I am really enjoying the way everybody utilises the King of Sartar (etc.). It amazes me how when people want its contents to be accurate, true and supportive of their statements then it is! On the other hand if they want to disagree with you then they wear the other boot and claim that the King of Sartar (etc) is biased, incorrect and cannot be used as a reasonable source.
You know you would think that the damn thing was a bible or somthing!!
People can argue point of minutae for an eternity and will never resolve their problems. The reality is that we all know that Greg writes with constant inconsistency, even recreating whole chunks of Glorantha to fit his thinking. I personally do not believe that Glorantha lives in its history, but instead in its mythology.
Right! now that is over, will somebody actually tell me what has been learned during the recent Grazer debate? What was the actual starting point of the argument? Where is it going or will it simply be another over extended melee of quotations, referencing and word play? Will all this slip off into the dark night of private e-mail?
The function of the Digest as I have alwasys perceived it is to look at creative developments within Glorantha. I am more than happy to discover that long debates on the Digest will eventually become published articles, although this rarely happens! What are everybody's agendas in regards to these lengthy debates?
Finally, I have come to know you all as friends and comrades, even though I have not met many of you face to face. However why is it that the main protagonists always remain the same? Pete Mecalfe, I really like you but you are becoming like a cannon that fires quotations. A lot of people respect what you say, but often it is 'Your' Gloranthan concepts that are being put forward as 'official'. I must say that some of them are cracking good ideas and I adopt them readily, but you do have a tendency to take on an official heir. Joerg Baumgartner, you too are like rocket launcher of quotations +5. I respect the writings that you produce, but they are becoming verbose. On more than one occasions a whole digest has consisted of your ideas, quotations and paraphrasing. I don't even look at them anymore, they blind me.
I will probably get flamed by these comments, I do not care. Their intention is not to offend but to make a comment. I do not wish to see good debates disappear from the Digest, just become more readable, less aggressive and have some indication of their final purpose eg: A summary of thoughts, an indication that the findings may appear in a future publication or somebody independent corrolating the arguments into somthing readable and usable by players, artists and writers.
Cheers Simon.
He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow.
Powered by hypermail