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

[Dinkeldog]

I propose that from now on Mr. Decker runs everything that goes into Dragon by the staff of the "700 Club". Only what they approve of as being decent should make it into the magazine.

 

[jdavis]

Is this actually a serious discussion? Good Grief if you don't like the magazine then just don't buy it. There is nothing wrong or illegal about what they are printing, their target audience is people who like D&D, they are targeting the magazine to hit the same topics as WOTC books that are released, you know doing stories and articles on what is big at the time, isn't that what they are supposed to do? I have been reading this magazine on and off for over 20 years, I don't see all that much difference in the target audience here, people who like D&D. IF they didn't try to hit on topics that were big or important at the time then they would be stupid (Drow artcle during the "Year of the Drow, Vile content at the same time the BOVD came out, etc.....) This isn't time or newsweek, there is no set age target, this isn't a general magazine it is specifically aimed at D&D fans, are sales down? are they not reaching their target audience? Heck I don't know but if they are then they need to change if they are not then they are doing just what they are supposed to do. To me one word in a book doesn't mean squat, and yes I have two children, but I have more faith in them that to think that one word in a book will turn them into deranged monsters. As far as teens go, I think that most everybody over the age of 12 has heard the word and knows what it means, yes it may offend some but how many of the people complaining would of even known it was there if it didn't show up in this thread (if you normally don't read the fiction section then why would you read it now and if you read Martin then it shouldn't of suprised you). For that matter since when is fantasy settings and fantasy fiction two totally separarate topics? People who like fantasy role playing games tend to like fantasy stories too, seems like a perfect fit to me.

If you don't like George R R Martin then you will probably not care for the upcomming magazine with setting information in it either, but Martin is a multiple time bestselling author with a huge following, heck more people probably read his books than read Dragon magazine, he will bring in vast numbers of buyers who are iching for that little bit of story, I figure it will be quite a significant number and maybe they will stick around to see the setting information that is comming in a future issue, seems like a marketing coup to me, I could be wrong but somebody that cares more than I do at this time could check the numbers and in the end the numbers are all that matter here.

In closing, if you don't like the magazine then stop buying it, that's how capitalism works, as long as it is selling good then they are doing the right thing. I can't believe I even posted that it's just common sense.

 

[Cedric]

does the inclusion of the F-bomb actively aid you in your inspiration/reflection process when digesting a "work of art" such as Martin's prose (I used the quotation marks deliberately)? Does it make no difference? Does it hinder you?

Used in certain contexts and dialogues it helps me to understand the personality of the character that used the word.

It's hard to believe that someone in a novel is a vile, cretin if they get upset and yell out, "Darn you to heck!"

I don't require that the stories I am reading have characters in them who are like this. But if they do possess such realistic, gritty characters then I want them written about as if they are realistic.

Don't sugar coat the bad guys for fear of hurting my eyes. It's a word...I know what it means already...I'll get over it.

Sometimes I really want to HATE the bad guys...and if he looks at the good guy and really rips into him verbally, being abusive, that's going to help me hate the bad guy.

All bad guy's don't require this treatment. But if you are going to write about someone this despicable, have the guts to say it like it is, I can take it.

Cedric

 

[jdavis]

does the inclusion of the F-bomb actively aid you in your inspiration/reflection process when digesting a "work of art" such as Martin's prose (I used the quotation marks deliberately)? Does it make no difference? Does it hinder you?

It's called realism, it is the way people in the real world talk, it is expected out there in the big dark real world. Yes this was in the context of a fantasy work but it was how I would expect them to talk, and if they talked any different then it would of been stupid and would of detracted from it, a really bad example I can think of off the top of my head is the edited version of Smokey and the Bandit, the editing of it ruined it totally (and yes I know and admit it was a bad example). I expect that kind of language to be used in certain situations by certain people in stories, if they don't then it just doesn't fit. Could they of put the old F--- in instead? yes but really is that any less offensive, everybody over the age of twelve knows what the word is or at least has a good idea, covering it up like that just makes younger people more curious. If it offends you then it should offend you even if it is masked in a silly way and it has been covered or implied in this thread more times than a late night HBO special, if they replaced it with a non offensive word then it wouldn't of fit with the characters and would of looked stupid and probably would offended just as many people who knew it was edited and didn't belong.

 

[dpdx]

Re: Re: Where's the poll?

Part of it being in Dragon doesn't mean it's done.

The excerpt in Dragon is part of the prologue. GRRM has been reading early chapters of the book at con appearances for over a year now (you can find descriptions of those chapters on the web if you look for them), but that just means that those chapters are done... Not the entire book.

Yeah, thanks, fellas. Nice to know facetiousness and sarcasm aren't dead.

 

[The Sigil]

Although I don't have the issue with me onhand, I sort of doubt the editors said stuff to the effect of, you suXX0rz, blah blah, bite me.

Here is the (slightly edit to keep on topic here) text of an e-mail I sent to Dragon in protest. I believe it covers the relevant points with concrete examples. They didn't say, "bite me" but did nothing to address the real issues - and in fact went out of their way to avoid them and in small part demean those who complained. I think it does a good job explaining why I said what I said.

I am baffled by the response of the Dragon Magazine editors who wrote about their confusion about the outrage expressed about the material in Dragon #300...

No longer is Dragon dedicated to the premise, "true quality sells" but rather to "sell whatever shlock we can to make a buck." Dragon was, and should be, a "generalist" magazine - one geared for all those who enjoy D&D as a hobby. This does not mean it has to be a children's book - that would make it unreadable for older readers - but by the same token, it means it ought not to include anything inappropriate for children. To include a "sealed section" in Dragon #300 was the height of insult - it was the equivalent of including a Maxim centerfold in my issue of Time or Newsweek. These are magazines that do not pander to children, but neither do they include material that is objectionable for children. However, it is clear that Dragon Magazine is no longer content to be a generalist magazine. It instead is either intended to pander to the lowest common gaming denominator or to be a vehicle for the views of the editors, or possibly both.

But the material itself that has been included in Dragon of late was not half as offensive to me as the condescending and close-minded attitude of the Editor and Assistant Editors of Dragon Magazine. Since the publication of the articles, I have seen nothing but sidestepping of the real issues involved and/or ad hominim attacks on those who have expressed displeasure. But I will not deal with generalities, but with specifics, in hopes that the editors may recognize how they are insulting their readership. For example, the letter from Matthew Eyre in Dragon #302 expressed the concern that "the vile content... of the 30th issue demeaned the game... the magazine, and worst of all... the gamers who play the game... This type of material is unacceptable." The response by Associate Editor Matthew Sernett neatly sidesteps the real issue by focusing on one of Mr. Eyre's minor points (that of the consequence of the demeaning - a decrease in respect in the eyes of the general public - this is a minor point as it is merely a consequence of the main complaint).

Mr. Sernett explains that "[media portayals and public opinion] show less derision and fear toward the D&D game and D&D players than... to fans of polka music." I applaud Mr. Sernett for missing the issue. He then insults Mr. Eyre's intelligence further with this gem, "...we have no plans to present vile content in future issues. Dragon articles might use rules from the Book of Vile Darkness in suitably dark articles or offer other supporting content when appropriate..." Mr. Sernett, you just contradicted yourself. To tell us in the same breath that you have no plans to include more vile content and then tell us that you plan on including dark articles suitable to the Book of Vile Darkness (what, exactly, is going to be appropriate to the Book of Vile Darkness other than vile content?) is doublespeak pure and simple. It is simply saying, "we don't plan to do it again until the next time we do it." He further implies that Dragon will include that which is demanded - "Dragon will continue to serve the vast majority of readers [with content for the three Core Rulebooks]" unless "a large portion of the audience demands it." Did I miss a logical jump? If there has been a firestorm of complaints about the vile content presented, it stands to reason that the content is unwanted by a significant portion of readers, and this ought to lead Dragon AWAY from, not toward MORE OF such content. The only possible explanation that I know of for such a contradictory policy is that Dragon Editors also wish to foist their own tastes and agenda on the public.

Lest you think I am singling out Mr. Sernett, I would point out that Jesse Decker, Editor-in-Chief, has not done much better. "[We can do this] while still respecting different sensibilities,” he said in a press release accompanying the release of issue #300. “We can tackle interesting, fresh topics, yet let parents know that we are sensitive to their concerns.” Perhaps it is just me, but I find the topics in issue #300 neither interesting nor fresh. Furthermore, as one person pointed out, "Putting a "Mature Content" label on the magazine is essentially a way of saying, 'hey kids, we have boobies and sex in here.'" I would add that because of that, it does more harm than good for parents. Here's this for a concept - if you want to tackle "mature" issues (which are really better named "peurile"), create a peurile magazine. Again, it comes back to my perception of Dragon as the Newsweek or Time of the RPG industry, not the Maxim of the industry.

But it doesn't stop there! Rita Nauman's letter also complains that "We have small children in our home, and now I feel I must put your magazine under lock and key lest one of them accidentally read it... I understand that one of the underlying fundamentals of this game is that it can be personalized... and I am not writing this letter in a feeble attempt to control what some other gamers might want to include in their own game. However... if this is an example of what Dragon will be publishing... expect a loss of readership." Associate Editor Stacie Magelssen also illustrates either a lack of compassion or comprehension when she replies, "I'm baffled by the readers who wrote in to express their outrage about the material in issue #300... What's wrong with playing a really despicable villain? Either way, D&D is just a game." Did you not read the letters, Ms. Magelssen? The reason people are complaining about the material was that they felt it was inappropriate. They feel that you went across the line of decency. You clearly do not agree about the location of the line, but to expect that there will be none who are offended when you choose to move close to the line as you see it is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst. If you move close to your own line, odds are very good that you will step over the line as seen by others. That you should receive complaints is only natural, so you shouldn't really be baffled. Further, Ms. Nauman told you exactly what was wrong with providing rules for playing a really despicable villain... children, who make up some of the readership of the magazine, should not be exposed to such things. It's really quite simple if you and your fellow editors pull your heads out of your high-and-mighty clouds, come down to earth, and choose to open your eyes, rather than feel that anyone who diagrees with you is clearly ignorant, immature, stupid, or all of the above.

Even Johnny Wilson, President of Paizo Publishing, clearly doesn't get it. "If an individual read the entire article that preceded the sealed section, they received what was, in many cases, an unwelcome whiff of the malodorous atrocities within the sealed section. For that, we apologize. However, we do not apologize for publishing the sealed sections. (emphasis added) Many retailers have far worse products on their shelves with no warning labels, no attempt to let the consumer make a decision." You have shown a remarkable lack of understanding here, Mr. Wilson. The reason such things are not labelled is that the reader has some idea going in based on the past track record of a product line of what he's getting.

If it's all the same to you, Mr. Wilson, as a reader of your magazine, I *DEMAND* an apology for your publishing the drivel in that section. Not because it was "mature" but because it was "peurile" that you tried to pass off as "mature" and because you insult those with different moral compasses than you in your refusal to issue an apology for the content. You crossed the line of decency, sir, and no amount of chest-puffing out on your part changes that. "Further, we knew when we sealed the sections that some would complain about how tame the sections were compared to other published content in the genre. They may be right, but we determined to err on the side of caution rather than to rub everyone's noses in a type of game that is NOT for everyone." But, sir, you DID rub everyones' noses in it. Merely placing the content in the magazine, warning label or not, is rubbing everyones' noses in it.

Mr. Wilson continues to show his ignorance ... with this, "Even a well-known former writer for Dragon and Dungeon has lamented the inclusion of such horrific and disgusting elements within our pages, crying out with crocodile tears for an era of innocence that became so mundane, so unchallenging that the publisher of the world's greatest role-playing game had to be sold to a competitor. Indeed, that era was so banal that other role-playing systems stole gamers away from Dungeons & Dragons with systems and backgrounds that were significantly grittier than the self-censored D&D world." Funny, as I recall, an article written by the President (or possibly Vice President - I am unsure) of WotC (the "competitor" that bought TSR) attributed the demise of D&D not to D&D being mundane and unchallenging but to TSR (1) fragmenting the marketplace by releasing too many shaky product lines and (2) not listening to its customers. Furthermore, in my (anecdotal) experience, D&D did not "lose gamers to other systems" - other systems tended to generate their own gamers by finding attracting those in different niches from those attracted to D&D. I find it odd that Mr. Wilson feels the need to engage in revisionist history to justify his decision to publish "challenging" material.

Exactly what is so challenging about the material presented in Dragon #300? Nothing. Furthermore, the cry that D&D was "mundane" rings rather hollow. With the continued flow of "vile" material, soon "vile" will become "mundane." Then what? Do we publish ever-greater depravity in the interest of keeping things "fresh" or "challenging" or "not mundane?" At some point we will then cover the entire gamut of human depravity. Then what [is left to cover]? Sorry, Mr. Wilson - your claim of "mundanity" and "unchallenging" and "banal" holds exactly no water with me.

I can only hope that your current policy of NOT LISTENING TO YOUR CUSTOMERS leads to your demise as surely as it did TSR's. He who cannot learn from the mistakes of others is unwise. He who cannot learn from his own mistakes is a fool.

More from Mr. Wilson "They believe the coverage wasn't necessary and that violence... isn't necessary. Yet, the truth is that in order to be truly heroic, one has to triumph over that which is truly evil. Can we, or even SHOULD we, self-censor the world of role-playing so that the evil creatures and villains that parties encounter seem less horrific than the monstrous winged minions of an Osama bin Laden in real life?" Laying aside the absurdity of the comparison of those who call for self-moderation to terrosists, this is still offensive. Should we self-censor the [entire] world of role-playing? Certainly not. Should we apply an "anti-censor" attitude of "literally anything goes and we're going to force it down your throat, like it or not?" That to me is just as offensive as censorship because it denies those without the same values (or lack thereof) of Mr. Wilson the chance to play the game THEY want to.

Wilson: "If nothing else, it gets us talking about values, belief systems and shared social context. Such a dialogue cannot answer all the questions, but it keeps us thinking and growing." To extend your previous analogy, sir, so do murders, terrorist attacks, carjackings, and every other evil thing [get us talking about them]. "It gets us talking" is not an acceptable justification. And I would dispute that all talking provides growth. Further, all growth is NOT positive. To paraphrase a well-known movie, "you were so worried about whether or not you could do it, you didn't stop to consider whether or not you should."

I have ranted far longer than I intended to, but I hope the point is clear. For you to shove your morality down the throats of those who object by publishing material of this type (and yes, shoving stuff that some find objectionable down their throats IS forcing your morality on them) is just as objectionable as their shoving their morality down their throats by forbidding you to publish material of this type. Because you are the one possession of the major publishing forum, and they are not, greater responsibility in fact rests with you to respect their different moral position than rests with them to consider yours. You are the de facto majority, and can therefore trample the rights of the minority. It is incumbent upon you to worry about that eventuality and therefore exercise more self-restraint than you would be expected to were the roles reversed. If "conservatives" ran Dragon, they should be expected to allow material they were slightly uncomfortable with. Similarly, because you run dragon, you should be expected to censor material you feel slightly uncomfortable with.

The very fact that you put a "warning label" on Dragon #300 tells me you were uncomfortable with it and therefore should not have published it.

Once again, to re-iterate a line from Mr. Wilson:

"We determined to err on the side of caution rather than to rub everyone's noses in a type of game that is NOT for everyone."

This tells me straight out that the editors of Dragon knew in advance that what they were publishing would raise some hackles.

For them to then turn around and tell us they are "surprised by the response" tells me they are being dishonest in one instance or the other - or are just incredibly stupid so as to think "well, we may offend people, but they won't bother to write us." Come on. You can't say, "we expected some to be offended" and then "we never expected some to be offended" with a straight face - they are mutually exclusive. Perhaps they were surprised by the number of people who were offended?

Forcing "morality" down someone's throat does not always mean forcing your "censoring piety" down the throat of one who wants censorless impiety... it can also mean forcing your "censorless impiety" down the throat of one who wants "censoring piety." The middle ground is "censored to achieve propriety," I think. When trying to walk the middle, if you find that you're offending one group a lot, you're doing it wrong. If you find that you offend everyone just a little bit, you're probably doing it right.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

I propose that from now on Mr. Decker runs everything that goes into Dragon by the staff of the "700 Club". Only what they approve of as being decent should make it into the magazine.

Nah. He needs to run it by both the 700 Club AND those who want to see more of Martin's work. If the 700 Club complains that it's too much and those who want to see more of Martin's work complain that it's not enough, they've found the happy medium.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Used in certain contexts and dialogues it helps me to understand the personality of the character that used the word.

It's hard to believe that someone in a novel is a vile, cretin if they get upset and yell out, "Darn you to heck!"

I don't require that the stories I am reading have characters in them who are like this. But if they do possess such realistic, gritty characters then I want them written about as if they are realistic.

Don't sugar coat the bad guys for fear of hurting my eyes. It's a word...I know what it means already...I'll get over it.

Sometimes I really want to HATE the bad guys...and if he looks at the good guy and really rips into him verbally, being abusive, that's going to help me hate the bad guy.

All bad guy's don't require this treatment. But if you are going to write about someone this despicable, have the guts to say it like it is, I can take it.

Sidetrack: I still find it amusing that in alternate fantasy worlds, characters are expected to swear like sailors to feel "realistic." I have a circle of friends where at least 70-80% of them do NOT curse like sailors and in fact barely curse at all (and not all of them are pious churchgoers either). To me, profanity feels forced, stilted, and unrealstic. In fact, I see it as an attempt to artificially add appeal to others. It's about as appealing to me as a faux Indian accent - it might be done in the interest of authenticity but usually it just ends up being insulting.

But especially in alternate fantasy worlds, I just don't get why characters have to swear to be "realistic." Why not?

I think these quotes sum it up nicely:

"Right. Not only is he a mutant rabbit, and not only is he from medieval and feudal Japan, but he's also from an alternate dimension. So, naturally, he speaks... English." --Michealangelo of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on Usagi Yojimbo

"I have a question... why do we all speak with British accents if we're from a galaxy far far away and there is no Britain?" --from Thumb Wars

Just trying to inject a little humor here.

But my final thought is: "Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." And here's your counter-argument, for good measure: "well, the characters are feeble-minded and the author is just being true to that." Unpopular as my retort will seem, here it is: "ultimately, the character didn't write the book. The author did. Hence it is, in the truest, purest sense, the author who is in fact trying to express himself forcefully."

--The Sigil

 

[Cedric]

But my final thought is: "Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcibly." And here's your counter-argument, for good measure: "well, the characters are feeble-minded and the author is just being true to that." Unpopular as my retort will seem, here it is: "ultimately, the character didn't write the book. The author did. Hence it is, in the truest, purest sense, the author who is in fact trying to express himself forcefully."

I have no problem with authors who choose, on moral ground, to eliminate profanity from their writings. This is their choice as the author, and I respect that.

However, your statement seems to be trying to make the point that great authors don't use profanity.

Shakespeare, Hemingway, Twain, Bradbury, Chaucer, Harper Lee, Orwell, Salinger, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Aristophanes...

This is a small list of authors who've used profanity and adult subject matter in their writings.

We live in a world where we not only grow to be adults, but must also face adult issues and deal with adult concepts.

Read this list of authors over again, these are the feeble minds of which you speak?

A so-called moral person could learn more from a thorough reading of "To Kill a Mockingbird" then they could from a lifetime of trying to do the right thing.

Cedric

 

[Eosin the Red]

The Sigil went postal

We talked back in the beginning. You are really arguing several different points and some of them weaken your strongest case - should it be in Dragon. This is the real world and we have excessive gore, sex, and violence as entertainment. Indicating that profanity is a sign of anything - dramatically broadsides your argument. I cuss, my TV cusses, my books cuss, and most other people cuss. Does that mean it is good? No. Just because it is not good - does not mean that it will offend others sensibilities. Likely, the opposite. Your position on cussing in fiction looses what ground you gain from your other argument. People find that position sophmoric and detached for the world we live in.

I have 3 children, on in her teens. I got rid of my vampire stuff when she started looking at it. I do not want to have to do the same with D&D, but I also know that this is a hobby for adults and teens. Sometimes the line will shift one way and then back again. I will reiterate a point from page 1-2; I think that because this is a relativly new trend in Dragon that you might percieve it to be more prevalient than it is. The real count is 6 of 9 issue have had some questionable stuff in them. I did not like the Drow nor the "Sell your soul for power" things either. I understand that some people want those things in their game and occasionally I have to put up with those articles.

Your letter address a valid point in the dismissive tone that Piazo has dealt with fans. Unfortunately, I would be dismissive of your letter. You are scattered and insulting - hardly the way to convince someone that you hold a valid opinion or to quit insulting others.

Check your anger and write a concise letter. You have some good points but they are drowned in the morass and in the unrealistic perception of what is acceptable.