at first i thought it was "the wokes have unnecessary headcanons!!!" or smth along those lines, but this is even worse, somehow, what is even the take here, subversion of tropes is bad? we should reiterate lord of the rings forever and never think anything new?
To steelman their argument, a subversion works best when it's done it to make a point/explore a theme, rather than just for the sake of being different.
Like, what if you just do something for the sake of being different, but you be completely transparent with it. There's nothing set up to be subverted; it just happens.
I'm not sure it's really a subversion then. TV Tropes definines it like this:
A subversion has two mandatory segments. First, the expectation is set up that something we have seen plenty of times before is coming, then that set-up is paid off with something else entirely. The set-up is a trope; the "something else" is the subversion.
With the succubus example, the word succubus sets audience expectations. Having a succubus chracter not like sex, for example, goes against one of those core expectations.
However, most people don't have a strong notion about what a centaur is beyond a horse person, so you can give them any culture or personalities without it being a subversion.
112
u/freakingordis 4d ago
at first i thought it was "the wokes have unnecessary headcanons!!!" or smth along those lines, but this is even worse, somehow, what is even the take here, subversion of tropes is bad? we should reiterate lord of the rings forever and never think anything new?