Strange Work

Pardon while I take a break from the series of posts — I have another in mind, not to worry.  Life's been a trial of late.  I had that two-week vocational crisis, and just as I started to come down from that, my partner Tamara broke her humerus; she's been laid up this week.  We intended to leave on vacation this Saturday, four days hence, but now that's put off until late July as she recovers.  This is not the summer we had planned.

It's just as well, as we were going to drive north of Edmonton and swing through Slave Lake Alberta before heading west.  I've never been that far north and we were ready to explore ... but just now, Slave Lake has been preparing for wide scale evacuations due to fires that are raging through the same forests we intended to drive through.  If we were going, it wouldn't be that way.  Seems the trip was doomed from the start.

To relax, I've undertaken a strange, Alexis-like project.  Starting with the first book of my 1952 Colliers encyclopedia, which I've had since 1986 and upon which much of my trade system is based, I've begun copying out entries ... starting with Aa on page 1, Aachen, Aarau, Abaco and so on.  I finished Adige today, on page 93.  12,000 pages to go.

So ... why, exactly?  At first, I wasn't sure.  I've been keeping an encyclopedia in the bathroom for those times that most people keep other reading material for, and on April 17th — while reading through the history of Pennsylvania, it occurred to me that some of that would fit well into my wiki format.  In the sense that, with the timeline of my Earth-like world existing in the world 1650, I could throw out any reference in the encyclopedia's details that took place after that.  In essence, create a 1650 edition of an encyclopedia.

At first, this seemed like something of a lark.  But once I started to get into the process, I couldn't help noticing the value of knowing what parts of the world did look like in that year.  For example, Abaco in the Caribbean, linked above.  By 1520, just 28 years after the arrival of Columbus in the west, Spaniards did slaughter or enslave every native on these islands.  I didn't know that.  More importantly, I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't started this funny little project.

Just prior, I'd put together the page of Aarau, link above, where my 1952 encyclopedia had the following description: "Nearby are the ruins of the Hapsburg, the original castle of the counts of Hapsburg ..."  But the encyclopedia didn't say when the castle was destroyed.  So I checked it out on the internet and learned the answer (it appears on the linked page).  The question being, was the castle destroyed before, or after, my world takes place?

This particular theme has been fascinating throughout this project.  The best revelation so far on these lines has come out of the Acropolis.  Some here may be familiar with story of the Parthenon — that was built with a roof, and that it housed a 40-foot statue of Athena, fashioned out of wood, ivory and gold ... and that the Parthenon fell to ruin at some point, being more than 2,000 years old.  For myself, I couldn't say definitely when the statue and the Parthenon's roof fell in.  As it happens, the year was 1656.  It was blown up.  6 years after my game world takes place.  Which means that in my game's time, the statue is still there.  No, I know the game is all imagination, but damn.  There's something about that which I find pretty awesome.

Sometimes I look up a building and it is gone by 1650, and sometimes not.  And sometimes I find an odd detail about a writer who wrote epic poetry in the 13th century that wasn't printed until the 19th.  Meaning that the works exist, just not in published form.  I'd never stumbled across that particular oddness.  Perhaps I'd read it, but it never sank in.  Not until now, as I tailor each encyclopedia entry for the year 1650.

Another aspect is that I can change history in neat little ways because it's my account on my wiki, and not the account on Wikipedia.  Of course much more information can be found on wikipedia; I'm not copying everything.  But like the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is designed for the modern reader.  I'm trying to produce a version that gives what the player character in the world would know ... and that includes details that work for a D&D game world and not for in actual scholarship.

For decades I've taken the position that all the magic spells that exist had to be invented at some point.  It stands to reason.  The original DMG gave rules for inventing spells; presumably, at some point in the past, some mage invented the spell fireball; someone else invented cloudkill; and someone else invented spider climb.  Ah, but who?

We know some are invented by mages called Tenser, Mordenkainen and Bigby.  I've read online versions of their biographies and I have to say, they're shit.  Clearly, the writers have no idea how biographies work.  In any case, this accounts for a tiny number of spells ... and for none of the clerical or druidical spells in the canon.  There's no distinction made about "inventing" these spells that come from the gods.  The book seems to suggest that we can.  I see it as a specific cleric grasps through the interpretation of a specific text how to encourage the gods to release a specific spell as a benefice.  And once that spell is put into the world, like Prometheus stealing fire, it becomes possible to teach other clerics or druids the same trick to get said spell.

Following this argument, there must have been a time when only one spell existed in all the world.  That must have been post 4000 BC, given the rise of human culture; and by 3000, there must have been a couple dozen spells at least.  But which spells?  And having defined those, who invented them?

Well, from the encyclopedia I'm copying out biographies of real people in the real world who could have been clerics and mages in a D&D version of Earth.  Take, for example, Adam Scotus, whose life reads much like an adventurer cleric ... a distinction I'm free to write directly into the wiki page, which obviously doesn't belong on wikipedia.

I can also ascribe the invention of a spell by this person, and include that detail.  And any other details I care to add for any additional content originating with the encyclopedia.  I love it.  After all, I'm not trying to render an accurate version of history or the world; I'm creating a D&D setting.

As a final note, for anyone who might puzzle why I'm doing this, and not writing my book (though I am, though more slowly than I did this Spring) ... or why I'm doing this, and not updating spells on the wiki, which need doing ... or why I'm doing this, and not writing sage abilities.  Please understand.  I'm not inventing with these entries.  I'm copying.  It's like writing with a crutch.  It takes very little effort, and if I get a little inspiration I plug it in.  Meanwhile, it's a pleasure to be at a task that urges me to learn things, or follow up on little details that the encyclopedia doesn't really explain, so that I can add a note or two from Wikipedia.  It's not work.  It's not something I need to feel confident about, or has to measure up to anyone's expectation.  Not like the book is.

Nor is it remaking something from scratch, like writing sage abilities.  Or fixing spells in a way that have to work accurately and precisely in a rule set.  Some things that I write are taxing.  They drain me.  And some things I work on are a pleasure.  They sustain me, they inspire me, they excite me.

Athena Parthenos is still there?  Woah.  I wish I was living in 1650.

P.S.,

I have read theories that she isn't, that she was taken by the Byzantines before the 10th century and so on.  But none of these theories are confirmed.  So I discount them.  Moreover, gunpowder isn't used extensively in my game world.  It's possible the statue might stand for much longer ... if some evil mage doesn't blow it up.