Two quick shots -
APOCALYPSE NOW & THEN Is Onslaught the Gloranthan equivalent of Groo the Wanderer? Do any of his stories mention cheesedip?
The Onslaught debate seems to be a classic example of level shifting. Using the levels described in the FAQ essay, Onslaught is a literary character, and he belongs in the second 'genre or mythological' level. (The resulting discussion however has focussed on level one - the rules level, which is telling in itself. What *was* Onslaught's second dimension again? :) )
The levels essay (which in the continuing absence of the FAQ can be found in the searchable archives under "do ducks have teeth") notes that:
"Any genre brings with it certain unwritten but universally understood rules and conventions that dictate what can and should happen within a story. ... The needs of the story will dictate that whatever your combat skills, the dastardly broo will beat and capture you so you can ultimately escape and wreak your righteous revenge upon them."
(Or in Onslaught's case, whatever their abilities, the needs and expectations of the genre dictate that whoever crosses his path will have their heads bitten off.)
'Ducks' continues...
"Working at this level, you can suspend game rules or invoke
'meta-rules' for a given effect without having to universalise
the consequences in either a positive or negative way....
Story and effect are more important than a consistent portrayal of reality,
so holes and
contradictions in the background not important to immediate
events can be rightfully ignored.... You might explicitly or implicitly play
with our
earthly experience for irony or contrast. You may use
exaggeration and distortion for entertainment and effect."
The keys for me in this are exaggeration for the sake of the story, and NOT having to universalise the consequences - consistency is still a further level down. Discussions about one-on-ones between Onslaught and Jazreel have to me the same aura as debates about Mike Tyson vs the road runner - one being a cartoon character and the other a long-legged, flightless bird.
MULTIPLE SOUL Alex:
> It's already well-documented that different Gloranthan cultures have
> different beliefs about the nature of the 'soul', in any case. Why
> is it terribly controversial to imagine that these 'different souls'
> may come into being, or manifest, or whatever it is they're doing with
> respect to a foetus or infant, at different times?
<rant>
I realise this is at a tangent to the original discussion. However...
Exactly! Western civilisation has been burdened by unthinking Neoplatonist, Cartesian and vitalist rubbish for far too long. It's bad enough that the RQ rules preserved an unthinking body/spirit dichotomy, without us letting it percolate unexamined into Glorantha's multiple cultures, spiritualities, and ways of being.
IMG, the Orlanthi have seven 'breaths' or souls. The first comes to the father *before* conception, another to the mother during pregnancy, than at birth, at naming, at adulthood (clan initiation if separate), religious initiation (in the inner or gnostic, not ritual sense) and the last, a communal, wyter-like breath that can only be awakened by heroquesters or very powerful godis. Soul is not the same as spirit (a troublesome concept in itself), and each breath is a contribution to wholeness, integration and unity of purpose. Like the ancient Hebrews, my Orlanthi value unity and wholeness, and their concept of 'breath' is not a simplistic body/spirit split.
</rant>
See, Celts can be passionate too. <g>
Cheers
John
Powered by hypermail