I've actual not disagreed with anyone in the sense that a setting gives things context. I'm saying that it ranks 3rd in overall importance to a story, first is plot, than characters, than setting. And sure exceptions exist like all rules but overall that is the general idea. That was my point with West Side Story. That the plot and characters of Romeo and Juliet can be put in any setting and tell basically the same story and themes.
See this is wrong. Plot characters and settings exist in symbiosis and there's literally no way to write a story without all three.
You can't have no setting at all, but that's not my point.
Actually I missed this the first time.
I don't understand this, please explain.
Oh man I barely understand that stuff myself (I mean sure I get it but it's this sorta-instinctual thing) if you really want to learn then you better start paying attention to the guys that actually studied literature.
That's my point. Something like that informs the characters and such. But at the same time a detail like that should only be there if it does inform on the character. If the guy is just saying it to say it it's meaningless air. For an example of what I feel writers should avoid doing I've seen in many fantasy stories a writer will give the name of a location then lavish all this detail on why it's called that. That's fine if that detail is going to be anything more than fluff. But if it's just there because "hey wouldn't that a neat detail" jettison it from the story. If your audience is seeing something or reading something it needs to matter in someway. It should inform the characters or drive the plot or give a context that the readers need to understand the story. If it doesn't do that then it needs as little detail as possible.
I know that it's your wording that confuses me. What do you mean by
You don't go into a story just throwing shit in and hoping it sticks. You go into a story knowing the message you want to convey through it.
I'm specifically confused one what is meant by "put into the story not get from the story" who is this talking about? The reader? The writer? What does get vs put mean in this context?
Put in the story = It's something the author deliberately included in an attempt to sell a message.
I'm still confused.
I mean you don't throw plot characters setting mix thoroughly bake for 30min and ohey I got a thing along with my story that's cool.
Btw the thing here you're talking about is people breaking the flow of the story with overexposition. This, for the record, is actually unrelated to what exactly they're expositing about.
Never liked them. They feel super pointless to me.
Never liked them. They feel super pointless to me.
I think the big issue is a lot of people are using a lot of technical terms. I've gotten lost in translation.
Or they could try and use layman's terms given the fact most people on the site don't have an education in literature.
Well you could have asked nicely instead of dissing an entire discipline and indirectly insulted Jace's life choices.
I've never been good in school.
He's the one that started with the tone. I responded in kind.
Look if you can't figure out the difference between what he said (note that he never insulted you or your intelligence or even your ignorance (which btw is a legit word to signify the lack of knowledge)) and what you said then this conversation has no further point.
I still didn't need the attitude. And you know the image of someone laughing at me. That was just fucking unnecessary.
If I get around to that, it'll probably be in a few months, sadly.