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

[Mercule]

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.

Well, at the risk of sounding an ingrate, if including the article cost them even one penny, or it took more than a single phone call, it was too much, IMHO.

I do not subscribe to Dragon (I find only about every other issue to be worth the cover price), so I obviously haven't seen the issue. Still, if this is a double+ sized fiction article, as someone said, that alone probably would keep me from buying the magazine unless there was something astounding in the issue otherwise. That has nothing to do with the fiction included, its subject matter, or its language. The fiction is always a dead space to me, even moreso than the other ads (fiction from a soon-to-be-released book is _definitely_ an ad).

I _love_ Robert Jordan's work. When I read "Eye of the World", I said, "yeah, this is what I picture fantasy to be." I had "Crossroads of Twilight" read the Friday after its release. It's a given that I'm going to get the next book. I'll probably reread the series (all ten books, and I've reread only two or three books ever) before it comes out, too. I can't express how much I've enjoyed even the low-points of the Wheel of Time. If Dragon included an excerpt from his next book, I'd still consider it wasted space in the magazine.

That said, I think it's ironic that including the Martin excerpt has probably lost Dragon a sale (both because of the added length pushing out value-added content, and the fact I don't think the f-word should be included in the magazine), but the resultant discussion of Martin's work has prompted me to check it out (it's not the word that I object to so much as the venue). Let me say it again, more explicitly; if Martin's people didn't pay Dragon for the run, Dragon got shafted.

 

[EricNoah]

I think there will be a lot of Martin fans who will pick up this issue ONLY for the story. Even non-gamers and non-D&D players. This is actually the first thing I've seen in a long time that would draw in readers not normally prone to read Dragon Mag.

 

[Mercule]

I think there will be a lot of Martin fans who will pick up this issue ONLY for the story. Even non-gamers and non-D&D players. This is actually the first thing I've seen in a long time that would draw in readers not normally prone to read Dragon Mag.

Possibly, even probably. I'd think Dragon would want to build repeat customers, though. How many consistant (even if we/they aren't subscribers) sales were lost versus how many one-time sales were made.

Let's say that Dragon normally sells 10,000 copies (probably way low, but I need a number). If adding the Martin excerpt adds 1000 readers this month, that's great. Hey, even if it loses 500 sales this month, it's still a good business decision. If 250 of those 500 are miffed about the language or convinced the signal-to-noise has finally crossed the line, all they have to do is not buy the next two issues before the loss has equalled the gain.

Some of those 1000 new readers may stick with the magazine, but it probably won't be the non-rpgers. All it takes is about 1/4 of those newbies to make the inclusion of the Martin piece a break-even with the loss of old readers.

Of course, that assumes the Martin piece didn't cost anymore to acquire than the standard fiction + articles displaced. If it did (and I suspect so), then Dragon needs a net increase in readership just to break even.

Regardless of the business sense it makes, my point really was that although some people consider the inclusion of the Martion excerpt as a "perk" or favor to the readership, my opinion is that a month without fiction would be a better way of saying "thanks".

It's not a slam on anyone, Dragon or readers. I'm just throwing out my preferrences. I consider the fiction bits to be of negative value. If Paizo hears and acts on it, great, I get an improved magazine. If the rest of the readership clammors for more fiction, then great, Dragon can continue the pieces and have a happy readership, and I'll continue to pick up my 3-4 issues a year.

Wow, that's way off, the original topic. Let's push it back:

Ungh. Dragon has traditionally been a teen+ magazine. I want to see it remain that way. The f-word doesn't belong in a teen+ magazine.

 

[TeeSeeJay]

Yeah, another great reference book is the Oxford English Dictionary. Shows the use of the words all the way back to first written reference. And no, it is not a meaningless intensive no matter how much Quentin Tarantino or Oliver Stone or any number of baby boomers or Eminiem or numerous musicians want it to be. Words have meaning.

Aaron.

I'm sorry, I don't truly want to argue, but you refer ME to the OED in the same breath that you announce that the meaning of a word can't evolve, change, or take on new meaning.

I invite you to take your own advice and look the word up in the OED and see what else it means besides "to copulate."

Oh, nevermind, I'll do it for you:

3 Various other casual, intensive, etc., uses.

1959 W. Burroughs Naked Lunch 63 How in the f*** should I know? 1959 W. Burroughs Naked Lunch 96 You may be a tedious old f*** yourself some day. 1966 D. Holbrook Flesh Wounds 129 Driver speed up. Come on, for f***'s sake. 1968 Anarchy Oct. 314 A lad of 13 who has had his hand up for some time trying to attract the chairman's attention says `Oh, for f***'s sake.' 1969 Oz May 13/1 (Advt.), Pete Quesnal, late of St. Nicholas, where the f*** are you. 1970 G. Lord Marshmallow Pie xv. 136 What the f*** do you think you're doing?

Anyway, I do agree with your (and other's) points about the word's role in literature. I use this word quite often in speech, and that's where it belongs in writing. I don't like seeing it as part of prose, unless it's an implied dialogue (such as with a 1st-person narrator).

I've raised my eyebrows at the s-word in Computer Gaming World magazine, but never at the f-word in the New Yorker. But Dragon? Eh, I started reading it when I was kid, but never considered it a kid's magazine. It doesn't belong in the general articles, nor should they print a profane letter, but as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to fiction, anything goes.

Someone mentioned Norman Mailer, using the word "fug" -- reminded me of Dorothy Parker, who allegedly met Mailer at a party and quipped, "So you're the guy who can't spell 'f***'?"

 

[Mallus]

The f-word doesn't belong in a teen+ magazine.

Not even in its fiction? Catcher in the Rye --a book I heartily recommend people read before they exit their teenage years-- has lots of profanity. Or the works of Kurt Vonnegut... I started them when I was in high school.

And don't get me started on teen publications like Sassy {err, umm, ok, so I have an opinion about Sassy. So sue me.}.

Mercule, are you stating a personal preference, or are you talking about what you'd want to children exposed to {if you have them}?

 

[danbala]

Yeah, it is something of a harsh blanket statement.

But there's a difference between handling mature subject matter and titillation. Some of the best books out there handle mature subject matter. Heck, the Bible has chapters on rape, incest, genocide, mass slaughter of children, and so forth, and nobody complains that it's an unholy book because of it LOL.

Remind me again, what's wrong with titillation?

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

For those of you who keep invoking Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine - did any of you actually LISTEN to the routine and hear what he was trying to say? Or did you just jot down the list of seven words you should never ever say no matter what and tune out for the rest of the routine? Just curious.

 

[Glyfair]

Ah, well then you may want to AVOID next month's Dragon.

Actually, IIRC, it's the month after next (next months is the April Fools issue).

First I object to the placing of fiction when that fiction is nothing more than an 8-10 page ad for a book.

I think this is something more than an 8-10 page ad for a book.

Glyfair of Glamis

 

[Samnell]

I don't understand why people can't just let children be children- before forcing them deal with the many issues of the world.

How does having factual information candidly disclosed about their bodies interfering with someone being a child? You seem to have a very patronizing view of childhood. When did ignorance become a virtue?

Yes, it is up to the parents, but it is a shame parents need to censor Dragon magazine from their children. (See, I brought it back on topic, heh.)

It's a shame parents thing they need to censor Dragon.

 

[Psion]

Insert two coppers.

I too find it annoying. Not that one swear word is going to kill me. As with issue #300, it's not the instance I am worried about so much as the trend. I do not want to see Dragon become a magazine that casually invokes explicit language and other explicit descriptions.

On another note, the presumption of Paizo -- and a lot of folk here -- is that so long as the readership is adult, it's okay to have so-called "adut" content. I am an adult and I do not relish the thought of such content.

Finally, I also do not like the idea of Dragon catering to non-D&D fantasy. I am not a fan of the fiction in general, but at the very least if you have fiction, it should be related to the game. Dragon is the D&D magazine, and D&D fans -- not general fantasy fans -- are who it should cater to.

What Eric mentions worries me. Will Paizo continue to engage in these novel ads because it gives them an occasional spike in their sales? If they continue to do so, I fear that Dragon will go the way of wizards stores -- diluted to appeal to a wider audience.

Nuff said.