TV Tropes: Threat or Menace?

[roseembolism]

The Television Tropes wiki has introduced a new service, called Useful Notes, which is a collection of more-or-less factual articles designed to inform and educate readers, and "debunk common media stereotypes". In other words, it's to do much the same thing that TV Tropes was originally created to do.  It's interesting that TV Tropes has become so huge and unwieldy it needs a fact page, but not that surprising. I personally think that some time ago TV Tropes passed the point of usability and is now just about how many video game and anime series references one can fit to a given trope.

I've also been hearing from some writers that TV Tropes has become an active detriment to their writing anything. Some have told me that they develop a writer's block after reading TV Tropes, and others have mentioned that they get too depressed to write. In both case, they state thhe problem as being "WEll, all the tropes have been done before, so I can't do anything original.

I can't help but think this is a product of Television Topes own success. TV Tropes used to be useful both in describing some of the "Cheats" that writers used, and in pointing out the cliched, racist and sexist elements in TV shows. However I'm starting to see it used as a substitute for actually describing what's going on in a given piece of fiction. Believe it or not there IS a difference between Madmen and Supernatural, even if they share some tropes- which I know they do, because ALL shows share tropes. That's where I suspect the sense of depression really comes in, from knowing that one's work won't actually be judged for what it has to say or the quality of our writing, but merely cataloged on what tropes people can glom onto. It's description as a substitute for criticism.

Not only has the situation become like that joke where prisoners simply say the numbers of jokes, TV Tropes is rapidly becoming prescriptive, not descriptive. I've actually heard writers say "Well, I'm doing a story about subject X, so according to TV Tropes, I need to have Tropes A, B, and G-R in it. Hell, I can practically do my writing by numbers now." It's like an author listening too much to what fans want to see- the end result is Piers Anthony.

I suppose the answer could be as simple as a writer not reading TV Tropes, but TV Tropes has had a valuable role to play in pointing out bad writing and cliches, especially those that are racist, sexist, or other-ist. And of course it leaves the problem of other people putting too much emphasis into TV Tropes. Maybe it's just time to start over, or do some vigorous editing of the site?

What do you all think?

Comments

[sandpanther.livejournal.com]

For the writers complaining I say:

1) There are no new ideas. Everything's a recycling of stuff that's been done before. Deal with it.

2) Time-worn tropes are time-worn tropes for a reason. They touch on communal shared experiences. Just because it's a trope doesn't mean it's bad.

3) If an author feels they have to follow certain tropes because they're writing on a certain subject, that's their bad. Creativity is knowing the rules and understanding when and how to break them.


Tropes aren't bad. Just phoning in the work is bad. I (and many other people) read Regency romances, which are about as color by numbers as it can get. But is Jane Austin a bad writer because her books are all formulaic? I love Ultraman Moebius in part because it follows all the tropes -- in a genre that's as highly formulaic as Regency romances, maybe even more -- but it puts its own personalized spin on them, weaving them seamlessly into the story so they look like they belong there. Tropes are only bad when writers patch them onto a story because they think they need to be there. (Or, as is more likely the case, the studio or the producers state they must be there.)

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Good points all.

I would say though that though maybe there are no general ideas, that doesn't really touch on the things that make a given work unique. The characterization, the plotting, the dialogue, all are things that really show the imprint of the writers hand, and those are the things that make a work unique or not.

Take the novel "Kitty and the Midnight Hour". There's certainly been books about reluctant werewolves, and ones about women breaking free from bad relationships and developing something to live for, and certainly any number of urban supernatural books. Five seconds of Googling reveals the TV Tropes machine going *ka-chunk ka-chunk ka-chunk* spitting out the tropes. But the thing that makes the books unique and very readable is the voice of the character, how she deals emotionally with he situations she finds herself in, and how she works herself up from a state of dependancy to independence in a very believable way. TV Tropes has very little to say about the things that make the story unique.

You're right- tropes themselves aren't bad. But giving them too much attention is missing the forest for the trees.

[fintach.livejournal.com]

Are those books actually any good? I've seen them in stores occasionally, but never looked through them.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

I found the first novel at least, excellent, because the writer did her research on werewolf packs, and thought about how wolf psychology might interact with human psychology. Interesting parallels are also made between being a low-ranked wolf and an emotionally abusive relationship, with the desire to use non-confrontational ways to get what one wants.

Despite this it's not a grim book- it definitely has quite a bit of personal growth in it. I recommend it.

[mithriltabby]

Bah. TV Tropes just makes themes easier to locate; it’s not like people haven’t been doing this for years when analyzing literature and mythology. If something is a overly common trope, that gives you ample opportunity to either subvert it or take the time to execute it very well indeed so it’s considered exemplary rather than derivative. Instead of “Well, I’m doing a story about subject X, so according to TV Tropes, I need to have Tropes A, B, and G–R in it.”, say “I need to turn Tropes A, B, and G–R on their freaking heads.”

[rfmcdpei.livejournal.com]

Mind if I link?

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

I'd be honored!

[fintach.livejournal.com]

I've looked at TV Tropes once in a while. I've seen a few entries I thought were pretty good and others I thought were stretching the idea of a "trope" pretty far. Perhaps beyond the breaking point.

But then, I've noticed that people online seem to confuse tropes with themes, archetypes, plots and other such things.

As for writers writing to tropes, I guess they can outline however they want, but the final product is what matters.

Personally, I think it's the story that matters. If the story needs an old witch living alone in the woods, then she better damned well be there or the story suffers. Putting her there or leaving her out just because people will call it a trope is making a mistake.

As for worrying about people not judging a work on the quality of the writing but on the tropes, well, I think the first lesson a writer needs to learn is that the reader is outside authorial control. No matter what the work is, some readers will misinterpret it, hate it, read a lot of personal crap into it and otherwise misunderstand it terribly. They'll talk about how elements are obviously references to X, Y or Z from the author's life, regardless of what was actually going on in the author's head when the words were written. They'll judge or dismiss the whole work on a single element, plot point, character, word, cover art, typeface, or other. They'll be full of ideas about how it could have been better.

But some people will get it. Write for them.