Re: Kralorela

From: Nils Weinander (
Date: Tue 03 Feb 1998 - 09:19:13 EET

Sorry to waste a lot of bandwidth. I'll try to
be succinct.

> >If you decide unilaterally that your quotes are valid
> >while mine and others' are off the point there is no
> >way to have a real debate.

> It was a cynical joke.

I'm glad that is the case. "Well become" to all who cracked
a smile at it (Nick at least) and a definite apology for
the assumed arrogance, as offered.

Peter, I am offended by your style of argument, and deeming
by posts from Trotsky and Stephen I am not alone in perceiving
it as peremptory and condescending.

I have a great deal of respect for your encyclopedic
knowledge and huge effort in memorizing every scrap of
text. I respect your right of an opinion and the actual
opinions, even when I disagree with them. I do not perceive
that I receive any kind of respect in return.

Note that I have written perceive in both cases above.
Email as a medium is notoriously incapable of conveying
tone, body language etc. Thus I take your word for it if
you say that this is not your intention. As I am fully
capable of writing ill-considered things in the heat of
the moment I am not setting my self up to judge anyone.

On the other hand, if I'm just slow in getting a clue
and you don't hold my opinion in any kind of respect,
please tell me so to my face and I'll leave this discussion.

Nick (quoted out of order):

>A protracted argument
>between two people who aren't speaking to each other is not much fun
>to watch.


If I'm not clear on his point, my intentions here are
to bring the discussion back to the topic and resolve the
personal irritation that is glaringly obvious.

>That said, holding to your own theories and interpre-
>tations in the face of a general consensus otherwise is *also* admirable

If this is directed at me in this particular case, I'm at a
loss. I wasn't aware of there being a general consensus. My
impression is that we are trying to wrangle out such a beast.
Again, if there is a consensus that has gone by me unnoticed
I offer to break off the discussion.

As it doesn't seem to be very clear, I will try to explain
what my objectives are in the Kralorela discussion.

1) I am _not_ trying to "prove" that I am "right". Because
        a) With the provision that there is yet no general
           consensus, that is simply not possible.
        b) I don't care about any kind of prestige. I want
           a result which is interesting.

2) I _am_ trying to point out that the sources available are
   open to several interpretations. I will passionately
   defend a model for Kralorela which remains open, so that
   I and Peter and others all can fit into it. I think that
   nailing it down to one single interpretation is limiting.

   In the subjective/objective debate we are asked to accept
   a model where there isn't a single truth, and where reality
   is quite malleable. How about extending this to our real
   world treatment of Glorantha?

Now, that said, I'll go back to the discussion at hand. My
apologies for taking up the space with meta-talk.

> I have repeatedly said that other cultures with
> some justice make the same claim as the Kralori in following
> golden age customs and yet they have changed culturally over
> the years.

I have never denied that other cultures claim an ancient
basis for their culture. What I said was that the Genertela
book quote says that Kralorelan culture _is_ based on
Golden Age customs, not that the Kralorelans _say so_. The
text is not written from a specifically Kralorelan point
of view and the only other culture that gets such comments
is the Brithini.

For a subjective viewpoint, from a Gloranthan perspective,
there is this quote (RQC p. 10):

        'The east was originally settled by men and gods
        during the solar Golden Age, and it never lost its
        original bias even afer the (standard) Gloranthan
        Time began. Their culture, then, predates the Great

You may argue that this is mere parroting of what a Kralorelan
has told te sage in question, but I choose to read these
sentences and the ones from the Genertela book to mean what
they say and not something else.

As I said in my previous post, I accept change in Kralorelan
culture, but not wholesale change beyond recognition. If
that is within reach of the position of others, then we have
indeed spoken past each other as Nick suggests. My reason for
not accepting complete breaks in continuity is that I know
of no large scale invasion of foreign population, and the
comment that the God Learners

        'soon stopped being God Learners'

To argue against myself (!) a complete turnover would be
likely if the great achievement of the FDR emperor was just
such a change. I'm (obviously) not in favour of such a theory

By the way, the RQC text does say that Kralorela had struggles
against Orlanth and Kajaboom, but not explicitly that they
invaded the land. When the latter is concerned, I choose to
think that he didn't, based on the comment that Kralorela
went through the Darkness relatively unscathed.

Well, no time for more (work is calling), so you can
all draw a collective sigh of relief as this installment
in the series of terminal boredom is at an end.

Nils Weinander | Everything is dust in the wind |


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:06:19 EEST