I don't get this trope. If I'm reading this description correctly, this trope is invoked anytime someone is stated to be attractive, regardless of context. In stark contrast to virtually every "related" trope, all of which are some variation of "this character is x, regardless of what the audience may observe." Am I missing something? Has the definition been expanded because this trope is inherently YMMV?
Hide / Show Replies
Basically, there's the underlying fact that the only way to tell someone is attractive in fiction is people telling you.
Most actors and actresses are going to be attractive. Animated characters have Generic Cuteness so it's tough to say. And prose characters, well, that goes without saying.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
so I'm reading It correctly. Anytime any work goes "this person is attractive," regardless of media, this trope is invoked. Then why is it a trope? I could see if it was exclusively visual media, and the actor/drawing in question just isn't as mind blowing as the narrative calls for, so you just have to take our word for it. As it stands, we might as well have a trope for every time anybody describes anything
Because it's a tool to inform the audience that a character is attractive that doesn't involve potentially NSFW or otherwise prurient imagery.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I feel like I'm not communicating clearly. As it stands, Informed Attractiveness isn't a particularly noteworthy trope, AND it doesn't fit thematically with it's purported super trope, Informed Attribute. To qualify as Informed Attribute, the audience must be explicitly told a person, place or thing has possesses an attribute, which is in no way supported by the remainder of the work. If the person, place or thing demonstrably DOES have that attribute, it's no longer Informed Attribute. It may be Take Our Word for It, or Captain Obvious or Chekhov's Skill, but it it isn't Informed Attribute. Of the 18 tropes listed under IA, 16 of them are similarly falsifiable. For most of them, it's some version of "If the person/place/thing actually possesses whatever it's supposed to, it's not this trope." JD and Turk don't have an Informed Friendship for all one of the very first lines is "Chris Turk is my best friend." Castle clearly takes place in New York from context and establishing shots as well as explicit statements. The two that don't, Informed Equipment and Informed Attractiveness, simply don't fit with the rest in any meaningful way. (As an aside, I feel like Attribute only exists as an umbrella for a collection of tropes that don't really have all at much to do with each other, but whatever) As we've cleared up above, it doesn't matter if the character is demonstrably attractive, someone calling attention to it apparently invokes the trope. I find it particularly telling that Lanfear is an example. Yes, she's described as the most captivating woman alive. And drives every man who sees her to distraction, even when they know who she is, and makes ever woman who sees her feel self conscious. That's pretty demonstrative. I think the trope needs to be modified to include some form of "unless it's demonstrated," which will necessarily make is YMMV for live action media for sure, and possibly all visual media. Again, as it is, it's a nothing trope. We might as well make Informed Gender, Informed Eye Color, Informed Hair Color etc al. At an minimum, and if nothing else, it should be removed from the Informed Attribute family.
Edited by Dallium
The superconcept Informed Attribute is about an attribute being told about rather than shown. We don't have an obligation of matching Informed Attribute exactly match with it, especially since arguing about whether a character is attractive or not is not on at all.
And "isn't a particularly noteworthy trope" is not an issue at all.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
This trope has been to TRS in the past
. The YKTTW was poorly written, and the pre-TRS description wasn't much better. The consensus the thread ultimately came to was to make the trope as objective as possible, hence the Bold Inflation at the bottom of the description.
I guess there's nothing I have to say that wasn't said already. I'll just sign off by saying that, in my opinion, without some barrier to entry, this is People Sit On Chairs, and has nothing to do with Informed Attribute
Maybe it doesn't fit as subtrope of Informed Attribute, but i disagree on Chairs. Atractivness is subjective, but when a girl being atractive is a plot point you have to point out that other characters think so. This trope is a tool specifically point out that characters consider a person pretty. It's a tool, it has a meaning, and it's used deliberately for specific narrative purpose. And it's been around for so far that it was already played with at least once.
Edited by NNinja
update:Would someone kindly delete this topic? It is an unintentional repost.
Edited by 114.108.212.107
update:Would someone kindly delete this topic? It is an unintentional repost.
Edited by 114.108.212.107
Interesting, as the French have a term for a particular sort of attractiveness which could be a trope here - it certainly is in French cinema.
That sort of amnbiguously attractive beauty, where a woman can seem appealingly attractive from some angles and dissappointingly plain from others, is called jolie-laide in French: literally pretty-ugly. (No - not "pretty ugly" in the doublebagger sense - metaphorically, now you see the beauty, now you don't."
The young Glenda Jackson had this in spades - dog-rough from some angles, gorgeous from others. Artist Tracey Emin is another example of this sort of very unconventional beauty.
This is distinct from gamin - the sort of petite, waif-like beauty that's always there from every angle. Think Audrey Hepburn or the young Winona Ryder. Or "mignonne" - just cute.
Hide / Show Replies
That doesn't really have anything to do with the trope. It's just about whether or not the work tells you that a character is attractive. It has nothing to do with whether we find the person to be attractive or not.
Tired forever.
The Haruhi Suzumiya entry seems very nattery. I'd fix it, but I know absolutely nothing about the show and would probably end up cutting out the wrong thing. Any takers?
What is this "sleep" you speak of?
Re: Barnaby. His marketing appeal in-universe is not simply that he's "handsome." It's that he's the whole package: a dashing young hero. Meanwhile Kotetsu is a "veteran past his prime" who may be physically attractive (not that anyone is supposed to notice under the mask...) but he's lost his appeal regardless due to age and lack of success.
Edited by Barano
So, I've been reading the trope description, and I wanted clarification on something. In a visual medium, like, let's say, a cartoon, if a character was both drawn as good-looking and pointed out in-universe as good-looking, would they qualify for this trope? Because if so, than this trope would seem rather meaningless.