17

Is there a specific name for the plot device in which the story's "Big Bad" has a cunning plan to use some monstrous being to further their diabolical machinations. This may be something summoned from elsewhere, brought back from banishment after earlier issues, or even the creation of magic or mad science. But when it arrives/arises it turns around and destroys the existing Big Bad only to pursue its own campaign of destruction that continues to tie down the same protagonists?

Cyn
  • 32,378
  • 5
  • 76
  • 145
Ash
  • 10,048
  • 19
  • 55

4 Answers4

37

Just Desserts

From TV Tropes:

A villain ultimately finds their evil deeds come back to bite them. Literally—they end up getting eaten.

This does not include a Heroic Sacrifice. But may be subverted with a minor character being killed and eaten in obvious foreshadowing of what is going to happen to one of the bads at some point. While Mooks may be recipients of the Just Desserts, a true Just Dessert is reserved for those higher up the ladder. If the beast doing the eating was unleashed by the guy who gets eaten, he's been Hoist by His Own Petard, making him a Self-Disposing Villain. Bonus points if he made a practice of feeding people to said beast beforehand.

Cyn
  • 32,378
  • 5
  • 76
  • 145
  • 4
    Adding further, it's a subset of being hoist by one's petard. – Matthew Dave Jul 07 '19 at 17:54
  • 5
    @MatthewDave I realized "just desserts" was the phrase that would work and did a search on it, finding this trope. But I am going out of my way not to go down the rabbit hole of the TV Tropes site, as I'd like to you know leave the house today. But yeah, you're right. – Cyn Jul 07 '19 at 17:56
  • This certainly fits the first part of the convention I'm thinking of. – Ash Jul 07 '19 at 18:39
  • 2
    "Poetic justice" also applies. – Ben Voigt Jul 08 '19 at 02:06
  • @BenVoigt I think there are a couple dozen tropes on that site that would apply :-) I like just desserts because 1) I thought of it first and 2) it has the line "Literally—they end up getting eaten" which is part of the OP's premise. But yeah, so many others would work. – Cyn Jul 08 '19 at 02:40
  • @Cyn: The phrase "poetic justice" is far older than TV, let alone TV tropes. – Ben Voigt Jul 08 '19 at 02:41
  • 3
    Or, if it happens earlier, "Just Hors D'oeuvres", "Just Salads", "Just Soups", "Just Main Courses", etc, etc. – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Jul 08 '19 at 03:51
  • Isn't Just deserts a bit more general than Eat the Summoner though? While it matches the title, the question body is a little more specific. This would apply to a "bad guy" mistreating a dog which then attacks him, in addition to the scenarios in the question. – Baldrickk Jul 08 '19 at 10:52
  • @Baldrickk I feel Just Desserts is more karma-oriented and implies a higher level of purposefulness than Eat the Summoner. But both are useful studies. – AmiralPatate Jul 08 '19 at 14:39
  • 4
    @Baldrickk It's a very subtle pun: "just deserts", the standard English phrase, has one "s", relating to "deserve"; the TVTropes page linked spells it with a double "s", like the food type. So it's explicitly about being eaten, not attacked. – IMSoP Jul 08 '19 at 14:40
  • @IMSoP yeah, typo from me there. Both are about being eaten. Just Desserts is purely bad->eaten while Eat The Summoner is more about the specific case of being eaten by the thing they wanted to use. – Baldrickk Jul 08 '19 at 14:43
  • As the article says "The trope name is a pun on the phrase "just deserts" (which means something bad that one deserves, hence the single 'S'). As you know, a dessert gets eaten at the end." – Acccumulation Jul 08 '19 at 17:31
23

On TV Tropes this is called Evil Is Not a Toy:

Sometimes the Sealed Evil in a Can doesn't escape by itself, nor is it released by an Unwitting Pawn, but is deliberately set free by a villain (or hero). Let's call him Bob. Bob usually thinks he can control the sealed evil, or bargain with it, expecting to trade on a certain level of gratitude on its part since he was the one who freed it (or in extreme cases, resurrected it).

This never works.

The Sealed Evil in a Can will inevitably turn on the one who freed it — sometimes sooner, sometimes later. In many cases, it turns out to have no understanding of loyalty or gratitude at all. Bob may end up being killed on the spot, or he may be enslaved by the sealed evil

[...]

In any case, if Bob was the Big Bad before, he was really just a Little Bad; the formerly-sealed evil is the true Big Bad.

There is also Eat The Summoner, which fits very closely to the title of this question:

Alice is a Sealed Evil in a Can. Bob, either because he was promised something like immortality or riches, thinks he can control her, or because he thinks Alice isn't as evil as everyone says she is, tries to free her. After a bit of hard work, and possibly some outmaneuvering of people with more common sense, Bob frees Alice. However, rather than rewarding Bob for his service or even giving him a simple thank you, Alice tosses Bob into her mouth and eats him without a second thought.

Community
  • 1
Oscar Cunningham
  • 331
  • 1
  • 6
1

Personally from the little bit of research I've done I feel that this is originally the "Good vs. Evil" troupe but after the mega force or "worser" evil is unleashed who then attempts to destroy the original villain it switches troupes to what's called "Eviler Than Thou". This is what I believe would be the best way to explain it. Here's the article that lead me to believe that this was the best answer: Eviler Than Thou

Tommy R.
  • 41
  • 6
0

I think Frankenstein fits this category almost perfectly. In Frankenstein the protagonist had created a creature that backfired on him and ruined his life. That pattern does not take into account that evil aspect as the protagonist wasn't evil. It just describes the pattern of creating something for the sake of personal benefit (be it a good or bad character) that backfires horribly. So maybe we can call it - "The Frankenstein Effect"?

Oren_C
  • 1,742
  • 1
  • 7
  • 17
  • 9
    I'm not sure what version of Frankenstein you're thinking of, but the protagonist in Mary Shelley's original isn't really a "bad guy" planning "diabolical machinations". – IMSoP Jul 07 '19 at 15:16
  • Yes, I realize the motivation of the protagonist is not evil. that's why it doesn't fit perfectly. But, the main idea is the same, someone creates something that backfires horribly. Does it make sense? – Oren_C Jul 07 '19 at 15:19
  • 1
    To me, it doesn't really feel like the same trope, without the "hoist by your own petard" element. It's related, but doesn't quite capture the nuance. – IMSoP Jul 07 '19 at 15:23
  • 2
    To be a good answer, you've got to say why Frankenstein fits this category almost perfectly. – RonJohn Jul 08 '19 at 04:44
  • @RonJohn Thanks, I edited the answer. – Oren_C Jul 08 '19 at 07:23
  • The Frankenstein monster also doesn't eat Dr. Frankenstein, so this doesn't seem to answer the question at all. – computercarguy Jul 08 '19 at 20:57
  • @computercarguy The OP's question text does not specifically require that the bad guy be eaten. But rather, it should be destroyed by its own creation. Otherwise, I wouldn't have offered my answer. – Oren_C Jul 10 '19 at 08:27
  • @Oren_C, you might want to look at the title again. – computercarguy Jul 10 '19 at 15:47