>>The battle against AIDS is integral to the life of a patient suffering
>>from it on a bed in hospital. Without the AIDS infection that person's
>>condition is not understandable. Does that make the AIDS virus a part of
>>that person in the same way as his lungs? It's part of the way he is, but
>>is it natural to him?
>
>Actually, I work in molecular biology, and one of the big problems in
>fighting HIV is that is *does* become part of your body, hiding out in your
>cells and splicing itself into your DNA. In this case, as in most
>infections, this is a bad thing, but not always.
An alegory is not the thing being allegorised. However, if you want to ignore the point I'm making, that's up to you. You could try substituting a more suitable parasitic infection for AIDS in the example. Perhaps tapeworms?
>"But the Gods War weakened that order, and admitted chaos into the world"
>
>The word used is NOT "intrude", but "admitted". In my mind, a huge
>difference, though this may be reading too much into it.
I think so. There is a fair amount of material available on this, including Cults of Terror and various convention seminar transcripts. If Greg isn't completely sick of answering this question yet, you could try asking him in person if you can make a major convention.
He'd probably tell you that chaos is part of glorantha in the sense that books about glorantha also talk about chaos. Chaos is part of the experience of being gloranthan. However, do you understand the disstinction we are making? Glorantha began with a single primeval act of creation. Everything in glorantha is derived from that act of creation, except chaos. You seem to be denying that it is possible to make that distinction, which to me is implicit in the above quote.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail