Fanon Talk:Metapotence/@comment-30165589-20171003142429/@comment-29564364-20171031185211

@Nekron2
«[...] actual real life author don't possess the power "author authority".»
And I never argued that they do.
«Listen carefully before arguing.»
I've read and reread your comment about ten times over and I still don't understand all of it, but I'll try to answer from what I got:
«Premise1-A real life author can't participate really in his/her story, though they have absolute control over their own verse but they cannot actually participate in their own verse. They can only use author avtars but can't participate themselves.»
My first premise never stated that the writers themselves could partake in the stories depicted in their work. It only states that all fictional characters are part of their respective verse, which includes Authors and excludes writers.
«Premise 2-They cannot control their own life cycle or reborn in the story.They can write such in their story but those representations are termed as author avatars only.They can't affect their author status.»
Which "they" are you talking about? The writer or the Author?
«Author authority is like reality dreaming, i.e, it is just a metaphor to describe that actually you hace absolute control over a particular verse just like an author.»
For once I agree... mostly, which is why it doesn't make sense to me that Reality Dreaming is a variation of Omnipotence rather that Omnipotence Embodiment.
«The meaning of verse differs from person to person»
Okay then. What's your definition of "verse?"
I use the definition given by dictionary.com: "denoting a fictional world associated with a particular character, television series, author, etc."
«so meaning of omnilock is also different from person to person.»
How so? Omnilock is already clearly defined here as "The power to exist outside of everything." I don't see how such a simple description coupled with the capabilities can be so confusing to the extent that people can forge vastly different interpretations of it. The most prominent of the very few points of disagreement I've seen so far is about its capabilities in regards to Omnipotence.
«For example imagine yourself as the author of dc comics.»
When I say "Author," I mean users of Author Authority/writer avatars and when I say "writer," I talk about the real person who writes the work of fiction in question. So which do you mean by "author?"
«But inside the dc comics there exist a dc verse but there are also things outside of dc verse but are part of the dc comics i.e,the totallity/primal monitor and beings like God swamp thing [...]»
You seem to be confusing "verse" and "omniverse" here.
The omniverse in fiction is the collection of all universes within a given fiction. According to the definition of verse that I use, everything depicted in DC comics is part of the DCverse. For example, if God Swamp Thing was shown exiting the DC omniverse in the comics (which I think was actually done), then that place outside of everything is also part of the DCverse because it still happened in the comics.
«Let me restate the definition of omnilock -a being who is not part of the story so unaffactable by the author [...]»
First, Omnilock is a power, not a being. And second, you're just trying to redefine the term to fit your view.
Yes, I concede that the power to exist outside of all verses would allow its users to escape Author Authority, but that power is not Omnilock. You basically made up a different power, then just slapped the "Omnilock" label on it, which doesn't make it the same as Omnilock.
I could refer to dogs as cats as much as I want, it won't change the fact that dogs are not cats.