WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Snarf Zagyg]

There is a part of me that gets worried though about people using the defense of "free speech" and "art" to defend things. Especially in a manner that seems so... sweeping and apathetic. And by that I mean, defending it and making no calls to do better in the future.

I was never for the banning of the book, but I was for an agreement that the content was bad and that the company needed to acknowledge that and the fact that they were still profiting from it. But, the very idea of asking them to do better in the future was met with resistance because I was infringing on art, freedom of expression and creativity.

I'm going to go out on a limb here with an admission that I read porn. Quite a bit of it. Some of it is trashy and simple and not really worth my time. Other works are ugly, horrible and disgusting and I wish I had never seen them. And still other works are beautiful and a bit transformative of my thoughts and feelings on certain subjects, because they were handled in such a compelling and interesting way for me to consider new thoughts in new ways.

And under certain sections of subject matter, I've read all three. It was not the content, but the handling of the content which elevated the work.

So, this idea that I can't tell an artist or a company "this isn't right, you aren't handling this subject matter well, please do better" because I am then going to open the doors to the death of art... I don't get it. Criticism has never killed art. Calls to improve ourselves should not be met with hostility and responses of inaction. Yes, some people will never be satisfied, but using that as an excuse to dig in our heels and never try and move forward... it seems to be the wrong approach to me.

As I have noted in other comments, I am more than aware that some of the people who defend free speech now are "fair weather" friends; the support that they provide is instrumentalist, in that they want protection for their speech, and will immediately forget about the principles that protected them when it is no longer in their interest. I am not eager to be lumped into the same boat with some of these individuals, given that they most certainly do not have the same beliefs I do.

That doesn't matter. The last paragraph is the part that is so worrisome; over and over again, people ignore what is actually getting called out. Should Mr. Kwan have just criticized the work, that would be fine. I agree with some of his criticisms (not all, but some). In fact, in another thread before this whole thing exploded I referred to the title as offensive and provided links as to why the term was offensive.

But asking for books to be removed, to be banned, is not "moving forward" as you claim; this is the very essence of censorship. I would make the same defense of Mein Kampf, or Psychopathology (if you're not familiar with that gem, it coined the the term 'homosexual panic').

Criticism doesn't kill art, of course, it makes it better! But do you know what kills art? Actual death in terms of removing it from the public sphere. And the arguments are always the same- various forms or morality, that people or groups (the children, the minorities, the 'god fearing') need to be protected from the offense of the work.

I don't buy that argument, because it was used against me and the people I love. And I will never, ever support that argument, and I continue to not believe that the people in my hobby not only support the argument, but claim as the major defense that it's not big deal because it's just a TTRPG book.

That's not, at all, what I would expect to hear. Maybe the games we play aren't important to the people that want to ban it, maybe the history isn't important, but the fundamental principle at stake is that other people don't get to make that call.

Of course he isn't the villain of his own story, of course he thinks what he said is correct. That doesn't mean that comparing the two people and their actions is anywhere close to the same thing.

No. That's the whole reason I made the point. We are all the heroes of our own stories. Do you think people that are currently trying (and succeeding!) in getting Beyond Magenta banned think that they are the villains?

 

[MGibster]

There is a part of me that gets worried though about people using the defense of "free speech" and "art" to defend things. Especially in a manner that seems so... sweeping and apathetic. And by that I mean, defending it and making no calls to do better in the future.

I'm guessing there aren't a whole lot of people calling for us to do better in the future because we're talking about a 35 year old book whose primary author has been dead for 12 years now. The future is now!

So, this idea that I can't tell an artist or a company "this isn't right, you aren't handling this subject matter well, please do better" because I am then going to open the doors to the death of art... I don't get it. Criticism has never killed art. Calls to improve ourselves should not be met with hostility and responses of inaction. Yes, some people will never be satisfied, but using that as an excuse to dig in our heels and never try and move forward... it seems to be the wrong approach to me.

I've got no problem with you telling an artist or a company that. I may or may not agree with your assertion, but I support your right to voice your opinion. I think we're all better off when we foster an atmosphere where dialogue is encouraged.

 

[Sadras]

This is becoming a little ridiculous. The more @Snarf Zagyg informs posters of his position to defend the freedom of speech (no censorship), the more posters misrepresent his/her position.

It's like, are they reading what I am reading? Is this the twilight zone!!!

 

[Chaosmancer]

As I have noted in other comments, I am more than aware that some of the people who defend free speech now are "fair weather" friends; the support that they provide is instrumentalist, in that they want protection for their speech, and will immediately forget about the principles that protected them when it is no longer in their interest. I am not eager to be lumped into the same boat with some of these individuals, given that they most certainly do not have the same beliefs I do.

That doesn't matter. The last paragraph is the part that is so worrisome; over and over again, people ignore what is actually getting called out. Should Mr. Kwan have just criticized the work, that would be fine. I agree with some of his criticisms (not all, but some). In fact, in another thread before this whole thing exploded I referred to the title as offensive and provided links as to why the term was offensive.

But asking for books to be removed, to be banned, is not "moving forward" as you claim; this is the very essence of censorship. I would make the same defense of Mein Kampf, or Psychopathology (if you're not familiar with that gem, it coined the the term 'homosexual panic').

Criticism doesn't kill art, of course, it makes it better! But do you know what kills art? Actual death in terms of removing it from the public sphere. And the arguments are always the same- various forms or morality, that people or groups (the children, the minorities, the 'god fearing') need to be protected from the offense of the work.

I don't buy that argument, because it was used against me and the people I love. And I will never, ever support that argument, and I continue to not believe that the people in my hobby not only support the argument, but claim as the major defense that it's not big deal because it's just a TTRPG book.

That's not, at all, what I would expect to hear. Maybe the games we play aren't important to the people that want to ban it, maybe the history isn't important, but the fundamental principle at stake is that other people don't get to make that call.

Ok, Kwan called for them to stop selling offensive material.

But, he hasn't been in this thread, and in fact, no one in this thread said we should ban the book. The worst thing they said is that WoTC should stop selling something that has stereotyped and racist depictions. A product which has been out of print for so long, most of us didn't even know it existed before this.

And I think this is telling. You are defending the right of this book to exist, arguing vehemently against the book being censored and banned... and no one is disagreeing with that. No one is saying that it should be banned.

So, you are arguing against a phantom. A position no one here is taking. Sure, somewhere on the internet, someone else is agreeing with Kwan and demanding the book be banned. But not here. Not on ENworld, so why are you making your case here?

I'm guessing there aren't a whole lot of people calling for us to do better in the future because we're talking about a 35 year old book whose primary author has been dead for 12 years now. The future is now!

True, but it is a setting that has not been rebooted. It is a potential product idea they might explore. So, there is a future for Kara-Tur and in that product, they should do better.

This is becoming a little ridiculous. The more @Snarf Zagyg informs posters of his position to defend the freedom of speech (no censorship), the more posters misrepresent his/her position.

It's like, are they reading what I am reading? Is this the twilight zone!!!

If people could point me to posters on ENworld who are demanding the banning of this work, then I would agree with Snarf. I would support them in arguing against banning books.

But no one has said that to my knowledge. The strongest demand I have seen (other than calls that Kwan is just seeking 15 minutes of fame and a paycheck and that the status quo should be defended to the death) was the agreement that a disclaimer should be included if they decided to keep selling the book.

Meanwhile, there have been posters I have specifically responded to who made claims of slipperly slopes and that this will kill any future of role-playing games because people are too tied to identity politics to allow people to play a role. Those are arguments I've actually seen, I've never seen someone on this site demanding for the book to be banned.

 

[Panda-s1]

Does anyone here know how much trouble and effort were put into doing game translations in 1985 in general? Anyone have a copy of the Japanese edition to check the credits? I can imagine TSR licensing a publisher who then used a few writing-skilled bilingual players they knew to do the translation. I have the impression that's how it worked for some other companies' games in Germany over a decade later in the mid-90s when usenet and e-mail were finally things (except it might have been folks they found on usenet instead of already knowing). I could also imagine TSR or the Japanese publisher involving a bunch of trained professional translators... but how were TSRs finances then and was it expected to be a huge seller? However it's done, even today, WotC gets a few very odd translations through on MtG cards.

As far as correspondence, does anyone remember what the price of long distance calls was back then? A NYT article from 1982 gives $2.53 for the first minute to Japan and 95 cents per minute after ($6.85/$2.52 todays $), but I think that's only for the 1/2 of American phones that could connect without going through an operator. The operator-made calls look like they could cost 4x as much. I certainly remember even domestic long distance being a thing we thought about before doing when I was young and we didn't get on the phone and chat forever long-distance like we do now. If off the phone, how long was the typical airmail time between the US and Japan in 1985?

Like the using good references, some of these basic mechanical things weren't nearly as easy back then. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't make the book useful today, but it does feel very relevant for judging the effort put into it by the authors.

Appendix J | Atlas of Mystara this website details Japanese releases for BECMI. I have not been able to find credits for any of the Japanese releases, my Japanese isn't good enough to get to the bottom of that unfortunately, all I know is the original publisher was Shinwa up until '92, then the rights went to Dengeki Bunko (which is a fitting choice imo). but this wasn't a one off thing either, and they did seem to get through a lot (though they didn't bother translating AD&D, so I guess they drew the line somewhere).

back in the 80's a lot of US companies were trying to invest themselves in Japanese business and vice versa, this wasn't unusual. I brought this up in another thread, but my own dad (American) was someone who was hired by various companies in Japan as a designer and consultant; from the late 70's to mid 80's he would spend weeks, months on end in Japan and similarly had Japanese roommates who were here doing business on the American side of things. it wouldn't at all be unusual if TSR had someone like my dad on the ground in Japan to make decisions on behalf of TSR.

also I think you're forgetting about fax machines, those were way more important for correspondence back then than making long distance phone calls (and yeah I know that's also over phone, but sending documents instantaneously was pound for pound worth more than chatting for five minutes).

also (also) do remember this is TSR we're talking about. if we're talking about the 80's their finances aren't exactly relevant, and if Gary caught wind of a burgeoning RPG scene in Japan he probably would've jumped on it as soon as possible.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, you are arguing against a phantom. A position no one here is taking. Sure, somewhere on the internet, someone else is agreeing with Kwan and demanding the book be banned. But not here. Not on ENworld, so why are you making your case here?

That's not accurate- this position has been echoed by others, in multiple other threads. In fact, I've had to correct you, specifically, not just on this point but w/r/t what Mr. Kwan was advocating for.

But no one has said that to my knowledge. The strongest demand I have seen (other than calls that Kwan is just seeking 15 minutes of fame and a paycheck and that the status quo should be defended to the death) was the agreement that a disclaimer should be included if they decided to keep selling the book.

Again, the paucity of this statement is clear by contrasting the people who advocate for free speech (those who are fine with the disclaimer) and those, like Mr. Kwan and others on these thread; look at either the continuing debate here, or look at the twitter threads since the announcement.

Are the people who were advocating against it happy? Nope. Because it was never about a disclaimer or an informed decision. It was, and always has been, about the exercise of power; the power to decide what other people can and can't read.

This was never about persuasion, but about power. I've seen this play out too many times to not know the playbook.

I will defend Mr. Kwan's right to advocate for banning books and exercising power, and your right to be confused as to what he wanted, but I don't have to agree with you.

 

[Umbran]

I applaud the action taken in putting up the disclaimers. If only to end this (IMO) incredibly stupid debate.

Then maybe you shoud not have involved yourself in it.

 

[Cadence]

Appendix J | Atlas of Mystara this website details Japanese releases for BECMI.

also I think you're forgetting about fax machines, those were way more important for correspondence back then than making long distance phone calls (and yeah I know that's also over phone, but sending documents instantaneously was pound for pound worth more than chatting for five minutes).

also (also) do remember this is TSR we're talking about. if we're talking about the 80's their finances aren't exactly relevant, and if Gary caught wind of a burgeoning RPG scene in Japan he probably would've jumped on it as soon as possible.

Thank you for the link. I had completely forgotten about Fax machines - and I didn't realize the first cheap ones apparently started coming out in 1984. And thank you for the reminder of how well TSR was doing financially around then!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Then maybe you shoud not have involved yourself in it.

??

Are you just doing drive-by snarky one-liners now?

 

[Eric V]

If people could point me to posters on ENworld who are demanding the banning of this work, then I would agree with Snarf. I would support them in arguing against banning books.

What does the "banning" of something that is primarily in pdf form even look like?