Refute this argument: You can't.
Nerds care too much about pointless minutiae.
Stories are about themes, character, tone, ideas, not about explanations and exposition dumps. You accept the premise at face value, and any explanation given should be in service of the story, not the story itself.
Writers make stories, not worlds. There has never been a point in human history where the goal of fiction was to build an encyclopedia instead of tell a mythology.
If you want fiction to be devoted to world building, then you don’t like literary fiction; you like anthropology and history. Frivolous detailing should, at best, be fun throwaway information, not the cornerstone of your work.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>Frivolous detailing should, at best, be fun throwaway information, not the cornerstone of your work.
Name one book that does this
Read any Epic Fantasy book written after 1980.
That's genreshit, we discuss literature here
He's talking about nerds not homosexuals (even if there is often overlap)
Kids absolutely believe insane shit they see in movies.
Obviously Alfred pumps the tires. He must've been stoned as frick when he wrote that.
Bruce is rich. He can afford some tire pump monkey. Alfred has better shit to do.
Are you dreaming? A tire monkey?? The Batcave is a secret, they don't put ads in the paper or hire illegals off the back of trucks.
A wizard did it
couldn't they just pump the tires, then put them on the batmobile? who says the tire money needs to see anything?
A quote with expletives does not deserve analysis or discourse. Remove the curse words and format this the way a professional would; this is honestly pathetic to read and attempt to take seriously.
Fricking;;;;;;;; commit suicide, expeditiously.
Profanity is the strongest language of a weak mind.
Please understand, he's Scottish.
I always hated the ''musical'' portion of cartoons as a child. Now, I feel even more justified.
Okay but most adults asking these kinds of dumb questions are just trying to be silly (didn’t read your post btw)
LOL
"They" has been commonly used for third person singular long before your LGBTism. You should spend less time on the internet. Also
>wikipedia
Commonly used by nobody and for nobody
nope
No, he's right. They is used for informal reference. Still is and will be.
Go cry about it on /misc/
ok homosexual
>Riddle me this, Batman! How do you pump your batmobile tires? I don't suppose you make stops to jiffy lube? We all know there's no way an ordinary person would be capable of airng up a tire, that kind of ADULTING would be pretty hard I think!
Do comic book readers really? Is this a Scotland thing? Teenage girls are capable of pumping up their own tires.
man why do some people just say moronic shit
kids ask those kinds of questions way more than adults
12 year old boys are the ones who ask those questions
>You accept the premise at face value
and only the premise. its important that the story doesnt contradict itself.
>themes, character, tone, ideas, not about explanations and exposition dumps.
stories at their best create internally consistent worlds
Why?
Batman has the money for run flats.
>Stories are about themes, character, tone, ideas, not about explanations and exposition dumps.
Why do you presume some kind of dichotomy here? Explanations and "exposition dumps" are not devoid of "themes, character, tone, ideas". Quite the opposite; the setting explained within the story can enrich it by introducing additional context or nuance to the story.
>If you want fiction to be devoted to world building, then you don’t like literary fiction; you like anthropology and history. Frivolous detailing should, at best, be fun throwaway information, not the cornerstone of your work.
""Worldbuilding"" and ""frivolous detailing"" has been a part of literary fiction since time immemorial. Ever read the Odyssey?
>Writers make stories, not worlds
Insofar as perception is concerned, what is the difference? A story is a certain narrative describing the world as it appears. There is not only no dichotomy here but I'd go as far as to say that it'd be difficult to make a story without making some kind of "world".
The whole point is that you shouldn't add things to a story that aren't in service to the story itself. It's not just worldbuilding and details for the sake of it.
None of these refute the point he's making.
He felt personally attacked. He spent too much time editing wookiepedia articles on alien species to be told it doesn't matter.
I don't know if this quote is attacking worldbuilding on the part of writers. I think it's more attacking people who overanalyze media and hyperfocus on insignificant details that the creators plausibly did not put much thought into. The problem with asking how Superman flies is that there obviously is no fact of the matter about that. A writer may come up with a detailed quasi-scientific explanation for how the superpowers work in a story, which could very well make it more interesting, but if they didn't do that, there's little point in speculating about it when there's just no answer to the question and you could be spending time thinking about something that might actually be discoverable in the story. But there's nothing wrong in itself with indulging in detailed worldbuilding. There is an audience for stories that can fill gigantic wikis.
Its not that the story is bad because it
leaves those questions unanswered, is that its imperfect. The perfect story would have its themes, entertaintment value, and logical consistency.
But this is not a perfect world
This is legit but there's a difference between this and pointing out details that haven't been fully developed, such as plot holes. You don't get to hide laziness behind not including "frivolous" details.
>kids good
>adults bad
Grow up