Re: KoS, etc, probably not revisited yet again.

From: Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_wbZ1g1qrgiG9y4-98Y9aHaJ2FAAGjF6BkfvJukbR-OcSOmJVNhRKy2kdKrgnSJ_5Zqv>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:25:12 +1000 (EST)


On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, donald_at_xz4C4vZIVxGbyqEWbXfGGlcx1lpMZ3CGptSlEm9tts9QZyI615W0dmTNjykALLGuMTQ1MFR1gKLjjlNJTYy5.yahoo.invalid wrote:

> 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 publications and those Choasium/AH ones which haven't been superceded.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



Dr. Michael Hitchens
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing Macquarie University
michaelh_at_uVkvQGlPt57Tm9hpijIeDLs_ZBmPqyVnjL-0oMb7P2LVgP2b968lVfrURqrzpO0QYoJZoERDBWv8pl5oQ1urSrY.yahoo.invalid            

Powered by hypermail