It's still fiction. Or are you suggesting we just give up on having a better world in real life?
Willow - Official Teaser Trailer
- Thread starter trappedslider
- Start date
I am not sure of your intent, but this comes across to me as inconsistent.
The complaint is that fiction commonly has this balance. But when I bring up a piece that talks about why, you discard it as fiction without apparently considering its content. And then talk about giving up on the real world.
My response is thus - either fiction speaks to the real world, or it does not. If you are concerned about how fiction doesn't reflect reality, then don't discard things as fiction.
I'm asking why fiction always says this, when if that was real, life would be awful. Why can't fiction allow for a better world over time?
Ryujin
Legend
A "better world" has no conflict. No conflict means not a lot of interesting story potential.
Davies
Legend
All life depends on the end of other life. Until that changes, evil is inevitable.
You can have death without evil.
Where did I say perfect? I said better. I'm sad that no one seems to think anything matters in fiction. If you can never make the world better, why bother trying to make it better?
Davies
Legend
No, you cannot. To harm another is evil. It may be a lesser evil (self-defense) or a greater one (deliberate murder.) But it is always evil.
Also, you are setting up the strawman "nobody seems to think anything matters" when the actual fact is "everyone has a different perspective than I do".
If you can't make the world better, why try? There's no strawman there. I'm asking, if the world must be in balance, and you make your part better, you make someone else's worse. Seems like that's actually bad. So, why? Why try?
People die of all kinds of non violent things. You can have death without evil
Davies
Legend
Did anything you ate today die of natural causes? The wheat was harvested, the fruit was plucked from the tree, the vegetables yanked from the earth. Life depends on the end of other life.
