What if the creators aren't just doing it for effect, and they really do believe the reaction is warranted, even though it clearly isn't? Would that count as a fourth variety, or does it only count if it's an intentional exaggeration? (I know that would at least be Values Dissonance.)
If only in-universe examples are permitted, why does Type 1 specifically include times where this trope isn't the author's intent?
Hide / Show Replies
Because the In-Universe Examples Only classifier was added to the page without the description being adjusted.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I never understood what "felony misdemeanor" means. It *sounds* like "something serious taken lightly". Wouldn't "misdemeanor felony" ( "something small taken seriously" ) work better?
If not, then we should get "What do you mean, it's not heinous" back.
Hide / Show Replies
In the English grammar that I know, it's the second word that determines the meaning of such words.
And bringing the old name back is a no go. Line of dialogue, and as the usage demonstrated it's even less clear than the current.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Three-Puppet Saluter
So, in this one piece of fiction, there's this generally unpleasant despot with a bad case of betraying people. At one point, he takes on a mistress, strictly for the purpose of using her and behind the back of the woman who lives with him. This mistress keeps nudging him to take the relationship to the next level. This was never in the cards. She does obtain a lot of political responsibility, but she ends up dying in a flesh-charring conflagration the instant she outlives her usefulness. And what enraged me the most about this sequence of events? The bit where, as part of the nudging, the mistress mentions how the despot likes his coffee. I mean, obviously.
Hail Martin Septim!
There are a number of pages referring to Felony Misdemeanor when the misdemeanor does deserve harsh punishment due to the circumstances involved; Do We Have This One
Writers invoke Values Dissonance for Context. What would under normal circumstances be, well... circumstantial... is devastating in the given situation. Common in disaster fiction; eat a diabetic's last piece of candy on a lifeboat and you might as well have thrown him overboard. Break an astigmatic doctor's glasses After the End and you might as well have crippled and/or killed anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people.
Edited by 68.47.80.233
"What Do You Mean, It's Not Heinous?" might have been a bit more cumbersome than "Felony Misdemeanor" but the current title doesn't really do a good job of expressing how this is an overreaction, not a reaction. This trope needs a new, (Or possibly old) name. Why was it changed in the first place?
Hide / Show Replies
I agree. I don't even know what a 'felony misdemeanour' is, and I think most people outside USA don't either. Can't we ask a mod or admin or someone else to revert the trope name change?
Edited by 69.172.221.6
Does the new title have to be 'Felony Misdemeanor'? Many countries don't have either, or if they do, the words aren't widely used or familiar, such as Australia, where we use 'summary' (minor crimes) or indictable (major crimes). Seems to me like the trope name is playing We All Live in America straight. I think we could go back to the slightly more wordy but more direct 'What Do You Mean, It's Not Heinous?" trope name.
Edited by Aomic Hide / Show Replies
The "Phineas and Ferb" entry concerns me. Is "punished for life" a hyperbole? If not, then I am concerned for Ferb and Phineas' welfare.
What's the difference between this trope and Disproportionate Retribution?