brokersllka.blogg.se

Whereas for something like One-Steve Limit or Fourth Wall, there's not really any way to describe straight examples that would distinguish them from each other. For Character Development, you can describe the development. I think it also comes down to being able to write something unique to an example. Take tropes like Character Development or The Hero, which are both very common and are not definition-only. What does that imply about minor character tropes like Spear Carrier, Bit Character, Recurring Extra, and Living Prop? At a certain point, yes, something can be so omnipresent that there's not much to gain by pointing it out, but I'm not convinced that all four of these tropes meet that criterion.įor that matter - to argue against my own concession note "At a certain point, yes, something can be so omnipresent that there's not much to gain by pointing it out" - I'm not sure common-ness is the only factor at play in something being so omnipresent that it becomes definition only. However, I am hesitant about making anything definition only just because it is common. I'll agree that Dynamic Character is probably redundant with Character Development. I would propose making Dynamic Character and Static Character definition only OmnipresentTropes (as they are real terms used by writers, and worth defining at least), and moving appropriate examples to Character Development.Įdited by GastonRabbit on May 21st 2022 at 9:43:27 AM

Rounded Character and Flat Character, which are not the same thing, but are closely related, are already no On-page examples as they are far too common.ĭynamic Character's description and laconic both describe as "character who undergoes Character Development", which makes it further redundant as a trope with Character Development. Character Development already covers the actual developments themselves (which are tropeworthy), leaving Dynamic Character as effectively an empty space (comparing their wick counts, Character Development has over 21k, while Dynamic Character has a mere 212, not awful but considering that it's an Omnipresent Trope, it's pretty low), and Static Character as simply a collection of aversions that may or may not be tropeworthy. Dynamic Character and Static Character are both basic writing concepts used in far too many works to be treated as anything other than Omnipresent Tropes.