>tfw you think you've written a unique character but

sure but shklovsky would argue that it's not the device you use but how you destabilise it.

>>9344024

That's not particularly surprising, considering TV tropes got out of hand big time and there's a page dedicated to virtually every conceivable form of human life out there

>>9344024
No, because Tropers are plebs or worse, pseuds, who never read anything good even when they rub their eyes across a page of the Bible.

>>9344024
Just wrote a character who's a gifted but struggling writer who's so neurotic that he convinces himself all of his ideas match something on TV tropes.

do Anons unironically not get that THEY are the greasy creeps on buses? or is that the joke?

>>9344774
Maybe 4chan pre-2007, but since then users here haven't been the absolute bottom of the social ladder. Quite close, though.

>>9344369
South Park did it

>>9344782
You couldn't be more wrong. 4chan pre-2007 was teenage boys, now you're grown men without jobs and prospects - and you actually are old enough to have neckbeards.

>go to the titty bar with bro and bro's father-in-law
>sit down at the bar, waiting for a table to open up
>two strippers immediately approach bro and bro's father-in-law while completely ignoring me
>feel like sinking into the floor and dying
>all of a sudden they both grab me and start pulling me towards the lap dance area
>bro's father-in-law paid them to give me a double lap dance
>everythingwentbetterthanexpected.png

>>9344801
There were a decent amount of adults back then too, and my primary point is those ones were much bigger losers than those teenage boys you're talking about who became adults on here---'joining' this site in adulthood is a worse sign than in adolescence. And just as importantly, the ratio back then was a lot more tilted in favor of the absolute bottom rung. Yes, there are plenty of neckbeards on this site still, but most of the users are probably just some standard semi-socially functional neurotic with friends and some sense of self. This place is a lot more normalized than you're making it out to be.

>>9344024
If you consider your character an aggregate of tropes then I wouldn't be too surprised if you found it impossible to ever conceive of a unique character. You're taking the wrong approach here, anon.

>>9344024
There is nothing new under the sun. Thinking man has lived long enough for every "trope" conceivable by the human mind to be conceived.

TVTropes is filled with aspies who relentlessly scan through media of all kinds to stuff characters, plot devices, etc. into their little "trope" categories, addressing the who, the what, and the where, but not the how or the why.

In conclusion, ignore TVTropes. It's shit. Just write what you want to write, and even if it's not completely original, you can add a creative spin on it to make it yours.

>>9344024
i never set out to write unique characters so no.

>>9344823
>Yes, there are plenty of neckbeards on this site still, but most of the users are probably just some standard semi-socially functional neurotic with friends and some sense of self. This place is a lot more normalized than you're making it out to be.

This. I recall /a/ allowing a late night thread which devolved into a blog thread and everyone admitted to being skinny white males with one or two friends and just having weird hobbies and not very good at relating to people. I would assume that holds true more or less for most of the other boards.

>>9344837
I wrote out some interesting thoughts in response to your post then decided not to share them and keep them for my book instead.

>>9344024

Shakespeare already covered literally all of the archetypes and archetypical themes. Anything you do will in some way be derivative of him.

>>9344834

I enjoy reading TVtropes in my spare time, but I don't think it could ever be used effectively as a creative/literary resource. You're right in that someone should write what they want to write.

>>9344834
>There is nothing new under the sun.
When will this new age meme die?

>>9344885
at least you shared something

>>9344893
Feels bad mayne

>>9344913
When the people who are writing new shit die and their work is discovered a while after

>>9344913
It's in the Bible, retard

>tfw you think you've created a unique story about a young man going forth from his home to brave the subterranean dangers, receive aid from allies and special items, defeat an evil threat, and return home a hero wiser about the world and himself, but discover that every story ever conceived is a permutation of the same ur-myth

>>9345361

>man wakes up
>decides to go back to sleep

short story there but proves you wrong enough.

I've just read something quite interesting on narrative theory which is that a story doesn't partiularly belong to anybody. What can be taken ownership of is the narrative; the way in which the story unfolds. The Oedipus mythology doesn't belong to anybody really but Oedipus Rex did belong to Sophocles. It's not just about plot.