Sandy’s answer to “Why is Denna so shittily written? In fact why is this thing full of wish fulfillment cardboard-cuto…” > Likes and Comments
21 likes · Like
The fact that the phrase 'wish fulfillment cardboard-cutouts' comes right after a sentence about Denna, doesn't mean it only applies to females. It doesn't mean that the book has ONLY wish fulfillment cardboard-cutouts either. Try to interpret what you read.
You may have confused your punctuation, but what you have written are not actually separate sentences; each is very clearly linked by the conjunctions 'in fact' and 'also'. Any 'mistake' that I have made, therefore, does not come from an error in my reading comprehension, but from your inability to wrestle with the English language, complex as it is.
Further, do you know the definition of 'full'? You say in one sentence that -all- characters are wish-fulfilment, and then you say that -clearly- not all characters are wish-fulfilment, and that that is somehow a mistake on my part? You're moving the goalposts after you've conceded.
Which still doesn't address the crux of my point. Auri… decorative function? She doesn't even function in the real world. She is exactly the opposite of decorative. Mola, Denna and Fela, too, have a direct hand in the unfolding of the story. They might all share attractive qualities, but that in no way means that those are there -only- qualities.
Further, this is a story narrated by Kvothe--someone who believes he is the centre of the universe. Several times he makes dubious claims (and is sometimes even called out on them). It is perfectly within his character to be creative with the truth--like with how attractive his female companions are--to further cement his apparent brilliance.
I'm sorry, but I really think you've got it all wrong. I will absolutely accept criticism of a flawed book, but this?
Wow, that is one long, butthurt tirade. I see you don't like anyone to 'attack' your favourite book & reply by spitting insults left and right. Oh, just FYI; 'U DUMB, U NO SPEAK ENGLISH LEL!!!4!!!' is not a valid argument.
It is a list of points that disprove your theory, none of which you have addressed.
If pointing out your errors in logic and English can be considered insults, then it's probably worth pointing out you "insulted" me first... but there were no insults traded, and the only sign of someone being "butthurt" is from the person that went on a "tirade" about how "shittily written" Denna is.
My comments on your English are not an argument at all, more a response to your comments on my English comprehension. If you say something you don't mean, and someone takes it at face value, the issue is with you, not with them.
But I made one very clear point in the second paragraph of my second post, two in the third, and another in the forth. You claim to be looking for a "valid argument," but they're right there and you refuse to acknowledge them. Again, the issue is that you won't accept them, not that I haven't made them.
I note also that you haven't answered my most important question: "Have you even read the books?"
And for what it's worth, this is not my favourite book, nor does it belong to my favourite series, and it wasn't even written by my favourite author. Or second. Or third.
So while I'm able to disprove what you've said with logic and reason, you're continuing to make claims that not only can't be backed up but can be totally refuted.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Susan
(new)
Jan 05, 2015 09:58AM
The fact that the phrase 'wish fulfillment cardboard-cutouts' comes right after a sentence about Denna, doesn't mean it only applies to females. It doesn't mean that the book has ONLY wish fulfillment cardboard-cutouts either. Try to interpret what you read.
reply
|
flag
You may have confused your punctuation, but what you have written are not actually separate sentences; each is very clearly linked by the conjunctions 'in fact' and 'also'. Any 'mistake' that I have made, therefore, does not come from an error in my reading comprehension, but from your inability to wrestle with the English language, complex as it is.Further, do you know the definition of 'full'? You say in one sentence that -all- characters are wish-fulfilment, and then you say that -clearly- not all characters are wish-fulfilment, and that that is somehow a mistake on my part? You're moving the goalposts after you've conceded.
Which still doesn't address the crux of my point. Auri… decorative function? She doesn't even function in the real world. She is exactly the opposite of decorative. Mola, Denna and Fela, too, have a direct hand in the unfolding of the story. They might all share attractive qualities, but that in no way means that those are there -only- qualities.
Further, this is a story narrated by Kvothe--someone who believes he is the centre of the universe. Several times he makes dubious claims (and is sometimes even called out on them). It is perfectly within his character to be creative with the truth--like with how attractive his female companions are--to further cement his apparent brilliance.
I'm sorry, but I really think you've got it all wrong. I will absolutely accept criticism of a flawed book, but this?
Wow, that is one long, butthurt tirade. I see you don't like anyone to 'attack' your favourite book & reply by spitting insults left and right. Oh, just FYI; 'U DUMB, U NO SPEAK ENGLISH LEL!!!4!!!' is not a valid argument.
It is a list of points that disprove your theory, none of which you have addressed.If pointing out your errors in logic and English can be considered insults, then it's probably worth pointing out you "insulted" me first... but there were no insults traded, and the only sign of someone being "butthurt" is from the person that went on a "tirade" about how "shittily written" Denna is.
My comments on your English are not an argument at all, more a response to your comments on my English comprehension. If you say something you don't mean, and someone takes it at face value, the issue is with you, not with them.
But I made one very clear point in the second paragraph of my second post, two in the third, and another in the forth. You claim to be looking for a "valid argument," but they're right there and you refuse to acknowledge them. Again, the issue is that you won't accept them, not that I haven't made them.
I note also that you haven't answered my most important question: "Have you even read the books?"
And for what it's worth, this is not my favourite book, nor does it belong to my favourite series, and it wasn't even written by my favourite author. Or second. Or third.
So while I'm able to disprove what you've said with logic and reason, you're continuing to make claims that not only can't be backed up but can be totally refuted.
