> Wrong question. I said "already widely-understood, resonant
> and entertaining **GA** version", not some definitive
> "published version".
> But, if there wasn't an existing GA view to challenge your
> brand new surprise interpretation, we (me, Nick, Mr Gidlow,
> David, David, David, Alex, Trotsky, Loren, Neil, Guy, Keith,
> John, Andre etc.) wouldn't be debating/questioning/rejecting
> your model, now would we? Petitio principii.
The problem with defending GAG is that it is so terribly vague, though. I've already encountered difficulties in producing "evidence" for a generally accepted version even though it clearly was there. Quite a lot of this has been agreed on offline, in private discussions. And I suspect that fairly often apparent agreements will retain some strong measure of diversity...
Martin:
>>You argue as if everyone knows your postion and yes, many, many >>people dislike the model _I've_ discussed, but many of those same >>people have picked quibble and have not fully agreed or understood >>some of the points put forward by you or Nick either.
> Yes, so in other words, they "generally accept" the position
> Nick and I et al are putting forward!
Yes, we generally accept the outline of the ideas, and we disagree about details. And as usual, different people get hung up on different details.
Martin's version isn't really so far distant when not reduced to a counterpoint of that floating compromise which has been behind the Cultural Exchanges and RMM activities.
>> I find this GA approach irritating when there is plainly a >> whole wad of _opinion_ and very little indeed in print to >> be GA in the first place!
> Come on Martin, you're begging the question again! It's
> obvious that a concept can be "generally accepted" without
> every detail having to be spelled out, chapter and verse,
> black and white, "in print". The "whole wad" of what you
> dismiss as "opinion" derives from a variety of sources,
> including works by Greg, RMM stuff, other "fan" (spit)
> material, freeforms, panel discussions at cons and of
> course the ongoing debate here.
It is on the other hand hard to draw upon a vague consensus as the "hard source" for something you're working on. Even if you try to dig into the opinion floating around, you'll end up using your own opinion slightly coloured by those you have encountered when you decide on a version to print.
> One fortunate consequence of this acrimonious debate is that
> a detailed description of the GA version is coming to light,
Full agreement here. Not yet full agreement on the details, but that would be too much to ask for. This is after all the Digest...
> and it is interesting that virtually everyone - even you
> it seems? - prefers it to the "ultra-greggly bland succession
> of identical Moonsons" that you're nevertheless pushing.
If the "ultra-greggly bland succession of identical Moonsons" is the result of "let's keep it simple, people, we want to draw in newcomers rather than experts", I am mostly for not putting the complications within complications in an introductory product.
> Some observations. Unnecessary retconning - especially
> unnecessary retconning on the run - *is* intensely
> irritating.
True. However, in some cases I guess the GAG has never been fully presented to Greg.
> As I've already pointed out, it burns otherwise potential
> collaborators
We have a situation where lots of people have run off on fairly different tangents on one and the same topic. The Grazers, or more recently the Culbrea tribe, have seen a lot of work by different people.
In case of the Culbrea, quite a few peoples' approaches have been merged in YBOT #2, I guess after some communication. There were some contradictions to earlier published fan material, too... (several versions.
(And now Sartar Rising is about to see final editing, and how much of that material will make it into the official product? And who will be credited?)
Elmal vs. Yelmalio:
> IMO he was wrong then, and Martin/he are wrong now. As I
> said before, if Glorantha stalwarts such as Nick, Peter,
> David, me et al are reluctantly compelled to reject HW
> content, I'm sure Issaries Inc would prefer we did it now,
> rather than later, when it's in print.
"Reject" isn't quite what you want either in preparation or after publication.
> This unfortunate circumstance would be unlikely to happen
> if HW authors worked with the sensible notion that the
> existing "fan" oeuvre should be looked at and used where
> appropriate.
Yes. However, most fan oeuvre is very much "work in progress". Recent Tales publications excepted. Other material is either not publicly distributed or so extensive that getting a complete overview is close to a full-time job. Ever tried absorbing _all_ the write-ups of a large freeform?
> Martin is right when he says many of the details of the
> GA model need to be ironed out.
It should be noticed that time is not that plentiful. In order to get a GA model, it wouldn't have helped if Martin had contacted just a few fan authors. It had to be the digest public as the closest approximation to "generally accessible Glorantha", and even that with the caveat that only a minority the existing Gloranthan gamers have any access to the digest.
> But many people here have also commented that the "if it ain't
> broke, break it anyway" model
If I may note, this does include "put it back together and don't find anything new, use the old version". This isn't in any way different from how the "Secret History of Sun County" originated.
> [the model] Martin proposes is ill-conceived,
> inconsistent and clearly *not as much fun* as what we already
> have.
So, by Martin's own doctrine he ought to stitch the GAG version up. Within the premises from the story arc.
If a complete reconciliation is not possible, I'm for publishing as little controversial material as possible.
I do appreciate a semblance of consistency in a fictive universe. Retconning usually doesn't help here, unless it is done integrating the former version in some way. If new, potentially cool ideas have come up and are to be made public, conflicts with older material are bound to happen. No matter whether Greg or some other author is the source of these new ideas.
Now, we do want new material to be published, right?
In the past, some fan published fan material has contradicted other people's ideas. In these cases, which version is generally accepted?
> IMO, change for change's sake is just egregious
> scent-marking of the worst kind,
You're entitled to your opinion, but could we all please keep the stomach acid out of the digest?
> particularly when we can ably demonstrate that Greg can have
> what he wants without another deeply unnecessary Elmal/Yelmalio
> debacle in the making.
Even if this doesn't succeed (yet), a neutral phrasing in the current project would help to keep the people involved not too unhappy.
(And that's what I see as the experts' real job...)
Powered by hypermail