>>101043039>Yes, but the implication was that both were still incredible writers even if one is betterThat's not what the implication was either you fucking half-wit retard. The implication was that they're still good writers. Maybe not "incredible", but that's besides the point. You don't need to be the "best" in a genre in order to be good, or acknowledged.
>doesn't work because King's Batman isn't good, regardless of any comparison to "the classics." Again, I wasn't comparing him to "the classics", I was using them as an isolated example of how even though Tolstoy is a better writer, Dostoyevsky is still just as incredible/amazing.
>Maybe it's you who needs to work on your reading comprehensionHaha, wow, the fucking irony here.
>>101043183Not me, fag.
>>101043479>King and Snyders are hacks and people who like them should feel bad.I feel bad for you being a real person, almost feels like you shouldn't be smart enough to use a fucking keyboard.
