[DRAGON #305] F-bomb dropped, Doc M fascinated.

[Sagan Darkside]

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.

No one is forcing you to read a thread discussing the current state of Dragon magazine.

SD

 

[Zaukrie]

As the father of a 5 and 7 year old, I can say with certainty that those children who swear, act differently than those who don't, in many ways. Why? Children need boundaries (it's how they grow, if they don't have boundaries they have nothing to push on, those of you without kids may not believe this, but its true).

There seem to be several arguments here, should Dragon have done this, is f*** even profane, is there a right and wrong....Since I'll admit I'm not smart enough to solve some of these questions, I'll opine on only one.

As a parent, I don't want my children saying words that offend a large segment of the population. If I say the word, they will. If I let them say it, and don't encourage them to stop, they will keep using it. I'd like them to start playing D&D soon. I think Dragon could use this word in fiction, but it would have been nice for a magazine that has generally not been aimed at a mature to audience to warn the reader.

I've read about half the story. I get how the word appears to fit the character that said it (though this is my first exposure to Mr. Martin). But, the use of the word still shocked me. I would recommend that Dragon's editors think carefully about this. Would those of you that "liked" the use of the word buy more Dragons? Would those of you that didn't buy less? Would those of you that did, buy less if they stopped and went back to a cleaner magazine. I'd err on leaving out the language.

Ok, now I've rambled, but I'm not deleting as some of you may be smart enough to figure out what I'm trying to say (even if I'm not one of them).

 

[Friadoc]

Now for something on-topic.

I've always ranked Dragon, as well as Dungeon, as PG-13, maybe PG, and rarely G due to the fact that there is violence is inherit to the system D), especially the resolution mechanic for much of the game.

I wouldn't want it to saturate the magazine, but I do not find the occasional occurance of such language in Dragon, or Dungeon, to be to 'over the edge'.

 

[Olive]

No one is forcing you to read a thread discussing the current state of Dragon magazine.

indeed. but that cuts both ways. if one doesn't like dragon, then why is one reading the thread?

 

[tburdett]

To people making their own decisions about what is right and wrong?

Do you really believe that? Really? People generally refuse to see the bad in themselves and taking your argument to it's logical conclusion would lead to very bad things.

For example, I'm sure that Hitler and Stalin felt comfortable making their own decisions based upon what they thought was right and wrong.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

Saying it's not like the Belgariad is a good thing, if that book is anything like Guardians of the West. I'll have to check it out, profanity doesn't bother me at all.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yikes, that's a hell of a blanket statement. I know you said IMO, YMMV, and all that, and I thank-a you... but really, c'mon, Martin's a genius. He's written the best books I've ever read. There's a difference between not being able to tell a story without resorting to titillation and telling a story that involves titillation. The adult subject matter doesn't diminish the quality. It's not there to give you a page or two of naughties. Wait, I guess some of it is. I mean, that part with Danaerys and Irri... ahem. Anyway.

I don't think I'm helping make my case.

The above is all IMO, YMMV, DMV, and NWA.

Martin is far from a genius. He is a pretty talented writer but he has a certain style and that style is not for everyone.

Come to think of it I was introduced to him by a Literature major. It was quite obvious when he suggested the author that he was being snobbish. He found other fantasy writers simple and unsophisticated. I guess one needs heroes that murder small boys and scream "whose your DADDY" while spanking buxom whores in graphic descriptive language to be considered sophisticated (done in more sophisticated language I will add).

 

[Kilmore]

Okay, I just got this nifty piece of work in the mailbox. I read the whoooole story. Jibberty-crackers it was a big 'un... for Dragon anyways. Maybe I'll send my novella in after I comb out all the naughties. If there's anything left...

Anyways... nice story. Yeah, I'll read more from him. Only, I think he could have got by without the suggestive and naughty language.

"The priest followed, naked but for a sealskin clout that covered his ."

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Martin. I might have thought he had it hanging on his forehead.

It doesn't bother me so much, but now that I think about it, I wouldn't have spoken so freely in the pages of Dragon. I do have to admit I'm willing to give fiction a little more leeway. Still, a little warning might have done some good.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yes,

...it leads to people making their moral choices based upon their own thoughts, and their own cultures.

Now, in return, do you realize how disturbing your question can come across?

Morality is subjective, although this is my opinion it is one born out of reality.

All cultures do not have the same moral values, for good or bad, nor do they even all agree on right versus wrong and many wrongs were created under the umbrella of a right.

Anyhow, I'm not really wanting to get into any deep philosophical, or religious, or even spiritual debate here, it's just a matter of my opinion versus yours and how we're both allowed to live out lives as we see fit, regardless of whether they agree or not.

WRONG!

Good and evil or good and bad are not cultural relatives. That is what gives us the f'd up world we live in.

Good and evil are absolutes.

Irrelevent of cultural moors or rules :

Murder is wrong
Rape is wrong
Theft is wrong

When we start looking at everything from a "cultural" point of view we screw everything up.

 

[techno]

Do you really believe that? Really? People generally refuse to see the bad in themselves and taking your argument to it's logical conclusion would lead to very bad things.

Exactly. Many people who claim to be a "moral relativist" really aren't. They do, in fact, have an inherent sense of universal right and wrong, good and evil. Examples, such as the ones you provide, can often bring this out. IMHO they simply don't yet fully understand the implications of their rather extreme philosophical position. I am surprised (and disturbed) by the popularity of this viewpoint, however.