He Who Smelt It
SO, THE OTHER DAY, I DID SOMETHING STUPID.
I actually asserted myself again. I'm not use to this kind of thing. For years, I kept my mouth shut for fear that I'd offend somebody or say something wrong. Then, a while ago, I stopped caring quite as much. Don't know when it happened. But, there you go, I decided to stop acting like a wuss and defend my opinions, and those of others, from time to time. Yah rah for me, right?
When I began to write this Blog again after a long absence, it was because of the incident I allude to in Post #1 here - an encounter with one of the "self-proclaimed experts" of miniature gaming. Shortly thereafter, another incident occurred.
It seems that a certain author had written a supplement for a set of rules that I enjoy playing, but had chosen to use a rather controversial chronology for the events he dealt with. Controversial in that, when I'd attempted to use the same chronology for my OWN research, I was essentially told that using such a chronology was tantamount to academic suicide. This author, for whom I have nothing but respect, preceeded to classify the chronology he had chosen to use as being "generally accepted by the academic community" using the major mailing list accessed by many players of the particular game system he was writing for.
This is a very, very dangerous statement. Saying that something is "generally accepted by the academic community" is like saying that the State of Israel is "generally accepted by the people of the Middle East", or that the policies of the Bush Administration are "generally accepted by Americans". Academic types (I don't call myself an academic, but I do recognize that I am, by default, part of the academic community) generally have a problem agreeing upon ANYTHING. That's part of the problem with the Social Sciences at the moment - not a hell of a lot of new things are happening because the old farts who run the show don't like it when new ideas, theories, and avenues of thought are tested. For my part, I've recieved a fair amount of flack for my work on Mithraism.
So, anyway, as I was sayin', this is a very dangerous statement to make. Therefore, in the spirit of being helpful and defending my own viewpoint, I informed this author that the term "generally accepted" wasn't really accurate. Many historians and archaeologists, ESPECIALLY archaeologists, are loathe to accept the chronology suggested by my friend. At the time, I thought it a perfectly innocent comment. But lo, what a storm of human excrement I recieved...
Ironically, some of the most hurtful comments came from a certain individual, who accused me of "pontificating". Pontificating. Me. I realize that most of the people who read this Blog probably don't know me personally, but I assure you that, for me personally, being accused of pontificating is pretty damned brutal. I have always prided myself on being open-minded, fairly nice, and willing to discuss new ideas with everyone. I specifically AVOID playing certain historical miniatures games and historical wargames because they tend to draw pontificating, over-generalizing dunderheads.
I never play DBM, for example, in response to this very phenomenon. I don't particularly dislike the system, but I feel that many DBM players are snobs, know-it-alls, and told-you-sos. Not my cup of tea. I DO play DBA and HOTT, but this is primarily because the fatheads who ruined DBM for me generally avoid those two games like the plague.
I find my accuser's position to be rather ironic. I greatly admire his writing, and his research. I am particularly impressed by the fact that the guy, who isn't a historian or archaeologist by trade as far as I can tell, has such a copious amount of knowledge regarding a topic which is fairly obscure to all but the nerdiest of nerds in the Social Sciences. The problem is that I've seen him do what he calls "pontificating" a dozen times. Sometimes in direct response to my own posts.
I'll ask about a topic, and he'll respond with a very long, very well written response to my query; better yet, I'll discuss a certain subject that he's fond of with another member of the list, and he'll chime in with his own thoughts. All perfectly acceptable. But apparently, NOT when I do it.
Sort of cyclical, isn't it? Bitterly ironic, at least. I make a comment about how know-it-alls are ruining the hobby, then proceed a few days later to make a harmless comment that others percieve as my attempt to do the same thing I've just lambasted here in the Mithraeum.
Sometimes being a Vedic-Avestan deity can be more trouble than it's worth.
I actually asserted myself again. I'm not use to this kind of thing. For years, I kept my mouth shut for fear that I'd offend somebody or say something wrong. Then, a while ago, I stopped caring quite as much. Don't know when it happened. But, there you go, I decided to stop acting like a wuss and defend my opinions, and those of others, from time to time. Yah rah for me, right?
When I began to write this Blog again after a long absence, it was because of the incident I allude to in Post #1 here - an encounter with one of the "self-proclaimed experts" of miniature gaming. Shortly thereafter, another incident occurred.
It seems that a certain author had written a supplement for a set of rules that I enjoy playing, but had chosen to use a rather controversial chronology for the events he dealt with. Controversial in that, when I'd attempted to use the same chronology for my OWN research, I was essentially told that using such a chronology was tantamount to academic suicide. This author, for whom I have nothing but respect, preceeded to classify the chronology he had chosen to use as being "generally accepted by the academic community" using the major mailing list accessed by many players of the particular game system he was writing for.
This is a very, very dangerous statement. Saying that something is "generally accepted by the academic community" is like saying that the State of Israel is "generally accepted by the people of the Middle East", or that the policies of the Bush Administration are "generally accepted by Americans". Academic types (I don't call myself an academic, but I do recognize that I am, by default, part of the academic community) generally have a problem agreeing upon ANYTHING. That's part of the problem with the Social Sciences at the moment - not a hell of a lot of new things are happening because the old farts who run the show don't like it when new ideas, theories, and avenues of thought are tested. For my part, I've recieved a fair amount of flack for my work on Mithraism.
So, anyway, as I was sayin', this is a very dangerous statement to make. Therefore, in the spirit of being helpful and defending my own viewpoint, I informed this author that the term "generally accepted" wasn't really accurate. Many historians and archaeologists, ESPECIALLY archaeologists, are loathe to accept the chronology suggested by my friend. At the time, I thought it a perfectly innocent comment. But lo, what a storm of human excrement I recieved...
Ironically, some of the most hurtful comments came from a certain individual, who accused me of "pontificating". Pontificating. Me. I realize that most of the people who read this Blog probably don't know me personally, but I assure you that, for me personally, being accused of pontificating is pretty damned brutal. I have always prided myself on being open-minded, fairly nice, and willing to discuss new ideas with everyone. I specifically AVOID playing certain historical miniatures games and historical wargames because they tend to draw pontificating, over-generalizing dunderheads.
I never play DBM, for example, in response to this very phenomenon. I don't particularly dislike the system, but I feel that many DBM players are snobs, know-it-alls, and told-you-sos. Not my cup of tea. I DO play DBA and HOTT, but this is primarily because the fatheads who ruined DBM for me generally avoid those two games like the plague.
I find my accuser's position to be rather ironic. I greatly admire his writing, and his research. I am particularly impressed by the fact that the guy, who isn't a historian or archaeologist by trade as far as I can tell, has such a copious amount of knowledge regarding a topic which is fairly obscure to all but the nerdiest of nerds in the Social Sciences. The problem is that I've seen him do what he calls "pontificating" a dozen times. Sometimes in direct response to my own posts.
I'll ask about a topic, and he'll respond with a very long, very well written response to my query; better yet, I'll discuss a certain subject that he's fond of with another member of the list, and he'll chime in with his own thoughts. All perfectly acceptable. But apparently, NOT when I do it.
Sort of cyclical, isn't it? Bitterly ironic, at least. I make a comment about how know-it-alls are ruining the hobby, then proceed a few days later to make a harmless comment that others percieve as my attempt to do the same thing I've just lambasted here in the Mithraeum.
Sometimes being a Vedic-Avestan deity can be more trouble than it's worth.
posted by Aurelian at 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home