>Glorantha is literature ; not a description of any kind of reality.
>And the purpose of this literature is to induce pleasurable dreams
>and fantasies which, by necessity, are incompatible with
>'the' scientific method of reason.
I disagree; stories must have some underlying structure of logic or they are impossible to follow. The best fantastic stories have structure and logic to their fantastic elements. I (and, I believe, most readers/viewers) feel cheated when contradictions and exceptions are suddenly produced out of thin air. Similarly, the fantastic stories I enjoy most have consistancy as well as imagination. The story elements can follow whatever logic they want, but if they don't fit together, the story has a serious problem.
>That Glorantha can produce seemingly incompatible fantasies and
>dreams (in other words YGMV) is hardly a weakness, but a great
>strength, and a testimony to the power of its design.
There is a difference between YGMV and the problems of a setting that has been built up by committee over some 30 years of writing and game play. Personally, I don't think that the wrinkles in Glorantha will ever lie flat, and that's a good thing, as it would mean that Glorantha was dead. However, that doesn't mean that weak construction shouldn't be strengthened or old ideas modified to fit new developments. That Glorantha will never be consistent does not mean that a certain rough consistancy isn't a valuable thing.
Peter Larsen
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #37
Powered by hypermail