Ambiguous Name: Aint Too Proud To Beg

OP by Coachpill

Ain't Too Proud to Beg had previously gotten a lot of mileage out of people making slight complaints over what the page image should actually be, with current complaints being extremely sparse minus this comment pointing out that the chained sinkhole on the caption just distracts from what the trope is about, and it should just have a pothole to Native American Mythology. This extends all the way back to April 2016, where the current page image was decided on after some argument over double-panels. Inferring that a lot of people just find the image Adorkable in its own right doesn't particularly irk me (incidentally, I just learned the work "irk" comes from the Old Norse yrkja, so that could be useful for a future trope), but the image itself doesn't cover the scope of the trope at all IMHO, and the Playing With page has pretty limited yet contradictory information about usage of the trope that hasn't been updated since last year, on top of there only ever being 10 edits to the page since its inception over four years ago. If you're looking for more contextual in-depth analysis my wick check more than covers it, but here's what I think the current mods and the overall TRS crew should know front and center:

• 7/62 (11.3%) describe the trope correctly without limiting it to the Trope Namer (aka a neutral character/hero begging to be let off the hook, perhaps for someone else's needs)
• 16/62 (25.8%) are misuse for villainous characters
• 8/62 (12.9%) are aversions with dubious criteria for "begging", often but not always due to misuse for another trope
• 10/62 (16.1%) are begging for affairs that explicitly aren't treated as life-or-death situations (ranging from gifts to "do me a solid and...")
• 12/62 (19.4%) have no basis due to being normal dialogue (hypothetical examples of what I mean: "How?" "Don't do it...")
• 6/62 (5%) have little context or are potholed
• 3/62 are misc.

Solution: I listed several options on the wick check, but I prefer to just disambig with related tropes (like Beg the Dog, You Wouldn't Shoot Me and "Too Young to Die" Lamentation) that I feel more than cover examples where a character is doing explicit, desperate begging out of fear or an (at least semi-successful) attempt to temporize. I really, really doubt a rename would be of any use, considering the fact that there's three types of the trope and we can't really clear up the ambiguity by making an Analysis page of the humility involved, which itself is undercut by there being many carefully-crafted double indexes for applying basic self-preservation that actually is tropeable 99% percent of the time (I've gushed over the 419 Scam for this).

Pinging ~Coachpill

~tremmor19 also requested a ping

Hi there

So as I mentioned in the OP, I think this should be disambiguated. However, I'm open to other options—right now my main concern is that the trope being split into "types" is rendering it inherently meaningless, since the chairsy "pleading in everyday situations" isn't something that connects to Wounded Gazelle Gambit, which Type I seems to be reflecting, or Type II, which involves genuine helplessness, but the other types (literally just called "Other", which is another problem). This makes it feel like it's less a Drama Trope and more "Sometimes Wounded Gazelle Gambits can be combined with/be confused for actual begging, surprise surprise!", which reflects both types ("be confused for" being the first, "combined with" being the second) and creates more of a realism concept. Not really a meta-concept (though maybe other people see it as one), but one that takes away from the purpose of the trope so that it has no purpose.

A disambig might more-or-less accomplish the same thing as other approaches, but there are much more issues than just all that—like how more than a quarter of the wicks involve villains begging for mercy rather than heroes—so there could be many possible courses of action to take; IDK for sure.

So my first question is, do we have a trope for actual begging? Beg the Dog is specific to "begging a character they have previously abused"

All three of the trope name, page quote, and image give the immediate impression of a character voluntarily giving up their dignity and begging in a way that most people would be embarrassed to do. None of them specifically indicate begging for mercy. That's the majority of the misuse as well— begging for something in an undignified manner. That seems like a valid characterization moment, which is probably why people keep looking for somewhere to put those examples and assuming this is it.

it doesn't help that the description is wishy-washy and could plausibly be read to include those cases ("Technically, this trope isn't morality-sensitive," seems to be referencing the morality of the person being begged, but could also mean the person doing the begging. Also says "begs for mercy, or bows, kneels, cowers, or does pretty much anything covered under Kneel Before Zod", which, again, could be read to mean that "for mercy" is optional).

Both linked tropes (Kneel Before Zod and Beg the Dog) link back to this one, potholed under a sentence about the general concept of begging or grovelling. If this is indicative of the general way this trope is linked on the wiki, im not suprised people are absorbing this impression and not checking the official definition. This is not the first case Ive seen where everything except the description is indicating a definition that is not what the actual page description says

Edited by Tremmor19 on Jan 18th 2024 at 2:50:27 PM

All of the OP, the usage check page, and the OP's comment seem kinda rambly and mostly dance around the point while barely staying on topic; the suggested solution is clear enough, but I'm not sure why the OP of a TRS thread is going on and on about past Image Pickin' debates, or why the more "in-depth analysis" on the usage check page just goes on about Opposite Tropes and the Playing With page, instead of actually explaining the problem. The OP's comment actually seems to come closest to explaining the problem, but does so in a confusing way that might assume too much contextual familiarity.

Anyway, here's the oldest copy in the Internet Archive, though I don't know that it's substantially different from what's on the page today.

Edited by MorganWick on Jan 18th 2024 at 1:38:50 AM

I agree. This is one of the most unclear OPs I've ever seen. There's barely any analysis of the wick check, but a lot of text about unrelated things. It does say people have disagreed about what this trope should be, but gets sidetracked after that without really explaining that part, such as whether any of those posts provide anything to work with when it comes to the definition.

I'm hesitant to comment on the disambig proposal unless we can get a clear statement about how this is redundant, because the OP doesn't really make it clear why that's being proposed.

Edit: Regarding what was said about the Playing With page, those pages are optional (as are page images), and like Laconics, they can be inaccurate. We should really be paying attention to whether the usage lines up with the description.

Edit: Also, the OP seems to be mistaken about the Trope Namer in the first bullet point in the wick check, because the trope namer is this song by The Temptations, which I saw is the page quote, even though I don't think the song is an example. (The song not being an example of the trope might be making things unclear, but I'm going to refrain from commenting further until the OP's argument for what's wrong here is clarified.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 18th 2024 at 2:13:46 PM

I don’t want to sound mean, but I remember this has been a recurring problem for the OP in question — making rambling, unfocused posts that are really hard to follow.

I can see the definition being a real problem even if it wasn't well explained. It does seem to be at odds with how the trope is commonly used, like Tremmor explained.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 18th 2024 at 11:51:53 AM

...I wish this thread hadn't been clocked so quickly (not after less than 12 hours, anyway), but alright, I'm going to explain how this trope is unclear.

Tremmor explained the problem pretty well, but a major problem in the wick check is that the "type labels" are either non-existent or get used improperly, so it makes it really hard to tell what the trope is even about due to how it's been used. I know where the Trope Namer comes from; my problem is that, similar to what Tremmor said, the only example of "humility" involved is there and in the page image. The type examples feel pointless since they do nothing to actually separate that definition from the Wounded Gazelle Gambit part (Type I) or the "They Mean It" part (Type II).

The "really aversions" (paraphrasing obviously) folder in the wick check is what I thought was the most telling of this issue—the trope almost doesn't even have its own definition, since it piggybacks off of other tropes so often. I'm not blaming the examples listed for my being unclear, but there's a similar problem there—the Mortal Kombat 9 example assumes that both a) the two types can be "combined" with Wounded Gazelle Gambit (like I mentioned in my OP), and b) gear the trope towards a pragmatic usage in a way where it's clear that this trope is being viewed as an "outlier" in regards to begging, even though it's literally about begging for a lighter outcome on behalf of the person in question/their loved one. I think this in particular is the issue Tremmor has with the description not matching the rest of the definition—aside from general begging being more apparently correct, the trope is trying to subvert typical realities of begging, and the Priam example shows what it's like for someone to put all their honor and trust in the person they should honor and trust least to outline how desperate they are.

The "reality" here is that someone who's been betrayed/transgressed against would eventually do something that can easily be seen as dishonorable, but almost none of the examples reflect that—not all "lighter outcomes" translate to "begging for mercy" (regardless of who the mercy is being argued for)—but the point is that this is being treated almost like a Trope in Aggregate, where the examples that involve begging subvert "cruel" reality just to show the typical drama people put into begging without really thinking about it so deeply like Priam. IMO, that's way too specific to be a coincidence—as Tremmor said, people using this trope as a substitute for there not entirely being a separate trope for general begging makes sense, but people seem to think that the trope also functions as a characterization moment, which pretty much all other TIA's do as well (Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male being a big one). The difference there is that they're still tropes because they've been universally chronicled; not only is this trope not a TIA, but assuming that we could change it into one at all, that would lead to a whole other issue of what to do with the type labels and examples that avert the "realistic" aspect not belonging to a general trope in the first place. This is exactly why a large part of the trope just isn't noteworthy; the Chairs folder shows what this is like in motion, but as a general rule the trope simply wouldn't be able to exist if it didn't evolve from Wounded Gazelle Gambit; it's not like Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male couldn't exist without Men Are the Expendable Gender, even if one evolved/didn't evolve from the other.

Even though I still think they're major issues, the other ones I cited are ones that I think in practice are more clear—the trope being used in place of Villains Want Mercy, expressing shock rather than desperation (the Misc. folder), etc; one other issue I wanted to set aside, though, was that bargaining is often mistaken for begging when the two aren't at all interchangeable. Bargain Tropes doesn't even so much as allude to ATPTB; haggling might seem like desperation, but many people just do it because they're really that determined to have the last laugh.

...I mean, Type Labels Are Not Examples. There's a reason they are unmentioned; they're not supposed to be. That's not a problem with the trope aside from implying the soft split is bad.

Other than that I have to admit I'm still having trouble parsing exactly what you mean. I can gather that the trope is being misused, but I don't know if I understand exactly what you think the issue is. Going on about "reality" for instance, when the actual definition doesn't seem to be focused on that. The description is where the definition comes from; if it's contradicted, the description isn't in the wrong.

The intended definition, as far as I can gather, is a good-aligned character begging, usually to the villain, sacrificing dignity for survival. That's what it seems to boil down to. A Wounded Gazelle Gambit can follow but doesn't seem necessary. As such I'm not sure I agree with calling all those examples "chairs".

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 18th 2024 at 1:02:11 PM

Ditto.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 18th 2024 at 12:04:46 PM

Looking at the wick check now that I'm not on mobile, there's some other issues:

• You say that the top folder is "correct as defined above", however at no point in the above did you actually explain the definition. This makes it really questionable as to how you've chosen to sort the examples; for instance, why are some chairs and others correct when they touch on the same idea?
• In what way does this deconstruct Ideal Hero? What about a hero begging for their/someone else's life equates to a deconstruction of a different trope? I can see it being an aspect of a deconstruction, say they're such a good hero type that they can't actually stand up to the villains, but that's, again, not an actual requirement for this trope.
• I agree in general that villains are misuse, but beyond that I can't understand where your ideas about the trope are actually coming from. They're certainly not coming from the actual description, which says none of these things.
• Some of your analyses seem to be related more to your own understanding of the work than what the example actually says. This can be hard to understand if that context isn't actually in the examples. Take the Characters.Betrayal Knows My Name wick; reading the example alone, none of what you wrote in the comment is apparent, and it certainly doesn't explain how it would somehow be an "aversion" (which none of them actually seem to be; an aversion is just "the trope isn't in this work").

That's not to say that everything on the wick check is bad. I agree that some of the examples are misuse or poorly written, and the page's soft-split is needlessly muddling. However, by going on tangents about other tropes, bringing up points that aren't related to the actual description, and seemingly misusing terms such as "averted", it's genuinely difficult to know the scope of the problem. At this point I almost feel like we could just undo the soft-split, clarify the definition, and then do cleanup outside of the TRS. If issues persist, then we can figure out a stronger solution, but the only issue I can actually identify is the villain misuse.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 18th 2024 at 2:37:51 PM

x3 yeah, sorry, i also didn't really get most of that. Is it possible to summarize like, one sentence, what your main concern is? PSOC, or misuse, something else? Youve put "ambiguous name" as the issue up top

i agree that the soft split is not adding anything useful

Edited by Tremmor19 on Jan 18th 2024 at 3:04:16 PM

I agree. In addition, maybe the issues you mentioned in the last paragraph of your post are can just be sent elsewhere, since they aren't TRS-level problems.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 18th 2024 at 2:12:11 PM

I think that the description is confusing, and not so much the name. It doesn't really say that it has to be a hero, just that it usually is. I have also noticed that a lot of the stalling for time examples are not really begging. For example the 300 one with Leonidas, who isn't really stalling, is just a fake out. Both the audience and the villain think he is surrendering, but he is doing something else. Maybe that is it's own trope.

Edited by ry4n on Jan 18th 2024 at 1:02:58 AM

I was under the impression that Ain't Too Proud to Beg was a subtrope of Break the Haughty, as in when a previously proud character is revealed to not have any qualms about begging for mercy/forgiveness/their life, as that's exclusively how I see it used. if it really needs TRS help (which I don't think it does), maybe the description could be reworded to better reflect that?

Edited by ReginaldOgron5 on Jan 18th 2024 at 1:08:39 AM

I've seen it as the opposite; a character being willing to beg shows that they aren't concerned with dignity or pride. And since dignity / pride are usually villainous traits (in excess at least), the trope is usually centered on heroic characters. I suppose the trope could be seen as a scenario where begging doesn't bring the character shame, at least not in their own eyes. The description seems to reflect that idea.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 18th 2024 at 4:10:06 AM

@ gastonrabbit

to what degree can we clarify the definition without TRS? part of the issue is that the writing is ambiguous and could reasonably be read multiple ways— as you can see, there's at least 3 different impressions of what this trope means just in this thread. if we select one of those ways, is that considered a change of definition?

For the record, Morganwick linked the earliest saved version of this page — it opens like this:

The opposite of Defiant To The End, this is when the hero actually willingly (in the sense that he must not be Brainwashed, physically controlled, or just plain manhandled, that is- threats can be, and almost always are, involved) begs for mercy, or bows, kneels, cowers, or does pretty much anything covered under Kneel Before Zod. Technically, this trope isn't morality-sensitive, but heroes tend to be a lot less interested in submission, so it usually is done for the benefit of a villain.

the wording is similar, though the emphasis there is on doing it of their own free will, as opposed to being physically forced

Edited by Tremmor19 on Jan 18th 2024 at 6:16:24 AM

I feel rude asking, but is there a thread similar to Get Help With English to help structure posts? I feel like that would be a great benefit to make them easier to follow, because right now nobody can seem to tell what the posts are getting at.

Edited by MasterN on Jan 18th 2024 at 2:44:41 AM

Looking at the page, I wonder if we should split this into two sister tropes? They're both distinct reasons for a hero to act a certain way.

I am good with a description tweak otherwise.

So as I see Ain't Too Proud to Beg is about a hero unheroically trying to sweet talk a stronger villain to save themselves.

Due to name, it's commonly used to characters regardless of morality, even though villainous examples would fit Villains Want Mercy.

While the OP is messy, I get what's it going for.

So there are possibilities

• Rename
• Split between "heroic Holding the Floor until something else foils the villain", "asking villain for mercy" and maybe other tropes.
  • Type A may be just be Holding the Floor.
• Disambig, not mutual with other options
• Nothing and it's the description and example sorting issue

I'd entertain merging Villains Want Mercy if it had own wick check as well.

Edited by Amonimus on Jan 18th 2024 at 4:17:59 PM

Going to folderize most of this post since I have a looooot to address and summarizing the issues is something I can only really do secondhand.

Post 16 reflects a large part of what I've been feeling in layman's terms—specifically that many of the examples involving "begging" are just bargaining or something interchangeable with another trope. I had actually been debating whether the Characters.Betrayal Knows My Name was valid/invalid when I finished the wick check all the way back in July last year, but what's happening there isn't a break from Hotsuma's usual dynamic with others; his character being a Mood-Swinger means that he'll beg for something, demand it, rush headfirst into it without making a decision, etc. It doesn't strike me as particularly notable because of that.

Edited by Coachpill on Jan 18th 2024 at 12:55:24 PM

Ain't Too Proud to Beg is almost stuck in this limbo of being a supertrope and a sub-trope

...of what? I'm sorry if I'm nitpicking, but I'm still having trouble with understanding what your main objection/concern is. like, you've gone over a lot of the responses in detail, but i feel like you keep mentioning issues in relation to context you didn't actually explain fully. like, you're responding on step 3 but im still missing step 1

is it possible to just write one or two sentences saying what you think is wrong with the page, currently? Misuse? Bad description, and if so, what's the issue, specifically?

if split, i don't think Ain't Too Proud to Beg is a good name for the trope about specifically the hero begging for mercy from the villian. It implies a much broader scope, which is why it's being misused. I do still think "begging without dignity", in general, is a valid characterization moment without those requirements

Edited by Tremmor19 on Jan 19th 2024 at 4:30:18 AM

If renamed to Undiginfied Begging and tweaked a bit to focus on dignity subversions (like Not So Above It All), overlap with Villains Want Mercy possibly would be less of a concern.