You seem to think anyone that doesn't share your tastes is educationally subnormal.
LOL. I think that you need to lose a bit of that defensiveness. *I* do not think that the masses are morons, but I assure you that most corporations make that assumption when they make their products, which was my point. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that.
The real-life folks I meet have absolutely nothing to do with the mythical 'everyman' that Hollywood (and most mass-market companies) create their products for using demographics.
As an example, I will use pulp fantasy novels. They are generally pretty badly written as a rule. The editing in the worst of them is non-existent. After reading a handful of them, it is very easy to determine the formula they follow, similar in theory to the formula followed by Harlequin Romance books.
So, what does this type of product say about the 'customer' these publishers want to attract? They don't care about quality writing, apparently, or the simple notion of making sure there are no spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes or lapses in continuity or logic in the books - that or they aren't educated enough to even notice in the first place. They are obviously dense enough that they aren't supposed to notice that the plot stays the same while the names of the characters and places change from book to book. All in all, that these books even hit the market shows that the publishers have a pretty dim view of the average fantasy reader.
My personal experience with people has been just the opposite, as I have noted.
You don't "reward" people with your money you pay for goods and services.
What part of capitalism don't you get? Those who get money for their products eat and live another day. Those who don't, see their companies disappear. That is the most salient example of a 'reward' that I can possibly think of.
People work to earn your money, they don't share your views, they don't need to feel what you feel (thank-god), you want something you have to pay for it.
People work to earn my money ... that sounds suspiciously kind of like a reward system. Unless there is a monopoly in an industry, the company I buy from gets the reward and the ones I don't buy from do not get the reward - this really is elementary economics.
There is no requirement that businessmen feel what I feel, but as I am 100% sole owner and controller of the funds in my pocket, there is nothing stopping me from making that a consideration when making my purchase. In this respect, I am very much the Lord of my own discretionary income. If they want to earn my dollar, they meet my minimum standards for humanity (treat people with respect and do not ruin the planet). As 99% of the products beckoning for that discretionary income are not even remotely necessities, I have the luxury of choosing to live without them. Yes, they must entice me ... and not the other way around.
Just because something is popular and well liked doesn't mean it lacks worth
You are grossly overstating my point. WotC worked hard to ensure that there is at least some worth in the product for everyone. If they hadn't done so, they would have broken the very design goal that started the debate you and I are currently in. They wanted to create value for as wide a group as they possible could.
My contention is that by choosing to do so, they diluted the overall quality of their product. It is like comparing a comprehensive set of Snap-On wrenches - complete with a lifetime warranty - and a $9.95 multi-tool. The average joe or jane is way more likely to buy the multi-tool because of its apparent utility and low price. It is only when it breaks turning a nut or slips and cuts them while turning a screw (both of which have happened to me) that someone learns to appreciate a purpose-built tool made with overall quality in mind. If your needs are modest and the multi-tool fits the bill, then bully for you. Me? I'm buying the wrenches.
Why must the newsagent need to think most of the world are morons just to sell you a newspaper?
The newsagent sees his customers face to face, so I honestly doubt he thinks his customers are morons at all. I would suspect that he has a working relationship with quite a few of them or he is in the wrong business altogether. The publisher, on the other hand, purposely writes the paper at a grade six level because the assumption is that the average reader can't grasp anything written at a higher level than this. What an insult this is when 80% of Americans have graduated from High School.
Your standards are different not higher, higher implies better, just because something isn't to your taste doesn't mean it is not of worth.
Wow, are you illogical at the start of this sentence. My standards
are higher than the average person's; this should be pointedly obvious.
A grade 12 writing level is - and always will be - a higher standard of writing than a grade 6 level. Asking someone to give you their best effort is asking for a higher standard than accepting less than their best effort. A TV that lasts ten years was built to a higher standard of QC than one that lasts for two years.
My standards are high, by definition, precisely because so few people meet them. If they were low, everyone would meet them and they would cease, in all practical fasion, to be a standard at all. That is, when you think of it, the crux of my argument: set your standard too low and there really isn't a standard anymore.
I agree that 'higher' does not necessarily equate with 'better'. For example, a higher level of idiocy in the general population can hardly be called a 'good' thing at all.
I will use this argument back against you, though: one can hardly say that 'more popular' equates with 'better', either!
You might not have said they were the evil empire, but using emotive terms like "darker agenda", and "domination" isn't far off.
Uh, you missed the word 'may' in my sentence:
"Sure, they
may have a darker agenda"
I was speaking hypothetically. I am willing to bet that most WotC employees punch the clock and then go home to some barbecue and their family just like everyone else. Neither saints nor Satan, as my grandmother used to say.
For the record, I find it odd that people are profoundly against 'world domination', but seem quite OK with 'industry domination'. They aren't against domination so much as a principle as they are against the scale of that domination. Keep it small and we'll even put you on the cover of time like Bill Gates.
This, to me, is very weird.
For the record greed is evil, at least to most of the religious world "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods" or something similiar is a tenant of three main religions.
So ... your point is that I am essentially calling WotC evil by saying that they are greedy? My opinion is 100% independent from the opinions of 'most of the religious world', so please don't try and put their words in my mouth. I have already stated once that I don't consider greed to be inherently evil ... and I meant it the first time.
I dislike greedy people and always have. I do not wish to personally reward their greed and I think that any society that pats greedy folks on the back for exercising their greed has got some serious problems with their priorities. Nonetheless, until they are actually pressed by their greed into exploiting, enslaving or otherwise hurting the planet or its peoples, they are not evil by definition in my books ... just profoundly distasteful.
So you would aid their industry domination, doesn't that make you just as guilty?
How does selling my books privately help their cause? The money that exchanges hands goes to me ... and not to WotC. In fact, when my buyer pays me, he is quite blatantly
not paying WotC for a nice new set of books. Two people get some use out of one set of products instead of WotC seeing two sales of new books. Besides, my buyer knows that I am selling them for a reason. That alone undermines WotC in that it introduces a concrete example of doubt in their products.
Yes, when I originally bought the books, I rewarded WotC's work on them with money. I regret that, but the money is long gone and I can't get that back. Serves me right for not borrowing my buddy's copies before slapping down my cash. I never said that I was perfect, only that I was principled.
Of course only a moron would buy them off you.
LOL. I didn't call 3e buyers morons. By definition, that would make me one, too. Hollywood is the worst and best example of dumbing down products for the mass market, and this is why I used them as an example of how bad it can get if the principle is taken too far. They quite plainly consider their core customers to be the most idiotic populace alive.
WotC didn't even remotely sink to this level when they made 3e, a fact that most of you have noticed because it was such an improvement over 2e. Nonetheless, it marked the first time that WotC actually catered to the mass market when designing the product, and it shows (at least to me). Note that by mass market, I mean of the population at large and not 'most of the gamers'.
