>>149307100
>By the same logic so did Shakespeare
Oh excuse me, I wasn't aware this is a work of art from centuries ago, my bad that I didn't make sure to adjust my standards to take into context the time it was made in and-- wait a minute, you're tricking me! This was created within the last 20 years and thus should be contextualised within the society of the last 20 years! You silly anon, you. You nearly got me!
>>149307100
>How is that not a tragedy in her life?
I did not say it wasn't. Are you ESL? I mean, so am I, but you seem to be doing a much worse job of reading the English language, here.
>You are just a puritan asshole
yeah yeah yeah get it out of your system, brother you don't know what I've been into, we go back and forwards a bit on this, you're being an emotional woman and can't even read the parts where I said writing this is fine, etc and so on.
>who has no idea what kids actually do.
Anon. These are not kids. They are not real. You can argue she behaves realistically for her circumstances, and I might agree- but she only has those circumstances because an adult man made them up. Are you able to understand this? It's like saying "yes, it makes sense Superman kills Zod at the end of Man of Steel". It does, but it was the writers' decision to create the situation in the first place that leads to that.
If I write a story where a toddler will explode if he doesn't fuck an old woman every 5 days, then the realistic writing from it is that the toddler will get to fuck the old woman every 5 days. I'm also someone who forced this situation to exist in the first place because I'm the one who wrote such a scenario to begin.
Everyone can agree that a kid would act like this in these circumstances. We're asking, "why did the writer come up with these circumstances if not so as to be able to write a kid that acts like this?"
