D&D General D&D Red Box: Who Is The Warrior?

The Dungeons & Dragons Red Box, famously illustrated by Larry Elmore in 1983, featured cover art of a warrior fighting a red dragon. The piece is an iconic part of D&D's history.

WizKids is creating a 50th Anniversary D&D miniatures set for the D&D Icons of the Realms line which includes models based on classic art from the game, such as the AD&D Player's Handbook's famous 'A Paladin In Hell' piece by David Sutherland in 1978, along with various monsters and other iconic images. The set will be available in July 2024.

Amongst the collection is Elmore's dragon-fighting warrior. This character has only ever been seen from behind, and has never been named or identified. However, WizKids’ miniature gives us our first look at them from the front. The warrior is a woman; the view from behind is identical to the original art, while the view from the front--the first time the character's face has ever been seen--is, as WizKids told ComicBook.com, "purposefully and clearly" a woman. This will be one of 10 secret rare miniatures included in the D&D Icons of the Realms: 50th Anniversary booster boxes.

The original artist, Larry Elmore, says otherwise. (Update—the linked post has since been edited).

It's a man!

Gary didn't know what he wanted, all he wanted was something simple that would jump out at you. He wanted a male warrior. If it was a woman, you would know it for I'm pretty famous for painting women.

There was never a question in all these years about the male warrior.

No one thought it was a female warrior. "Whoever thought it was a female warrior is quite crazy and do not know what they are talking about."

This is stupid. I painted it, I should know.

- Larry Elmore​

Whether or not Elmore's intent was for the character to be a man, it seems that officially she's a woman. Either way, it's an awesome miniature. And for those who love the art, you can buy a print from Larry Elmore's official website.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You want to see someone commit academic suicide, try floating this argument in any actual academic circle.

I am pretty sure I have seen fairly current criticisms of death of the author and papers suggesting the kinds of ideas I am talking about. But like I said, I am not an academic. I come at this more as a creative person myself, who enjoys art, enjoys books, enjoys movies and music. And I take something of a historical mindset to it I think. If this sort of idea is indeed enough to kill someone's career in academia, I am quite glad that isn't my profession.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, look, it's really easy to show why the whole primacy of the author argument doesn't hold any water. Never minding the literary criticism aspect, simply look at the practical.

@Maxperson insists that Mary Shelly came up with the specific look and method for the creation of Frankenstein's Monster. Ok. Prove it.

See, most artistic endevours are very, very rarely done in a vacuum. An author almost never writes a work and then publishes that work, all on his or her own. You have editiors, often teams of editors, colleagues who help you with ideas, friends who you talk to and suggest things, so on and so forth. Did that bit in that story come from the author or was it put there by an editor, or even did that idea come from someone else entirely? We cannot prove any of it. Even if the people involved are alive, it's unlikely they actually know and, even if they do know, we can only take their word for it.

Yet, no one talks about what did the editor mean when Character X said Y.

And, @Bedrockgames, I have no idea what you mean. When I went to school, if you suggested that post Modern criticism was wrong and Modernism (which is what you're suggesting) is a better form of criticism, you'd get laughed out of the room. If your professors let you off with a "well, it's a nice idea, go check out these books", you should be going back to your alma mater and asking for some money back. The Well Wrought Urn got broken in the 50's and 60's and no one is even remotely suggesting it should be put back together now.

 

[Hussar]

Well I am not using the argument in that way

Just calling this one out separately.

When you let every single argument that argues for the primacy of the author go by and then dig in your heels and argue with anyone who suggests otherwise, it seems a bit hard to accept the idea that you're "not using the argument that way". Particularly when your posts parrot the talking points of those who are taking a stronger stand here. After all, you commented that you found it insulting to Elmore.

But, then, are you saying that it's impossible for your words to be taken at any alternative meaning?

 

[Blue Orange]

Ok, look, it's really easy to show why the whole primacy of the author argument doesn't hold any water. Never minding the literary criticism aspect, simply look at the practical.

@Maxperson insists that Mary Shelly came up with the specific look and method for the creation of Frankenstein's Monster. Ok. Prove it.

See, most artistic endevours are very, very rarely done in a vacuum. An author almost never writes a work and then publishes that work, all on his or her own. You have editiors, often teams of editors, colleagues who help you with ideas, friends who you talk to and suggest things, so on and so forth. Did that bit in that story come from the author or was it put there by an editor, or even did that idea come from someone else entirely? We cannot prove any of it. Even if the people involved are alive, it's unlikely they actually know and, even if they do know, we can only take their word for it.

Yet, no one talks about what did the editor mean when Character X said Y.

Right, but the author in a modern piece of work usually has the most influence, and is sometimes even around to talk about what they meant if the work is recent enough. Sometimes, as with George Lucas and Han shooting first, it's pretty clear they're trying to change their mind, but if Tolkien tells me Sauron isn't Hitler, well, fine, at least he didn't intend that. You can argue it came out subconsciously, and I might even agree with you, but at least authorial intent is one interpretation. Of course, there are others.

And, @Bedrockgames, I have no idea what you mean. When I went to school, if you suggested that post Modern criticism was wrong and Modernism (which is what you're suggesting) is a better form of criticism, you'd get laughed out of the room. If your professors let you off with a "well, it's a nice idea, go check out these books", you should be going back to your alma mater and asking for some money back. The Well Wrought Urn got broken in the 50's and 60's and no one is even remotely suggesting it should be put back together now.

From what I've read on the subject (which is actually pretty cursory), the Well-Wrought Urn was from the New Critics, who were focusing directly on the text and writing against the historical school just before...

Either way, who says we have to listen to them? I'm appreciating (or not) art and entertainment, not trying to get tenure at Duke. It's not like there's some sort of objective standard for how you should enjoy art. If you build a bridge in the wrong way, it falls down. If you interpret fiction or art in the wrong way, you...are doing something the artist didn't intend, or interpreting something in a way the current batch of tenured professors doesn't like. Gygax could go on all he wanted about correct D&D, but he couldn't stop everyone from making up their own rules in their own games. Maybe older forms of criticism are useful for some people--we just found someone who said they read the Divine Comedy for spiritual purposes, to bring them closer to God. I doubt anyone in a university faculty's done that since 1800, but it means something to the person who's doing it--and that's probably pretty much the way Dante intended it.

I can like Baroque art better than Neoclassical, or swing better than rock (or rock better than rap), or decide I like AD&D better than 3rd edition...and enough people felt the same way to launch an Old School Renaissance that wound up influencing 5th edition. The actual Renaissance was an attempt to reject the newer medieval forms for the classics. You can go back if you want to, and sometimes it's even the way forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And, @Bedrockgames, I have no idea what you mean. When I went to school, if you suggested that post Modern criticism was wrong and Modernism (which is what you're suggesting) is a better form of criticism, you'd get laughed out of the room. If your professors let you off with a "well, it's a nice idea, go check out these books", you should be going back to your alma mater and asking for some money back. The Well Wrought Urn got broken in the 50's and 60's and no one is even remotely suggesting it should be put back together now.

I never rejected all of modern criticism, I rejected death of the author and said I thought the original intent of a writer was more important than my subjective thoughts. Never said there can't be additional meaning in a work, unintended meaning. But yeah, I am happy with my education. And the response wasn't 'that is nice, check out these books'. The professor engaged me, suggested people to read who took positions like mine and suggested people to read who didn't. Plus I met more than one professor in that department who was critical of death of the author. And in the history deparment these ideas were viewed with even greater skepticism. Now maybe it was an aberration. Maybe this isn't a typical college or department. Like I said I am not an academic. But I still see nothing wrong with encountering an idea like death of the author and not agreeing with it. You seem to think it is some kind of sin, bordering on rejecting evolution. I don't agree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just calling this one out separately.

When you let every single argument that argues for the primacy of the author go by and then dig in your heels and argue with anyone who suggests otherwise, it seems a bit hard to accept the idea that you're "not using the argument that way". Particularly when your posts parrot the talking points of those who are taking a stronger stand here. After all, you commented that you found it insulting to Elmore.

I am not parroting anyone. I am just saying what I think. And frankly my critique is quite mild. I have said, I have no objection to them swapping the gender. That doesn't bother me at all. My only objection is people acting like there was a mystery around it when anyone who has been around since that boxed set came out, knows we all pretty much understood it to be a male figure in the foreground. In terms of insult, I don't mean the gender swap is an insult. I have said numerous times: the figurine is a new work, they can do what they want. I feel the same way about movies and books: people can remake or reimagine a work however they want, and should. The only reason I felt it was an insult was by suggesting the whole time people were mystified by the figure's identity, that kind of criticizes Elmore's ability to convey what he successfully conveyed. If you want to read more into my arguments, that is on you not me

But, then, are you saying that it's impossible for your words to be taken at any alternative meaning?

I am saying what I intent to mean by my words matters

 

[Blue Orange]

So, I don't know if that's really a proper framing. Ultimately, it isn't about being for or against Elmore personally. It is just about recognizing that the new interpretation has validity and value.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I've ironically been arguing something similar.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Maxperson insists that Mary Shelly came up with the specific look and method for the creation of Frankenstein's Monster. Ok. Prove it.

See, most artistic endevours are very, very rarely done in a vacuum. An author almost never writes a work and then publishes that work, all on his or her own. You have editiors, often teams of editors, colleagues who help you with ideas, friends who you talk to and suggest things, so on and so forth. Did that bit in that story come from the author or was it put there by an editor, or even did that idea come from someone else entirely? We cannot prove any of it. Even if the people involved are alive, it's unlikely they actually know and, even if they do know, we can only take their word for it.

.

But that doesn't mean there isn't original intention. This seems like obfuscation. Yes there is always this degree of uncertainty, especially with historical works. There have even been people who argued it was Percy Shelley and not Mary who wrote it (though my understanding is the vast majority of people believe this is Shelley's work, especially the 1818 edition). And yes there are editors. I think any effort to understand a work should consider its production and if possible its editors. And yes the writer may talk with people, may get ideas from people. Ultimately though they are still the ones making the decision in the writing process (though an editor may weigh in after). I would very curious if textual analysis is able to reveal anything about the editing of the book (I know for example in my historiography courses they seemed to be able to discern a great deal about the synoptic gospels through textual analysis, would be curious what light it can shed on a novel in this respect).

I am a writer and a publisher. I write my own games. I have also co-written games. Yes there are often more people involved in a project than it seems. But I also have found most editors not to be terribly heavy handed, usually they are there to help you better realize your goals in writing the thing. And when you work with a co-writer, you have many conversations about what it is you are trying to achieve. It isn't just a bunch of stuff going in a blender and coming out without focus. There is purpose to what you write. You don't always succeed, but I do think intentions and goals, matter. There is usually a vision. Even if there are other people involved in supporting you through conversation, colleagues, etc, the writers are ultimately the ones making the decisions and the ones who get praised or blamed. And by most accounts of the creation the creation of Frankenstein, it was very much a product of Shelley. I am sure she bounced ideas off Percy, or was inspired in ways by him and their inner circle. I don't think that takes away from her role as the author. Everyone lives in the presence of others who inspire them. It is what you do with that that matters. I think it would be foolish to believe any random person living in Mary Shelley's shoes would have created this great novel simply by existing in the same environment, getting ideas from the same people, etc. The unique factor here is Shelley herself.

Also just as a side point, Shelley's description of the creation is rather vague. Much is left to the reader's imagination and I think that the original Frankenstein movie in 1931, arguably doesn't violate any of her intentions in terms of method (especially if you start looking into things Shelley said about it). From what I remember there are references to digging in charnel houses and slaughter houses, hints about galvanism, etc. The most intriguing aspect to that for me, is it implies the creature is comprised of both animal and human parts. The biggest different in the Karloff version is the lack of eloquence and intellect. But like I said, I think they had every right to make those changes. I don't think Shelley ought to control future reimagining of her work (though i understand why some people get upset when movies deviate a lot from the books). My only point about that is I think it becomes disingenuous when people try to claim that the movie depicts the creature accurately from the book. The movie and the book are quite different

 

[Bedrockgames]

When I went to school, if you suggested that post Modern criticism was wrong

This part seems odd to me. I went to school part time initially, so was in college for about a decade before getting my degree.When I first went post modernism was still highly fashionable in a number of departments, and I embraced it (I still remember reading people like Lacan, Derrida and Foucault and parroting what they said). Ultimately the fashion of postmodernism in departments like history and philosophy passed, and I also became convinced quite a lot of it was smoke blowing. But in history departments, the reaction eventually became rejection of it, if not outright hostility. In the field of history it is referred to as the linguistic turn. While there are some adherents to it (books from certain universities are prone to postmodernism and to a post modern style of writing), it isn't what I would call the norm. In fact, I was recently doing a project and one of the books, which I needed to use because it had a lot of very crucial translations of primary sources that were of interest, was visibly written in a post modern style, making post modernist arguments. What was interesting to me was how useless it otherwise was, and how opaque it was, in contrast to other current books I was reading on the subject. It spent an inordinate amount of its time for example in dissecting dualities and trying to render them meaningless (but in the process didn't really assert much that was helpful in improving understanding of the past). Also its rhetorical techniques really started to wear thin by the end. And the prose was horrid, filled with tons of self referential quotes. I am not saying this stuff is bad, or you can't like it, and yes I am coming at it more from the side of history than literature, but I would be surprised if what you say is true (and if it is true, then I would say it speaks more to the current state of criticism than anything else).

I don't think anyone here wants to have a deep discussion on this topic. But I think it is weird if we live in a world where people not only have to accept the ideas of postmodernism, but are viewed as aberrant if they don't. If you find them meaningful, more power to you (I once thought I did as well: though I can't say I honestly understood them).

Also in fairness, there are post modern historians who I like. There is one in particular who I won't name because I don't want her to be sullied by any association with an aberrant disbeliever in post modernism )) who relied heavily on viewing things like architecture as text. I found her methods interesting because she also applied a great deal of rigor to them (something I find lacking in a lot of other post modern historians). And she had some very interesting analysis as a result. However I have not found her to be typical of historians who embrace that approach

 

[Blue Orange]

My best guess is when it comes to history you're actually trying to figure out what people in the past did or thought, so the postmodern interpretations are less useful. In the arts you can take someone else's work, put your own spin on it, and run with it.