General Update (Icon0clasm and more!)

Back from wherever I was! First, I’d like to call attention and give thanks to those of you who have submitted projects to the Icon0clasm Ball (extended to end of the year for my sake!):

• Songs for Polymede (Oleander Garden): I was fully gagged when I saw this project submitted. It’s freak shit in the most delightful way: a module whose setting is encoded through fictional myths in poetry and prose, combined with new rules for manufacture and trade, and a possible elaboration of 0E’s combat rules. Transsexual body politics meets Capital-as-God meets neko goblins. This is a really fascinating setting which I’d love to explore someday, and the way in which it transforms (or, as Oleander puts it, tortures) OD&D reflects the material culture of the original work, being in line with the form factor of the 1975 supplements.

• The Hidden Chains of Command (Anteater): This is a really fascinating critique of FMC as a facsimile of Chainmail and OD&D. Specifically, the author argues that the pseudo-historical wargaming figures in Chainmail which were excluded from FMC’s corresponding Chain of Command are actually key to understanding the loose setting of OD&D (itself reproduced in FMC). I was worried about seeing exegesis submitted to the jam, because most exegesis of OD&D is interested in reproducing its logic and play culture, but this work is fantastic cultural critique of OD&D as a setting as well as a critique of FMC as a facsimile. “This booklet’s intention is to hold up a mirror to the Medusa that is [OD&D or FMC], to show it what it doesn’t want to see about itself, hoping that this will allow referees and players to confront its setting in novel and rewarding ways” (p. 23). Very thoughtful! If it didn’t mean redoing page numbers, I’d highly reconsider my decision to exclude this content from FMC.

• Elfgame (Ancestral Peninsula): This work is a well-produced, aesthetically pleasing retroclone whose goal is to be “as far as possible from its inspirations [in particular, OD&D] without compromising its retrocompatibility” (p. 5). To be honest, I think the OSR at large lacks aesthetic sensibilities, but the Brazilian scene in particular always consistently excels at producing materials which look welcoming and fun, while also being well-organized for play, aligning with (I’ve noticed) a tendency towards casual, fiction-forward play. That specific OSR vision is the only one that personally appeals to me despite its play-premises, and it fascinates me as an alternative strain.

My own thing is almost done, and has already been wonderfully illustrated by Hodag, but I’ve been procrastinating on making a (nicer version of the) scenario map and—as I’ve put it to some of my friends—I’ve been high on proverbial opium lately due to the extenuating circumstances of our world-historical situation. Care for some late-night meditations from when I was driving for five hours? Some ledes buried in messy trains of thought?

• Paul is interesting because his concerns are organizational, especially with regards to the interactions between particular cultures (in his world, Jewish or Hellenistic) and the universal politeia (of God), and which concerns belong to one sphere or another. However, he does not take for granted an objective politeia, but is rather interested in actively building communities organized around the singular politeia he believes is correct and most just, against the one which was dominant in his time.

• I think liberals tend to prefer the Gospels over Paul because, as second-generation texts, they are more concerned with individual moral guidance than what we might consider political, organizational, or cosmological issues (or at least what can be construed as such by emphasizing the “red letters” and eliding the world-historical dimensions of Jesus’ life and mission).

• Liberal Jesus is perhaps nicer but even less useful than conservative Jesus. The idea that religion is an individual sphere of personal belief lacking social or historical force is in service of the liberal bourgeois society we call secular, despite being organized around its own social relations and embodied idolatrous fetishes. We can’t surrender clarity of purpose to the fascists.

• The Gospels should be read as narratives which attempt to situate key teachings and events in the mission of Jesus, not even as conflicting histories (necessarily) of Jesus and his actual life. All four are useful as a constellation through which we get the gist of who Jesus was, what he taught, and why he died; but one must take an individual gospel with a grain of salt, because of their authors’ particular concerns and values. You’re better off writing a new gospel from scratch than trying to reconcile the four we canonically accept into one narrative.

• Paul seems to self-posture as someone who is authoritative, but not necessarily dogmatic except in convictions he seems to consider core and outside of himself—probably coming from Jerusalem or perhaps revealed to him in his visions of Christ. Relatedly, I think that the conflict between Paul and James (et al.) is overstated and comes down to questions of implementing politeia given cultural differences. What is actually just, as opposed to what is Jewish or Greek? Nature is a possible heuristic according to Paul.

One more thing: I'm revising a concept I had for a Harvest Moon type-shit solo game or downtime procedure into a role-playing game where one player (the mayor, I guess) sends weekly digests to other players who submit their activities each month. I think this would be especially fun using physical letters and stationary, but I'm considering running something like this via mailing list. If you are interested, please let me know on Discord (assuming we're already friends there).