But the Gloranthans are not post-Enlightenment Westerners. They are much closer to the folk of Deuteronomy than to Voltaire.
> What I find interesting is that Jeff likes his hero's to have the
> capacity to say, stead burn, and achieve heroic things (like beat off
> the crimson bat).
Like a few of these heroes:
"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighters' souls, but made their bodies carrion, feasts for the dogs and birds."
Or how about:
"Thord gave Egil a thicked-bladed axe he was carrying, common enough
at that time, and they went to their field where the boys were
playing. Grim had just caught the ball and was racing along with the
other boys after him. Egil ran up to him and drove the axe right
through to the brain."
Achilles, Egil, and the heroes of the Volsungsaga, all are complex heroes capable of achieving heroic things and of doing horrible things. In short, they are human - capable of both good and evil.
> And there are folk like me that don't like their hero's to do such
> things. I mean, crimes of passion followed by remorse and stuff is ok
> but otherwise, in a heroic fantasy setting I just find unappealing.
That's fine, but given the role that sources like the Icelandic sagas, the Iliad, Vedic mythology, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Mahābhārata, the Ulster Cycle, Beowulf and so on have in influencing Gloranthan writers, I think it is safe to say that most Gloranthan heroes will be more like the characters from ancient, classic or early medieval literature than from modern heroic fantasy literature filled with its surprisingly modern western heroes.
And I don't personally find such literature heavy or oppressive. And I generally hate horror as a genre (I just finished with the Berlin Fantasy Filmfest and I really don't ever need to see another film involving a serial killer).
Jeff
Powered by hypermail