| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 11 Nov 2008 : 01:04:26
-Pretty self-explanatory. Checked in the package itself, and online, but couldn't find anything. The set come out in December 1992, and it is "set" before the Time of Troubles (1,358 DR) because of the inclusion of House Oblodra, and no mentions of the Time of Troubles...That's as much as I've narrowed it down, however.
-The Coral Kingdom was written in September of 1992, In Sylvan Shadows in April of 1992, but those take place in varying times (the former in 1,365 DR, and the former in 1,361 DR), so those are no help. Anyone know? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 22:50:40
We should probably try and attempt to get back on-topic, fellow scribes.  |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 18:48:22
-No, no, no. As a whole, Kara-Tur has a lot going for it. The problem, as was said, is that if you want to find it, you really have to go digging. Things aren't where they should be, and things are scattered over the course of 11 books or so (8 adventures, Oriental Adventures, Kara-Tur: Monstrous Compendium and Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms). |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 18:40:58
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I'm sorry, the OA adventures were very detailed in the history and timelines of the regions they were a part of. In fact, I think they may have been the most detailed published in 2nd Edition, IMHO.
-I did not say the Oriental Adventures modules. I said Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, which does not contain within it a comprehensive timeline of Kara-Tur, or of the individual nations that can be found there.
Ahh. My apologies! I misunderstood the reference to be Kara-Tur products as a whole and not just that set. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 17:57:48
The Kara-Tur products are filled with tons of juicy tidbits and lore, but the problem was in it's organization, or complete lack there-of. This was a problem with many pre-3e products (no set formats for presentation), but it reaches epic roportions with the eastern material. For instance, the boxed set refers to the timeline several times... yet does not include any. Unless you have some of the modules with he history in them, you can easily get lost. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 17:21:11
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I'm sorry, the OA adventures were very detailed in the history and timelines of the regions they were a part of. In fact, I think they may have been the most detailed published in 2nd Edition, IMHO.
-I did not say the Oriental Adventures modules. I said Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, which does not contain within it a comprehensive timeline of Kara-Tur, or of the individual nations that can be found there. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 17:02:34
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Hey, it's a good thing that timelines and such began rolling out. You of all people should know how annoying and (dare I say?) crappy products are when they don't include concrete timelines. Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, I'm looking at you.
I'm sorry, the OA adventures were very detailed in the history and timelines of the regions they were a part of. In fact, I think they may have been the most detailed published in 2nd Edition, IMHO. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 16:44:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In fact, IIRC, he was slightly upset when they started doing very specific timelines and came out with the roll of years - thats exactly when we began to get all of the 'lore discrepencies' which eventually led up to 4e FR. Ed knew from his own home campaign that leaving things vague was the best way to build a world, because it left you plenty of breathing room.
-Hey, it's a good thing that timelines and such began rolling out. You of all people should know how annoying and (dare I say?) crappy products are when they don't include concrete timelines. Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms, I'm looking at you. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 08:04:09
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
It would be a good idea not solely working with abbreviations of the titles. For example "TPK" instantly expands to "Total Party Kill" rather than some book name in my head*. Furthermore, quite a number of novels would have the same abbrevation too, e.g. Shadows of Darkness (Shadows of the Avatar I) and Siege of Darkness.
Yeah, I ordinarily try to spell out book titles early on in a post, but it doesn't always work out that way. (In the above case, I did it within the spoiler--sorry.) I've come up with my own extended abbreviations for those of RAS's works that are pretty similar. I would definitely go that route if I were mixing up similar abbreviated titles from different authors, too. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Nov 2008 : 17:13:30
Ed also explains in his annotations in The Annotated Elminster that he was in the habit of constantly dating stuff using the Year of... prefix, rather then any actual numerical date, since different regions have different names for different years, and thereby he wouldn't accidently conflict with something another writer or even he himself wrote.
In fact, IIRC, he was slightly upset when they started doing very specific timelines and came out with the roll of years - thats exactly when we began to get all of the 'lore discrepencies' which eventually led up to 4e FR. Ed knew from his own home campaign that leaving things vague was the best way to build a world, because it left you plenty of breathing room. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 16 Nov 2008 : 10:28:23
It would be a good idea not solely working with abbreviations of the titles. For example "TPK" instantly expands to "Total Party Kill" rather than some book name in my head*. Furthermore, quite a number of novels would have the same abbrevation too, e.g. Shadows of Darkness (Shadows of the Avatar I) and Siege of Darkness. Can't say anything about The Orc King as yet (haven't read the spoiler either, for obvious reasons), though I would expect that 14 years after Siege of Darkness and a much condensed timeframe with many important events happening simultaneously that all novels out these days are settled in this timeframe.
*Only literally, of course. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 16 Nov 2008 : 09:39:41
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
I'll get the new Orc King book for revision these next few days and can check whether RAS does this too.
Due to some unidentified mystic force, TOK clearly states a named Realms year within its text. And TPK gives a clear number of years after the events in TOK. So things look pretty transparent with the "Transitions" mini-series, so far.
[TOK & TPK spoiler]TPK begins in the autumn, four years after TOK, which was dated within its own text in The Year of Wild Magic. This would mean that TPK begins in the year 1376 DR. 1372 DR + 4 years = 1376 DR
It also tells us that the Battlehammer dwarves went through Mirabar the last time (which was dramatized in The Thousand Orcs) five years before. That would indicate that TTO occurred in the year 1371 DR--rather than WOTC's official date of 1370 DR. 1376 DR - 5 years = 1371 DR
If you read the time clues within "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy", it's pretty clear that TTO is supposed to take place in the spring & summer, and The Lone Drow is supposed to take place in the summer, of the same year as The Two Swords. TOK quotes the epitaph of Delly Curtie (who died in TTS), citing the year 1371 DR, . Altogether, these time clues would indicate that the entirety of "THBT" took place in 1371 DR. I'm not sure why WOTC took the route of splitting the books of that trilogy up over two separate years.
Now, I have been hearing that the sequencing of "THBT" conflicts significantly with that of the Silver Marches lorebook, but no one has spelled out these conflicts to me. I do not know if this retcon of the date for TTO (and by extension TLD) helps with that or not. (I know that the lorebook contradicts stuff from earlier RAS novels about the characters Bruenor and Wulfgar, too, from my own research, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were chrono inconsistencies, as well.)[/spoiler]
Point being, yeah, RAS and/or Phil Athans do seem to be trying to instill a greater degree of chronological precision in RAS's books now. Most of his recent short stories have been dated with taglines (though "Bones and Stones" still seems to suffer from that official connection with 1370 DR), and TOK gave a named year within its text.
There's no telling if something else (maybe even Bob himself!) is gonna come along and pull the rug out from underneath all of this careful precision. If this whole discussion has clarified anything, it's the truth of the adage "Best laid plans..."
quote:
And I for one don't think that s/he cares about a few months here and there anyway.
Good point. This scroll made a good enough platform to use as a soapbox on the official-vs.-researched timeline dates, but with this particular publication, the disparity is pretty minor.
With other publications, however...
Oh, and Zanan, regarding one of your earlier posts about how it seemed that RAS's description of the timing of the Time of Troubles seemed to contradict that from the official lorebooks, I think maybe you may have misunderstood RAS's timing based on my shorthand way of summarizing the time clues within RAS's novel SOD. But it seems pretty clear that Bob effectively acknowledged that the TOT was taking place in some form or another from summer through autumn, 1358 DR. The characters didn't address the situation by the formal title until well after the autumn season had begun, but Bob still included telltale signs that the situation was in effect long before that. Hope that clears up that apparent contradiction.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 18:20:59
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Well, there are not that many authors these days who do not keep a close look at the timeline. Some even give you exact dates.
-Indeed, one of my biggest frustrations is the lack of dates in many 'earlier' stories. Makes researching a pain in the butt. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 10:06:11
Well, there are not that many authors these days who do not keep a close look at the timeline. Some even give you exact dates. I'll get the new Orc King book for revision these next few days and can check whether RAS does this too.
In the end, it is up to the OP whether s/he takes the base timeline intended by Ed in the Menzo box or the ... let's say garbled one of the novels which have been published later. And I for one don't think that s/he cares about a few months here and there anyway. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 08:43:45
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Ahem, BEAST?
There's a bit more you should know.
Bob, and Ed, and all of the early Realms writers, tended to SPECIFICALLY try to shie away from dating things in their fiction (at TSR's request) so as to give TSR, other creatives writing future stuff for TSR, and Dungeon Masters (not to mention Bob, Ed, Doug Niles, Jeff Grubb and his wife Kate Novak, and other novelists at work in the Realms at the time), as much "wiggle room" as possible.
This may well have been a mistake, over time (and you, coming to things later, have the built-in advantage of hindsight, yes?), as inconsistencies piled up, but it was what ALL of the parties involved decided was best, at the time.
Yeppers. I've noticed that those little "Year of the..." taglines weren't so common back in the day. And Bob has made it pretty clear about his own works, too. In that ARG book recently published, he reiterated that he's never really been big on dates and timekeeping.
He successfully avoided putting any clear time clues within his writings, as far as connections to major external dated Realms events go, up until Siege of Darkness. Up until that point, he was playing with all kinds of wiggle and jiggle. But at that point, it basically locked everything in.
The prob is that once that happened, the official timeline didn't change with it. The original official dates have basically been retained, even though SOD was published nearly 15 years ago.
And either nobody noticed, or cared. So it then begs the question, why bother with all that precision in the first place, if they weren't gonna track it better than that? If they were imposing that imprecision on inherently imprecise books because they thought a firm timeline was really that important, then why didn't they match the timeline to the time clues within the books? Saying that they imposed precision because they thought it was important, but they didn't think it was important enough to follow-up and double-check those dates...that's what I consider bizarre or odd.
quote:
"Why does this bank have these poles and fuzzy ropes out in front of the tellers?"
"Those help to keep customers in line, and it's important to us to keep things organized in the lobby, sir."
"But you're just letting people go straight up to the windows, right past all the fuzzy ropes. How important could it be to you? So I have to ask, what are these fuzzy ropes still doing here?"
"Sir, it's our bank, and we'll do what we want."
Oh well. I care, and with my hindsight-a-plenty, I shall keep working on it. FWIW. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 00:57:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't recall an 'Old Spidey' anywhere though (there are old versions of Ironman(?) and Hulk I have seen recently).
There's been one or two interpretations of an "older Spider-Man" published previously [one was a What If? tale as I recall]. As for Iron Man, well, the most recent would be Iron Man: The End.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 00:12:26
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't recall an 'Old Spidey' anywhere though (there are old versions of Ironman(?) and Hulk I have seen recently).
Earth-X series depicted all the Marvel heroes later in life.
quote:
Wikipedia
Peter Parker was publicly revealed as Spider-Man and retired, figuring he was no longer needed in this world of powers. He has become the rotund model of his late Uncle Ben.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 23:07:50
They did make Batman 'decrepit-looking' in the The Dark Knight series and the Batman Beyond cartoon - both of which I enjoyed.
I don't recall an 'Old Spidey' anywhere though (there are old versions of Ironman(?) and Hulk I have seen recently).
You Know, now that I no longer live with my kids, I don't have an excuse to watch cartoons anymore.  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 21:34:48
I agree with MT. I find that I can easily ignore the inconsistencies with my 'suspension of disbelief' in effect.
Of course it might have something to do with being a former comic book junkie. I mean, Spidey's only in his late twenties after over 40 years in print. And Batman's looking good for being over 100. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 21:27:36
And to be honest... most of us DON'T try to 'clarify' any of RAS's writing - we just chalk a lot of it up to 'poetic license' and ignore the inconsistencies.
The stuff Drizzt does in the greater scheme of things Realmsian is inconsequential, unlike some of the other mistakes in those 'RSE' novels I could think of but won't name out of consideration. 
What I'd like to know is how the heck does Drizzt age backwards? thats a neat trick... I wouldn't mind doing that for a decade or so, myself. 
I'm waiting for the next Lockwood cover to show Drizzt with a pacifier in his mouth. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 21:14:32
Ahem, BEAST?
There's a bit more you should know.
Bob, and Ed, and all of the early Realms writers, tended to SPECIFICALLY try to shie away from dating things in their fiction (at TSR's request) so as to give TSR, other creatives writing future stuff for TSR, and Dungeon Masters (not to mention Bob, Ed, Doug Niles, Jeff Grubb and his wife Kate Novak, and other novelists at work in the Realms at the time), as much "wiggle room" as possible.
This may well have been a mistake, over time (and you, coming to things later, have the built-in advantage of hindsight, yes?), as inconsistencies piled up, but it was what ALL of the parties involved decided was best, at the time.
Why did the design team set a date for the set? Probably because they wanted to have something firm for themselves to work with, from then on. But when you say it seems "bizarre," I'd disagree. The design team were employees, assigned to do this as their job. To NOT do so would lose them that job, and deeming it an odd way to do things seems, to me, about the same as regarding Nike as bizarre for adopting their swoosh logo, or Apple deciding to market the iPod. If a company owns and controls a thing, they can do what they will with it.
Some company commercial decisions many consumers hate, and turn away from the product. Some design decisions I'm sure we all think coud have been done better. Yet this particular one was probably, at the time, trying to do the right thing: start to pin down a chronology.
After all, the games folks were receiving Ed's detailed campaign logs (which formed quite a large part of one of the books included in the original Realms boxed set [FR0, aka "The Old Gray Box"]), and being impressed by the feeling of living realism Ed's world had, that beat everything else they'd seen up until then hands down . . . so they probably thought keeping a detailed timeline and fixing products on it was a Good Thing, and something they should do.
The problem was, not all fiction writers (and their editors) and not all designers played along, later, usually because they had too little time (or even lack of the earlier products, to examine) to do all the research necessary to make sure there were no inconsistencies. Yet does that make trying to date anything at all a bad idea? Or just bad execution of a good idea?
Both Gary Gygax and Ed have said and written that without accurate timekeeping you can't have a true campaign, just a sequence of adventures. I suspect they said this because they know from personal experience how quickly (and far) adrift a DM can get if he/she doesn't get and stay specific about times . . .
Anyway, that's my view, from the standpoint of playing in Ed's campaign for literally decades. With so much done, "in-game," it all blurs together if you don't have an accurate and detailed log to refer back to.
As for the question of why the company publishing Realms products, and all the peopele, staff and freelance, didn't consistently adhere to the same way of doing things, well, the company changed, almost all the staff personnel changed, and many of the freelancers (Ed and Bob are exceptions) changed, too. So did editions of the game, PREDICATED on different approaches and philosophies to the game!
As for me, I don't even fit into the underwear I wore to Ed's early play sessions, let alone still want to wear them. These days, I prefer . . . well, I'll let you fill in the mental digression.
Over to you . . .
love,
THO |
| BEAST |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 18:51:39
THO posted <Ed's response>. Have a look-see.
To summarize, it looks like it breaks down into 4 main parts:
- An ejumacation into the design & writing process
- Clarification that the 1357 DR official date was prescribed by the design team headed into the project, and not his date at all. They asked him to write the boxed set from that temporal point of view, so he did. So this isn't really a matter of "Ed said so," but rather, "The design team said so," and Ed went along.
- Ed also agreed that, with the benefit of a hellacious amount of hindsight and a mountain more of novels and lorebooks to cross-reference, my calculated date makes more sense--now, in 2008.
- Lastly, he also pointed out the difficulty of rectifying this conflict between the official dates and subsequently re-calculated dates, without positing a solution.
With that in mind, here are a few observations:
1) Always good to learn about the process. Context, context, context!
2) All of you guys who have been preferring the official date simply BESSo (Because Ed Said So) should realize that it wasn't exactly him, but rather, THO relaying what Ed relayed from the design team. They are the ones who said so. (It's good to disengage and actually listen, occasionally; so I shall slap the back of my own head on this one! )
But again, I have to ask, on what basis did they say so? RAS had never inserted any clear time clues into his works that could pin his novels or short stories down to any particular year before the novel SOD. There was simply no way to know when TL was set in 1991. It seems really premature for the design team to tell Ed that the timeframe for the MBS was a certain year and season, when they then inserted a blurb from a chronological question mark: the open-ended novel TL. It was almost a sort of Achilles heel to the project, undermining and usurping their precise date with its imprecision, and with the fact that it would eventually end up in the same year as the Time of Troubles--not their intended specific year.
And this is not an Ed-vs.-Bob thing, either. It highlights a problem with the process--not the people.
3) Of course it feels good to hear Ed agree, too, that my chronological calculations, now, make more sense than the official dates, then. But I shall resist the urge to gloat any further about that.
Instead, I would ask that anybody who's bothered to follow this discussion this far please consider the internal facts and the reasoning within my chronology as the main strengths in its favor, rather than Ed's or Brian's or THO's or anybody else's praise. My chrono is worth checking out (and maybe even worth other fans duplicating, with other authors' writings) because it works, moreso than Because Ed Says So. It would be just as much a shame to embrace something due to a mere appeal to authority, now, as it was to dismiss that thing due to a mere appeal to authority, before.
4) Lastly, what to do about all of this? How do we rectify this conflict between well-intentioned dates handed down in advance from design teams, vs. re-calculated dates resulting from hindsight and new evidence down the road? What's the process to address this? And how much would it be worth to do so?
Whether the powers-that-be ever change the official dates or not, how should askant independent research like this best be handled?
Brian: suggestions? (I shall definitely continue with my own chrono project, explaining all the little time clues and what-not.)
Again, it seems really bizarre for a design team to impose a specific date in advance on anything related to what RAS writes, considering that they seem to give him so much leeway and wiggling room in so many other ways. Most of his Realms works are written with chronological ambiguity, so the team seems to be at odds with him when they try to imperially impose a greater degree of precision on his works than they warrant.
a) If they're gonna try to say that his works have a specific date before the text of his works actually tie into to any particular Realms event that has a well-established date (like the Time of Troubles), then it would seem that they should impose more chronological control on his entire writing process, all the way through, to make sure that the internal time clues actually coincide with their chosen dates. (They seem to be doing this with his latest mini-series, "Transitions".)
b) OTOH, if they're going to continue to give him all this leeway, then it would seem more advisable for them never to announce any specific dates for his works before he gives specific time clues within the works. Just give a vague time setting as a placeholder, such as a decade (1350's DR), or even a mere question mark, until the text warrants announcing a greater degree of chronological precision. (I believe this is exactly how TSR and WOTC have officially handled the time placement of RAS's short story "The First Notch".)
Now, I'm not gonna go beating on WOTC's doors demanding anything. But I will still answer chronological questions to the best of my ability using references from the works themselves that add up, rather than official dates that don't. And, as I told Kuje earlier in this scroll, readers are certainly free to do with my answers whatever they will--nothing new, there.
I just hope that no one else implies that an official date is right simply because person X says so, no matter how much the text within the books say differently. In that case, the official date ain't right--it's just official. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 20:32:49
-Wow that was a fun read. Thanks for the lively debate.
BRIMSTOME  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 20:07:04
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
I applaud your excellent research BEAST. Keep up the good work.
Danke, Brian.
*nods*
*holds tongue to avoid continuing the argument with Zanan, for now* |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 15:35:43
I applaud your excellent research BEAST. Keep up the good work. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 09:47:13
Rightio ... this is not about who is right or who is wrong. Why not agree to disagree on the relevance of some sources. Sure, BEAST has listed what is in the novels and how this can be put into the time-frame. It is, as people have intimated, a general consensus on here that RAS's novel are not 100% on track when it comes to both rules and dates. Be that as it may, another sourcebook, or rather campaign does give us a definite timing of the Times of Troubles, For Duty & Deity (published in 1998, four years after Siege of Darkness).
It says on page 3 ...
quote:
The Time of Troubles occurred in the summer and fall of the year 1358 Dalereckoning (DR).
Ed wrote the Menzoberranzan - box long before Siege of Darkness and all, though the Time of Troubles event was at that time already described in 1989's Shadowdale. There is no doubt in my mind that had it been of any relevance, Ed would have included it in the box. Unless I am mistaken, Menzo as such was RAS' brainchild and he afterwards took the liberty to describe the ToT as he saw fit in his later Menzo novels. As in: if anything, RAS changed the story-/timeline of how and when the ToT affected Menzoberranzan. The box as such though, as Ed said, is dated pre-ToT. He'd know, since he created it 1992 after the ToT (1989) novels and before the novelization of the events surrounding the Battle of Keeper's Dale et al by RAS (1994).
These are just the facts how I get them out of the sources. Not claiming that this is right, of course. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 09:33:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We have word from the person who wrote the set as to when it was set. That's the official date. And as the purpose of this thread was to find that date
I did not know originally that the OP's purpose was only to ask the official date. I thought the question was meant to find an answer that made sense. That's why I went further.
quote:
I don't see why there is a need to keep arguing about it.
Mostly because a lot of us apparently find it interesting to discuss the discrepancies that pop up here and there, and this particular publication provides a nice opportunity to do so. As Dagniron said, "The drama is just so juicy, though!"
I was trying to appeal to people's reason in advocating my answer: preponderance of the evidence, consistency between data points, etc. Meanwhile, most of the others seem to simply be <appealing to authority>. As that is a logical fallacy, I tried to make the most reasonable presentation I knew how, in order to sway them. Ultimately that's because I care about truth and reason, I guess.
And winning debates, I suppose...
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Indeed.
And for what it's worth, I don't think BEAST is "arguing" as such... merely presenting his own thoughts on the subject. Yes, we've had Ed's own direct comment on the matter. But sometimes scribes feel the need to elaborate on their own workings for particular subjects.
Basically, yeah. But I was trying to do more than just strut my stuff like a peacock, or show off my personal research.
I was attempting to answer the OP's question with the best assortment of verifiable facts and coherent reasoning that I knew how, rather than just one data point (and hearsay, at that). "BESSo (Because Ed Says So)" isn't really much of an answer...
Not to open another can of worms, but I'm not a religious guy largely because I don't really accept many arguments based entirely on authority. I need more than that. That's why I was trying to provide more, myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
both Beast (through his rather excellent research) and Ed are both correct.
*nods to Markustay*
quote:
Ed's answer is based on what he knew for a FACT at the time - plain and simple.
I take minor exception to that, in terms of the definition of a "fact". A fact is something verifiable or falsifiable by external sources. How could EG verify the date of the MBS in 1991, since everything in it was pretty vague and ambiguous as to time details? Even the sole specific time clue (the passage mentioning the events in TL) had no verifiable date yet, at that time. The best anyone could do then, in 1991, was arbitrarily pull a date out of Jarlaxle's great plumed hat.
That's not a fact. It's an opinion. It's an educated guess. It's informed conjecture.
But as more works have rolled off the presses, we've been given more external sources to reference. Now we really do have facts to relate the MBS to, in order to determine the current time with a decent level of precision. And that's what I've been trying to do here.
OK, enough splitting hairs...
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm beginning to wonder if it's not time to close this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
In terms of this discussion though, I think it's best for all to simply move on.
I ask you to please not close it just yet. I'll leave off for now, but there may be just a bit more new info in the near future (see below).
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
And BEAST is quite correct in suggesting that we do often discuss canon answers, even when they've been presented by designers/writers here.
It happens all the time in Ed's scroll after all.
You have inspired me to <ask him myself>, and to specifically bring his attention to this controversy raised here, and to ask him to reconcile all of the conflicting data points. What is needed is something more than just a simple date, but rather, a calculation that takes into consideration all of the available facts in a coherent, consistent fashion. So I have asked him to do just that for us.
I shall take my leave, now. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 02:47:23
LOL -
That was just a 'defusing' tactic. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 01:47:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How about we discuss how Amaunator was really Lathander the whole time, when the two co-existed for a short while? Now there's a really fun anachronism in FR.
You better go start a thread on this subject now then. It could be very interesting.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 00:36:47
LOL.
My only point was that 'things change', is all, and I meant no disrespect to anyone, and both Beast (through his rather excellent research) and Ed are both correct. Ed's answer is based on what he knew for a FACT at the time - plain and simple.
I learned back in grade-school that Betsy Ross sewed the American Flag during the Revolution, and I took it as fact (after all, it was in my history book). Now we find out years later that the entire story was fabricated by her Grandson.
Facts change, life goes on, and it doesn't mean anyone is wrong (except for Betsy Ross's Grandson).
How about we discuss how Amaunator was really Lathander the whole time, when the two co-existed for a short while? Now there's a really fun anachronism in FR. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 00:12:18
-I got what I needed, so feel free to do whatever you see fit with the thread. The drama is just so juicy, though! |
|
|
