/lit/ - Literature

>>2028910
Anyone know what happened to Stradlater? He used to do general writing/writing prompt threads.

>>1675238
>>1675241
I'll try to address Derp's argument, regardless of the fact that he's one of the tripfags that infest /lit/ like pubic lice on a homeless man's crotch.

>"There is no such thing as a good story or a bad story. A story is a sequence of events. There is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior to sequences of events.
But there is nothing "intrinsic" about literary quality either. What good writing is and what a good story is are all prescribed sociologically. Since both are prescribed sociologically, it's meaningless to talk about either of them as intrinsic phenomena anyway. I'm not even sure who you're arguing with. Platonists maybe?

>Here is the crucial question however, which everyone is too short-sighted to ask:
Except for Derp, amirite?

>"Does quality literariness make the game itself better?"
>And the answer is a fervent NO. Just as quality literariness does not make a movie any better or a book (NOT A TEXT) any better. The only thing that quality literariness improves is A TEXT. What makes one movie better than another are the cinematic techniques of that movie, the shots, the camera placement, the mise-en-scene etc etc. What makes a painting better than another is the use of painting techniques. What makes one game better than another is its mechanics.
First of all, what does "better" mean to you in this context? If better means "improves game mechanics because game mechanics are games, derp" then you're speaking tautologous nonsense. To no one's surprise, you didn't even bother to disguise the blatant tautology pivotal to your argument (literally pivotal since your argument's circular):
>What makes one game better than another is its mechanics.