Well I hope the "last Godlearner" will forgive the vehemence of my last post. Please don't think that I was attacking your contention - I simply have a viceral reaction any time I see "monomyth" and "Gloranthan Truth" in the same proposition.
> *sigh* What I was attempting to assert, at least originally, was
>that the Monomyth as persented in RQII and RQIII stuff was a useful
skeleton
>to work with, that it allowed for a common basis for many of the world's
>myths that is esthetically (sp) pleasing for game purposes, that makes
sense.
>It's something I'd like in future Gloranthan games, at least in the basic
>world book.
Actually what I'd like better than the Monomyth as presented in RQ II is a presentation of events that allow a common basis of shared facts in much of Glorantha. I'm not very interested in the GLer version of the Council of World Friends but I'd like future Gloranthan games to reference it in a basic sense. I hope the difference makes sense.
>Heck, I wasn't claiming any authority as a sage here, just
>saying I like the monomyth, but one would think I was advocating some
awful
>crime. I will note that Mr. Metcalf did discuss this all pretty reasonably
>and I rather like the "postmodernism" suggestion from Mr. Adamson (think I
>got the name right).
In no way are you advocating some awful crime by saying that you like the monomyth. I strongly disagree with Joseph Campbell's claims to have discovered the universal structure of myth (Mr. Campbell's monomyth) but I certain wouldn't accuse his advocates of being criminals or even spam-heads. Again I apologize for any negative tone my previous post may have had.
Yours truly,
Jeff Richard
Powered by hypermail