> She doesn't have these spells, because Greg wrote his opinion first, and
> I disagreed with him just a few years ago... far to late for him to change
> his position or to change all the printed material.
> This is basically my list of 'Things that Greg got Wrong'. I don't
> really expect Glorantha to change just because I found an inconsistency in
> the application of definitions, but I have tried to explain and defend m
> view.
I'm glad you're at least realistic about changing Received Glorantha (never mind 'Official G.') in this respect; you're proposing, in effect, not just to change the runic associations of two established deities, but also those goddess's magic, and furthermore, the 'definitions' of the runes themselves, far from being consistent in their application.
> Orlanth said "violence is always an option", and Ernalda said "there is
> always another way".
There is always another way: but there's still always the first way, too. The two sayings are in no way opposed, and are in fact basically a statement of exactly the same principle, with a different 'spin' on it. Culturally, Ernalda isn't a goddess of beating things up[*], but that's not to say she will always enjoin others not to, and not even that she'll never actively incite it...
[*] Other than in the sense that as the Great Goddess one can argue she encompasses Babs Gor. (And possibly (though likely not IMO) Vinga.)
> I expand my previous observation... Greg got there first and wrote the
> myths to support his views. He was just inconsistent enough for me to see
> that he doesn't always believe what he wrote (or else we have very
> different dictionaries
What have English dictionaries to do with the meaning of a Gloranthan symbol? A rune is not a word; non-Gloranthan texts are explanations, not representations, and 'Gloranthan' texts are at best 'translations'. Greg's discourse on what the 'Fertility' rune means is an _infinitely_ better source than the OED.
> I have no expectation of persuading you, Peter, I have never seen you
> change your mind. I am expressing my view and giving arguments based on
> the definitions of the runes and the basic concepts of powers in
> opposition to show that the current material is inconsistent and could be
> better if changed. I think that I have done that.
I shall say this one final time, and then formally give up: you're _not_ using the 'definitions' of the runes at all, you're changing them. RQ3, Book 5, p13.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail