Ding a ling

From: Martin Laurie <MLaurie_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 03:07:33 -0500


Me:
> >I feel almost morally bound to steer clear of lit-crit here,

> And just as well too, as I recall you don't acknowledge Conan as great
> literature! Bizarre!

Alex:
>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.

Oh, Howard is a lot better than Burroughs, but this is an out of context argument, as you point out.

> > 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.

Possibly, there were a lot of buns.

> 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.

No because the part you and I disagree with is what is "meaningless butchery". You see it as meaningless butchery and conclude that I must also see it that way and therefore write it deliberately as that. Or so it seems.

> 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.

Really? Your post certainly didn't read that way, lets look at it again:

<I find it harder to take Onslaught seriously as a 'Hero' in that sense,>

Here it seems you are arguing that you don't take my definition of Onslaught as a hero "seriously", without actually saying what makes a hero in your view and allowing a comparison of the two.

>and of that magnitude, than I do to take on board the idea of an RQ
>character with 200% bite (or whatever it was). 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.

What mythic depth are you looking for exactly? I can write myth, have done many times, but in the case of the Onslaught stories, I am trying to entertain in a less than heavy way. Would you critique a Laurel and Hardy pie fight because it lacks "artistic meaning"? You're critiquing something as if it were something its not.

<A 'real Hero' consists not just of mundane skill, but of an authentic connection to the
<divine world.

But what does this actually MEAN?!?! Tell you what, why don't you write up a story about a "real hero" and show me exactly what I'm doing wrong?

<Now, I'll grant you that, say, Harrek is somewhat>
<limited in this regard, and is a cheatin' bastard besides, and with>
<little doubt, Humakti HeroQuesters may be on the Somewhat Boring>
<sides too.  But they _have_ to be a touch better-rounded, not to>
<say grounded, than Onslaught -- pleasegod.>

"Pleasegod"? So you think my fictional hero is so bad as a character that you have to pray that he isn't something that some people might like in their Glorantha? I don't get this. You say "not in your Glorantha" but become concerned over other peoples?

<In a nutshell, I won't be rushing to use the doubtless forthcoming Onslaught DP <counter.>

Pretty sarcastic dude. Rather pompous and "lets look down on Martin from Alexs' high Glorantha moral standpoint" but maybe I can't read proper English either. Perhaps your sentence here meant something COMPLETELY different from the way it reads. But don't mind me, I'm just an ignorant munchkin!

> >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.

You've made sweeping criticisms of my ideas without really disussing the thoughts behind them. You say you've never discussed Onslaught with me before, but it didn't stop you ciritiquing the way I view Gloranthan heroes with a plethora of "buns".

>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.

If that is the point you were making, why didn't you make that point and debate the issue of what classifies a hero instead of rubbishing MY view of what classifies a hero?

> >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.

But you did! If you didn't presume to say anything about my Glorantha, you wouldn't have posted the post in the first place now would you? The very fact that you posted is saying you want your opinion heard! Why bother otherwise?

> >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.

Exactly. What does this actually mean? And how do you write it?

> 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.

To late for even tempered, your sarcasm in the first post drew blood plenty fine.

>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.

Beautiful. You talk as if I offended YOU when you were the one to issue the first slap! I truly don't think you realise the tone of your first post. Rick on the other hand said his piece, gave his opinion and didn't vent any sarcasm or scorn. Different story altogether.

>(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.)

I'd have as much clue about that as you do about Conan.

Martin Laurie


Powered by hypermail