D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

[Older Beholder]

I'm fine with separating art and artist.

But, too often I find when people say they're separating the art from the artist, what they really mean is that they separate the artist from the artists' actions (because they like the art).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't go looking for that information either. But when I hear it... why should I dismiss it as unimportant?

My cousin is a Cincinnati Bengals fan, and so I am very aware that a good number of them are domestic abusers. This might be true of a lot of football players, I only know the Bengals because he is a fan and he discusses it. Why would I want to buy the art of a man who was caught on-camera beating his wife unconscious? I know who that man is from other contexts, not because my first instinct upon seeing the work of art was to look into their personal history.

You should spend money on what you want and have no obligation to spend it on something made by a person who is a domestic abuser. I mentioned Norman Mailer who was not just abusive but violently stabbed his wife with a pen knife. It is quite horrific and it also frankly isn't surprising if you have read many of his books. I definitely don't defend him as a person, but I like his writing and I think his writing is still worthy of reading. He was a person with demons and issues, but I think those demons actually made his work more interesting. A lot of art comes from people with serious problems. I am still going to enjoy the art, even if the person who made it was bad or has done bad things

The other aspect of this is it may feel good to not buy a book from one writer who does something bad. But they are simply the most high profile element of what you are buying. Buying a book is no different than any other product. You aren't just giving your money to the writer, but to a company, to people who work for that company and people on the team who helped the writer produce the book (editors, etc). Even if we stop buying books written by the norman mailer's of the world, we can be certain there are norman mailers and harvey weinsteins elsewhere in the chain in any product. There is a strong likelihood someone on that chain is beating their wife or otherwise doing evil. Again to me this is like whole foods style shopping extended to the arts. If you are concerned about where your food is sourced and the ethics all a long the chain, fair enough. I don't think that kind of thing makes us better people (I think it is just another way for company's to get our hard earned money).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I suppose this is another point. I don't find really good writing that rare. I have encountered almost mountains of very good material that I deeply enjoy. So, when I found out that a particular author has done something heinous... it is not something I need to grapple with to cut out their work if I have not already purchased it.

I think on this we just disagree. Which is fair. People are going to have different measures of quality. I find good writing that is worth my time reading to be incredibly rare. While I don't stop reading books because the author turns out to be bad, I do stop reading them when the writing is. I see reading a book or watching a movie as a time investment. I will give a book or movie a fair hearing, but I don't want to waste my time with it if it feels like it is only good for passing the time

 

[TiQuinn]

For me, separating the art from the artist is purely on a case by case basis and I hold no standard other than the way I feel about it to whether I enjoy the work or throw the artist along with their work into the garbage. Actively profiting off of it, like Rowling, is pretty much a guarantee to end up in the latter.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just because a thing has a lot of components does not mean that the thing itself isn't art.

D&D is art all the way up and down, from individual books to the whole body of its publication to your particular session.

"A man can be an artist... in anything, food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece." - Man On Fire

 

[SteveC]

Well, part of the issue is most people don't think they're having a debate in anything but a general sense. They're having a discussion that may include arguing one or more points, but the borders are entirely defined by what they're interested in talking about, and I doubt too many thing more than, at best, they might be informing third parties in a vaguely useful way.

I think this is a really good point. And much of the time you're 100% correct: people are just discussing stuff. What I do find, and I can think of a few recent examples is threads that spiral out of control because it turns into a debate where we need a right and a wrong answer.

The big issue is when people start to take opinions and view them as objective truth. Sometimes that's the poster's intent, but most of the time they're just stating what they think is correct. I know sometimes I get accused of this because I sort of have a direct writing style. It's caused me to add more "in my opinion," or "just the way I see things." And I hate that because with a very few exceptions, everything anyone posts here is just their opinion, but I'd rather engage with people than have them think I believe they're wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this is a really good point. And much of the time you're 100% correct: people are just discussing stuff. What I do find, and I can think of a few recent examples is threads that spiral out of control because it turns into a debate where we need a right and a wrong answer.

There can certainly be that on a few occasions, but I think people sometimes think that's what's going on when it isn't.

The big issue is when people start to take opinions and view them as objective truth. Sometimes that's the poster's intent, but most of the time they're just stating what they think is correct. I know sometimes I get accused of this because I sort of have a direct writing style. It's caused me to add more "in my opinion," or "just the way I see things." And I hate that because with a very few exceptions, everything anyone posts here is just their opinion, but I'd rather engage with people than have them think I believe they're wrong.

While its true that most of the time something someone says something its a personal opinion, it also is not uncommonly presented as a generalization or even a universal. With those qualifiers it seems less likely the person thinks that's the case, and often it needs to be separated out, because how something works or doesn't work for a given person or subset of people and how it works in general can be important distinctions in a lot of discussions, and it needs to be established early or it'll come home to roost later in the discussion in a counterproductive and unpleasant way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You should spend money on what you want and have no obligation to spend it on something made by a person who is a domestic abuser. I mentioned Norman Mailer who was not just abusive but violently stabbed his wife with a pen knife. It is quite horrific and it also frankly isn't surprising if you have read many of his books. I definitely don't defend him as a person, but I like his writing and I think his writing is still worthy of reading. He was a person with demons and issues, but I think those demons actually made his work more interesting. A lot of art comes from people with serious problems. I am still going to enjoy the art, even if the person who made it was bad or has done bad things

The other aspect of this is it may feel good to not buy a book from one writer who does something bad. But they are simply the most high profile element of what you are buying. Buying a book is no different than any other product. You aren't just giving your money to the writer, but to a company, to people who work for that company and people on the team who helped the writer produce the book (editors, etc). Even if we stop buying books written by the norman mailer's of the world, we can be certain there are norman mailers and harvey weinsteins elsewhere in the chain in any product. There is a strong likelihood someone on that chain is beating their wife or otherwise doing evil. Again to me this is like whole foods style shopping extended to the arts. If you are concerned about where your food is sourced and the ethics all a long the chain, fair enough. I don't think that kind of thing makes us better people (I think it is just another way for company's to get our hard earned money).

I think there is a difference between books and other products. I have no choice in buying food or clothes. I do have a choice in buying books or games. Yes, I can't be perfect in my consumption to avoid my money going to any bad actors, but perfect is the enemy of good, and I try to do what I can.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It is very messy and complicated, because we are messy and complicated.
Once a person is known to you for being abc, you tend to attempt to find clues of abc in the artwork, which is not as great as just appreciating the art for what it is without that baggage.

 

[Umbran]

What I do find, and I can think of a few recent examples is threads that spiral out of control because it turns into a debate where we need a right and a wrong answer.

When you remember that we do this for much lesser issues, like playstyle choices, "damage on a miss", the content of D&D art and implied setting elements, and... just about everything else, this comes as no real surprise.

The big issue is when people start to take opinions and view them as objective truth. Sometimes that's the poster's intent, but most of the time they're just stating what they think is correct. I know sometimes I get accused of this because I sort of have a direct writing style. It's caused me to add more "in my opinion," or "just the way I see things." And I hate that because with a very few exceptions, everything anyone posts here is just their opinion, but I'd rather engage with people than have them think I believe they're wrong.

With respect, unfortunately, it gets more complicated than that, which is why good non-fiction writing generally leans on telling the audience what you actually mean. Leaving personal preferences phrased as objective assertions is sloppy. The more assumptions the author forces the audience to make, the more likely some of them will assume wrong, and the less the author can blame the audience for the miscommunication

But, then people get weird. Having phrased it as objective, folks will then defend it as objective, even if they later claim it wasn't intended that way. Making assertions frequently has a subconscious emotional impact on the speaker - we react poorly when we are told we are incorrect, and will get defensive to save face, even when we know we are incorrect. A whole lot of head-butting happens because neither side can allow the other to have the last word.

On top of that, there's been a larger-than-you'd-probably-expect number of folks over time who have needed moderator action who persist in asserting objective truth on some of this stuff. So while you may feel that, "everything anyone posts here is just their opinion", the audience cannot reliably assume authors think it is just their opinion.

So, I know repeating the IMO, and 'For my table, but YMMV" is a chore. It is a really helpful chore in the long run.