Your argument is literally built on semantics. There is nothing more here that can be said (least you twist it into another semantical debate).
Hardly. There is nothing semantical about it.
Unless, by "semantics" you mean "the meaning of the words used", in which case, yes, I am guilty of expressing meaning by using words.
OTOH, the stream of rhetoric, fallacious reasoning, and hyperbole that some are engaged in.......But, go ahead, continue with your ad hominem attacks. Anyone who will be convinced by them is already convinced, and anyone who understands what they are will equally be able to ignore them.
If you truly think that "James Bond's girl dies at the end" means he loses, then clearly every action movie is secretly a Greek tragedy as the protagonist loses something dear to them. Rambo's girl dies in Rambo? Rambo loses the movie!
(1) Not "James Bond's girl", but "James Bond's wife, to be with whom he was willing to quit the Secret Service"; i.e., someone for whom the character was willing to change his basic nature.
I highlight this because it is an example ot the semantic argument that you accuse me of engaging in. You attempt to change the meaning of the character in the context of the film by changing her into just "James Bond's girl", equating her therefore with the string of disposable Bond girls.
(2) "James Bond's wife, to be with whom he was willing to quit the Secret Service"; i.e., someone for whom the character was willing to change his basic nature, dying as the final scene of the movie doesn't make
every action movie "secretly a Greek tragedy as the protagonist loses something dear to them".
Again, this is not only an attempt to use semantics and hyperbole to shift the argument, but demonstrates either a willing, or an intentional, ignorance of the weight of the "final scene" in a work of literature or film.
Suffice it to say that most people understand that the order of events is important to a story. "Bob comes out on top, and then loses everything" is a tragedy. "Bob loses everything, and then comes out on top" is not.
Likewise, I am willing to bet that better than 95% of all EN Worlders are aware that a sudden reversal as the final scene of a film carries more weight
because it is the end of the film. It is what we are left with. That is why the reversal occurs at the end in both
On Her Majesty's Secret Service and
Casino Royale.
(3) Perhaps you are hoping that this will divert attention from
James Bond does not end his movies with "And then the villains won, THE END." but your statement is still wrong.
OHMSS and CR still mirror each other, and the outcomes of the film are either that Bond loses in one or the other, because the position of Bond is mirrored in these films. If the reversal in CR is enough for it to be a win for Bond, then it is also enough to be a loss in OHMSS. Likewise, if Bond doesn't lose at the end of OHMSS, neither can he be said (again, with a straight face) to win at the end of CR.
The guy who wrote this post might be an idiot (
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-dms-dont-like-magic-marts-4.html#post5484046), but I'd say someone who can say, "Oh yeah, sorry, I'm wrong" is far less likely to intentionally engage in twisting arguments than, say, someone who is less comfortable doing the same. YMMV, though, and I suspect it does.
It is not semantics to point out that your arguments make no sense. I hope, though, that I have also succeeded in pointing out/parsing the semantics in your attempt to accuse others of the same.
RC
