> >I don't doubt that I am (and I'm happy to find out).
> Then listen to those who know, instead of disregarding us.
I did read what you said. Hey - someone says "X is assumed to be..."; where's the harm in challenging that? Not sure who exactly I am disregarding.
> >I still think there is a certain slightly crap aspect to the idea,
though.
> Either way, but you could think about it awhile and see where it may fit
> your understanding.
Well that is what I was doing.
> >It could reduce things to being just an alternative explanation of the
> mundane.
> Other way round. It could explain the mundane as magic. Remember in the
Lord
> of the Rings where Galadriel (or was it another elf?) said something about
> sort-of understanding what the hobbits meant by 'magic'? To the elves it's
> all magic, or all mundane. In any case they use it all the time and don't
> think anything particular of it.
Spock?
Yes, I get that argument but, correctly or otherwise, I read what you said
as saying that it is all pretty much as in the RW but just with a different
mechanical explanation.
> >The way you laid things out - the comparison with how people believed
> things work, how many still believe it in fact - I love all that, that's
> just grand.
> Great. That's why I wrote that. It's rather frustrating to then read "By
> you. Not by me or I suspect by lots of others."
Well, I think it is grand *as a part of the story*. With the cool magic on top of it. Not as the whole explanation which is what I think you were saying. Magical contraception just being the same as pre-modern conception except we call it magic - I just don't think that's particularly interesting. It can reduce things to being an alternative explanation of the mundane, as I said.
> >If it is just an alternative way to explain the same level of stuff, I
> think that's a bit dull is all.
> Think about it awhile and see if you can color up your vision of it.
Well I have but it isn't brightening up too much, no. I personally like the more flashy stuff without having to worry about it being pretty much of a muchness with RW equivalents. For games in Glorantha, that is. If it were Pendragon, I'd probably think the other way the bees knees. And in literature, certainly.
> >That make sense?
> Yes. But the other way makes sense to me too.
Fine. The best representation of it I have seen was in an Arthurian book by that bloke who wrote the Sharpe books. Merlin does magic left right and centre but there is always a mundane explanation if you want it. Even when we see that he is using glow-worms or something, that doesn't matter.
Sam.
Powered by hypermail