Sunday, February 9, 2014

Troping Considered Harmful

My wiki sucks.  Actually, it isn't just All The Tropes; TV Tropes sucks too.

I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm open to criticism about TV Tropes, given that I founded my own fork of that wiki.  Well, not *mine* per se, but never mind that now.  But given that I'd bother to fork the wiki, I must be a hardcore troper, right?

Well, not really.  Mainly I just wanted to have a website to talk about fiction without worrying about crazy censorship.

What is it about?

But there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the nature of both All The Tropes, and its parent wiki, TV Tropes.  For some reason, my eyes were drawn to the Encyclopedia Dramatica page on TV Tropes.  And it's kind of depressing.  You should read it, though it's highly NSFW -- mostly thanks to some Trope-tan Rule 34.

In particular, I was looking at the sections titled "Article Style" and "Why it sucks".   Here's this gem:
This in a site supposed to scrutinize fiction's impact on culture. Or is it? What is TV tropes about? What is it about? What is IS IT about? WHAT IS IT ABOUT? WHAT IS IT ABOOOOUUUUUUT?  Tv tropes isn't governed by any single vision. Instead, it is about thousands of competing plans all trying to spread their own brand of faggotry over the whole site.

Okay, that's maybe not the best organized argument, but there is a major point there.  The TVT front page says this:
What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
Okay, that's an idea.  But do trope pages really talk about writing fiction?  Or how to use a trope in writing?  Or any pages about the writing process at all?  I guess if we take it as a literal "catalog", it makes some sense -- like ordering from Amazon.  One-click™ checkout for a FourStarBadass and a BrattyHalfPint.

But what about all of the random forum crap and CMoA pages?  The TVT home page goes on for three paragraphs about what the website is not, which is entirely unuseful.  They are not a stuffy encyclopedia or a wiki for bashing things.  They are also not a rhyme for "orange" or the goddamn Batman, either.

All of this criticism applies to my own wiki too, since it comes from the same source.  And as part of restarting the wiki, I have to rewrite all of the policy pages, ranging from "we have very few rules" to huge documents of rules to inline comments stating that if you add an specific example to a page, you will be permabanned.  It makes sense if you know the history of the site, but the movie Eraserhead also made the same kind of sense to me.  That disjointed, "ramblings of a madman" sort of sense.

So task number one was to restore sanity to the rules, and that's still in process (because my wiki sucks, natch).  But it also comes down to figuring out what the we want to do with the new wiki.  Anyway, Topozan started this really great thread on the forums: What can ATT do to distinguish itself from TVT?

In that thread, we throw around ideas like more analysis, more recaps, awards and userboxes (for free!).  I mean, wow, all we have to do is take the TV Tropes website, and then set it Up to Eleven!  I think I'm one of the worst offenders on that count. But then, Topozan offers this:
One of the complaints I hear about tvtropes is that it's too focused on listing things rather than analysis. I'm not really sure how easy it would be to change that, though.
So um, what is this site about?  What is it about?  Really.  In my mind, All The Tropes is a P3 wiki (which is entirely different from the P5 wiki that TVT has become).  The very first wiki, The Portland Pattern Repository, is about programming.  More specifically, it is about 3 P's: the People, Projects, and Patterns of programming.  In tropespeak, this is the same as Creators, Works, and Tropes -- which is incidentally what the vast majority of pages are about.

Looking at the PPR wiki is useful, because they solved a lot of the common issues of wikis over a decade ago.  And if troping wikis are the same sort as Ward's Wiki, then things are really off-balance.  The PPR is, in it's own terms, a Content Creation Wiki ("analysis").  TVT and ATT are, in their current state, Content Classification Wikis ("listing").  The policy of suppression on Natter at TVT proves the rule, as Thread Mode is at the heart of collaborative content creation.  I'll address each of these points in turn.

Twenty Thousand Tropes

For being a site about story telling, why the heck do people want to put so much effort into breaking stories down into a collection of tiny bits?  Heck, this image that makes the case that TVT users think stories can be put together like a collection of LEGO blocks.  And helpfully it notes that Tropes come in 20,000 shapes.  Wow, twenty kilotropes.

Now I sure as hell can't remember Twenty Thousand Tropes under the Sun, or under any other object for that matter.  This is both good and bad, because it leads to the addictive nature that allows our readers and tropers to lose hours of their life a time just reading one more page.

So is that the vision, the "catalog of tropes"? Are the tropes wikis a listing of the dissected remains of creative works, mercilessly hunted down in the name of harvesting tropes?  I'm not far enough down the spectrum to enjoy that kind of deconstruction.

Not to mention that a good portion of these "tropes" aren't even patterns at all, but simple indices, or variants of other tropes.  Everything must be broken down into its smallest element.  And like the scientists at the LHC are doing, the drive to subdivide every atom ever smaller is going to create a black hole and swallow the entire wiki.

TV Tropes thinks it is doing serious analysis of works, but the Analysis namespace is virtually empty.  And by empty I mean, "every subpage fits on one page", which is amazing considering how trope pages get so large they routinely break the wiki.  But what TVT and ATT look like to me is a bunch of lists.

Some people like lists.  Lists are useful.  But lists are awful at getting to the soul of a creative process.  Tropes that are useful for analyzing a work's depth and meaning, like Central Theme, have less than 100 wicks.  It turns out that people rarely think the single most important point of a work is worth troping.  Instead, we have tropers noting the subtle difference between Ojou Curls and Royal Ringlets.

No Talking in the Theater!

TV Tropes likes to discribe themselves as a "buttload more informal" than Wikipedia, which they enforce by threatening to emit a buttload of bans.  Page comments routinely note tropers will be for adding specific examples in the page comments.  Or they can be banned for any form of negativity on a page.  Or questioning an administrator, that's a favorite.

However, TV Tropes started from an entirely different place.  It began as a place for a few fans to discuss Buffy and all of the cool things that Joss was doing.  Eventually, more people showed up, and the site was a chaotic place of kudzu growth.  Many got confused, and discord arrived for the first time with the cutting of the Fetish Fuel; and lo did the renaming of Nakama come to pass.  And then with the Second Google Incident, in which works were considered too uncool for Google Ads, the bureaucracy of the 5P Censorship Panel arrived.  For those of you who are Discordians, I don't need to tell you what the stage after bureaucracy is.

A lot of the distrust of TV Tropes started back in 2010, where we got the all the "TV Tropes is dead to me" type of discussions.  Infinitezenith recounts the tales of the One-Week War on his blog, right below a pic of Nagisa and Azu-nyan.  There are a many themes woven into his history, but the main point is that the repeated cutting of the most creative content has driven away the best users, and left behind only those who are convinced they are the doing things the right way with herp-derp posts.

Most of those problems stem from two policies: the "no negativity" rule, and the purging of creative content.   But enough about how TVT sucks.  I want to talk about how All The Tropes sucks.  We obviously inherited this crappy wiki content, because starting from scratch sounds entirely non-awesome.  With the current content base, we just don't have enough content that encourages creative growth of the wiki.

TVT has an active policy of suppressing Thread Mode, to the extent of adding a Natter-fy button on every page history page.  You too can send a friendly note to another user as to why their edit sucked with a form letter.  So instead of engaging in community building, the stock of tropers was reduced to the people who hold the party-line, Happiness is Mandatory opinions.  And we're left with a bunch of non-users who think that troping is just parroting the same memes over and over again.

Critics Missing the Point

Naturally, there are a ton of post out there saying that troping wikis suck.  While that is 100% correct, they then go on to state wrong reasons for the suckage.

The worst offender here are the Something Awful forums, who like to point out every pedo troper out there.  I'd like to note that in some cultures... no fuck that.  Look, the Internet is full of sick fucks, and every website has their share.  A wiki is a commons, like a public park.  Have you ever passed a dude off his meds in the park?  I have. Every major wiki has those guys too, but at the very least we don't have to deal with it in person.

Sarah published a trilogy of blog posts: The first argues that incompetent leadership led to cutting parts without sufficient community buy-in, the second post notes that censorship applies on TV Tropes mainly applies to pages that the core group doesn't like.  The third is a blistering critique of simply bizarre moral relativism from the TVT staff, and ends with:
There’s no fix­ing TV Tropes, so just let it die or shrivel into irrelevancy.
That's cool and all, but it's not helping.  Faith without works is dead.

Moving on to the Encyclopedia Dramatica analysis, mentioned above, I'll note it has few flaws of its own.  First of all, everyone pushing for their own point of view -- that's how a bazaar is supposed to work.  Wikis aren't cathedrals.  But that doesn't mean that there should be no plan, either.  Linus has no problem telling you how Linux should be.  Even though Linus, Eddie, and Fighteer share the same values of management by perkele, the TVT model of leadership is almost entirely reactive.  At least I never saw any proactive planning.

Me and My Nakama

The other half of the criticism from ED is even more bullshit, though.  More complaining about names of tropes.  Yes, I do get that it's a charlie-foxtrot of jargon, but it's not like these things have established names from "real" literary critics.  Instead we got complaints, which in turn lead to renames like "Inspector Zenigata" to "Sympathetic Inspector Antagonist" -- the first one is animu fanthink, and the second is a blandtastic word amalgamation that only a committee could come up with.

Yeah, jargon sucks, but after years in college learning about geostrophic wind, Rossby waves, the PDO, dBZ, the Second Indirect Effect, and hook echoes, I think everyone can stand to deal with the jargon of whatever field they're interested in.

The time that this issue came to a head was with the Nakama page, which was evenutally renamed True Companions.  The discussion happened twice, and was full of stupidity on every side.  Tropers suggested exchanging "nakama" (a Japanese loanword that doesn't mean the same thing to native speakers) to "coterie" (a French loanword that doesn't mean the same thing to native speakers).  Nakama supporters talked about how important their word was in the anime community.

And then, when it was all said and done, virtually every link was changed to the new name.  Because language, obviously, is a winner-take-all game. *facepalm*  So here we have the "writer's toolbox" website, where we are limited to using only one way of expressing a concept.  I don't think that there is any question that this is harmful to would-be writers.

Harm, Foul

This essay is titled "Troping Considered Harmful", after the computer science trope pattern, $thing Considered Harmful.  But I really think that a lot of things tropers do are in fact harmful, both for themselves and for readers.

The emphasis on listing and content classification creates the impression that simply by stringing a bunch of tropes together, you get a valid story.  There are quite a few bad fanfics that are based on this problem.  Encouraging bad storytelling is causing harm.

The long-term suppression of Natter has suppressed creative views and alternate opinions.  And because of this, many creative writers have left troping for greener pastures.  This in turn leaves behind a subset of tropers, who are growing more and more homogenous as creative works grow more diverse.  And we all know what happens to populations without enough diversity in changing environments

Finally, dissent has been enthusiastically quashed, leading to troping being a game played by a small club of folks with similar views.  Tropes are forced into the One Name to Rule Them All.  Examples with multiple opinions are removed -- here NPOV stands for "No Point of View".  This is not healthy for the people who are tropers, nor for the writers who use this as a toolbox.  They are left in a culture that thinks troping is serious and important, but is ultimately creates shallow and vacuous analysis.  This is the user base that All The Tropes is forced to recruit from.

That's not even mentioning the probably-illegal copyright stuff going on at TV Tropes, which is a major harm to the commons.  Or the fact that the TVT staff claims ownership of its users work, both morally and legally -- this is not a good way to build a healthy creative community.

But fixing this -- that's going to be the hard part.

What is IS IT about?

The thing is, most critiques don't realize that the problems of the troping wikis aren't about specific issues, but lie at their very core.  There is no clear purpose, just a sprawling mass of pages that periodically got hit by delete sprees in order to maximally piss off users.  I'm fairly sure that this is the underlying cause of most of the problems I've mentioned here.

If we had a clear purpose, we wouldn't go through the periodic ungoodthink purges.  We could offer more help to creative writers.  We could have a place to screw around and have fun; why not?

But coming up with a purpose is actually a hard task.  It took three horrible years before Abraham Lincoln finally spelled out the purpose of the American Civil War in the Gettysburg Address.  I took six months to write a purpose statement for my university student government (obviously a task of equal import).

Fast Eddie is a leader without vision, which is about the worst thing I can say about a leader.  (Except maybe, "He killed 6 million Jews.") But I don't know what the vision should be for All the Tropes, either.  I wish I did.  Maybe I'm as bad as Eddie.

For now, all I can say is what I want All The Tropes to be.  I want it to be a writing resource.  I want it to be a place where fen can collect information on their respective fandoms.  I want to offer real lit crit, not just a bunch of fucking lists.  But I want there to be lists too.  And I want it to be fun to read and write.  I want it to be defined based on things we are, not things we're not.

And most of all, I want it to spur more creative work.  Good storytelling is more than the sum of its parts.  Right now, ATT and TVT are less than the sum of their parts.

1 comment:

  1. While your blog has not been active for some time, I feel it necessary to (briefly and succinctly) address some of the issues with the matters raised in this post. The main issue at the heart of things is what TV Tropes should be, rather than what it is: the site, as it is now, is indeed a content catalogue. Its value comes from helping readers find what works share with one another. This was the site’s original vision, and to this end, TV Tropes does this very well: many have found new works to enjoy in this manner.

    The most dangerous supposition in your article is that you suggest TV Tropes necessarily needs to be a resource for fiction analysis. The problem with Tropers conducting analysis on works, especially pertaining to Japanese animation, is that there is no peer review process to ensure the validity and authenticity of a particular perspective. Anyone can present their own opinions on a work, and the risk exists for opinions from tropers with a particular agenda to be regarded with the same weight as those with a more considerable background in that area. It is a known fact that most tropers attempt to discuss topics they are unqualified to discuss with the singular intent increasing their own online reputation. The implication of this is that anyone doing literary review of online resources for an academic institution, may inadvertently pick up these poorly researched opinion and unknowingly pass it off as fact and inadvertently validate tropers’ egos by putting their words in a peer-reviewed document.

    This is a major disservice to fans of particular works, as it would misrepresent the things they love, especially if academic sources, long considered to be reliable, begin mistaking troper opinion as truth.

    The other issue was with things like ‘natter’ and ‘word cruft’. While you argue that tolerating it promotes creativity, the reality is that allowing tropers to persist in wielding their own idiosyncrasies actually is more harmful, giving them the impression that they are able to flaunt linguistic conventions because their intent matters more than their clarity. It makes TV Tropes’ articles unreadable, when everyone is saying things like “Double subverted.”, “[some character], and HOW!”, or “Cue [some action].” Frequent abuse of no-content examples, full stops and unnecessary emphasis made it near impossible to parse TV Tropes for any useful information, and it is only with enforcement of style that the site has improved. Consider this to be equivalent to programming lint: there are certain stylistic elements people must conform with to make readable code.

    Finally, it looks like you missed the point pertaining to the Infinite Mirai article: while a bit outdated, the author intended to say that constant cutting of content resulted in a desperate attempt to “save” the site by promoting an air of intellectualism. The bad parts of TV Tropes were displaced by another ill in the form of tropers believing they were doing analysis. Hard work from certain tropers in stemming word cruft and natter, plus active removal of analysis, migrated this to some extent, but TV Tropes today seems hellbent on preserving an pseudo-academic atmosphere: more draconian measures for verifying new accounts are as much an attempt to prevent newcomers from coming on board as they are allegedly for keeping ban-evaders away.

    Ultimately, the argument against academic and intellectual discussion at TV Tropes is two-fold: institutions should not count TV Tropes as a reputable source of information, as its main function is cataloging similar works for easy access, and people should be allowed to see elements in their favourite works without being told what to think about it: while your blog is inactive, if you do come across this comment, I’d love to hear what there is to be gained from analyzing anime from an academic and philosophical perspective.