> In message <Pine.GSO.4.63.0704111021280.10905_at_Ggf5m2ELXX7QE8qfx98ZWZOWVO_1WHx-9rOGQgmZInNWup81rPhvPOd3yxC2ljhqq25M17MBp_9wwq_mY6LRsmlTvM_8EcUsJWLBl-orUtFg-Whd7L0MpILnU4oqXqs.yahoo.invalid> Michael Hitchens writes:
>
>> In some ways we are trying to be professional historians, but with two
>> huge disadvanatges. One, few, if any of us, are trained historians (I'm
>> not). Secondly, we do not have access to actual Gloranthan historical
>> documents. Even things like KoS, the unfinished works and the Jonstown
>> records are *copies*, not the actual original documents. So we can't
>> examine the physical properties of the documents, which historians can use
>> to aid their analysis of the text.
>
> And would a professional historian do any better on finding out what
> happened, say during WWII, if the only records they had were popular
> films.
No, but that's my point.
>> I think this relates to what Jane was talking about with "core" and "GaG".
>> If I'm to be honest though (and as I said I slip up) we have to accept
>> that all Gloranthan documents (KoS, unfinished works, etc) have to be
>> taken as subjective and unreliable, and can only ever be accepted as
>> having degrees of accuracy (even though the degree can approach 100%, it
>> will never reach it). That is, defintive information comes *only* from
>> the works explicilty written as from a view point outside of Glorantha and
>> with Greg's approval. Which essentially means the Issaries and Mongoose
>> publications and those Choasium/AH ones which haven't been superceded.
>
> Not even those. ST and TR are certainly written from a Heortling view
> point. In fact I can't think of *any* publication which even pretends
> to an outside view point. So it's reasonable to assume that TR & ST
> record Glorantha as the Heortlings see it.
Fair point. And I'm not trying to discover a defintive Glorantha (or even more then the merest skeleton of one), as the sources contradict each other. I woudl ike a little more clarity wuld be achieved by reocgnising where our Gloranthas do and don;t vary. And I don;t want everyone to have to preface their posts with "my list of accepted sources is ... blah blah blah".
> Now there can be variations
> in practices between different clans, that's explicitly mentioned
> somewhere. So I've no problems with the idea that some clans call
> Vingans "he" and others "she" or any of the other suggestions made
> recently. What I do have a problem with is replacing a blanket
> statement with its opposite and implying that it's an absolute rule.
Agreed.
Michael
Powered by hypermail