Bjorn

Baby Got Backstory - A trope creation thread

Recommended Posts

Should the definition be gender-specific? Not leading or rhetorical, a real question. 

 

My gut answer was no. But after thinking about it, the implications of this trope with a male character are so different that it isn't really the same thing at any scale.

I can't actually come up with any male examples so it may be moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*fart noise*

 

:fart: :fart: :fart:

 

It seems like we're all mostly on the same page, it's just kinda minor semantics or details about specific examples.

 

 

I can't actually come up with any male examples so it may be moot.

 

I would suspect that most male examples would end also explaining something else about the guy, like Conan is crazy strong because he pushed a grist mill for years (and didn't die). Captain America gets a rad bod thanks to magic-science, and he's really strong, fast, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suspect that most male examples would end also explaining something else about the guy, like Conan is crazy strong because he pushed a grist mill for years (and didn't die). Captain America gets a rad bod thanks to magic-science, and he's really strong, fast, etc.

 

Yeah, male appearances and behaviors aren't innately sexualized in our culture, so Captain America is super buff and wears skintight clothing because that's how we know to recognize a superhero. There is a sexual element, but it's not the same as Catwoman's or Wonder Woman's costume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron in the Sarah Connor Chronicles wanders around the house naked not, repeat, not because she's a red hot little fitty but because she's a Terminator and doesn't understand human social conventions. Her 'detailed files' apparently only encompass human anatomy and not 'boobs-out in public=no-no', despite evidence suggesting the first objective of every Terminator is to obtain clothes (and transportation).

 

It's kind of like when Data doesn't understand Troi asking for a 'rain check' and hilariously thinks there's something wrong with the environmental systems on the ship - he's a walking dictionary but apparently he's never encountered that idiom before. The writers stretch credibility in service of what they want at any specific moment. Hell, all series do that, but I think it's only a problem when they're not saying anything interesting by doing it. The Data example didn't serve any plot point or larger story - it was done to make nostalgic TNG fans smile in the final episode of Enterprise (and felt pretty corny, because we're all pedants who know he'd never have said anything so rubbish by the seventh season). I dare say the Sarah Connor Chronicles writers were more successful in achieving their objectives with Cameron in the nuddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely an example out there somewhere of Justified Long Dong. Damned if I can think of one, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to contribute, except for:

 

1) I'm not entirely sure on this, but I personally wouldn't count Jessica Rabbit, because she basically spells out loud in her most famous quote that she was drawn sexy just for the sake of being sexy. There's no actual justification there.

 

2) Kainé from Nier is a perfect example. She's been made to feel uncertain of her femininity and retaliates by wearing nothing but bandages, high heels, and a lingerie set:

 

2ifpFAN.png

 

3) Kate Beaton's "Strong Female Characters" comic provided a pitch-perfect parody example:

 

UwsQYye.png

 

4) the name "Baby Got Backstory" is an absolutely amazing term and deserves mainstream recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, also, I'm not sure that we're even in a cultural space right now where male characters in most fiction would work. Most examples of "sexy" dudes are either designed for male power fantasies or as a joke, and not with the intention of being sexy.

 

Like, a lot of comic book dudes will make the "male superheroes wear spandex too" argument, but there's a big difference between a Frank Miller Batman drawing and, say, a Tom of Finland drawing.

 

YWPB508.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much to contribute...

 

Tegan, if that isn't much to contribute... Never mind, thanks! I like that Kate Beaton was here first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I'm not entirely sure on this, but I personally wouldn't count Jessica Rabbit, because she basically spells out loud in her most famous quote that she was drawn sexy just for the sake of being sexy. There's no actual justification there.

I would uh disagree with that. The justification is that she was drawn sexy just for the sake of being sexy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would uh disagree with that. The justification is that she was drawn sexy just for the sake of being sexy!

 

Yeah, but it's not an attempt to excuse her sexuality with a less sexual and more rational justification. The rationalization for her being sexy is that she's meant to be sexy, the inclusion of which broadens this trope into something impossibly wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I introduced Jessica Rabbit but in retrospect it's very fitting since its not really a justification thing. She is unashamedly sexual for the sake of being sexual, not because of some secret logical reason that has nothing to do with men oggling her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understand the reason, but it is still objectively a plot-given justification for a character being sexualized, even if it is the most basic and inoffensive kind of justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ben that what separates this trope from 'a character is sexy and there is/is not a reason for it' is the effort involved in making it totally non-sexual you guys. Jessica Rabbit doesn't require very much work to justify her presence in a noir parody.

 

I don't think it's particularly useful to have it just be 'a character is sexy and the creator gives a reason for it' because then we're taking every work where there's a sexy character and dividing it in two, and I don't think that means very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that she requires work to justify her presence. It's that they explicitly supply a reason for it. If she'd just been a sexy cartoon and they never spoke on it except to say, oh, yeah, she's sexy, oo la la, that'd be one thing. But they DO go out of their way to justify it. It doesn't matter that it's a solid justification, in-world or just in-genre/setting/context/whatever. It's still a justification.

 

But clearly I am the minority here so my opinion no longer matters. ):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But her saying that is the same as a human character saying "I can't help it that I've got a good body, it's genetics." It's not the author trying to hand-wave away their choice to put a sexy character in there with diegetic bullshit.

The issue isn't whether it's problematic, it's whether it fits the trope. If it does fit the trope, then the trope is too broad, and needs renaming! If a trope starts off being applied too broadly and being misunderstood, then it'll be dead to language on arrival!

But perhaps someone here might disagree with me so I guess I'LL JUST SHUT UP AND PRE-EMPTIVELY SIT HERE POUTING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But her saying that is the same as a human character saying "I can't help it that I've got a good body, it's genetics." It's not the author trying to hand-wave away their choice to put a sexy character in there with diegetic bullshit.

 

In her case I'd say it's more like a human character being genetically engineered to have a good body which does fit the trope.  She was drawn with the intent of making her sexy, she didn't become sexy through some random process.  If nothing was said about it and she was included because she's an archetype of a stock character then I'd say the trope doesn't apply.  But the reminder, minor as it is, that she was designed that way means it applies in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In her case I'd say it's more like a human character being genetically engineered to have a good body which does fit the trope.  She was drawn with the intent of making her sexy, she didn't become sexy through some random process.  If nothing was said about it and she was included because she's an archetype of a stock character then I'd say the trope doesn't apply.  But the reminder, minor as it is, that she was designed that way means it applies in my opinion.

 

Yeah, but all the toons were drawn with intent. This isn't a specific backstory for her. I'd say it's like a human character saying "hey, some women are born sexy!" That's not inventing a backstory, it's hanging a lampshade on it. Besides that, SPOIIIIILLLLLERS the line does actually serve a story purpose: introducing the idea that just because she's drawn as a femme fatale doesn't necessarily mean she is one.

 

EDIT: and her sexualised design is inherent to the story! It's not like she could be replaced by, to pick an anachronistic example, Elmyra without affecting anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but all the toons were drawn with intent. This isn't a specific backstory for her. I'd say it's like a human character saying "hey, some women are born sexy!" That's not inventing a backstory, it's hanging a lampshade on it. Besides that, SPOIIIIILLLLLERS the line does actually serve a story purpose: introducing the idea that just because she's drawn as a femme fatale doesn't necessarily mean she is one.

 

EDIT: and her sexualised design is inherent to the story! It's not like she could be replaced by, to pick an anachronistic example, Elmyra without affecting anything.

 

I agree all toons are drawn with intent and that she couldn't be replaced with any random character, but it's specifically the fact that all this was called out to begin with is what makes it part of the trope.  As you pointed out, she already represents (and to a degree subverts) the femme fatale trope, but that could have been done without any justification.

 

And to be clear, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying I think it fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Jessica Rabbit discussion is a bit of a distraction. I would tend to fall on the side of not thinking she's part of the trope, but ultimately, arguing any specific example into the ground just seems to kind of drag the conversation down. What's probably better is to identify a solid half dozen examples like Edi that I think we're all on board with fitting the trope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beeeeeeeeeen. YES. All those things are true! But just because a justification is good or makes sense doesn't make it any less of a justification!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beeeeeeeeeen. YES. All those things are true! But just because a justification is good or makes sense doesn't make it any less of a justification!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't think the problem is with whether or no the justification is good. In the language of TV Tropes, the Jessica Rabbit example seems more like a subversion to me. It doesn't explain away with a weak rationalization, it spells out exactly why characters like this are portrayed the way that they are. It's just luck that they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It doesn't explain away with a weak rationalization" is a judgment of the justification. You're right that the problem isn't with whether or not the justification is good. The fact that it IS a justification is all that matters. The second we start judging which ones are worthy justifications - ones that earn their place - and which ones aren't is the second we get hung up on examples like this one. The facts are: It is a justification. Well, I guess that's just a fact. Singular.

 

That said, Bjorn is right, I guess. Not worth arguing about something SO INCREDIBLY BRAINMELTINGLY OBVIOUS when we have so few examples as is GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER PEOPLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I still think it's worth talking about because I think the nuances of the idea will come out of specific examples/counterexamples but I'll agree to table it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now