The study of Glorantha can be a wonderful one and draw in all kinds of skills, from textual analysis to creative writing. There are all kinds of analogies with the historian's craft, but let's not forget something: Gloranthaphilia is not history. Why not? Because Glorantha doesn't exist. I know we all know that, but it might be worth putting that into the centreground for a moment. In the real world, we may not know for sure whether the 'Anastasia' who cropped up in the 1920s was the daughter of the last Russian tsar (though DNA evidence suggests not), we don't know exactly what convinced Brutus to murder Ceasar, we can't say for sure whether William Shakespeare wrote all his plays. But what we do know is that there is an objective, factual answer there, if only we could determine it. As a fantasy construct, Glorantha is entirely mutable. 'Official' Glorantha is whatever official sources and products say it is. But what was official yesterday need not be tomorrow.
I can understand -- to a degree -- the desire of some like Jane to
nail down what Glorantha is and is not. But I also share not just the
suspicion that inevitably this also has an implicit agenda ('nail
down the bits with which I agree, leave open to debate the bits I
don't like') but also a belief that this is fruitless. Is Greg going
to hold back on an idea he thinks is great just because it's not what
someone has decided is Core? We know the answer: he's said he won't.
And nor should he. When I'm reviewing a ms. for Moon Designs, how
important do I regard complete compatibility with previous works?
Honest answer: moderately important, but not a deal-breaker. Ideally
I want things to be compatible, but if there is something that I
think is that great that I want to see out there and which I don't
think is _too_ incompatible with the past canon (eg, 'Kallyr is
actually a White Moonie eager to destroy the Empire to save it' I
could probably buy; 'Kallyr is actually a Lunar spy' would need to be
_amazingly_ well argued; 'Kallyr is a duck' would not pass muster),
then I'm happy to green-light it.
If you really want some core canon, then stick solely to official publications. There may be some inconsistencies, but they will generally be relatively minor. They may well also diverge from the intentions of authors, but that's irrelevant, too. Jeff's slave farm is in Old Tarsh instead, my Tarshites might be a tad more slavic, so what?
People who want to establish some kind of 'Core Glorantha' are
welcome to do so. But please do so understanding that this will be
_your_ Core Glorantha. It will have no wider bearing on how Glorantha
evolves. I am not trying to be hostile or unhelpful here, just state
facts: this is a game and a fantasy world and a business enterprise.
Some people love to immerse themselves in the minutiae, and that's
great. But there _is_ a GAG/GC, in the official books, and for most
people who buy them and play the game, that's enough. By focusing on
what are often really rather arcane or abstruse points, often derived
from sources which were explicitly written to be unreliable
background material, there is a danger of presenting Glorantha as
being much more opaque and 'broken' than I believe it really is.
All the best
Mark
Powered by hypermail