Update: Per TRS
, Critical Research Failure is now a disambiguation page, so wicks should be sorted between at least one of the pages listed there, or deleted if they don't fit anywhere else.
, Critical Research Failure is prone to misuse. Given how many entries we have for the trope, on-page and off-page, as well as consensus reached in the TRS thread, entries should be sure that they fit the following criteria.
- They are obvious to the layman according to contemporary standards.
- If you are an expert on the subject at hand, check if a non-expert would know that fact. Ask here if you need help.
- "Contemporary standards" refers to the time and place the work was made. Evaluating a work based on standards in a different time and/or place than it was made can and will lead to Values Dissonance, so the author(s) cannot be held accountable.
- They are about facts regarding the real world.
- Errors about other works belong on Cowboy BeBop at His Computer.
- Errors about Internal Consistency go under things like Series Continuity Error or Plot Hole.
- They are not intentional decisions.
- Intentional inaccuracies go under Artistic License and its sub-tropes; some of these may include unintentional cases, too.
In-Universe examples are less problematic and thus do not need as much attention.
If you feel tempted to add a Justifying Edit explaining how the authors would not have known better, just delete the example.
Please ask if you have any questions. Answers may be posted here for reference.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 13th 2022 at 12:08:26 PM
Lots of coffee
Or redirect it to Artistic License, which covers the same ground without debating about what's a "valid" mistake or not.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
To be fair, Did Not Do The Research was one of Eddie's unilateral cuts.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I get the issue that even nonfiction has narratives that inaccuracies can be Artistic License in order to achieve. I'm not sure then what the difference between License and Research Failure is supposed to be if not the latter having obligation to be accurate and truthful.
The only other fix for CRF I can think of is to an objective education level (I'd say 12th grade general ed. at highest, maybe 8th as most media is PG and that's the age range) to serve as the baseline the Research Failure should be obvious to, then require examples explain why it is obviously incorrect to that baseline audience.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jul 31st 2021 at 1:34:29 AM
Lots of coffee
That assumes everybody has the exact same quality of education, and also seems America-centric. See why this is such a difficult concept to quantify? How do we judge the most "obvious" factoid errors? It'd be easier to just list all objective factual errors, if Artistic License doesn't cover that.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Susjection!
So expanding Critical Research Failure to cover any factual errors a work makes is an option?
I'm Sad Frogerson.
Kind of unrelated to the more broader discussion here, but I found this on the YMMV page of Ross's Game Dungeon:
- Critical Research Failure: When reviewing Death Road to Canada, Ross often advises against hiring more survivors, citing the demand on food. He also advises staying out of most text events. However, hiring more survivors helps fend off the ever-growing zombie hordes, and with enough research, decisions in text events can be guaranteed to yield rewards or a safe way out depending on the party's personality stats. These monumental blunders make his review of the game difficult to watch.
Aside from coming across as a bit complainy, Death Road to Canada is kind of an obscure indie game that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. So, I'm not sure how much of this is basic information that Ross just missed. It even says "with enough research", implying that the player needs to go beyond basic tutorials to learn how to get the best yields from the in-game events.
So, cut?
Cut as the issue, not thinking it through, is unrelated to lack of research in X subject.
Agree differences in education standards (was just throwing it out there) make it myopic and more trouble than it's worth given "Critical" even the minimum amount of objectivity a YMMV needs. If CRF were widely obvious the creators would have known better and avoided this in the first place, or it's an intentional Artistic License.
With that, how, if not the fiction/nonfiction work distinction, is Research Failure supposed to be different than Artistic License (which can be unintentional if done by writers who don't know how unrealistic they are)?
Thought: is Critical Research Failure an Artistic License so blatant it breaks willing suspension of disbelief?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Aug 1st 2021 at 1:44:19 AM
Susjection!
Artistic License is about inaccuracy being acceptable if it serves the story better than actual accuracy; the creator may be well aware it's inaccurate but go through with it anyway. Critical Research Failure is about egregious factual errors, regardless of whether it serves the story. These are two different things. If the error is intentional, it's In-Universe Factoid Failure.
Lots of coffee
CRF would probably have to be explicitly presented as fact, i.e. in an educational program or documentary. Otherwise there's arguments for Artistic License.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
For what's it worth, this is Did Not Do The Research's entry on Permanent Red Link Club:
- Did Not Do The Research: Intended as an index for research failure, it attracted lots of misuse as a way of pointing out a research mistake in a work. It was merged with other indexes and christened the Inaccuracies Index for a few days, until it was determined that we don't need that either. These tropes are now listed at Consistency, under "Lack of External Consistency".
I'm not convinced that expanding CRF's definition to include all research failures wouldn't attract the same type of complaining that got DNDTR sent to the PRLC.
Complaining has nothing to do with this. Did Not Do The Research was originally an index with examples being put on the Artistic License neé You Fail X Forever subtropes. Since these subtropes have been renamed, the question of intentionality has caused constant argument.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Discarded and Feeling Blue
Ah, so Did Not Do The Research isn't what everyone is saying it was. Theoretically, there never was a trope for just "research failure", since that one was a poorly named index.
Creator intent is always really tricky. Not every intentional mistake is an In-Universe Factoid Failure, because those need to be called out in-universe. Ones where it's just an intentional flaw are harder to pin down. Is the author portraying blue fire as "cold" because it's a cool concept, or because they don't know what blue fire actually is? Are they misusing foreign words to be satirical, or do they just not know better? Did they really think that Jesus was a white man, or is that just for the story's flavor and presentation? Etc, etc, etc...
Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 1st 2021 at 2:24:35 PM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
In any case, redefining the trope would require a separate TRS thread.
Discarded and Feeling Blue
Oh, well, yeah. A wick check too probably, if not necessarily for misuse, then to see how much of it would fit under a broader definition.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
What exactly was the misuse that caused it to be cut? Use when Artistic License should have? The too minor error to count Critical was supposed to fix?
We wouldn't just expand CRT, we'd also add restrictions (like limiting to non-fiction meant to be real-life accurate) to prevent the misuse that doomed DNDTR.
Anyone have a link to where it was decided to axe DNDTR so we can see what issues a replacement would have to address?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Aug 1st 2021 at 12:11:33 PM
Susjection!
Did Not Do The Research was cut because it was used as a trope instead of an index. If it was a trope all along, it probably would've been fine.
For what it's worth, I feel like these research failure tropes are often, but not always, used as a stealth form of Writer Bashing.
Edited by costanton11 on Aug 1st 2021 at 4:11:20 AM
Susjection!
This conversation motivated me to start Critical Research Failure Wick Check. We should continue this discussion further once the wick check is done and Critical Research Failure is in the Trope Repair Shop.
Lots of coffee
Good going, though I would've checked for overlap with Artistic License and generally the kind of "research failure" (i.e. reality knowledge vs fandom knowledge).
Susjection!
If you think the wick check can be organized better, feel free to edit it as you see fit. I welcome improvements.
What are the criteria for "misuse" and "correct" there?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lots of coffee
That's my issue too. My biggest issue with CRF is that it's hard to tell which mistakens are considered "big" ones to make. Hence why I suggested type of mistake might be a better idea.
Discarded and Feeling Blue
That's what I'm wondering too. I share Mew's point that it should be split into types of usage.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Susjection!
Didn't really think about it. Probably should've done that.
How's this?
This is my first time ever participating in a wick check. Just keep that in mind.
Also, I gave the second Grant Theft Auto example in the wick check a more thorough reading, and I think made a mistake by saying it was misuse. Can you guys give your thoughts on it?
The only way I could see TRS ever fixing Critical Research Failure is by changing it's terrible name to Blatant Factual Error, Blatant Research Failure, or something else that's clearer. "Critical" makes me think of a lot of things, none of which are "egregious factual errors." My preferred solution is actually cutting the trope because I don't think the concept is tropeworthy, but its 36K inbounds mean it's staying no matter what. Outside of a rename, the best solution is to just deal with it.