Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard 2: Monogamy

[hectorse]

So Shelly Mazzanoble has put out a new article, and I really like it.

Someone over the wizards boards explained really well

She sounds like a normal, intelligent, well-adjusted woman, unlike many gaming women I've encountered over the years. Such as Ms. "I'm just doing this because my boyfriend does it" or Ms. "Not only do I game, but I'm also a bisexual wiccan reiki master" or Ms. "My real life is a complete disaster so I find happiness vicariously through the exploits of my character" (and her cousin, Ms. "I can't get a date to save my life but my character is a sex-kitten who treats men like a cat treats a mouse, toying with it then devouring it").

 

[Lackhand]

You need a link here, I think: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcw/20071114

Tadaa!

And: I find her... well, I don't know what to think. She's a good author, but it's a narrow line, and it could easily go from funny to predictable (and slightly offensive!) pretty swiftly

I mean, I get the "Girl's Point Of View" thing, I do: but why is it all about relationships? I mean, why is that exclusively the province of a woman?
It's refreshing and it's interesting, but if the author's name were Carl, we'd be up in arms.

And I'm sad about that. I just worry that it trivializes and excludes females (and we, stereotypically and as a community, don't want that!) because it presents this as a token female view, and thus in a way, the only female view.

I'm also certain that I'm being needlessly worried. I do that sometimes

 

[delericho]

I hated this article. I'm not sure why, entirely - it seemed much like the first one, it wasn't offensive in any way, and it was light, fluffy reading, but...

I dunno. There was just something about it that I really didn't like.

 

[helium3]

Maybe you don't like light fluffy reading?

 

[JoelF]

I didn't like either of her articles. Not that they weren't well written, but as something I could choose to read vs. doing something else, I don't think I'll be reading any more of her columns. I think its great if her articles bring more people into the game, but already being a long time player, I just didn't get any value, entertainment or otherwise from her pieces. I also don't think her articles do anything positive towards my views of the new Dragon magazine.

 

[freyar]

You know, I liked the first one quite a bit, but this one just didn't come off as funny to me. Maybe there wasn't enough D&D in it, like the "talk to the burning hands" line from the first article. We'll see -- can't win every time.

 

[mhensley]

Too much estrogen in this one. I wasn't interested enough to read the whole thing.

 

[Wormwood]

I thought the article was average, but my wife thought it was "fun to read".

*shrug*

 

[Nifft]

my wife thought it was "fun to read".

Ding ding ding! Gentlemen, you're probably not the target audience. Nor am I.

And that's okay.

Cheers, -- N

 

[hectorse]

I thought it was fun because I somehow relate to the cheating feel. I used to have those kinds of feelings when I had a band and in retrospective it's cool.