Middle -earth and dangers of world -ordering [translation]

For a rather long time in the fantastic, and especially fantasy literature genre, there is a certain fashion for huge and extremely agreed worlds, the content of which goes far beyond any storylines. So, there is a very authoritative opinion that it carries nothing good in itself. About where the danger of such a detailed and comprehensive description of the fictional worlds is today and will be discussed today. Nice viewing: 3

(We ask you to switch to YouTube if possible)

Here is our YouTube channel and VK group, where you can also track our work: 3

The best comments

Thanks for the translation! I do not agree with the video itself, because the author is trying to convince me of what and how I should read. The opinion is exclusively subjectively, but the author presents it as a fact. I also did not like the very building of the video. There is no clear conclusion at the end of the video and arguments are extremely figurative in principle that nothing provides for anything.

Thanks for the new translation. As always, it’s interesting not only to listen to what they talk about, but also as they say, a pleasant voice. The video is very useful, by the way. At least for me.

I did not quite understand the parallel with Get More Info politics (who are the additional, please explain), but I have a slightly different thought about building the world.

Literature, like cinema, primarily tells the story. And history is built around a certain idea. The author, one way or another, comes up with the world in his head, but he takes a story only what is important to her.

In addition, the reader, like the author, part of the story. The reader fills the gaps. He thinks out details in the appearance of the characters and draws his paintings and scenes in his head. So the story becomes part of it.

Maybe it seems so only to me, but a piece

The world building in this regard implies a passive reader. It represents the writer, captivating Minor world, carrying it is on the tongue, and the reader, experiencing immersion as in cinema, with pleasure and even intentionally Ignores the fact, What given The world is a rhetorical model.

By ear is very complicated.

Why are there so many involved turnover? Why the phrase “The fact that”? Why “given” and not “this”?

Isn’t it easier:

The world building in this regard suggests that the reader is passive. It represents the writer that it captures the secondary world and transfers it to the language, and the reader who plunges into this world and with pleasure, even intentionally forgets that before him is just a rhetorical model.

After all, even in the original, the author says Who Photographs and Who Receive

World Bulitioning in this View Assums a Passive Reader. It Envisions a Writer, Who PhotoGraphs The Secondary World in Codes It Into Language, and A Reader, Who Receive This Immersive Experience a Film Blissfully and Perhaps Willingly Unaware, That The World He Experiences is a Rhetorical Construct.