[DRAGON #305] F-bomb dropped, Doc M fascinated.
- Thread starter Dr Midnight
- Start date
- Status
Henry said:
Lazy is simply that: an action taken for the sake of avoidance of work. Take the example of someone giving their opinion of a game product. To me, it takes a little more effort to say, "This product had poor editing, had content of no value to me, and portrayed its female NPC's in a negative light," than to say, "This product sucked monkey. It was that
It creates barriers to communication, especially when trying to communicate among a broad audience of different backgrounds. Profanity for its sake (in other words, excessively used with no obvious purpose other than shock value) has always been considered crude and low-class by scholars of language, and at one time, by the majority of the literary community. But the reasons have always been more than just moral or religious ones.
*snip*
See, and I disagree. I think the problem here is that people assumed (and we now what happens when we assume) that Dragon was a G-rated magazine. But it's not. It's used language before that would give it a PG-13 rating, and hasn't approached what would be necessary for an R rating.
If Martin softened his language to make the widest range of society happy, he'd end up with a comedy like Tom Lehrer's "Fight Fiercely, Harvard". I'll agree that the reasons for doing so are more than moral and religious. That doesn't make it flattering, nor does it lend a work any integrity.
Mercule
Adventurer
Friadoc said:
Actually, there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong (obviously, IMHO). The gray comes from the fact that there isn't a definitive guide to the subject (the Bible and it's ilk could be such, but there isn't agreement).
If there isn't a right and wrong, there aren't any moral choices, and we are nothing but self-serving creatures. "I want a friend, so I treat them nicely." "I want a warm fuzzy, so I'll donate to a charity." etc.
Likewise, making something a law, decree, or even popular concensus does not make something right or wrong. Nor does being able to reconcile yourself to an action. If law, etc. determined right and wrong, then slavery would have been "good" at one time. If personal acceptance did, then Jim Jones was a "good" man.
The challenge of personal morality isn't in feeling warm and fuzzy about everything or even throwing everything to the winds. It is in making conscious, reasoned decisions that fit the truth.
Subjective morality is as absurd as subjective physics. Just as any incongruent result in science would mean a hypothesis is false and needs further review, so does it in philosophy.
As an example, if we mix an acid with five different bases, and each time it produces a green salt, then we might hypothesize that the acid always produces a green salt when mixed with a base. If we try a sixth base and the salt comes out red, then our hypothesis is false.
If we look at several reasons for killing (jealousy, rage, lust, greed), we can reasonably say they are all "evil". So, we hypothesize that "killing is evil". Now, we test that against other reasons or ways of killing, such as self-defense (arguable, but you get the point), the killing may not be "evil". If not, then we have to face up to the fact that our hypothesis is flawed.
Unfortunately, there isn't a big cosmic *ping* when we get something right or wrong in the field of morality. This is where people sometimes get attracted to the idea of subjective morality. It's much easier to just say, "Ah, it doesn't matter," than to continue to ponder over an issue that you'll never get a final answer to.
Obviously, I have a huge issue with the entire idea of subjective morality. I've given my side of things, and I'm afraid that any ongoing discussion is going to completely derail the thread, so I don't plan on responding to the subjective/absolute morality thing any further.
mkarol
First Post
Sagan Darkside said:
Why does a _word_ need to be inherently profane for there to be a _concept_ which is profane?
Words are simply (poor) representations for concepts and constructs that can not perfectly represent the underlying image. So you need the context or a common understanding to provide context clues to get the big picture.
A word is a tool, just like a screwdriver or a gun. The screwdriver you use to put together your child's bicycle is no more or less evil/bad/profane then the screwdriver you use to stab your sister's ex-boyfriend in the eye. The _context_ must be present to give the tool meaning.
Sagan Darkside said:
Yes it does. Under your hypothesis (as i understand it), a word is profane by its nature and therefore it can only be profane.
Now if someone use the word in a non-profane way, and its nature is therefore non-profane, then your hypothesis that said word is always profane has been shown false.
Friadoc
Explorer
smetzger said:
Actually,
...you're assuming that I've not considered the possibility that morality is absolute, which is an incorrect assumption as I've thought about it for a significant portion of my life, and that I'm being close-minded.
I'm not, but I am being very opinionated.
It's my opinion that a person's moral compass is set by their culture, their familial teachings, the society they live in, and their experiences in life as they grow.
Be it social, religious, fraternal, or some other form, people learn their morality, or selectively find it.
I do agree with you that some acts are so inhuman, evil if you wish, that they offend any sensible person, these are more the exceptions then the rule.
Sometimes things are cut and dry, black and white, but personally I see a lot more areas of gray then I do black and white.
Anyhow, as I've said before, it's just my opinion and I'm sure some will disagree with it.
Boy this thread is all over the place...
...so I guess I'll chime in with a few disorganized thoughts.
1) I'm a little surprised that the Dragon is doing this. The Dragon I grew up reading in the 80's wouldn't of done it. Of course, I can't recall a single piece of Dragon fiction from that era being worth reading, and nowadays they're publishing a piece by Martin... so bully for them.
2) Context seems to be the key. As people have already mentioned, its not like the Dragon has begun publishing articles and reviews full of expletives. Now that would be offensive, not to mention cheap and juvenile. The language is contained in a work of fiction, whose subject matter renders such language appropriate, if not neccessary.
3) Would I let my hypothetical kid read it? If they were in their teens, sure. I think Martin's a good writer. Again it would depend on the nature of piece of fiction, not just the language or even content. Again, context is more important than the presence of individual words.
4) As I understand it, the difference between vulgar and polite langauge, at least as it pretains to English, had a lot to do with class conflict during the Victorian era; a way of seperating the good monied upper class from the rabble, now that some of the successful merchantile rabble were coming into money. So vulgar vs. polite language isn't an ethical issue at all, rather one of class distinction.
5) The fact that a contemporary reader would steer clear of works that contained profanity baffles me. Do you know what your missing? Joyce, Miller, Faulkner, hell, even Shakespeare. Just because you might not be familar with his era's idioms doesn't make his langauge any less salty.
And the fact that fantasy readers, who basically read nothing but blood-drenched war stories, blanch at a little profanity just seems
wrong. As if the signifiers had far more weight than what was been signified.
...so I guess I'll chime in with a few disorganized thoughts.
1) I'm a little surprised that the Dragon is doing this. The Dragon I grew up reading in the 80's wouldn't of done it. Of course, I can't recall a single piece of Dragon fiction from that era being worth reading, and nowadays they're publishing a piece by Martin... so bully for them.
2) Context seems to be the key. As people have already mentioned, its not like the Dragon has begun publishing articles and reviews full of expletives. Now that would be offensive, not to mention cheap and juvenile. The language is contained in a work of fiction, whose subject matter renders such language appropriate, if not neccessary.
3) Would I let my hypothetical kid read it? If they were in their teens, sure. I think Martin's a good writer. Again it would depend on the nature of piece of fiction, not just the language or even content. Again, context is more important than the presence of individual words.
4) As I understand it, the difference between vulgar and polite langauge, at least as it pretains to English, had a lot to do with class conflict during the Victorian era; a way of seperating the good monied upper class from the rabble, now that some of the successful merchantile rabble were coming into money. So vulgar vs. polite language isn't an ethical issue at all, rather one of class distinction.
5) The fact that a contemporary reader would steer clear of works that contained profanity baffles me. Do you know what your missing? Joyce, Miller, Faulkner, hell, even Shakespeare. Just because you might not be familar with his era's idioms doesn't make his langauge any less salty.
And the fact that fantasy readers, who basically read nothing but blood-drenched war stories, blanch at a little profanity just seems
wrong. As if the signifiers had far more weight than what was been signified.
Last edited:
Olive
Explorer
you people are mad. except a few. eric seems extremely sane to me. and mkarol's stuff about the importance of context is pretty good too.
i can swear at work (and not get fired). i can swear at home. a large number of my favourite works of art include swearing. I am happy to not swear at my grandparents, around small children or on these boards. but i would still come here if i could.
where i live, it's just really not important. some words/verbal actions are, but using the word that begins with f is really not a big deal. its on tv, its in the media it's in my mouth and no one cares.
calm down. if that one word is causing you to cancel dragon, then fine, but it would eb good if you didn't post in the threads on dragon saying 'see, this is why i don't buy dragon anymore...' cos thats just annoying.
i can swear at work (and not get fired). i can swear at home. a large number of my favourite works of art include swearing. I am happy to not swear at my grandparents, around small children or on these boards. but i would still come here if i could.
where i live, it's just really not important. some words/verbal actions are, but using the word that begins with f is really not a big deal. its on tv, its in the media it's in my mouth and no one cares.
calm down. if that one word is causing you to cancel dragon, then fine, but it would eb good if you didn't post in the threads on dragon saying 'see, this is why i don't buy dragon anymore...' cos thats just annoying.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I agree with Sigil about Martin not being "proper" for Dragon, but since I quit buying it I don't care much. What I'm interested in is this author that I am not familiar with. What kind of stuff does he write? High Fantasy, low, etc.
WizarDru
Adventurer
More than one thread has appeared because of this. A quick use of the search function can probably pull up the latest one.
Martin writes a sprawling, generally low (initially almost no) magic setting with deep, three-dimensional characters, an intricate plot that suprises and intrigues. It's full of politics, history, culture and adventure. It moves fast, covers a lot of territory, and is very, very good, IMHO. Some characters do swear...just like real people do. Sometimes in anger, other times in jest, some times at the height of passion. But never just for it's own sake.
To judge Martin's work by the presence of some fairly sparse profanity is the same mistake Irish publishers made with Joyce's "Ulysses" or work by Henry Jones, Anais Nin and others from the U.S. It's very mature reading, and you need to come to it expecting to be treated as a thinking adult.
If you go to "Song of Ice and Fire" expecting the Belgariad, you will be disappointed. It is a different kind of tale (and I like the Belgariad, in case you cared) with a different kind of focus. I highly recommend it.
Martin writes a sprawling, generally low (initially almost no) magic setting with deep, three-dimensional characters, an intricate plot that suprises and intrigues. It's full of politics, history, culture and adventure. It moves fast, covers a lot of territory, and is very, very good, IMHO. Some characters do swear...just like real people do. Sometimes in anger, other times in jest, some times at the height of passion. But never just for it's own sake.
To judge Martin's work by the presence of some fairly sparse profanity is the same mistake Irish publishers made with Joyce's "Ulysses" or work by Henry Jones, Anais Nin and others from the U.S. It's very mature reading, and you need to come to it expecting to be treated as a thinking adult.
If you go to "Song of Ice and Fire" expecting the Belgariad, you will be disappointed. It is a different kind of tale (and I like the Belgariad, in case you cared) with a different kind of focus. I highly recommend it.
Pick up the latest issue of Dragon and find out. ;-)
Actually, its a pretty gritty world, quasi-medieval with spare but powerful magic. Whats interesting to most people is that his characters have a lot of depth to them, that they grow and change in ways that are convincing, if not always for the better. Definitely not your standard "Orphan goes on quest with hardy band of companions and discovers noble lineage as well as quest item!"
- Status
Similar Threads
