Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
116,895
edits
All The Tropes:Not a Subversion: Difference between revisions
→Quasi-subversions!: update link
m (categories and general cleanup) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (→Quasi-subversions!: update link) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{quote|''[[You Keep Using That Word]]. I do not think it means what you think it means.''|'''Inigo Montoya''', ''[[The Princess Bride (
A
People tend to label any series that merely completely avoids a certain trope as a "subversion," when in fact that's called an ''aversion''. It's only a ''sub''version if the work sets up the trope, creating an expectation that the trope will be used, and then does something else. It's an ''a''version when the genre itself sets it up.
Line 13:
Aversions hardly ever need to be noted. To quote [[Averted Trope]], unless the trope is so universal within a genre that exceptions truly stand out, there's not much point in listing an aversion on an ''examples'' list that serves to illustrate a trope's patterns and their prevalence. However, if works in a series make notable use of a trope, then aversion in later installments also become notable.
A ''slightly'' more subtle distinction; inverted tropes are sometimes incorrectly described as "subverted". An inverted trope is where the usual setup of the trope is in some way swapped: [[Gender
A trope can of course be both inverted and subverted, if the viewer or reader is led to expect the straight version only to be given an inversion of some kind, but an inverted trope is not automatically also a subverted one: there needs to be a genuine attempt to suggest that the trope is going to be used straight to qualify as a "subversion".
Worse, occasionally a ''slight'' spin on the standard trope formula, such as the addition of a [[Justified Trope|justification]], is seized upon as a subversion by the occasional fan, perhaps because they don't want to acknowledge that a trope was played deadly straight [[Tropes Are Not Bad|to good effect]] in their favourite work.
Occasionally, [[Deconstruction
Sometimes, when people talk of "Partial Subversion", they mean [[Downplayed Trope]], where the trope is still present, but to a much lesser degree.
Beware ye these abominable [[Weasel Words]] that refer to various methods of [[Playing
* "Slightly subverted in that..."
Line 39:
A ''real'' subversion plays off the expectation of a familiar trope being set up in the viewers mind. Subtle, even laudably creative, variants are not that. When a trope ''is'' subverted it's very, very obvious: there is no "somewhat."
Worst case scenario, the so-called "[[Subverted Trope|subversion]]" is actually [[Not an Example]] at all.
----
* [[Hypocritical Humor|Partially subverted]] in TV Tropes Wiki, where the word subversion is often used to mean [[Averted Trope|aversion]], [[Satire, Parody, Pastiche|parody]], straight use in a comical context, etc.
** Also subverted outside of TV Tropes Wiki, where a totally different definition of subversion exists, unrelated to subverted expectations.
* A more concrete, media-inspired example: in science fiction settings with transporter devices, time travel or faster-than-light travel, the viewer may be reminded that a slight miscalculation could cause a traveler, spacecraft or time machine to materialize inside solid rock. This almost never happens on screen. At the end of the 2nd season of the 2000's ''[[Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)|Battlestar Galactica]]'', {{spoiler|a spacecraft actually does "jump" inside solid rock, killing the crew immediately}}. Actually showing this instead of hinting at its danger (which the audience has come to expect from the genre) is an example of a subversion.
* While some may use [[wikipedia:Subversion (software)|Subversion]] as their [[wikipedia:Revision control|revision control system]] due to the fixed bugs and better-tweaked features, most get by with the more common [[wikipedia:Concurrent Versions System|CVS]].
** A lot of people have been switching to Subversion, though. Then there are those who use [http://git-scm.com/ Git], and the fewer still who use [http://bazaar-vcs.org Bazaar].
** SVN (Subversion) is actually pretty common, especially on newer or larger open-source projects (the newer ones have no reason to use the defunct CVS, the larger ones have constant pressure to upgrade). In a subversion of the gradual change from CVS to SVN, changing projects over to various distributed version control systems has been slower because of the automatic holy wars already emerging among the three major DVCS contenders: Git, Bazaar, and Mercurial (hg).
** If you play [[
{{reflist}}
Line 56:
[[Category:Wiki Tropes]]
[[Category:Bad Writing Index]]
[[Category:
| |||