BRUTALLY Subverted

This is nitpicking, yes. From what I understand, these phrases are just used as Word Cruft and essentially and effort to make one's own examples stand out.

However, I believe the phrase itself is not inherently faulty. "Brutally subverted" does not necessarily mean the subversion is brutal, but the subversion entails something perceived as grim in the plot. That is to say, it's not in the same line as "partially subverted", but more like "hilariously subverted". A more concise phrasing might be "subverted to brutal effect."

Also, I am under the impression that playing with audience expectation has certain degrees or effectiveness. Yes, subversion means setting up a trope but eventually does not use it, but some setting-ups go further and more elaborate than others; there is a degree, some subversions are more "hard" than others. I don't think it's a simple "use/doesn't use" situation.

Most of the "Brutally subverted" examples I saw used it in this literal sense, as in "subverted by presenting brutality", and not just as a generic phrase for the subersion's quality.

Those are usually said as "Subverted HARD", or "Brilliantly subverted".

That's what subverted means. But what he's a saying is that a subversion can be brutal; in that what the audience expects to happen is replaced with something that is deeply disturbing, for instance if the story looks like it's heading for Death by Newbery Medal with a heroic dog, but in the end, the dog kills the kid instead of dying to save the kid... It's a subversion, and it's brutal to the audience.

[1]

No, no, it's the adjective that's bolded. Brutally deconstructed. Averted hard. Subverted, and how!

edited 1st Feb '11 12:11:10 PM by Redhead

Are you talking to me? Because I'm saying the same thing.

I have mixed feelings regarding "brutally subverted", but "BRUTALLY subverted" needs to go, as do "subverted HARD" and "brilliantly subverted". (Slightly off-topic rant: I would also like to get rid of "and how!", "X Just X", This Troper (which still crops up a fair amount), potholes to borderline-meaningless subjectives (like Crowning Moment Of Awesome, Wall Banger, and High Octane Nightmare Fuel), and probably other things I've forgotten.)

We are always looking to take those out.

I admit that I've put superlatives on "subverted" in some of my entries before I got really serious about Word Cruft. The primary example that I can think of is the subversion of A.I. Is a Crapshoot in Otherland, because The Reveal on that one turns the entire narrative on its head with the equivalent of a Wham Episode. But that's what a good subversion is supposed to do.

A subversion played for drama or horror shouldn't be described as "brutal", nor one played for comedy as "hilarious", etc., etc. — just link to the appropriate trope instead (Subverted for humour in blah blah; Deconstructed for maximum drama in something else and so forth)

I also agree with reducing the incidence of Subversions/Aversions/Deconstructions Are Good. Tropes Are Not Bad, after all.

We don't have an "appropriate" Played for Horror page.

Anyways, these trope-tropes themselves are closer to "Played Straight", while in the end, Subversion is a form of non-use.

For example:

• If Christmas Cake is Played for Drama, it means that the woman is a Christmas Cake, who is seriously angsting about being unable to marry.
• If it is subverted, it turns out that though she acts like a Christmas Cake, she isn't one, she was actually married all along.
• If it is dramatically/brutally/shockingly Subverted, it turns out that though she acts like a Christmas Cake, she isn't one, she was married, until she killed her husband.

In the first example, the drama comes from the serious but straight take on the trope, but in the third, it's the trope's non-appearance that causes the drama.

So I don't see why shoehorning an incorrect trope, that should normally say "played for x" with potholes, in the form of "subverted for x", is better than saying "x-ly subverted"

edited 3rd Feb '11 4:42:17 AM by EternalSeptember

eternal september wrote:

We don't have an "appropriate" Played For Horror page.

That way, if people want to say things like "brutally subverted" we can pothole it at very least — "Brutally subverted in blah blah..." — which also serves as a decent litmus test: if the pothole is inappropriate, it's not a brutal subversion.

Subverted/averted hard should likewise only be used when hardness is somehow appropriate to the trope example — e.g. "Bob at first appears to be a Celibate Hero, but this is later subverted hard, if you know what I mean...."

... sorry about that.

Anyway, the goal would still be to limit or remove superfluous intensifiers; one way to do this would be to ensure that any such intensifiers used are meaningful in context. If they're not, take them out.

I don't really get it, how would linking to Played For X help at all? They would just use the same "BRUTALLY Subverted" trick, but this time they pothole it. There's not much difference, any superfluous intensifiers can be shoehorned to either Played for Drama/Horror/Laughs, etc. Especially when they use something like "brilliantly."

Also, I think "played for" implies that a trope is being played. If you subvert it, by definition you don't use it. I could be wrong though.

↑Playing With Tropes. Lists "subverted". You essentially play with the trope by presenting it to the audience as a part of a magic trick... where you make it "disappear".

Yeah, that's what I tried to say. There is a big difference between a dramatic version of a Christmas Cake, and the dramatic situation that is introduced by someone not being a Christmas Cake.

"brutally subverted" is a mismatched pothole-freak from two contradicting concepts of straight example and subversion.

If you would want potholes, we would need new pages for Brutally Subverted, Hilariously Subverted, and Depressingly Subverted.

edited 3rd Feb '11 10:57:39 AM by EternalSeptember

I was referring to Played for Drama, but that's probably correct. Played for Drama, however, by the looks of it is intended to contrast nicely with Played for Laughs. Played for Horror is Played for Drama.

Would be neat if we can shoehorn this system in, but for now I suppose it only complicates things.

But that's just me. Maybe some poster can provide a grand unifying theory to make the pieces fall into place, and we can get a concrete, concise set of rules... I don't know.

While "brutally subverted" is sometimes used to mean "subverted, with brutal results", I tend to think of it, or at least think I see it used, more in terms of "subverted Up To Eleven, usually with vaguely negative consequences for the characters or the ending". Which of course is completely meaningless, but if we're actively trying to change the definition to the more literal former (as opposed to thinking that's how it's used now), I suspect it'll lose a lot of its impact and (some people will grouse) fun.

I think that's what Catalogue wanted to acchieve by making it into a pothole. If there would be a page with the definition of "brutally subverted", or Played for Horror, or Subverted For Horror, or whatever, it would be easier to remove the verbal tick where it objectively doesn't apply, compared to now, when some of us try removing all of them, and others keep using them everywhere.

edited 8th Feb '11 2:17:02 AM by EternalSeptember

While "brutally subverted" is sometimes used to mean "subverted, with brutal results", I tend to think of it, or at least think I see it used, more in terms of "subverted Up To Eleven, usually with vaguely negative consequences for the characters or the ending". Which of course is completely meaningless

Yes, this. This is what I'm trying to say. I also tried to point out that the phrase itself is not inherently wrong, it could mean something meaningful. It's just that they are lost in an ocean of vague intensifiers.

Eternal September, the potholing was not my idea.

Frankly, I don't really care whether the end result was "brütal" or not. The phrase needs to die.

You should care. Just because the phrase rubs you the wrong way doesn't mean you get to cleanse the wiki of its presence with fire and sword.

In theory, if the word hadn't lost all meaning to the point where it just means "in a way I thought was cool", I could care. As it stands, I've only ever seen it to mean "in a way I thought was cool" and never in a way that would actually help the example.

Looking at just the titles of the first five pages of google finds, half of the tropes seem to be about babies, hope, innocence, and the likes, that all seem to be begging for brutal (horrifying) subversions.

ven if you assume that everything else is random gushing, the term definitely seems to have a non-gushing form.

edited 8th Feb '11 1:12:18 PM by EternalSeptember

I found and removed a misuse on the page for The Daughter Of Twenty Faces.

Yeah, I saw that while checking, but it was So Bad, It's Good I didn't have a heart to edit it.

For the record, here it is:

• Zettai Ryouiki is also brutally subverted, hit over the head with a blunt object, and thrown out the nearest window as, above promotional image aside, the female characters all wear skirts that are absolutely no less than knee length.

Yeah, it's not even a goddamn subversion, it's just about how girls don't wear a particular fetishist form of miniskirt-kneesocks combo.

I think it counts as a subversion because of the Trailers Always Lie aspect.