Re: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Putting the 'Anal' into Analogies

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_NDQ2T8-PQzF5m_TDVNwKxmj1AMUStwFSBsN8mTLi13zhTa0iJm9tARv4fMIzR>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:41:23 +0000 (GMT)

> From: Mark Galeotti
> >For most people 'like the ancient Persians' means
> nothing, so it is a useless comparison;
>
> Really! But same with Romans then.

Hardly. Everyone knows about the Romans from school, and from TV, films, etc. Ancient Persians? Nothing. School doesn't touch it, a couple of historical films have them as "the enemy".

> Most people know
> very little, and that mostly wrong, so that'd be a
> useless analogy.

So what if it's wrong? As long as its a clear, consistent image, that's all we need. Cavemen hunting dinosaurs comes in the same category: yes, it's wrong, but we all have the same image, we all know the heroine's wearing a fur bikini.

> With Persians, people might actually study up on
> that to get more into it,

No, that's missing the entire point. If they were willing to read up anything, they'd be reading up *Lunars*. The whole point of using the analogy in the first place is to get the description across in under 10 seconds with no reading necessary.                 



To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com            

Powered by hypermail