>I would prefer to have the myths set down in a similar style to
>those in Troll Pack and Cults of Terror, clear, concise and factual,
>just so we know what went on.
.......
>Anyhow, that's my view. Unfortunately, this will never occur because
>those against the idea of a rationally-based game-world where the
>mythology is actually well-defined are in a vast majority.
I'm amused by the way you use the term 'rational' and 'myth' in the same sentence. The fact that you can do this and keep a streight face demonstartes vividly why our views are so incompatible. Glorantha is not a rationaly-based game world, it is a mythicaly-based game world.
>I cannot
>for the life of me see why people would prefer that their myths were
>confusing, ill-defined and contradictory. Surely it would be better
>to know what actually happened, rather than what people think
>happened.
But that's the whole point. Myths are waht people believe happened - in their own terms. Myth and objective history are quite spearate and often mutualy inconsistent concepts. Also, the myths are not themselves ill-defined or contradictory, but different people's myths may be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. That's quite a different thing.
Ther GLs may have shared your urge to know the 'real truth', but they also realised that doing so as a passive observer is impossible. They squared this circle by concocting a 'lowest common denominator' truth that suited them and then imposing it rigorously. This is the difference between you and them. You passionately believe that there is a single objective Gloranthan historical/mythical truth which you want to discover. They realised there was no such thing but thought there should be, so they engineered one of their own.
Peter Metcalfe :
> They both thought they were uncovering the historical
>truth but their methodology is _flawed_. It is all very well to
>say that Orlanth slew Yelm and unify the two mythologies but if
>Orlanth and Yelm never met, then the myth is _unhistorical_.
Assuming that saying they 'met' in a historical sense is meaningfull for gods. If you can prove that they met in myth, then what's the problem?
>>> They are not the same cults but since these cults all worship the
>>> Sun, they are the same diety.
>
>>Why? What is wrong with having more than one Sun God [...] and so on?
>
>So are Allah, Brahma, Nam and Jehovah different gods? Or would you
>rather say that the people who worship these beings belong to different
>cults?
Good point. I am again reminded of the story of the blind men and the elephant already alluded to.
>If the Cosmic Dragon is the Creator then why do you argue against
>all Sun Cults worshipping the same god? And if the creation myths
>are difficult to handle or cannot be reconciled, then why must we
>accept the Monomyth as being true, given that combining myths is
>known not to give the correct answer?
Well, not necesserily. I almost agree, but not quite. Some myths can be combined successfuly, this is largely why myths demonstrably change and evolve over time. Maybe it depends on how strongly you (and your followers) believe in the myths. True faith does not necesserily require absolute proof.
Simon
Powered by hypermail