Nicol Armarfi wrote:papillon wrote:Quote:
Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."
Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."
Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."
Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"
Party A: *total confusion*
You say you've read A22's post, but no where in there did he actually say it was good fiction. He didn't mention his opinion on it at all until after Jake assumed he liked it. Here, I will quote it for you:
You do not need to quote it for me, as
nowhere have I said that A22 said in clear, explicit language that it was good fiction. In fact, even in my fictionalised narrative, I used brackets to suggest the
implied statement.
Rather than requote a bunch of quotes that we've both already read, I displayed a slimmed-down narrative to explain to you exactly what the dialogue appeared to be. I intentionally did not use exact quotes, because they would serve to obscure the dialogue.
Now, let's take the same narrative again, but remove the implications.
Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."
Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in."
Party A: "Yeah, but is it any good?"
Party B: "Well, no."
Party A: "Then it doesn't demonstrate anything about the value of hooks in good fiction, so why did you mention it?" *confusion*
Without the implication-proof, it's not relevant. Party B might as well have said "I am wearing an orange hat." That may be absolutely factual, but it's also entirely irrelevant. Similarly, it may be factual that Book X has a hook that is not at the beginning, but if Book X is also a crappy book, then this has no bearing on the subject of whether or not good books have hooks at the beginning.
Therefore, because I assumed A22 was trying to make sense and not being totally irrelevant, I filled in the implications. Sure, I'll agree that nowhere did A22 say those things that I assumed were implied. However, in that case, he was making no sense. My mistake was in having too high an opinion of his debating skills.
Are you? Because to me it looks like you are just reading Jake's posts and assuming everything Jake says in reply to A22 is correct and drawing all knowledge from his posts, without actually reading A22's. Also, you have been calling him names. I can specifically remember you calling him an arrogant-idiot in one of your posts without even having to look up.
You should go back and look it up, then, as A22 called himself (mockingly) an arrogant idiot, and I corrected it to an arrogant
potential-idiot, since I don't think I have enough information on A22's thought processes to make any such declaration. Your specific memories seem to have some holes.