D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

The Dungeons & Dragons Red Box, famously illustrated by Larry Elmore in 1983, featured cover art of a warrior fighting a red dragon. The piece is an iconic part of D&D's history.

WizKids is creating a 50th Anniversary D&D miniatures set for the D&D Icons of the Realms line which includes models based on classic art from the game, such as the AD&D Player's Handbook's famous 'A Paladin In Hell' piece by David Sutherland in 1978, along with various monsters and other iconic images. The set will be available in July 2024.

Amongst the collection is Elmore's dragon-fighting warrior. This character has only ever been seen from behind, and has never been named or identified. However, WizKids’ miniature gives us our first look at them from the front. The warrior is a woman; the view from behind is identical to the original art, while the view from the front--the first time the character's face has ever been seen--is, as WizKids told ComicBook.com, "purposefully and clearly" a woman. This will be one of 10 secret rare miniatures included in the D&D Icons of the Realms: 50th Anniversary booster boxes.

The original artist, Larry Elmore, says otherwise. (Update—the linked post has since been edited).

It's a man!

Gary didn't know what he wanted, all he wanted was something simple that would jump out at you. He wanted a male warrior. If it was a woman, you would know it for I'm pretty famous for painting women.

There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior.

No one thought it was a female warrior. "Whoever thought it was a female warrior is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

This is stupid. I painted it, I should know.

- Larry Elmore​

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman. Either way, it's an awesome miniature. And for those who love the art, you can buy a print from Larry Elmore's official website.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The idea that there is a "true" meaning of an artwork is something that has been rejected by art criticism for the better part of a century now. So, yeah, it's pretty outrageous. By claiming that there is a "true" interpretation of a work, and even further that this "true" interpretation is the one put forth by the author leads to some really, really uncomfortable places.

It hasn't been thoroughly rejected. At least Death of the Author is not without critics. And there are lots of people who reject the idea. There are also lots of adherents to it. But again, I am not saying there is one true meaning (as I said we can find other meanings than the intended meaning in a work) just that the author's intent, the context of their times, those are relevant to understanding its meaning IMO.

J. K. Rowling can claim that Dumbledore is gay until her head falls off. It's not actually supported in the text. There's nothing in the text that even suggests Dumbledore's sexuality. At least, not in the original novels. So, no, it's not a "true" interpretation. Just as an easy example.

I never said anything the author says about their work automatically means it's an accurate assessment of the meaning. I said in my previous posts, we have to evaluate the words of the author. I don't read Harry Potter (just never had any interest in it) so I can't comment on this particular question. But I would say it is a bit like Greedo shot first according to Lucas. Yes Lucas' intent matters a lot. But I am very skeptical of his claim based on my memories of seeing earlier versions and how radically it changes the character of Han to have him only shoot after he has been fired upon by a mobster. So I don't disagree that an author simply saying something means we have to interpret that as the true meaning. Authors lie, they misremember, they change their mind, etc. We have to use our judgement in evaluating their words

Authors can be wrong. Authors can lie. Authors can change their minds. Just like anyone can. Which means that the author's intent can never be proven. Which means it's a belief, not an idea. And like any belief in something that is "true" that belief can and will be used to bludgeon other people over the head for being wrong.

I agree 100%. My argument has never been that authors are infallible when it comes to the meaning of their works. And I never said it can be proven. But it not being a certainty doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get close to their true intention and consider all the various reasons and arguments we can. It is a bit like looking at a historical document. You never have 100% certainty about the past, but you try to reconstruct the details of the past as accurately as you can based on the evidence you have (you don't throw up your hands and say 'history is whatever people want it to be').

All one has to do is start reading this thread from the first page to see EXACTLY that. All the claims that Elmore is being insulted, repeated quotes of Elmore's reaction being used as "proof" that Wizkids and WotC are "wrong". On and on.

I would invite you to look at my words on this. I can't speak to what others have claimed. My only points regarding the figure have been 1) it is a bit silly to act like there has been this mystery around the gender this whole time and 2) I think implying that is the case, does somewhat insult elmore's talents as an artist as I think he used his skills to convey the gender he wanted quite well

None of that means I am opposed to them swapping the gender with the new figuring. They can do whatever they want with a new model.

So, yes. We do have to draw a hard line here. This isn't one of those, "well, let's agree to disagree" things. The notion of the primacy of the author has been rejected for a very long time. I frankly cannot even begin to understand how this is a debate. This was resolved decades ago. I have no idea why some people are still clinging to this notion of the primacy of creator after it being so thoroughly debunked.

Again, it isn't dead. Plenty of people subscribe to the view that the author's intent, life and the context of their times are primary concerns for understanding the text. And even if we disagree on that, even if I am in a minority of 5% of people on that front (which I do not believe I am), that doesn't mean you have good people on one side and bad people on the other. We are talking about how we interpret art and text. There was a paper called Death of the Author written in 1967. That didn't resolve anything. It is just one writer's idea that some people have adopted. But it has been pushed back against. You are framing this like people are crazy if they don't subscribe to it and that just isn't true. This isn't like refusing to believe in evolution or plate tectonics

 

[Blue Orange]

"Death of the author" appears to originate with Roland Barthes in 1967. You don't have to agree with him. And even if it's been "thoroughly debunked", you can reject the debunking. It's not like gravity where you can do experiments to figure out what the real number is. I can approach Dante's Divine Comedy in the medieval fashion as a spiritual guide to know God better, and I might even get more out of it that way. It's an allegory to begin with; Dante said as much.

Here's a brief overview of the debate:

Authorial intent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now if you want to decide that you're going to side against Elmore because you want to open up who enjoys D&D that's one thing, and I think most people here would agree with you. Many later authors would focus on the way power structures interact with interpretation (Foucault comes to mind, I think). But it's not like the sciences where there's an assumption of an 'objective reality' we can approach (though any scientist will tell you all models are false but some models are useful).

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Death of the author" appears to originate with Roland Barthes in 1967. You don't have to agree with him. And even if it's been "thoroughly debunked", you can reject the debunking. It's not like gravity where you can do experiments to figure out what the real number is. I can approach Dante's Divine Comedy in the medieval fashion as a spiritual guide to know God better, and I might even get more out of it that way. It's an allegory to begin with; Dante said as much.

I have been reading the Divine Comedy the past two years (mostly my focus was on the Purgatory section but I have reading the whole thing and coming back to it frequently). I have read the Purgatorio about 3-4 times at this point.

Are you approaching it lectio divina? I have done that with some of the Gospels

My background is in history, so when I read a novel, one of the first things I learn about is the author's life, what I can about the time they lived in, etc. I tend to approach it from a historical mindset. I re-read Frankenstein recently which is why I mentioned it as an example, but also read the House of the Seven Gables. To be honest I found the actual story by Hawthorne to be quite dull, but I live near Salem so I made a point of trying to visit important areas, reading up on the Salem Witch Trials again and Salem history, etc. I can still encounter the books from my own perspective and with my own meaning, but I find the intent to be overridingly important for me.

 

[MNblockhead]

"Once upon a time, a long time ago, in a far off land by the sea, there lived a much maligned dragon. Don't you know it was really a pity because there never was a different meaning than the obvious one. Puff the magic dragon was only about the loss of innocence of children."

I remember volunteering answering phones during my local PBS station's pledge drive while a Peter, Paul, and Mary concert was being aired and had a guy call in to complain about the song. Also had someone call in to complain about Sesame Street teaching Spanish words.

But I don't care what Peter Yarrow, or the angry man calling into the pledge drive, say. Puff the Magic Dragon is the literal truth. Puff is real and is still out there. He just refuses to play with us once we get old enough to overthink art. ;-).

 

[Blue Orange]

Are you approaching it lectio divina? I have done that with some of the Gospels

Nope, not religious. My point was more that older forms of reading texts aren't necessarily 'superseded', and with older texts (such as the Divine Comedy) might actually give a richer experience, since that was intended by the author.

As for Elmore's painting...IMHO it's a very good piece of 80s fantasy art but obviously no Divine Comedy, and you can interpret it as you like.

My background is in history, so when I read a novel, one of the first things I learn about is the author's life, what I can about the time they lived in, etc. I tend to approach it from a historical mindset. I re-read Frankenstein recently which is why I mentioned it as an example, but also read the House of the Seven Gables. To be honest I found the actual story by Hawthorne to be quite dull, but I live near Salem so I made a point of trying to visit important areas, reading up on the Salem Witch Trials again and Salem history, etc. I can still encounter the books from my own perspective and with my own meaning, but I find the intent to be overridingly important for me.

Yeah, I try to do that as well. Of course the original places may no longer exist, or may be irrevocably transformed (lots of Civil War battlefields are now paved over). It's not a uniquely Western thing, either; apparently Three Kingdoms tours are popular in China, for instance.


As for Puff the Magic Dragon, the original authors have denied the drug interpretation, claiming it's about childhood innocence.

Puff, the Magic Dragon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's even a later 2007 kids' book (with the involvement of the original songwriters) where Jackie Paper introduces Puff to his daughter, changing the original melancholy to more of a cyclical interpretation.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Look at what licensed action figure got released last year. So much for the WizKids claim of the revealing of a 50 year mystery (for a piece of art that was publicly released in 1983 which was 41 years ago).

Dungeons and Dragons ReAction - The Formidable Fighter

Taking on an epic adventure and facing down fearsome beasts is not for the faint of heart or frail of body! This articulated, 3.75” scale SDCC edition Dungeons & Dragons ReAction Figure of Formidable Fighter certainly looks ready to take on any manner of challenge with determined scowl, bulging...

super7.com

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nope, not religious. My point was more that older forms of reading texts aren't necessarily 'superseded', and with older texts (such as the Divine Comedy) might actually give a richer experience, since that was intended by the author.

On this I would agree

As for Elmore's painting...IMHO it's a very good piece of 80s fantasy art but obviously no Divine Comedy, and you can interpret it as you like.

Yes, I was not putting them on the same level lol

Yeah, I try to do that as well. Of course the original places may no longer exist, or may be irrevocably transformed (lots of Civil War battlefields are now paved over). It's not a uniquely Western thing, either; apparently Three Kingdoms tours are popular in China, for instance.

Yeah, not everything survives, and some things get changed. You always have to approach these things with your antennae up I think. Here we have the Hawthorne House and the House of Seven Gables (known also as the Turner-Ingersoll Mansion). The latter is supposed to be the house that inspired House of the Seven Gables, and I have been to it many times. It can be eye opening, but also misleading if you aren't aware of changes to the building over time. For example when Hawthorne saw it, it only had three gables, eventually all the gables were removed, but they were restored when it was purchased with the aim of preserving it. However even though there was an architect overseeing the changes, some changes were made with the novel in mind, rather than the original building. And the Hawthorne House, which is another building that Hawthorne was born in, was moved from its original location not far away, so the two buildings are now nearer to one another. Generally when I have gone to the House of Seven Gables, the guides do a good job of covering this stuff, but you always have to do your homework.

 

[Umbran]

Now if you want to decide that you're going to side against Elmore...

So, I don't know if that's really a proper framing. Ultimately, it isn't about being for or against Elmore personally. It is just about recognizing that the new interpretation has validity and value.

 

[Hussar]

I would invite you to look at my words on this. I can't speak to what others have claimed.

. This isn't like refusing to believe in evolution or plate tectonics

Perhaps you should look at what others have claimed. Because your argument that the author has a privileged position is certainly being used the way I’m talking about.

And yes it’s exactly like refusing to believe in evolution. This argument was dead when I was in uni thirty years ago.

You want to see someone commit academic suicide, try floating this argument in any actual academic circle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perhaps you should look at what others have claimed. Because your argument that the author has a privileged position is certainly being used the way I’m talking about.

Well I am not using the argument in that way

And yes it’s exactly like refusing to believe in evolution. This argument was dead when I was in uni thirty years ago.

You want to see someone commit academic suicide, try floating this argument in any actual academic circle.

I graduated in the mid-2000s. I was a history student. But I had to take survey courses in literature and I remember telling a professor who was talking about Death of the Author that I didn't agree with it. It wasn't a big deal at all. They heard my position, directed me to some sources if I wanted to know more, but it wasn't like I had come into a class and denied gravity or evolution. And what is more within the history department, it was a perfectly normal position to take. I am not saying this wasn't your experience. Nor am I saying I have a handle on the state of literary departments or something. But this is a view plenty of normal every day people have about art and the meaning of art. It isn't some egregious violation of social norms to believe it. And I am not claiming to be an academic. I enjoy art for my own sake and this is how I engage it. Lots of people engage with art in this way and don't find death of the author to be an idea they agree with