this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024

51 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22815 readers

393 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is your least favourite horror trope? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

One of the things I hate is (usually amateur stuff on YouTube) in which the person is getting overly scared even when it makes no sense.

Like they'll over act and start hyperventilating at a leaf and saying shit like "Oh my god what is that?!?!?! WHAT IS THAT?!?!" at like...a thud in the distance.

YouTube and Ghost Hunting shows seem to be the worst offender.

Another trope I hate is a horror game one but it's somewhat related; I hate it when the game tells you when to be scared by having a "sanity" effect or by the player character gasp or scream or whatever. Worst is if they have some kind of heartbeat sound effect that plays when you're supposed to be spooked.

But yeah, if a character starts saying shit like "WhAt ThE FuCk WaS ThAt?!" then I just get more annoyed than scared.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What does it mean for a setting to 'not be a wallpaper'?

Internal consistency and appreciation of scale are my personnel favorites, but there are so many ways to create interesting worlds so it depends on the type of story

What would prevent you from, for example, using worldbuilding to create parallels with real-world anti-colonial struggles and making a narrative about gloom or bloom in a colonial environment?

That's a perfect example of what I mean when I say worldbuilding should make the characters feel small, so their development resonates more profoundly later on, obviously in the beginning of the narrative those characters aren't going to immediately have the power to topple colonial structures or bring about revolution are they?

I think you're stuck on my word choice of "small and insignificant" while missing the far more important "when they triumph their accomplishments resonate that much more" part, I'm not saying characters should never grow into their settings and become important aspects of the world and lore, but that as the characterization develops and mysteries are resolved, questions are answered, new mysteries emerge, new questions replace old ones and the growth of the characters compliments the growth of the lore in a kind of (dare I say it) dialectical way

You still actually need either characters or some other narrative tools in addition to worldbuilding, while worldbuilding can be done without, basically.

I never disputed this point

You don't need more worldbuilding than a particular narrative demands. Consider, for example, Over the Garden Wall, where almost nothing is known about the world except for what we see directly, and that doesn't actually hurt the narrative in any way.

That is another perfect example of how world building elevates the narrative, the main characters literally start the story as "small and insignificant", they're children in a dark forest inhabited by supernatural beings, children who encounter enclosed magical societies, mysteries, terror, the world building is not rationed or subdued, it defines the setting and the characters, it elevates the narrative, 'over the garden wall' is a new world that the children didn't know existed and as they explore that world their characterization develops alongside it, BOOM A CLASSIC IS BORN

Why specifically limit the usage of worldbuilding to making main characters 'feel small and insignificant'?

Because usually you don't begin stories at the end, again unless you're a highly skilled author who can effectively subvert conventions, which most authors are not

Notably, none of those things require lore development, and lore development can even hurt those

There is no dichotomy here, characterization is lore development, world building is lore development, my point is as the narrative progresses the preservation of mystique, grandeur, awe, wonder, terror, etc. requires careful attention to how characterization and world building interact and without the two working in concert the lore is gonna usually suck along with the narrative, again unless someone is a subversive genius author whose works will be taught in university courses, which again is not most authors

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Internal consistency and appreciation of scale are my personnel favorites, but there are so many ways to create interesting worlds so it depends on the type of story

So, you find any internally-consistent setting to 'not be a wallpaper'? That roughly means that every historical/contemporary setting qualifies as such, even though basically no worldbuilding is done, and there are definitely works in such settings that do not instill any sort of feeling that the main characters are 'small and insignificant'.

Furthermore, I'd argue that internal consistency of any given setting is overrated.

That's a perfect example of what I mean when I say worldbuilding should make the characters feel small

Except, it's not. I did not say anything about making characters feel small. The setting can be just a small piece of land, and the story might be focused on interpersonal relations between a few characters, for example.

so their development resonates more profoundly later on

Why is that only achievable by making the main characters feel 'small and insignificant'?

obviously in the beginning of the narrative those characters aren't going to immediately have the power to topple colonial structures or bring about revolution are they?

Nobody said anything about them doing so at all, or a story focusing on that. A story can be focused on something else entirely in such a setting.

I think you're stuck on my word choice of "small and insignificant" while missing the far more important "when they triumph their accomplishments resonate that much more" part

Because you said that worldbuilding should be used specifically for making the main characters to feel 'small and insignificant'. Do you rescind that claim?

while missing the far more important "when they triumph their accomplishments resonate that much more" part

Also, on this topic in particular, this ignores the pieces of art where there is no triumph to speak of, and this also ignores how triumphs and accomplishments can be made to resonate with people without making the main characters feel 'small and insignificant'. I am also not sure why you aren't considering how making main characters feel 'small and insignificant' can also make their triumphs accomplishments feel the same - small and ultimately insignificant instead of personal and relevant to a given story.

Let's consider Over the Garden Wall again, as an example. Would expanding the worldbuilding to elaborate on topics that are completely irrelevant to the story and making the main characters feel 'small and insignificant' make the story that is primarily about their relationship better, and their accomplishments - localised entirely within their pairing - more resonant with somebody? And you do realise that you would have to actually set aside resources (including runtime of the cartoon) to communicate said worldbuilding at the cost of something else, right?

That is another perfect example of how world building elevates the narrative, the main characters literally start the story as "small and insignificant"

Except, they don't, unless you consider almost all characters from all stories 'small and insignificant'.
How many examples of characters can you provide that do not feel 'small and insignificant' to you?

they're children in a dark forest inhabited by supernatural beings, children who encounter enclosed magical societies, mysteries, terror, the world building is not rationed or subdued, it defines the setting and the characters, it elevates the narrative, 'over the garden wall' is a new world that the children didn't know existed and as they explore that world their characterization develops alongside it

You can use this justification to claim that all characters from almost every piece of art feel 'small and insignificant', in which case there is no distinction between characters supposedly feeling that way and not.
The main characters of Over the Garden Wall do not feel 'small and insignificant', as the narrative is focused almost entirely on them and their immediate surroundings, with worldbuilding being limited to, well, said surroundings. It is all very localised, and not expanded upon within the work. There are no explanations for how this world works, what its history is, what is where and who or why the Beast is, and so on, and so forth.

Because usually you don't begin stories at the end, again unless you're a highly skilled author who can effectively subvert conventions, which most authors are not

I'm not sure how that is relevant to using worldbuilding to make main characters feel 'small and insignificant', and not recognising that it can be used for a lot of other things, some of which are more general and important than this extremely narrow usage.

my point is as the narrative progresses the preservation of mystique, grandeur, awe, wonder, terror, etc. requires careful attention to how characterization and world building interact and without the two working in concert the lore is gonna usually suck

I maintain that lore is an overrated element of a narrative. In the case of Over the Garden Wall, for example, developing its lore would just detract from the work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So, you find any internally-consistent setting to 'not be a wallpaper'?

I said they are my personnel favorites, and unless you find settings that are internally inconsistent to be good writing, certainly not "overrated"

The setting can be just a small piece of land, and the story might be focused on interpersonal relations between a few characters, for example.

Again, I already said it's possible to craft stories thru characterization without relying on the setting (12 Angry Men as an example) BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE A SETTING then the requirements I laid out are crucial to allowing worldbuilding and characterization to mesh in ways that doesn't undermine either one, that's been my point the whole time

Because you said that worldbuilding should be used specifically for making the main characters to feel 'small and insignificant'. Do you rescind that claim?

Yes the world should be bigger than the characters, if you're gonna have a world; unless you believe characters should be bigger than their worlds outside of character focus and viewpoint, do you find most power fantasies evocative or examples of good writing? In that case I got a million isekais for you

Also, on this topic in particular, this ignores the pieces of art where there is no triumph to speak of

Why do you have such a literal view of the words I use, when I say "small and insignificant" I don't literally mean physically tiny or always at the bottom of the social ladder, when I use "triumph" I don't literally mean the characters at the end of every narrative hold a Roman style Triumph, we're talking about the broad breath of fiction as a whole, obviously I'm gonna use words that describe the MOST COMMON THEMES found thru-out the ocean of fictional works

It's relational and contextual, like with Over the Garden Wall, where "small and insignificant" means children lost in a dark forest with no knowledge of its inner workings, in another story it means something else

The main characters of Over the Garden Wall do not feel 'small and insignificant', as the narrative is focused almost entirely on them and their immediate surroundings, with worldbuilding being limited to, well, said surroundings

lmao you're just replacing the word "worldbuilding" with "surroundings" yes i.e. THE WORLDBUILDING AND THE SETTING which plays a crucial role in the narrative

It is all very localised, and not expanded upon within the work. There are no explanations for how this world works, what its history is, what is where and who or why the Beast is, and so on, and so forth.

Yes that's part of my original point, nothing is really answered concretely, no over-explanation of how the forest works, the mystery, the questions are still intact throughout the show and elevates and pushes the narrative along, that is what I mean by effective worldbuilding and effective lore, take the forest away it's not Over the Garden Wall anymore, it's a different show which may or may not be good

I maintain that lore is an overrated element of a narrative. In the case of Over the Garden Wall, for example, developing its lore would just detract from the work.

Frankly, I suspect your definitions of "lore" and "worldbuilding" simply don't mesh with mine, for me the "lore" of Over the Garden Wall is fully developed despite the narrative being unfinished

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I said they are my personnel favorites

I requested an explanation for what you meant by a setting not being a 'wallpaper'. That was the explanation that I got, along with 'appreciation of scale' which itself requires an explanation.

and unless you find settings that are internally inconsistent to be good writing, certainly not "overrated"

Internal inconsistency of a setting is not (usually, at least) good writing, but something can be written well while having its world not be consistent. So yes, I maintain that worldbuilding is overrated. I am not sure what your refutation is.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE A SETTING then the requirements I laid out are crucial to allowing worldbuilding and characterization to mesh in ways that doesn't undermine either one, that's been my point the whole time

Can you substantiate that point, i.e. that worldbuilding has to specifically be used to make main characters to feel 'small and insignificant', and using worldbuilding to instill something else is somehow not good? Do you consider works where characters do not feel 'small and insignificant' to be badly written just on that basis alone?

Yes the world should be bigger than the characters, if you're gonna have a world;

Over the Garden Wall has a setting that is substantially different from real life (in contrast to works set in historical and contemporary settings). Its worldbuilding, however, is both minimal (we know basically nothing about the world outside of the main characters' immediate surroundings) and doesn't make the characters feel 'small and insignificant'. And yet, you and I both seem to concur that the work is written well.

unless you believe characters should be bigger than their worlds outside of character focus and viewpoint, do you find most power fantasies evocative or examples of good writing?

Firstly, do I understand it correctly that you divide narratives that involve characters into ones where characters are 'small and insignificant' and ones that are power fantasies?
Secondly, I actually can appreciate some power fantasies, but I would rather not get into this particular topic.
Thirdly, not sure what you mean by a world being 'bigger/smaller than the characters'.

In that case I got a million isekais for you

'I can appreciate some power fantasies' and 'I like all power fantasies' are two different statements. Do you suggest I say that you are obligated to love every narrative with 'small and insignificant' characters?

Why do you have such a literal view of the words I use

Okay, can you explain what you mean, then? Surely, you don't consider me obligated to try to guess when you mean something very different from what you are saying and then try to divine what you mean, do you?

when I say "small and insignificant" I don't literally mean physically tiny or always at the bottom of the social ladder

What do you mean, then?

when I use "triumph" I don't literally mean the characters at the end of every narrative hold a Roman style Triumph

There is a huge gap between characters not holding a 'Roman-style Triumph' and a story having a saddening/bad conclusion for the characters, so I'm not sure where the claim that I read you too literally is coming from in this case.

It's relational and contextual, like with Over the Garden Wall, where "small and insignificant" means children lost in a dark forest with no knowledge of its inner workings, in another story it means something else

If 'small and insignificant' can mean basically whatever you want it to mean, then your initial words about wolrdbuilding having to make main characters feel 'small and insignificant' are simply not informative at all.

Also, let's consider another example - Bojack Horseman. Do you consider characters from there to feel 'small and insignificant'? If so, in what way do they feel 'small and insignificant'?

lmao you're just replacing the word "worldbuilding" with "surroundings" yes i.e. THE WORLDBUILDING AND THE SETTING which plays a crucial role in the narrative

I am not. If you think those words to be interchangeable, then we should be able to say the following:

as the narrative is focused almost entirely on them and their immediate worldbuilding, with surroundings being limited to, well, said worldbuilding

That obviously does not sound right, as worldbuilding is a literary tool, and the word 'surroundings' refers to people and things in one's vicinity. Those words are not synonymous, and this accusation is rather silly.

Yes that's part of my original point, nothing is really answered concretely, no over-explanation of how the forest works, the mystery, the questions are still intact throughout the show and elevates and pushes the narrative along, that is what I mean by effective worldbuilding and effective lore, take the forest away it's not Over the Garden Wall anymore, it's a different show which may or may not be good

Notably, none of those things make characters feel 'small and insignificant' to me. If anything, the smallness of the setting makes one feel as if the main characters are some of the few actors capable of making an impact on the forest, and the fact that the story focuses on the main characters' interpersonal relationships rather than on some world-ending threats or global politics makes them feel very important (because they very much are in their relationships, which is the focus of the narrative).

Frankly, I suspect your definitions of "lore" and "worldbuilding" simply don't mesh with mine, for me the "lore" of Over the Garden Wall is fully developed despite the narrative being unfinished

Well, Over the Garden Wall has basically no lore to speak of (at least, not within the cartoon). And the work doesn't need more of it.
As for the narrative being unfinished, I do not understand. In what way is it unfinished when the characters got a thorough conclusion to their stories?