Started Writing...

>>8464131
yeah it is

>>8464146
But why anon? The sentence makes sense to me.
I need enlightenment if I am to be the new Tolstoy.

>>8464146
I thought so yeah. How?

>>8464149
He said "Good riddance to not having to play that video game anymore." He used the word 'not.'

He said good riddance to not playing. Which implies that you are free of not being able to play.

He really meant, "good riddance to having to play the video game."

>>8464131
It's grammatically correct, but it just sounds off.

>>8465048
What is a better way to word it

Anon correct grammar is the secondary goal of a writer. First and foremost is properly communicating what you want the reader to understand. Proper grammar should only be a goal of yours if you're not sure that what you've written makes sense to others. The sentence you posted does make sense, but it's awkward and uncanny. I wouldn't use it personally, but if it fits the character that is saying it then by all means it is even more appropriate than using proper grammar.

>"not having to play that horrid video game anymore"
>the game
Did I just lose the game?

>>8465061
Thank you. Pretty much the character is saying he is relieved he doesn't have to play that game any more. With the way the sentence is worded, that is what he is saying, right?

>>8464131

It's not grammatically incorrect, it's logically nonsensical.

It should be

"Good riddance to having to play that horrid video game."

That's grammatically correct and logically expresses what I presume your meaning to have been, but it's still awkward.

Best of all would be "Good riddance to that horrid video game."

And even then "horrid" sounds pretty faggy, unless your narrator is supposed to be some sort of queer then it's spot on A+

>>8465083
Well unless your character is a pretentious pseudo-intellectual i suggest you rewrite it, and I know I shouldn't validate it, but yes it does get "the point" across.