I do have an issue with it being promoted as a pan-Gloranthan fact in official publications (such as in MoLaD, p. 53). Why? Because Gloranthan myth--at least Gloranthan myth as I appreciate it in 2012--is extremely deep, varied and polyvalent.
The notion that said myths--with their multitude themes, participants and outcomes--can be resolved into this overly simplistic, reductive framework depresses me.
Powered by hypermail