>"Just turn your brain off and enjoy it."
>"Why does it have to take itself so seriously?"
>"Just have fun."
>"It's entertaining so it's good."
>"It's just entertainment."
These are all retarded thought terminating cliches pushed by capeshit fans or writers that know their work isn't going to stand up to basic scrutiny. I hate all of them and they've lead to the death of good writing in general.
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
asking mundane, retarded questions about fiction is peak pseud, you retard.
>inb4 incels blame women
probably the safest inb4 i've seen on Yea Forums
Asking questions that are pertinent to the setting of the story is basic criticism. Creating a logically consistent world is basic writing.
But every time I've ever heard someone talking about fantasy not obeying our laws of physics, it has come from a woman.
>logically consistent world
Our world isn't like that.
>asking questions = basic criticism
You can't do that in our world about a whole host of issues.
yes, none of the examples given by grant morrison fit that category, though.
How Batman maintains his gadgets is a very basic question. Nobody questions an animal talking in a fairy tale because that's expected. Grant is strawmanning massively.
>"Just turn your brain off and enjoy it."
>"Why does it have to take itself so seriously?"
>"Just have fun."
>"It's entertaining so it's good."
>"It's just entertainment."
nigga who cares how batman maintains his gadgets
>How Batman maintains his gadgets is a very basic question
in what world would this at all be relevant when you don't even question where he gets his gadgets from?
How Batman maintains his gadgets is completely irrelevant to the majority of stories featuring Batman. It's not a mistake that they want you to overlook, it's just simply not a part of the story being told. Morrison is completely right, as long as the world being created is consistent enough for the story to work then details like this just don't matter. Most superhero stories are not grounded in realism, and drawing attention to their fantastical nature by creating convoluted explanations for everything breaks the suspension of disbelief.
You niggas learned the phrase "thought-terminating cliche" two weeks ago and never shut the fuck up afterwards. Quit stressing yourself out over minute background details and just let it go, ffs. Balls-out wacky fictional settings are fun and refreshing, not everything needs to be logical and rooted in reality
>How Batman maintains his gadgets is completely irrelevant to the majority of stories featuring Batman
By that logic why should I assume any of these characters need to breathe?
Explaining your own setting isn't irrelevant to a work. That question is a very basic one about the setting that even a 4 year old would ask.
>rooted in reality
Nobody says this. They just want a basic layer of logical consistency and don't want narrative contrivance to happen every moment. You're actually supporting shitty writing by thinking like this.
>they've lead to the death of good writing in general
shakespeare, homer and cervantes all wrote for entertainment
>drama is life with the dull bits cut out
They were all considered hacks too.
People who like fun should unironically be tortured so they will understand th meaning of suffering.
t. demands insight into Aragorn's tax policies
Stories need to have what I call internal logical consistency.
People can suspend their disbelief and accept that in this universe magic exists but you need to set the rules and keep them consistent.
So for example you can have a fantasy world where cure spells can heal wounds but once you’re dead you can’t revive the person.
This serves to preserve dramatic tension, since if you can just cast revive on the dead there are no stakes and no danger.
If you break this rule with a deus ex machina this breaks immersion and people are reminded that this is a fictional story, and a bad one too since the author pulled a deus ex machina out of their ass.
You need to have internal logical consistency to make a story work
I know it's a fictional story by having bought the book and not spending my schooling down by the boiler room.
>You're actually supporting shitty writing by thinking like this.
Dear OP, from now I will post gay pictures every time I see this cancerous pasta thread.
Logical inconsistency doesn't make tension impossible, it can even add to tension (see any horror movie with paranormal elements, where the antagonist usually subverts their own set up rules).
Logical consistency is borderline irrelivant to art. Imagine complaining about a contradiction or unfilled minor detail in a book like fucking Ulysses.
It's a pretty safe assumption that all of the people going on about this shit don't read actual literature. There's a reason all the examples they're pulling are about internally consistent magic systems and Batman.
Imagine reading Invitation to a Beheading or The Street of Crocodiles or the goddamn Chants de Maldoror and trying to critique them based on logical "rules" that the narratives do or do not obey.
I don't care about people asking questions on a symbolic level, that's fair game. But if you begin questioning how a giant crab would hold itself up under the weight of its exoskeleton, for example, or how mundane everyday tasks are completed, I'm telling you to stick your head in a microwave at full blast.
>Yea Forums learns the phrase "thought terminating cliche
>All thoughts terminate
Is this irony?
in books 16 and 17 of the iliad the time/weather continuity goes: first sunset, then bright sun and no cloud, then a rainbow, then a thunderstorm, then a long spell of fighting, then night falls.
Homer eternally btfo. Can't wait to see him on a cracked.com list of "9 Famous Authors Whose Influential Works are Secretly Retarded"
A contradiction and a logical inconsistency is bad writing.
>>"Just turn your brain off and enjoy it."
WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING THIS FUCKING THREAD? NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS AUTISTIC ISSUE AS MUCH AS YOU DO. SHUT THE FUCK UP. SHUT THE FUCK UP. SHUT THE FUCK UP. SHUT THE FUCK UP.
STOP.
MAKING.
THIS.
FUCKING.
THREAD.
>le just turn your brain off and enjoy it
>wow i le hate when people say this
NO ONE FUCKING CARES. NO ONE HAS THE SAME ISSUE AS YOU. WHY ARE YOU SO HUNG UP ON THIS?
>"I will only judge an argument based on how many times it's been posted, not on the actual merits of the argument itself. I am very intelligent."
such people wd be happier reading/rereading lord of the rings vel sim rather than getting involved in literature
To be honest, there is something refreshing about autism.
All of you are genreshitters, KYS at earliest expedience.
Orson Welles once said that magic begins and ends with the figure of the magician who asks the audience, for a moment, to believe that the lady is floating in the air. In other words, be eight years old for a moment. If the public goes out of its way to lose its childhood faculties, if it pretends to be an incredulous grown-up unable to slip into that sphere where the unreal becomes matter-of-fact, if it insists on hardening itself against the euphoria it is being offered then there’s nothing optimistic I could say about the future of literature, d’you see, because it wouldn’t be true, d’you see? Do change
That's because superheroes are made for children Grant.
"The army didn't think a soldier's life was worth 300 grand"
In the Nolanverse this is majority of the screentime and plot is Lucius Fox building up the new arsenals and financial smoke screens.
"Good Luck"
Would this Lucius ask Batman if he would be interested in Anti-Joker spray? No. Each serialized story has an internally consistent logic of exposition.
Batfleck is also decked out in the Batcave with kryptonite and metal bathelm but this one is brief off the cuff showoff. Patman's gadgets are primitive to show Batman's early journey. These details are prominent and the most clear signs of story telling. In ugly line art basic underwear detective stories however this falls out the wayside. Usually with butt ugly comicbook Batfamily grim dark booty and boob drawings and garish toothy grimaces. I don't expect Adam West to bust out a DARPA grappling hook laser beam harpoon cannon but to have a campy ribbon walking up the side of a "building".
This. Theres a fucking massive database of continuity for Batman. Bat-tism is a cult following.
When Liam Neeson Not-Rhas al Ghul mocks Batman for taking the "become your fear" literally we are supposed to see the Illusion Magician for his tricks we see the Batcave theatricality in deception before it stuns the criminals. The audience is supposed to be disenchanted with the spook of Batman to be charmed by his engineering and expense. If we are not meant to be disillusioned and are as an audiencr deluded by Batman's illusions then the narrative would present the Batman's assault to us before explaining his prep time works.
We can't appreciate Batman being a billionaire if we don't assume SOMEBODY is filling up his tires and servicing his mysteriously classified beck and call.
Batman works in mysterious ways, child. A comic book writer who castigates the canon builiding audience for their wonder is blue ballsing the progression of the mythos. Every unanswered pesky question should be more mysteriously unanswered.
Where is Fez from that 70's show from? What is the Krusty Krab secret formula?
What is Obama's last name?
You're not supposed to know!
Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed."
If a gun is mentioned, it should be fired.
Conversely, if you were reading a murder mystery and the detective gathers the suspects and suddenly announces "the killer left fingerprints on this gun which I found in the garden two chapters ago, but I haven't mentioned until right now" you'd throw the book out. And rightly so.
Pulling stuff out of your ass is bad writing, plain and simple. Do you know the origin of "deus ex machina"? In ancient Greek drama, when the playwright had written himself into a corner, one of the gods would intervene to tidy up the loose ends. You knew it was a god because the actor was lowered onto the stage by a crane ("the machine").
In the real world, the Manhattan Project was hardly secret. I knew a writer who was one of the inventors of the Proximity Fuse. Very important wartime project with AAA priority. They could have anything they asked for. One day they needed Cadmium and were turned down. That could only mean some other project had an even _higher_ priority.
At the time, Cadmium didn't have that many uses. Someone pulled down a CRC handbook. "Look at how many stable isotopes it has. SOMEONE is absorbing neutrons." No one said anything, but they KNEW!!!
You obviously care, you're just being an effeminate passice aggressive retard about it.
>High schooler in AP Lit thinks if something has a wikipedia article it is a reified Law of Art™
Go tell /r/books that Euripides was a hack for leaving too many plot threads unsatisfied, he wishes he could reach the dizzying heights of artistic genius of a Margaret Atwood
Even Chris-Chan tried to explainhow his fictional setting worked.
its called misology
>Balls-out wacky fictional settings are fun and refreshing
>capeshit is refreshing
Having never watched a superhero movie, even I find them tiresome at this point.
Yes, for example, Spider-Man getting trapped under a rock breaks suspension of disbelief (and with it all tension) when he has been show to perform much more miraculous feats of strength. Just randomly deciding the power level of your character that day is retarded, this is why kryptonite was invented, so use it. Vegeta jobs to every villain of the week, but he is not losing to krillin
>logically consistent world
>Our world isn't like that.
Build something you absolute dumbshit. People can do random shit, but they follow physical laws.
Did you read the quote? It's all questions about meaningless worldbuilding details that are not supposed to have an answer and giving them one detracts from the thing being answered not to mention the purpose of the piece of media which is to tell a story. It's not interesting because it is fiction and any answer is just nonsense.
>Conversely, if you were reading a murder mystery and the detective gathers the suspects and suddenly announces "the killer left fingerprints on this gun which I found in the garden two chapters ago, but I haven't mentioned until right now" you'd throw the book out. And rightly so.
This is pretty much how every Sherlock Holmes story goes.
yassss .... just open you mind to us...
m.youtube.com
>Creating a logically consistent world is basic writing.
>Why did Superman's beams seemingly work differently in Issue #?? to #???
>Option A: Ah, well I was unaware about the nature of the substance being lasered and that was an honest mistake, you can pretend it was a Star Labs super material if you would like.
>Option B: DUR WHO CHANGES BATMAN'S TIRES?! Why you want effort? SHUT UP AND CONSUME!
>Spider-Man getting trapped under a rock breaks suspension of disbelief (and with it all tension) when he has been show to perform much more miraculous feats of strength
no it doesn't. normal people don't care about what spiderman was doing in some other story within the same "canon," they care about what's in front of them, and if the scene is tense they will feel tension. YOU will be upset at the scene because you have trained yourself to perform these "canonicity checks." it's a nerd shibboleth.
Basic world building is a requirement for good writing.
It's a requirement for comic books and /sffg/ slop. Read the thread and pay attention to the examples being used.
Writers like Schulz and Krzhizhanovsky and Kafka and Nabokov made their worlds fantastical and mysterious specifically by avoiding any kind of elaboration that would allow you to piece together the "rules" of the world. You can follow that same thread to Baron Munchausen stories or earlier myths about demons and djinns, traditional storytelling didn't give two fucks about it.
And Poirot. Miss Marple may not do a lot of evidence sniffing, but she has a lot of moments where she rambles and mentions some person she once knew.
It's kind of like magic act, keep the secret to the trick until one is already amazed.
>It's a requirement for comic books and /sffg/ slop.
No, it's pretty much a requirement for literally any story. Establishing ground rules for how your world works is one of the very basic pillars of good writing. Ignoring this allows contrivance to come out of nowhere.
Times change.
The bigger distinction is not physical consistency but character consistency. Truly great writers do not force their characters into acting like caricatures of humans when facing conflict in their life. Hack writers treat their characters as a lower level of priority than spectacle. They prioritize manifesting "cool" scenes at the expense of their characters losing all believability. Sometimes the physical world does contribute significantly to character believability.