Anthony Valterra vs. Tracy Hickman

[The Sigil]

What is mature content?

I mean Tracy was one of the two people who brought us DragonLance. That series of novels had brutal death, massive destruction, rape, and finally the tortured death of the entire world in an appocalyptic alternate world cataclysm. It also had the perversion of the soul (creation of draconians).


So is Tracy anti-mature topic? or is Tracy's religious opinions color his statements?

Hehehe... the problem is that we lump multiple topics under the banner "mature."

Tracy seems to have no problem with facing topics such as the nature of evil, especially on a personal level (i.e., the slip from light to darkness).

Tracy does seem to have a problem with facing topics such as nudity and explicit sexual descriptions in RPG products.

Both fall under the "mature" banner but are in fact distinct topics. The problem is that we sweep everything under the "mature" banner and fail to realize that a willingness to confront one part of what is under "mature" may not necessarily imply a willingness to confront another part.

Personally, I think it's Tracy's moral opinions (as distinguished from his religious opinions) that cause him to object to certain types of material.

For me, exploration of the nature of evil - "that which tempteth" and "why it tempteth" and "how we react to tempting" is fascinating.

"Blood and boobies" are not.

I would call it "truly mature material" - as in, subject matter that requires a mature mind to properly comprehend and digest - versus "keep away from the kiddies material" - stuff that any mind can comprehend but which takes a mature mind to digest. I hope that makes sense...

Anyone can comprehend, "hey those are boobs" but it takes a more mature mind to sort out whether or not they were shown as (a) anatomical study, (b) pornography, (c) incidental art, (d) factual report on life. I mean, most 14-year-old boys are happy to see boobs at all - whether it's in art, on the National Geographic special, or in Playboy. They don't have the mature mind to digest the context and purpose for display of boobs - all they see is "BOOBIES" and the analysis pretty much stops there.

Hopefully that helps explain where I'm coming from...

"(Truly) Mature": Requires a mature mind to even comprehend what is depicted and also requires a mature mind to fully digest the nature and meaning of the presentation.

EXAMPLE: Psychoanalysis of the mind of a killer.

"Adult": Does not require a mature mind to comprehend what is depicted but does require a mature mind in order to digest the nature and meaning of the presentation... when an immature mind is presented with some material of a violent or sexual nature, it usually results in titillation, regardless of the intent of the original.

EXAMPLE: Illustrated Biology Textbook

"Family Friendly": A subset of "Adult" material that does not present anything that would titillate the immature mind. The immature mind understands the material itself but may not be able to grasp the deeper meaning or intent.

EXAMPLE: The Bible (kids understand the stories, but not so much the allegorical meanings)

"Peurile": Does not require a mature mind to comprehend what is depicted and the nature of the presentation is to engender titillation (a mature mind recognizes this, the immature mind is titillated by default; see "adult" above).

EXAMPLE: Playboy

"Kid-Safe": Does not require a mature mind to comprehend what is depicted nor to understand what is being presented and the nature of both the presentation and the material presented does not engender titillation.

EXAMPLE: Disney movie

"Puzzle": Requires a mature mind to comprehend what is depicted, though once that is deciphered, may not require a mature mind to understand the intent.

EXAMPLE: A message encoded by a cipher.

I could go on, but I think the point is this:

You can require a mature mind to properly interpret material at a number of levels - notably at the level of comprehending WHAT is being displayed and at the level of comprehending WHY it is being displayed. You can also have material with a specific intent behind the WHY.

The problem is that we tend to lump "mature" material by looking only at the level of comprehending WHY it is displayed, ignoring what happens to someone who is not sufficiently mature to comprehend the WHY but IS sufficiently mature to handle the WHAT... and that's where, I think, the dividing line between "truly mature" and "not kid-safe" lies, as illustrated above.

That is to say, "kid-safe" material may be kid-safe because (a) it doesn't contain content that might be objectionable for children, or because (b) because of the level of comprehension required just to identify what is being discussed, the kid will be unable to even access the discussion. Stuff that may not be appropriate for kids can be made "kid safe" by raising the level of comprehension on the WHAT to the point where a kid will simply not be able to access it.

It's when we put out material that IS accessible to a kid's level of comprehension and DOES contain content that might be objectionable to give them that we run into problems. That's where IMO parenting comes in. When my son asks why he has a penis and his little sister, whose diaper I am changing, does not, I will know his comprehension is to the point where he can recognize physical characteristics of gender. It's my responsibility at that time to introduce him to as much of the why as I feel he can handle. At two, it may be "because you are a boy and she is a girl and boys have penises and girls do not." At six, I might talk about DNA (the "instruction book for our bodies") making us what we are and penises are stored on Y chromosomes, which girls don't have. At ten, I'll probably be walking him through the "facts of life." But at 6, he's not ready to fully comprehend the "facts of life" just like at two he's not ready to comprehend DNA.

--The Sigil

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Interesting comments.

I find it especially interesting that you mention the bible as family friendly.

Looking at both the Old and New Testamont I see stories of rape, murder, incest, and other henious acts so vile that it could make anyone sick.

If they were in a book labeled anything but the Bible I can see that most churchgoers would be all over the ban of such a vile book.

Whats the point of this you ask? I think part of the problem lies with the very idea of mature. What you consider mature might not be what I consider mature. At the same time Anthony and Tracy obviously have very different ideas of mature content.

 

[The Sigil]

I find it especially interesting that you mention the bible as family friendly.

Looking at both the Old and New Testamont I see stories of rape, murder, incest, and other henious acts so vile that it could make anyone sick.

If they were in a book labeled anything but the Bible I can see that most churchgoers would be all over the ban of such a vile book.

Whats the point of this you ask? I think part of the problem lies with the very idea of mature. What you consider mature might not be what I consider mature. At the same time Anthony and Tracy obviously have very different ideas of mature content.

LOL. I am very much aware of what goes on in the Bible. Most people seem to like to gloss over those parts. Perhaps "Illustrated Stories from the Bible" then. You get the idea, though.

Then again, I recall the points Orson Scott Card made in an essay years ago - that it is almost necessary to depict evil in a book in order to make it interesting (because otherwise you're stuck with "man vs. nature" which gets old after a while)... and that it is possible for a book to depict evil, advocate evil, or (his words) be evil.

I think where most religious folks get their knickers in a twist (and I think I'm pretty darned religious, so this isn't a slam on "religious people" - considering that one of my volunteer responsibilities is to teach a weekday religion class at 6 am to local HS students) is when they lose the ability to differentiate among that which depicts, advocates, or is evil. Most religious types think pornography IS evil (not I'm not saying whether or not I think it is as that is not useful for the discussion). Now, recently my local newspaper ran an article about the "history of Playboy" - does that make the newspaper evil becaue it has the word "Playboy" in it? The Bible depicts evil all the friggin' time - but doesn't advocate it. If you believe terrorism is evil, Al Quaida training manuals would of course be examples of advocating evil.

But you get the idea. I believe that which DEPICTS evil is not in and of itself evil. I also believe that that which ADVOCATES evil is not in and of itself evil - but that it requires a mature mind to handle such material. I believe that which is evil... well... is evil. I'm not going to worry about delineating exactly what I think falls into each category... as you said, it varies from person to person.

However, I like to laugh when people can't tell the difference... because the Bible is one of the best counter-examples (well, it DEPICTS rape, incest, murder, etc. so it must be evil).

--The Sigil

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What you consider mature might not be what I consider mature.

See sig for my view.

 

[d20Dwarf]

This poll should be read as the voters' opinions on the subject of the sex book, not on the relative merits of Tracy and Anthony's arguments or viewpoints.

 

[herald]

Interesting comments.

I find it especially interesting that you mention the bible as family friendly.

Looking at both the Old and New Testamont I see stories of rape, murder, incest, and other henious acts so vile that it could make anyone sick.

If they were in a book labeled anything but the Bible I can see that most churchgoers would be all over the ban of such a vile book.

Whats the point of this you ask? I think part of the problem lies with the very idea of mature. What you consider mature might not be what I consider mature. At the same time Anthony and Tracy obviously have very different ideas of mature content.

And the is the crux of the matter, context. Granted the Bible contains some things that you don't just go talking about in everyday conversation, but to those that follow the bible, those events are put in to a frame of context that they find acceptable. (a generalization, but I think that we can agree on that.)

The BOVD is not designed to turn players into an army of evil. It is however a book of rules and guidelines on how to present evil to it's fullest and provide gaming groups with a clearcut adversary to work against. And that adversary is danagerous and scary.

Undoubtably Anthony will make the position that there are Adult Readers who use this sort of fantasy as entertainment. (And judging from what I have seen at DragonCon and NecronomiCon, I'd have to say that is a sizable group.

I'm just interested who will carry this book. I know of atlease one FLGS that will, but I know of atleast one that won't.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

However, I like to laugh when people can't tell the difference... because the Bible is one of the best counter-examples (well, it DEPICTS rape, incest, murder, etc. so it must be evil).

--The Sigil

I am not suggesting that the Bible is evil though I do find it amusing what kind of blinders so many churchgoers wear when it comes to what is depicted in the Bible.

I am merely pointing out to that if the Bible was not the Bible (ie those stories were in another book without religious significance) you would see them a whole lot less accepted and in fact you would see large efforts to ban the material.

Which just goes to show that "mature" is a relative idea like everything else.

 

[buzz]

The discussion is moot. This product is not for real. Move along.

 

[herald]

This poll should be read as the voters' opinions on the subject of the sex book, not on the relative merits of Tracy and Anthony's arguments or viewpoints.

No, it's just a discussion, granted not a very serious one. A poll on the merits of making a book will be made at the cash register.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

See sig for my view.

I would but Avatar's and Sig's annoy me so I have them both turned off in my preferences.