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

[Mercule]

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}?

As I've said (no doubt overly forcefully), I don't think Dragon should include fiction, but if they do, then no I really would rather the fiction not include foul language or "adult" situations.

I've never read "Catcher in the Rye", although I probably should, so I can't comment on it specifically. Overall, my impression of most classics (there are definitely some exceptions) is that they are over-rated and likely elevated to "classic" status by people with all the taste (or lack thereof) of modern movie critics. Many are fine books (I'm not saying they are bad, by any stretch), but the "classic" card holds no real weight with me. YMMV.

Again, I've no experience with Sassy. The small amount I've seen from magazines like Seventeen and Cosmo Girl and their ilk has lead me to believe they have nothing redeeming to them. They seem as though they address adult issues (sex, etc.) in a very juvenile way. You might say "Ah, hah, they are aimed at juveniles." Really, then, I have to ask why are they addressing adult topics? You can't handle something immaturely and call it mature. If you're going to give the kids the benefit of the doubt on their ability to handle the subject matter, then do it right.

There is no set "maturity" age, although it usually begins to show sometimes during the teen years. Some 13 year olds are more mature than some 30 year olds I know (don't get me started on specifics, I'm not kidding).

On the other hand, there is no denying that maturity and comprehension is a scale. One recent psychological study shows that the "average" child doesn't even understand sarcasm until they're 10. That means there are some who understand it sooner, and some who understand it later. Now, do we really want to assume that just a couple of years later (13-14 is probably a reasonable time for people to start gaming) that they are going to really comprehend that the dark characters in the excerpt (which I haven't read) aren't to be emulated? Or that the choice of words isn't the best?

Some children are ready for that, some aren't. Hey, some adults never seem to figure it out, but society has (rightly, IMHO) decided that after 18, they are responsible for themselves in that regard. Really, that's a matter for the parents to decide. If my daughters (and any others that eventually arrive) are mature enough at 13, 14, 15, or whenever, I'll not only allow them to read material that has adult situations, but I'll encourage it.

Dragon, however, cannot make that determination for me. As a publication, it has traditionally been something that I'd not feel any concern just handing to an adolescent gamer without reviewing it. I believe it should remain this way for a number of reasons.

1) Most periodicals, unless explicitly or implicitly declared otherwise, fall into this category. This is the base expectation that most people have.

2) There is really nothing substantive to add to D&D by delving deeply and regularly into the "adult" themes. Sure, some people may feel it's a better way to game, but the core game doesn't "need" it, nor does such a game really require much in the way of a periodical.

3) Even if 2) was false, Dragon itself has traditionally fallen into the "all ages" mold. If the publisher feels there is a need/market for a "mature" publication, they should either: a) produce a new publication, maybe seeing which one floats or b) make an explicit statement that they will be changing content, in which case Sagan, Sigil, myself, and others who believe the same way can just stop worrying about it and move on.

4) New players, many of whom are teens, are the best audience for Dragon, with its advice columns and ideas on how to work certain concepts into a campaign. New players don't really need the "adult" material because they are likely still exploring the basics of the game and the "adult" games definitely require a bit more finesse and experience (i.e. a solid foundation) to pull off without being purile (and if Dragon is promoting purile games, see 3b above). Teens don't need the "adult" content because, well, they're teens, the decision on adult material is the parents' decision, not Dragon's.

What's this got to do with the F-word? It's just one word, one time, right?

Yes, and no. As several people have pointed out, there has been a trend toward more "mature" content in Dragon since Paizo took it over. The inclusion of the F-word is just one example. The above arguments all apply to the inclusion of the word to some degree.

As I've said before, if this was the only time that Dragon included the word, I'd likely shug and move on (actually, I probably never would have known because I don't read the fiction), given the context. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldn't suffer a fit of apoplexy.

Looking at the trends, I have to say that I'm rather unhappy. I'm definitely reconsidering the value that Dragon provides. I've got $40 set aside for a subscription that's just been waiting for me to buy an issue and get the subscription card inside. I think I'll wait and watch, now. If the issues continue to be of a questionable nature, then I guess I've already got one of the revised core books paid for.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The word censorship seems to be used an awful lot here. Before we start thinking that we are asking Dragon to censor thier magazine or that they might censor someone elses artwork lets consider publishing and whether not including foul language is censorship.

Every issue the editors of Dragon do just what thier titles says, they edit the material that is published in the magazine. In doing thier job they are saying to some writers, we don't feel your work belongs in our magazine for any number of reasons from being a golf article, to being incoherant ramblings, to the issue focusing on Drow and the article being on Gnomes. They are denying someone a chance to express thier opinion, but is this censorship? no, it is thier right to print what they want to and they are not obligated to print anything. If they didn't do that no-one would buy the product since it had articles about golf and half-cocked conspiracy therories in it instead of gaming articles. If an article does make it though and they decide to print it do they just run it as the author submitted it? no. If they did everyone would be complaining about the typos and bad grammer and confusing paragraphs. As editors they step in and make changes to the article so that it reads well. Sometimes that is fixing typos, sometimes it is rearanging paragraphs, and sometimes it is cutting out sectons entirely because they don't fit or they just need to shorten the article. Is this censorship because they are changing a authors original work? no it is editing. Author's sometimes object to changes and work with the editors to make sure thier intent gets though, but in general they are happy to submit thier works to editors who help them make thier ideas clearer to the readers.

Now if Dragon decides to change thier approach tomorrow and decides that they no longer want to publish curse words or vile material are they censoring that material? No, no more than they are censoring golf material that they choose not to print either, but no-one is complaining about that. As the publishers they can choose to print what they want to. When they do choose to print something they have every right to make sure it fits thier standards and not the author's. If the Author feels that he is not happy with the changes he can withold the right from the publisher to use it.

Is GRR Martin any different from everyone else? No, his books are submitted to a publisher who chooses whether they want to print them or not. If they choose not to it is thier right, not censorship. GRR Martin then submits his work to the publisher who fixes things and clears things up. Again the publisher is changing his original work before you see it but that is editing, not censorship.

Now in this case GRR Martin and Dragon worked out a deal to print some of his work. Why is it any different for Dragon to edit his work to meet thier standards than it is for GRR Martin's publisher to edit his work to meet thier standards. Both are changing the original work as concieved by the author, yet one is being called censorship and the other not. Or do you realy want to read the unedited manuscript he originally wrote. Now it is possible that GRR Martin objected to his work being changed in any way by Dragon, but we do not know whether that is the case or not. Is GRR Martin above the rules and standards that everyone else must meet to be published in Dragon? Are some authors "better" than others that they get whatever they want? How far does this go, is there any limit to what these "better" authors can get printed?

Now I would hope that Dragon would have some integrity and choose to have high standards and choose not to publish curse words or purile content or exceedingly graphic images. By having these high standards they would not be censoring anything but rather publishing things that they felt met those standards. I would have much more respect for Pazio if they had taken the high road and had some standards even if it had cost them the article because GRR Martin refused to have his work edited to meet the standards of the publisher. Instead Pazio either caved to demands or it doesn't have the high standards I would like them to have. Either way this whole debable has resulted in me losing respect for them. Some may think it a coup to get his novella, I think it shows how far they have fallen. If they want to have an adult magazine and think they can get more readers fine, but I am saddened that they have decided to go this way and are choosing to exclude a portion of the D&D audience.

 

[mkarol]

Are some authors "better" than others that they get whatever they want?

Yes, clearly. There is no doubt that popularity, prestige, and political power can allow one author to get away with things that another could not. If I took a picture of a man playing a sitar, cut it into pieces and rearranged it and slapped some blue paint across it - calling it Art, people would laugh at me. Picaso does it, it becomes a masterpiece. All creative works are judged not only on the subject itself but also on the creator of the work.

That isn't to say that just because Martin or Jordan or King or Clancy write something that it is by definition 'good,' and that someone without a name writes only 'bad' stories, but there is no doubt that better-known or more successful authors can demand less interference from editors, more leeway in stories, or other creative controls.

Editor's have the write to edit, but how much creative power an author will relinquish is a matter for negotiation. Like any other negotiation, the relative power of the participants will be measured by many criteria.

Now I would hope that Dragon would have some integrity and choose to have high standards and choose not to publish curse words or purile content or exceedingly graphic images.

I repeatedly fail to understand how deciding to allow an author the creative freedom to describe, detail, and explore a coherent and believable world is lowering standards?

I understand that resorting to 'profanity' just because you can is demonstrative of laziness or little thought (the "It sucks because it blows monkey chunks" style of profanity). However, there is nothing sub-standard in _this_ use of the 'f-word' nor have the editors failed to live up to some mythical, mystical sense of responsibility by allowing it to be printed.

 

[Olive]

i find it fascinating that people here won't buy dragon on the basis of one word.

unless the situation in the US is pretty different from what i remember it beeing, a teenager can still buy george r. r. martin's books without I.D.? Or go to a PG-13 movie (which has swearing i think...)? right?

and for the parents? Do you make sure that every book in your house is free of swearing? and does your house include books that aren't readers digest abridged versions or the bible?

And finally for those who think that DnD is a game for kids and should eb aimed at those kids: why is 'the f-word' any worse for kids than 'i kick open the door and remove his head with my great sword before he has a chance to stand up'? Oh yeah, and have any of you ever read the gord the rogue books? I'm pretty sure that there are some fairly adult themes in there.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

i find it fascinating that people here won't buy dragon on the basis of one word.

I don't recall anyone saying that- and a majority of people, I know, haven't. It is the fact that this "one word" is one more step in a trend.

Read Mercule's last post- it is well written and has the tact I often lack.

SD

 

[WizarDru]

De doo doo doo, de daa daa daa.


That is all I have to say.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

That is all I have to say.

That is all you ever have to say- how you keep getting invited back to Toastmasters is beyond me...

SD

 

[Olive]

i guess i just like the gritty stuff.

i liked the drow issue. i thought it made a chaotic evil race make sense.

i think that the BoVD provids rules for stuff i wanted to include in the game, but never had the chance to.

the use of words that other people find obscene doesn't bother me in the least, but as i've said before, that may come from a fairly relaxed attitude about them in my home life as a teenager.

and I really don't think that the tainted class is objectionable, and if you do, well... we disagree. i think that game mechanics for things to do with fiends are important. they are certainly important for my game, and if not for yours, then thats fine, but you should eb able to see why they would be important for other people's right?

i can understand about the issue 300 stuff. but i think that people made mountains out of molehills... the xill for example have similar breeding methods to spells in there and i've never seen any one demand that the xill be taken out of the game.

in other words, i like the trend dragon is taking. it appeals more to me. the less kid-ult dragon is the better. and given that dragon's marketing research clearly shows that the vast majority of dragon buyers/readers are in the age bracket where they can make informed descions, then i don't think that a lot of the objections are that relevant.

if you don't like the trend then fine. if you do then i agree. but i certainly don't think that dragon has a moral obligation to pander to you any more than they have one to pander to me!

personally george rr martin fiction, followed up by a setting are things that make me think that the editorial staff of dragon on a similar wave length as me.

edit: cleaned up some spelling... probably missed more.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I repeatedly fail to understand how deciding to allow an author the creative freedom to describe, detail, and explore a coherent and believable world is lowering standards?

Standards is the line you draw about what you find acceptable or not. Surely there must be some line somewhere or we would see campaign settings published that were set in a dark world where people are held as slaves and tortured with vividly acurate descriptions, or sex scenes could be lushly explored as well and detailed artwork of these scenes could be printed. I'm sure some peoples campaigns are this way but if they were submitted to Dragon I would hope that they had some standards and would not publish it just because the author felt that it made the world more believable. Just because the author can do something doesn't mean that he should, and it is up to the editors to determin whether what he submits meets their standards.

 

[The Sigil]

This is, I promise, my last post on this thread.

Here is what I think we can all agree on.

Some people like having this sort of thing in Dragon. Some people are indifferent. Some people are offended. Such language is fine to some, indifferent to others, and offensive to others.

Those that are offended may want to (and/or did) cancel their subscriptions. That is their perogative. Dragon may publish this stuff or not at the option of Dragon - that is Dragon's perogative.

Dragon should not be surprised if those who are offended by this sort of thing choose to cancel their subscriptions. Doing so may be their little way of (a) showing their displeasure and/or (b) removing their support for material they find objectionable.

Dragon can make their own decisions about what goes into the magazine. But the readers have the right to air their opinions, positive or negative, and point out why they feel the way they do. Those that don't agree with the opinions have the right to contest them, but ultimately, all of this is a matter of opinion, not fact, so nobody is empirically "correct." Hence, we can argue forever.

Are we all in agreement on these? I hope so.

I think that the above is pretty much the only set of things we can all agree on, so let's call it a day and move on. The horse is dead.

--The Sigil