Re: Elves and Ill Bethisad (was Re: elves and jinn (...))

J?rg Rhiemeier scripsit:

> I feel reluctant to re-introduce them to Ill Bethisad because
>
> (1) I think they put a strain on that world's framework;
The other two points are personal to you, of course; but this one,
at least, is not the case.  The Elves are no more a problem than the
Kashubians.  And it neatly explains what IB-JRRT was up to.

> (3) in my opinion, Ill Bethisad has moved into a direction
>     I don't prefer.
IMO, IB has moved in so many directions simultaneously that there is
no longer much point in speaking of it "moving into a direction".
I regret that some people have bailed out, and it's plain that some
cultures (like the Fortunatians) couldn't possibly fit there: the
whole of history is inconsistent.

> I have gone through that hassle *twice*, and it ended in
> frustration on both sides both times.  Costentin/Padraic seems
> to have disliked my "Elves" from the start, though Andrew
> welcomed them to Ill Bethisad and John liked them too.
And I still do.  Adding to IB's time-depth is a Good Thing, which is
one reason that I thought Judajca was an excellent addition.  IB is
a great stew, and adding more flavor(s) can only help it.

> But as Padraic is the one where all the threads run together,
Umm, I think both he and I would contest that!

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British
Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence
of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1.  I doubt if
the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940

Reply