Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Misuse
, started by Heart-mint on Oct 24th 2010 at 10:12:24 AM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Definition tweaking, started by OrangeAipom on Jan 15th 2012 at 5:11:54 PM
Kyle
Hi, I would like to ask for advice regarding what qualifies as an example of What the Hell, Hero?. Recently, I added an example on SHAZAM! (2019) page regarding one character calling out the hero for causing property damage and almost a loss of life because of his reckless display of power, but others deleted it and said it does not qualify as an example because as the definition on this page provided, an example needs to be " exclusively about scenes where the hero is called on his morally ambiguous or directly evil actions by characters in the story." The tropers who deleted it feel that the example I added failed the 'morally ambiguous' part.
My gripe is this: what qualifies as an example of this trope is unclear when going by the trope name at first glance. I mean, when you see a trope named "What the Hell, Hero?", you would expect an example given in a story in which someone calling out a hero for any action that caused harm would qualify, morally ambiguous or not, right? In this story, the hero's actions directly caused harm to others and his friend rightfully calling him out on it, even if it was not his intention. His mistake could've caused serious injury or death if he didn't manage to reverse the situation. Also, why is the definition of the trope only limited to actions that are morally ambiguous or outright evil only in the first place, when any action committed by a hero could be called out by their friends if they find such action unheroic?
So, to sum up, I personally think there should be a more clear definition regarding the trope, or at least a trope name repair, to address the misinterpretation of the trope, because like I mentioned above, the trope name itself doesn't really provide a clear definition. You would think any situation in which someone calls out the hero for whatever reasons would qualify as an example from seeing the trope name alone.
Or alternatively, is there or should there be a separate trope that specifically addresses such example directly? Like someone calling out a hero for their mistakes for whatever reasons such as reckless behaviors or unintentional actions. And there could be a subtrope would be a trope which has the original definition that the action being called out is truly morally ambiguous or straight-up evil. I think this could lessen new tropers being misled by the trope name and adding the wrong examples.
I'm sorry in advance if my post came off as too direct or confusing. English is not my first language but I'll try my best following the rules here.
Edited by Willy2537
Whose calling out Batman for kicking a dude in the back of the head?
Hide / Show Replies
No one. I'm changing that back because dickishness alone does not equal this trope.
This trope seems to imply that the person who is being called out on their actions is ALWAYS wrong, yet several of the examples could be debatable in my opinion. Is it simply about any instance of calling out someone for their actions, whether they were justified or not?
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
In Neverwinter Nights 2, after you have aquiered your own stronghold, you have the opportunity to send out a band of newbie adventureres (NP Cs) on increasing dangerous missions. If you overdo and send them to the most dangerous mission (3rd one) you will face them shortly before the final boss fight. They have been turned evil and undead (because the misson was too much for them). Now they fight your party - and the encounter is *really* difficult. Obviously the player collected some Bad Karma. ;-)
Keeper of Arcane Wisdom
Right okay, I can't deny this could be the seed of an epic thread mode/flame war. I'm a big supporter of wikileaks and think Assange is the great folk hero of our generation and I'd like to see an entry here, but not enough to get into a tedious edit scrap about it, so why don't we see if we can find a compromise?
Here's what we've got so far
- Wikileaks release of American Diplomatic Cables may be the Ur Real Life example of this trope. People have reacted strongly to the call out...
- Or, depending on your perspective, the critics may be calling Wikileaks out for endangering diplomacy and informants' lives.
Both points are valid, though I'm not sure how the response relates to this trope. It probably should be integrated (as the same senitment will appear if it's not), but we should put something succinct, balanced and all encompassing (and if we could avoid justifying the murder of someone who hasn't actually committed a crime, that would be good too).
Perhaps adding a bit about not so different, as people have criticised the secrecy of wikileaks itself...or even throw a what the hell hero back at Assange for allegedly endangering the lives of informants? Having typed that, I think that might be the best bet
Thoughts? Comments?
Don’t be special be one of us. Newsflash: I am special, and I will never be one of you! Hide / Show Replies
If What the Hell, Hero? depends on the subject being a hero, then this dipshit, self-righteous douchebag doesn't qualify. He doesn't care one whit about the fact that he is actively endangering people all over the world. Sometimes, if several countries all over the world want you dead and/or in prison, that might mean it's because you're doing bad things.
Also, calling it the Ur-Example is just plain wrong. Ur-Example means the first known usage. Something that's happened in the last month clearly isn't.
My mistake on the urExample, I guess I meant most triumphant.
As for whether or not he's a hero, some people might think that exposing the lies that led to the deaths of a million people in Iraq and preventing that from ever happening again might be heroic. Obviously you do not...
But that's not what this is about. This is about presenting the example in such a way as to avoid a flame war. Any thoughts on that?
It's not heroic if in doing so he's giving information to terrorists who will use it to kill even more people and preventing meaningful diplomacy from happening.
As to avoiding a flame war, I'd say just don't put it on the page. Real Life sections in general are frowned upon by the mods.
Yes, you're right, let's leave it out. The whole issue is a bit too hot for TV Tropes.
Don’t be special be one of us. Newsflash: I am special, and I will never be one of you!
I can't remember the name of the show, but there's this one cop show where the female lead finds out her husband's filed for divorce, and when she goes to him for answers, he calls her out for never caring about how her career was potentially traumatic to their children.
I think it was NYPD Blue, but I can't remember for sure. Anyone recognize this scenario?
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
I think the majority of the Guts diatribe should be removed. For one thing, it goes way too in-depth and feels more like an excuse for people to rant against Guts' behavior than provide actual examples of What The Hell, Hero? To that point, there are almost no examples of this trope. Yeah, Puck is constantly calling Guts out on his cruelty, but the trope isn't about characters noticing the hero's amoral actions...it's about an otherwise flawlessly good character getting called out for doing something bad. Guts is a straight up Byronic Hero and has realized that he commits terrible actions but has little to no remorse for them, so these lengthy diatribes are completely irrelevant.
In essence, Guts never makes any claims about being the good guy, he isn't even presented that way by the author, so even though other characters call him out on his behavior it doesn't qualify for What The Hell, Hero? I read and reread the trope explanation to see if I was right about this; if I'm not, could someone please correct me? (And even if I'm not, I still think the Guts thing needs to be trimmed down and given a more neutral tone)
Edited by SteleResolve
"At this point Puck is so appalled by Guts' consistently nihilistic behavior..."
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's not what that word means; "nihilistic" is not a handy synonym for "aggressively cruel". Maybe I'm missing something here; anyone have a case for the correctness of this usage?
To Joeyjojo, re: moral ambiguity in the archived discussion:
What the Hell, Hero? is about in-universe character reactions to the acts, not the morally questionable acts themselves. If you want, suggest something withing the Trope Repair shop.
Hide / Show Replies
Would the revelation in World War Hulk really count as an Author's Saving Throw? We saw the Illuminati planning the whole thing, and a bomb was never mentioned, so it's not a retcon.
I can think of a few instances Zeus or Poseidon deserve a few of these.