On character hate, villains, and literary tropes

[xparrot]

Just read a comment on my flist by copracat in which she made a fascinating point about character bashing in fanfic, which I wanted to expound upon.

It's a well-known phenomenon in fandom, that any character who comes between a pairing will be hated by some fans of that pairing. While it's not the only source of character hate, hatred of the interloper is perhaps the number one reason for char bashing. Sometimes the hated characters will simply be absent from fanfic, or otherwise ignored. But sometimes the chars will be bashed - portrayed in extremely negative, often wildly OOC ways, as scheming, selfish shrews out to ruin love affairs. When it comes to m/m pairings, such romantic interlopers are nearly always female characters (since almost all slashed male chars are canonically heterosexual, so their only canonical romantic partners are female. The reverse can be true with femme-slash pairings; Joxer was hated by some fans for being a potential threat to Xena/Gabrielle.)

copracat points out that such interlopers are a standard trope in romance fiction. A stock female villain in romances is the woman is trying to come between the lovers: "generally shallow, beautiful outside but ugly inside, a harpy to women and a sweet charmer to men, and will do anything to win the hero from the heroine." This is a classic figure: Cinderella's stepsister, Ursula in Disney's The Little Mermaid (Gaston in Disney's Beauty & the Beast is a male variant.) Her love isn't genuine; it's greed, fueled by envy and resentment, wanting what should rightfully be the heroine's. She's an obstacle in the path of True Love, and for a happy ending to be achieved, she must be defeated, losing everything she's unfairly taken.

Like most fiction tropes, this may not be a story that appeals to you personally, but it's one that works for a lot of people; it's a trope because it's emotionally satisfying to many. It's arguable whether it's intrinsically misogynistic; at least in traditional romances it's less blatantly so, because the villainess is losing to a heroine. When this trope is applied to a m/m slash pairing, then it becomes more problematic, because it's vilifying the major female character in the story.

The other problem is that in the original romances, the female villain is supposed to be hated; that's her role in the story, and to like her you must read the text subversively. But when a female character from a non-romance is cast as such a female villain, then that's a subversion of the original text, and is therefore nonsensical to anyone reading the text straight. Moreover, even if you do like slash, if you're not the sort of person who likes this particular romance trope, then the bashing can seem like pointless, malicious cruelty.

A basher who casts a female character as the evil obstacle in a slash pairing isn't necessarily doing it because they want to make people hate the character, or even because that's actually how they view the character; it's because it's how they want to view the character, what is the most emotionally satisfying way to see them, properly fulfilling their role as villainness. In the same way some fans "love to hate" the textual villains of a series, so do some bashers "love to hate" the chars who are villains in their personal reading of the canon, and enjoy fanfic that supports this view, enjoy seeing them get their just desserts - especially if it's never going to happen in canon.

If you are a fan of the bashed character, you may be frustrated with such OOC portrayals, but it will do no good to argue with a bashing fan. Part of the trait of a good female villainness of this style is that she's got the hero snowed; arguing her good points is only evidence that she's successfully fooling some of the audience, too. (Hence the seemingly paradoxical accusations laid on some characters, that they are simultaneously perfect Mary Sues and helpless, useless, pointless characters - the villainness's Mary Sue-ness is that she is perceived to be perfect, while in fact having no real skills beyond duplicity.) And liking this trope may slip over into misogyny with fans of strictly m/m slash who never like het pairings, because pretty much all female characters can be viewed as possible threats to slash pairings, and therefore all of them may potentially be cast as the hated villains.

But much fanfic in general is about casting characters in new roles, about telling different stories and using different tropes than are seen in the canon. And with many fans liking a good villain to hate in their stories, it's hardly surprising that a canon char may be relegated to that role.

(For the record, I'm not into this trope myself; I like my antagonists in shades of gray, and I don't care for villains in love stories. But that's just my personal taste, and I don't feel that fans who enjoy more black-and-white, straightforward tropes are in the wrong for liking them.)

Comments

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

...you see a good villain as a well-developed, powerful character.

Yes. And a villain that isn't well developed and doesn't have much power is, to my mind, a poorly written villain. Which is why I think character-bashing and villains are such different beasties. One is an example of good writing, the other an example of bad.

Not everyone sees villains this way. In the classic romances using this trope, you are not *supposed* to like the villain; you are supposed to despise her, and be glad to seen her torn down, degraded, destroyed. The emotional catharsis is seeing the good get rewarded and the evil get their just desserts.

But the catharsis doesn't work if the villain is pathetic to begin with. Or at least, I'd hope it wouldn't. Because at that point it's not so much good vs. evil as creating a scapegoat to gleefully destroy.

I mean, look at some of the classic villains out there: Maleficent from Disney's Sleeping Beauty is as powerful as powerful can be. So that she fails, that the prince and the good fairies manage to destroy, her is damn cool. Or Cruella De Vil. That someone so authoritative and certain gets brought down by lovable puppies is what gives the ending punch. The stepmother in Cinderella, Ursula in The Little Mermaid, all of them highly powerful. All of them worthy of our heroes. (Heh. I'm kind of stuck on Disney characters, but I'm reaching for tropes here, and Disney is good at that. *g*)

Compare that with the "villain Jennifer" in Tarlan's "Forever Lost". Yes, there's a brief sentence fragment that speaks of Jennifer getting in the way of John and Rodney's together time, but in the actuality of the story, Jennifer is the ingenue. She's the Janet Leigh character, killed off by the story's true villain, Lorne. Jennifer in not only given no power whatsoever, she's put into a classic powerless-woman role: horror film fodder.

(The strangest thing for me of that whole incident is how the author didn't seem to see that she'd set up Lorne as Norman Bates. The way that story spins out in my mind is Radek disappears next (stealing too much of Rodney's time away from John). Then, after John and Rodney have a messy breakup because they're both so stressed about the unsolved mystery, Rodney goes missing. The happy ending is John uncovering Lorne's true self (complete with creepy John shrine) and rescuing Rodney in the nick of time. The Poe ending is John getting bricked up at the end himself, with Lorne finding a new object of obsession.)

...villains are characters meant to be hated. Villains of this type aren't meant to be strong characters; they're pathetic, stupid, ignoble - deserving only scorn and abuse. Not Voldemort or Snape, but Wormtail. The pleasure is not in admiring their wickedness, but in seeing them go down.

I think I confused things by saying I like good villains. This doesn't mean I want to invite them into my home and call them friend. It means I enjoy watching them throw up roadblocks to our heroes, mainly because it makes the hero that much stronger. (There is, of course, the id section of my brain that rather enjoys seeing pure id unleashed, as often happens with good villains. *g*)

JKR is difficult because I think her characters fell apart as the series progressed. But, I'd say Voldemort isn't supposed to be admired (and I didn't admire him). Nor was Wormtale. But in the story he was introduced in, Wormtale is neither stupid nor pathetic. He played pathetic to stay alive and get away, but that showed intelligence. A good villain, but again, not someone I admired. (Snape, as he wasn't a villain in the end, is too complex to include in this list, imo.)

But even there, when Harry destroys Voldemort, Voldemort is on the cusp of dominating wizarding-Britain. I agree that readers were supposed to enjoy seeing him destroyed, but I think a great part of that was supposed to come from the powerful evil Voldemort was unleashing on the world. It's good that Harry won.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

"admire" was the wrong word - I was meaning this feeling: (There is, of course, the id section of my brain that rather enjoys seeing pure id unleashed, as often happens with good villains. *g*) That thing that makes them fun to watch, even as you're desperate to see them stopped. I love a good villain like this, but I do not like the type of villain I was describing as this trope, at least not if the trope is done straight.

But the catharsis doesn't work if the villain is pathetic to begin with. Or at least, I'd hope it wouldn't. Because at that point it's not so much good vs. evil as creating a scapegoat to gleefully destroy.

Yes, exactly. That's what I'm saying this kind of "villain" is, in this particular kind of story. Maybe "villain" is the wrong term; "antagonist," maybe, is better...it's about making a character into a justified scapegoat, about writing them undeserving of what they have, and getting punished for having it. It doesn't necessarily make for good fiction, but fanfic is about id-satisfaction anyway, and this trope is a particular kink for some people, a particular type of satisfaction, catharsis.

I think I got off-topic a bit by mentioning Harry Potter; we're not talking about good vs evil villains here, but relationship villains. Not Maleficent, but Gaston or Cinderella's stepsisters - petty, vain, selfish, small. The catharsis in their defeat is not the triumph of good over evil, but the triumph of the worthy over the unworthy. The story is not about stopping the villain from causing great harm, but stopping them from getting they don't deserve, and showing the flaws that explain why they don't deserve it.

(Later Smallville had this trope with Lex in the role of relationship-villain, coming between Clark and Lana; I hated how Lex was written in it, because he was so petty and pathetic; nothing he did was worthy of true villainy.)

I actually don't think Keller was the villain char in Tarlanx's fic; I didn't take that story to be part of this trope, but as a black comedy, in which Lorne was clearly psychotic, but working "on the side of good" as it were. It was a kind of id-fic, but I don't think it's an example of vilifying a character - except for Lorne's, but the joke was that Lorne seems so nice, and then he's actually Norman Bates. That was how it read to me, anyway, and how I assumed it was meant to be read; maybe it wasn't meant to, but I think if the point had been to vilify Keller, rather than just dispose of her, then it would have had the heroes themselves taking care of her, rather than having John & Rodney be ignorant of the whole thing.

Now, the recent post on sgagenrefic that got this whole ball rolling, *that* was specifically requesting a villain-fied witch-Keller, who got found out and defeated by the heroes, as per the romance trope.

ETA: The kind of "villain" I'm talking about - have you seen Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible? Captain Hammer is the male variant of this villain, a vain, arrogant asshole who is unworthy of Penny's love. If you wrote a fanfic with pretty much any character acting like Captain Hammer, it would probably be considered char-bashing...

Son of ETA: I'm going to backtrack and say that while I don't like the trope, thinking it over, I actually do often like the "villains" in it; sometimes I feel sorry for them, sometimes they amuse me. But I think this is a more complex reading; the people who are into bashing fic I think prefer a more straightforward, simple reading of the trope, and just don't like the "villain."

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Dr. Horrible, unfortunately. (Yet! Is my vow. *g*) But your example of Cinderella's stepsisters... okay, now I'm seeing it. (I think Draco would probably be the Harry Potter equivalent. Not so much an evil to Harry's good, as the perpetual fly in Harry's chardonnay.)

The story is not about stopping the villain from causing great harm, but stopping them from getting they don't deserve, and showing the flaws that explain why they don't deserve it.

Yeeaah. Not my favorite trope. ;) A bit too close to morality plays for my taste. Something I think JKR slipped into, frankly. Part of the reason I found the series so horrifying when it was all said and done.

So I get your explanation and... I'm not really soothed. It's still burning witches, isn't it? It pretty much is pointless, malicious cruelty, right?

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's a morality play, definitely; and if you don't like morality plays, or believe them to be fundamentally flawed fiction, then no, there's no way to really justify it. (if the trope is played straight, anyway. It works great in something like Dr. Horrible, which subverts it by casting the superhero as the antagonist...)

So I get your explanation and... I'm not really soothed. It's still burning witches, isn't it? It pretty much is pointless, malicious cruelty, right?

Hmm. Well, kind of. I guess my point is that it's not pointless for the person doing it. They're getting satisfaction out of it; it's a fun read for them. What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character. With bashing, it seems like a lot of times fans of the character feel like the bashing is aimed at them, like it's intentionally hurting them, that it's trolling, basically. I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's a morality play, definitely; and if you don't like morality plays, or believe them to be fundamentally flawed fiction, then no, there's no way to really justify it.

The trick with morality plays is the need to have a strong moral rule running through it (something JKR failed miserably at doing). And then there's the even trickier bit of making sure the moral argument you're making is a worthy moral. What moral lesson are you teaching with this story?

If done well, it can be a good form of story-telling. But thinking its simplicity means it's an easy method of story-telling is where the danger comes in.

And that's why I'm not really soothed. Bashing is generally sloppy writing, as far as I've seen. And morality plays do not lend themselves to sloppy writing.

What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character.

Of course it is. You set a character up as an example of what's wrong with the world, of course you're punishing those who support what's hurting the world. Jennifer is a morally bad person because she answered back to Rodney and needs to be slapped down by John who'd never do such a thing. If you support Jennifer you're a Rodney-hater and a bad person.

I do agree that the people writing such things probably aren't thinking about the people who like the character they've set up as the scapegoat. For the most part they seem surprised such people exist. (But she's so morally disgusting! How could anyone like her?) But you can't say a character is an example of moral wrongs and not think you're saying something about the people who like her.

I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.

IIRC, McShep is your OTP? I agree that someone writing McKeller isn't trying to hurt you. As long as it's only McKeller. But if a McKeller story includes a section that exposes John as a morally bad character, brought down by the moral goodness of Jennifer it is trying to hurt you. You're supporting a morally bad 'ship and a morally bad character. Aren't you a bit silly to fall for such an unlikable character? (Probably taken in by his sexiness and totally missing the bankruptcy of his character. Got to look out for the pretty ones. *g*)

Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hmm. But this pre-supposes that people dislike Keller because they find her morally bankrupt. I was actually arguing the reverse - that they are casting her as a morally bankrupt character, the villain in the story, because they don't like her.

A bashing-fic (depending on its nature) may be less about exposing a character's actual, canonical flaws, and more about casting her in a role. It's not a flattering role, but I don't know if it's saying anything about the actual, canon character, other than that the writer's not a fan.

I don't know if this is true; it's supposition on my part. I'd be curious to ask a basher if they actually think they're writing a char IC, or is the OOC deliberate. For some people, writing IC is the entire point; but that is not true of all fic writers.

Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).

Huh. That's the question, I guess. Who is the intended audience of a bashing fic? Is it written to try to convince people of a character's badness? In which case, yes, it's insulting. But if it's not meant for a fan of the character to read, then it's not about "saving" those fans at all; it's about satisfying an impulse.

And while in the *fandom* the Keller-hate is prevalent, in the *canon* there is zero dislike of Keller. So fans who don't like her - for whatever reasons, could be as simple as that they're doctors and hate all medical chars on TV - get no release onscreen. So they can only get it in fanfic, and thus make up stories, AUs, in essence, where Keller is as disliked as they wish she was in canon.

Ditto the anti-McKeller in fanfic - fanfic tends not to bash non-canon pairings, because there's no point; you can just ignore them. But if you're writing post-s5 canon, and want Rodney or Keller in another relationship, then you *have* to break up the McKeller somehow, explain why it doesn't work out. And quite a few McSheppers go for the gentlest, low-key breakups possible, but they're still going to be denying the McKeller's ship - not necessarily because they want to hurt fans of the McKeller, but because there's no choice.

(Hmm. Now I'm curious how John/Teyla or Ronon/Teyla shippers handle Kanaan...)

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

...that they are casting her as a morally bankrupt character, the villain in the story, because they don't like her.
[...]
So fans who don't like her - for whatever reasons, could be as simple as that they're doctors and hate all medical chars on TV - get no release onscreen. So they can only get it in fanfic, and thus make up stories, AUs, in essence, where Keller is as disliked as they wish she was in canon.

But then it's about the character, not the trope. They don't like a character so they make up a way in which she's bad. Like you said, it's satisfying an impulse. The trope satisfies the need to bash a particular character, but I don't think the bashing is done to satisfy a need for that particular trope.

If the writer doesn't think the character they're bashing is deserving of bashing why are they bashing them? If it's just a need to create the romantic trope (moral badness to highlight moral goodness) why not create an OC? The only thing that makes sense is that it does have something to do with the actual character. So, for the writer, they're going for IC. Maybe an exaggerated IC, but they're writing to tear a specific character down.

...quite a few McSheppers go for the gentlest, low-key breakups possible, but they're still going to be denying the McKeller's ship - not necessarily because they want to hurt fans of the McKeller, but because there's no choice.

I agree there are a few, and I've read and enjoyed those fics. But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about fics that set Jennifer up as morally bad character so that John can shine just a little brighter. Taking a character that other fans may like and ripping her apart so another character looks better. (Tearing down the girl to lift up the boy, which is a bit problematic, imo.)

It's divisive in a way a simple 'ship is not, I think because it's an attack form of fic. I think especially since it's not consistently warned about.

(Hmm. Now I'm curious how John/Teyla or Ronon/Teyla shippers handle Kanaan...)

I've read a few John/Teyla (not many) and I've not seen Kanaan bashed. He generally just fades away.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

*scratches head* Sorry, I'm getting so turned around in this debate that I'm forgetting what I was trying to argue to begin with. I don't think I was arguing moral goodness or badness; the kind of "villain" I was talking about was less about being unmoral and more about being unworthy, which I think of as sort of different, but I can see how they might be the same thing. Er.

I do think bashing fic is targeting the bashed character, and deliberately. I don't think it's usually intended to be an attack on the fans of that character, though I can see how it can be taken that way. And it would be nice if it were warned about.

(Tearing down the girl to lift up the boy, which is a bit problematic, imo.)

This is problematic, though it's confusing because it's yoinked from the original trope, which was tearing down the girl to lift up another girl. It becomes extra-twisted in some fics with single-sex relationships; I've seen fic where one male char is bashed in favor of another male char in a slash triangle. And the standard reverse with two guys in love with the same girl, and one guy is portrayed as an asshole (I believe Harry/Hermione 'shippers sometimes so bashed Ron?) (and I don't read much femme-slash, so I don't know if there's ever cases where a guy is torn down in favor of a girl. I did hear Joxer was hated by some Xena/Gabrielle fans?)

I guess my point is...when fans don't like a 'ship, and prefer another 'ship, this is a trope they sometimes turn to? But whether they warp chars OOCly to fit them to it, or whether they particularly use this trope out of the desire to bash, I don't know.

(...as usual, I'm tempted to say it's probably some of both. But that gets to be an unsatisfying answer, after a while...)

[snorkackcatcher]

I believe Harry/Hermione 'shippers sometimes so bashed Ron?

*snerk* Oh did they EVER bash Ron. Same principle, I suppose: he and Hermione were fairly obviously being set up to be together, therefore cue shipper hate. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Harry/Draco fics to bash Ron too. Ginny and Cho got a lot of this too, despite the fact that Harry/Cho canonically fell to pieces pretty quickly.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Hee! Yeah, I get the turned around thing. :D I actually reread your OP just to make sure I was saying what I thought I was saying regarding what you'd said. ;)

I do think bashing fic is targeting the bashed character, and deliberately. I don't think it's usually intended to be an attack on the fans of that character, though I can see how it can be taken that way. And it would be nice if it were warned about.

Agreed! :D

This is problematic, though it's confusing because it's yoinked from the original trope, which was tearing down the girl to lift up another girl.

True. Though there are problems with the original trope in that for so long the proper behavior of a good or worthy girl was someone who "knew her place", while the bad ones were often striving for what could be seen as a form of independence. So it wasn't necessarily a "female friendly" trope despite the amount of women within the story. (I think this trope is one of the ones being fought against when we ask for stories where we see female friends.)

But that's probably looking too deeply into the history of the trope itself. Because I agree with you that fandom tends to use it for different reasons. And male characters aren't always safe, either.

I guess my point is...when fans don't like a 'ship, and prefer another 'ship, this is a trope they sometimes turn to?

*nods* Yeah, it's a perfect weapon for a 'ship war. (I don't think I saw any bashing-Keller stories following this trope until after canon sailed the McKeller 'ship.)

But whether they warp chars OOCly to fit them to it, or whether they particularly use this trope out of the desire to bash, I don't know.

I think there probably is a sense that the writer is capturing at least something accurate about the character they're bashing. There could be some conscious exaggeration of course, but they're trying to show exactly why character X is so, so wrong for character Y who obviously belongs with character Z.

Also, I was thinking about OCs getting used in this particular trope, and I'm pretty sure I can recall reading some. So there's definitely those who enjoy the trope in and of itself.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Though there are problems with the original trope in that for so long the proper behavior of a good or worthy girl was someone who "knew her place", while the bad ones were often striving for what could be seen as a form of independence. So it wasn't necessarily a "female friendly" trope despite the amount of women within the story. (I think this trope is one of the ones being fought against when we ask for stories where we see female friends.)

Oh, I definitely think this trope can and does get used to reinforce misogynistic ideas. As well, Sheafrotherdon and a couple others were arguing that you can't divide a trope entirely from its history, which is a valid point. At the same time, I think there is a danger in making assumptions about the motives or innate tendencies of a fan based on what tropes they like; that they may inadvertently be calling on sexist themes does not necessarily mean that they are sexist, or that they are motivated by sexist ideas.

--Interestingly, I was thinking about animanga, and realized that shoujo sometimes has a different version of the trope that would be more acceptable to most fans. In several shoujo I can think of, there is a rival girlfriend char - a girl with a mad crush on the heroine's boyfriend, and is antagonistic to the heroine out of jealousy. In most of those animanga, however, the crushing girl eventually becomes friends with the heroine, realizes that the heroine and the boyfriend are made for each other, and becomes a staunch supporter of their relationship. So it fulfills the need to prove that the OTP is the superior relationship, while not tearing down the interloper char (or at least, building her up again after taking her down - in the shoujo, while usually the jealous girl eats some crow for being so antagonistic, it's not always played that the heroine is morally superior to the jealous girl, so much as that she is the better match for the guy in question.)

It would be like a McKeller/McShep fic where in Keller, after breaking up with Rodney, somehow became best friends with Sheppard and started advising him in dating Rodney. Which I suspect you would find rather more palatable!

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

...I think there is a danger in making assumptions about the motives or innate tendencies of a fan based on what tropes they like; that they may inadvertently be calling on sexist themes does not necessarily mean that they are sexist, or that they are motivated by sexist ideas.

I do agree that assigning motive is a dangerous thing. But I think looking at trends and questioning them is a good thing. IOWs, not saying everyone who bashes a female character is a sexist, but rather questioning why so many female characters are being bashed. It looks sexist, but is it actually informed by sexism? Which, I think you're coming at that question with your post.

In most of those animanga, however, the crushing girl eventually becomes friends with the heroine, realizes that the heroine and the boyfriend are made for each other, and becomes a staunch supporter of their relationship.

Oh, I've run across that before! You're right it's an interesting twist. (I love reading/watching stories from various cultures for just those sort of differences.)

It would be like a McKeller/McShep fic where in Keller, after breaking up with Rodney, somehow became best friends with Sheppard and started advising him in dating Rodney. Which I suspect you would find rather more palatable!

Hee! Much more palatable than a bashing. ;)

[opheliastorn.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Gaston entirely fits your model, here, if you're arguing that the antagonist wields no real power apart from his/her potential to get in the way of Twu Wuv. With Cinderella's stepsisters, they're potentially separating Cinders from Charming, but that's it. Gaston, on the other hand, is an actual danger - he would separate Belle from the Beast by forcing her to marry him and killing the Beast. It seems like a different dynamic to me, and not one that tends to occur with a female character in the antagonist's seat.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Gaston entirely fits your model, here, if you're arguing that the antagonist wields no real power apart from his/her potential to get in the way of Twu Wuv.

My apologies, I seem to have worded this whole essay badly. The trope I was attempting to talk about was of a negative interloper in a love triangle, the idea of vilifying the character who gets in the way of True Wuv; I was using the female villain as a classic example of this trope, and Gaston is another example. Their "villainy" takes different forms, and they have different power levels, but the function they serve in the story is comparable.

I admit I don't have much experience with romance stories, so what looks to me like different variations on the same theme might actually be completely different tropes. In which case I don't know what the heck I'm talking about, so feel free to ignore me! ^^;

[(Anonymous)]

OK, let's not start author bashing just because you dislike the tropes she uses.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought that story up. (At the very least, it's not an example of the trope xparrot was writing about, as she points out.)