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

[The Sigil]

But Martin is *very much* in place in Fantasy Gaming magazine, he is most influential fantasy author living and some of us do like the literary inspiration for our campaing.

"[The] most influential fantasy author living?" High praise indeed. I like to think I'm at least somewhat up on what goes on in the fantasy/sci-fi genre, and I have never so much as heard of him. Either he's not the most influential fantasy author living (he may well be influential, but be very careful throwing out "the most influential") or I'm just very out of touch (judging by the timbre of this thread, it appears that I am).

Superlatives like "Best author" or "most influential" author, on the whole, tend to immediately raise red flags with me... it's VERY hard to back up such statements contemporary with the author. It usually takes 10-20 years, when you sit back and observe the writings of the "next generation" when you learn who was truly influential.

Feels to me publishing the leading fantasy writer (in the authentic form) in the leading *fantasy* gaming magazine is way more important then not offending somebody's 1950's sensibilites...

"1950's sensibilities" - again, ad hominim attack, not a valid point for philosophical discussion. Unneeded, really - your premises are quite clear and uncontradictory.

Your premises:

1.) Martin is the most influential living writer of fantasy. (I disagree, based on the circumstantial evidence that until a couple of hours ago, I had never even heard of him.)

2.) Dragon is the premier fantasy gaming magazine. (I agree)

3.) A fantasy gaming magazine should include fantasy fiction (for inspiration) as well as "gaming material" (I happen to disagree - I have plenty of places to go for fiction/inspiration and precious few to approach for gaming material).

4.) Including material from the leading fantasy writer in the leading magazine is more important than offending sensibilities (I disagree, obviously).

Your conclusion (it is good for Martin to be in Dragon and the F-bomb is okay) is the natural conclusion based upon your four premises. I agree that those who share your premises will reach that conclusion.

BTW, I can accept a Dragon Magazine that falls in line with your first three premises (as it has done for many years). However, to me, the "Carlin Test" trumps the "cool writer" premise, and therefore, I cannot bring myself to agree with your conclusion, because I do not share your enthusiasm for your fourth premise. That's well and good, and that's why people have different viewpoints.

So I happen to hold premises that do not square with yours. Why the ad hominim attacks on my value system? Why is your value system empirically better or worse than mine? You can claim moral superiority based on your "open-mindedness" and condemn my "closed-mindedness." Similarly, I can claim moral superiority on grounds of "superiority of immutable principles" based on application of a hard and fast rule and condemn the opposing argument for a "lack of true principles" based on the claim that certain authors should get more leeway. Does this get us anywhere? No. And it's not very rewarding, either. It also doesn't address the issue.

So please, let's drop the "puritan" and "old-fashioned" and "1950's" and "boring" jargon and instead try to actually tackle the REAL issues raised in this thread. I guess I'm mostly worked up from the stream of ad hominims from those who disagree with me. I have tried to present things in a rational manner without getting too ranty (believe me, I could have ranted). It bothers me that thus far, the response from those who do not share my views has not been an attempt to explain their views, but instead to belittle my own.

{sarcasm}Perhaps I should just give up on acutally trying to explain my position in a reasoned manner and instead resort to flames like, "those of you who like this stuff are going to burn in lakes of fire and brimstone!" {/sarcasm}

--The Sigil

 

[Azure Trance]

It's only 4 in the morning right now, EST. Wait 'til later this morning or early afternoon and you'll get a sleeew of responses, some of which might address your concerns.

 

[Ashardalon]

Personally, I happen to like Dragon magazine, and "bad" words are used sparingly enough in it. Compared to a magazine like Inquest Gamer, which has degenerated into an insult-fest, Dragon is very tame. (For the record, I don't buy IQ anymore - it was too much even for me)

If it happens occasionally, it's more or less ok, but it seems that the story would be more against my tastes than others, I'll grant you that.

 

[tburdett]

Re: When the work warrants it

Including such language in Dragon wasn't a trivial decision, but I feel very strongly that authors and editors alike should have the option to include such language when the work warrants it. The tricky part, of course, is the phrase "when the work warrants it," and the audience is certainly part of the decision. In this case, I feel that language in question is an inextricable part of the characters and feel of "A Song of Ice and Fire" and that the novella, like the series of which it is a small part, would have been weaker had it been removed.

You have permanently lost a customer. I'm not posturing, you have lost a customer.

 

[The Sigil]

What makes a word bad? It's just a word. Suppose I told someone to eat feces instead of the first word that comes to mind? Actually, the term I used seems nastier than the term normally used in such an insult. But one can be said on tv and the other can't? Why is this? They both mean the same thing. It is the intent of a word, rather than the syntax that makes one an insult, not the particular slang used. Damn or dang, both are used to express anger, but one is allowed in most households, the other gets the kid in trouble. Same thing with other words. A word is not bad. people. If you are offended by the context of Martin's writing, fine, but to be offended because he chose one bit of vernacular over another word or phrase that would have had the same meaning is trite.

For someone whose name is an anagram of one of the world's more accomplished linguists, this displays and incredible amount of naivete where language is concerned.

Words are vulgar by both strict meaning and by association. Similarly, words are "not vulgar" by both strict meaning and association.

Some words are considered "vulgar" by strict meaning - examples are "damn" and "hell" which have a history of strong religious connotations - these are words which, especially when used as expletives toward someone, are literally showing by choice of verbiage a desire for that person to receive harm to his immortal soul (whether or not you believe in the traditional concepts of heaven and hell is irrelevant - the fact is that by saying, for instance, "damn it" you are literally cursing "it" to be sent to hell - and attempting to invoke such a curse may in fact be considered blasphemy if, as the predominant religion in most English-speaking countries believes, the power to actually carry out that invocation is vested in deity).

The obvious connotation of waste, filth, disease, unsanitariness, and so forth is there for s--- and a---. Feces and gluteous maximum are more "medical terms" for the same material and as such have become largely "sanitized" and thereby rendered "polite" for use. The connotation with the "Swear" words is dirty or common use, while the connotation with the "medical" words is discussion or labelling. In this case, connotation is everything.

Words like b---- fall in the same category as the N-bomb or "gay", I would guess - frequent (or too-frequent) use of the word applied to a "minority group" as an insult/derogatory term has rendered the word unsanitary, even if it does refer to a female dog or is a sloppy translation of "negre" (black) or refers to being happy, light-hearted, and fancy-free.

Finally, words like f-bombs draw a little bit from all three; copulation was classically considered somewhat vulgar in the faith mentioned above for the English language, common use of the term as a curse word (as opposed to "intercourse," for instance) has given it an extra "bite," and finally, it has been used in derogatory and desultory ways (the "universal adjective").

That is why a word is more than just a word and words that are used almost interchangeably have different degrees of vulgarity. Words do not exist in vacuum - they carry connotations with them that have been built up over decades and/or centuries of use. The obvious example, "gay," for better or worse, carries a very different connotation today than it did a hundred years ago.

On a simpler level, consider words like "sanguine," "scarlet," "vermillion," or "crimson." Each has a different connotation based on years of use, though all mean "bright red." Sanguine connotes association with blood. Scarlet, thanks to Nathaniel Hawthorne, connotes both passion and to some degree, shame and branding. Vermillion tends to connote royalty (remember, anciently red dye was the most expensive and rare of dyes so only royalty wore red). Crimson tends to remind of both death and flame. Need I go on?

That's why bulls--- is vulgar, B.S. and bullcr@p are "semi-vulgar" and bovine scatology (to quote Norman Schwartzkopf) is not vulgar. It's all in how the word has been used. To think otherwise is simply to not understand how languages work. Like it or not, it makes some words inherently vulgar. When you speak, you not only make sounds, you also convey part of the language's collective memory.

That's why it's so much more insulting to use one set of words over another even if the dictionary meaning/syntax sets up the same meaning. It's also why foreign speakers of a language tend to sound ridiculous when they try to swear - their grammar and syntax may be perfect, but the word choice tends to provide the wrong connotation. After all, "may you be estopped in the depths of Sheol for your prevaricating pile of hot, moist, bovine scatology, you wiper of other peoples' bottoms" sounds almost comical when compared to the "swear word" version - which sounds insulting. It also explains why the French Insult guy in Monty Python was hilarious.

Interestingly, though, regardless of language, in my experience (with four languages) nearly all words that are "vulgar" become so through association with "hell" (in the judeo-christian sense), death/decay, sex, or bodily fluids/excretions. What that tells us about humanity, I have no idea.

--The Sigil

 

[Azure Trance]

On a simpler level, consider words like "sanguine," "scarlet," "vermillion," or "crimson." Each has a different connotation based on years of use, though all mean "bright red." Sanguine connotes association with blood. Scarlet, thanks to Nathaniel Hawthorne, connotes both passion and to some degree, shame and branding. Vermillion tends to connote royalty (remember, anciently red dye was the most expensive and rare of dyes so only royalty wore red). Crimson tends to remind of both death and flame. Need I go on?

You're my writing teacher, aren't you. Although this paragraph is a good example, to nitpick, I believed it was purple which was the color of Royalty and the rarest of dyes reserved for the rich.

 

[The Sigil]

You're my writing teacher, aren't you. Although this paragraph is a good example, to nitpick, I believed it was purple which was the color of Royalty and the rarest of dyes reserved for the rich.

Heh. On further review, I think you are correct. My bad. Usually it was the "reddish purple" color IIRC, and in some biblical texts they are used somewhat interchangeably. Regardless, I hope the analogy was useful.

--The Sigil

 

[Dr Midnight]

Side track

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.

I disagree with the idea that he's the "master of vile darkness"... that doesn't paint him in the right light, IMO. I'm also a fan of the good guys, the white knights. Martin's world has horrors and evil, but I find the good people struggling in it to make their way worth all the cringes, and there are many.

Plus, there's the ever-present promise that in the last two books or so, the good guys are going to do some INCREDIBLY cool things.

I'd gladly ship you my copy, but I loaned it out all over hell and now it's falling apart. I've "converted" a good number of people with it to faithful readers.

So, again Sigil, please don't let the whole "you're a puritanical wee-wee head" thing drive you away from what could be some of the best reading of your life. 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.

End side track.

 

[mistergone]

All I can think of here is MY first exposure to George RR Martin, which was the shared universe series he edited called The Dungeon. WHICH WAS PURE CRAP. The last couple books especially were VERY bad, and the last one I could not get through it was so awful in both writing and just generally bad storytelling. Granted, I do not recall that he wrote any of these books, just edited them all. And this was many years ago now. If that man is the most influential ANYTHING in fantasy literature, then fantasy literature is doomed. My god. On the other hand, didn't he write for the Wild Cards series? Those stories were about 75% not suitable for a mag like Dragon, though some of them were great. Some of them were foul for even a hardened cynical jerk like me.

My view on this subject, is I find myself agreeing with The Sigil. Which surprises me cause sure I like porn and strippers and I cuss and laugh at other's misfortune like every other joe. However, I would add that I think censorship does have its place. Not every place, mind you, but in a magazine like Dragon, yeah it does. I remember the big to-do over the ad of the bloodsoaked fellow in a past Dragon and the editor's response seemed so "well gee, we think it's creative and clever and..." Bullsh*t. A lot of pure sh*t is passed off as "art" these days and it's really sick and sad. A dude soaked in blood is a dude soaked in blood and not all of us want that crap in our gaming magazines. Maybe a White Wolf Magazine, cause they have a lot of freaks in their fan base. (Not all of them are freaks, don't be so thin-skinned.)

I fear the Dragon has decided to appeal to the majority of unwashed sexually deviant gamer fanboys that have amassed over the years, glutting themselves on Hentai porn and "slash" fiction and other forms of non-art that have cropped up.
Yeah, I sound outraged and bitter, but come on. Certain "adult themes" have their place, and those of us that are adults should freakin' know where that place is. It's not algebra kids! It's common sense. All too rare, sadly.

 

[tleilaxu]

sigil- your posts are much longer than i have any intention of writing in this thread so you win. too bad for you that you won't enjoy the fiction that i surely will