Kevin's Watch

Steve Hurtloam wrote:But try to argue that point of view on THIS site.

Me: The land isn't real.
Someone Else: But SRD says it is, so I agree with that.
Me: Well I think SRD is completely wrong based on the way I interpret the book.

(hehehe... sorry, I am kind of kidding about that. I don't ever see discussions here as arguements, and I'm not SO hung up on this, I just like playing devils advocate)

I've been exactly that recently, in exactly that situation.

Some random person whose name eludes me for now: "SRD said the Land is real to him."
Me: "No! The Land is neither real nor unreal!"

etc...

So far there have been two responses to this thread:

1. "I love the GI!" (which doesn't really respond to my original post)

and

2. "I agree the GI does flatten the debates on a message board such as this."

I happen to agree with both 1 & 2.

But the real thrust of it is... DON'T use the GI to bolster your side of an argument about the book, just use the book.

But the real thrust of it is... DON'T use the GI to bolster your side of an argument about the book, just use the book.

But if the book is vague or conflicting, isn't it the best thing to be able to go to the author and ask him what he was thinking?

I think that is REALLY friggin' COOL.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: As long as the questions aren't STUPID, like "What did the runes on the original Staff of Law say?"

MrKABC wrote:

But the real thrust of it is... DON'T use the GI to bolster your side of an argument about the book, just use the book.

But if the book is vague or conflicting, isn't it the best thing to be able to go to the author and ask him what he was thinking?

I think that is REALLY friggin' COOL.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: As long as the questions aren't STUPID, like "What did the runes on the original Staff of Law say?"

NO!! The vagueness is what makes the debate awesome! The author should let he accomplishment breath and live and exist independantly.

If the book is vague, it is vague.

Maybe they should come out with a version of the Covenant books and every "vague" sentence should have an asterix next to it with an explanation at the bottom of the page explaining what SRD meant.

NO! For all I know SRD is lying. Just search the book, for that is what we love.

And...

what is "REALLY friggin COOL?"

that SRD answers questions? yes, it's cool.

but it shouldn't be allowable when debating points in the source material.

I'm inclined to agree. I dislike "Because SRD wrote it that way" or similar, for the same reason. The point of debate is to try and draw answers and connections from the story, and SRD has said (Spot the intentional irony! Woo hoo! ) that as far as he is concerned, a book is a co-operation between author and reader - we make as much contribution to it as he does. I like that viewpoint.