I for one didn't know you wrote anything in it. You should have had a credit for sure.
>I learn that there are
>*no* disadvantages to worshipping the Tarshite god of Bagpipes. In
>Tales, we'd have slipped in "hated by neighbours (unless deaf)" by
>reflex.
See, this is the advantange of multiple perspectives. To me there is nothing more stirring than a pipe band while marching, on parade etc, I could listen to them all day, so it wouldn't even occur to me to make a funny about such a glorious intrument. On reflection though, given other peoples views I think it would have been a good line to put in.
The trouble with humour is that it is subjective. In original drafts of the ILH I wanted to have some of the harsher Antirian Precepts (lifted from Hammurrabbi of course) in to show Dara Happan law. I found them darkly amusing but most people see them as being horrible and unjust (exactly why they are funny in my opinion).
I guess what I am saying is that you have to be darn careful with humour. It is hard to know how much to put in, especially with todays 'sensitive' audience.
As for feminism John mentioned how the Lunar cults had lost their revolutionary feminist feel to them from the 80s. I have to say I never saw that. The lunar cults certainly are liberating women from patriarchal Dara Happan domination because We Are ALL Us, but it honestly never occured to me that that was the reason the lunar cults were created by the authors in the first place. Is this true from those who were involved early on? Were the lunar cults put in purely as a thinly veiled political message? I've always considered all the cults to be intellectual exercises in world building and only minimally influenced by anachronist modern practices, politics or societal structures. I'm curious, does anyone know?
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail