/lit/ - Literature

I don't hate it. I just don't like it that much anymore. It's babby's guide to analyzing fiction, which means you can gain something from it when you're dumb enough, but if you never move in, it leads to shit like that:

>>>/tg/218227

Ten people telling OP not to write a Mary Sue, and pretty much pushing the themes he "ought" to use in his face, all so that he doesn't "accidentally" a Mary Sue. One or two of the posts are actually by me, by the way. Anyways, if all you're competent enough to do is writing around pitfalls, then your work will not end up terrible, but it will probably end up mediocre. And that's what TvTropes encourages. The result? Your work has no Scrappy, but also no mentionable character. There is no Damsel in Distress, but also no heroic rescue, and the climax ends up like shit because now, you don't know what to do anymore. Your work in general is pseudo-original as fuck, with lasers shooting invisible beams, and "unpredictable", with people bringing knifes to gunfights actually losing. Creating an overarching theme, complex characterization, good action, that's something TvTropes doesn't tell you how to do. Like debating with creationists, or reading relationship-advice online, it's not the worst thing to start practicing with, but if you haven't outgrown it after a few years, you'll end up worse for it.

i don't.

it's just that in my case it got old pretty quick.

>>8673

Some of those posts suggest that a lack of balance in character virtues and flaws are what's wrong with Sues. It's just the fake drama that's annoying about them. There is nothing wrong with James Bond, Hercule Poirot, or Duke Nukem.

>Two of the most exciting things to read in fiction are conflicts between characters that are actually both good guys, and realistic internal conflicts

I wouldn't say that's the criteria.

Seems we discussed this a while back in a slightly different context. Link is to another thread:

>>7748

Briefly, in an effort to string out their initial popularity, the site morphed into an monstrous attempt to be all things to all people. Plus the novelty wore off.

Hate is too strong a term. I think most everyone here would rather say that cruising TvTropes long enough leads one to viewing the site through meh-pilled glasses. There are better, more focused resources out there.

>>8677

>I wouldn't say that's the criteria.

That was my post. I don't think those are the criteria to not writing a Sue, just ways to make characters compelling. That you will end up not writing a Mary Sue is really just a nice side effect. The main thing I wanted to show was that if you know how to create good characters, then you don't have to worry about Mary Sues anyway.

Another way of creating interesting characters is by making them so awesome or funny that people just don't care about whether they're reading a Mary Sue. That's extremely risky to pull off when writing fan fiction, though, so I didn't suggest it.

>>8680

I don't think conflicts or interesting characters are usually the important thing, but they can be done when all other more important things have been.

In the last thread I gave Gone in 60 Seconds as an example of how to create a good character by prioritizing something else. Another examples are the Duke, who is only memorable when his game is fun, and Poirot, because he is only compelling after solving a few cases, and because he is a puzzle in himself.

In none of these is it too important if the characters are good or bad or if they have internal conflicts, except incidentally as part of solving the case.

>>8673

>Like debating with creationists, or reading relationship-advice online

I couldn't had come up with a better comparison myself.

Thank you, anon. Your post really helped me.

Pretty much every reason documented by ED's thorough analysis.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Tvtropes

>elementary "analysis" of pop culture from people who pride themselves on their knowledge of cartoons

>teaches people that use/subversion/deconstruction/etc. of tropes is good writing

>people using it as their personal blog with cringeworthy, subjective "this Troper" shit

>censorship of content on ideological and profiteering grounds

>each and every person who contributes to that website or wiki is a disgusting example of humanity

If you absolutely must browse a site like this, use All the Tropes.

>>8670

TV Tropes wasn't supposed to be taken seriously or quoted offsite, which used to be obvious back when it was actually good. It's now a dead site, has been ever since 2009 at the latest.

>>8775

It's funny, since TV Tropes used to be essentially ED without the mandatory hostility. But now, like its predecessors TV Without Pity and Jump The Shark, it's been totally invaded and coopted into a hugbox.

Is it really impossible to make a lighthearted fan wiki last longer than a few years without randomly pouring buckets of gore, porn, profanity, and hate-speech on everyone?

>>8900

I guess 1d4ChanWiki qualifies, although it does have its share of profanities.

I think the problem lies in enforcing homogenity. Both in ED and 1d4ChanWiki, you can actually see in the article how different editors call each other idiots. If you come to this site as a newbie, you quickly learn that there is no single "correct" narrative you can push, only a narrative that emerges.