> The Icelandic sagas have the
> advantage in that their literary style is very approachable
> to a modern reader
Whereas I find the opposite. I go to read them (in translation) and find myself completely baffled by the motivations of the characters. X happened, and then A did Y - but there's no apparent relation between the two. Even if the word "because" is sitting between them. We're told what happened, but not how anyone felt about it, and so motives, being both obscure and hidden, remain incomprehensible.
Now retellings of the Red Branch saga, OTOH, while just as far away in time, make intuitive sense. If someone's got a fancy Bull, you nick it. And then they object. The Mabinogion, too - watch out for being dragged into heroquests!
> I love the Asterix comics, but they are neither thematically
> or visually appropriate for my campaigns.
You're not in occupied Sartar (occupied, that is, except for one small village...)? You don't have the clan having a feast for the adventurers when they get home? No roast boar, no need to gag the bard? No recurring Lunar enemies to beat up?
> If I was going to pick a comic book, I'd go
> with Age of Bronze (since I do borrow a lot from the Illiad
> and other Greek myths for my campaigns).
Really? My only reason for not picking the Illiad is that it doesn't seem to fit any bit of Glorantha I've played in. Wonderful literature, but gods turning up and taking a personal hand in battles - no. Compromise, and all that. If I wanted the Iliad, though, I doubt if I'd go for a comic book alternative. Not that I've heard of that one - should I try it?
Then again, I horrified my players the other week by doing a quick retelling of their recent adventures as a slight adaptation of the start of Macbeth :)
Powered by hypermail