Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2264205" data-attributes="member: 2205">Uh, yeah.&nbsp; That's why your argument about &quot;imagery&quot; and classical fantasy elements make no sense.&nbsp; You're appealing to the smaller subset, and trying to apply it to the larger set.&nbsp; Your formal logic is pretty bad.Your bicycle argument shows nothing except that, again, you mistake the smaller subset for the entire set.I never said it was.&nbsp; I said that &quot;classic fantasy&quot; isn't equivalent to &quot;fantasy&quot; and your referals to fantasy being all about imagery is from left field. No, I've never once asserted that, although you've continued to try and argue it with me as though I had.&nbsp; Your definition of the fantasy genre is flawed, because it isn't broad enough.&nbsp; Again, for the nth time, stop trying to define the entire genre by only one subset of it.That's because they wrote in a similar subset of fantasy.&nbsp; They did not attempt to speak for the entire genre.&nbsp; While you refer to some authors, you pointedly ignore others.Besides, I'm talking more about the authors of books on writing fantasy and science fiction, the distinctions that they, and publishing houses, make between them.EDIT:&nbsp; I also think this discussion has strayed sufficiently from the point of this thread that it deserves it's own.&nbsp; I'll start a new one shortly, and come back here and edit this post again to include a link when it's up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 2264205, member: 2205"] Uh, yeah. That's why your argument about "imagery" and classical fantasy elements make no sense. You're appealing to the smaller subset, and trying to apply it to the larger set. Your formal logic is pretty bad. Your bicycle argument shows nothing except that, again, you mistake the smaller subset for the entire set. I never said it was. I said that "classic fantasy" isn't equivalent to "fantasy" and your referals to fantasy being all about imagery is from left field. No, I've never once asserted that, although you've continued to try and argue it with me as though I had. Your definition of the fantasy genre is flawed, because it isn't broad enough. Again, for the [i]n[/i]th time, stop trying to define the entire genre by only one subset of it. That's because they wrote in a similar subset of fantasy. They did not attempt to speak for the entire genre. While you refer to some authors, you pointedly ignore others. Besides, I'm talking more about the authors of books on writing fantasy and science fiction, the distinctions that they, and publishing houses, make between them. EDIT: I also think this discussion has strayed sufficiently from the point of this thread that it deserves it's own. I'll start a new one shortly, and come back here and edit this post again to include a link when it's up. [/QUOTE]

Verification