I debated with myself whether to post a reply to Nick's latest bits. Finally, I decided to do so, not in any hope of changing Nick's mind (I doubt God or Greg Stafford could), but because the Digest's readers deserve a fair understanding of the problems with Nick and others' model of Malkionism.
>...What I think Martin Crim may not have noticed (judging from
>yesterday's post) is that we're trying to propose a framework
>for the evolution of Malkioni belief which will allow zillions
>of people to hang their own myths, legends, sects, saints,
>prophets and heresies off it at various points.
Always fun to have dissension. Right?
The point I have made several times, both subtly and
obviously, and will make again in its most obvious form, is this:
ideas have consequences. If you start with premises (like
"Faith, not Legalism") or events (like crucifixion and bodily
assumption into the afterlife) that look like Christianity's, you
end up with something that looks a lot like Christianity. Or
even, as Mike Dawson put it at RQ Con II, "some very bad Errol
Flynn version of 14th century Catholicism."
>So I really truly enjoy reading constructive criticism like
>this: it's far more interesting than being told, "I don't like
>Christianity, I don't understand Christian symbolism, but this
>looks like it to me!";
Nick is here referring to someone else's views. I prefer to believe that than to believe that he would attribute this to me, as doing so would be to grossly misstate something I put in a very personal email message to him.
>and/or "How d'you derive that from the RQ3 sorcery rules and
>shortform write-up?";
I'd appreciate it if Nick would say that this is someone else's opinion, as his use of it in this context impliedly attributes it to me. If it applies to me, it's a misstatement of my position, and one which I have already disabused Nick of.
I do believe we should be consistent with the short form write-ups, as we've already seen enough stuff that contradicts earlier sources. Others may disagree. In any case, such a view as mine is hardly to be mentioned in the same phrase as "deriv[ing] [sect features or beliefs] from the RQ3 sorcery rules."
>and/or "We know all Malkioni sects are basically the same: it
>says so in Gods of Glorantha", et cetera, ad nauseam atque
>infinitum.
Again, if Nick wants to say that someone else advances this view, he should do so, rather than leaving the impression that this is my view.
My views are already well known, having been published in Codex vol. 1, #2. Nick prefers to talk about an early rough draft of the article that appeared there, a rough draft he saw and commented on. I appreciated the comments. The rough draft wasn't published; the final draft was. The rumors about the Vadeli are a bit like Nick's statements about them. Mike Dawson made many helpful suggestions. Of course, I drew on the written sources to which I had access. The rest was me.
I'm withdrawing from the Digest for a time, as what little free time I now have I need to devote to preparing for the game I run.
TTFN
- --Martin
Powered by hypermail