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

[Cedric]

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 would hope that we can all agree that Dragon will never be able to fill their pages with content that will satisfy every reader.

As an example, I never use modules or published campaign settings. Information regarding details of these settings that is not easily useable in an alternate game world, is wasted space to me.

However, I will freely and quickly acknowledge that many Dragon readers do appreciate this content, so I encourage them to add it.

In the case we are discussing, many Dragon readers greatly appreciate the addition of the Martin Excerpt from Feast for Crows.

I suppose I would hope that readers would appreciate the effort to provide a "boon" if you will to a significant portion of their reader base, rather then criticize the wasted pages.

I would use information from a George R. R. Martin story for tidbits in one of my campaigns or campaign worlds before I would use information from the Forgotten Realms. So I consider it D&D related.

You don't have to like everything in a magazine or periodical in order to appreciate or gain something from the periodical.

As for the setting of negative trends. When they add more adult material to other portions of the magazine, rather then a "special addition" ... I'll complain. Until then, I appreciate their efforts to add something I value to Dragon.

Cedric

 

[dpdx]

Where's the poll?

I'm all right with Dragon excerpting Martin - uncensored, and all - but while I have no kids, and no desire to conform my content to what is acceptable to those of others - this needed three more words, in readable letters: WARNING: CONTAINS PROFANITY.

Even if the pro-profanity and the anti-profanity demographic isn't split right down the middle, I think we can all agree that there are some (on this board, and in the world at large) in both camps. So, a warning to that effect informs everybody (who can then go on to make their own decisions) without censoring anybody.

I will now attempt to derail this thread yet again from the topic at hand to my OWN single-issue crusade: publishers are lazy people who don't give us what we want fast enough, and it's our job to hound them and make fun of their mothers until they do.

So, to GRRM's publisher, I will conclude by saying: I saw part of it in Dragon, and that means it's DONE. So WHY don't I have MY copy?

 

[Dr. NRG]

This is particularly for Jesse Decker, but it's for the rest as well. I will be subscribing to Dragon for publishing GRRM's work as-is. I will do so because they didn't sanitize it for my protection, but left its art intact. Dragon is not Reader's Digest, nor is it Ranger Rick. I for one don't believe it should be.

NRG

 

[Dr Midnight]

Re: Where's the poll?

So, to GRRM's publisher, I will conclude by saying: I saw part of it in Dragon, and that means it's DONE. So WHY don't I have MY copy?

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

 

[Spatula]

Re: Where's the poll?

So, to GRRM's publisher, I will conclude by saying: I saw part of it in Dragon, and that means it's DONE. So WHY don't I have MY copy?

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.

 

[The Sigil]

As for the setting of negative trends. When they add more adult material to other portions of the magazine, rather then a "special addition" ... I'll complain. Until then, I appreciate their efforts to add something I value to Dragon.

Dragon 298 (or was it 299) - The drow issue - contains S&M, bondage, domination, and other topics that border on "adult."
Dragon 300 - The "Vile" issue.
Dragon 301 - "Swashbuckling" - rather tame, probably to "compensate" for the Vile issue
Dragon 302 - "Sell your Soul" - Tainted characters (again, stuff along the lines of the BoVD), and (this disturbed me a LOT more) a lot of comments from the editors in retort to complaints about issue 300 to the effect of, "you people suck and are immature so screw you - we're not apologizing for offending any sensibilities." I would have been fine with, "we apologize if we offended any sensibilities" but the prevailing tone in those letters was, "screw you for being too sensitve - you're not getting an apology from us."
Dragon 303 - Nothing too objectionable
Dragon 304 - The S-bomb is dropped
Dragon 305 - The F-bomb is dropped

Does half a year's worth of issues not constitute a "trend?"

--The Sigil

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Does half a year's worth of issues not constitute a "trend?"

You could also add in profanity on the cover. Grotesque art (the halfling issue comes to mind). Grotesque ads- the ICP ones come to mind.

SD

 

[Sagan Darkside]

When did ignorance become a virtue?

Ignorance is part of innocence- which is an essential part of childhood. Is that patronizing? Yes, it is. I don't mind the description when it comes to protecting children.

SD

 

[Azure Trance]

Dragon 298 (or was it 299) - The drow issue - contains S&M, bondage, domination, and other topics that border on "adult."

Well, I couldn't think of Drow in a more positive light. It's sort of in their genes, imo, to have a penchant for that stuff.

Dragon 302 - "Sell your Soul" - Tainted characters (again, stuff along the lines of the BoVD), and (this disturbed me a LOT more) a lot of comments from the editors in retort to complaints about issue 300 to the effect of, "you people suck and are immature so screw you - we're not apologizing for offending any sensibilities." I would have been fine with, "we apologize if we offended any sensibilities" but the prevailing tone in those letters was, "screw you for being too sensitve - you're not getting an apology from us."

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.

 

[The Sigil]

This is particularly for Jesse Decker, but it's for the rest as well. I will be subscribing to Dragon for publishing GRRM's work as-is. I will do so because they didn't sanitize it for my protection, but left its art intact.

I'm obviously in the minority, but I for one believe that the F-bomb can never be "Art."

Then again, I also believe a photo of two streams of urine crossing in front of a crucifix is not art either, but what do I know?

One man's art is another's trash, I guess.

Art, IMO, is meant to inspire. That does not mean it has to be Disney-esque - it can be gruesome and by doing so inspire reflection - in fact, the best art inspires reflection - both of the "good/inspirational" kind and the "bad/disturbing/self-scrutiny" kind. But to me there are certain things that simply cause revulsion, which precludes inspiration. F-bombs are among those things for me.

Which brings up a question - not trolling, but legitimate - for those who are in favor of the inclusion, 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?

I would suggest that if it makes no difference in your reflective process, it is unneeded. Further, if it makes no difference to you and hinders others, it actually DETRACTS from the art to leave it in as the art's "value" in inspiring reflection is diminished.

It is only if you believe that it actively aids you that there really ought to be a discussion about the merits of including it. Obviously it hinders others (such as myself) and if it actively aids you, then there is the question of "is the aid provided you worth the hindrance provided me?" If it makes no difference to you, then there is no compelling reason to leave it, is there? I don't want to hear "artistic integrity as Martin imagined it" here - I'm trying to get at "meta-artistic integrity" here - i.e., if it aids no one and hinders others, is it not by default worthy of exclusion. If it aids some and hinders others, how then might we determine criteria for exclusion? How do we measure degrees of help/hindrance here?

I understand that an f--- or other such euphemism might disturb a reader more than the actual word. But can the "meta-argument" be made that the word should not be included in the first instance and there ought to have been found a different way of presenting the material that neither disturbs by its inclusion nor its obvious and somewhat "artificial" exclusion?

Dragon is not Reader's Digest, nor is it Ranger Rick. I for one don't believe it should be.

If they are not Reader's Digest, then they should not be publishing fiction in the first instance. :b