From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 2000 - 22:01:45 EET
Martin Laurie replies to me:
> And just as well too, as I recall you don't acknowledge Conan as great
> >I feel almost morally bound to steer clear of lit-crit here,
I've never even read a Conan novel, so I presume you're thinking of the
statements of others as to the greatness (or literary qualities) of
The Other Mr. Burroughs.
> > As for limits to heroic ability, there are limits. Onslaught is himself
> > totally two dimensional as a hero.
>
> >Well, there's "Kills things", with the other dimension being...?
>
> <sigh> Alex, we've had this out before and you are not alone in having this
> out with me.
No we haven't, and indeed I don't recall having passed any significant
> What you and the other people who follow this line of
comment on Onslaught, or any Onsalught stories, before, so I can only
assume you're again thinking of bunfights you've had with others.
> argument fail to grasp is that there are MANY ways of killing things and
> that violence has multiple styles.
Remarkably, this isn't a point that entirely escapes me. I did notice
or two variations in content, not so say the stylistisms, between Tolkien
and _The Iron Dream_, or between 'Das Boot' and 'The Matrix'. (And
enjoyed all of the above on some level, by the by.) I could have
somewhat refined my statement to say 'Kills things in the manner
of casual meaningless butchery', if that would have made you feel any
better.
> I look for a good fight.
Once again, I'm saying nothing about the literary qualities of the
stories: I'm not a fiction reviewer, and this isn't a creative
writing criticism mailing list. The topic of my missive was
'Onslaught and My Glorantha', nothing more.
> >than I do to take on board the idea of an RQ character with 200% bite (or
> whatever it >was).
>
> Thats simply because you don't like that style of RQ game. Not everyone
> agrees with you.
Once again you're making rather sweeping statements about my tastes
that have nothing to do with the statements I made. The point I was
making is that characters with 200% bites are one thing, but
characterising such individuals as Heroes in some strong sense is
quite another.
> >He seems totally decontextualised, has no mythic depth that I've been able
> to >discern, and is in short pretty much just an exaggerated version of
> the
> >'phenomenally skilled loner' stereotype.
> And what is wrong with that? Are you saying that Glorantha has no room for
> the "Man with No Name"?
What I'm saying is that Onslaught, as he seems to be presented, is
> >A 'real Hero' consists not just of mundane skill, but of an authentic
considerably at variance with my conception of any at-all-likely
Humakti (or other) HeroQuester. Note I don't say 'no room',
I've been careful to stipulate 'as a capital-H Hero', and I don't
presume to say anything about anyone else's Glorantha.
> What does this actually mean?
Y'know, the OtherWorld, the God Time, the Transcendant, guff like that.
> There you go again. You keep assuming that because they focus on death,
> they're dull. That's simply your view. I happen to find that end of it
> fascinating. As for Harrek, its his individualism and exceptional
> background and "give them the finger" existence that makes him so damn
> interesting. To me anyway. You don't see it that way.
The fewer second-person assertions and imputations in an exchange of
In the same(ish) spirit of detente as Rick Meints, though, I'm happy
views, the more likely it is to remain even-tempered, I think one will
find as a rule. In that spirit, I'll give the above paragraph a bit
of a body-swerve, as they used to say on Radio Clyde (and doubtless
still do).
to say I'll be willing to let Martin buy _me_ a beer at the next
con we both co-incide at. (I might even refrain from making it a
Nukie Broon, as long as Martin will refrain from telling me what my
taste in beer is.)
Cheers,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 20:57:06 EEST