bjm10:
> GS has his own take on the extant Gloranthan material. While he is the
> most prolific of all Gloranthan scholars, this does not necessarily make
> him infallible. I have already mentioned his misunderstanding that led
> to his constant use of "Starbrow" rather than "Firehair" some years back.
Ah, so the use of 'misinterpreted' was merely being condescending; I thought for a moment you meant some _actual_ misinterpretation on his part.
> > were defending your own Glorantha/game, rather than rubbishing other
> > people's.
> Rubbishing? Are you saying that Chaosium, oops Wizards Attic, oops
> Issaries Inc, rubbishes campaigns (rubbishing, that sounds so very quaint
> and baroque) when they come out with stuff like Elmal, Vinga, etc?
The verb 'to rubbish' in this context means to speak disparagingly of, if you're not familiar with the (more than somewhat post-baroque) idiom. The creation of Elmal, Vinga, etc, would hardly come into that category -- though 'Glorantha-trashing', perhaps, if one feels highly gregged thereby.
Canned moral/precis of my point in this thread:
Writing and disseminating one's own (potentially non-Greg-compliant) material: good way of creating Gloranthan cultural and mythic diversity;
Complaining about how others (Greg or elseperson) haven't adopted your material wholesale, and persist in their original errors, and/or commiting new ones: bad way of doing same (or of doing anything else).
I shall now proceed to ignore my own advice and moan about numerous things Greg and other people have done, of course. Oh well.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail