"Ungrateful Bastard" rubs me the wrong way

Ungrateful Bastard seems like a fine enough trope, but reading the title, I'm having a cognitive dissonance... it's been bothering me because the description specifies the ungratefulness can be justified so the individual doesn't seem like a "bastard" anymore, but the title seemingly suggests the character is a bastard. It also doubly bothers me when animals are involved, which I've always taken as being less likely to be actual bastards and instead have a very good explanation for lacking gratitude (like acting on instinct or what's described in the actual trope). Long story short, the title feels sort of narrow compared to its definition; it absolutely doesn't feel fair to call the character a bastard or ungrateful if they really aren't.

Is it just me? I'm performing a wick check currently just to see how it's being used, but part of me feels like I should probably bring it up as I have a sneaking suspicion that it may deserve a more neutral title if its usage isn't limited to characters actually being scumbags and/or ungrateful for no good reason.

EDIT: I'd just done a quick check via the Wayback Machine's earliest version; it seems it was initially conceived as being about actual ungrateful bastards, and then in 2018 it was edited to include non-bastards as well.

Edited by Eggy0 on May 10th 2024 at 2:34:52 PM

Are you talking about "bastard" as in "Jerkass"?
I think so, but I also have trouble following the post?

Edited by TMH-Sir-Iron-Vomit on May 10th 2024 at 4:19:46 PM

Oo oo ah ah

Ok, just checked the Ungrateful Bastard page and description.
It's about any instance of repaying kindness with meanness, which usually is a quick way to make yourself hated by pretty much anybody, especially if you do it all the time, which at that point you do earn the title of "bastard".
But apparently it's not restricted to serial ungrateful-ers.

In that case, maybe we could change the title to be more genral?

Edited by TMH-Sir-Iron-Vomit on May 10th 2024 at 4:30:26 PM

Oo oo ah ah

That was the idea. The trope itself doesn't seem restricted to jerks, but the title suggests the character is a terrible person for not being thankful. A general title like No Gratitude or Lack Of Gratitude would probably better cover it as opposed to basically calling them out for it regardless of whether they are actually bad.

Is it correct that the description frames it as a character trope (e.g. it describes characters for whom ingratitude is a fixed personality trait), or would it be better as a specific moment in a character's arc when they display notable ungratefulness?

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

My thought is that it's more about how they react than necessarily whether or not they're a bad person. You can be ungrateful about help without being a jerk over it, but I think the trope sort of expects that they at least throw a fit or do something else that clearly shows they don't care, even if it's just for the scene.

In other words I put more emphasis on the action (got help, acts ungrateful in an overt or nasty way) over characterization, since I don't see why it would need to be a consistent character trait.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 10th 2024 at 4:00:12 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'd argue that it's hard to be ungrateful about help without being a jerk about it, considering that being ungrateful is in and of itself is usually seen as a jerk move. The exception would be if the help is unneeded or even detrimental, but that's a different trope

I mean, I guess, but the trope usually calls for obvious displays of ungratefulness. I don't think it's impossible to be ungrateful about something without being outright nasty, like pretending to be happy until the person is gone. My ultimate point just being that I think this trope is less a character trope and more of an action / reaction trope.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Still, calling the character a bastard doesn't always feel right to me — at least to me, it implies the action by itself is certainly a jerk move and that there should have been a thanks no matter what. Even if it isn't really a jerk move and the character has every reason not to be thankful.

Some time ago, an entry had been added to one of the pages I was following. I had changed it to The Farmer and the Viper because it felt more like that than Ungrateful Bastard (the perpetrators response was to attack again later), and at the same time the usage of the trope felt very bothersome because:

• the character was an animal, with at least some degree of sentience but an animal nonetheless
• they'd just been attacked by one of the other party before the other member saved them
• they grew up unable to find love and guidance, meaning they most likely didn't know better and were trying to defend themselves.

In a case like this, the title of "bastard" doesn't sit well with me. They were ungrateful, yes, but a bastard? That sounds like it pins the blame on the character for their reaction rather than simply acknowledging that they showed no gratitude, which I do believe can but doesn't have to be because the character is a jerk.

I may be looking into it too deep, though — but all the same, I can't shake off the feeling that the way the title reads is "they didn't thank, therefore they are a horrible person for it".

I guess it can be read two ways. I usually interpret it more as "they're ungrateful and thus acting like a bastard", but your version makes just as much sense and perhaps more sense if you take it as a character trope.

Considering the "not unjustified" part was unilateral...

Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2024 at 12:18:17 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Which may or may not compound my concerns about the title, in that it now seems kind of subjective if it can be read in two ways (acting like a bastard, versus actually being a bastard). Given the trope appears to cover both cases — or, at least, does due to a unilateral change — it might benefit from a more "middle ground" or "neutral" name that acknowledges the ungrateful part without implicitly condemning the act regardless of which case it is.

I agree with Jay that it seems more like an action-reaction moment than a character type, so a name that takes the focus off the character would be better. ("Acting like" vs "being" is a Distinction Without a Difference in cases like this, it just depends on whether you choose to essentialise their behaviour.)

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

Of the two examples I know well from my favorite show, one of the "bastards" was a villain who repaid someone's selfless (and dangerous) act with kidnapping and threats. The other was the protagonist lashing out in an emotionally vulnerable state. So I think this is part of why I've been leaning towards the "action trope" idea; I've seen both sides of the coin play out while still being valid examples of the trope.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The first case reminds me of one other thing; is it possible Ungrateful Bastard may have a frequent overlap or even confusion with The Farmer and the Viper? Considering the latter is about a kind act being rewarded with a betrayal of some sort, and repaying a selfless act with kidnapping and threats sounds a lot like this.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, I just wonder whether there may be a thin line between "person doesn't show gratefulness" and "person does something bad to their helper despite being helped".

Well The Farmer and the Viper is about some kind of evil act, UB may be about simple politeness. I agree the trope title should not imply anything about their parents' marriage, but that's not enough to rename a trope. However if we were to redefine it as being about an act rather than a character trait, it might be worth it.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

I never considered it to be about any marriage; it's how it seemingly insults the character in question (I always read "bastard" as an insult, as that's how I usually see it being used) and insinuates that the trope is narrower than it is (lacking gratitude vs lacking gratitude and being a bad lot as a result).

It definitely should be about the act rather than the character, since as I mentioned before, not every character that shows ungratefulness does so because they are a bad person so having the title call them out isn't fair in all cases. I'm also mildly concerned the title may be subjective, as people probably have different ideas of what makes someone an Ungrateful Bastard. It might need a bit of a rewrite too, as it does start off with people being bastards before mentioning justification which was added unilaterally. I'm doing a wick check in any case for the purpose of measuring how much it is used in certain categories — I trust the trope is used correctly, it's more about finding out how it's being interpreted.

Edited by Eggy0 on May 13th 2024 at 8:42:20 PM

Yeah this trope also can just decend into character bashing, I came across such and example last November.

Edited by GracieLizzy on May 14th 2024 at 7:10:14 AM

I mean the very definition of the trope would be that the character in question refusing to express gratitude in a certain situation is totally unreasonable and wrong, wouldn't it be?

Skimming the trope page, it says the ingratitude may be explained "at times". Generally, it's otherwise completely unjustified though.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on May 18th 2024 at 1:16:57 AM

That's the thing though - if it's explained or justified, then the trope name no longer really applies. It still calls the character a bastard even if they have a very good reason for ingratitude, basically blaming them for it regardless of the circumstances.

The act usually being unjustified is fine; the problem I've had is that the title preemptively expects the act to actually be unjustified 100% of the time, not helped by the "it's explained sometimes" paragraph having been added unilaterally, so the justified ones are called out too just because the character doesn't express thanks even if they realistically shouldn't. Like if Bob stupidly puts Alice in danger and then saves her, and Alice understandably is angry instead of thankful but still has an "Ungrateful Bastard" entry as if she was supposed to thank Bob despite it being completely his fault she was in danger in the first place.

It might be going one of these two ways:

• Trope is about unjustified ingratitude - justified ingratitude becomes misuse in the process.
• Trope is about ingratitude in general - the title and the way the trope starts makes it come off as narrower in scope than it should be.

Edited by Eggy0 on May 19th 2024 at 10:59:50 AM

I think we need to clarify how we're using the word "justified".

There's "justified" in the in-universe sense (meaning, is the character morally right to not show gratitude here?) and there's "justified" in the out-of-universe sense (meaning, has the story given us enough information to understand why this character is being ungrateful?)

Wouldn't that just mean someone who's justified wouldn't be the trope then?

I have a trope in TLP that was supposed to cover that case (it has since changed), previously citing a real life example where the subject is a baby owl that's wary of the person helping them. I was told that the real life example was an Ungrateful Bastard reaction (and therefore misuse) because the owl took the food but kept screeching at its handlers.

That definitely doesn't sound like this trope.

Just to further wit, I went to seek out what could have been used as an example of the trope to see if it was there — and it is. This is the example, for Regular Show on one of the subpages:

An example like this directly contradicts the title and what the trope seems to be about. The characters might have saved the city, but they're the ones who put it in danger in the first place — despite this, the trope title seemingly condemns the astronauts, since it's literally named "Ungrateful Bastard". It calls the astronauts ungrateful bastards even though they clearly have every reason to act the way they do and the "saviors" are the real culprits here.

While my (slow-going) wick check hasn't yet turned up similar examples, I have no doubt that I may come across them sooner or later.