[Dragon] Lord, the cheese...

[Elder-Basilisk]

Since you're enlightening everyone on how and why they ought not to be offended and what kind of offense is insufficient to boycott a product, perhaps you'd care to explain exactly when people should be offended and what kind of offense is sufficient to boycott a product. And maybe you can even include a memo explaining why your opinion on this matter is more logical, more correct, or otherwise better than anyone else's.

If you want to tell other people what to think and what to do, you need some standard yourself. Otherwise you're just another reactionary.

Blah blah blah. It's the same old song and dance. Some people are just too easily offended. Anyone who quits buying a product over something so trifling is, in my estimation, a reactionary, and not to be taken too seriously. I think the cover is fine (except perhaps for the skinny arms *snap*).

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Since you're enlightening everyone on how and why they ought not to be offended and what kind of offense is insufficient to boycott a product, perhaps you'd care to explain exactly when people should be offended and what kind of offense is sufficient to boycott a product.

Wow, I said all of that in that tiny paragraph?
Or maybe you are just reacting a lot to something very small? I merely said that I was not offended by the cover, that I think many people overreact about such things, and offered up a personal anecdote. Try to disprove any of that. Go ahead, be my guest.

And maybe you can even include a memo explaining why your opinion on this matter is more logical, more correct, or otherwise better than anyone else's.

Where my opinion ranks in importance is irrelevent. It's just an opinion. Having said that, I have as much right to have mine as anyone else here. As for the rest...
"It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."

If you want to tell other people what to think and what to do, you need some standard yourself. Otherwise you're just another reactionary.

I never tried to tell anyone what to think. I did, however, suggest not to take what is being said too seriously. That is the very opposite of being reactionary, thankyouverymuch.
Next.

Disclaimer: This post may be better or worse than the one the boards ate.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Wow, I said all of that in that tiny paragraph?

Actually yes you did. You said some people are too easily offended. Last I checked, the English language works this way: if someone is TOO easily offended, they get offended by things they OUGHT NOT to be offended by.

You also said that anyone who refused to buy a magazine over a silly thing like [im]Mature content and cover art was a reactionary who shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously, the person who makes that claim knows what kind of things aren't worth refusing to buy a magazine over. At the very least, he claims to know that [im]mature content and art isn't a good enough reason--at least not for anyone other than a "reactionary." The question is what it would be worth boycotting a magazine over.

Or maybe you are just reacting a lot to something very small? I merely said that I was not offended by the cover, that I think many people overreact about such things, and offered up a personal anecdote.

The concept of overreacting requires a concept of an appropriate reaction. If there's no standard for how people ought to react, then it's impossible to overreact to anything.

If there is a right reaction then people can overreact. . . or underreact.

Where my opinion ranks in importance is irrelevent. It's just an opinion. Having said that, I have as much right to have mine as anyone else here. As for the rest...
"It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."

I certainly hope that neither my opinion nor yours are irrelevant. If your opinion is no better than Celebrim's, why tell him he's taking things too seriously? Why not just say "I don't think it's a big deal, relate the anecdote and leave?" Heck, why even say that? If my opinion right now is as good as the one I'd have if I saw the inherent reasonableness of your position and said "Mea culpa; I was wrong; you're right", what's the point of discussion at all? I would hope that we both have better beliefs after the conversation than we did before.

As for the quote: Who said that there's no such thing as a right or wrong emotion? And why is their opinion any better than someone who disagrees with them?

I never tried to tell anyone what to think. I did, however, suggest not to take what is being said too seriously. That is the very opposite of being reactionary, thankyouverymuch.
Next.

Isn't that telling someone what to think? Specifically, telling them what not to think--"Do not think of this as a serious thing worth getting worked up over?"

How else can suggesting not taking something too seriously be taken? I presume it means you're telling people not to take something seriously.

Disclaimer: This post may be better or worse than the one the boards ate.

That's the way it usually works. The boards usually eat my good posts but occasionally they eat ones and it's a really really good thing.

 

[Painfully]

For the short version, see my sig.

-----------------------------------------
And, now, the long version:

Well, all people become desensitized when repeatedly exposed to just about anything. That includes extreme violence and pornography, which, when combined, create a whole lot of issues for people, especially young and impressionable ones.

Celebrim makes some valid viewpoints. But, I also think that mature people will be able to look beyond marketing devices like a naked woman. The real problem is that "shock" value of things like sex and gore (not just violence) have an effect on people whether they like what they see or not. Some people will like it, many will not care about it, and others will be turned off by it. But once you've seen it, you've become a "victim" of it. Unfortunately, that's what marketing is these days.

Most of the time, I just look past it and think less of the person responsible for such marketing decisions. It's like trash TV. Yeah, maybe it sells, but there isn't much value in it. So, are we still talking about the cover of Dragon? Or did things get waaaay OT since page 1?

I suppose my final viewpoint is simply that I would like to have a magazine staff with enough maturity to not stoop to sex as their selling point. In fact, I might even admire such a magazine staff for thinking it's readers have the ability to see past the "cheap thrills" of a naked woman on the cover. Or, if the staff thinks I'm wrong, they can have chainmail babes on all their covers and see how quickly their subscription rates drop (or increase). I'm sure everybody can decide for themselves what is worth subscribing to in the end. Whether Paizo chooses to have less or more babes on the cover.

In a word, what does the cover say to you? If that word isn't related to fantasy, then the picture should probably have been replaced IMO. If the picture says "F*** me," than it's probably a poor choice for the cover of a fantasy magazine with an audience ranging anywhere from 12 yr olds and up. (Note: I'm not saying that's what the cover says to anyone, it's just an example).

To each their own. As long as the covers don't get out of hand, I'll still buy based on content.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

I certainly hope that neither my opinion nor yours are irrelevant. If your opinion is no better than Celebrim's, why tell him he's taking things too seriously?

Celebrim has nothing to do with the part of my post that you quoted, Perhaps you should have been more clear about exactly what you wanted to discuss. I took issue with the notion that if it's well drawn it's art, and if it's not it's porn. Or in this case, if Royo draws it, it's ok, if the person that did the cover in question draws it, it's not. So, the subject matter could be exactly the same, but had it been a different artist it wouldn't have been a problem?* That's some skewed reasoning. That's all I had to say in regard to Celebrim, and had nothing to do with what you were leveling at me.

*I will be the first one to say though, that I don't think that's precisely what he was getting at.

Heck, why even say that?

Why have a message board? Keep asking these questions, you're getting closer to one of those fundamentals of human nature that everyone should be aware of before entering any form of online forum.

That's the way it usually works. The boards usually eat my good posts but occasionally they eat ones and it's a really really good thing.

Hehe. Proving once again that no matter how many differences two people have, they can agree on something.
This thread is on the way to destruction. Rather than take up more space than I deserve with back and forth, I'm jumping ship now.
Heh.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Wow. You know, my friends Elder-Basilisk and Celebrim make some good points--and I of course respect you both very much. Basilisk, you and I have been friends for quite awhile, too. Then, my friends Barsoomcore and Meepo the Mighty chime in, and I respect them as well. Barsoomcore, too, is an old friend.

You all are familiar with many of my own attitudes, many of which agree with your own.

This whole thing just seems to evade me I guess. I just don't pay that much attention to Dragon covers. I have Dragon issues dating back to issue 8 or so. Cover...one cover...another cover...and so on. Here we are with the recent batch of Dragon. I don't see what is wrong with the cover. It's a Succubus. Chicks, mighty warriors, monsters, dragons, and so on have always been a part of Dragon magazine. This cover is bad? Why? It's just a Succubus. I would just tell children that that is the way that Succubi dress, just like the girls they see at school; just like the women on the music videos on MTV; just like the way that girls dress while at the beach during summertime. Succubi, after all, do come from a place that is *very hot*. If you mean that children under ten play--it seems to me that the game is a bit much for the under ten crowd, though it isn't impossible, but still--there are lots of things that a child isn't going to understand in the game, including necessarily all the nuances of the way that women may dress--or in this case, a Succubus, and her selection in clothes.

I mean, don't get me wrong--I certainly don't approve of children viewing pornography--but I have always thought the presentation and context determined more so what is *pornographic*. Simply seeing some skin--*naked skin*--just there, like in the cover, really is just *skin* and doesn't seem to move in the direction of pornography. Are ancient Greek statues of naked women and men pornographic? How about modern copies, or those medievalesque paintings of plump, naked angels flying, or naked women gathered together around a pond or stream pornographic? For example, I have some really cool medieval artwork in areas of my house. My nieces come over and see them. They don't even blink. It's just some naked women gathered by a forested pool. In a similar fashion, the Dragon cover is just a Succubus, dressed scantily. No biggie, you know? It's natural. It isn't like graphic sexual acts are on display, you know?

I'm just saying that such artwork, whether it is a painting, a statue, or a magazine cover can be tatsefully, and honestly looked at and discussed with anyone of any age. Generally though, it seems to best be dealt with by not making a big fuss out of it to begin with, you know? I mean, like you just walk down the hallway, the painting is there, and so what. It is just *there* you know what I'm saying? Art, in such a dispassionate and matter-of-fact context, doesn't contaminate anyone or "influence" anyone to do or think much of anything, does it?

I'm not trying to flame or disrespect anyone, as you can trust. I suppose that I am just saying that art--even scantily clad or naked art--providing it isn't graphically *doing* something, if understood in context, is just "there" and usually just mildly pleasant to view, or interesting, but really isn't especially "titillating" or "erotic" if you see what I'm saying. In many ways, beyond the briefest of glances, it usually fades entirely into the background, to be generally forgotten, whether a painting, a statue, or a Dragon magazine cover.

I hope that I have made sense. It's late, and I'm off to bed.

Take care my friends!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: [Dragon] Lord, the cheese...

Copy----> paste month after month. We're beginning to get the point.

But since this is a hobby I care about and a magazine I care about- I will continue to voice my concern. Feel free to ignore me.

 

[s/LaSH]

I'm certain I've seen worse on Dragon's cover, from distant memories of double-digit numbered issues found in a library stack many years ago. Clyde Caldwell, Larry Elmore and other illuminati are particularly well-known for their similar subject matter, and I don't recall too many complaints.

Is it suitable for all ages? I'd think so. If you've got kids who are after that kind of stuff, they'll find it somehow, believe me. I'm no parent, but I feel innocence is over-rated and children should be fostered with ideals of reality and morality in their formative years. Then again, I'm also at odds with the English-speaking world's predeliction for Victorian-era morals, something I fear hasn't really gone that far away and blame for many evils in the English-speaking culture.

I'm fully aware that most cultures on this planet don't vilify their bodies, possibly because it's so hot most of the time where they live. (Islam is a notable exception here, but I'm no Koran theologian so I can't comment on their reasons.) That said, there's a difference between accepting something and glorifying certain aspects of it.

Personally, I thought that Royo cover was pretty tame, not because I've seen other Royo works (I have - yeesh!) but because I've seen archaeological reconstructions of ancient Greek costumes, and you'd never get those on a book cover today. Never. And if someone thinks the cover's still sexy, well, what's wrong with that? I can walk down the street and look at women, to be brutally honest. There's a certain point where you say 'I can't make this any less sexy without the aid of a large concrete bell with eyeholes in the front'.

I will, however, draw issue with a policy of perpetual females being used on covers. There's nothing wrong with a strong male figure (just ask the incredible plentitude of prettyboy characters with long silver hair in popular Japanese games, manga and anime), and I for one wouldn't mind having a number of cheesecake males on magazines. In fact, in an obscure way I'd insist upon it, because then I could justify cheesecake females in roughly equal numbers.

Now's the part where I point out that, as an artist myself, one of my schticks in my webcomic is to tear as much clothing as decently possible during one story arc. And I'm cursing myself for givin a male character a chainmail shirt, because he needs that for another couple of chapters and I can't tear it off, and I'm petrified someone will think I'm being discriminatory towards the women he travels with. This is the same character I couldn't quite bring myself to draw without pants, you realise, and I'm cursing myself for that too, because history dictates that he should have been fully unclothed when out working the fields, not simply topless.

Am I being exploitative here? I'd actually value someone's opinions on this, because this is a topic that touches on my livelihood. C'mon, hit me.

 

[Robbert Raets]

'I can't make this any less sexy without the aid of a large concrete bell with eyeholes in the front'.

Well spoken, mr. Lash. Many women out there who need to reveil anything.

Of this heated subject, I will only say: 'It's not the package, it's the contents.'

You can take that any way you want

 

[Psion]

Um, there is lots of talk about being offended by covers and comparisons with Cosmo, et al. But has anyone actually said they are offended by the cover? Most people who spoke up about it said they thought it was bad art and not particularly relevant, not offensive. I'm fairly conservative and I don't see it as much to be offended over. But I also think that Dragon has had much better art on the cover and the succubus seems blatantly low-brow by way of comparison.