Huh... I'll have to re-read. (it's been 3+ decades for me)
I had been recalling that the raw materiel (the "beads", see millefiori in neighbouring thread) was shared, part of the "extant literature" if you will, but that plays were supposed to be novel as well as good. (a bit like an LZ decompressor, where each additional bit of input both recalls something in the dictionary and adds a new entry)
I have been assuming it was the players' personal styles that provided the novelty, but upon reflection that could easily be my US background more than the source text speaking!
Edit: come to think of it, maybe that's a valid criticism of the game as played in Castalia — that the castalians had become too conventional, losing the playfulness of their play?
(in possible relation, I was watching a national championship final over a decade ago with the mother of one of the contestants: she was very critical of her daughter, and correctly predicted the other would become champion. Why, I asked during the match? Her response: her daughter always came up with the classical textbook plays, whereas the the eventual champion knew how to exploit gambits: plays that were, on paper, weaker, but in practice, strong due to the element of surprise)
Links have to be interesting but based on intrinsic quality of the linked elements and not the player experience as far as I remember but the rules are kept deliberately fuzzy in the book anyway. I don’t think the game is ever played outside of Castalia. I’m not entirely sure to be honest with you.
I do remember that Hesse description of how the past colours our experience of the present and his thoughts on both the nature of subjectivity and the place of spirituality made a strong impression on the young me at the time.
I probably should read this book again. It seems like the time is right.
I had been recalling that the raw materiel (the "beads", see millefiori in neighbouring thread) was shared, part of the "extant literature" if you will, but that plays were supposed to be novel as well as good. (a bit like an LZ decompressor, where each additional bit of input both recalls something in the dictionary and adds a new entry)
I have been assuming it was the players' personal styles that provided the novelty, but upon reflection that could easily be my US background more than the source text speaking!
Edit: come to think of it, maybe that's a valid criticism of the game as played in Castalia — that the castalians had become too conventional, losing the playfulness of their play?
(in possible relation, I was watching a national championship final over a decade ago with the mother of one of the contestants: she was very critical of her daughter, and correctly predicted the other would become champion. Why, I asked during the match? Her response: her daughter always came up with the classical textbook plays, whereas the the eventual champion knew how to exploit gambits: plays that were, on paper, weaker, but in practice, strong due to the element of surprise)