3 ms·

> I'd rather live in a world where Martin and Rothfuss never finished their masterpieces than a world where the unfinished works never even existed. We are liv

> I'd rather live in a world where Martin and Rothfuss never finished their masterpieces than a world where the unfinished works never even existed. We are living in a world where a hundred, a thousand works even more marvelous never even existed, aren't we? > In fact -- has any fan fiction been published that attempts to continue these works Yes, an obscure HBO show titled Game of Thrones attempted it to universal disdain.

the_af 5y ago
> We are living in a world where a hundred, a thousand works even more marvelous never even existed, aren't we? I've seen this rhetorical point being used before, in several contexts, and it never makes any sense to me. It can be used to disregard any argument in favor of the existence of something. Let me explain why with an example: "I'd rather live in a world where my wonderful daughter exists, even if she has flaws and throws tantrums, rather her not being born at all". "Well, we live in a world where a lot of potentially wonderful babies were never born, aren't we?" And my answer is: yes, but I am talking about ONE specific baby (or book) who matters to me. Who cares about the others that never existed?
- cooperadymas 5y ago
  I think you are probably correct, and I was mostly being blithe in my original remark. However, I think the way of the world is that if Martin or Rothfuss or Jordan didn't exist in our reality, two things would happen. One, someone else would have risen up in their place and produced equally or more magnificent works that were as impactful as what we're is being discussed. Read up on Harry Seldon's work for more about this theory. Two, the OP to whom I was responding would have been affected by one of those works in a similar manner to how they were affected by our timeline's original. The idea here being, the work is unique and dramatic, yes, but a person will always find something to cling to and what attracts them is as much about the person as it is about the art itself. It isn't as if the generations that existed before GRRM had no noteworthy literature in their lives.

the_af 5y ago

> We are living in a world where a hundred, a thousand works even more marvelous never even existed, aren't we? I've seen this rhetorical point being used before, in several contexts, and it never makes any sense to me. It can be used to disregard any argument in favor of the existence of something. Let me explain why with an example: "I'd rather live in a world where my wonderful daughter exists, even if she has flaws and throws tantrums, rather her not being born at all". "Well, we live in a world where a lot of potentially wonderful babies were never born, aren't we?" And my answer is: yes, but I am talking about ONE specific baby (or book) who matters to me. Who cares about the others that never existed?

cooperadymas 5y ago
I think you are probably correct, and I was mostly being blithe in my original remark. However, I think the way of the world is that if Martin or Rothfuss or Jordan didn't exist in our reality, two things would happen. One, someone else would have risen up in their place and produced equally or more magnificent works that were as impactful as what we're is being discussed. Read up on Harry Seldon's work for more about this theory. Two, the OP to whom I was responding would have been affected by one of those works in a similar manner to how they were affected by our timeline's original. The idea here being, the work is unique and dramatic, yes, but a person will always find something to cling to and what attracts them is as much about the person as it is about the art itself. It isn't as if the generations that existed before GRRM had no noteworthy literature in their lives.