Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-24732895-20140910035928/@comment-6383956-20140921221128

Wow, Paul, you misinterpreted the post you were replying to more than I thought. See, I thought you were replying to Anne because her first post in this thread came closest to commenting on Malia's intellectual capabilities (and was absolutely, definitely, 600% before anything I wrote here.) And she was already gone before I ever brought up fiction theory.

I don't think you're trying to be a liar here, Paul. I think you're maybe going senile prematurely and are too damn lazy to scroll up and look. Or maybe you're just so insistent that every word you type is the truth, you can't be bothered to adjust it with actual facts even when everyone else could see them for themselves.

And really, if we had anyone else running this site they would have banned you ages ago just for the number of complaints there are about you. You yourself would ban anyone else who was complained about as much. I think that's a sign you need to go have a good introspective look at yourself.

Now, Jester:

1) Possible World theory is used in several disciplines, not just literature (or just television or other mediums of fiction). To say that that's Pavel's theory actually makes him out to simply be a philosopher, it denies all of his credibility in a discussion like this. :P Fiction theory is the application of possible world theory on works of fiction -- but there are more than one way of doing this and, therefore, more than one theory within fiction theory. Fiction theory isn't *just* structuralism, after all.

2) There are differences in how you would academically talk about any piece of fiction dependent upon its medium, but the fact is that the writer's worldbuilding doesn't change in any of them, nor does the fact the audience brings its own knowledge to the work to help them create that world for themselves. And nowhere have I ever seen or heard any academic ever claim otherwise. That's why I asked for a source.

3) Now, again, yes. Pavel says the PW should stand on its own and be the center of our understanding. And I haven't disagreed with that. But, if we do that and ignore all of the knowledge we bring with us, we would have been left asking "what were those things that almost trampled Scott?" right up until we found out about the deer Peter's nurse killed and heard them call it a deer. We didn't have to ask that though -- and the reason why is because we have information we can use from the AW to help us. It's not the central world in this case, and it isn't a comparison between the two. But audiences do this, Pavel understood that and clearly allows for it in his theories.