[GOTW] All Hope Abandon
Damian Dollahite
Square Circle, and I absolutely meant it. For reference, some of the
games I played in between included Spider and Web, Being Andrew Plotkin,
and All Roads.
I like puzzle games. In my opinion, if you're not going to give the
player anything to do, you might as well just write a book instead of IF.
Several of the comp reviewers didn't like Eric's previous game, Square
Circle. However, it seemed that this was mainly because the puzzles were
too hard for them, at least given the time limits of the comp, and not
because there was anything wrong with the game itself. In fact, many of
them didn't seem to have gotten far enough to even find out what the
game was about. All Hope is even more challenging than Square Circle,
but like SC it includes online hints to help when you're stuck. Since
hint menus are built-in to the TADS 3 library, I hope to see more of
this in the future.
All Hope provides two paths through the game, but it's difficult to make
a conscious choice of which to follow because you have to go partway
through one to get to the other. I unfortunately have not yet had time
to go back through the path I didn't take the first time.
Once you're committed to a path, All Hope's map has very little sprawl,
so you generally don't have to run around looking for keys placed far
from the doors they open. You just keep pushing forward to the next
part of the story, with no need to backtrack. This is something else
I'd like to see more of in IF.
The game's story was fascinating. Eric is a theology professor, and
while Square Circle contained some theology, All Hope is pervaded by it.
I'm a Christian myself, so I suspect my experience was very different
from that of an Atheist, or someone of another religeous persuasion. My
experience (on the labyrinth path) was that the game tried to break down
the twisted reinterpretations of scripture that have become popular in
modern society; to denounce those who try to deny the truch of the Bible
by saying some parts are merely allegory. Of course some parts *are*
allegory, but those can be identified by examining the original
languages, which used different grammatical forms when not meant to be
taken literally. Many scholars today are saying the parts mean to be
taken literally are also allegorical, essentially calling the writers of
scripture liars; or otherwise saying that the Bible is false or outdated
when it disagrees with political correctness or modern sensibilities,
meaning either that humans know better than God or that the Bible is
/not/ the word of God. However, the story was somewhat open to
interpretation, so I'd be interested to see how others view it.
I expect this week's GOTW discussion to be very interesting.
--
Ryukage
PJ
> All Hope provides two paths through the game, but it's difficult to
make
> a conscious choice of which to follow because you have to go partway
> through one to get to the other. I unfortunately have not yet had
time
> to go back through the path I didn't take the first time.
On one of the paths, there are also three significantly different ways
to "select" the path, so there are actually multiple ways to traverse
the game.
> Once you're committed to a path, All Hope's map has very little
sprawl,
> so you generally don't have to run around looking for keys placed far
> from the doors they open. You just keep pushing forward to the next
> part of the story, with no need to backtrack. This is something else
> I'd like to see more of in IF.
I agree. If you want to achiever a maximum potential score for AHA,
you do have to do some running around to pick up the path-related
points. But this is a totally unnecessary action. You can simply keep
moving forward, solving each puzzle as you come to it, to traverse the
story. And while you *can* reach suboptimal endings, the reason for
doing so is immediately obvious and an *undo* can be used to start
rethinking the choice you just made.
> The game's story was fascinating. Eric is a theology professor, and
> while Square Circle contained some theology, All Hope is pervaded by
it.
> I'm a Christian myself, so I suspect my experience was very different
> from that of an Atheist, or someone of another religeous persuasion.
My
> experience (on the labyrinth path) was that the game tried to break
down
> the twisted reinterpretations of scripture that have become popular
in
> modern society; to denounce those who try to deny the truch of the
Bible
> by saying some parts are merely allegory.
What I liked about it was that -- even if you are not a Christian --
the game gave many, many hints in various locations as to how certain
biblical events were going to be played out in the game. Also, almost
every tricky puzzle was clued if you closely read the text as you tried
various things to solve it. And while Eric was certainly poking fun at
the scholastic reinterpretations of the Bible, I think he was also
mildly tweaking the religious right who try to use religion as a club
against modernity. He shows the elements of the Christian passion as a
guide for living an individual's life, with key words being "love,"
"integrity," etc. Doing so leads the PC to physically finding "hope"
in a very down-to-earth, i.e., secular, sort of guise.
> Of course some parts *are*
> allegory, but those can be identified by examining the original
> languages, which used different grammatical forms when not meant to
be
> taken literally. Many scholars today are saying the parts mean to be
> taken literally are also allegorical, essentially calling the writers
of
> scripture liars; or otherwise saying that the Bible is false or
outdated
> when it disagrees with political correctness or modern sensibilities,
> meaning either that humans know better than God or that the Bible is
> /not/ the word of God. However, the story was somewhat open to
> interpretation, so I'd be interested to see how others view it.
Well, I think it's clear that the New Testament is not *literally* the
word of God. It's a series of accounts written and re-written by
Christ's disciples that are ex post facto -- in some cases decades or
even longer -- to the main events of Christ's life. But I wouldn't
burden Eric's game with arguments related to that. I think he picks
out a very fine path that can support a Christian's faith while
reaffirming the essential goodness of the path highlighted by the
Christian passion. In doing so, he doesn't require you to believe, or
disbelieve for that matter, in the literal truth of the story. That in
and of itself makes it a very good game -- you can pick your own level
of belief, or just play the game because it's a good game.
> I expect this week's GOTW discussion to be very interesting.
I think so too. One thing I think you might reflect on is the
ambiguity of the setting itself. Eric is seemingly not arguing for a
real fire 'n brimstone version of Hell here. He doesn't let Agrath
torment you, in the classic sense of red hot pincers, etc. (In fact,
he uses the female Agrath, rather than Satan, to represent some of the
ambiguity of what Hell really is). Instead, he makes it very clear
that it is earthly choices, and the quest for "excess", that really
lead to torment. While that is certainly a main theme of Christianity,
leading a good and moderate life is not exclusive to the Christian
experience.
And, certainly, being a Christian fundamentalist while leading a life
of excess (i.e., ignoring Christ's principles in favor of mere
Christian rhetoric) is obviously no recipe for achieving heaven. Eric
is nicely ambiguous about the motivation but clear in his intent:
living by the principles promoted by Christ (and other central
religious figures) is the surest way to happiness, on Earth or in
heaven, whether you are Christian, agnostic, atheist, pagan or one of
the many other wonderful and diverse religions offered on our
ever-smaller world. AHA is a very pleasant way to explore the central
ideas of the Christian experience, but by clearly showing how
universal, even to the point of being secular, Christ's principles
really are, Eric's game should be enjoyable to virtually anyone.
A very nice game indeed.
PJ
Damian Dollahite
> Well, I think it's clear that the New Testament is not *literally* the
> word of God. It's a series of accounts written and re-written by
> Christ's disciples that are ex post facto -- in some cases decades or
> even longer -- to the main events of Christ's life.
Well that actually applies to the entire Bible -- the only thing that's
supposed to be literally written by God's own hand are the Ten
Commandment tablets, which were misplaced along with the Ark of the
Covenant. When Christians say that the Bible is "the Word of God", what
we mean is that God guided the human writers to pen what He wanted the
books to say. When the text was written, or how many times it was
revised, is irrelevant to whether it ultimately says what God wants it to.
> But I wouldn't
> burden Eric's game with arguments related to that. I think he picks
> out a very fine path that can support a Christian's faith while
> reaffirming the essential goodness of the path highlighted by the
> Christian passion. In doing so, he doesn't require you to believe, or
> disbelieve for that matter, in the literal truth of the story. That in
> and of itself makes it a very good game -- you can pick your own level
> of belief, or just play the game because it's a good game.
>
Yes, I agree with that.
> I think so too. One thing I think you might reflect on is the
> ambiguity of the setting itself. Eric is seemingly not arguing for a
> real fire 'n brimstone version of Hell here. He doesn't let Agrath
> torment you, in the classic sense of red hot pincers, etc. (In fact,
> he uses the female Agrath, rather than Satan, to represent some of the
> ambiguity of what Hell really is). Instead, he makes it very clear
> that it is earthly choices, and the quest for "excess", that really
> lead to torment. While that is certainly a main theme of Christianity,
> leading a good and moderate life is not exclusive to the Christian
> experience.
>
The fire 'n brimstone version of hell isn't really Biblical anyway.
That's a result of the medieval church's tendency to get pagan and
Greco-Roman beliefs -- in this case, Tartarus -- mixed up with
Christianity. (As a matter of fact, the word "hell" comes from Norse
mythology, not the Bible.) There's a reference to a pit of fire in
Revelation, but IIRC it's not really clear whether that's Hell or
Oblivion. The Old Testament uses the term Sheol, which is typically
thought of as a pit of darkness, rather than a pit of fire, where the
torment is the ultimate despair of being separated from God and robbed
of all hope.
I've observed from reading the Bible that God's favorite method of
punishment is to give people exactly what they want (one of the most
well-known examples being King Saul). Therefore, my personal opinion on
Hell/Sheol/whatever is that it's a place where people who don't want to
obey God don't have to. And of course we can see right here on Earth
how unpleasant a society without rules can be.
--
Ryukage
Paul Drallos
Thanks
PJ
Hi, Paul:
Navigate to this link:
http://www.ifarchive.org/indexes/if-archiveXprogrammingXtads2Xexecutables.html.
There is a file called
htads_playkit_259.exe [12-Sep-2004]
which has the interpreter that will run the most current TADS2 and
TADS3 games under Windows.
The file
HyperTADS-140.sit [04-Oct-2004]
does the same thing for the Mac, if that's what you favor (I don't do
Mac anymore, so I can't vouch for this one.)
PJ
Paul Drallos
> Navigate to this link:
>...
Thanks. It's working fine now.
Stephen Granade
> Paul Drallos wrote:
> > I would like to play Eric's Abandon All Hope game, but I can't figure
> out which TADS interpreter to download. The notes say the game is
> TADS3. All I can find in the archive are TADS 2.XX interpreters.
> Sorry for my ignorance about this, but could someone point me to the
> correct interpreter?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Hi, Paul:
>
> Navigate to this link:
>
>
> http://www.ifarchive.org/indexes/if-archiveXprogrammingXtads2Xexecutables.html.
While most of the TADS 3 interpreters are also in the TADS 2
directories, in general you should look for T3 interpreters in
http://ifarchive.org/indexes/if-archiveXprogrammingXtads3Xexecutables.html
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
stephen...@granades.com
Quintin Stone
*
*
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
*
*
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Damian Dollahite wrote:
> All Hope provides two paths through the game, but it's difficult to make
> a conscious choice of which to follow because you have to go partway
> through one to get to the other. I unfortunately have not yet had time
> to go back through the path I didn't take the first time.
Looking back now I can see the distinction between the two paths... the
pagan temple/statue versus the theological questionnaire. However,
neither really feels like a "choice" because there's no indication
beforehand that each of the paths is one-way. Instead, it was to me a
matter of which puzzle I'd solved first. Afterwards, getting stuck or the
player being a completist might be the only things that reveal a second
possible route through the game.
I did achieve what was clearly a happy ending through completion of the
exam, but Agrath's path seems to have dead-ended for me. Is there any way
to escape the Burial Cave, or do you think this was the intended terminus
for that particular path? It's hard to miss the lack of any hints at that
point and it would arguably fit with the theme.
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
PJ
Quintin Stone wrote:
> *
> *
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
> *
> *
>
> I did achieve what was clearly a happy ending through completion of the
> exam, but Agrath's path seems to have dead-ended for me. Is there any way
> to escape the Burial Cave, or do you think this was the intended terminus
> for that particular path? It's hard to miss the lack of any hints at that
> point and it would arguably fit with the theme.
You CAN get out of the burial cave, though it takes a bit of thinking
to understand how to get the rock rolled back. I think the hints did
cover that, though maybe a litte obtusely.
There are also three distinct ways to get into the labyrinth to
confront Agrath, just in case you're wondering.
PJ
Quintin Stone
When I enter the Burial Cave and type 'hints', the game tells me there are
none available. That's a little too obtuse for me.
PJ
.> > > *
. > > > *
.> > >
.> > > S
.> > > P
.> > > O
.> > > I
.> > > L
.> > > E
.> > > R
.> > >
.> > > S
.> > > P
.> > > A
.> > > C
.> > > E
.> > >
>
> When I enter the Burial Cave and type 'hints', the game tells me there are
> none available. That's a little too obtuse for me.
Did you try searching the cave carefully?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Did you search everything in the cave carefully?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Specifically, did you find the ossuary and open it?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Once you do, try searching the bones in the ossuary.
PJ
Quintin Stone
Hm. I find this a bit inconsistent, as there were, what, two or three
other ossuaries in niches that were visible without needing to search the
loculus? Examining the niche doesn't even indicate there's anything in
it, and searching it simply says "The loculus contains an ossuary" as if
it wasn't really hidden from sight.
Okay, now back to the game to see where this gets me.
Arthur Boff
- First off, I should point out that my religious outlook is best
described as "logically agnostic, emotionally atheist/Deist"; on an
intellectual level, I don't think we can ever say which religion is
the correct one, or indeed whether God actually exists. My gut feeling
is that God either doesn't exist or has the decency not to interact
with its creation beyond setting the thing up in the first place. That
said, I did enjoy the game a lot, both on its own merits and in terms
of its ideas about faith.
- If the author wanted to write the text adventure C.S. Lewis might
write, he's succeeded. I was constantly reminded of Lewis in general
(and The Screwtape Letters in particular) at every turn.
- The author's outlook on Biblical scholarship is interesting. On one
hand, the lecturer (who reappears in various forms throughout the
game) seems to be a fairly clear symbol of someone who takes
scriptural criticism too far, using dodgy scholarship to jump to
unusual conclusions (Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code are
examples of where that takes us). On the other hand, the protagonist
clearly knows his stuff himself, and the demythologising of Hell
doesn't seem to be an entirely bad thing (physical torment would
hardly be preferable to the puzzles faced by the protagonist, after
all), and indeed there's several instances where the protagonist's
knowledge of Biblical criticism and extrabiblical sources (such as the
Babylonian Talmud) help out. It suggests that it isn't a
straightforward attack on Biblical scholarship per se, so much as an
argument that it is possible to be knowledgeable about the
construction of the Bible and its inconsistencies and flaws whilst at
the same time retaining one's faith - even though doing so risks both
condemnation from fundamentalists who would prefer to be ignorant
about their own faith, and from academics who sneer at faith as a sign
of superstition.
- My only complaint is the adventure's mainly-linear nature. I don't
like puzzle-based IF that adopts a linear format - it means that if I
get stuck on one particular puzzle I can't go and work on other
puzzles while I think about it.
PJ
> My take on the game:
>
> of its ideas about faith.
Yes. I believe Eric was probably hoping to achieve something on both
levels, and I agree it is enjoyable on both levels.
> ... it isn't a
> straightforward attack on Biblical scholarship per se, so much as an
> argument that it is possible to be knowledgeable about the
> construction of the Bible and its inconsistencies and flaws whilst at
> the same time retaining one's faith - even though doing so risks both
> condemnation from fundamentalists who would prefer to be ignorant
> about their own faith, and from academics who sneer at faith as a sign
> of superstition.
That's the impression I got as well. AHA is striving for some balance
between scholarship and faith, the secular and the religious, a common
view of Hell and a more sophisticated rendering of it, and I think Eric
achieves it.
> - My only complaint is the adventure's mainly-linear nature. I don't
> like puzzle-based IF that adopts a linear format - it means that if I
> get stuck on one particular puzzle I can't go and work on other
> puzzles while I think about it.
I like the linerarity, personally, since I like the obvious forward
progress. However, I would have liked to see more variations on the
end-game. Eric did a good job of laying out different paths to get to
the resurrection scene. After that, unless I missed something, you
basically only have one correct path to follow. While that may be
theologically the point he's trying to make, the game would have been
more amusing with some variations on how to walk the path of the
*good*, or at least different fates and different routes to getting to
the oblivion for those who aren't willing to follow the *good* path.
PJ
Eric Eve
news:1199lej...@news.supernews.com...
> My take on the game:
> - The author's outlook on Biblical scholarship is interesting. On
> one hand, the lecturer (who reappears in various forms throughout
> the game) seems to be a fairly clear symbol of someone who takes
> scriptural criticism too far, using dodgy scholarship to jump to
> unusual conclusions (Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code
> are examples of where that takes us).
Wortschlachter (the lecturer) is intended as a caricature, but
"using dodgy scholarship to jump to unusual conclusions" sums him up
pretty well. The point about Wortschlachter isn't so much his
conclusions (though his reading of Mark's Gospel does border on the
perverse in places) but the evidence and arguments that he offers in
support of them (insofar as he actually offers any at all). He's not
so much taking scriptural criticism too far as wrapping himself in
the technical language of biblical criticism in an attempt to
disguise the chaotic nature of his thought-processes.
> On the other hand, the protagonist clearly knows his stuff
> himself, and the demythologising of Hell doesn't seem to be an
> entirely bad thing (physical torment would hardly be preferable to
> the puzzles faced by the protagonist, after all), and indeed
> there's several instances where the protagonist's knowledge of
> Biblical criticism and extrabiblical sources (such as the
> Babylonian Talmud) help out. It suggests that it isn't a
> straightforward attack on Biblical scholarship per se,
That's right; it would be rather odd if I intended a straightforward
attack on my own profession! It's the protagnonist, rather than
Wortschlachter, who is is intended as a representative of mainstream
New Testament sscholarship.
>so much as an argument that it is possible to be knowledgeable
>about the construction of the Bible and its inconsistencies and
>flaws whilst at the same time retaining one's faith - even though
>doing so risks both condemnation from fundamentalists who would
>prefer to be ignorant about their own faith, and from academics who
>sneer at faith as a sign of superstition.
Well, I don't know many (if any) of my academic colleagues who
"sneer at a faith as a sign of superstition" (that is academic
colleagues working in theology/biblical studies here in Oxford), but
otherwise it's good that you get this out of my game.
-- Eric
Eric Eve
"PJ" <pete_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117064612.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Arthur Boff wrote:
>> - My only complaint is the adventure's mainly-linear nature. I
>> don't
>> like puzzle-based IF that adopts a linear format - it means that
>> if I
>> get stuck on one particular puzzle I can't go and work on other
>> puzzles while I think about it.
>
> I like the linerarity, personally, since I like the obvious
> forward
> progress. However, I would have liked to see more variations on
> the
> end-game. Eric did a good job of laying out different paths to
> get to
> the resurrection scene. After that, unless I missed something,
> you
> basically only have one correct path to follow. While that may be
> theologically the point he's trying to make, the game would have
> been
> more amusing with some variations on how to walk the path of the
> *good*, or at least different fates and different routes to
> getting to
> the oblivion for those who aren't willing to follow the *good*
> path.
I was conscious of the linear nature of the last part of the game,
and wondered about supplying alternative routes. My own feeling was
that to do so was more likely to have made things worse rather than
better. For one thing, the path that is laid out in the game is the
path I wanted players to experience (and the PC to experience) to
generate the kind of narrative I had in mind. An alternative path
would have to be of comparable length and difficulty, with broadly
equivalent puzzles along the way. It would also have to fit just as
well between the two points it connected as the path to which it was
alternative: that is, it would have to make roughly the same
theological points (or other ones that fitted the context just as
well), while at the same time making equivalent narrative sense. On
the other hand, the alternative would have to be sufficiently
different to be worth including as something other than a thinly
disguised copy of the existing path. If I had seen a way to
accomplish all this, I might have included it, but I couldn't, so I
didn't.
It's possible that one day I'll have a flash of inspiration that'll
cause me to include a second path in some hypothetical Version 2,
but unless I can come up with something that isn't half-baked, the
game will be better off without it (IMHO). So while I fully take the
point about the linearity (it occurred to me before I released the
game), I'm inclined to the view that it's necessary to the effect I
was seeking to create.
-- Eric
PJ
> I was conscious of the linear nature of the last part of the game,
> and wondered about supplying alternative routes. My own feeling was
> that to do so was more likely to have made things worse rather than
> better. For one thing, the path that is laid out in the game is the
> path I wanted players to experience (and the PC to experience) to
> generate the kind of narrative I had in mind...
> I'm inclined to the view that it's necessary to the effect I
> was seeking to create.
I sort of figured that was the case. It's always a bit hard to balance
the intent of the author and the presentation of the story he/she wants
to tell with the fact that the player(s) generally want *more* of
everything: more endings, more alternatives, more puzzles, etc. My
own game attempts tend to bog down in the sheer complexity of the
things *I* want to do as the author, much less what the players might
think to demand. You made some very good choices here in terms of
making the game playable as well as relating your themes; I like the
game very much even if I didn't get that infinite level of complexity
in the final scenes.
PJ
Eric Eve
> I think he picks
> out a very fine path that can support a Christian's faith while
> reaffirming the essential goodness of the path highlighted by the
> Christian passion. In doing so, he doesn't require you to
> believe, or
> disbelieve for that matter, in the literal truth of the story.
> That in
> and of itself makes it a very good game -- you can pick your own
> level
> of belief, or just play the game because it's a good game.
I'm glad you said that, since this was indeed part of what I was
aiming at.
>> I expect this week's GOTW discussion to be very interesting.
>
> I think so too. One thing I think you might reflect on is the
> ambiguity of the setting itself. Eric is seemingly not arguing
> for a
> real fire 'n brimstone version of Hell here. He doesn't let
> Agrath
> torment you, in the classic sense of red hot pincers, etc. (In
> fact,
> he uses the female Agrath, rather than Satan, to represent some of
> the
> ambiguity of what Hell really is).
In my own mind, AHA contains several ambiguities at several levels,
not only concerning what Hell is (or if it is), but the nature of
the protagonist's experience. Different players could, I think,
quite legitimately come up with different interpretations of several
aspects of the game, and I'd be interested to see what other people
came up with.
> Instead, he makes it very clear
> that it is earthly choices, and the quest for "excess", that
> really
> lead to torment. While that is certainly a main theme of
> Christianity,
> leading a good and moderate life is not exclusive to the Christian
> experience.
Sure; but maybe there's a bit more to it than that?
> AHA is a very pleasant way to explore the central
> ideas of the Christian experience, but by clearly showing how
> universal, even to the point of being secular, Christ's principles
> really are,
Sure, the game is intended to work at different levels, as you
observed, so this is no doubt a valid reading at the secular level.
It does raise a couple of questions in my mind, however: (1) how far
is it arrived at by taking the Agrath sequence as interpretive key
to the whole? (2) how far is it facilitated by the use of UNDO?
I'm not suggesting that there's anything necessarily *wrong* with
taking the Agrath sequence as the interpretive key (one's almost
bound to settle on *something*, after all), but of course even that
sequence could be understood very differently, as Damian's
interpretation, surely an equally valid take on it, shows (I'm
thinking here of Damian's remark that God's favourite method of
punishment is to give people what they want). I'm aware that you
include what happens on Skull Mountain in your interpretation;
again, I can see how you arrived at the reading you did, and I guess
that's more or less how it must read at the 'secular' level; but it
could also be read in a completely different way (or maybe several
different ways), particularly in the wider context (I'm being
deliberately vague here so as not to close off further discussion by
wading in with a heavy-handed statement of authorial intention).
My question about the use UNDO may look a bit cryptic, so I'll try
to clarify a bit. Your secular reading sees hope being realised in a
purely this-worldly way (which is certainly an interpretation the
optimal ending can reasonably be taken to support); so what I'm
getting at is how far does the relative ease of backing out of
suboptimal endings with UNDO (which is entirely necessary for
gameplay, IMHO) help reinforce this interpretation (by privileging
the optimal ending as the one through the prism of which the game is
principally viewed)?
-- Eric
Arthur Boff
> "Arthur Boff" <arthu...@merton.oxford.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1199lej...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>My take on the game:
>
>>- The author's outlook on Biblical scholarship is interesting. On
>>one hand, the lecturer (who reappears in various forms throughout
>>the game) seems to be a fairly clear symbol of someone who takes
>>scriptural criticism too far, using dodgy scholarship to jump to
>>unusual conclusions (Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code
>>are examples of where that takes us).
>
> Wortschlachter (the lecturer) is intended as a caricature, but
> "using dodgy scholarship to jump to unusual conclusions" sums him up
> pretty well. The point about Wortschlachter isn't so much his
> conclusions (though his reading of Mark's Gospel does border on the
> perverse in places) but the evidence and arguments that he offers in
> support of them (insofar as he actually offers any at all). He's not
> so much taking scriptural criticism too far as wrapping himself in
> the technical language of biblical criticism in an attempt to
> disguise the chaotic nature of his thought-processes.
This is *exactly* what the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail do in the
Biblical pseudoscholarship segment of the book, which is why I thought
of that particular screed. :)
>>On the other hand, the protagonist clearly knows his stuff
>>himself, and the demythologising of Hell doesn't seem to be an
>>entirely bad thing (physical torment would hardly be preferable to
>>the puzzles faced by the protagonist, after all), and indeed
>>there's several instances where the protagonist's knowledge of
>>Biblical criticism and extrabiblical sources (such as the
>>Babylonian Talmud) help out. It suggests that it isn't a
>>straightforward attack on Biblical scholarship per se,
>
> That's right; it would be rather odd if I intended a straightforward
> attack on my own profession! It's the protagnonist, rather than
> Wortschlachter, who is is intended as a representative of mainstream
> New Testament sscholarship.
You're clearly writing about what you know (which benefits the game),
but at the same time I found the entire game experience to have a
certain universality - in my interpretation the ideas contained within
it don't *just* apply to the problems of Christians trying to
reconcile faith with knowledge, but any individual who's trying to
retain their faith in a particular concept whilst at the same time
avoiding wide-eyed naivity.
>>so much as an argument that it is possible to be knowledgeable
>>about the construction of the Bible and its inconsistencies and
>>flaws whilst at the same time retaining one's faith - even though
>>doing so risks both condemnation from fundamentalists who would
>>prefer to be ignorant about their own faith, and from academics who
>>sneer at faith as a sign of superstition.
>
> Well, I don't know many (if any) of my academic colleagues who
> "sneer at a faith as a sign of superstition" (that is academic
> colleagues working in theology/biblical studies here in Oxford), but
> otherwise it's good that you get this out of my game.
I'm thinking more of people like Wortschlachter, who seize on any
inconsistency in the Bible as being indicative of the entire Bible
being absolutely worthless. I suspect the Wortschlachters of the world
aren't theologians by trade, though, since why would an irreligious
person become a theology professor in the first place?
PJ
> I suspect the Wortschlachters of the world
> aren't theologians by trade, though, since why would an irreligious
> person become a theology professor in the first place?
Because there's BIG, and I mean BIG, money in it? Right, Eric?
PJ
Eric Eve
Sure; it's almost enough to live on!
-- Eric