brownbear

2/ My point about narratives is that even the narratives you take issue with provide value. I make numerous other points about your narratives section that you've chosen to ignore, instead branding all of them as a "straw man".

3/end You claimed with iNcontroL that you wanted to spark a debate. I wrote a careful and thoughtful response that *quotes your piece directly*. I'm astonished that your take on this is to call it a straw man. What a lame take.

I will brand as a straw man what is a straw man. Not all debate is good debate just because it exists. You're free to call me out on my piece, but it's a lame take on my part when I criticize yours? Good stuff.

Here's what you wrote: "It also largely argues against the straw man argument that I'm against creating and driving narratives" That's simply not true. Read my piece.

"What commentators are doing here is creating and building storylines." "I would guess that building storylines is an intentional choice on Tastosis’s part to make their show more engaging. And, as far I’m concerned, it’s a very good choice."

"For a storyline to exist, someone needs to write it." "This is why I take issue with the characterization of storylines as “lazy narratives”. It’s the opposite – the commentators work hard to identify good storylines for each player and build them up as the season goes on."

"But this is an issue with specific storylines – it’s not an indictment of a general trend of “lazy narratives”, nor is it a refusal to identify other good aspects of a player’s game." "So, what you do instead is establish a focused, long-running storyline ..."

I don't think you understood these quotes in-context. I am not claiming that you think narratives should not exist. I am building an argument for where narratives come from to show why they are not lazy.