enter image description here

I am confused about what the 2 paragraphs (specified in title) actually mean.
So far my brief understanding of:
Paragraph/point "2"→ Authors who refuse to write a story where they dont express their political views means their political views are wrong.
Paragraph/point "3"→ Okay this I don't get at all... " 'Conflating' didactic stories with authours who have any interest...." doesn't conflating means to mix/blend? How do stories mix with authors' responsibility regarding the message they give out in their work disingenuous? I tried searcing meriam webster, oxford and wikipedia's dictionary but 'conflate/conflating' only means 'mixing'
Just trying to get a better grasp on English here, this is NOT a post about political views nor does this post intend to start a discussion regarding how mordern literature( i.e stories in video games) should be etc.

1 Answer 1


2 means the author thinks it's impossible to exclude politics entirely when creating something. (if your work aims for verisimilitude in it, your paradigm will influence it, so there is some merit in the claim)

3 is badly worded but can be restated: "It's disingenuous to link didactic stories to authors having interest in and responsibility for the message of their work."

I think they are trying to counter a theoretical argument that cites the existance of didactic works as proof that authors are responsible for their works' "messaging".

They might be trying to say something more along the lines of "Just because some authors preach doesn't mean every author must."

It's not a shining example of clear writing, though.

  • So in "2" he thinks that one's biases will reflect in their writing? (Yes it is impossible to remove ALL biases from oneself).. but what's with "... that you'd think it'd be poisonous"? . And about "3"... for context: the journ here is criticising a game developer for saying he wants to keep politics at minimum in his games, he doesn't want his games to push any agenda be it left or right . If so, doesn't the 3rd point conform rather than discredit the developer's viewpoint?
    – Rum
    Jun 4, 2019 at 7:38
  • "...poisonous to craft" is just a pretentious way to say 'If you don't agree with this claim, you're a stupid head' not some cogent argument. 3's an even worse mess, excepting only brevity.
    – The Nate
    Jun 4, 2019 at 8:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.