>it's funny because you literally didn't give any arguments for the part that actually matters the most
to be fair to me, I kind of thought my argument was evident in the first part of the post. rereading though, you're right: I was a bit vague.
I buy into literature being primarily a storytelling medium. but what I'm trying to get at is, as far as writing literature goes, your priorities are in the wrong place if you insist on writing a character who happens to look a lot like your favorite actress. like, if your commentary on the human condition can only function properly if your protagonist has rich, flaxen hair, piercing blue eyes, and a beautiful smile, then whatever. I'm just saying it's a sort of weird viewpoint to have for someone writing literature instead of genre fiction. not so much a case of "it's literally impossible to hit the target when you shoot like that"; more akin to "most people miss when they're facing in the opposite direction."
>i would also wager that you aren't that published
and you'd be right. but I've studied literature like most people here, and it seems to me like world-building isn't really a hallmark of most great literary fiction. I stand by what I said: if the appearance affects characters or plot events, or has symbolic value, it's important. but starting off your novel by saying "I want to write a story about a strapping young lad with raven hair" doesn't strike me as the way to go about it.
>genre fiction is a pointless buzzword
I'd disagree. it's pretty specific: fiction that's plot-driven and is designed to fit into, and incorporate, certain plot/setting/character/what have you archetypes. this is when world-building is important. but it's also shit, so.
>btfo, self-important retard
this seems a little uncalled for, user. I never personally insulted you. when I said that "acting like it's a personal preference thing is...retarded and objectively wrong", I meant that arguing the whole "there are many ways to produce good fiction because there are many types of good writing" thing in this case doesn't really apply, since, once again, it's sort of missing the point.
it's a paradigm thing.