>>>At least the text is attributed to the wrong picture.
Me>>It is? So when Gods of Glorantha uses the same picture twice and
>>claims that it is a) Godunya with men who are dragons, and b)
>>a priest to him with Immanent Mastery types as guards, only one of
>>the facts can be true because the text is wrongly attributed in
>>one case? This is an astonishingly feeble reason to dismiss published
>>facts.
>Troll Pak states that Belintar was apotheosized in 1258. Published Glorantha
>information is remarkbly consistent, but not entirely free of mistakes...
And any evidence to suggest Harrek was not in the Rightarm Isles as of 1616 is what? And please answer the question of why you think Harrek's text is wrong because of the resued picture, and not the reused picture of the Kralori priest with dragonewts?
>We know that published information contains contradictory information.
>Excuse me that I get suspicious when the _only_ information placing Harrek
>in the Rightarm Isles in 1616 is a retro-fitted legend to an illustration
>which is a symbolic depiction of the Hero Wars in total and happens to have
>Harrek killing a dragonewt in the top left corner.
And do you get suspicious when Gods of Glorantha reuses pictures? If not why not? Or perhaps we should dismiss texts on the basis that Dave Dobyski drew the pictures?
>If Greymane is mentioned for the pharaonic defeat elsewhere called Lion
>King's Feast, I wonder why Harrek is not mentioned in Genertela Book p.46.
Nor is JarEel mentioned as killing the Pharaoh. Nor is Fazzur mentioned as leading the Lunars in the invasion of Heortland. Are any of these facts then to be dismissed?
>But it is a fact that Harrek's description (Genertela Book p.15) does
>provide us with a couple of hard to reconcile statements if we take them
>literally.
I'm sorry, what precisely are these hard-to-reconcile statements? All that I have seen from you is some proposition that Harrek was still sleeping of his hangover in 1616 after having sacked Sog City the year before. I provided an perfectly simple explanation why Harrek left Sog City on a single boat to Seshnela where he met with the Wolf Pirates. That's one of these so-called 'hard-to-reconcile' statements, what is the other?
>>If Greg (or Sandy) wanted a picture of Harrek the Berserk sacking the
>>Rightarm Isles for the genertela box and had to reuse the old picture
>>due to time constraints, then I see no reason why the reuse of the old
>>picture should necessarily negate their statement that Harrek sacked
>>the Rightarm Isles in 1616.
>Call me a cynic, but I suppose it went rather like "Hey, we got this old
>picture. Let's find an excuse to fit it in."
And the published legend for that illustration is flawed in what way?
>The spelling certainly shows that this legend was fitted in as a rush
>job. I guess the dates for Harrek were not checked.
And these dates are wrong in what way?
>>And Tales then says he went onto Threesteps, not Ginorth.
>Tales says that he ended up at Threestep Isles, not by which route.
The statement that he goes to the Rightarm Isles is _right_after_ the statement that he joins the wolf pirates. One reasonably concludes from the text that he goes to Threesteps Isles shortly afterwards. Your theory requires him to take a circitous route of at least a year or three where Harrek goes to Ginorth and then to Ygg's Isles, then sacks coastline and finally arrives at Threesteps a place he has never been to before.
So why did Harrek sail his Ygglings to Threesteps? Was it because he had already been there before?
>DW 28 tells of a Pirate "invasion" in the Rightarm Isles in 1620 (not
>1616, which is only a "raid").
Right. Because Harrek by that time had half the Yggites. But this arguement does not preclude him from being present in the raid of 1616, does it?
>>> [M]ine [version of harrek's career] has the advantage of simplicity.
>>And given that this simplicity denies a well-attested fact in two
>>sources for no good reason, one may wonder why this simplicity is
>>advantageous.
>If Harrek's presence in the Isles in 1616 is to be confirmed, your version
>will remain, but you asked how I came up with my version, and I gave you my
>interpretation of the textual sources, which aren't as devoid of internal
>consistency as you wanted them to appear.
We are not talking about internal consistency. We are talking about wilful dismissal of the published facts for fanciful reasons, such as "the picture's reused, thus any text referring to it is wrong'.
Powered by hypermail