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

[Friadoc]

It is unfortunate that some D&D products seem to be pushing the boundaries of decency lately. This is just one more sad example...

I disagree,

...I don't think anything is pushing 'the boundaries of decency', but I do think various products must be pushing 'your' boundaries of decency.

It's all a matter of personal taste, be it subject matter or language, and I think a lot of people need to keep in that context.

It's within our own power to individually decide what is good for us, or for those in our care (minors, et al), but it is not within our individual right to label anything as 'right', 'decent', or 'whatever' for others.

Last time I checked there was no 'Unified Decency Law' in the free world, but there is a plethora of individual versions of it, as well as group versions of it.

As someone who has read all three of the books in 'A Song of Fire and Ice', as well as waiting on the edge of my seat for book four, I can say that this series is one of the best epic stories I've ever read and I love Martin's usage of the written word and I feel that any and all vulgarities are part of the artistic merit of the story.

He is not doing it for shock, he is doing it for depth of reality and it comes across as a fine work.

You believe in the depth of his characters, their individual personalities, and you see their choices and actions as fitting when you read it.

His works bring a sincere feeling about the characters, both for antagonists and protagonists, and the emotions can range from up and down the scale of good and bad.

It's just not a matter of cheering the good guys and booing the bad guys, you see the depths of why certain people do the things they do in a very tragic setting - it's basically a combination of the historical 'War of the Roses' and 'The 100 Years War' with a fantasy flare.

When the protagonist, or antagonists, gets themselves stuck in a stupid situation in which they could die, you may very well see them die and be left with a 'they didn't just do that' feeling.

You see redemption in some of the most unlikely of places, while you see others travel down a surprising road.

It may just be my personal opinion, which anyone and everyone is more then welcome to disagree with, but Martin is better then Goodkind and Jordan, by far, and I like this work, 'A Song of Fire and Ice' ten times more then I've ever liked Tolkien's work.

Martin's character development is the key to my enjoyment of his work and I wouldn't change a bit of it, especially the language, as it, as a whole, is why the world feels so rich. Not everyone talks with a civil tongue in their heads, nor with the 'Queen's English', and that facet is what makes these books so epic in scale.

Anyhow, just felt I would weigh in on my own opinion.

 

[Rugger]

I've read most of this thread and I comprehend that some people are upset by the use of the f-word in Dragon. I do not understand why. Perhaps this is because I have never taken word tabboos seriously.

Yes, I think that is it. I mean, it's an awfully silly thing to be upset about. I could understand someone being upset about claims that people of a certain race were inferior or the use of racial slurs. But come on, naughty words for bodily functions? This makes no sense. It gets even sillier when you invent surrogate words. Everyone knows what you mean, it's not like we've all been stricken dumb by the sudden use of euphemism. If you're comfortable with the euphemisms for the same, then you have no rational grounds to be upset over the use of the real thing.

I've been lurking on these boards since the beginning, and as my enormous post count shows , I generally keep my mouth shut and enjoy all the discussions.

But this one got me. Heck, Dr Midnight's title even suggested a bit of a humorous slant to the discussion (and a fine thread title it is )

Samnell: AMEN.

I was raised a good, healthy, Catholic kid by my mother...don't do drugs...am not violent...whatever. But I fail to see why profanity gets people so PO'd.

These words only mean something because WE give them meaning...this is something I learned early on. Look at our parents and grandparents. To them, in the society that they were raised, hell and GD were terrible words. And now it’s commonplace. I'll bet my liver (something I value a great deal), that in 15 years, the S-bomb and F-bomb will be so diluted so as to have little or no meaning. Like I said, they only mean anything now because we allow them to. Heck, the episode of South Park that they used the S-bomb was funny not because of the use of the word itself, but because it just went to show how silly it sounds after you hear it for a half hour.

Now, I understand that my own arguments are implying that they will mean little in a decade or so...and for now we must deal with it. I very much understand that some people are more sensitive to them then others, and I would never intentionally offend someone by using them around strangers or those that may be offended.

But to condemn a writer or magazine because of a word? Or bizarre ideas? (the whole Vile debacle)

That seems more offensive to me than any word could.

-Rugger
"I Lurk!"

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I have two unrelated complaints about this issue. Neither has anything to do personally with Martin, but is directed at the editors of Dragon.

First I object to the placing of fiction when that fiction is nothing more than an 8-10 page ad for a book. This is the third issue in a row to do this. It is not that I want to remove fiction from Dragon, I dont, but I would rather have a useful article than yet another add for a book I won't buy. If you are going to do fiction make it original and self contained (Or serialized where all episodes are included in Dragon). Sure Martin may be wonderful (I have not heard of him until the last month or so) but is this the way to demonstrate it. If you want to introduce us to fiction that may help inspie us for a champaign I would rather have book reviews than blatant advertisements. If you want to score points get a "Known" author to write you something original rather than just being a marketing platform. But back to the subject at hand.

Secondly I object to the inclusion of adult material in a all-ages magazine. It is not that I am a prude, I enjoy NYPD Blue, South Park, The Sopranos, Pulp Fiction, and 9 1/2 Weeks. But lets face it as societal standards go these are not considered apropriate for children. As such they have all been placed or restricted to prevent children from stumbling upon them accidentally. Sure as a parent if you think these are apropriate it is easy enough to make them availible to your children but other parents may not have the same standards as you and don't want thier children seeing or hearing these things until they feel they are ready. This is not censorship since the works in question are not being edited and as an adult you can easily enough get it if you want it. Now if Dragon wants to target itself to just adults then material like this is fine, but when you are targeting an audience as young as 10-12 you have to be more responsible and take steps to limit your material to what the majority of society feels is apropriate for children. If the use of language was appropriate for children South Park would not be relegated to 10pm at night.

So what is Dragon to do? One option is not run the piece at all. Since Dragon's Editors felt that this material was of value and should be included then what? They could have explained to Martin that children would be reading this and then asked Martin if it was ok to edit out certain parts. If the author agrees then any change in the story still meets the author's intent. If Martin feels however that changing anything would ruin the artistic integrity of the piece then what? Well Dragon could have had another sealed section like they did with the Vile material. Sure this is irritating and a bit silly to us adults, but it does provide an easy mechanism to help parents know that there is material that society finds inapropriate for children. If the parents want they can withhold the entire issue or allow thier child to read the rest of the magazine without worrying that the material might accidentally be sen and have a way to know for certain (The section being opened) whether the child was exposed or not. In this way parents need not worry about canceling a subscription because they can't be sure of what might be seen by thier kids and adults who might be interested in checking it out because there is something by Martin will still be able to do so. In this way circulation increases rather than just changing bases. Lastly what if Dragon wants to include this material without making some effort at meeting societal standards for children? Well that is thier choice but then they are saying that Dragon is not for all ages but is in fact just a publication for adults. I hope this is not Dragon's direction since I would prefer that Dragon was able to draw new young gamers in, but if it is going to make stuff like this easily availible to children then I'm afraid it won't.

 

[EricNoah]

Re: I Have A Question

So why? Why can’t such language be used on ENWorld?

I can't speak for Russ or the current EN Boards, but as to why I didn't allow it...

I don't like it. I don't like Martin's work because he swears, I like it in spite of the fact.

And yes, I swear some in private, at home, with people whom I know it will not offend. But I don't assume the rest of the world would take kindly to that kind of language.

Let me put it to you this way -- I ran the kind of message boards I personally would enjoy visiting and participating in. You don't see me mixing it up at RPG.net much or even at Nutkinland much -- part of it is the amount of moderation (I prefer more), but part is the language. Fortunately, on my boards, I was able to set a standard for others that exactly met my own. Note that I never required anyone to like it.

 

[barsoomcore]

"Sir, we would like to publish this but because of our wide reader base that includes some of juvenile age, we would like to change the F-word to 'F---' instead of spelling it out."

Okay, I have to admit I have never, ever understood the rationale behind this system.

What is so magical about the letters "u", "c" and "k"? How does printing those three letters after an "f" create something horrible that printing three dashes does not?

I mean SURELY the problem is the word itself, not how it's represented on the page. I can understand how someone might want to keep their children from using such language (sort of -- mainly because it'd be embarrassing to have the only kid in preschool who can badmouth the teacher with explicit terminology), and hey, if you don't like a word you don't have to have any reasons, you can just not like the word. But how does spelling it incorrectly solve any problems?

I just think that the bigger deal people make about words, the bigger deal people make about words.

In any event, if the editors of Dragon are still listening, I'm planning on buying #305, which will be my first purchase of a Dragon since #114. Not for the Martin story, however (Martin is greatly overrated) but for the foldout battlemat I'm told the issue contains. Yay!

Eric: You've created a great thing here at ENWorld and a healthy dose of moderation is a key component of that. I'm glad your Grandmother is able to read our discussions without being offended.

 

[Kraedin]

Speaking as a college student, I find this very amusing. I cannot walk five feet without someone dropping the "f-bomb", and it obviously does not bother the college community.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Speaking as a college student, I find this very amusing. I cannot walk five feet without someone dropping the "f-bomb", and it obviously does not bother the college community.

As part of the college community you are adults and can set your own tastes as to what you find acceptable. The problem as I see it is not on whether adults are bothered or not but that it is being included in a magazine that is sold to 10 year olds. As I recall from college Beer and Sex were also quite popular but that doesn't make it ok for children.

 

[jgbrowning]

Speaking as a college student, I find this very amusing. I cannot walk five feet without someone dropping the "f-bomb", and it obviously does not bother the college community.

You bring up an excellent point. Language is used as is appropriate in its environment to get the response it wants. Wait a few years until you get out of college and see if you can still walk around a say the F word at work. You can't. You'll still use it privately among people your certain to not offend, but once you get called into HR for a little talk to about harrasment and unfriendly work environment you'll change your language use.

As everyone here understands (i at least think that everyone understands) the word is not really under question. We've probably all heard it, used it, perhaps even a lot under various circumstances. But there is a definite line we all draw concerning what is appropriate and what is not based upon where the language is being used. Moreso, the line we draw is not just ours but everyone elses as well since language is used as a conveyance of meaning. Whether we like it or not, if we continue to use language that is counter-productive (vulgarity often qualifies for this) we will be considered unprofessional, immature, low-brow, and unsubtle.

I understand dragon's desire to convey the full impact of martins work, but i think perhaps the full impact of martins work is better conveyed in a different forum. And again, if he's relying upon swear words to convey an impact beyond just the quality of his writing, IMHO, dragon is probably not the best forum.

Profanity is a needed form of expression. It just all boils down to whether the expression of profanity is more important than the difficulties which often accompany it, whether we personally agree with those difficulties or not. And also, personally, there's not a single thing an author could make up that would shock me. History is much more shocking.


joe b.

 

[Cedric]

I think the industry could support an "adult" gaming magazine.

Serious articles, no holds barred interviews, featured columns every week with straight forward "at your throat" language.

Along with a few layouts of attractive women in various states of undress and fantasy garb (chain mail bikini's and the like, with modest Playboy-esque nudity).

Maybe even a quarterly "featured gamer" layout for some of the more attractive female gamers out there.

Now mind you...I'm not saying this would be "good for the industry" or that someone should rush out and do this.

I'm just saying, I think this could be a successful venture. Of course, it would need a good name.

What's a good name for the Gaming Industry Oriented, combination pornography and serious magazine.

Sample names:

d69 press (too crude?)
Velvet Dungeon (sounds too much like an S&M mag?)
Roleplayer (kinda neat)
Dice (my personal favorite)

Cedric

 

[Henry]

Re: I Have A Question

...It’s everywhere anyway so why not here?

So are AIDS, homelessness, and famine - but ubiquity does not equate to desirability.

I would say that ENWorld is like that as well. The Book of Vile Darkness has enjoyed good sales and seen use in many a game.

BOVD I will be the first to admit has excellent ideas for use with villains in most D&D games. However, one clear thing is that this work had either NO or minimal profanity. I know I haven't encountered any upon my multiple readings, so if any is there it is rare at best.

So why? Why can’t such language be used on ENWorld?

I understand your point, rhetorical though it is. But I have an answer:

Profanity serves to create barriers to communication and create lazy oratorical skills.

As Sigil says, some profanity is useful for conveying a point. To Damn someone for all eternity is to condemn them. To speak "to hell with you" is to wish someone incredible torment.

However, the term associated with unlawful carnal knowledge is conveying something contrary to what you mean. By telling someone " You" do you wish to actually them? Do you wish someone would come along and them? Do you instead threaten to "" them up, should they continue with what you find displeasing? ing is a very ambiguous term, and it can up all understanding of your point to use it.

Sometimes vulgarity is useful to convey the attitude of someone, to help portray their personality more clearly. In this case, sparing use is helpful. So are the N-word, the C-word (hint: has nothing to with misspelled accounting), and the excrement-word. However, after a half-dozen useages or so, it

a) loses impact, and
b) loses meaning.

To all who use vulgarity as a regular part of language, ask yourself: Am I losing meaning with increased usage of the same word over and again? If someone hands you a creative insult, is your first response, "F-you", or something that actually has meaning?

P.S. These opinions are mine, not Morrus' or that of any other Moderators or Administrators.

P.P.S. I had never heard much about GRR Martin until a few months ago. I had no impetus to read his works, and after such a big deal everyone is making about how important profanity is to preserving the thrust of his work, I wonder if I should spend the effort.