Kairi Nightingale
Actually, this is what I meant; that the reader was disagreeing with your idea with a valid reason. I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that.
What do you consider valid reasoning, then?
Quality of writing, internal consistency of the universe, etc.
Quote:
I mean, a horror story where innocent-looking dolphins turn into bloodthirsty, demonic creatures at night feeding on unsuspecting swimmer or sailors could be an excellent story. But if a character saw these creatures and said "Omg, Vampire!" then I'd have to question your reasoning for it.
You're making a lot of assumptions here.
Maybe my vampire is an otherwise stereotypical vampire who just
happens to be able to shapeshift into a dolphin. Maybe he can shapeshift into any creature he wants.
Maybe the dolphins become humanoid, but keep their sharp, pointy teeth, and that makes them
look like vampires.
Maybe all mythical creatures in the world are actually really one species of shape-shifters, who like to ******** with humans, and we call it a "vampire" because we don't comprehend its true nature.
Maybe a spate of mysterious killings appear to be the work of a "vampire", but my monster-hunter tracks the source to a river and finds a flesh-eating dolphin, but the true name of the species is never discovered.
Maybe my story is set in a different world, and "vampire" just doesn't mean the same thing that it does on Earth.
The reasoning, whatever it is, will likely be in the story itself. You won't need to question anything.
Quote:
Would arguing that the basis of a vampire is a land-dwelling, humanoid creature who comes out at night to feed on people be an illogical argument? After all, just because it drinks blood, doesn't mean it's a vampire. I mean, I'm just don't think the terminology would fit very well with a dolphin-like creature, even if it did drink blood, and would suggest an alternative that could work even better with an aquatic monster. Would that make me stupid?
It would be extremely illogical. The only evidence you have to back it up is other fictional stories that someone
made up. Their definition of a vampire is not anymore "true" than mine is. It's like saying my recipe for brownies is "fake" because mine have nuts and yours don't.
Quote:
Just for the record, I understand that breaking conventions could be a wonderful thing in writing but only if the writer in question fully understands why the rules were there in the first place and has a good reason (or at least a reason other than "just because I can" ) to break them. The rules do exist for a reason after all and I believe that some rules are better left unbroken than others.
A lot of 'rules' are also extremely stupid and unnecessary. The 'rules' don't actually help you to tell a
good story, they help you to tell a story that has wide audience appeal. The two are not mutually inclusive.
A lot of the 'rules' that WF members come up with are especially stupid.
Quote:
Ex: Grammar. It's there for obvious reasons: to be clear and understandable. If someone wanted to write an entire book using incomprehensible chat-speak, that'd be crossing that line I mentioned earlier. Don't you think?
No, I do not think so. Grammar 'rules' have been broken before, and they aren't set in stone anyway. They exist to clarify meaning, which means that as English evolves, grammar rules will change.
Finnegan's Wake, by James Joyce has little to no grammar at all. It is, in fact, complete gibberish. I actually despise
Finnegan's Wake, but the point remains. It's been done.
Another example I would like to use, but can't back up because I can't remember the author or the title, is a children's picture book. It's set in a post-apocalyptic society, where a boy lives almost completely on his own in a deserted city. The story is narrated by the boy himself and a lot of words are misspelled or spelt phonetically because language has degraded. As a story, it's perfectly easy to understand, and actually following proper English 'rules' would be detrimental to the meaning and the feel of the work as a whole.
It actually attracted a lot of criticism for "teaching children to spell badly" or "teaching children that spelling isn't important". Those are stupid criticisms from stupid readers.