What means Tammy trope?
I goggled the term and came up with two tropes, one is a film and the other a comic book. I'll let you decide which fits your question.
As a specific to SOL reference, I believe its a take on G Younger's Stupid Boy and the 'best friend' who want to keep the MC dangling for the next ten years while she creates the career she desires, before coming back to him when she is ready to commit. The MC puts up with her crap over several books before breaking (some what) free.
I find the books very entertaining and well worth purchasing. Some readers apparently find the scenario too unbelievable.
I believe a significant element is that the 'Tammy' wants the male to 'grow up' before she's ready to enter a serious relationship with him.
The trope has appeared in stories by Michael Loucks and Max Geyser too.
AJ
I would summarize the Tammy trope as follows:
- MC has a childhood female friend who believes they are destined to be together, in the end.
- but the MC is a horndog and has to "get it out of his system". So, the female friend either is mostly unavailable through the years or outright saying that she will not sleep with him or be his girlfriend until he got it out of his system
- sometimes she is actively helping to get him laid by as many girls as possible
- she is proclaiming chastity but doesn't require it from the MC
- Most of the "Tammys" fall through, though, falling for other girls or boys, in the end. So that the Mc can "grow" out of the perceived "unfairness" and "betrayal"
Prominent examples are "A well-lived Life", "Ordinary sex life", "Stupid Boy"
Personally, I grew tired of the trope.
You guys haven't plumbed the depths of the history of this. Read Kipling's _The Light that Failed_.
Kipling's _The Light that Failed_.
Based on a little (very little) on-line information, I recommend not reading the novel. The 15 chapter standard edition has an unhappy ending including blindness (the light that failed), an unhappy romance and ends with the death of the protagonist. Unless you want to read a tragedy, then feel free to read it.
Kipling didn't really do 'happy ever after' stories.
But for those in the UK, he does make exceedingly good cakes... :)
Romeo and Juliet is a romantic tragedy with both lovers ending up dead, yet it is encouraged reading.
So why should we avoid Kipling's story?
Romeo and Juliet is a romantic tragedy with both lovers ending up dead, yet it is encouraged reading.
The reason it's encouraged reading is because no one would read it otherwise.
1. It's a tragedy
2. It's not a book, it's a play, it isn't meant to be read.
It's a tragedy, it's a play, and it's also a book. Books are meant to be read.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=romeo+and+juliet+book&id=2765A2ECCAE9EF390A35A7D900E565AACBF84B8F&form=IQFRBA&first=1&cw=1743&ch=845
Looking around that link, what I see are just bound copies of the script for the play, complete with stage directions. Not something that the AUTHOR intended for people to read recreationally as if it were a novel.
Show me a novelized version done by William Shakespeare himself.
Radagast11/8/2019, 10:27:03 PM
@Dominions Son
Show me a novelized version done by William Shakespeare himself.
With zombies.
And Puck. And Much Sex.
And Much Sex.
The Theater in Shakespeare's time didn't have a lot of sex. Even Romeo and Juliet didn't do porn. One possible reason was that many, perhaps all the female roles were portrayed by male actors.
From on-line:
"THE FIRST WOMAN TO APPEAR IN A SHAKESPEARE PLAY DID SO IN 1660 – 44 YEARS AFTER SHAKESPEARE'S DEATH.
August 5, 2016
It's well known that professional theatre troupes in Renaissance England included male actors only, so that the roles of, for instance, Juliet, Rosalind, Lady Macbeth, and Cleopatra were first played by boys. This doesn't mean that women never performed in England at that time. Noblewomen danced in masques at court, and visiting foreign troupes of players or acrobats sometimes included women, although the actresses in one French company were "pippin-pelted" by the audience when they appeared on a London stage in 1629. Overall, though, as Dympna Callaghan puts it, there was a "systematic prohibition against female mimesis" – women were not permitted to act onstage.
Women did attend the theatre in significant numbers, although some commentators considered even this too public a role for women, saying that having women in the audience distracted from the stage performance and incited lewd behavior in men. Lewdness among audience members was one reason English Puritans considered theatre dangerous or sinful: others included the potential for spreading disease and the similarity of play-acting to lying. When, in the English Civil War, the Puritans gained control of London, they issued an order closing the theatres, which then remained closed for eighteen years, from 1642 to the restoration of King Charles II in 1660.
The new theatre patents issued by King Charles said,
forasmuch as many plays formerly acted do conteine severall prophane, obscene and scurrilous passages, and the women's parts therein have been acted by men in the habit of women, at which some have taken offense…we doe likewise permit and give leave that all the women's parts to be acted in either of the said two companies may be performed by women…
It didn't take long for theatre producers to use the permission they had been granted. In 1660, Thomas Jordan revived Othello with, for the first time, a woman playing Desdemona.
Given that, in Shakespeare's day, all the roles were played by men, Theatre Unbound has returned the favor with our all-female productions of The Tempest, Julius Caesar (an Ivey Award winner), and Hamlet. We've also poked a bit of gender-bending fun at the Bard in Goodnight Desdemona, Good Morning Juliet, and asked directors to devise work based on the Sonnets in The Directors' Gym.
Further reading:
Brown, Pamela Allen & Peter Parolin. Women Players in England, 1500-1660: Beyond the All-Male Stage (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005).
Callaghan, Dympna. Shakespeare without Women: Representing Gender and Race on the Renaissance Stage (London; New York: Routledge, 2000).
Orgel, Stephen. Impersonations: the performance of gender in Shakespeare's England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Prynne, William. Histromatix: The Player's Scourge, or Actor's Tragedy (London: 1633)."
Not something that the AUTHOR intended for people to read recreationally as if it were a novel.
The definition of a book does not take into consideration the printed contents.
What a playwright intends and what his followers do can be two different things. A play in book form can be just as good of a read as a fiction novel.
The definition of a book does not take into consideration the printed contents.
And while all books are meant to be read, not all books are meant to be read recreationally the way one would generally read a novel.
A play in book form can be just as good of a read as a fiction novel.
For some people perhaps. I rather doubt that this would be true for more than a small minority. I certainly don't get anything like that from reading a script for a play.
On top of that, I think the authors intent for how the audience should experience the work matters.
Thanks to all who answered. I guess not all stories that are a Tammy trope involve a character named Tammy. Anybody know which story in particular on SOL prompted the original usage of the term. I thought it might be Wizard's Trailer Park series, but the character there is named Tami.
Thanks to all who answered. I guess not all stories that are a Tammy trope involve a character named Tammy. Anybody know which story in particular on SOL prompted the original usage of the term. I thought it might be Wizard's Trailer Park series, but the character there is named Tami.
I am pretty sure the origin of the term is from G Younger's "Stupid Boy" series, although the character is Tami, not Tammy.
By the way, one enjoyable and mild form of that appears in a story "Passages of Life" by Jubal Harshaw, on another site.
I never considered that as a trope, but it is a better and more appropriate trope than what I found on the web.
trope
"Urban Dictionary: trope
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trope
Despite the erroneous definitions already published here, TROPE on the interwebs really refers to an often overused plot device. It can also be described as another variation on the same theme."
It can also be a mis-spelling of troop.
While you're dispensing definitions, can you enlighten non-golfers as to how many shots under par a double-eagle represents?
Ta muchly,
AJ
An Eagle is when a squirrel grabs your ball, an eagle grabs the squirrel and the squirrel drops the ball as the eagle flies over the cup.
A double eagle happens when two eagles start fighting over the squirrel with the ball.
double-eagle
"What Is a Double Eagle in Golf?
www.liveabout.com/double-eagle-definition-1560828
"Double eagle" is a term golfers use for a score of 3-under par on any individual golf hole. Each hole on a golf course is rated as a par 3, par 4, or par 5, where "par" is the expected number of strokes an expert golfer will need to finish that hole."
It is also an old gold coin which at the time was worth 20 dollars, back when gold was $20 an ounce, as it had an ounce of gold in the coin. There are other possibilities on line, some businesses are named for the double eagle.
"under the double eagle double eagle golf
double eagle restaurant double eagle energy
double eagle steakhouse double eagle oil and gas
double eagle pawn spokane double eagle oil"
It is also an old gold coin which at the time was worth 20 dollars, back when gold was $20 an ounce, as it had an ounce of gold in the coin.
Thank you. I was too lazy to look it up.
AJ
I never considered that as a trope, but it is a better and more appropriate trope than what I found on the web.
It's always been a troupe, but I never knew it had a specific title.
It's always been a troupe, but I never knew it had a specific title.
Maybe on Broadway...
Romeo and Juliet is required reading, because it's got a couple of important morals:
1. Teenagers are stupid, hormonal fools who make terrible decisions*.
2. Lack of communication kills relationships†.
* Because their decision-making anatomy is in their pants.
† And sometimes you.
Unfortunately, the kids we're requiring to read it are stupid, hormonal teenagers, so what they get out of it is that getting your best friend killed in a dick-measuring contest and then committing double-suicide because of a failure to communicate is "romantic".
(Despite the "fixed" endings I've occasionally seen, Romeo and Juliet don't even get to be together in Heaven. They're suicides. I don't think you get conjugal visits while encased in a tree in Hell, and even if you do, the harpies probably ruin the mood.)
That aside, being a tragedy doesn't necessarily mean being a bad or even unpopular read. I mean, A Song of Ice and Fire has been wildly popular, and it's pretty much an endless stream of horrible things happening to people, with the only real relief being that sometimes the characters you like get to do the horrible things to characters you don't, instead of the other way around.
That aside, being a tragedy doesn't necessarily mean being a bad or even unpopular read.
It's a play,not a book. It's not meant to be read that way. Go see a production of it at your local theater.
Dude, I played Mercutio once. I am well aware that Romeo and Juliet is a play. That doesn't mean that it can't be an enjoyable read. I've read and enjoyed far more of Shakespeare's work than I've ever had an opportunity to see or participate in a production of.
Generally it's the archaic language that turns people off Shakespeare, not the fact that they're plays.
In any case, The Light That Failed isn't a play.