No I don’t, I’ve never seen the tree. That’s the point. And event isn’t a story without a person to interpret it as such. Besides, I need you to separate the story of my hypothetical situation from whether or not the situation would create a story. The two are distinct, and blurring the two is preventing you from understanding my point.
Why are we trying to define something so obviously subjective?
For me, stories, and more specifically storytelling, is largely escapism from my own issues. That’s obviously not going to be the same for everyone because not everyone has my issues. The fact that you’re having this argument shows that neither of you can be proven right because neither of your agree with each other, because what you’re trying to do is incredibly subjective.
1 Like
I think it’s fairly easy to prove that events require people to understand them as stories. If someone sees a fallen tree, they assume that it fell. If they don’t see it, then they can’t assume that. Ergo, man is required for stories to exist, and stories do not exist in of themselves.
1 Like
Why is that pertinent?
2 Likes
We got there from whether or not real life is a story. I say that it isn’t, people’s interpretation of it is, and he just says that it is. Even though half his points involve people interpreting events as stories
1 Like
This all seems incredibly …
tangential
1 Like
I can be proven right by just reading something like The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. We’d be ridiculous if we said storytelling didn’t pull from real life experiences. You have to know something if you wish to convey it in a story. But knowing isn’t just rationalism, that’s too narrow of a definition. Knowing can also be the use of imagination, but fathomability is still relentlessly limited.
All I’ve seen here is poor literary criticism. The fact that people have disliked a story having a clear end, disliking the fact that something cool happens with obvious foreshadowing, and the fact that people prefer a cute marketable character over the actual storytelling and world building going on in the story before us is baffling to me.
I shouldn’t have to read a book to understand Mandalorian lore. Luke coming out of nowhere to be an absolute LEGEND is objectively good because of how entertaining it was, and I absolutely love how we’re gonna see more Mandalorian lore with the dark saber. That is why I even wanted to watch the series, to see how Mandalorians were doing after Return of the Jedi. And so far, the show has undoubtedly delivered, and I want more.
Yes they do. What we’re doing is a story right now: arguing pointlessly about Star Wars. 
It’s literally the study of history, and it’s been happening for 2,000 years now. It’s quite a refined study, so I hear. I am glad to be graduating with a degree in the study very soon.
no winger listen
the category is entertainment
3 Likes
“Watch three people argue about liturature! Charging 3 dollars a ticket! Includes free popcorn!”
5 Likes
I see. That’s where we disagree.
I don’t equate entertaining or “cool” with good. No one’s arguing that it wasn’t entertaining. I just don’t like what it did to the story.
for instance, the argument going on right now 
oh and you miiiiiiight wanna censor that quote just in case heheh
2 Likes
Which is a fine opinion to have, but it’s coming across here that Luke appearing was the worst thing to happen in the franchise.
hush no need to talk circles around us just because you’re smarter
2 Likes
This is no mere circle. This is a sphere.
3 Likes
That’s fine and all, except that those were written and interpreted by people. If you want to tell me that events are stories, you need to find one that is both a story, and uninterpreted by people. That’s the only way to effectively rule my argument out. Ironically, history is nothing but people recording and interpreting events.
1 Like
sorry if I implied that then. It don’t by any means think that. It’s just that Luke Skywalker showing up cheapened what I enjoy about that show and completely overshadowed all of the other characters.
ees tvue
You do realize this has been my argument the whole time right? That events themselves are interpretations?
It’s a narrow minded view of what history actually is but whatever. Public education has ruined what history is by making it simply memorizing facts. It’s far more than “one guy records and interprets”.
Events aren’t interpretations though, they’re what actually happens.
1 Like
Show me an event that has happened without interpretation by any of those who recorded or saw it. You posed the same question to me earlier.
I know, just didn’t want to get into the weeds of how true history will never be known because everyone has their own interpretation of events.