (how many times do people still say 'dude' well after its origins prior to the 20th century), new ones will always appear and are initially impenetrable to virgin ears. Second, cultures develop their own unique entertainment and developing unique twists on existing ones - to the point where any genre you might've known as a kid has blossomed to seemingly infinite variations. Third, people occasionally represent pop culture icons in a stage more primitive than their current state, thanks to several mitigating factors. Similarly, Popularity Polynomials can occur with or without warning, equally for well-known and obscure works.
Whatever the issues, the moral of the story is any given individual will be out of touch with modern popular culture for at least a brief period of time, when the Popularity Polynomial effect is against them especially. This isn't always bad - people can adapt and use cultural elements they aren't familiar with in creative and well-produced ways. However, it can cause a huge friction with others who may be fighting to remain relevant in an age when the Internet has gained impressive ground.
From a writer's perspective, this is a great way of illustrating how far a story has come if it's a particularly long-running series. As characters age and the timeline moves forward, the story will inevitably run into cultural evolution, assuming the author desires some realism in the narrative. Just as characters will experience culture shock when entering new environments, they can feel alienated by an old environment undergone various changes. Imagine how a hero might feel if he's returned home after a decade-long quest, only to find the kind of hero he represents isn't as popular as the dark, edgier, more Punisher-ier variant.
It's also a common comedy tool, wherein someone demonstrates how a character is out of place but is awkwardly trying to fit in. Parents in family shows may be victims of this, for example, as they try to be understanding of their offspring's interests. This can potentially lead to Author Tracts and Anvilicious stories, however, if the author is trying to paint one side as out-dated and, thus, irrelevant to modern sensibilities.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Rated M For Manly
This is what I get for letting the "Random" button select my next topic. I had to try it!
Rated M For Manly is one of those tropes that you may know it when you see it, even if you aren't completely confident you can define it. In this case, it's fairly easy to visualize. Imagine every 'manly' stereotype played so seriously its Perma-Stubble cuts diamonds. This is what Testosterone Poisoning is parodying, for good reason: Rated M For Manly does occasionally make fun of itself, if unintentionally.
While non-gorefests can exhibit RMFM traits (e.g. the Old Spice commercials) but plenty of examples from the violent side of the tracks exist. Expect actors such as Rob Brown, Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger, often with guns in tow. They glorify the act of manliness and all that it entails, to the point of taking Refuge in Cool and demonstrating that they feel Truffaut was right.
From the get-go, we can see this isn't going to appeal to everyone. It exists solely to display and encourage every possible 'manly' trait imaginable. As a result, you don't see films about thin, lanky accountants in this situation (usually, but being an accountant doesn't preclude anything for this trope necessarily - it simply isn't typical). It would be naive to say it is appealing to every entertainment seeker when the very trope conjures up images of explosions, muscles and ceaseless arrays of bullets.
There are various reasons someone could use this trope, even if the audience isn't all excited about it. First - and this accents the fact it is a stereotype - it is incredibly easy shorthand for the Macho Man type. Ever look at Brock Samson and assume he couldn't fight his way out if needed? Most people wouldn't say the same thing about Homer Simpson, especially after the two are shown in action.
Second, you can easily shoehorn in the 'this man is insecure' plot. Comedy plots occasionally place a body-builder into a role that isn't typically associated with his image, such as a cook or family man. Heck, that almost qualifies with Junior, an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle wherein his character gets pregnant. These types of characters are not known for their versatility out of battle and it shows, sometimes painfully so if the comedy isn't up to snuff.
Thirdly, it can also be used to sell titles when you feel it isn't 'manly enough' without the edit. Yes, this can go a bit overboard or strange. The Legend of the Mystical Ninja for the SNES reached our shores and subsequently made one of the playable characters look strangely like Belushi. This demonstrates the one unusual bit of this trope: it can also cause the cover to lie about what lays underneath. Some examples, such as Dynasty Warriors, may not lose much when this is applied but others, such as the Mystical Ninja example, may fool the reader (or player, in this case) that they're about to cross the threshold into SNL manliness.
Rated M For Manly is one of those tropes that you may know it when you see it, even if you aren't completely confident you can define it. In this case, it's fairly easy to visualize. Imagine every 'manly' stereotype played so seriously its Perma-Stubble cuts diamonds. This is what Testosterone Poisoning is parodying, for good reason: Rated M For Manly does occasionally make fun of itself, if unintentionally.
While non-gorefests can exhibit RMFM traits (e.g. the Old Spice commercials) but plenty of examples from the violent side of the tracks exist. Expect actors such as Rob Brown, Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger, often with guns in tow. They glorify the act of manliness and all that it entails, to the point of taking Refuge in Cool and demonstrating that they feel Truffaut was right.
From the get-go, we can see this isn't going to appeal to everyone. It exists solely to display and encourage every possible 'manly' trait imaginable. As a result, you don't see films about thin, lanky accountants in this situation (usually, but being an accountant doesn't preclude anything for this trope necessarily - it simply isn't typical). It would be naive to say it is appealing to every entertainment seeker when the very trope conjures up images of explosions, muscles and ceaseless arrays of bullets.
There are various reasons someone could use this trope, even if the audience isn't all excited about it. First - and this accents the fact it is a stereotype - it is incredibly easy shorthand for the Macho Man type. Ever look at Brock Samson and assume he couldn't fight his way out if needed? Most people wouldn't say the same thing about Homer Simpson, especially after the two are shown in action.
Second, you can easily shoehorn in the 'this man is insecure' plot. Comedy plots occasionally place a body-builder into a role that isn't typically associated with his image, such as a cook or family man. Heck, that almost qualifies with Junior, an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle wherein his character gets pregnant. These types of characters are not known for their versatility out of battle and it shows, sometimes painfully so if the comedy isn't up to snuff.
Thirdly, it can also be used to sell titles when you feel it isn't 'manly enough' without the edit. Yes, this can go a bit overboard or strange. The Legend of the Mystical Ninja for the SNES reached our shores and subsequently made one of the playable characters look strangely like Belushi. This demonstrates the one unusual bit of this trope: it can also cause the cover to lie about what lays underneath. Some examples, such as Dynasty Warriors, may not lose much when this is applied but others, such as the Mystical Ninja example, may fool the reader (or player, in this case) that they're about to cross the threshold into SNL manliness.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Fride Logic
There's something to be said in regards to stock plots. They're adaptable and comfortable, great tools to let the audience know once the first frame enters the picture what transaction will take place without needing a word. It is also useful in developing characters, even if such development lacks the subtlety one desires (which, we must remind ourselves, is huge YMMV territory).
This, however, lends itself to one of the snarliest beasties in the TV Tropes oeuvre: Fridge Logic. Really, this can be applied to any instant of You Fail Logic Forever, but first things first. Fridge Logic refers to that situation where the show's over (though it needn't be a show) and you're staring at the delightfully enticing piece of pie left over from a party you threw last week. You mull over whether you should eat it now when it just now hits you: something in the show doesn't make sense! Why didn't I notice it then?
Ideally Fridge Logic occurs because the film is that engaging - and it can be difficult explaining it any other way. Of course people also don't always follow the same train of thought with any given show, whether they enjoyed it or loathed it, so some miss out on the Fridge Logic altogether. Either case, the key point with it is that the audience doesn't pick up on it until after the show's over and they're preoccupied with other concerns.
A crucial concept to consider when dealing with Fridge Logic is the MST3K Mantra: "We really should just relax." Sometimes it just isn't worth getting too wrapped up in; we can let a few inconsistencies, logic issues and similar topics slide if they are minor enough to be essentially a non-factor. This doesn't override the issues that are too major to be ignored, of course, but for the small stuff, we're capable of glossing over them. Remember Ed Wood's admonition: "Have you ever heard of the suspension of disbelief?"
Also, to continue the above point, people go through different thought processes and may find certain issues too problematic to ignore whereas others find no problem in ignoring it. Everyone's different; they are irritated by different things. People find Wolverine interesting and capable of winning any fight (which helps explain Wolverine Publicity, if not his decidedly non-Wolverine nature in any conceivable fashion) while others find him too annoying and too powerful (as an example, ask some comic fans that read his fight with Lobo in the Amalgam Universe how they feel about it).
In any event, there are numerous reasons people invoke Fridge Logic, as is the case with any similar logic tropes. Didn't Do The Research can occur on a small enough scale that for the most part the producers know what they're doing, save for one minor incident (mitosis doesn't work that way!). Producers maybe wanted to invoke the Rule of Cool and find Fridge Logic an acceptable risk (Batman rides a shark, it doesn't need an excuse - mileage may vary). As an extension of Didn't Do The Research, perhaps the issue wasn't the author's strong suit and he just had to bite the bullet on this one. Of course, there is also the lapse in judgment excuse.
Whatever the reason, we should expect it to happen every so often. No one's perfect and we may anticipate the occasional slip into Fridge Logic territory because, hey, we're human. When you face Fridge Logic in a work, as a member of the audience, you should ask yourself: how important was it to the plot, to a character, or to another major portion of the work? Could you live with the misstep in logic? Would an explanation really make it any better at the risk of ruining the message, atmosphere or other aspect? Did you enjoy it regardless of the situation and can you accept Rule of Cool/Awesome as an explanation?
For the writer: again, how important is the issue for the work? Would it require an explanation to get over that obstacle successful? This may take some work but in the end would the work benefit from it? How can you avoid it in the future if this is the case? Sometimes letting Fridge Logic happen isn't bad; a work won't die because of it. It may even be fun to watch because of said Fridge Logic, though don't expect that to happen.
This, however, lends itself to one of the snarliest beasties in the TV Tropes oeuvre: Fridge Logic. Really, this can be applied to any instant of You Fail Logic Forever, but first things first. Fridge Logic refers to that situation where the show's over (though it needn't be a show) and you're staring at the delightfully enticing piece of pie left over from a party you threw last week. You mull over whether you should eat it now when it just now hits you: something in the show doesn't make sense! Why didn't I notice it then?
Ideally Fridge Logic occurs because the film is that engaging - and it can be difficult explaining it any other way. Of course people also don't always follow the same train of thought with any given show, whether they enjoyed it or loathed it, so some miss out on the Fridge Logic altogether. Either case, the key point with it is that the audience doesn't pick up on it until after the show's over and they're preoccupied with other concerns.
A crucial concept to consider when dealing with Fridge Logic is the MST3K Mantra: "We really should just relax." Sometimes it just isn't worth getting too wrapped up in; we can let a few inconsistencies, logic issues and similar topics slide if they are minor enough to be essentially a non-factor. This doesn't override the issues that are too major to be ignored, of course, but for the small stuff, we're capable of glossing over them. Remember Ed Wood's admonition: "Have you ever heard of the suspension of disbelief?"
Also, to continue the above point, people go through different thought processes and may find certain issues too problematic to ignore whereas others find no problem in ignoring it. Everyone's different; they are irritated by different things. People find Wolverine interesting and capable of winning any fight (which helps explain Wolverine Publicity, if not his decidedly non-Wolverine nature in any conceivable fashion) while others find him too annoying and too powerful (as an example, ask some comic fans that read his fight with Lobo in the Amalgam Universe how they feel about it).
In any event, there are numerous reasons people invoke Fridge Logic, as is the case with any similar logic tropes. Didn't Do The Research can occur on a small enough scale that for the most part the producers know what they're doing, save for one minor incident (mitosis doesn't work that way!). Producers maybe wanted to invoke the Rule of Cool and find Fridge Logic an acceptable risk (Batman rides a shark, it doesn't need an excuse - mileage may vary). As an extension of Didn't Do The Research, perhaps the issue wasn't the author's strong suit and he just had to bite the bullet on this one. Of course, there is also the lapse in judgment excuse.
Whatever the reason, we should expect it to happen every so often. No one's perfect and we may anticipate the occasional slip into Fridge Logic territory because, hey, we're human. When you face Fridge Logic in a work, as a member of the audience, you should ask yourself: how important was it to the plot, to a character, or to another major portion of the work? Could you live with the misstep in logic? Would an explanation really make it any better at the risk of ruining the message, atmosphere or other aspect? Did you enjoy it regardless of the situation and can you accept Rule of Cool/Awesome as an explanation?
For the writer: again, how important is the issue for the work? Would it require an explanation to get over that obstacle successful? This may take some work but in the end would the work benefit from it? How can you avoid it in the future if this is the case? Sometimes letting Fridge Logic happen isn't bad; a work won't die because of it. It may even be fun to watch because of said Fridge Logic, though don't expect that to happen.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Amusing Alien
If there are any tropes that run the risk of causing Unfortunate Implications, this is among their ranks.
The Amusing Alien is exactly as the tin describes it. A character that fits this trope is a supernatural, otherworldly or otherwise uncommon creature designed specifically to amuse the audience in some fashion. Of course the term 'alien' need not be literal, in the sense that they are, in fact, from another world/planet. They are only required to be a creature that isn't common to the universe - if it is, they become Funny Foreigner instead.
You need to be careful when portraying an alien creature as the source of comedy, whether among the 'high' or 'low-brow' comedy. All that matters in satisfying the first half of the moniker is that the intention; they don't actually have to succeed, so long as the audience knows they were meant to be funny. As such, they can certainly be the source of unwanted aggravation, crossing the line into Scrappy territory if all goes wrong. It's a reminder that comedy is fickle and while the audience might know what you're attempting, they may hate you for it.
This is true whether or not the Amusing Alien is even a sensitive portrayal. A common distinction between the Amusing Alien and the Funny Foreigner is that we usually see the latter when we write stories using Earth as the setting. This is far from the only situation, as elves can be Funny Foreigners if the setting uses them plentifully, but nevertheless, it isn't unwarranted to make that distinction at times. In either case, Funny Foreigners occasionally overlap with stereotypes, causing them to be nearly (if not outright) prejudicial Scrappies if handled with intense disregard. Amusing Aliens aren't exempt from this practice, as many criticisms of Jar Jar Binks may attest.
As such, please proceed with caution when using the Amusing Alien in any setting, whether it be sci-fi or fantasy (as they tend to be). An Alien's failure and descent into Scrappy-hood need not be due to any insensitive portrayal, of course; horribly written comedy is enough on its own. Either case, you don't want value dissonance or mishandled comedy, even unintended, to ruin a work. Amusing Aliens do provide the benefit of working around most Unfortunate Implications revolving around Earth customs and expectations, but as mentioned, that is by no means true for everything.
The Amusing Alien is exactly as the tin describes it. A character that fits this trope is a supernatural, otherworldly or otherwise uncommon creature designed specifically to amuse the audience in some fashion. Of course the term 'alien' need not be literal, in the sense that they are, in fact, from another world/planet. They are only required to be a creature that isn't common to the universe - if it is, they become Funny Foreigner instead.
You need to be careful when portraying an alien creature as the source of comedy, whether among the 'high' or 'low-brow' comedy. All that matters in satisfying the first half of the moniker is that the intention; they don't actually have to succeed, so long as the audience knows they were meant to be funny. As such, they can certainly be the source of unwanted aggravation, crossing the line into Scrappy territory if all goes wrong. It's a reminder that comedy is fickle and while the audience might know what you're attempting, they may hate you for it.
This is true whether or not the Amusing Alien is even a sensitive portrayal. A common distinction between the Amusing Alien and the Funny Foreigner is that we usually see the latter when we write stories using Earth as the setting. This is far from the only situation, as elves can be Funny Foreigners if the setting uses them plentifully, but nevertheless, it isn't unwarranted to make that distinction at times. In either case, Funny Foreigners occasionally overlap with stereotypes, causing them to be nearly (if not outright) prejudicial Scrappies if handled with intense disregard. Amusing Aliens aren't exempt from this practice, as many criticisms of Jar Jar Binks may attest.
As such, please proceed with caution when using the Amusing Alien in any setting, whether it be sci-fi or fantasy (as they tend to be). An Alien's failure and descent into Scrappy-hood need not be due to any insensitive portrayal, of course; horribly written comedy is enough on its own. Either case, you don't want value dissonance or mishandled comedy, even unintended, to ruin a work. Amusing Aliens do provide the benefit of working around most Unfortunate Implications revolving around Earth customs and expectations, but as mentioned, that is by no means true for everything.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Guide Dang It
Imagine you're playing an RPG - it doesn't matter what the plot requires you to do. Maybe you're facing against a swarm of dire badger-pires. In a good RPG, defeating said badger-pires would appropriately difficult and not require you to read the minds of the develops.
In a bad RPG, they require you to know the fifteen spell under an element that you never knew existed because it never even mentioned it.
Welcome to the world of Guide Dang It, a trope so abused it feels like someone should've caught on by now. Admittedly this is an easy trope to misuse (as if there's any other reason for it to occur) and as games undergo development, there's always the chance mistakes happen. Still, this explains its ubiquitous nature in digital (and even non-digital) entertainment.
Now, this is so predominantly game-oriented that I felt this trope important to demonstrate a key aspect of trope use. Any trope, no matter how strong its predilections, may find a niche in writing. This trope is useful for showing how characters react and solve issues where they know the situation wasn't being fair, before it becomes crucial to the plot (which should be the biggest reason you try this). Obviously it must be adapted to the particular situation; not all environments possess video games, for example. However, most societies use some form of diversionary entertainment and some games simply don't play by their own rules.
It also provides flavor to the world, showing what a world's citizens do for fun. It also obviously shows what happens when a world's entertainment goes foul and cheats to win. This, again, gives characters an opportunity to bust their chops and see how they pull victory when the stakes are stacked against them.
In a bad RPG, they require you to know the fifteen spell under an element that you never knew existed because it never even mentioned it.
Welcome to the world of Guide Dang It, a trope so abused it feels like someone should've caught on by now. Admittedly this is an easy trope to misuse (as if there's any other reason for it to occur) and as games undergo development, there's always the chance mistakes happen. Still, this explains its ubiquitous nature in digital (and even non-digital) entertainment.
Now, this is so predominantly game-oriented that I felt this trope important to demonstrate a key aspect of trope use. Any trope, no matter how strong its predilections, may find a niche in writing. This trope is useful for showing how characters react and solve issues where they know the situation wasn't being fair, before it becomes crucial to the plot (which should be the biggest reason you try this). Obviously it must be adapted to the particular situation; not all environments possess video games, for example. However, most societies use some form of diversionary entertainment and some games simply don't play by their own rules.
It also provides flavor to the world, showing what a world's citizens do for fun. It also obviously shows what happens when a world's entertainment goes foul and cheats to win. This, again, gives characters an opportunity to bust their chops and see how they pull victory when the stakes are stacked against them.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Intrepid Merchant
One of the most common methods of establish a sense of realism in a world, no matter how exotic, is to provide characters jobs that we recognize. They make take a form we recognize, which is largely dependent on the world's atmosphere and the writer's intent (this includes any artistic liberties and suspension of disbelief). For example, we may see an astronaut land on the Moon in 1967 with something vaguely resembling the Apollo 11 capsule. After all, it worked marvelously for the real world.
On the other hand, we may see exotic jobs, ranging from magical architects to symbiotic planar aquarium cleaners (however you wish to interpret that)or jobs that we simply don't see performed a certain way anymore if we even see them (smiths, scribes, etc). We may also see jobs performed in ways that Fridge Logic - more on this later perhaps - causes readers to scratch their heads. This brings us to the Intrepid Merchant.
Merchants are, of course, a common sight - we know them today as purveyors of computers, food, television and who knows what else. Intrepid Merchants are a more adventurous breed, willing to put themselves in harm's way to get and sell just about anything (or, in some case, literally anything). This is common for video game entertainment, where you might see a merchant set up shop just when you need him - and you will need him, because who else is around?
This may pose problems, of course. Fridge Logic could dictate that there's no reason for him to set up shop here, especially if it's such hallowed ground that outsiders are forbidden from entering, less they 'taint' its sacredness or whatnot, or a land so distant and difficult to reach that no one's going to be there except when the Plot Coupon demands it. Are we to believe he is psychic, or perhaps simply tailing the heroes?
It also poses a problem if the area is infested with monsters. If the heroes needed several elixir, donkeys, a compass, enough food and water to last for three days and nights and the fighting prowess of nineteen knights and a squire to get up here, what did the merchant do? Club monsters with tins of Altoids?
When creating an Intrepid Merchant, here are a few tips. Giving him a name and complicated backstory won't be important if his sole role is to sell one item and disappear into the night. Conservation of Details won't be happy if you spent insidiously long amounts of time on him. Any details you spend on him are better spent on establishing what kind of merchants go out here during the world-building stage, thus explaining why he's able to make this kind of journey. You won't need to know who he is so much as what culture he's from and the basic logic behind his sheer existence here (like if he's from the king's entourage, if he's making a pilgrimage, etc.).
You can possibly make him a recurring character, offering a glimpse into a culture living in his world. This may be tricky as if you intend on him meeting the cast regularly, the audience will expect a bit more from his personality and motivation, hence creating a more developed history. One possible way to work around this is instead of one character, you have one culture whose sole existence is predicated by its people devoting their lives to mercantilism. This borders upon the destruction of suspension of disbelief so be prepared to elaborate a tiny bit, at least, on their culture and adding in something to keep it from seeming like a culture of mercantile robots.
On the other hand, we may see exotic jobs, ranging from magical architects to symbiotic planar aquarium cleaners (however you wish to interpret that)or jobs that we simply don't see performed a certain way anymore if we even see them (smiths, scribes, etc). We may also see jobs performed in ways that Fridge Logic - more on this later perhaps - causes readers to scratch their heads. This brings us to the Intrepid Merchant.
Merchants are, of course, a common sight - we know them today as purveyors of computers, food, television and who knows what else. Intrepid Merchants are a more adventurous breed, willing to put themselves in harm's way to get and sell just about anything (or, in some case, literally anything). This is common for video game entertainment, where you might see a merchant set up shop just when you need him - and you will need him, because who else is around?
This may pose problems, of course. Fridge Logic could dictate that there's no reason for him to set up shop here, especially if it's such hallowed ground that outsiders are forbidden from entering, less they 'taint' its sacredness or whatnot, or a land so distant and difficult to reach that no one's going to be there except when the Plot Coupon demands it. Are we to believe he is psychic, or perhaps simply tailing the heroes?
It also poses a problem if the area is infested with monsters. If the heroes needed several elixir, donkeys, a compass, enough food and water to last for three days and nights and the fighting prowess of nineteen knights and a squire to get up here, what did the merchant do? Club monsters with tins of Altoids?
When creating an Intrepid Merchant, here are a few tips. Giving him a name and complicated backstory won't be important if his sole role is to sell one item and disappear into the night. Conservation of Details won't be happy if you spent insidiously long amounts of time on him. Any details you spend on him are better spent on establishing what kind of merchants go out here during the world-building stage, thus explaining why he's able to make this kind of journey. You won't need to know who he is so much as what culture he's from and the basic logic behind his sheer existence here (like if he's from the king's entourage, if he's making a pilgrimage, etc.).
You can possibly make him a recurring character, offering a glimpse into a culture living in his world. This may be tricky as if you intend on him meeting the cast regularly, the audience will expect a bit more from his personality and motivation, hence creating a more developed history. One possible way to work around this is instead of one character, you have one culture whose sole existence is predicated by its people devoting their lives to mercantilism. This borders upon the destruction of suspension of disbelief so be prepared to elaborate a tiny bit, at least, on their culture and adding in something to keep it from seeming like a culture of mercantile robots.
Hello and Welcome
Hello and welcome to Writer's Block, where I will periodically write about the process of writing. Never again will I purposefully use the word 'write' so many times but it gets the gist across.
So, who am I? Well, I am Brunicus and I am a writer. I have been writing longer than I remember, but that isn't exactly difficult given my ADHD loves making me forget. Regardless, my penchant is for comedy and I sporadically take in sci-fi and fantasy, whichever strikes my fancy. I'm not as avid a reader as some writers may be, to my detriment I'm sure, but alas.
All right, so what shall I do here? I will periodically write about a trope, as pulled from TV Tropes. Each time I do I will give my thoughts and suggestions as to how it, if by no means in a comprehensive way. They are but examples and there are countless way to both use and abuse any trope within the site's text-addled pages. Feel free to purview this site for your own personal tastes.
So, who am I? Well, I am Brunicus and I am a writer. I have been writing longer than I remember, but that isn't exactly difficult given my ADHD loves making me forget. Regardless, my penchant is for comedy and I sporadically take in sci-fi and fantasy, whichever strikes my fancy. I'm not as avid a reader as some writers may be, to my detriment I'm sure, but alas.
All right, so what shall I do here? I will periodically write about a trope, as pulled from TV Tropes. Each time I do I will give my thoughts and suggestions as to how it, if by no means in a comprehensive way. They are but examples and there are countless way to both use and abuse any trope within the site's text-addled pages. Feel free to purview this site for your own personal tastes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)