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

[gregweller]

I think I should clarify something I said oh, about 150 posts ago or so. I said that I found Martin's work 'disturbing' and that was a good thing. It wasn't really the language I was talking about, even though that was what was directly under discussion, although I did find it gratifying that Martin didn't write like every other 'oh the children might be listenting musn't disturb the little ones' fantasy writer around. What disturbed me was the age of a lot of his characters. There were 12 and 13 year olds committing murder and rape (at least as far as I could tell that was the age of some of the central characters), but in some sense this was a reflection of historical reality--and I always took the War of the Roses to be Martin's historical analogue. So he was making a point about power and how it can corrupt even at a tender age, and this was disturbing, but as it made me uncomfortable and made me stop and consider the nature of power it was a good thing. Now if you start objecting to this, you are objecting to *ideas* which goes beyond objecting to *language* and that is a very dangerous thing to do indeed. As for all the protective parents out there, you're really not doing your children a service by keeping them sheltered from the free exchange of ideas. And to be involved with a hobby that stresses the power of the imagination and then to turn around and try and restrict that imagination, well that's just silly. And since there are a few librarians out there, let me just put in a big thumbs up for all the libraries who as a matter of policy will allow children to check out and read whatever they want because the risk of of children getting the impression that there are 'good' and 'bad' books is far more dangerous than any old 4 letter anglo-saxonism that they might run across. -- It was not always thus. When I was in the 6th grade (40+ years ago), my local library would not allow me to check out the novel 'The Agony and the Ecstasy' because it was 'too mature' for me. I have still not gotten over the absolute sense of violation that I felt at that time.

 

[The Sigil]

Sigil- I hope this, your first and very negative exposure to Martin hype, won't stop you from maybe reading a few pages in the book store and seeing if you like it. I was turned on to the books by ENworld in 2001, and sucked down every paragraph like a kraken. The best time I've ever spent on a couch reading. I just read until I was too tired or hungry or driven by obligation to stop.

{Snip}

Take a look through some of the many Martin threads in the Fantasy/Sci Fi forum for an indication of the love for the works.

As I reflected on this thread, I did remember the "Song of Fire and Ice" thread. I went through about 4 pages of it before realizing I wasn't getting anything out of it because I didn't know the story.

I'm not sure whether or not I will take the time to sample Martin. I know for sure that if I do I will definitely wait for a few months to let any negativity from this thread drain so I can give it an unbiased reading. Hopefully you understand why. ;-)

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Thanks for the replies Eric and Henry

To those who are cancelling subscriptions and refusing to buy Dragon because of this, I have an honest question, that I do NOT want to offend with:

Is a single word reason enough to stop getting (IMHO) one of the best and cheapest game-aids around? One word?

Yes. And as I mentioned before, it has become less and less of a useful game aid. A Dragon subscription (about $30) yields (to me) approximately 5 useful pages per issue - and I have to sift through over a hundred pages to find those 5. That's 60 pages of useful material per year.

I can go over to RPGNow.com and spend that same $30 on several hundred pages of products, with no ads to sift through and guess that I'm going to see more than 60 pages of material from that.

Dragon is neither cheap nor a useful game aid given the PDF market. Price concerns aside, its utililty has diminished (to me) considerably over the last couple of years. The signal to noise ratio has gone into the toilet.

As I said, I mean no offense, but I cannot personally understand this...does hearing one profanity on a specific television show make you want to cancel your Cable or Satellite account, when there is so many other positive things out there?

There's a difference - when I pay for cable or satellite I'm not just paying for one channel with one ideology and one voice. With Dragon, I am (the ideology and voice is the editors'). A better analogy is, "if you were paying for HBO and found that HBO had nothing to offer you and in fact offended you, would you drop it from your cable package?" I would. Dragon is one channel of my RPG package (analagous to cable package). It is not in and of itself a complete thing.

I would not cancel cable for one bad channel - though if I were paying a premium for that one channel I certainly would cancel it. However, in this analogy, Dragon magazine is a premium channel. And I am cancelling it.

Why did I not do it after #300? I believed in giving the editors the benefit of the doubt, especially given Dragon's past track record. After issue #300 we were promised, "we don't intend to publish anything else that pushes the boundaries for a while." I gave them the benefit of the doubt. With an S-bomb in 304 and an F-bomb in 305 it's clear that they did not intend to back off. Therefore, they no longer receive benefit of the doubt and get cut off from my pocketbook.

--The Sigil

 

[Olive]

Granted, but the issue is important to me. I would like to see Dragon be a magazine I will again purchase.

And I am not suggesting people who are on the other side of the issue then me are annoying.

SD

good point and fair enough.

 

[The Sigil]

Granted, but the issue is important to me. I would like to see Dragon be a magazine I will again purchase.

And I am not suggesting people who are on the other side of the issue then me are annoying.

SD

Agree on both counts.

The point of those posting that are "anti-Dragon" is not that we hate all the magazine was and is. The point is that we liked what it was in the past. We have seen it change and are disturbed that it is changing into something we don't like. The key phraseology is, "[we] would like to see Dragon be a magazine [we] will again [be willing] to purchase."

This implies that at one time it was something we enjoyed and we don't want it to fail; rather that because we disagree with where it has gone, we believe that it is failing us (not failing, but failing us - there's a difference). In our minds there is a gap between "where it is now" and "where it could be." We know that an expectation to bridge that gap is not unrealistic because "where it could be" is "where it has already been."

We feel it is not living up to potential demonstrated in the past (and therefore not an ephemeral "I wish it was this") as a value item to us. That's why we're here.

--The Sigil

 

[Cedric]

George R.R. Martin's writing is too realistic and gritty for some.

There are many people who have hated Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea, yet it is considered a classic.

Why do people hate it? It is too realistic for them. Full of too much pain, anguish...not enough victory.

The Bellgariad is a great series, the Riftwar Saga is a great series, the Honor Harrington books are a great series...they all deal with triumph of the rare human soul over adversity and conflict beyond our normal range of comprehension.

The Song of Fire and Ice is a great series...but it has nothing to do with this triumph. It is about survival in a world bent upon your destruction. Success in times of global failure. Defeat, despite having moral foundation, wits, intelligence and a soul of strength and honor. It is about what happens when good people and bad people are subjected to impossibly difficult circumstances...some win, some lose.

If this is not what you want to read about, then don't. There are numerous series available that will not subject you to the soul searching and emotional tortures of such a tumultous series.

But please, whatever you decide to do, don't take out your frustration at the use of "profane" languange on Dragon Magazine. The fact that they could go to the amount of effort they have gone through (and I can assure it, it was a great deal of effort) to secure this sample of George Martin's book means that they care about their readers.

Did they expect thousands and thousands more copies to fly off of shelves because of this excerpt? No...in fact, it's presence caught many of us by surprise.

So why is it there? Because Dragon is obviously trying for content that will satisfy their fan based and in some ways surprise them.

If Dragon decides to start using this kind of language in articles, editorials, non-fiction features or "written for Dragon" fiction...then complain and worry.

Cedric

 

[Gizzard]

Now if you start objecting to this, you are objecting to *ideas* which goes beyond objecting to *language* and that is a very dangerous thing to do indeed.

I'm fascinated that there is absolutely no discussion of whether the story is good or not; its just all about whether a single word should have been edited.

So, since I'm bored with the current arguement, I'll try to launch a tangent:

How was the story?

I remember reading "The Blood of the Dragon" back when it appeared before I even knew that it was an excerpt from the soon to be published "Game of Thrones" and, frankly, before I knew who Martin was. (I still havent read "Sandkings". Probably something in the nervous chuckles and rictus grins of those who recommend it.) Anyway, the story really stood head and shoulders above anything else in its class, easily winning the Novella Hugo that year. So, is this excerpt that good? I certainly hope so.

 

[WizarDru]

So, since I'm bored with the current arguement, I'll try to launch a tangent:

How was the story?

Having finished it last night, I can answer for myself: Excellent. Highlighting the internal political and spiritual battles of the 'ironmen', the viking/pirate analogs of the Western Part of Westeros, it fleshes out several minor characters, advances the overall story of "Song of Ice and Fire", and leaves you wanting more.


Now I have a question, and one that I've been meaning to ask: I have heard, more than once from different posters that Dragon used to be great, and now is not. I can certainly understand that. What I'm curious about is when WAS it great, exactly? Can you point to an issue or a run where it served your needs best? I ask this not in facetiousness, but in all honesty. I suspect that the answer will be that you want something different out of the magazine than I do, ultimately.

EDIT: Rather than sidetrack this thread, why not go to this swell new thread/poll over here! and discuss it further with myself and others? Cool.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

When I was in the 6th grade (40+ years ago), my local library would not allow me to check out the novel 'The Agony and the Ecstasy' because it was 'too mature' for me.

Hahahaha

That is pretty funny- they obviously were going by the title and not the book. The book is pretty clean. It is a good book, but I don't recall there being anything in there that should not be read by other children.

SD

 

[Mallus]

Thinking about it some more...

... the issue of whether profanity is acceptable in mainstream periodicals is more complex than I first thought. Hard expletives don't find there way into Time, People or Entertainment Weekly, but are commonplace in the essays and fictions of The New Yorker, Esquire, or Harper's.

Could you picture an editor at a major magazine asking John Updike or Joyce Carol Oates for permission to edit a swear word out of one of their pieces? Why should G.R.R. Martin be any different? I can't shake the feeling that what underlies this debate is the unspoken assumption is that fantasy is for children. The median age of gamers is what, over 30? The fact is that it isn't a kids hobby anymore. And fantasy literature isn't all Tolkien; its broader of scope --which in no way lessens Tolkien genius and achievement.