Re: Gods, Heroquests, mythic munchkinism

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cs.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 10:09:47 +0800


>From: John P Hughes <John.Hughes_at_anu.edu.au>

>My understanding of Greg's personal
>philosophy (expressed in his shamanism and in his RQ
>writings) is that it emphasises continual growth and change,
>transforming your perspective and engaging your
>creativity to create a synthesis. His own beliefs have
>little room for absolutist Final Answers or Ultimate
>Truths, and in this Glorantha is faithful to its
>creator. Look at the puzzles running rampant through
>'King of Sartar'. Even the date of an important battle
>that occurred less than a generation before a document
>was composed (Sword Hill) becomes a matter for argument and counter-
>argument! And there is a purpose to this: clues are scattered
>if we are prepared to do the work.
>

        Actually I thought that Greg overplayed the confusion idea in KOS. The huge disagreements about particular events, and his rather obvious ruse of having (at least) two Argraths, and then going out of his way to confuse them. The whole thing is more like a battle of wits between you and Greg, rather than real historical confusion. GRAY is a bit better, though - things actually seem unrelated, rather than mostly the same with a few crucial details confused.

>Who for instance, was
>Kallyr's Food man, and why is he ommitted from the Companion List?

        This comment is well and truly obscure!! Not only can I find no reference to Kallyr's Food man as such at all, but she does have a cook, who is in the Companion list. What are you on about, John?

>Amongst Greg's published comments on 'The Birth of
>Elmal' are the following:
>
>"The nature of Mythology is never the same. Its precise
>nature is its mutability and ability to reform.
>Ambiguity, error and illusion are the stuff from which
>mythology is made. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND AN
>UNCHANGING MYTHICAL TRUTH." (my emphasis).
>

        I will sort of agree. There is not Truth, but there are truths, and reliable patterns of myth. The HeroQuesters task is not hopeless, but it is confusing. Which is why creative heroquesting is so dangerous.

>The first quote in particular summarises the most
>important attitude to bring to an exploration of
>Glorantha: a willingness to have unanswered questions,
>and a willingness to make your own decisions about them.
>

        I am not sure that what Greg meant is that the nature of Gloranthan is wholly subjective. I am sure that Gloranthan myth is subjective and mutable. I am not so sure that Gloranthan meta-myth (the process by which myth is created and changed) is supposed to be so subjective.

        I do not want my Glorantha to be wholly solipsistic!

>There is a third way, compatible with Gloranthan reality
>but nearly impossible to experience within it. Its a way
>I covered in some detail in TOTRM #12. Reality in
>Glorantha can change. Through heroquest and great magic,
>the timeless patterns of the godplane can be twisted and
>reforged. In Glorantha, not only does the interpretation
>of reality encapsulated in myth change over time, but
>also the underlying reality itself! Gods die (or are
>born). Memories are erased. Great magics meld and tear
>the fabric of being. For mortals and Gods alike, reality
>is something that must be fought for.

        
        Part of what I want to discourage is the idea that Gloranthan
reality (not Myth) is wholly mutable at an abstract level. 
        Basically, I feel that heroquesting can change the world, and
change the mythic past, and change what is magically possible. But I do not think that heroquesting should change mundane history - the moving finger, and all that. Some people might try (with mythic changes and memory removal) but they never completely succeed. This goes with the view that time travel is generally impossible. But to me, to allow it would to make everything every PC does written on sand, liable to be undone at any time.

        I also find little evidence that it has ever happened, and I welcome someone who can give me a source for the change of history within Glorantha. Mythic history, yes, but the whole point is that that is myth, and myth is always of the present, even if allegedly in the past.

> The Monomyth is dead:

        Its not dead, its just unwell. The monomyth is somewhat true. It is unreliable and dangerous to believe it always, but that does not mean that it is completely untrue. Arkat and the God Learners proved that the monomyth is true. They also showed how unreliable it is, how complex and treacherous it is.

        Cheers
                Dave Cake



------------------------------

Powered by hypermail