D&D General Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Magic Missile: Why Gygax Still Matters to Me

[Professor Murder]

So for context, I am a fan of Lovecraft. Got to attend Necronomicon in providence and even presented for the Armitage Symposium, dealing with Lovercraft's cosmicism as TTRPG narrative backdrop. When we appreciate the work of "problematic" artists, we can feel a need to defend our appreciation, and that can lead to us defending the object of our affection. That DnD rises out of poisoned roots, containing racism, sexism, ect isn't just on Gygax. Its on the whole genre of western fantasy. As TTRPGs grow and expand, there will be more and more calls to examine these roots plainly. I don't have much regard for Gygax as a person. I didn't know him. I can't even claim to really know what he created, because his exact role in the creation of our hobby is quite frankly murky. Like Stan Lee or Bob Kane. You can make the argument that Gygax was part of a movement and made it a point to center himself as the spokesman for that movement, which transformed into making him the father of that movement. I also think that if I was a diehard Old School fan and not just an old fan, I would feel more kinship to him and the other creators of the hobby. But for me, I care more about where the hobby is going, both in terms of design and culture, than where it came from.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, I did. My language is not English, so sometimes I need help to make everything cohesive and not seem like a jerk writing long texts. So I used it to translate and organize my writing

... fair.

 

[Sacrosanct]

However, it is important to distinguish between culturally absorbed attitudes and active misogyny. Misogyny, in its strictest sense, involves a deliberate aversion to or discrimination against women, implying a conscious intent. In Gygax’s case, while some of his comments may be considered problematic by today’s standards, there is no clear evidence that he actively promoted the exclusion or marginalization of women within the D&D community.

I have had more than one TSR employee who was there confirm that he told a female employee (a highly respected and iconic employee), "Women are only good for two jobs: secretaries and housewives. Anything else and they are a whore."

Even by 1980s (when that comment was made) standards, that's an awful inexcusable comment.

 

[Professor Murder]

I have had more than one TSR employee who was there confirm that he told a female employee (a highly respected and iconic employee), "Women are only good for two jobs: secretaries and housewives. Anything else and they are a whore."

Even by 1980s (when that comment was made) standards, that's an awful inexcusable comment.

People need to stop claiming there is no evidence when people keep responding, again and again, with said evidence.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can understand loving something because it is what you started with, even if that has not generally applied to me.

I just...I hear the captivated wonder people describe from Gygax's prose, and....I don't get it. It's overwrought to the point that my eyes glaze over. Perhaps it's an issue for writers of his generation overall? Robert Jordan had some similar issues, and even though I enjoyed his work, his prose got more and more purple as the series wore on and it eventually became a turn-off.

 

[the Jester]

I know you said "watch for it in the comments," but the hero worship is not something I ever experienced in the hobby, even entering as I did in 1980, until...probably these forums, when he started posting, certainly in the OSR--the retrospectives on Grognardia and the like.

snip<

All of this is just to say that when I did finally encounter Gygax hero worship, it was more as a revisitation of his legacy as a game designer. It was like, "Holy naughty word, this guy did something really amazing, and he was underappreciated, uncelebrated, sometimes derided and even run out of his own company, let's take another look." I'm always a little surprised to learn he had devoted fans back in the day, even if intellectually I know someone had to be writing all that fan mail!

My group definitely engaged in a certain degree of Gygax hero worship back in the day. Even now we largely regard him as a flawed genius.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand loving something because it is what you started with, even if that has not generally applied to me.

I just...I hear the captivated wonder people describe from Gygax's prose, and....I don't get it. It's overwrought to the point that my eyes glaze over. Perhaps it's an issue for writers of his generation overall? Robert Jordan had some similar issues, and even though I enjoyed his work, his prose got more and more purple as the series wore on and it eventually became a turn-off.

People have different preferences, obviously. I love long form, flowery language. Gygax and Jordan both were my jam. It's all subjective, so we don't want to yuck anyone else's yum.

 

[TiQuinn]

Comparing Gygax with other historical authors like H.P. Lovecraft, Rudyard Kipling, James Fenimore Cooper, and William Shakespeare shows the danger of judging past figures by today’s standards.

Nearly every collected works of HP Lovecraft that I have on my shelf has a forward that discusses Lovecraft’s racism in his writing, basically saying to some effect that his position was inexcusable and we need to at least address that before moving on.

Or as Snarf said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[payn]

Taken me a bit to wrap my head around the issue some folks have with artists and their creations and society. For some folks, Gygax is D&D, and folks also see Mythos as Lovecraft. If the person ends up being awful, then it poisons the well of the creation and its shared experience. However, if you can off load that behavior onto a general society tolerance, it excuses the person and seemingly restores the good nature of the creation. "It was the times...It was all of us!"

Where I think this fails is in a general, not specific application. For example, if someone writes a story using popular misconceptions and lends offense unknowingly, they can be challenged on that. A person who meant no offensive intent can own up to that as a mistake, and be part of the culture that rectifies it. Others, reject the notion they have given any offense, or worse, they own it as proclaiming to be a bigot. It was their goal all along to give offense because they fully intended what they created. To be fair, to some artists were/are never challenged, or recorded on the nature of the intent and topic. Others, however, speak directly to it and you can weigh their place in society in general in comparison.

Personally, I think a creation can grow a community that goes beyond its creator. At this point, D&D is part of our culture and the collective owners, designers, editors have responsibility for it going forward. I can enjoy D&D and the mythos regardless of the stature of their creators becasue it is beyond them at this point.

 

[Professor Murder]

Nearly every collected works of HP Lovecraft that I have on my shelf has a forward that discusses Lovecraft’s racism in his writing, basically saying to some effect that his position was inexcusable and we need to at least address that before moving on.

Or as Snarf said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Lovecraft wrote racist poetry. That is proper dedication to racism. It was a feature of his character as a person. Yes, we can look at him in the context of his time, but when we do so, don't give him a pass, because in a sense it gives those times a pass.