Martin:
>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.
Me:
>>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.
The key word here is "ambiguity". There's nothing ambiguous about reversing the existing GAG model and baldly stating that the RE is in fact a single entity. I did vainly try to think this is just Official Lunar Empire Spin but you've made it pretty clear that it isn't.
>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.
Yes, *over 4 seasons*. It didn't happen overnight. G'kar didn't do an 180 degree turn in an instant. Looking back from season 4, the progression of his character from dangerous intriguer to noble mystic is credible and consistent, given what transpired in the plot. Likewise Londo's converse progression from drunken fop to dangerous intriguer in the same time is equally believable. [In a movie or one-hour show the scriptwriter has far less time, and often such character changes have to result from a moment of catharthis. This is often difficult to carry off convincingly: for a particularly clumsy example, look at Catherine Zeta Jones' abrupt shift from bad girl to good girl in "The Phantom".]
>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.
Yes, but JMS didn't frex announce in season 4 that the government of Earth was actually a hereditary monarchy, or that Narn was really a small province in Switzerland, or that season 3 was all a big mistake, and can we just go back and start again from season 2.
>>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".
Actually, it was Pamela Sue who woke up and found Bobbie in the shower, wasn't it? We've just stepped into the throne room and found to our surprise that the new Red Emperor is an exact clone of the dude we knifed last week. Boy, we're in the shit.
>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.
In this case, I think I understand Greg's motives, I just don't agree with them. It looks like us Reaching Moon boys have outlived our usefulness, and should just bugger off quietly.
Cheers,
MOB
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #580
Powered by hypermail