Walter & Group:
This message from Walter Simberski on STYLE :-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gordy - Sounds like you made it home ok. Good to hear.
Still struggling with the definition of style. I'll quite happily accept
the idea that I was wrong that style can affect timing if we start with the
idea that any definition of style precludes the idea that style can not
affect any of Gammel's five elements of the cast (plus the need for a stop)
and work forward from there.
So far the definitions I've been able to get people to put forward on style are:
- there are two casting styles - open stance and closed stance
- substance is everything required to make the cast, style is the rest
- style is everything that makes the cast look pretty
Some good concepts here but still shy of the mark in my opinion since none of
them enforce the requirement that style can not affect the basic elements.
Also - we tend to be a bit free with the use of the word style. Nobody ever uses
the term "casting substance", as in, "The substance required to cast in to the
wind...", or, "Your casting substance is not good for the following reason..."
I can't blame them. Casting substance is not an aesthetically pleasing term.
I have some other learnings from the conclave to pass on when I have the time.
Cheers
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Walter...
One reasonable way to looi at it.....but I think it misses the mark on one point.
The way I (and many of us) look at it, the choice of style made by the caster should be made on more than what makes the cast look good.
I think that if you answer the questions I posed earlier, it may lead you to a more complete answer.
Gordy