Them b*starding horses...

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:27:22 +0100 (BST)

Trotsky:

> To answer the persistent question first: centaurs are animist in origin,
> AFAIK. Or at any rate, the originals were - its a bit more tricky with
> the ersatz EWF types.

I suppose a possible rationale is to say that the pain centaurs are "EWF magic so good as to be indistinguishable from the original". Which seems a stretch, but preferable in "established Gloranthan fact" terms to having them being a clearly distinct "type" of centaur, I'd have thought.

[Elmal HQ]
> Using a horse that's directly linked with Yelm
> would apply a penalty, as would a horse that's directly associated with
> Yu-Kargzant, but the 'animist' horse is probably no worse than the
> 'wrong theist' horse IMO.

IMO too, though I don't immediately see how this tallies with the concept of it being of a greater order more distinct from the "right sort of horse". If "4 worlds taxonomy" is really so key, you might expect that a "theistic raccoon" would be a better substitute than an "animist horse". (OK, I don't think that, and I don't think either you or Greg thinks it either, lest anyone start burning me with my own straw. But I'm struggling to apply your reasoning consistently, here.) It seems you're appealing to some sort of "common horseness" -- without acknowledging that it exists.

> To put it another way, I'm not saying that if two similar looking
> animals have their origins in the *same* otherworld, that they're
> necessarily the same species, just that if their origins are in
> different otherworlds, then they *can't* be the same. Unless one wants
> to force the issue through creative heroquesting, or something.

That seems to me to be putting it much the same way, sadly.

You're telling me flat out that for any _single_ animal, it can only be "correctly explained" in one magical system. If it's an "animist animal", then the theists need hardly bother having a myth for it at all, since they'll ipso facto be "wrong", or at the very least, "less correct". It doesn't bother me that this would sometimes, or even generally be the case, but as a (purported) universal truth it disturbs me greatly.

But why isn't this true of everything in the Inner World? (Please don't tell me that it _is_ now true of everything in the Inner World...)

> >>> It IS TRUE for humans as well. Different human peoples come from different
> >>> Otherworlds. I thought that was clear, too.
> >>
> >
> >I do hope you're not about to tell me that Warerans and Kralori are
> >different species... Even people whose origin myths come from the _same_
> >otherworld, can in many cases have very different mythic origins, come
> >to that. But it doesn't seem to make them terribly "inherently" different,
> >on all evidence to date.
> >
> It might if you wanted to explore their creation myths.

Well, that's tautologous: having different origins means that they have different origins, granted. But is that sufficient to make them different "species"? Or ignoring the s-word, which may be a red herring (though a fish of long standing, if it is...) -- what are these differences?

> >Basically it strikes me as more than a little cheesy that differences
> >in system are being given such primacy, and common or garden differences
> >in _myth_ seem to be playing second fiddle, at best.
> >
> Oh, I don't know, I think they're both equally important. But if the
> origins are in different otherworlds, it stands to reason that they're
> mythically different as well.

Far from making them equally important, that seems to be precisely what I characterised it as being: making the "details" of mythology explicitly subordinate to the "macrocosmic" split. Myth can say what it likes, so long as it agrees with GL magical taxonomy...

Donald R. Oddy:
> I hadn't picked up the point about humans being theistic, animistic,
> etc. until Greg's recent post but I don't see any problem - individuals
> being tied to one other world explains things like Orlanthi shamens.
> Basically at some stage in the past one of their ancestors was an animist
> and the Gloranthan equivelent of genetics produced an animist in this
> particular individual.

Oh great, Gloranthan Genetic Determinism. :-/

Gianfranco:
> Yes, it is called misapplied parenthood.
>
> ;-)

An alarmingly cogent summary, it would seem...

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail