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

[WizarDru]

Re: 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.

Time, People, Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly may not allow more serious expletives, but Time and Newsweek both have published graphic photos (usually of violence as the result of a conflict somewhere in the world) and discussed topics (sometimes in a graphic fashion) that certainly wouldn't make them suitable for my kids. Both People and EW have put more than their share of suggestive language and sometimes visuals within their contents, as well.

I think the issue is one of perception, and one of a certain question of personal tastes. A person may accept that fiction in the New Yorker has more colorful language...but they don't read it, they read Dragon magazine...and that's why it concerns them.

 

[Henry]

QUote from Mallus:

I can't shake the feeling that what underlies this debate is the unspoken assumption is that fantasy is for children.

Quote from Doc Moriartty:

Yeah the precedent is another Con, though to some they may think of it as a pro. It shows that Dragon is being more mature and no longer kiddie oriented.

The question in my mind is: Do you consider profanity a characteristic of maturity?

I understand in our culture where it became equated with maturity, but in my opinion profanity in a work in no way means that it is automatically a mature work. If this were true, movies such as Triple X and most Arnold Schwartzenegger films would be considered mature - but these are characterized by their cool images and dreams of wish fulfillment, and have somewhat of a childish image attached to them - they're entertaining, but they don't handle mature themes or plausible consequences to actions; but I am always puzzled by the assumption of maturity evinced by either use of profanity (as in this case) or in other venues by sexuality.

As an aside, I always get a tickle out of the general cultural usage of the term "adult film" when talking about porno's anyway, because every porno I've ever seen (no, I ain't innocent) is very juvenile in its portrayal of real relationships between men and women. (Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I've never made the two-backed beast with any of my co-workers, my office has no orgies, and my wife hasn't ed the TV repairman - to my knowledge, the cable bill hasn't changed lately )

 

[med stud]

I think it is pretty interesting that you can without thought expose children to explicit violence but it seems like a deadly sin to expose children to words that really mean excrement and love making, non of which are really horrible in that sense :-/

In that sense, I think Dragon magazine can use whatever words they like as long as it fits the context, which the language of a novel often does.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Thinking about it some more...

Time, People, Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly may not allow more serious expletives, but Time and Newsweek both have published graphic photos (usually of violence as the result of a conflict somewhere in the world) and discussed topics (sometimes in a graphic fashion) that certainly wouldn't make them suitable for my kids.

That's the heart of the matter: should the Dragon remain "suitable for children"? It certainly was back in the days I bought it regularly {mid-to-late 1980's}. But I wasn't exactly a kid then, I was a teenager. My assumption has always been that RPG's weren't for small children. They're too complex, for starters. They're very violent, even if you go light on the descriptions of mayhem.

Aren't you left with a general audience that's at least in their teens, if not much older? The current demographic data bears this out. So what you have is the Dragon simply coming on par with other highly mainstream publications.

May I ask WD how old your children are {and to fully disclose, I'm not yet a parent}? And how do you feel about teenagers reading Time or Harpers {an excellent mag. BTW}?

 

[Mallus]

The question in my mind is: Do you consider profanity a characteristic of maturity?

I understand in our culture where it became equated with maturity, but in my opinion profanity in a work in no way means that it is automatically a mature work.

No, of course not. Did I come across as if I meant that? And I agree with you that that term "adult' when applied to certain media products is a laughable exercise in irony...

Profanity or graphic sexual content {or for that matter lengthy discussions of the Hegelian dialectic...} are generally considered unsuitable for children, right? That's all I was getting at.

Unsuitable for children does not equal mature {or sophistacted or whatever...}.

And equally true is that material which is profane, scatalogical, overtly sexual, etc is not automatically worthless, puerile, shock-for-shocks-sake sort of drivel {consider the classic Greek playwrights, Rabelais, Henry Miller, William S. Burroughs...}.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: Thinking about it some more...

May I ask WD how old your children are {and to fully disclose, I'm not yet a parent}? And how do you feel about teenagers reading Time or Harpers {an excellent mag. BTW}?

You may, indeed. I am the proud father of a wonderful five-and-a-half year old girl, and a nearly 3 year old boy. Would I let them read Dragon any time soon? No. When my daughter is 10, would I let her read it? Maybe. That depends on how I perceive her maturity, and where Dragon is at, when that time comes. The same applies to my son.

Exposure isn't the same thing as acceptance, you should also understand. My son knows what a gun is, and I can't keep that knowledge from either of my children...other boys in daycare obviously have parents who feel differently. But that doesn't mean that he plays it at home, or in my presence, nor is it allowed at daycare. He knows that, and doesn't do it. The issue, to me, isn't just sheltering my kids, it's preparing them for how to deal with it.

I considered this to be an appropriate choice for Dragon to make, given the core audience of the magazine, the restrictions on it's access, and just smart marketing. When I was playing D&D back in the early 80s, I was hardly ignorant of the F-word. My parents were under no delusions about this, either. That didn't mean that I used it in their presence, or in the presence of anyone but my closest peers (be they good friend or dire enemy). If I teach my children correctly, seeing the F-word isn't going to cause them to spontaneously combust into a Tourettes-like cacophony of curse words.

AFAIC, Paizo should make the decision that makes the most business sense for them, and let me worry about rasiing my kids. If they make a decision that costs them a customer (be it me or The Sigil), they had best be sure that they did it for the right reasons, and that the benefit outweighed the cost. For myself, I'd be more likely to drop the magazine if I'd found out that they'd censored GRRM without his knowledge...but that's just me.

 

[Friadoc]

I'm curious,

...one of the keep elements of this dicussion is about Dragon being a magazine that is aimed at children, but a thought as occured to me - has it ever been directed at children?

Am I incorrect in the assumption that RPGs are something that is normally for teens to young adults?

I know there are exceptions, myself for example as I started to play RPGs in January of 1980 at the age of six, but isn't D&D, as well as most RPGs, aimed at more mature people?

We've all seen, I'm sure, the occassional young one at the table, which has the game usually more fanciful then gritty, but it's more the exception, not the rule. Right?

As someone who is actually working to cuss less, not because the language offends me or my friends, but because I've seen it as a crutch, I do not see it at a sign of maturity.

It can be a layer that enriches a character, just as very solemn speech, pious nature, and righteous action can flesh out a goodly, wholesome character to me as well.

I still feel morality is subjective, but I can concur with those who say somethings are just wrong, just as some things are just right, but I see this more as humanity and inhumanity then I do morality.

 

[mkarol]

Re: Re: Thinking about it some more...

Time, People, Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly may not allow more serious expletives, but Time and Newsweek both have published graphic photos (usually of violence as the result of a conflict somewhere in the world) and discussed topics (sometimes in a graphic fashion) that certainly wouldn't make them suitable for my kids. Both People and EW have put more than their share of suggestive language and sometimes visuals within their contents, as well.

I think this is the crux of the thread, or at least the reason it was started. In a magazine, "Dragon," which deals with subjects such as vastly evil creatures from completely evil planes of existence, how to siege castles and destroy your enemies' sanctuaries, and how to 'maximize' the amount of damage you can do to an enemy with one sword thrust; is the use of a word that isn’t exactly polite out of step... so out of step that it would require a ***WARNING!!!!***? I think the answer is no.

Dragon has complete discussions about some pretty un-Disney-like activities, so I would not expect a warning when an un-Disney-like word is used, nor would I find it inappropriate.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking about it some more...

I am the proud father of a wonderful five-and-a-half year old girl, and a nearly 3 year old boy.

A several-years late: Congratualtions!

The issue, to me, isn't just sheltering my kids, it's preparing them for how to deal with it.

Well said...

If I teach my children correctly, seeing the F-word isn't going to cause them to spontaneously combust into a Tourettes-like cacophony of curse words.

Well said, and funny...

I'd be more likely to drop the magazine if I'd found out that they'd censored GRRM without his knowledge...but that's just me.

Me too.

I'm glad I didn't come across as insensitive to the concerns of parents {because I sure as heck can, just ask my friends who have already started families}. The issue of what appropriate for your children is a whole other ballgame.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Re: Thinking about it some more...

Dragon has complete discussions about some pretty un-Disney-like activities, so I would not expect a warning when an un-Disney-like word is used, nor would I find it inappropriate.

Exactly.