> Freeforming the debate as I go will lead to me misstepping and
> making mistakes.
Evidently. And sometimes they're whoppers! :-)
> I don't have the time to be labouriously checking over my posts
> to make sure I'm current and in tuen with previous comments.
This is what we call "consistency". If you have a consistent, well-researched and well-supported POV, it is not hard to stay "current and in tune with previous comments". I do not find it "laborious" to produce posts about the nature of Moonson which are consistent with one another, because I have done a lot of thinking and writing about this specific subject over the past six years or so. As have my talented co-authors (Chris Gidlow, Michael O'Brien, and David Hall among them). Perhaps there is a lesson for you about the utility and robustness of the "previous version" in this?
> As for digging up past digests, I don't know where you get the
> time or the will. I think I need a Gloranthan secretary.
I am sorry if I upset you by paying attention to what you write as if it were important. As you may appreciate by now, for some of us the apparent scrapping of three to six years' of our best work *is* important. Watching you blunder through Dara Happan history and Lunar mythology armed with a blind faith in Moonson's "singularity" (and, apparently, little else) is a grotesque spectacle.
I doubt I'd spend so much time correcting your mistakes, if you weren't an anointed Expert and prospective author for Issaries, Inc. and Hero Wars.
Martin, it is no secret that when your book is published, people will read it carefully and try to make use of it. It is a good thing that your ideas are being subjected to scrutiny *now*, rather than after publication. I am glad you have the guts to put yourself through this ordeal. But it would surely be less of an ordeal for you, if you presented yourself with less arrogance, and more willingness to listen and learn.
> I have believed in the past that the RMM model was based on the idea
> of mortal men taking on the mandate of heaven (sorry, of the moon) and
> becoming Emperor, the mandate being a set of powers that the Emperor
> gains but having little or no impact on his behaviour.
That is not how it was at all. That is a very facile interpretation of "Life of Moonson". Which of the "Life of Moonson" authors did you check your beliefs with, before deciding to dismiss our work out of hand as if it had never been written or played?
The Mandate in our game conferred no powers: it indicated suitability. The mortals did not "become Emperor": they played a part in the re-integration of the Emperor. Our freeform *ended* when the (singular) new Mask was revealed: it in no way revealed what the character and behaviour of that new Mask would be. (Though the imperial history in FS suggests that "different to those of any previous Mask" is a safe bet...).
> They seem to be saying that that is not how it was at all. However,
> I've been told that all of this was GAG.
Have your experiences in this debate led you to think otherwise? Perhaps there has been a vast groundswell of support for an Obviously Singular Moonson and a Non-Confusing Imperial Succession in a tidal wave of private emails to yourself? Posters in your predicament often mention this sort of thing happening: I think we should be told... :-)
> Greg wants the Emperor rule to be percieved as continuous over the
> near 400 years of Empire so that when the collapse comes it will be
> the biggest disaster it can be.
Clearly. But in FS he spent much effort building up *doubts* about the singular identity of Moonson. Gloranthans are shown doubting that the Red Emperor was truly who he said he was. "Frauds" who might break up the Empire have emerged during succession crises, only to be put down. The Dara Happans doubted whether both Magnificus and Artifex were Moonson. We see succession crises within living memory: Celestinus' opponents allegedly sought to "resurrect Gbaji"; Ignifer drove out the false Proxies and their followers.
Moonson's rule can indeed be portrayed as "all but continuous for almost four centuries", but FS paints a far more interesting picture than "400 years of unbroken continuity". The break between Masks (the "interesting bit", the interregnal period when the new Mask is formed) has never been less than seven weeks, and at the Empire's lowest point, early in the Fourth Wane, Takenegi took thirteen *years* to reappear after being defeated and destroyed by Sheng. Moonson has *not* always been recognised easily and unanimously: he has to struggle to regain the power and recognition that are his by right.
The collapse of the Empire into fragmented secessionist states, exacerbated by the political ambitions of its leaders, will *still* be disastrous. But I don't think we need to over-emphasise the continuity and indubitable sameness of Moonson -- at the expense of Greg's written history, available GAG sources, common sense and MGF -- to make it so.
:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #608
Powered by hypermail