D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[MGibster]

ou can watch a lot of Mel Gibson movies and not see any anti-Semitism. Indeed, I'd say a few lack any anti-Semitic elements. But if you know Mr. Gibson holds these views to some degree, it makes you look at his treatment of certain subjects and characters differently. Things you ight have brushed off before, you now can't because you know more about the author's intent.

I call it Schrödinger Offense. It's when something is simultaneously offensive and inoffensive until we find out who said it and know for sure one way or the other. But the truth is our surroundings and prior knowledge has an influence on how we interpret things. You can convince people fast food is gourmet if you feed it to them on fancy china versus paper containers.

 

[Jackdaw McGraw]

Perhaps you could explain what you mean, as I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think I am shading?

It wasn't you. I read something into Deset Gled's Firefly clip response that wasn't their intention. So it wasn't shade, it was just ironic.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I call it Schrödinger Offense. It's when something is simultaneously offensive and inoffensive until we find out who said it and know for sure one way or the other. But the truth is our surroundings and prior knowledge has an influence on how we interpret things. You can convince people fast food is gourmet if you feed it to them on fancy china versus paper containers.

In this case, it's more like: the thing could be interpreted two ways. Absent context, you have a default (assume the best, maybe). But then you learn the author/artist holds certain views in real life, so with that added context a particular interpretation becomes much more likely.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If people…both individually and as a collective…are improving, then the past will be contentious at times. It cannot be otherwise unless we stop improving.

I’ve personally learned a lot from the mistakes others have made. I think that there are lessons to be learned not just in the works themselves, but in regard to the creators of the work, too. Even if we take inspiration from a piece of fiction or music, we can also take something quite different from the artist themselves.

I think it’s good we examine this stuff more. I don’t know if there’s always one answer, whether it’s to leave art as it is or to somehow make it go away. I’m sure there are many answers and they’ll vary wildly depending on who you ask.

It’d be nice if these things were easier to discuss. Very often they seem to me to be at least the opportunity to have a discussion…to help people understand, or to explain why something may be problematic for some. I know I had some simplistic and narrow takes on certain topics when I was younger, and learning about this kind of stuff was a big part of any growth I may have made.

None of that is probably all that cohesive, but I think that should be expected. I think it boils down to some relationships are easy…they’re simple and positive and understandable. Some relationships are hard…they’re complicated and sometimes hurtful and unclear. I don’t think how people relate to art or artists is going to be any different.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay I am sure this will not go well... but I'm already here so...

I am not a huge potter fan, but my niece is. I don't care what kind of trash person the writer is or isn't.
I kinda like Lovecraft stuff (more of modern retakes on it then the original) and I don't care what kind of trash person the writer was or wasn't

long dead and multi millionaire trash people are more than welcome to my small amount of $... because I care about what I get out of the transaction more than what they do.

Not commenting on your take, just noting that J.K. Rowling is not a long dead multimillionaire trash person.

 

[Gradine]

Not commenting on your take, just noting that J.K. Rowling is not a long dead multimillionaire trash person.

She is in fact quite alive and using her considerable platform to support attacks on trans rights.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a good point. Something that I believe was brought up recently with Buffy -> Whedon. If you now look at Whedon differently, and then go back and watch Buffy, its very likely you see things differently, beyond just the scope of time, shifting cultural norms, and so on.

On the other side, I can still look at the Cthulhu Mythos, look at it not as a racist work, but as one which speaks to the insignificance of humanity, the absurdity of our existence, and it has nothing to do with Lovecraft's racist views and era.

Ultimately, its a judgment call each and every time.

Huh. That’s fascinating cause I kinda feel the opposite about those two specific examples. Watching Buffy, I certainly feel for the people (especially the women) who had to work with him on it, and Charisma Carpenter in particular, but I don’t really see his misogyny reflected in the text, at least not more than in your average TV series of the time. I see some iffy race stuff in it, but I’ve always seen that, and have been able to enjoy the show in spite of it. Lovecraft’s work on the other hand, has his racism all over it. Miscegenation is like one of the core themes of his work.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, a little known aspect of the concept of "The Death of the Author" is that the only thing that matters is the text... but the text exists both within and without the work. "The Death of the Author" doesn't mean that we ignore the artist and only focus on the work; nor does it mean that we only take the author's word for gospel as to the meaning of the work. It means that what the author says is only a part of the text itself.

A minor quibble to point out, but Lovecraft was considered extraordinarily xenophobic even by his fairly-racist-in-their-own-right contemporaries. I'm not a huge fan of "product of their time" arguments in general. For any given "time" there were plenty of voices calling out racism/sexism/etc. At my most charitable, I would say that nobody born in a time during or after the works of Stephen Douglas or W.E.B. DuBois has any excuse for racism. Especially if they're literate.

Not that I don't understand the appeal. I imagine many of us would wish for the same generosity from future generations. But I don't imagine that actually does us any good. Or them. It's okay to be critical of the people of the past. That's part of how we learn, and grow.

As they say, those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it. It is important to be critical of the past so that we can avoid making the same mistakes.

 

[Charlaquin]

And what's interesting here is that in many of these debates the concern with the works being discussed is that they promote/encourage/normalize...perhaps unintentionally...intolerance. So there's some amusing irony in displays of intolerance of intolerance for intolerance.

Yeah, Karl Popper and such.

 

[Scribe]

Lovecraft’s work on the other hand, has his racism all over it. Miscegenation is like one of the core themes of his work.

I was introduced to the concepts of the mythos, well before I ever read anything that was his work, and way way before I found that he was a racist.

EDIT: In fact its been so long since I've read anything specifically Lovecraft, I cant remember the story that first had me think that the concept of cosmic horror, in terms of the scope of the cosmos and humanities insignificance, was interesting. I know I was young, and I haven't been young, in a long ass time.