> "I will concede the point to you that Bartleby's Descent has no plot. But then again, neither does Alice In Wonderland."
> Incorrect. The Alice stories were an allegorical 'fairy-tale' of life's changes, both the physical and the emotional. It's themes had to do with the loss of childhood innocence and dealing with the chaotic nature of life, and her exploits were plotted to reflect those aspects. (Alice spends a great deal of time trying to make sense of the various riddles and contradictions of Wonderland.)
I fail to see how that's substantially different from Bartleby's Descent. It's at least as similar as you claim cub porn and photos of children are.
> "That was intentional. I like the genre of 'protagonist encounteres a series of interesting characters in a strange land'. But no PHILOSOPHY? Man, you must've skimmed this. I create the most intentionally blasphemous representation of the afterlife possible, turn God into a petty bully and Satan into a paper-pushing Mel Brooks, and you're actually going to say this is nothing but fap material!?"
> Which is precisely what it is, since it focuses only upon scenarios that are sexually fetishist at heart, and does so in a way to dress it as a pleasant experience, like a sunny excursion in the park. I mean, if Hell is meant to be an eternal pit of punishments, why are the only ones represented sexual in nature? Where are theft, avarice, blasphemy, murder (Dante had several categories of murder represented), betrayal, etc. The slant is very obviously toward the sexual, defining it quite clearly as a fap story.
Proving once again you didn't actually read it. Explain to me how Llywyalla's curse is sexual. (Moreover, as the story is set in the Naughty level, we're unlikely to encounter any murderers, and blasphemy is laughably unworthy of punishment.)
> I mean, what's the philosophy supposed to be in this story, that it's okay to be fucked up!?
That's part of it, yes!
> Both stories are trying to define or at least seek a morality in life; yours discards it entirely and relegates the thematics to an indulgent sex RPG scenario.
> Your story has no point, except to tittillate.
You're kidding, right? The author of a story comes and tells you the point of his story, but you say "Oh no, I know better than you after skimming it, your story has no point even if you say it does."
That's about the most arrogant thing I've ever heard.
> I can't directly respond to the example, as I've never read the book, only seen the TV mini-series (which I believe cut that episode out, since I don't recall it). I haven't read much King at all, for that matter, outside of a short story or two. But I will assume that King, like any decent established writer, will have tied the sequence and its events to some other events, major or minor, within the overall story -- an emotional connection, a love relationship, some personal repercussion, etc. Since I haven't read it, I don't know and can't say; I can only speculate based on the tenets of good writing and the belief that King's publisher would never have let the scene fly if it didn't serve a specific literary purpose.
I have read the book, and I assure you, it was more in the nature of "Well, we've got no idea how to seal this ancient evil... let's try having an orgy and see if that works!" It was quite out of left field and had very little ties to the (nonsexual) violence of the rest of the book.
> What is the difference between King's writing and yours? Besides the years of trial-and-error experience,
Wrong. Alex Reynard also has years of experience writing.
> (I consider the argument that it is a 'safe fantasy' to be delusional)
That's fine! We consider your argument that drawings of fictional characters are equivalent to real child abuse to be delusional, too! :D
(Yes, I'm aware I didn't respond to all of your points--I'll leave that to Alex, since it was his comment you were replying to in the first place.)
(P.S. Edits have been made to more clearly separate your comments, Alex's, and mine, since the quote tag wasn't working quite right in the quotes-of-quotes.)
>
> Off the bat, you're winning no friends here.
That's fair, you're winning no friends among us.
>
> Incorrect. The Alice stories were an allegorical 'fairy-tale' of life's changes, both the physical and the emotional. It's themes had to do with the loss of childhood innocence and dealing with the chaotic nature of life, and her exploits were plotted to reflect those aspects. (Alice spends a great deal of time trying to make sense of the various riddles and contradictions of Wonderland.)
I fail to see how that's substantially different from Bartleby's Descent. It's at least as similar as you claim cub porn and photos of children are.
>
> Which is precisely what it is, since it focuses only upon scenarios that are sexually fetishist at heart, and does so in a way to dress it as a pleasant experience, like a sunny excursion in the park. I mean, if Hell is meant to be an eternal pit of punishments, why are the only ones represented sexual in nature? Where are theft, avarice, blasphemy, murder (Dante had several categories of murder represented), betrayal, etc. The slant is very obviously toward the sexual, defining it quite clearly as a fap story.
Proving once again you didn't actually read it. Explain to me how Llywyalla's curse is sexual. (Moreover, as the story is set in the Naughty level, we're unlikely to encounter any murderers, and blasphemy is laughably unworthy of punishment.)
>
That's part of it, yes!
>
> Your story has no point, except to tittillate.
You're kidding, right? The author of a story comes and tells you the point of his story, but you say "Oh no, I know better than you after skimming it, your story has no point even if you say it does."
That's about the most arrogant thing I've ever heard.
>
I have read the book, and I assure you, it was more in the nature of "Well, we've got no idea how to seal this ancient evil... let's try having an orgy and see if that works!" It was quite out of left field and had very little ties to the (nonsexual) violence of the rest of the book.
>
Wrong. Alex Reynard also has years of experience writing.
>
That's fine! We consider your argument that drawings of fictional characters are equivalent to real child abuse to be delusional, too! :D
(Yes, I'm aware I didn't respond to all of your points--I'll leave that to Alex, since it was his comment you were replying to in the first place.)
(P.S. Edits have been made to more clearly separate your comments, Alex's, and mine, since the quote tag wasn't working quite right in the quotes-of-quotes.)
Smile! The world could use another happy person.