Can someone simplify the 2nd and 3rd point (from top) of the post given in image below?

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.


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.

Source : Link , Question Author : Rum , Answer Author : The Nate

Leave a Comment