Egregious

From: MOB <mrmob_at_ozemail.com.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:18:27 +1000


G'day all,

I said I didn't want to buy into the Moonson/Proxie speculations, and (reading through what's been said in the Digests since), I'm still happy to blissfully delude myself that all can be as it was.

However, I take offense at what I see as an egregious (hah!) attempt to rewrite history.

Martin said:

>There is no previous version.

Pardon me sir, but there is: even if you want to discredit a lot of what went into "Life of Moonson" as amiable frippery to help run the freeform smoothly, there's still the "Rough Guide to Glamour", the two "Tales" Lunar Specials and "Tarsh War", etc. This material exists, is out there, has been enjoyed and been used widely, and would be considered by just about everyone as GAG.

>All other views on it were speculation by fans.

Just because it was written by "fans" doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand. All the above works - even "Life of Moonson" - weren't written in a vacuum. In fact, much of it came about through close collaboration with Stafford himself (ironically, probably not unlike the same way Martin is writing his own material now).  

>So yes, I could see your point, if there was a publication that said
otherwise, but there hasn't been,
>other than fan and LARP stuff.

It's a shame these terms seem to be gaining pejorative connotations. As Martin well knows, the reason why this material has only appeared in "fan" publications is because there hasn't been any fucking official material published since the early 90's. And if not for David Hall and TotRM et al, would we even be having this debate now?

>Bear in mind that if YOU were writing it or MOB was writing it or whoever
was writing it, we'd all be
>disagreeing with them too.

Interestingly, the only person who seems to disagree with the current GAG version is one of the people who helped create it, Mr Stafford, and his able proxie, Martin.

>On returning to Greg on this issue, he said and explained at length that the
>Emperor is singular and that is how he has seen him for a long time.

The genesis of much of the Moonson/Proxie/Masks/Succession stuff came about with intense, fruitful discussions Nick, Stafford and I had in Greg's lounge room following GloranthaCon 2 in 1994. Maybe it was Greg's evil identical twin brother (or maybe a Proxie?) in the room with us...

In the intervening period, "Life of Moonson" the "Rough Guide to Glamour", the two "Tales" Lunar Specials and "Tarsh War" have all appeared, more or less developing the same background material for the Lunar Empire, Moonson, etc, much of it written in collaboration with Greg or with his approval.

>Greg has the same problem, its his goal to write canon and sometimes he
>disagrees with people and the shit hits the fan.

There's a difference between disgreeing with people and claiming you never agreed with them in the first place. That's why (admittedly in face of mounting evidence to the contrary) I blithely choose to believe that this "single emperor" nonsense is just all Official Lunar Empire Spin for new purchasers of Hero Wars.

Finally, Keith N is another Digester who agrees with me:

>I'd like to add a hear! hear! to that sentiment. While I appreciate that
>"Only One Red Emperor" is a good and sensible thing to have I like to think
>that that there is an additional clause that only the advanced chronomancers
>and mystics within the Empire understand and that is: "with the benefit of
>Hind Sight". Of course, looking back, we see now that there has only ever
>been one red Emperor and the others are not real.

Indeed, for as the epigram goes:
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Cheers,

MOB


Powered by hypermail