MOB
>>However, I take offense at what I see as an egregious (hah!) attempt to
>>rewrite history.
Me:
>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.
You say its GAG, I say its a POV. What you are talking about is the POV of one group, I have a differing opinion, so do many others. Some people disagree with both of us and go their own way. The reason why I don't feel guilty of rewriting history is because I've stuck to the sources, much as you did, and have talked to Greg at least once a week to make sure I'm following his thoughts and needs. If he retcons my work at a later date, then so be it. it comes with the territory.
>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.
Okay, fair enough. But what _is_ changeable?
>I just wanted to point out your claim there was no previous version
>describing Moonson's succession was not correct.
I accept there is a previous version, I don't accept that it is necessarily "true" in the sense that Greg considers it true.
>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.
Yes he did. He also disagreed with some of it, as the intro to Tarsh War shows.
"For the moment, enjoy this book to the fullest. It's not quite right in all its particulars, but certainly that's partly because Chris & Co drew inspiration and details from unpublished Gloranthan tabletop miniature rules I wrote twenty-two years ago."
>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.
As I said, if you want it different in your game, feel free. Bin anything I and others write that you dislike, I do the same to other people.
>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?
You really think that GRoY, FS and Entekosiad is unreadable and lacking in gaming concepts? I think the stuff is a great basis for the Empires many cultures, myths and history. I only wish he wrote more. We've read the tomes dozens of times now as we work to create the cults for SGU. Often I find something new I hadn't seen before and this shows that it is a great creative work IMO.
>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.
No I don't, they will be the core, but in truth, most of the new players will have no clue as to this argument we are having and no knowledge of it or even a care. Only we few, we happy few, we band of Gloranthaphiles can be bothered.
>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).
I've run into problems. Firslty Greg wrote the Dromakus part of the Shargash myth after Enc 1 which effectively scuppered parts of the cult write up. We just finished the Shargash write up to 90% finished and it is quite different in places from the Enc 1 wirte up, partly cos of the HW rules differences, but partly because Greg wrote more stuff which we incorporated such as Shargashs power of Rakapas or dispersion, a mystica source of creation.
In other words, I've retconned my own work for HW. Casulaties of war.
>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.
Perhaps it was NIck. Sorry if I misquoted or misremembered.
>I'm not sure why you consider it "infamous":
Because at the Chicago con some comments were made by RM folk that it was plain wrong. However, I heard this second hand from someone at the seminar so there may be biases there. Dunno. It does seem contraversial to some. Consider the mention of the RE as being followed by a tiny cult of bureacrats. Somewhat contradicts the Tales 16 write up which has a monolothic Emperor cult instead.
>looking at the article just now, it looks like the same sort
>of dull, unfinished stuff that Greg's been churning out for years.
Amazing. I thought it fascinating. Truly the first glimpse of the article way back fasinated me. Who were these new cults? What do they represent? So the Empire is more than the Lunar cults! I was immediately interested in the possibilities. I think most of the Seattle crowd were too, it helped us hugely when we did Enc 1 and Shargash stuff.
>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).
We'll just have to agree to not.
>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.
Hmm, you said the articles in the publications you mentioned were GAG, which includes the Soviet stuff. What then makes GAG? How are you guaging it? What is your statistical methodology on working out this important term? I admit to not knowing what it _really_ means.
>Nothing has been published with solid Imperial info in eons.
>Hopefully you mean, nothing has been published by Chaosium/Avalon
>Hill/Stratelibri/Issaries Inc,
That is what I mean
>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.
I agree, much stuff out there
>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.
No one is ignoring the previous work in fanzines or otherwise. It is all looked at.
No one has forgotten it. We are arguing it now aren't we?
No one is deriding past work. Or at least I ain't. If I disagree with it, this is hardly deriding it. I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are, without it being considered derisive.
>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 don't find it annoying. This is Glorantha, it is evolving and will do hopefully forever. I expect changes and retcons. Avoid them if possible, but dismiss change simply because its change seems pointless and unevolutionary to me.
>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.
Which he has done anyway. He has done similar things to his work as Greg has to his. He has changed things that were percieved to be one way, but the ambiguity was sufficient to percieve it another. I've read all his posts on this kind of thing to reactionary fans.
For example, if we took G'kars character in season 1, we'd see an aggressive Narn who seemed very dangerous and full of intrigue. If we stopped the tape and said to extrapolate his character from season one and gave out the info to a bunch of fans would they have come up with the same character as G'kar eventually became in JMS writing by season 4? I don't think so. G'Kar evolved. JMS has said so as the seasons went on. Yes he had an overview, but the character did change and he discovered new things about him in his own writing. This is all Greg is doing in his work.
>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".
Hell I thought that was the best bit of the show. Only the Colbys topped that one with Fallon being taken by aliens and having an alien baby.
>Needless to say, ratings plummeted
IIRC ratings plummeted after Bobby died and were falling _before_ hand. I do not think that they killed the show because of that. It was dying anyway. His "return" from the shower, was designed to push back _up_ ratings. Like many other attempts on other shows it was doomed to failure. Shows have a lifespan. That is why Crusade died, thanks to station execs.
>and "Dallas" got cancelled soon after the producers tried to
>foist that crock of shit on their audience.
No more of a crock of shit than any other soap line. In Dynasty Alexis had a son who died, came back but looked utterly different. She then found another son to another man who was adopted and later took over her evil Empire and was really wicked, but wasn't gay, like the other son. This was _during_ the peak viewing period of the shows success. So crocks of shit seem to sell.
I think comparing Greg to this is unfair. Greg is attempting to write a world that he loves and lives. He wants it right and he makes changes based on what he feels is write. We don't always understand or agree with his motives but he does it because he wants _his_ Glorantha to be correct or true to himself. He isn't trying to shit on people, rather he is just doing what he's been doing since he was a teen - creating Glorantha. It keeps growing and like it or not, for canon, he has final say.
>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,
That's it? That's your argument? I'm wrong because the other version is more obviously more interesting? Forgive me, but I'm not convinced.
>and your concept is plainly naff.
This is great arguing, absolutely guaranteed to win over someones thinking
Why didn't I see this before? My concept is "naff". Damn! I'd better go and tear it all up!
>But it's pointless trying to convince you,
No it isn't. What a cop out.
>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 some thing can go one way, why not another. What is to stop Greg changing things before we go to print months from now? If I argue it, he'll listen. If it's a good argument he will respond. He has done so on MANY occasions, even over his own writing. I've said to him he said X, he's said no, then checked and openly apologised and said he'd been wrong. Is that a man who won't change his mind due to argument?
>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:
If it was important enough, I'd make a stand on it. If I was convinced that something you said was true, I'd back you up, to the hilt. To the point of dropping out of the project. If I believe in something, its not a wishy washy belief. It's something I stand by, why do you think I'm defending my position now? So convince me I'm wrong or Greg is wrong and I'll take the argument to him and tell him my views. I believe the issue of the REs nature to be very important, worth a stand.
>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...
G' Night
Martin Laurie
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #577
Powered by hypermail