Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 8308" data-attributes="member: 1251">Arcady.....I've been subject to this anti-FR polemic from you before, arcady; this seems like as good a time as any to offer some counterpoints to a 'consistent' if unimaginative condemnation of that setting. You hold 'consistency' up as both the making of a setting and an objective mark. The problem with that argument is the fact that in order to make any number of discrete facts 'consistent', an observer or author automatically brings to the fore certain assumption of how things work, what are real historic agents, etc. But what seems like a 'real' line of thought to you is often irrelevant to others; historians and anths do stick to a consistent line for the most part in their individual research, but they are also apt to admit its filled with very real complications.On a critical level, the paradigm you are using seems to be very 'modernist'. Its simple and workable. I personally have a problem with this strict construction, given it always seems to fluid, i.e. bland, removing the verisimilitude that great histories, musical and literary works strive to create. On a similar note, this is why i like the realms; the fact that it was subject to so many contributors, and , with the latest edition, given a bit of cohesion through editing, makes it feel more 'real', more diverse, more (should i say?) democratic.Just some thoughts. I know i tend to ramble.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jasamcarl, post: 8308, member: 1251"] [b]Arcady.....[/b] I've been subject to this anti-FR polemic from you before, arcady; this seems like as good a time as any to offer some counterpoints to a 'consistent' if unimaginative condemnation of that setting. You hold 'consistency' up as both the making of a setting and an objective mark. The problem with that argument is the fact that in order to make any number of discrete facts 'consistent', an observer or author automatically brings to the fore certain assumption of how things work, what are real historic agents, etc. But what seems like a 'real' line of thought to you is often irrelevant to others; historians and anths do stick to a consistent line for the most part in their individual research, but they are also apt to admit its filled with very real complications. On a critical level, the paradigm you are using seems to be very 'modernist'. Its simple and workable. I personally have a problem with this strict construction, given it always seems to fluid, i.e. bland, removing the verisimilitude that great histories, musical and literary works strive to create. On a similar note, this is why i like the realms; the fact that it was subject to so many contributors, and , with the latest edition, given a bit of cohesion through editing, makes it feel more 'real', more diverse, more (should i say?) democratic. Just some thoughts. I know i tend to ramble. [/QUOTE]

Verification