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]

IMHO, there’s a grain of truth here, but just a grain.

The grain: Eddie Van Halen created & recorded the blistering guitar solo in Michael Jackson’s “Beat It”. But Jennifer Batten played that solo on stage as MJ’s touring guitarist, and has probably played that solo more than any other professional guitarist on the planet. Her understanding and feel for playing it is unmatched.

Where I disagree: diminishing the interpretation of a work’s creator to merely “one amongst many” as opposed to ceding its primacy is discounting the personal experience of someone else from a remove, and should only be done in extreme situations. Batten’s understanding of playing the “Beat It” solo was the best, but she probably has a lesser understanding of why the solo was composed the way it was than EVH did.

Your understanding of Shelly’s Frankenstein is based on the accretion of the thousands of hours of scholarly interpretation built up over the centuries, but it’s all from the outside looking in.

All that said, I still agree that a work’s creator may include meaningful aspects they may not even be conscious of. I’d also say that finding something in a work that would be impossible for a creator to be aware of is a combination of coincidence and projection.

I agree with a lot of this. Also just as a musician, and with art in general, I tend to like the early forms of things more than later (I prefer the 1818 Frankenstein to the 1831 revision, I feel like Star Wars as we experienced it and as it was intended was in many ways lost when Lucas started altering it over the years----to the extent that the composition of the shots feels distorted now in some instances). With musical re-interpretations, often someone makes something their own in a way that supplants the original. I am not familiar with Batten's rendition of Beat It so I can't comment on that one. But there is artistry involved in interpretation and reimagining another artists' work. What that doesn't do is take away the significance or meaning of the original. Even when a work has been eclipsed by a cover, you learn a lot going back and following things to the source. Also in the case of Van Halen, even though I must admit I am not a massive fan, he was a pioneer. I can't deny that he changed guitar as we know it. The only song of his I can play is eruption (which I think most guitarists are taught as just a standard part of learning technique). And so if I were to suddenly take an interest in learning the beat it solo, I would want to give primacy to him

 

[Clint_L]

IMHO, there’s a grain of truth here, but just a grain.

The grain: Eddie Van Halen created & recorded the blistering guitar solo in Michael Jackson’s “Beat It”. But Jennifer Batten played that solo on stage as MJ’s touring guitarist, and has probably played that solo more than any other professional guitarist on the planet. Her understanding and feel for playing it is unmatched.

Where I disagree: diminishing the interpretation of a work’s creator to merely “one amongst many” as opposed to ceding its primacy is discounting the personal experience of someone else from a remove, and should only be done in extreme situations. Batten’s understanding of playing the “Beat It” solo was the best, but she probably has a lesser understanding of why the solo was composed the way it was than EVH did.

I just disagree. I mean, obviously if your interest is in why the text was composed the way it was, then the author is of primary importance (which I already acknowledged). But if your interest is in the meaning of the text, or in interpreting it, then absolutely the author is just one voice among many. Shelley doesn't own the meaning of Frankenstein; it has far transcended her.

Edit: to me, this is no different than, for example, casting Macbeth with a woman in the lead role. Obviously not Shakespeare's intent, but a completely valid interpretation that brings an interesting new perspective to the text.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with @Dannyalcatraz as a guitar player on this one (and I think his position is pretty nuanced here). But admittedly a guitar solo is tricky because there are no words, it is all emotion, melody, cadence and phrasing.

Well, before discarding use of the guitar example, for lack expertise of guitar experience, I considered:

There's lots of things that go into guitar playing, many of which are physical - the hands of the player matter. The pickups (or lack thereof) matter. The audio equipment you put your output through matters. And EVH is known, even to me, as a player of inventive, idiosyncratic technique - so copying him isn't something a lot of folks can pull off.

So, elements of "why was it done that way originally" can rely on things that are not applicable to a current player - if you aren't EVH paying on 1983 tech, maybe much of it isn't something that'll matter to you. Looking to a good, but still more workaday, player who worked a version of that solo over and over and over as a routine matter might be more valuable for many players at home, as the techniques used might be more achievable or understandable.

 

[Umbran]

Anyone who sees the movie and thinks they are getting the creature from the book, is in my view, incorrect.

But why is whether they are (or think they are) getting the creature from the book all that central?

Why do we care about that, as opposed to caring about what each version means to the audience, and whether, perhaps, the mute creature actually carries some of the original themes better than the original text does?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Edit: to me, this is no different than, for example, casting Macbeth with a woman in the lead role. Obviously not Shakespeare's intent, but a completely valid interpretation that brings an interesting new perspective to the text.

Shakespeare's intent was that Lady Macbeth was played by a man.

 

[CleverNickName]

This discussion reminded me of this gem from 2007:

Unconventional Director Sets Shakespeare Play In Time, Place Shakespeare Intended

MORRISTOWN, NJ—In an innovative, tradition-defying rethinking of one of the greatest comedies in the English language, Morristown Community Players director Kevin Hiles announced Monday his bold intention to set his theater's production of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice in...

www.theonion.com

"You just don't mess with a classic."

 

[Clint_L]

Shakespeare's intent was that Lady Macbeth was played by a man.

Yes, I am aware. By "lead role" I meant the titular character, Macbeth. You could argue that they are co-leads I suppose (even though she has a third as many lines and dies offstage before the finale), but I thought my meaning was clear.

Art does not mean anything outside of the interpreter. There isn't some capital M Meaning to Macbeth, Frankenstein, or this box art that is written in the stars. There's no Platonic essence to it. If you see a woman in that box art, you're not wrong, even though your interpretation is different than the author's intent.

Whether or not your interpretation is convincing to others is another story. If you look at that box art and see the dragon as an obvious symbol of untrammelled capitalism, while the warrior clearly stands in for the rebellion of the oppressed proletariat, you're going to have to make a persuasive argument.

 

[Raiztt]

Yes, I am aware. By "lead role" I meant the titular character, Macbeth. You could argue that they are co-leads I suppose (even though she has a third as many lines and dies offstage before the finale), but I thought my meaning was clear.

Art does not mean anything outside of the interpreter. There isn't some capital M Meaning to Macbeth, Frankenstein, or this box art that is written in the stars. There's no Platonic essence to it. If you see a woman in that box art, you're not wrong, even though your interpretation is different than the author's intent.

Whether or not your interpretation is convincing to others is another story. If you look at that box art and see the dragon as an obvious symbol of untrammelled capitalism, while the warrior clearly stands in for the rebellion of the oppressed proletariat, you're going to have to make a persuasive argument.

Uh, sir, the dragon definitely represents the corrupt and decadent USSR while the warrior represents freedom liberating the hoard so that it can be used more efficiently in the free market.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unless you mean to dismiss all of history itself as "coincidence," I guess. Though at that point I think you would have done far, far more damage than an erroneously excessive application of the death of the author ever did.

and

This reads as if you are really trying hard to dismiss the fact that creators are human, with limited perspective. Whether or not is it impossible for a creator to have missed something... humans miss things. A lot.

By “impossible” I mean something more than a trivial commonality. A poem about sunsets could have been composed at anytime in human history and still be relatable.

OTOH, someone asserting that a poem written in the 1700s was about Robin Williams’ rise to fame and untimely demise would be incorrect, regardless of how eerily prescient the words were.

Like I said, I’ve personally created IP in multiple formats myself, and I fully accept that people have detected things within my work that were absolutely not intended but were nonetheless present by any fair analysis.

But coincidences are a thing. Projection happens. If someone were to assert that my written works supported ethnic cleansing of my hometown, I’d be forced to assume they were nuts.

 

[Gradine]

Like all things, the "Death of the Author" has a more complex meaning (and history) than its pithy name suggests. First off, it's not a coincidence that Death of the Author grew more widespread and accepted as a theory at around the same time that "non-traditional" authors (read: women and people of color) were gaining traction in the literary world. Not to say that there were sexist/racist motivations behind its invention, but they certainly helped get certain types of folks to adopt it.

Second, "Death of the Author" is a problematic phrasing as well, because it doesn't remove either the author or their biography from the literary criticism. A common (but incorrect) interpretation of "Death of the Author" is that we should only look to the text, and nothing else, when critically examining a work. DotA simply posits that it's all text. The actual work, sure, but also the biography of the creator, and also their other works, the things they said in public about it, the things they said in private about it, what others are saying about it, etc.

Death of the Author is no more prescriptive than any other framework of critical analysis, because prescriptivism (and objectivity) don't belong in critical analysis at all.