Your pet peeve tropes

We do need more fantasy worlds where the "cute, pretty creatures" are actually demonically evil and the "ugly, brutish monsters" are actually heroes. Make the unicorns evil and the orcs good, haha.

For real, I agree, especially as it doesn't really mesh well from a worldbuilding standpoint since there's no good reason for evil creatures to evolve to look hideous in such a way that it gives away their morality... unless of course it's supernatural.

If I may then recommend one work that has such a reversal, I might suggest the Discworld novels—specifically Lords and Ladies and Unseen Academicals.

(Although such does turn up in other of the books, too—see the Igors in multiple books, for example.)

Isn't there a book series where the elves are evil and the (stone age) humans are heroes?

I believe that is a theme in A Song of Ice and Fire but not in this explicit a fashion - the Big Bad are ice demons who are described as almost unnaturally beautiful. And the best chance to stop them are probably large, scaly dragons that aren't above burning people alive.

My biggest pet peeve is Muscles Are Meaningless. I don't find it believable when a normal size character can beat down someone that is larger and looks like they are made of muscle.

• The Power of Love: Part of this is because I'm aro-ace, but also I find that it doesn't make practical sense either. It's also too sugary.
• Sick Episode, for the most part. They can be done well, but I usually end up hating them because A.) I feel sorry for the afflicted character, and B.) usually they end up really boring, especially in kids' shows. Sick episodes of a children's show are basically just "X was about to do Y, gets sick, gets told to rest, is disappointed, blah-di-blah, they get better but someone else gets sick, roll credits".

• Well-Intentioned Extremist + Easily Forgiven = An aggravating example of an Unintentionally Unsympathetic character who deserves every bad thing that happens to them, and having all their plans ruined despite the show trying everything in its power to justify their actions (cough Saya Irino cough).

I've grown a bit tired of Well-Intentioned Extremist myself, mainly due to real life showing that this is rarely the case. Hell, Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist is a bit overly optimistic.

I always took that to be an example of either superpowers/magic/the supernatural enhancing the normal character somehow or the author falling victim to the Cult of the Badass (i.e. the author portrays a Badass solely through Rule of Cool mixed in with Testosterone Poisoning without any sense of reason, self-control, or nuance.) Now, the former is usually innocent enough in speculative fiction that it doesn't aggravate me in the slightest, but the latter is all too often a staple of modern works. Case in point is Game of Thrones, where characters who are supposed to be Badasses are portrayed as being nothing else. In particular, all that is shown of Arya Stark or Brienne of Tarth is just how badass they are, not the effect such training required to be Badass has on their mental state (for the former) or the consequences and potential conflicts their deeds pose to their ideals, honor, and values (for the latter). As much as I like to watch/read about Badasses dominating every scene they are in, I can only enjoy such characters if the subtlety and nuance of such character types is preserved.

After looking through that example you provided, I have to agree. An author would have to really work hard to sell the idea of someone's good intentions slowly paving a road to hell in order to create sympathy, and even then some things are just unconscionable enough to hand wave an indulgence for, no matter one's intentions.

Also anime/manga related, I have an equivalent distaste for the LoserProtagonists that seem to infest the medium these days. Now, maybe this distaste boils down to a simple case of either Values Dissonance or Periphery Demographic, but characters like Kazuya, Kirito, or even Shinji tend to annoy me more than intrigue me, especially if those characters are the main leads. The fact that these kinds of protagonists are legion in modern anime/manga means that certain entire genres (namely Isekai, Harem Genre, and Romcoms) are a hard sell for me. For once, I would like to read about how this week's Isekai/Harem/Romcom Protagonist is the honorably discharged grizzled war veteran who has served several tours of duty and is struggling to readjust to civilian life instead of the pathetic milquetoast high school student whose only achievement is being an Otaku shut-in at best and Chuunibyou incel at worst.

I think the over reliance of Loser Protagonist is the escapism factor. VD is still inherent, but more so because of the specific fantasy being sold (in this case of otaku becoming badasses or having a myriad of women who wants intercourse and/or romance with them). As well as the greater trend of everymen protagonists and This Loser Is You.

It also is related to well relatability being exalted as something to strive for in storytelling, but that is more because of its easy and lazy to just model the character after the typical member of the demographic they are courting. A grizzled war vet with PTSD would be a hard sell to otaku outside those specifically dedicated to the MIC unless they start out as outcasts or weebs.

Hold the phone! How is Kirito of all people a Loser Protagonist?

Otherwise, I agree with you. I recommend checking out the Isekai The World's Finest Assassin. It doesn't have a war veteran, but I figure a veteran assassin is the next best thing. The series stood out to me precisely because the main character doesn't fit the typical mold for that genre.

Edited by shiro_okami on Sep 5th 2023 at 8:30:49 AM

Kirito could absolutely be accused of a lot of things, like being arguably the least interesting aspect of SAO, but I don’t think being a Loser Protagonist is one of them.

To give him some credit, at least he willingly jumps into the fray, and hell he’ll often be at the front of it.

If anyone would like to see a way better version of him, imo, check out Something Witty Entertainment’s version of SAO Abridged.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I should also have mentioned that Retcons and Continuity Snarl (s) are another pet peeve of mine.

Soft retcons/snarls like what Monsters University did, where Monsters, Inc. implies Mike and Sully knew each other since “the 4th grade”, are somewhat acceptable because one could argue they’re not actually retcons. Monsters University doesn’t technically contradict the above implication, because the part about them knowing each other since they were kids is still technically true, and it’s entirely possible that Mike and Sully did know each other back in the 4th grade before something happened that didn’t see them cement their lifelong friendship then (like say either transferring schools) and they simply forgot about each other. Only to find out later that they had the same fourth grade teacher.

If it’s easily explainable and doesn’t require huge leaps in logic, nor does it ask the audience to ignore the potential plot holes it causes (if there are any), then it’s fine imo.

But hard Retcons legitimately piss me off. If you have to waste time changing some aspect of a previous work that either the fans didn’t like, didn’t fit the new direction you want to go, or you forgot was even a thing that you’re now contradicting for ANY reason, then imo, you either shouldn’t have taken the project on, or you’re not that good of a writer/director/etc.

Two prime examples of that coming to mind are Secret Invasion and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales . I’ll forgive the former if the Retcon turns out not to be true (I won’t spoil it either way), and someone was just talking out of their ass to drum up publicity, or it’s just a weird fan theory, but the latter I will never.

Because the original trilogy quite explicitly points out that:

1. Davy Jones’ looks have nothing to do with a curse, but rather the fact that he stopped doing his job as basically a pirate Charon, and that Will inherits the job. He’s not cursed to be bound to the Dutchman, because the heart thing was Davy Jones’ way of high jacking the supernatural abilities and immortality given to him by his own goddess (hence why he’s keen on nobody finding it since stabbing the thing still kills him), and there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that Will couldn’t just put his own heart back in during At World’s End’s stinger, and that Calypso didn’t let him go and give the job to someone else.

2. Jack didn’t get the compass or the Black Pearl from his previous Captain, and the compass’ only supernatural ability was pointing to whatever its current holder wanted at the moment. The compass was given to him by Tia Dalma/Calypso herself, and it’d be really weird if the same goddess who assigned someone else the job of ferrying dead sailors to the afterlife somehow wasn’t aware of a ship full of Spaniards who died at sea didn’t make it to the other side, and while what the Black Pearl’s backstory is only shown in the novelization, the films still literally say that Davy Jones is the reason why Jack Sparrow was Captain of the Pearl because Sparrow made a deal with him to raise the Pearl from her grave in the first place!

Edited by Angelspawndragon on Sep 8th 2023 at 3:53:12 AM

Persecution Flip and In the Future, Humans Will Be One Race.

The latter is unlikely to happen, and suggests that humans can't coexist peacefully until they're all the same group. It's also a racist conspiracy theory. And conspiracy theorists also believe that minorities want to do to the majority what the majority has done to them, why the fuck are you endorsing those views?

Edited by Nukeli on Oct 8th 2023 at 3:41:06 PM

The Coconut Effect.

You should not deliberately distort things or spread (even harmless) misinformation just because the masses are (or you think they are) stupid or misinformed and would find the real thing "unrealistic". What the fucking kind of a mindset is that???

Edited by Nukeli on Oct 8th 2023 at 3:43:24 PM

What if such trope was used accidentally? Like out of ignorance, the creator assumed that said false thing is true and added it to the story. Maybe you should give benefit of the doubt more often.

Why are you getting so angry and talking to u as if we're the ones writing these tropes? (also, I personally think the In the Future, Humans Will Be One Race trope is interesting for the exact opposite reason you're arguing it's a conspiracy — I think it's cool to imagine that one day we'll all be so mixed that racial divides will no longer be a thing, because it means that racism will have been defeated in order to even get to that point, and that's a good thing. Like just because a bunch of assholes think that such a future is the worst case scenario doesn't mean that I can't find it a nice concept for a story to explore)

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 8th 2023 at 1:14:28 PM

I think she might had gotten it mixed up with Humans Are White, which does feel like a subtrope of ITFHWBOR at a glance (despite the respective articles having opposed stances)

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Oct 8th 2023 at 1:31:30 AM

She, I believe.

~

My impression of "In The Future, Humans Will Be One Race" has long been that it stems from the idea that, as humans increase their ability to travel, they increase the pool of potential partners for any given human.

The more this pool increases, the more races it encompasses. The more this happens, the more interracial marriage occurs—and, naturally, the more multiracial children are born. They in turn marry and intermarry, to similar effect.

And so, over time, simple intermarriage and reproduction results in greater blending of the races—and with enough time, the races all blend together entirely.

Or, to put it another way: race (in the sense of biological variance, not the ideological sense) is the result of separation, of the distances between peoples; the less people are separated, the more (it is suggested) race should be "worn away".

(Is this plausible? I don't know enough biology to really comment, I fear. To my layman's knowledge it sounds plausible, however.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Oct 8th 2023 at 10:20:23 AM

I wasn't talking to anybody.

But maybe it's not a good idea to write about stuff the "white genocide" conspiracy theorists think is real?

And the whole Persecution Flip trope, most bigots actually believe women/minorities want to oppress them. Do we really need fictional reverse-oppression on TV? The messages tend to be badly delivered too[1].

Edited by Nukeli on Oct 8th 2023 at 1:04:59 PM

So what's the solution then? Depict the far off future as remaining racially divided, which such people want? I'd rather not give them the type of stories they like; they can think whatever they want about it, but I think the idea of a racially mixed future is far better for combating such bigots than depicting racial division and separation for fear of touching on a conspiracy theory.

What do you think dangerous conspiracy theorists are going to think when fiction appears to endorse their delusion? Either they think you're on their side, or take it as "evidence".

Also the implication that humans should only have one culture and one appearance to have peace isn't exactly great either. Are you sure it isn't itself racist?

Edited by Nukeli on Oct 8th 2023 at 1:39:26 PM

My pet peeve trope is everything bad happened throughout the story and backstories are the main antagonist's doing. I just felt it takes away the tragedies' and disasters' agency like Dartz from Yu-Gi-Oh being responsible to his three righthand men's tragic backstories. Now I can buy that some of those were main bad's plan and/or actions, but most or all of it is where I draw the line.

"One race" is not the same as "one culture and one appearance". To me it means we'd be so mixed that racial lines are no longer possible to draw, but people would still have enough variance in genetics to still have different skin colors to a degree, and other racial "traits". And race has zero to do with culture (just look how many unique cultures exist in Asia, Europe, and Africa), so why on Earth would such a future have only one dominant culture?

Anyway, I'm not here to argue about this. I just think that you're being a bit too aggressive about it, especially as there are valid reasons to like the concept and the use of such a trope could be for any number of reasons — the politics of a certain group who dislike the idea of this future should not be the end all be all. Like, there's no reason to drop the F-bomb in consecutive posts; nobody else here gets that mad about these tropes, even the ones we find bigoted.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 8th 2023 at 6:43:00 AM

That usually comes with it in the examples i've seen. And often they also look the same.