Does Rich Burlew read TvTropes?

[Kish]

I take issue with your paraphrase.

Whether or not I could theoretically say Rich hasn't "provided a nod to readers of TVTropes," I can certainly say that Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes. Watch, I'll do it again: Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes.

And no, I got what you were saying. Again, TVTropes is not a source and has never been directly referenced. Suggesting people should view a repository of tropes as an source in and of itself and believe that it's been referenced directly even though it hasn't is not a good idea; it doesn't lead anywhere that makes sense. Nor, for that matter, would I expect the designer of TVTropes itself to be pleased that you're trying to argue that TVTropes should be viewed as a source like Marvel Comics or Dune!

[Haven]

It's not necessarily a reference to TV Tropes of course. That's unknowable, as I said.

However, you can only not say that the question of whether Rich is providing a nod to readers of TV Tropes is "unambiguous and negative." It is similarly unknowable. Certainly it is possible to know about and use a trope without going through TV Tropes, no one is disputing that. However, it has made many of them much more accessible to the average reader. So you have to ask yourself whether Rich is making a nod to the fanbase of the more obscure yet genuine material (the original work) or the more popular secondary source (TV Tropes). My point is that it is, in fact, unknowable.

It's still a questionable assumption to assume TV Tropes is "more popular". I contend it seems that way because it's moderately well-known on these fora, but that's only a fraction of a fraction of the comic's readers.

[BlackKettle]

I take issue with your paraphrase.

Whether or not I could theoretically say Rich hasn't "provided a nod to readers of TVTropes," I can certainly say that Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes. Watch, I'll do it again: Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes.

And no, I got what you were saying. Again, TVTropes is not a source and has never been directly referenced. Suggesting people should view a repository of tropes as an source in and of itself and believe that it's been referenced directly even though it hasn't is not a good idea; it doesn't lead anywhere that makes sense.

I think we're at the point of arguing semantics here.

It's still a questionable assumption to assume TV Tropes is "more popular". I contend it seems that way because it's moderately well-known on these fora, but that's only a fraction of a fraction of the comic's readers.

Even with that doubt, my point is that you cannot know which audience Rich is aiming his references at. Maybe it's even both. My posts have been in response to what I feel to be a hostility to the idea that Rich could read TV Tropes. I was hoping to show that it is just another "source of entertainment" (not source in the origins sense, we don't need to go there again) and could be used in a similar way to other "sources of entertainment" such as Marvel, Dune, or Odysseus.

Essentially, my argument is "Rich is not a hack IF he reads TV Tropes"

[afarrell]

That's a semantic question. They're gathered together in a convenient place, so you might as well call it a source. It's at least a lake with many tributaries.

But tributaries that the Giant will be well familiar with anyway.

The main thing it has going for it is snappy names, which is where I'm prepared to make an offer: Lampshade Hanging isn't original to TVTropes, and Cerebus Syndrome isn't in the comic (or original to TVTropes). But there's been mention of the Xanatos Gambit, which from the sounds of it is not actually in the original Gargoyles. Can anyone actually point me at that phrase appearing in the comic?

Because apart from that, y'all seem to be running around in circles, claiming that this thing proves that the Giant read TVTropes because it's like but not identical to this thing, and the Giant would know that, if he read TVTropes.

[Timberboar]

Rich clearly reads TV Tropes, and I'm extremely surprised that anyone denies this. It's obvious from the Lampshade Hanging of Lampshade Hanging.

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

[Doug Lampert]

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

In and of itself that's vastly MORE plausible than TVTropes. Millions of people watched SG-1 regularly, probably only hundreds of thousands hit TVTropes at all often.

The only reason we can say your explantion is ONLY every bit as plausible without laughably understating the case is that there are other reasons to suspect Rich reads TVTropes.

AFAIK I'm the only one I know who reads TVTropes at all. The xkcd reference to TVTropes didn't even make SENSE to several of my friends, because they had no idea what TVTropes is (but note that I do know other xkcd readers). I only really know of it through this place and Irregular Webcomics. It's OBSCURE!

I know a dozen or more people who watched SG-1 regularly, including my wife. If it weren't that it's even MORE PLAUSIBLE that Rich knew the term from elsewhere first I'd say SG-1 had to be the most likely explanation.

The only grounds for thinking Rich has ever even heard of TVTropes are (a) the claim that his references match their names more often than would be expected by random chance (not provable, but quite plausible) and (b) the fact that he may well have been sent there by other readers of his comments sections. That's it. No single reference proves it, and attempts to claim reference X must have come from TVTropes mostly tend to show that the person making the claim is abysmally ignorant and thinks Rich must share his ignorance.

Lampshade hanging? Always Chaotic Evil?!?!

None of that proves anything about TVTropes. I'll agree with another poster that calling something a Xanatos Gambit in comic might prove something, I'm not familiar with any use of that term that predates TVTropes since I don't think the term was ever used in Gargoyles. But AFAICT Xanatos has never been mentioned in comic, much less the specific term Xanatos Gambit.

[BRC]

I would not be surprised if he did, but I wouldn't bet money that he does.

What I WOULD bet money on, is that large numbers of people on TVtropes read OOTS. It seems like OOTS references lots of tropes, however TVtropes encompasses a vast range of potential storytelling devices, and it's commonly linked on this forum, making an apparent connection. And because so many tropers read OOTS, it shows up everywhere on the wiki.

Also, OOTS is a parody of two things that TVtropes has covered extensively, tabletop role playing games, and the Epic Fantasy Adventure in a tolkienesque world. What's more, since it's a Parody, it uses a lot of Tropes intentionally in order to mock them.

Also, remember, Correlation does not equal causation, the trope names on TVtropes are, as far as I remember, NEVER truely self generated. They're either references to something (Cerebus Syndrome, Xanatos's Gambit), or a simple description (Action Girl, Only Sane Man). TVtropes is merely a collection of these things. Assuming that, say, the use of the phrase "Redshirt" is a reference to TVtropes is like hearing somebody say Quixotic and assuming they are referencing Webster's dictionary.

[Conuly]

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

I remember that episode, but I thought they used "hanging a lantern instead".

[Spiky]

As an American, I'm aware of 'Lusitania', but I wasn't aware of 'trope' until TV Tropes. I'm currently content to remain ignorant of 'Llangefni.'

Regardless, the point is it's usage until the arrival of that web site has been sporadic, at best. I'm very happy that you learned 'trope', as have an unspecified 'many.' I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it is a piece of vocabulary so common and widely known to suggest it's sudden appearance in a Web Comic is unrelated to an enormous web site that has spread the term to the far ends of the Internet....but that's just me.

So, do you know the word irony?

[Nimrod's Son]

Heavens above, this one got got busy while I was away...

But let's go back to the initial example: Lampshading. We've already established that this particular trick goes by a wide variety of names. It also seems to be a concept which is not commonly known by name to people outside the 'industry'; in other words, minus TV Tropes, only a minority of readers would understand the reference to 'Lampshading' if used on it's own.

Your definition of the "industry" must be pretty loose, then. I studied film, sure, but I never worked in the industry. I know plenty people who can say the same, and even then that's only talking about the people I know who bothered to take it as a qualification. People who know story convention are by no means limited to "the industry".

Now, if you wanted to get REALLY defensive about it I'm sure you could find examples of enormous worms and humans with spider-like abilities that pre-date these two sources. Fantastic!

Find me another example that not only has enormous worms but also the concept of someone's eyes turning vivid blue after consuming spice and THEN we can debate what that scene was a reference to.

I think you're trying too hard to not find references here. Rich does not have to explicitly mention a "website that lists tropes" in be referencing TV Tropes. As another poster put it, he can make a nod to it's readers by mentioning a literary device that they would be more familiar with than the majority of his readers.

As I've said all along, perhaps he does read it. But then, I positively hate that website and yet I could make a dozen references to it without even having to think. I maybe spent, ooh, an hour or so in total clicking around on that site before deciding that I never want to see it again in my life. But I could still tell you exactly what quite a few of those tropes are, often by name. Especially since people in this forum bang on about it so much.

So, yeah. I know what Lampshade Hanging is (in fact, I've heard it referred to as several things, but that's definitely one of them). I know what a Chekhov's Gun is. I know what a Xanatos Gambit is. I know what a MacGuffin is.

Do I read TVTropes? Am I, in fact, a "Troper"?

Um... God no.

But then again, if I was making a living off a webcomic that had such a vocal TVTropes following amongst my readership, heck yes I'd throw them a vague reference or two every now and again. It still wouldn't mean I'd have to read the damn thing.

A comic book that ended a year after OotS started, with fewer readers in a month than Rich's comic gets on a very bad day. I'm not saying that nobody reads comics, I'm saying that even among comics fans, very few people know Cerebus firsthand. If he were to reference anything about the book other than its title character or "Cerebus Syndrome," a term popularized wholly by secondhand sources like, yes, TV Tropes, or maybe the fact that Dave Sim hates feminists, I guarantee there would be more "I don't get it" responses to that line than to any other comic he has ever written.

I'd never heard of Cerebus when I read that strip, so I immediately Googled it and read the Wikipedia article, amongst a few other things, until I understood what V was talking about. I'm pretty certain I'd never heard of TVTropes at the time, and if it happened to be one of the links Google turned up then I sure didn't notice. The lack of TVTropes didn't prove to be much of a barrier to my understanding, though.

If Rich made a joke about "let them eat cake," would you assume he'd read it on TV Tropes, or in a history book?

There's a difference?!

[Math_Mage]

A case can be made for each individual example that its source path does or doesn't include TV Tropes. But the sheer volume of gratuitous references makes it likely. Most individual pieces of scientific evidence can be argued in many ways; it is the accumulation of evidence that builds consensus behind, say, evolutionary theory. Which is not to imply that either position here is as solid as evolutionary theory, only that it makes more sense to step back and consider the whole than to haggle over every example individually.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Nerd-o-Rama, could I sig your conclusion, please?

Sorry, I kind of lost track of this thread. Go right ahead.

I also am going to say that there's not really any "evidence" either way here.

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

[Timberboar]

I remember that episode, but I thought they used "hanging a lantern instead".

It has been a long time since I've seen that episode.

I admit the possibility (probability?) that I may be mistaken.

[Petrocorus]

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

There even a Trope about this: *** Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

However, i myself still think RB's a regular troper.

EDIT: The word filter has blocked the Latin word for "with".

[afarrell]

So, yeah. I know what a Chekhov's Gun is. I know what a Xanatos Gambit is. I know what a MacGuffin is.

But one of these things is not like the others: Chekhov's Gun and MacGuffins were known as such for decades before TVTropes came along!

[Doug Lampert]

Sorry, I kind of lost track of this thread. Go right ahead.

I also am going to say that there's not really any "evidence" either way here.

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

And I'll debate what the correlation implies in this case: The Order of the Stick is explicitely listed on TVTropes as the trope namer for all of the following:
•And That Would Be Wrong
•Colour Coded For Your Convenience
•Continuity Snarl (in-universe... not for the readers)
•Failed A Spot Check
•Start Of Darkness
•Your Approval Fills Me With Shame

That's six tropes, more than the TOTAL number of references to other tropes cited in this thread as "proving" that Rich reads TVTropes. That's even counting the absurdity of claiming that he might have gotten "Always Chaotic Evil" from TVtropes as a TVTrope reference in the count!

To put it another way, Rich cites so many tropes so often that it's quite possible that he's the TROPE NAMER more often than he follows the exact existing name given on TVTropes when he uses one!

If Rich were really getting names of tropes from TVtropes and using them with any frequency as a shout out to an obscure webpage, then wouldn't that appearant ratio be reversed? Wouldn't MANY of Rich's trope references be to things on the page and only a few to things not yet covered where he could become the Trope Namer?

But in fact Rich references tropes SO OFTEN that he frequently hits tropes not yet referenced on TVTropes (despite the fact that it's a wiki and allegedly so overwhelmingly well known that shout outs to it make sense for a webpage with many thousands of regular readers) and because he beat all those Tropers out Rich becomes the trope namer!

That implies that no small number of references to commonly used terms can possible establish that he reads the page. He'll hit a good number that they HAVE covered by pure coincidence, and ALL of the cited possible references are to tropes with names commonly known prior to TVTropes.

The ONLY good reason to think he's ever been to TVTropes is the frequency with which other people on his discussion board link to it and the fact that he reads parts of the discussion board.

[Petrocorus]

And I'll debate what the correlation implies in this case: The Order of the Stick is explicitely listed on TVTropes as the trope namer for all of the following:
•And That Would Be Wrong
•Colour Coded For Your Convenience
•Continuity Snarl (in-universe... not for the readers)
•Failed A Spot Check
•Start Of Darkness
•Your Approval Fills Me With Shame

Nice done, now i will spend my night reading all this.
You do know that TvTrope will ruin our lives.

The ONLY good reason to think he's ever been to TVTropes is the frequency with which other people on his discussion board link to it and the fact that he reads parts of the discussion board.

I would be really wondered if he never been there given the said frequency.

[Math_Mage]

If Rich were really getting names of tropes from TVtropes and using them with any frequency as a shout out to an obscure webpage, then wouldn't that appearant ratio be reversed? Wouldn't MANY of Rich's trope references be to things on the page and only a few to things not yet covered where he could become the Trope Namer?

But in fact Rich references tropes SO OFTEN that he frequently hits tropes not yet referenced on TVTropes (despite the fact that it's a wiki and allegedly so overwhelmingly well known that shout outs to it make sense for a webpage with many thousands of regular readers) and because he beat all those Tropers out Rich becomes the trope namer!

Objection: being the Trope Namer is not the same as being the Trope Maker (see the 0th law of trope examples). These tropes aren't named after their OotS examples because OotS did it first, but rather because the references are especially pithy or fitting, somewhat akin to the Most Triumphant Example.

Which brings up another part of the correlation: Rich could have referenced these tropes any number of ways, just as TV Tropes could have named them any number of different things. But they each used the same name on several occasions (excluding the Trope Namer cases, of course). On the one hand, that's incredibly prone to sampling bias; on the other, it would be even if it were true.

[Drolyt]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other. At any rate I think it is highly likely The Giant has at least heard of TvTropes, but I have no opinion as to whether he reads it regularly. I do find it likely that at some point in the past he may have had a wiki walk. By the way until recently pretty much all trope names were named after something from fiction, so it is entirely possible that someone using the same names were simply using the same source. Two of the arguments I've heard on here, Lampshade Hanging and Cerebrus Syndrome, were in common use before TvTropes. In fact I had heard the former before I ever heard of Tvtropes.

[Math_Mage]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other.

Well, on the one hand, there have been posts stating that TV Tropes is a cesspool of unoriginality and stagnation, which is horribly offensive to tropers. On the other, there have been posts eagerly embracing the possibility that OotS is making liberal use of TV Tropes, a horribly offensive notion to people who have the aforementioned opinion about that place.

So yeah, things could stand to cool down around here.

[blunk]

Remember that South Park episode with the Family Guy writers being manatees? Let's just say, thank God tvtropes has a "random item" link!!!

Alternate response: who cares?

[Kish]

Well, on the one hand, there have been posts stating that TV Tropes is a cesspool of unoriginality and stagnation, which is horribly offensive to tropers. On the other, there have been posts eagerly embracing the possibility that OotS is making liberal use of TV Tropes, a horribly offensive notion to people who have the aforementioned opinion about that place.

And there have been posts asserting as fact that Rich uses TVTropes, which is an offensive notion to people who are generally indifferent to the website but don't think anyone should be claiming knowledge they don't have.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other. At any rate I think it is highly likely The Giant has at least heard of TvTropes, but I have no opinion as to whether he reads it regularly. I do find it likely that at some point in the past he may have had a wiki walk. By the way until recently pretty much all trope names were named after something from fiction, so it is entirely possible that someone using the same names were simply using the same source. Two of the arguments I've heard on here, Lampshade Hanging and Cerebrus Syndrome, were in common use before TvTropes. In fact I had heard the former before I ever heard of Tvtropes.

The only reason I'm offended is by people who continue to Fail Logic Forever, but that happens everywhere on the internet so I'm not actually surprised or offended; just trying to speak firmly to get my point across.

I'm also not saying Rich doesn't read TVTropes, or reference it in the comic, I just think it's a silly assumption to make. It might be true, it might not.

EDIT: also your banner image is too wide, although not by a terribly huge margin. It just makes the page look off.

[Drolyt]

The only reason I'm offended is by people who continue to Fail Logic Forever, but that happens everywhere on the internet so I'm not actually surprised or offended; just trying to speak firmly to get my point across.

I'm also not saying Rich doesn't read TVTropes, or reference it in the comic, I just think it's a silly assumption to make. It might be true, it might not.

EDIT: also your banner image is too wide, although not by a terribly huge margin. It just makes the page look off.

Really? I'll fix that then, thanks.

[Harr]

There is really no evidence in the comic pointing to TVTropes. Every example given here as being a "clue" pointing to that website was popular long before TVTropes itself was popular. Yes, even lampshade hanging. Yes, there have been several different versions of that phrase (lampshade, lantern, clock etc.), but what people are skipping over is that they had already begun to be united under "lampshade" before TVTropes named their page that. They didn't give it a name; they simply took the one that was already the most widely-used (as is the entire point of TVTropes).

Besides, even if the Giant learned about the use of that phrase in filmmaking from TVTropes... even if he had never heard it before encountering it over there... it's still a reference to the use of that phrase in filmmaking, not a reference to TVTropes.

Saying that the comic is referencing TVTropes when it's talking about Cerebus or lampshading is like saying that when I write "Veni, vidi, vici" I'm referencing my third-grade history class instead of Julius Caesar.

Picture it now... I'm writing a webcomic and one of the characters quips "Veni vidi vici". Readers reply "Haha, I get it, Ms. Sofia, third grade history class, Beaumont High, Fort Lauderdale, right? Nice reference, she was great!" or for a less ridiculous example, let's say the reply was "Oh, I get it, that war stuff, like in history class! History class was great."

Sure, someone who loves history class and spends a good amount of time in it might be thrilled that someone is referencing their beloved hobby... but while I might have learned about Julius Caesar FROM history class, and I know every single person reading my comic HAS been in a history class at some point, I was nowhere near wanting to reference the actual class.

See? If I wanted to make a reference to history class, then I would make a reference to history class. Like the Wikipedia reference in Sod; the Giant wanted to reference Wikipedia, so he referenced Wikipedia. There's no need to be coy or sly or all wink-wink "here's a clue to point you in the right direction" about it; you want to reference something, you reference it.

Btw, how many pop culture facts do you think the Giant has looked up, looked into, or just confirmed in Wikipedia all through the comic? Several perhaps? Do you therefore consider these pop culture bits being in the comic to be nods to the Wikipedia fans out there? There's a good chance he read about them there after all! Or maybe the Giant is a fan of E! Entertainment Television? But they're not; Wikipedia and E! are tools through which you find other actual sources of knowledge you can use. Same with TVTropes.

[Drolyt]

There is really no evidence in the comic pointing to TVTropes. Every example given here as being a "clue" pointing to that website was popular long before TVTropes itself was popular. Yes, even lampshade hanging. Yes, there have been several different versions of that phrase (lampshade, lantern, clock etc.), but what people are skipping over is that they had already begun to be united under "lampshade" before TVTropes named their page that. They didn't give it a name; they simply took the one that was already the most widely-used (as is the entire point of TVTropes).

Besides, even if the Giant learned about the use of that phrase in filmmaking from TVTropes... even if he had never heard it before encountering it over there... it's still a reference to the use of that phrase in filmmaking, not a reference to TVTropes.

Saying that the comic is referencing TVTropes when it's talking about Cerebus or lampshading is like saying that when I write "Veni, vidi, vici" I'm referencing my third-grade history class instead of Julius Caesar.

Picture it now... I'm writing a webcomic and one of the characters quips "Veni vidi vici". Readers reply "Haha, I get it, Ms. Sofia, third grade history class, Beaumont High, Fort Lauderdale, right? Nice reference, she was great!" or for a less ridiculous example, let's say the reply was "Oh, I get it, that war stuff, like in history class! History class was great."

Sure, someone who loves history class and spends a good amount of time in it might be thrilled that someone is referencing their beloved hobby... but while I might have learned about Julius Caesar FROM history class, and I know every single person reading my comic HAS been in a history class at some point, I was nowhere near wanting to reference the actual class.

See? If I wanted to make a reference to history class, then I would make a reference to history class. Like the Wikipedia reference in Sod; the Giant wanted to reference Wikipedia, so he referenced Wikipedia. There's no need to be coy or sly or all wink-wink "here's a clue to point you in the right direction" about it; you want to reference something, you reference it.

Btw, how many pop culture facts do you think the Giant has looked up, looked into, or just confirmed in Wikipedia all through the comic? Several perhaps? Do you therefore consider these pop culture bits being in the comic to be nods to the Wikipedia fans out there? There's a good chance he read about them there after all! Or maybe the Giant is a fan of E! Entertainment Television? But they're not; Wikipedia and E! are tools through which you find other actual sources of knowledge you can use. Same with TVTropes.

This guy has a good point, well sorta. Thing is while some of the posters have made the claims he's arguing against the OP said nothing of the sort. They just gave their opinion that The Giant reads TvTropes. The OP is probably a TvTropes regular that wanted to know if their theory is true because, I don't know, having similar interests gives people a feeling of kinship. They probably respect The Giant and would be thrilled to learn that The Giant happens to have a similar interest to their own.

[Nimrod's Son]

But one of these things is not like the others: Chekhov's Gun and MacGuffins were known as such for decades before TVTropes came along!

MOST things on TVTropes existed long before the website came along. That was one of the points I was making.

Another was that in the few cases where TVTropes has itself coined a phrase that has stuck, I can usually still tell what it's about without being a reader of the site. I don't recall where I first heard the term "Xanatos Gambit" (on these forums, most likely) but I knew instantly what it meant without the aid of a wiki, because I've seen Gargoyles.

[Petrocorus]

Another was that in the few cases where TVTropes has itself coined a phrase that has stuck, I can usually still tell what it's about without being a reader of the site. I don't recall where I first heard the term "Xanatos Gambit" (on these forums, most likely) but I knew instantly what it meant without the aid of a wiki, because I've seen Gargoyles.

I wonder if this name of Xanatos Gambit has been chosen on TvTropes or the trope was already callled like this before.

I do know the trope itself is probably Older than Feudalism.

[Nimrod's Son]

They probably respect The Giant and would be thrilled to learn that The Giant happens to have a similar interest to their own.

Isn't D&D enough, then? That line of thinking can get a little weird...

Hey kids! Do YOU use the same deodorant as The Giant?

[Drolyt]

I wonder if this name of Xanatos Gambit has been chosen on TvTropes or the trope was already callled like this before.

I do know the trope itself is probably Older than Feudalism.

Devising a plan where you benefit even if the plan fails? I'm fairly certain that's older than media. The very first people with any intelligence must have been doing that even before the first caveman started painting on cave walls. Such plans were probably in existence before the invention of language.