Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3466562" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm trying to break out of this increasingly pointless thread, but one thing gauranteed to tweak me is misrepresenting what I wrote, especially in threads where what I may have actually said is easily lost.  Suffice to say, that my agrument is totally misrepresented here, and encourage anyone who cares - if anyone still does - to go back and read what I actually wrote when I defined world building.  I believe I was quite careful to separate my definition from the claim offered by several others, that world building was the same as creating setting elements.Since when do you need a map of Chicago to tell a story set in Chicago?  Is a map of Chicago strictly necessary to telling a story there, or could we not hand wave the map and tell the story anyway?  Why do you think that you need, or why do you feel a need, to look at a map?  When you answer question honestly, I think you'll come a long way to seeing why my definition of world building is a good one, and Mr. Harrison's rant is so laughable - or would be if it wasn't so serious.</blockquote>