/lit/ - Literature

some fantasy is classic literature, such as the picture of dorian grey

but what about classic fantasy?

0/10

>You should all be ashamed & deported to the text board
what?

>>1114426
>OP wasn't man enough to finish the Critique
>My face when I don't give a flying fuck about any of his opinions

But if other people didn't read fantasy, you wouldn't get to chortle into your neckbeard and feel superior because your book does not have a dragon on the cover, which clearly means that you are a very smart and well educated person.

>>1114436
>picture of dorian grey
Trash. Wilde should stick to being a playwright. If that book was published under an unknown alias it wouldn't have gotten as much attention.

You can say "classic fantasy" but can you actually prove some exists?

>>1114443
>>>/book/

>>1114446
>doesn't understand the concept of time

I don't mind trash, not at all. But fantasy books are always long and boring. Such a waste of time. And they always fight with swords against ogres, such depressing repetition of the same theme (therefore Dorian Grey can NEVER be considered fantasy. No swords, no ogres, no chopping off ogres heads with swords. Ergo, not a fantasy book. Qoud erat demonstrandum, dude!)

>>1114426

All literature is, by definition fantasy.

You are dumb and you opinions are inferior to those of a ferret.

no point in reading fantasy, you say?

>>1114454
Any Jules Verne, like half of Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, Sir Gawain & anything related to King Arthur.

>Implying there are objective criteria for evaluating literature

> Think of how much godly Classic literature you could be reading instead & who knows -- you might even learn something!

>>>1114460
>But fantasy books are always long and boring. Such a waste of time.

Always make me laugh this position, what do you learn reading literature?

>>1114467
Also fucking Beowulf and Shakespeare. You wouldn't classify A Midsummer Night's Dream as fantastical?

i'm just gonna watch this one unfold

>>1114462
>All literature is, by definition fantasy
Wrong.

Ignoring your idiocy of being unaware that Fantasy is a genre of fiction, literature is, by definition the art of written works. The two most basic categories being fiction & non-fiction. Non-fiction concerns reality.

>>1114454
I really hate you. It seems like every time this board's resident douche namefag decides to retire, another takes his place. Please go away so someone a little more bearable can pop up.

>hauled up
I think you mean holed

>>1114454

once upon a time someone recommended Dracula, and I said it was shit, and they called me a troll. I responded with three posts detailing why I thought it was shit.

Would you mind doing the same and giving some substance to your promiscuous mud-flinging?

>>1114473
To avoid long, boring books with guys chopping off ogre's heads with swords. Authors who has anything at all to say, can say it shorter than 800 pages.

Don't be too fast to mix me up wiith OP btw. Hypothetically there could be more than one sensible guy in /lit/

>people replying seriously
>people replying without saging

You morons deserve having your board fucked up by a single skill-less troll. If you can't fucking help yourselves from being trolled by the most obvious retarded shit, follow the fucking guide.

>>1114469
Quality of literature is objective. Deal with it.

>>1114495
Depending on the fantasy you're seeing, there can be more to it. It seems a little stupid to ignore an entire genre and thousands, if not millions of writers because of a stereotype, doesn't it? It's not as though works considered great literature are always fantastic. Personally, I'd rather jump into a book by someone like Lewis Carroll than Charles Dickens any day.

>>1114496
It's a discussion, dude. I don't need to block everything that I disagree with.

>>1114487

Semantics, faggot.

All fiction is fantasy. Pure and simple. Unless you only read non-fiction, you read fantasy.

And piss off with all that "genre fiction" shit. They are ill-defined at best and most books could fit into several of them.

>>1114504

It's not a discussion, it's an argument against someone who deliberately takes up a ridiculous and obviously wrong position, then deliberately defends it using nothing but fake "stupid" opinions and deliberate logical fallacies.

>>1114506

It's disingenuous to redefine a word just so it makes you feel better

>mfw i read whatever i want and don't give a fuck about what other people think

>>1114501
I am not stereotyping! The authors do! There is always one part in every fantasy book where someone says something like:
"Oh, I really hope that Rosalynn manages to escape with the magic wand!"
and someone replies:
"Shut up, and help me chop off the heads of all these 400 ogres"

>>1114473
>Always make me laugh this position, what do you learn reading literature?
For crying out loud! If you've never learned anything from literature I'm afraid to see what kinds of things you do read.

90% of EVERYTHING produced for popular consumption is trash.

Welcome to Earth, TyBrax.

>>1114511

>Implying opinions can be wrong and not just stupid.

Fuck you OP. Fantasy helps me escape in a magical world to forget my reality. When I read a fantasy novel, I'm a brave knight or a powerful wizard! I fight dragons and all kind of strange frightening creatures you wouldn't be able to stop because your elitist literature don't prepare you for those situations. I'm trying to live like the wonderful characters in the books I read (pic related, it's me), but I'm sure you have a miserable life! That's it, I'm going back to my book right now.

>>1114517

Retard.

How is it you know so much about these stories if you don't read them?

Could it be that you are making presumptions based on preconceived notions and you obvious bias?

THAT'S CALLED STEREOTYPING.

Dumb ass.

>>1114426
90% of it is just -pure- trash.
True, but there's a 9% that's mediocre and a 1% that's excellent. If you can find that 1%, you're good.

>classic literature
Nothing but shit as far as the eye can see.

>>1114476
>Shakespeare
>fantasy
ITT: high-school students sprouting blasphemy because the got a bad grade in their Hamlet papers.

I can never watch movies or read books or even now play video games just for fun. Everything has to be a didactic and artistic experience for that time spent to be considered worth while.

Truth is that random online assholes know more about which forms of literature is worth while.

>>1114529

You should be more subtle.

At this point everyone in here is just trolling you back.

Are we talking orcs and dragons fantasy or are you lumping in science fiction and any fiction that isn't older than you are?

It's really difficult to respond if you mean orc and dragon fantasy because it was practically created by Tolkien and everyone else pretty much steals from him. I enjoy Salvatore but I'm under no illusions that he is a good writer and almost every other fantasy book I've read pales in comparison to Tolkien.

If you want to include science fiction then there are plenty of good sci fi authors whose books actually have some depth to them. Heinlein and Asimov are the two that come to mind as writers who go beyond "BIG GUNS SHOOT ALIENS YAAAARRRHHH!". If you read Stranger in a Strange Land and compared it to shitty fantasy writers then you have a problem.

Also, what would you qualify as "godly classic literature"? I hate to try to defend books I love when I have no idea what I'm going up against.

>>1114548
>If you want to include science fiction then there are plenty of good sci fi authors whose books actually have some depth to them.
If anything, fantasy would be included under the umbrella of science fiction rather than the other way around.

>>1114553
That's just crazy talk.

>>1114548
I don't think he's lumping SF in with fantasy. He pretty clearly targets only fantasy for his trolling because it is superficially the easier target. Also, I made a sadface when you shafted fantasy in the back.

>>1114491
Well Picture of Dorian Grey is hardly an accurate representation of Fantasy so I think it'd be best to drop discussion on this particular novel.

>>1114496
>everyone I disagree with is a troll

>>1114506
>Semantics, faggot
Indeed.

>>1114562
There is no definition of fantasy that is both accurate and qualitative. But you know that, don't you?

TyBrax, what's your favorite book?

>>1114567
And you choose to ignore the most popular definition when responding to this thread. Touché.

>>1114570
Perhaps Ada by Nabokov. However my appreciation of The Brothers Karamazov was recently taken to a supreme level after reading Pope Benedict XVI's thoughts on the novel & interpretations.

William Gibson invented the Internet.
F.K. Dick invented paranoid retractions.

lists goes on....

and non- sci-fi is just for fun, rly.

>>1114579
Yes I choose to ignore them, given that the definitions you refer to are espoused by you and another Anonymous, and are "shit" and "ogres", respectively.

>My appreciation of The Brothers Karamazov was recently taken to a supreme level after reading Pope Benedict XVI's thoughts on the novel & interpretations

Link?

seriously guys.

Stop treating this worthless guido to the credibility and attention he is so desperately fishing for.

>>1114592
I'm afraid the texts are available within the Vatican library. I highly recommend you visit if you're ever visiting Rome. The experience of reading the novel after his words was deeply spiritual & has took me from a man of no faith to an Agnostic Theist you might say.

Again, I can't recommend visiting the place enough.

>>1114608
*only available

>>1114529

You're saying MND isn't fantasy? It's about fairies and magic and shit, what more do you need?

inb4 it doesn't count because my definition of fantasy is all fantasy i don't like

>>1114608
hello

>>1114634
Hello brother.

>>1114642
http://tinychatDOTcom/muchat

Why can't the classicfags just get along with the rest of /lit/.

>>1114426
>What is the point in reading Fantasy?
Because I like it. That's it. No other reason required. Why I like it? I don't know. Just like I don't know why my favourite colour is what it is.

>>1114498

>Quality of literature is objective.

Now this is just precious.

If it's objective, I'm sure you'll hav no trouble at all defining it in objective terms.

Go ahead, take your time. I'll just be sitting here, holding my breath.

>caring what other people do
lol 15 - 18 year old white suburbanite male (who reads a lot of fantasy)

Sorry, OP, but Battles is shit.

Brotip: all lit/fiction is fantasy
derp

I was always an anti-fantasy lit snob myself...wouldn't be caught dead in that section of the bookstore...but when ?lit? came out, there were so many threads about A Song of Ice and Fire that finally I just said, fuck it, I'm gonna try out that first book.

The series is epic as fuck. It's literary. It's entertaining. They are good, good books.

So I said, hmmmm maybe I was being unkind to the genre for too long, what else is there? I tried some China Melvielle, some Joe Abercrombie, some Dan Simmons, some Pratchett.

In my opinion, that was all shit.

tl;dr aSoIaF rules, so fantasy cannot be defined as shit.

I was always an anti-fantasy lit snob myself...wouldn't be caught dead in that section of the bookstore...but when /lit/ came out, there were so many threads about A Song of Ice and Fire that finally I just said, fuck it, I'm gonna try out that first book.

The series is epic as fuck. It's literary. It's entertaining. They are good, good books.

So I said, hmmmm maybe I was being unkind to the genre for too long, what else is there? I tried some China Melvielle, some Joe Abercrombie, some Dan Simmons, some Pratchett.

In my opinion, that was all shit.

tl;dr aSoIaF rules, so fantasy cannot be defined as shit.

>>1114710
congrats, you like grocery store, soap opera lit.

>Think of how much godly Classic literature you could be reading instead

Well I'm happy to see that you are actually just a troll. Good job, very subtle.

>>1114685
>objective terms
Critical reception. Lasting effect. Influence on other works, etc.

>>1114715
What about LOTR?

dragons are kewl. think about it!

>>1114715
>Critical reception
BAHAHAHAHA derp

uhh, Classic litrature has several Fantasy novels within the genre OP.

Translation: I saw a fat neckbeard at Borders today in the fantasy section and he had a girl with him. I was soooo jealous. I slunk back to my literature section and pouted. Then I came up with a brilliant plan of revenge....TO POST A RANT ON LIT!!!!

inb4 OP pretends he was trolling after getting made fun of for an hour

>90% of it is just -pure- trash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle3tinj4tz?from=Main.SturgeonsLaw

>>1114426
A) You shouldn't judge something due to the quality of it's audience. If you do, it becomes a self-perpetuating stereotype.

B) 90% of everything is pure trash. The only reason classics are any better than fantasy is that only the good novels become classics.

C) Well written fantasy allows the reader to experience a world inherently different to his own. As well as allowing for greater suspension of disbelief, this can simply be enjoyable.

>>1114715

So, all of Greek literature. Most of European literature. Oriental and South Asian literature.

Everything is the "classic" genre. Is a fantasy. And I'm not talking about the "all fiction is fantasy" kind either. But that genre Fantasy.

Your move, hotshot.

>>1114757
>all of greek literature
>fantasy
wow....just.....wow

Because it's enjoyable and prevents me from feeling like shit, OP.

Quit being such a judgmental dick. There IS good fantasy out there.

Why read Shakespeare?

Please give me a reason for this that I cannot also use to defend reading fantasy.

>>1114768
Not trolling, but what good series are there? tbh noone I know reads fantasy so its hard to get advice

>>1114532

I really hope you are being subversive, because I have started reading classic literature and watching art house films and now I genuinely am starting to feel this way. I don't want to not enjoy videogames anymore, but they're just so empty and unfulfilling, not to mention a huge waste of time! (Oh god I'm doing it again)

>>1114771

Gene Wolfe--read him!

The Book of the New Sun is incredible.

>>1114532
>>1114772

>I am too deep and sophisticated to enjoy such plebeian pleasure as you other philistines.

Stop trying to feel superior and that pesky case of douchebag will clear up no problem

>>1114771
It really depends on what you're looking for. I think it's very easy to recommend misses with fantasy when the breadth of the stuff included is very large.

I try to avoid making blanket recs personally so as not to give bad impressions and reinforce stuff like OP.

>>1114772
What you need is some nihilism. When everything is unfulfilling it doesn't matter what you do!

Last weekend I read One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest, watched Killer of Sheep, and then played Robot Unicorn Attack for 4 hours. Feels good.

>>1114710
This; I used to hate with a passion basically anything with magic in it, until someone pointed out that I liked Star Wars and the Force is basically magic that isn't called magic

After which I decided that I was attaching an unfair bias to something that, like everything else in SF/F fiction, is more dependant on author to make good or bad, rather than being automatically good or bad.

I'm sure dragons or elves or orcs or magic or whatever the fuck it is anti-fantasy people whine about can be great if the author is talented and creative.

But, art is subjective. Literature is art. If you don't like dragons, might I suggest not reading about them?

>>1114720
In that 10%

>>1114732
.....

>>1114769
>bringing theater into this
If I must...

Shakespeare makes you consider the psychology of the human mind in the most tragic circumstances. No work of fantasy can match the depth of his characters.

>>1114772
Same but now & again I get that craving for some mindless pure entertainment. I think vidya fulfils it best.

>>1114796
looking at the sort of fantasy that you tend to find on shelves now, you dont see many tolkein style swords and sourcery style books.

I like fantasy, but reading the first TLOTR and some terry brooks were some of the most boring reads I've ever done...

>>1114769
Culture? To this day, many, MANY works will allude to Shakespeare in some way, and a lot of prominent authors, actors, screenwriters etc will cite him as inspiration in some way.

I think the only fantasy work that is frequently alluded to in popular culture that isn't specifically geared towards geeks is LotR, and it's still seen as a pretty geeky thing IRL by popular media.

fantasy is entertaining, i enjoy reading fantasy, if you don't, that's cool, but fuck off.

>>1114803

Sorry about bringing in theatre, I didn't think it through.

However how does Shakespeare's make you consider the psychology of humans.... any more than any other work?

Also, remember that Shakespeare got the majority of his income from the unwashed masses, whose favourite parts of Romeo and Juliet were the jokes in the first half

>>1114803

>Shakespeare makes you consider the psychology of the human mind in the most tragic circumstances.

Oh, yeah, that's totally true...

...except most of Shakespeare's characters never existed to begin with, and those who did he never had any profound contact with.

But hey, I'm sure there are some really objective psychological insights to be gained from people who never existed.

fucking tripfags

go shoot yourself in the eyes

>>1114803

>Shakespeare makes you consider the psychology of the human mind in the most tragic circumstances. No work of fantasy can match the depth of his characters.

I call bullshit in the most musical manner possible.

>>1114806

Just to throw in the exception to the rule, Harry Potter.

As for culture... I can't think of a good rebuke for that, other than asking what qualifies something as cultural?

A pretty bad argument, but I'm no great debater.

As for the geeky thing, unless its at Harry-Potter or Twilight levels of popularity, reading books as a hobby is often seen as "geeky"

>>1114823
Nah, I'd say pleasure reeding is more nerdy than geeky.

Also, yes, Harry Potter is morelike LOTR in that regard. You're right, but that's still a pretty limited number. Twilight is for tweeny girls with no taste in books and should not be in this discussion.

Also, what I meant by cultural aspects is simply how frequently it's referenced or emulated in popular culture, such as TV shows or movies or games or music or unrelated books or etc

>>1114833

I agree with you on twilight, I was merely using it as an example as a book that, for some reason, caught public attention.

As for the "aiming at the audience", could you not say that for pretty much any genre? Crime novels are aimed at people who like crime novels and so on...

interesting...

>mfw OP has no imagination, no dreams, no desires, no ambition, and no heart.

>>1114483
I always save a picture of Colbert, even if I know I already have it.

>>1114426

Thing is, OP likes reading fantasy more than literature but he wishes he enjoyed literature more.

He thinks that by bashing fantasy he can change and grow into the type of refined reader that appreciates literature--but every time he opens up a "Classic" he becomes engulfed in a sea of yawns.

fantasy is god-tier

OP probably got beat up by a fantasy nerd

Most modern fantasy I've read (admittedly not a whole lot) has been shit, but I can appreciate J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Lewis from Chesterton's criticism, and as for Tolkien, there's a great essay on him here:

http://www.etymonline.com/columns/tolkien.htm

Fantasy is shit.

/thread

Sure is psychological projection round here.

>>1115038
YOU. Write books for a living.

>>1115084

no the best essay on tolkein/fantasy is from that fantasy author I think it was michael moorcock but im not sure, can't find it

anyway he criticized tolkein, cs lewis, and a whole bunch of other authors, and compared them and shit, his insight was pretty insightful...anyone know what im talkin about?

he also went over some children's fantasy, the good ones and bad ones, it was a nice long essay online

way to ignore the trolls /lit/

people read fantasy because it interests them. Whatever floats their fancy and all that. What do any of you care what other people read?

>>1115130

You don't mean Epic Pooh?

Because that is mostly just Moorcock whining about Tolkien's conservatism and Tories and Merry England and a whole lot of other stuff absolutely no one outside the UK (as well as some people in the UK, I'm sure) would give a rat's ass about, and generally talking out of his ass (Tolkien didn't address death in his stories, Mr. Moorcock? Really? Then would you please explain to me whatever the fuck The Silmarillion was about?).

Seriously, I like some of Moorcock's stuff, but he should take a long, hard look at it before presuming to tell anyone how to do fantasy.

>>1115157

ya thnx lol

hurr durr I'm a Puritan. If you read books for pleasure you sin against god and I cast thee out.
oh, also hipster and elitist.

>>1115174
lol

>What is the point in reading Fantasy?

>107 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Great, I make threads asking whether a video-game can be a text, ludic texts, and whether we're stretching the definition of a text too thin if we do so, to replies of about 2-3 people

Heh at least the idiots stick together

HEY OP

I heard TyBrax believes in God

>>1116378
>he mad he got shit tier in that tripfag list thread

>>1116385
>I heard TyBrax believes in God
I'm an Agnostic Theist. & with good reason.

Shit I missed a tripfag tier list thread?

Anyway guys why bother reading fiction at all to begin with? 90 - 100% of it is by necessity composed of rhetoric and persuasive arguments that address, raise or in most cases hint at philosophical problems that are dealt with perfectly will in the philosophical tradition. You guys are kind of wasting your time if this is an intellectual pursuit for you.

>>1116390

>Agnostic theism

>>1116394
I think you'll fare better in the next list if you stop shitting out the first thing that pops into your head. You consistently have horrendous typos & use bad troll arguments only backed by the rest of the boards inability to comprehend your flowery language.

Also your argument is kind of similar to the one that you should only read non-fiction so I feel no intent to address it at this time of day.

>>1116397
Compelling argument, pleb.

>>1116401
Agnostic Theist is a tenable position, and honestly I respect ty more than all the soedgy teenatheists on /lit/. Most of the atheists here aren't even radical materialists, they are just offended by what religion can do when exploited for negative ends.

>>1116401
Hey jackoff, remind me of a single bad troll argument I've made and how it was such a bad troll.

>>1116409

>>1116409

Depends what kind of agnostic theism

>TyBrax
>people seriously responding
He's 13 years old, guys.

>>1116401
When you parfume shit with thousand parfumes you still have shit. That fits. You talk about plebs yet you are one. You care what people think about your wonderful ideas, everything about you says you are insecure little boy, constantly asking for approval. Enjoy your lash dog, i will read with great pleasure Gotrek series and same goes for Brothers Karamazov, because i just don't give a fuck. And you know i am better man than you, physically and mentally, stop deceiving yourself - classic literature won't make up for your little mind.

>>1116430
>parfume

>What is the point in reading Fantasy?
>120 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

/lit/ sho' nuff is hard to troll.

Reported thread as illegal content.

You should all do the same.

>>1116447
ogre, troll, whatever...

Maybe you can use your sword to chop our heads off? There might even be some guys around here to help you fence us off

What is being referred to as Fantasy by Mr.Troll seems to be the High/Low Fantasy you see in bookstores. This section of literature is in the end just a evolution of the epic saga. Instead of trying to tell a history of a people, however, fantastic events were simply placed in their own worlds. Nothing really separates Greek myth from Lord of the Rings beyond the fact that more people actually believed the stuff from the Greek myth was true at some point.

>>1116380
>>1116380
>>1116380
>>1116380
>>1116380
>>1116380
>>1116380

>>1116380
Funny how both Hawkings & Hitchens got crippled after moranic opposition to God.

Stupid Americans.

>>1116570
>>1116570

>4 decades of hardcore drinking and smoking
>must be god
>lol fucking idiot

>>1116570
>moranic
>Stupid Americans.

>>1116570

>implying Hawking didn't get cripple about half a century ago and didn't go on to pwn god afterwards

>>1114518
yes, my native language is not english, deal with it :-) The statement you make is a fallacy, don't remember the name exactly.

If you are used to read, you *probably* would know grammar, vocabulary, but thats it. Ah, and that you learn as well reading fantasy :-)

>>1116630

Dude, you need to sage now

>>1116630
Your English is/was fine.

The point is you will not learn anything like the kind of knowledge you gain from reading Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground from any Fantasy book.

>>1116634
Supreme overlord of /lit/?
>Dude, you need to sage now

>>1116646
>Notes from the Underground
>gain knowledge from

If you want to learn something useful, read a textbook. The point of fiction is to entertain.

>>1116646
your statement-> "fantasy is a waste of time because you learn nothing compare to classics"

You have to prove your statement -> start making a list.

>>1116647
>The point of fiction is to entertain.
There is no more point to fiction than there is to non-fiction or anything else. Trepan yourself, subhuman.

Also, there is no such thing as a fantasy book guys. There is a text with a fantasy theme.

>>1116654
>start making a list
Of what?

what you learn/the gains you have reading classics instead of fantasy

I think I learned quite a bit from The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Much of it is a meditation on self-pity, inaction, and dissociation, which really spoke to me at the time. Why, yes, I was a teenager.

I think you are right OP, still I read Fantasy too.
I'm a loser and still a child deep inside me and I am okay with it.

>>1116679
I learned that I never want to read the books ever again.

And then after reading the second trilogy, I learned that I was right the first time.

I refuse to read the third trilogy.

>>1116679

I tried to read those some years back. They sounded pretty cool.

Then I read the first book and after the first few chapters it was a great struggle to force myself to read the rest. I never bothered with the second and third.

>what you learn/the gains you have reading classics instead of fantasy

Well I think greatest of all is that, in contrast at least, it enriches your life. Fantasy is like a dull dreary soap opera. The themes & emotions present are unrealistic & escapist, that's why you'll find fans of the genre are generally failures at life or fat, misogynists, etc. On top of that they are usually only loosely based on real events or history, so you don't learn much about other parts of culture. Lastly you don't experience that profoundness that cannot be explained in words, that you only experience from the masterpieces of literature.

>>1116679
>Why, yes, I was a teenager
Hurr teenagers are angsty babies. Durr this has always been the case. Those exaggerating spoilt brats!

>>1116691
I'm glad you're happy friend. That's what matters.
>I am okay with it

Guess what the Iliad, the Odyssey, Arabian Nights, Le Mort D'Arthur, etc. are?

>>1116744

books?

>>1116737

Sure is ridiculous generalizations and conceited bullshit in here

>>1116744

Well written?
Unlike fantasy...

>>1116750

They're fantasy.

is this your first day on /lit/?

>>1116737
>>1116746
Man, you just never have anything worthwhile to say, do you?

>>1116737

>that profoundness that cannot be explained in words

>that cannot be explained in words

>>1114498

>Quality of literature is objective.

>>1116746

Confirmed for pain in the ass teenager.

How does it feel to know everything in the world?

How does it feel to know so little that you cannot conceive of how much you truly do not understand?

>>1116656

>There is no more point to fiction than there is to non-fiction or anything else.

Uh, no.

Fiction is, by it's very definition, stuff that never happened to people who never existed.

It's a hobby.

Get over it.

Time to start saging this monstrosity.

>>1116749
>>1116761
>>1116762
>>1116768
>>1116772
How the hell could one call these "arguments"?

>>1116788
Not everything is an argument, you fucking faggot.

>>1116795
Yes because discussion on an image board is just total faggotry...

>>1116788
Those weren't arguments.....O_o

>>1116799
>Yes because discussion on an image board is just total faggotry...
>expecting anything other than total faggotry from 4chan

laughingpersonorgroup.jpg

>>1116812
I'm not the one that brung up faggotry. Touché

'Neckbeards'? I feel like I'm on gamefaqs.

But yeah, fantasy is horrible.

>>1116818
>didn't bring up faggotry
>is a gigantic faggot

>>1116826

That term isn't "gamefaqs" exclusive. The fact you even what's in the gamefaqs vocabulary shows that you're a faggot who browses gamefaqs.

>>1116848
Exactly. I first heard the term on /g/ most likely.