Me:
>>However, I take offense at what I see as an egregious (hah!) attempt to
>>rewrite history.
Martin:
>Actually no, if I were rewriting history, I'd be rewriting the Wane History,
>FS, GRoY and Entekosiad. Since I'm not rewriting those, rather using them
as
>source material, I can't see how I'm doing what you've accused me of. I am
>egregiously writing stuff based on history. Of that I plead guilty.
Sorry, should have made myself clear: the history I'm accusing you of rewriting is your flat-out denial - "There is no previous version" - of the existing GAG model of Moonson's succession.
>Actually, I disagree. There have been some significant amounts of people
who
>_disagree_ with much of the material in the products you've mentioned. In
>the intro to Tarsh War for example, Greg says that quite explicity.
I didn't say everything in these publications should be set in stone. I just wanted to point out your claim there was no previous version describing Moonson's succession was not correct. And, not only is there this previous version, but Stafford himself was intimately involved in creating it, and also helped and approved of a lot of associated material. And that, IMO (and that of many other posters) the new, alternative version of Moonson's succession is not an improvement, which is why I believed it was just Official Lunar Spin.
>If I were alone in my comments or views, I'd feel somewhat abashed, but
there is a
>fair few people who disagree with a lot of fan publications on the Empire,
>particularly after much of it contradicts in style and tone Gregs work in
FS,
>GRoY and Entekosiad.
I guess you don't mean that unlike Greg's works, the fan stuff is actually coherent, readable, gameable, and entertaining?
>Not to mention the fact that the pool of people we have to work with is
>small, much smaller that the potential HW market will be, so most of them
>will not have heard of Tales (which is a damn shame BTW) by the time they
see
>suppliments.
If HW takes off, I'm sure there will be a healthy trade in second-hand issues of Tales and other "fan" publications, just like many of us have moldering copies of 20-year-old DWs and WFs. But by this comment I do see that you do hubristically consider current Glorantha fans will be but a piddling minority in a huge HW market, and thus of no consequence.
>I have noticed that you didn't mention Enclosure in that list, especially
the
>infamous "Gods and Goddesses of the Lunar Empire" section which you disagree
>with even though its GAG to almost everyone who read it. Funny that. One
>fan publication is cast in stone, while another is not mentioned at all! Is
>there a certain partisan edge to this or is it simply because you don't like
>that piece (as it contradicts much Tales and LARP stuff) and thus do not
>include it in GAG?
Sorry, forgot about "Enclosure" and would have happily mentioned it too. But as great swathes of Lunar material in there are by one M. Laurie, I doubt we're going to run into the same problems (don't get me wrong, it's damn fine stuff). Do I disagree with the "Gods and Goddesses" section? Maybe you can quote me from somewhere on that - I certainly can't remember having *any* view on it one way or another. I'm not sure why you consider it "infamous": looking at the article just now, it looks like the same sort of dull, unfinished stuff that Greg's been churning out for years. Certainly his "The Lunar Pantheon" in "A Rough Guide to Glamour" is a far better read, and much more gameable (co-authors for that one: Nick and Sandy).
>The only reason _much_ of this material is seen as GAG is, as you point out,
>that no-one else has anything to offer.
No, it is seen as GAG because people have accepted it as such, presumably because it merits it. There's plenty of stuff in the fan-based oeuvre that hasn't been taken on as GAG. Frex, the model of Moonson's succession has, whereas all our whacko Soviet-style stuff clearly hasn't.
>Nothing has been published with solid Imperial info in eons.
Hopefully you mean, nothing has been published by Chaosium/Avalon Hill/Stratelibri/Issaries Inc, because I have ably demonstrated that plenty of stuff has, and a great deal of it done in collaboration/consultation and sometimes even with the approval of Greg.
>But you seem to be implying that the works quoted above are sacrasanct to
change
>and this is simply not the case.
I am not saying this at all. Nor am I saying these works should ignored, forgotten or derided.
>If Greg is willing to turf whole sections
>of his own past work to make way for new concepts that fit his vision, why
>are some people so resistant to change or experiment?
Because it's fucking annoying: see my comment about B5/Dallas below.
>I have one rule in life that I hold sacrasanct. If it ain't broke, break it
>anyway and see if we can build a better one, cos NOTHING is perfect. If
>you're a Babylon 5 fan, I guess I'm a Shadow - evolution through conflict
and
>change.
An interesting analogy, because in describing the process of putting on the show, Babylon-5's creator J.M.Stryzinski (sp?) likened it to writing a novel where every time you finish a page you paste it on the wall for everyone to read, so there's no opportunity for going back, rewriting or retconning, unless you want to seriously piss off your loyal viewers.
Stafford's creative process more follows the "Dallas" method: if we make a hash of things, Bobby can just wake up and the hapless viewers find out that the entire last season was "all a dream". Needless to say, ratings plummeted and "Dallas" got cancelled soon after the producers tried to foist that crock of shit on their audience.
>If you can convince me through argument that I'm wrong,
>then great. I want to evolve my thinking on the Empire, not stay stuck in
>one mode of thought.
>
>Convince me I'm wrong. What is your logic?
You're wrong because the previous version is obviously far more interesting, and your concept is plainly naff. But it's pointless trying to convince you, because Greg has done a 180 degree turn and now says there "is, was and only ever will be one Moonson" and that appears to be that. If I did change your mind, you'd still have to toe the party line and would then end up having to write things you disagree with:
>Now, I've stated clearly that I don't want to get involved with books that
>piss in other peoples pools, so I won't, but you can hardly expect me to
>write things I disagree with and have disagreed with since day one of
reading
>them or seeing them?
Actually, I'll address this and the rest of Martin's post in the morning, I'm off to bed...
Cheers,
MOB
Email me : mrmob_at_ozemail.com.au
MOB's Home Page: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mrmob/index.html
MOB's Glorantha Page: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mrmob/glorindex.html
DOB Footy Scrapbook: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mrmob/dobfootycard.html
------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #576
Powered by hypermail