Re: Opposing runes and the circle of elements

From: donald_at_n5H-miZ9q6FrpSGbL5TNtGnN5o8uSCYv7iwugvYQn80tAt2PNwUiWfxuq-wogXGGMg_fH
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:00:46 GMT

In message <> "Stewart Stansfield" writes:

>Just give him the Heat rune. Please. Like Glorantha's always done. For
>a reason. Why's this even up for deliberation?
>This (and Lodril/Veskarthan's 'own' rune) represent his particular mythic
>journey and transformation. He is neither a Fire god nor an Earth god,
>but a god of 'Fire Within Earth'. The use of the Heat rune has never been
>entirely clarified or categorised, being used for such notions as heat,
>lava, volcanoes 'Fire Within Earth', 'Fire Without Light' (as opposed to
>'Fire Without Heat', c.f. Light)--but is bang on the money here.

I'm not sure 'Fire within Earth' should be part of the Earth rune at all. Perhaps 'Fire under the Earth' is a better description and should be associated with the Darkness rune. Then you get Air (including light and warmth) and Darkness (including heat and glow). A volcano then becomes an underworld being forcing its way through the earth to the surface. We already know some Gloranthan underworlds are hot.

>Veskarthan's (and I'd be tempted to posit Lodril--though I understand,
>to an extent, previous comments within a Pelorian framework) association
>with an Earth rune is as imperfect as with a (pure) Fire/Sky rune.
>Whilst I like the renewed importance of runes and their aesthetics in
>HQ2 Glorantha, I believe that runes are symbols, resonances and
>abstractions of myth: they should be used to reflect myth and its
>nature--not define it. Otherwise we're in danger of letting some overly
>reductive, cack-handed schema wreak its havoc. Like the elemental

Like God-learnerism. Variations in runes among different cultures have always been part of Glorantha so I see no problems with some fuzziness about what a rune means to different people.

Donald Oddy


Powered by hypermail