Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeterWeller" data-source="post: 3885054" data-attributes="member: 55795">Well, travel to a lost world is a fantasy trope.I'm not invoking Plato.  Genres exist upon the sharing of a common trope.  Two things use the same trope, they have a genre that can be defined.  But there is no perfect divine example of each genre that all  works of art intend towards.And now we're talking about modern fantasy.  Can't win the argument, change the stakes, and as an aside take me to task.   Could we stop applying a term for modifying comic book continuity through modern stories to every and any change we don't approve of?  It's incorrect.  The term you're looking for is "grandfathered," and yes, works can be grandfathered into a genre because genre is just a convenience. Medium has nothing to do with it.  They both contain fantasy tropes and thus are both firmly in the fantasy genre.I wasn't using HotB as part of my proof.  It was an aside, and documented authorial intent is fair and usable in a discussion on literature.  It's assumed authorial intent that is a no-no.  Not only that, but whether or not Doyle intended it as so (which he did; it is documented), it functions perfectly well as such, and its major theme ties into the argument. Authorial intent is also totally fair to use when discussing why someone wrote something, which is all I was pointing out.  Also, I find it terribly ironic that someone would take me to task for using authorial intent when their only shred of evidence so far has been a Wiki article, and not only that, a Wiki article that can be read in support of the opposite side of the argument.Sorry that I offended you by asking if you had a literary background, but it really does sound like you can't divorce the concept of genre from the concept of category, and it seems like you think genre is a much more rigid and codified beast than it is.  I'm sorry, Hussar, but you're incorrect, and you shouldn't be if you do come from the literary background you implied.  Changing the stakes of the argument, misuse of terminology, and your sideways and unfounded attack on the use of authorial intent all imply that while you may have a background in literature, it has become rusty.I'm sorry for that, but you really can't start being personal about things when your argument is built on faulty pillars of poor source material, poor terminology, and changing the very subject of the argument.  I think I made it perfectly clear that I honestly felt you were a layman and didn't know the distinction between genre and category.  You say you do have a background in literature, and I'm going to accept that, but your argument so far still implies otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification