First submitted | August 20, 2013 |
Times taken | 66,297 |
Average score | 65.0% |
Rating | 4.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2024
Contact Us | Go To Top | View Mobile Site
Like I know what the quizmaster was going for - figures that aren't real in the physical world or who weren't actual historical figures, but I would still maybe avoid reducing religious/cultural figures to "fictional characters", no matter how old that culture or religion is. It probably still has cultural significance, especially in the country/countries it originated. It's like calling significant figures in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or any other world religion "fictional characters". Or like calling Native American or ancient Chinese mythological figures "fictional characters". Idk, it feels weird even for an old religion/mythology.
Like I know what the quizmaster was going for - figures that aren't "real" in the physical world or who weren't actual historical figures, but I would still maybe avoid reducing religious/cultural figures to "fictional characters", no matter how old that culture or religion is. It probably still has cultural significance, especially in the country/countries it originated. It's like calling significant figures in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or any other world religion "fictional characters". Or like calling Native American or ancient Chinese mythological figures "fictional characters". Idk, it feels weird even for an old religion/mythology