I've never suggested the HoG myth was in any way "wrong"; Sandy's interpretation of this makes perfect sense to me, namely that you can (possibly) "succeed" the heterodox way, by "winning" your battles (however difficult or unlikely this is), but you won't get the "correct" benefits from doing so, as you won't have learnt the "right" lesson from it. Last I heard, almost everyone was saying this, not that "losing" was a "second-best" result. What I was, and am, disputing is the idea that defeating ZZ would cause a victory for chaos, as that just doesn't work from a Yelmalian viewpoint, and you don't even bother disputing this.
Anyway, the reason why "winning" at the HoG keeps coming up is because, late one night, about seven years ago, one FGS chose it in particular as an example of the very sort of adversarial quest we're talking about. Go gripe at him, if you must. It may not be very profound, but it beats saying "Questor A on HQ X against HQer B", in discussing the mechanical nitty-gritties.
Another point: several commentators have spoken of "changing" myth, as if it can only mean "erase old myth, insert new one". Nothing could be further from my conception of how extrapolative questing works. "Changing" a myth will generally involve adding to it, or creating a new, related myth, not doing away with the old one. For example, when Garundyer frees Siglolf, he's effectively adding another chapter to Siggy's mythology, with himself inserted firmly into it. Not, for example, simply supplanting Siglolf's mythology with a "corrected" version involving Garundyer Cloudcrusher (though that could conceivably happen at some point, if identification of the two hero cults became total).
Hungrily,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail