>On the subject of Grimoires and their creation, I have a strong
>feeling that we are being sidetracked by a word that creates the
>wrong impression (such that progress in sorcery is about making magic
>books). Instead I want to describe them using a new word that will
>give us a better understanding of what it's all about.
>
>That word is Thesis.
An interesting idea.
>A sorcerer's thesis represents his personal understanding of the
>Cosmos. Initially he is taught one or two spells by his master and
>spends his apprenticeship trying to weave the spells into a thesis.
>Once he does so, he's no longer an apprentice but a fully fledged
>sorceror.
I'm inclined to think it is vastly more than "one or two" spells.
>Like grimoires, theses are dedicated to a rune. A sorceror normally
>has two theses, a major and a minor.
This almost seems like it would work for God Learners, but the metaphor is feeling very forced to me.
>The aim of a wizard is similar to that of a sorceror to have a
>presence at a runic node and a grimoire named after him (or her).
Absolutely nothing in the presented texts so far seems to imply there are that many grimoires floating around.
>So what do you think? It has potential? Or is it a load of faeces?
Potential, sure. But it seems a very aggressive, progressive moving
forward view of magic that seems completely at odds with how Gloranthan
magic has been presented so far.
I think the God Learners may have done this, but this kid of "everybody
adds to the grimoire or makes their own" thing seems not to fit at all
with Wizardry or Sorcery or Orders as presented so far.
I can see a part of Wizardry scholars working this way, but it seems the
exception, not the rule.
LC
Powered by hypermail