Re: Benefits to Agriculture of Gloranthan Rituals & Blessing

From: David Cake <dave_at_difference.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:54:01 +0800

On 14/06/2013, at 3:38 AM, Jeff <richaje_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> I'm sad that the editorial oversight at the time didn't manage to allow for some imaginative exploration while still keeping things canon.  It feels rather as if there was a drive during HW and HQ1 to let more people add their vision to Glorantha, but that then much of that has been tossed aside.  Which is a valid editorial decision as people and companies involved have changed, but it is frustrating on the other hand for people who bought all that material and incorporated it into their view of Glorantha. 

>
> Well, that's the purpose of making it clear what we consider to be canon up front. The Guide is to be the foundational document for all future Glorantha publications by us or our licensees. We also have moved Greg's entire archive of notes, maps, articles, and so on from his storage locker (where it wasn't doing anyone any good) to my office, where David Scott and others have scanned in thousands of pages, so that writers can have access to what they need for inspiration and ideas.

	I have no issue at all with the idea of a well defined canon, or that it needs to be redefined to exclude a lot of published material. 
	I do find it frustrating that the process of what is becoming the new canon is quite as conservative as it is - there is a lot of material out there that wasn't written by Greg, but was prepared in discussion with him, and while it shouldn't be considered canon I'd hope was at least read and carefully considered to see what can be salvaged. I get the feeling that instead a lot of material was deliberately not even considered - and some of it may well work its way back into canon, or at least publication, at some point. 
	Plus of course there is plenty of material that Greg wrote at some point, most of which was canonical at some point, but may not be any longer. Its confusing, The Guide will, when published clear up perhaps 90% of issues regarding what is canonical, but certainly not all. 

>> I guess what you are saying is that between this group, the Moon Design web page forums, and the new Google plus thingy, we should look to the Google plus thingy for the most official word on things?  (yes, I'm a creature of habit so haven't gone there yet, but if I need to change my habits I will)

>
> Google+ has far more activity on it than the YahooGroups - and Rick, Neil, and I are far more active there than here. So yes, I'd recommend looking at the Google+ site.

	I have found Google+ wonderful for the easy of allowing people to share pictures. I've found it very poorly designed and frustrating as far as facilitating sustained conversations (though better than the Moon Design forums, which aren't even good forums). 
	Horses for courses, IMO. 
	Cheers
		David