> And just as well too, as I recall you don't acknowledge Conan as great
> literature! Bizarre!
I've never even read a Conan novel, so I presume you're thinking of the statements of others as to the greatness (or literary qualities) of The Other Mr. Burroughs.
> > As for limits to heroic ability, there are limits. Onslaught is himself
> > totally two dimensional as a hero.
>
> >Well, there's "Kills things", with the other dimension being...?
>
> <sigh> Alex, we've had this out before and you are not alone in having this
> out with me.
No we haven't, and indeed I don't recall having passed any significant comment on Onslaught, or any Onsalught stories, before, so I can only assume you're again thinking of bunfights you've had with others.
> What you and the other people who follow this line of
> argument fail to grasp is that there are MANY ways of killing things and
> that violence has multiple styles.
Remarkably, this isn't a point that entirely escapes me. I did notice or two variations in content, not so say the stylistisms, between Tolkien and _The Iron Dream_, or between 'Das Boot' and 'The Matrix'. (And enjoyed all of the above on some level, by the by.) I could have somewhat refined my statement to say 'Kills things in the manner of casual meaningless butchery', if that would have made you feel any better.
> You look for great literature in Onslaught, me,
> I look for a good fight.
Once again, I'm saying nothing about the literary qualities of the stories: I'm not a fiction reviewer, and this isn't a creative writing criticism mailing list. The topic of my missive was 'Onslaught and My Glorantha', nothing more.
> >than I do to take on board the idea of an RQ character with 200% bite (or
> whatever it >was).
>
> Thats simply because you don't like that style of RQ game. Not everyone
> agrees with you.
Once again you're making rather sweeping statements about my tastes that have nothing to do with the statements I made. The point I was making is that characters with 200% bites are one thing, but characterising such individuals as Heroes in some strong sense is quite another.
> >He seems totally decontextualised, has no mythic depth that I've been able
> to >discern, and is in short pretty much just an exaggerated version of
> the
> >'phenomenally skilled loner' stereotype.
> And what is wrong with that? Are you saying that Glorantha has no room for
> the "Man with No Name"?
What I'm saying is that Onslaught, as he seems to be presented, is considerably at variance with my conception of any at-all-likely Humakti (or other) HeroQuester. Note I don't say 'no room', I've been careful to stipulate 'as a capital-H Hero', and I don't presume to say anything about anyone else's Glorantha.
> >A 'real Hero' consists not just of mundane skill, but of an authentic
> connection to the divine world.
> What does this actually mean?
Y'know, the OtherWorld, the God Time, the Transcendant, guff like that.
> There you go again. You keep assuming that because they focus on death,
> they're dull. That's simply your view. I happen to find that end of it
> fascinating. As for Harrek, its his individualism and exceptional
> background and "give them the finger" existence that makes him so damn
> interesting. To me anyway. You don't see it that way.
The fewer second-person assertions and imputations in an exchange of views, the more likely it is to remain even-tempered, I think one will find as a rule. In that spirit, I'll give the above paragraph a bit of a body-swerve, as they used to say on Radio Clyde (and doubtless still do).
In the same(ish) spirit of detente as Rick Meints, though, I'm happy to say I'll be willing to let Martin buy _me_ a beer at the next con we both co-incide at. (I might even refrain from making it a Nukie Broon, as long as Martin will refrain from telling me what my taste in beer is.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail