Talk:Fallen stone
From Plastic Tub
| Revision as of 15:58, 25 May 2005 Adkins (Talk | contribs) ← Go to previous diff |
Revision as of 15:59, 25 May 2005 Adkins (Talk | contribs) Go to next diff → |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| --- today on [http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover052405.htm saddam stones] | --- today on [http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover052405.htm saddam stones] | ||
| - | --[[User:Adkins|Adkins]] That would be very cool indeed! As for your other comments, I think this piece fits into the Tub in a few ways. First of all historically it's just another Mormo origin story, a wacky theory to tangle about with. It also goes to show how this belief is currently influencing Gnomes, putting an Associationalist spin on current events. Finally, it's perfect Tub methodology, blending the fact with the fiction, leaving many to scratch their heads at what is invented and what is based upon historical texts, myths etc. Is it too dense? I'm not sure. I guess I assumed that if someone actually read the Tub, they'd dig into this as well. The themes are pretty diverse, but really, it is only the fallen stone theme that is explored. The other things that come up aren't treated in any depth at all. It definitely could branch off into other areas, but I think the info included, though diverse, fits together. There could be a section on the pearl alone, or the Ark, or the Grail, but in this article they're only discussed insamuch as they relate to the stone and the decapitations. I think it works well but my initial enthusiasm (grow grow grow) may be misplaced. No need to go too far. Anyway, a very amusing bit of writing. I like yr additions, not shite at all. Gotta keep it as Stimes woulda wanted! Anyway, if it seems better to break it up at some point I'm open to it. For my part, it's allowed me to write in a way somewhat free from the constraints I'd feel if writing for say, Paranoia....so if it comes to something overly dense, we can prune the fucker and send the big version to Paranoia as written by Plastic Tub, et al. Whaddaya say? I'd like to develop it further on the Tub, recognizing that at some later point we'll trim it down, but just letting it follow it's course until done. Thoughts? | + | --[[User:Adkins|Adkins]] That would be very cool indeed! As for your other comments, I think this piece fits into the Tub in a few ways. First of all historically it's just another Mormo origin story, a wacky theory to tangle about with. It also goes to show how this belief is currently influencing Gnomes, putting an Associationalist spin on current events. Finally, it's perfect Tub methodology, blending the fact with the fiction, leaving many to scratch their heads at what is invented and what is based upon historical texts, myths etc. Is it too dense? I'm not sure. The themes are pretty diverse, but really, it is only the fallen stone theme that is explored. The other things that come up aren't treated in any depth at all. It definitely could branch off into other areas, but I think the info included, though diverse, fits together. There could be a section on the pearl alone, or the Ark, or the Grail, but in this article they're only discussed insamuch as they relate to the stone and the decapitations. I think it works well but my initial enthusiasm (grow grow grow) may be misplaced. No need to go too far. Anyway, a very amusing bit of writing. I like yr additions, not shite at all. Gotta keep it as Stimes woulda wanted! Anyway, if it seems better to break it up at some point I'm open to it. For my part, it's allowed me to write in a way somewhat free from the constraints I'd feel if writing for say, Paranoia....so if it comes to something overly dense, we can prune the fucker and send the big version to Paranoia as written by Plastic Tub, et al. Whaddaya say? I'd like to develop it further on the Tub, recognizing that at some later point we'll trim it down, but just letting it follow it's course until done. Thoughts? |
Revision as of 15:59, 25 May 2005
Is it "mommo" or "mommu" - or are these two different things? I changed "mommu" to "mommo", but then discovered that both words also exist in the text on Mormo, so I expect that there's some confusion on my part. Note that Mommu was the Emperor of Japan from 697-707. Since he was born in 683, he was a pretty young chap to be in charge of It All.
--Undule 18:51, 22 May 2005 (EDT) I should add that I have an entry (with multimedia, even) brewing about Mamu - long neglected Sumerian god of Dreams.
--Adkins Holy Cripes, really? What a cool coincidence! Mamu, eh? This is all getting rather confusing...but I changed all refs to Mommo to help clear things up. I think this article needs a lot of work btw. A good start but not quite there. The Kaba must be worked in, I'd forgotten about that. Also....with Mormo, how he became the true god of Mormonism. I suspect Smith was the victim of a Gnomic psy-op. Or, he himself was a gnome. Anyway, Witherspoon has some interesting points, but as you pointed out your lecture, just because the two require blood sacrifice doesn't mean their one and the same. Rock on.
--Undule 17:47, 24 May 2005 (EDT) I think this article is getting a too dense, actually -- shouldn't you break this up? It's losing focus a little -- it's a great piece, but I wonder how it fits into the Tub? The mythological themes seem to cover four maybe five entries. My two cents. Hey, also, if you continue packing this article up, you should consider sending it to Paranoia (http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/) magazine, it's right up their alley. They don't pay, however, but how bad ass would it be to get published there? --- today on saddam stones (http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover052405.htm)
--Adkins That would be very cool indeed! As for your other comments, I think this piece fits into the Tub in a few ways. First of all historically it's just another Mormo origin story, a wacky theory to tangle about with. It also goes to show how this belief is currently influencing Gnomes, putting an Associationalist spin on current events. Finally, it's perfect Tub methodology, blending the fact with the fiction, leaving many to scratch their heads at what is invented and what is based upon historical texts, myths etc. Is it too dense? I'm not sure. The themes are pretty diverse, but really, it is only the fallen stone theme that is explored. The other things that come up aren't treated in any depth at all. It definitely could branch off into other areas, but I think the info included, though diverse, fits together. There could be a section on the pearl alone, or the Ark, or the Grail, but in this article they're only discussed insamuch as they relate to the stone and the decapitations. I think it works well but my initial enthusiasm (grow grow grow) may be misplaced. No need to go too far. Anyway, a very amusing bit of writing. I like yr additions, not shite at all. Gotta keep it as Stimes woulda wanted! Anyway, if it seems better to break it up at some point I'm open to it. For my part, it's allowed me to write in a way somewhat free from the constraints I'd feel if writing for say, Paranoia....so if it comes to something overly dense, we can prune the fucker and send the big version to Paranoia as written by Plastic Tub, et al. Whaddaya say? I'd like to develop it further on the Tub, recognizing that at some later point we'll trim it down, but just letting it follow it's course until done. Thoughts?
