Who else here is a TV Troper?

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

As in the majestic tvtropes.org. I love that site, great for when you have writers block and just need something to think about. In June I finally discovered that they have a forum... and now it's allure is even harder to escape.

What tropes irritate you? What ones do you enjoy? What ones do you employ? (haha see I snuck that little rhyme in there)

[Jim North]

I be a troper. I've even made a few minor edits and additions myself. I also find myself using the trope names there more and more often in regular conversation about shows and movies. It's great to be able to simply say "Matt had the idiot ball that episode" to get a point across.

PS, the Matt I'm referring to there is the guy from Heroes. I don't think anyone else forgets they have powers as often as him, with perhaps the sole exception being Peter. At least Peter has something of an excuse, tho', since he's had so damn many of 'em.

[Dracomax]

I had the wxperience in a game recently where I said,"he's either the big bad, or at least the dragon"
The DM responded " why do you think he's a dragon?"
Cue explanation...

[Bustertheclown]

I like me some occasional Trope action. Usually at the least opportune times, like now, when I should be sleeping. So, you know, thanks for that distraction.

[Komiyan]

I read it but I try not to click it, lest I am stuck to the spot for several hours.

Someone did a whole page about my comic, which was very fun to read.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I read it but I try not to click it, lest I am stuck to the spot for several hours.

Someone did a whole page about my comic, which was very fun to read.

Whoa... that is a pretty hefty page there. Do you know the person who made the page or did you just find it suddenly? Because that would make it even cooler.

[IVstudios]

I love TV topes. It makes you aware of so many things you've never noticed before in movies and TV. I often confuse my friends who don't read it by making reference to the terms.

There's one I've been looking for for a long time but have never found. Is there a term for how people driving cars in movies never seem to notice when someone jumps on top of them while they're driving? Or never slow down or stop when they almost hit someone?

[McDuffies]

TV tropes is a fun site, and it can actually be pretty useful for a writer because it helps one realise how often he uses contrieved/illogical/unconvincing common places without even noticing it. And it's a good place for finding interesting movies, series, or whatever.

I don't use those terms though. It's a thin line between tongue-in-cheek adopting them, and straight arrogance in not realising that the whole world doesn't get off on the same fads as you do.

I don't read Tv Tropes very often though. The reason is, I often get very annoyed by the examples that "tropers" give. Pages are sometimes ridiculously large, and filled with examples that don't actually illustrate trope in question, some people either don't really understanding the particular trope, or just like to see their words on the page even if their pop-culture knowledge doesn't reach as far as to find actual example.
I already mentioned how I thought that on "gorn" page most of people didn't realise that gorn is not the same as excessive violence, but it happens on most of other pages too, as soon as they grow a bit more popular. The worst is probably the wallbanger page, where most of examples mentioned are either not as bad as they say, or actually quite awesome.
I suppose one could read the half of actual page, and stop right at the place where people start saying things like "I know this is not an actual example of the said trope, but I'll mention it anyway..."
I suppose it would be a pretty awesome place if they were more selective about people who write, or if they edited things more heavily. It'd proly be less fun for them but more fun for us.

[Cope]

I don't use those terms though. It's a thin line between tongue-in-cheek adopting them, and straight arrogance in not realising that the whole world doesn't get off on the same fads as you do.

It's not necessarily arrogance; some of these terms are useful because they don't otherwise exist. For example, I noticed the Sorting Algorithm of Evil years before I knew what to call it (besides "that thing where stronger bad guys show up as the show progresses"). Sure, if you bring it up in conversation people might not know what you're talking about...but that's no different to all the emoticons and initialisms people habitually use on the Web without explaining what they mean.

[Jim North]

The worst is probably the wallbanger page, where most of examples mentioned are either not as bad as they say, or actually quite awesome.

YMMV

I suppose it would be a pretty awesome place if they were more selective about people who write, or if they edited things more heavily.

And turn it into something that is not at all TV Tropes anymore? Bleh.

[IVstudios]

I suppose it would be a pretty awesome place if they were more selective about people who write, or if they edited things more heavily.

And turn it into something that is not at all TV Tropes anymore? Bleh.

qft

[McDuffies]

I suppose it would be a pretty awesome place if they were more selective about people who write, or if they edited things more heavily.

And turn it into something that is not at all TV Tropes anymore? Bleh.

qft

And why is it that TV Tropes is not TV Tropes when it's not a complete mess?

YMMV

I have no problem with that. But some examples go beyond the "your milleage may vary" and go straight to the "this person clearly never gets out of his house" trope.

It's not necessarily arrogance; some of these terms are useful because they don't otherwise exist. For example, I noticed the Sorting Algorithm of Evil years before I knew what to call it (besides "that thing where stronger bad guys show up as the show progresses"). Sure, if you bring it up in conversation people might not know what you're talking about...but that's no different to all the emoticons and initialisms people habitually use on the Web without explaining what they mean.

I'm not saying that it's every use is arrogance. In fact if you're using it in company where most of people know what it means - when you don't have to spend more time explaining the term than you would if you never used it in the first place - well, it's normal if anything, every trade has it's slang. It's just that I can already imagine growing army of comic-book-guy-like types slighting you and calling you ignorant because you don't know what "uncanny valley" is.

[IVstudios]

And why is it that TV Tropes is not TV Tropes when it's not a complete mess?

We are not Wikipedia. We're a buttload more informal. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index. We encourage breezy language and original thought (and won't object to the occasional snarky comment, either).

[McDuffies]

And why is it that TV Tropes is not TV Tropes when it's not a complete mess?

We are not Wikipedia. We're a buttload more informal. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index. We encourage breezy language and original thought (and won't object to the occasional snarky comment, either).

I'm pretty sure this reffers to individual trope pages, and not to examples given above trope definitions, which is what I was talking about.

[Jim North]

And why is it that TV Tropes is not TV Tropes when it's not a complete mess?

Just because TVT is loose and free doesn't automatically mean it's a complete mess. There have been some initiatives taken in the past few months, in fact, to wrangle the examples into better order . . . for example, virtually every page now has its examples sorted into various categories instead of just having them all lumped together like they were when I first started wandering the site earlier in the year. Just because it isn't heavily edited and selective about its contributors doesn't mean it hits the other extreme of chaotic morass. My personal experience is that it manages to hit a very nice middle ground between the two.

And very much backing up the quote from the front page IV posted above. They make it very clear from the get-go exactly what kind of site they are.

YMMV

I have no problem with that. But some examples go beyond the "your milleage may vary" and go straight to the "this person clearly never gets out of his house" trope.

And just what's wrong with that?!

*hunkers down in a couch cushion fort to defend against the horrible rigors of "outside"*

I'm not saying that it's every use is arrogance. In fact if you're using it in company where most of people know what it means - when you don't have to spend more time explaining the term than you would if you never used it in the first place - well, it's normal if anything, every trade has it's slang. It's just that I can already imagine growing army of comic-book-guy-like types slighting you and calling you ignorant because you don't know what "uncanny valley" is.

Sure you can already imagine it, because it already happens, and has for quite some time. Use of various terms to describe tropes pre-dates TV Tropes by a long long long while, as well as arrogance associated with their use. Heck, there's even a few pages on TVT dedicated to these older lists of trope names; I ran across one myself yesterday. The point is, the arrogance didn't grow out of control before, and I highly doubt it's going to do so now. It's normal if anything . . . every trade has its snobs.

And I haven't really had to spend that much time defining the trope names I use to folks. Most of 'em seem to pick up the ideas pretty quickly on their own. Most of the names have been designed, after all, for just that . . . ease of comprehension through descriptive brevity.

We are not Wikipedia. We're a buttload more informal. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index. We encourage breezy language and original thought (and won't object to the occasional snarky comment, either).

I'm pretty sure this reffers to individual trope pages, and not to examples given above trope definitions, which is what I was talking about.

No, it refers to both.

[Komiyan]

I read it but I try not to click it, lest I am stuck to the spot for several hours.

Someone did a whole page about my comic, which was very fun to read.

Whoa... that is a pretty hefty page there. Do you know the person who made the page or did you just find it suddenly? Because that would make it even cooler.

I saw it in my referral links. I don't know who wrote it, but they completely rock.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Whoa, that's even cooler. And it's so detailed... you have more examples there than there are for a lot of mainstream stuff I've seen. Looks like someone did not do did the research!

[McDuffies]

Just because TVT is loose and free doesn't automatically mean it's a complete mess. There have been some initiatives taken in the past few months, in fact, to wrangle the examples into better order . . . for example, virtually every page now has its examples sorted into various categories instead of just having them all lumped together like they were when I first started wandering the site earlier in the year. Just because it isn't heavily edited and selective about its contributors doesn't mean it hits the other extreme of chaotic morass. My personal experience is that it manages to hit a very nice middle ground between the two.

I think it's quite messy. I mean, if you're planing to read a bit more popular article, prepare to spend several hours reading that one single article, unless you get bored and give up. Makes reading very inconvenient, kills the joy for me.
I guess I'd advocate that from time to time they weed out examples that aren't very illustrative of the trope or are pointless. Or I'd advocate a bit more self-restraint to tropers, ie adding something only if they have something to say.

And very much backing up the quote from the front page IV posted above. They make it very clear from the get-go exactly what kind of site they are.

It's their site, they can do whatever they want with it. I just think the site would be more informative, entertaining and even relevant if it was a bit less informal. I'm sure they're having tons of fun and would have much less fun otherwise, but on the other side I think that readers would be having more fun.

. . . every trade has its snobs.

That is true. One has to be careful not to join them, though.

Most of the names have been designed, after all, for just that . . . ease of comprehension through descriptive brevity.

I find that lots of them are named after examples or quotes that are rather obscure.

We are not Wikipedia. We're a buttload more informal. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index. We encourage breezy language and original thought (and won't object to the occasional snarky comment, either).

I'm pretty sure this reffers to individual trope pages, and not to examples given above trope definitions, which is what I was talking about.

No, it refers to both.[/quote]
Then how does "gathering evidence by the Wiki Magic" and "availability through Main Trope Index" work for examples?

[Jim North]

I mean, if you're planing to read a bit more popular article, prepare to spend several hours reading that one single article,

I usually do. In fact, I think most people do just that. There's reasons they say TV Tropes will ruin your life. And being able to spend all that time reading those examples is one of the biggest joys of the site for me.

I just think the site would be more informative, entertaining and even relevant if it was a bit less informal. I'm sure they're having tons of fun and would have much less fun otherwise, but on the other side I think that readers would be having more fun.

I'd have to disagree with this greatly . . . making it more formal would suck a great deal of the fun out of the site for me, and I've found it plenty informative (I've learned about a great number of new movies, shows, comics, and the like while cruising the site), entertaining (the trope descriptions are usually hilarious in one way or another), and certainly relevant (though I've been aware of a great deal of these tropes for quite a while during my time as a writer, having them more neatly organized like this has been helping me better sort them in my head while working on various ideas).

. . . every trade has its snobs.

That is true. One has to be careful not to join them, though.

*snubs McDuffies*

Most of the names have been designed, after all, for just that . . . ease of comprehension through descriptive brevity.

I find that lots of them are named after examples or quotes that are rather obscure.

Pah, not if you're the kind of nerd that would be using these kind of terms in regular conversation anyway.

Then how does "gathering evidence by the Wiki Magic" and "availability through Main Trope Index" work for examples?

Those two don't, so much, sure, but the other stuff still goes for both. If you follow the There Is No Such Thing As Notability link, for example, you'll see that it talks a good bit about both definitions/descriptions and examples. Why would you think they'd hold examples to higher standards than they would the actual definitions anyway?

[McDuffies]

I suppose because pages have a certain self-editing method to them (wiki magic). And I think that cluttered pages are more of a problem from reader's perspective than too many pages. You pick which pages you'll read, so if it's uninteresting topic, you don't read it. With examples, since they're all sequentially on the page, you get stuck reading bad ones along with the good ones.