Greg:
> As for discovering raccoon origins: you won't find them in Anaxial's
> Roster. These are particular creatures altogether, so petty they've hardly
> been mentioned. However, their particularity does focus on a more
> widespread problem (bears or horses, etc.) that could be investigated.
Sure, but my current difficulty is that if I wrote such myths as they occur to me currently, they seem likely to be declared Wrong On Their Face. So my ever-reductionist little brain wants to either improve my understanding in the abstract, to know how to do this "better" -- or know for certain that My Glorantha and Canonical Glorantha are irreconcilable in this respect. (In which case, why bother?)
> Rather than seeing discussions of how this might be handled, I'd love to
> see some budding author to just write us up a scenario for Lunar
> investigators to discover and prove which raccoon story is more real, or
> what their actual (not theoretical) pre-divergent origins might be.
So would I. My objection is precisely that between you, you and Trotsky seem to be articulating a principle that would make this impossible, or at least redundant. If each of the two stories only applies to _one_ of two types of raccoon, and these are obviously and unambiguously possible to tell apparent, then there's no conflict at all (and no real story, either).
> >If one were to take RW biology seriously though (always a dangerous
> >thing to do... <g>,
> Please, let us first start with that observation: this isn't earth biology.
Indeed, but it's also the basis of description, in many, many cases
> >I'm frankly still entirely at a loss as to Greg's thinking, and indeed
> >his meaning here.
> I'll try to make my intentions clear here. I'm not trying to imitate earth
> biology at all. I don't care how many species exist on earth for various
> animals (though I am quite familiar with them). These are not taxonomy:
> they are a bunch of entertaining stories that your characters can play in.
> Meaning? Well, since mythology is the art of meaning, and your game is
> going to be a meaningful one, YOU get to make up the meaning here. Meaning
> is only found in action: your game.
The trouble is, there _is_ a taxonomy at work here, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, it's just one based on a hierarchy of otherworld entities, with the otherworlds themselves at the "top", rather than anything like the RW one. That's the one that seems to be restricting "meaning" here. (At least as far as Official Glorantha is concerned.)
> >If the "different" animals don't have to be separate
> >species (whatever that means (esp. in Glorantha),
> The "species" idea is not in Glorantha. A key in that idea is around
> breeding together. We have seen that in ancient times, and in key cases
> today, interbreeding is possible between plants and animals, rocks and
> animals and other such matings.
> Nonetheless, in modern Glorantha that breeding rule still applies all (85%)
> of the time. It is recognized, and exceptions to it are duly noted.
That would make it at least as good as the RW definition of species, then, pretty much!
> >can evidently interbreed enthusiastically,
> The world is made of everything. Most of the horses that are alive today
> are of the "mixed horse" types. They are just horses that respond equally
> to most kinds of magic, and are non magical in themselves. A few of the
> pure breeds exist, the Goldeneye being notable. The modern breeds can be
> traced to specific types, but are mixed as well. Most, whatever breed they
> are, are just horses.
Now that makes sense to me.
> >then I can't see how it can be anything
> >other than a defeasible, if not outright infeasible, assumption that
> >origins in different otherworlds must maintain some sort of strictly
> >separate identity.
> They do have separate identity, of course.
Even the aforementioned "mixed horse"? This is what I find myself struggling with.
> >Even setting aside the earlier question of their
> >"convergence" to similar but doggedly separate entities.
> Your selection of modern scientific terms is acceptable in a GL way, but
> you need to remember that the similarity of raccoons isn't a problem for
> anyone in Glorantha.
Since this is an entirely GL discussion, based on entirely GL premises, I'm not greatly abashed by this observation -- though I acknowledge it to be true.
> >It seems to me that of course, in some cases there will be entirely
> >different, mythically valid accounts for similar-but-different things.
> Yes of course, but it is difficult to talk in just the abstract. So I will
> try to agree with an example: Why does the sun go down? One raccoon says
> "Wolves ate it," and the other says, "they stole it." Correct.
Sure, but that's an "easy" one. We already know there are 57 varieties of solar myth. ;-)
I recognise it's frustrating, if not impossible, to discuss this in the abstract. But it's the idea as an abstract proposition ("all animals have only valid mythic accounts in only one otherworld") that bothers me -- most given instances that springs to mind I'm more or less happy with. (Though horses are pushing it, I must admit.)
It might rise to the level of a Vital Gamic Interest if a situation arose where in an "interface" area between an animist and a theist culture (say) had a single type of animal in both areas, and it seemed necessary for both to have an "equally valid" account of that animal. (Or at least, approximately and initially "equal".) i.e., where it's of narrative significance as to "whose magic works best here", and I don't want it determined, or heavily skewed, ahead of time. I'll try and come up with a plausible further example, though.
> >But equally, it's the nature of myth that there will be entirely
> >different, mythically valid accounts of the _same_ thing, in some
> >cases. (Be it a species of animal, the sun, etc.)
> Yes, of course there is. But one can be wrong, and remember that in a Test
> Challenge one can be proved to be wrong and the knowledge wiped out forever.
Sure thing. And logically, this will sometimes, if not generally _have already happened_, so that in most places, there is only one, or certainly one clearly dominant, mythic account of each given thing. (To look at it the other way around, from saying there "was only ever" one single origin.)
> Most animals are Made of Everything. The exceptions are not. Hence you
> might run into an actual wolf spirit or spirit wolf, hence Hrognar.
Surely, granted.
> The God War Cast
> In HeroQuest most heroquesting occurs in the God Wars period. The leading
> political and magical beings of that period are the ancestral gods and
> spirits of these animals.
> The original animals exist there, when Ertelenari and Rathor were alive.
> Those blue foxes, giant falcons and pure spirit Galanini are the NPCs and
> treasure of HeroQuesting.
It makes sense to me that by this Era, things would indeed be perceived as clearly being either God or Spirit, sure. So I can see the "problem" with what I'm suggesting above -- nevertheless it seems True, to me.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail