Scribble
First Post
Heh... I remember knowing this word only because of Bob Ross.
Hey Rube! and other archaic knowledge
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Heh... I remember knowing this word only because of Bob Ross.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
You say whatever level the writer feels comfortable... that can be anything. From what you term as "dumbed down" language to something that anyone but PhD's in linguistics would consider archaic. Actually, they probably would too. As a college student, I'm going to have to disagree with this mindset entirely!
With the exception that if the words are defined adjacent to the usage of the word in question. That is acceptable.I won't ever understand the superiority that some feel, characterized by the term "dumbing down," with knowing and using words that have much more common synonyms. Colorful language is one thing, but to express a thought in a simple way is "dumbed down" compared to the same thought expressed in a complex way? I don't think so.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Not me. As kids, we always thought it was some weird kind of ogre jelly, lol.
Flatus Maximus
First Post
You say whatever level the writer feels comfortable... that can be anything. From what you term as "dumbed down" language to something that anyone but PhD's in linguistics would consider archaic. Actually, they probably would too. As a college student, I'm going to have to disagree with this mindset entirely!
I won't ever understand the superiority that some feel, characterized by the term "dumbing down," with knowing and using words that have much more common synonyms. Colorful language is one thing, but to express a thought in a simple way is "dumbed down" compared to the same thought expressed in a complex way? I don't think so.
Are you putting words in my mouth? Or just talking out loud after quoting me? I'm guessing the former. Maybe you just feel inferior, without anyone trying to be superior?
Using language in a creative or sophisticated way that others might not understand because they don't know the words or grammatical constructs doesn't have to be about feeling superior, though some might make it about that; rather, it probably should be about being more precise, artistic expression, variety, entertainment, etc.
Scribble
First Post
I think the big difference is that the D&D books, like other reference works, are designed to be used, and often used quickly. Having to go to a dictionary (even if occasionally) could slow things down a bit...
I also believe that while I enjoyed Gygax's words in the older books, I can see how some might be off put by a book full of stuff they don't understand, about a game that's already pretty complicated to begin with. I'd rather the books be at least easy to read, and the game grow as a whole then be limited to the few willing to decode the text, as well as the rules.
I prefer the current approach, which seems to be keep the majority of the game easily read/understood, but sneak some of those words into places that won't cause the rules to be misunderstood (class/monster/power/item names.)
Now in regard to fictional material designed to just be read and not "used" I say use whatever vocab you feel appropriate, regardless of whether your intended audience will understand 100% of it or not. Part of the fun of reading (in my opinion) is learning new words.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
Actually, I was just quoting your use of the term "dumbing down." I agree completely with what you just said, just not with your original terms.
I would say that Gygax's style was often not well suited to the needs of clarity in rules-books; he quite apparently was by inclination less a technical writer than a sesquipedalian pedant and punster. Stan Lee of Marvel Comics also relished a dash of purple prose.
Holmes, Moldvay and Mentzer in turn paid attention to reducing demands on reading comprehension. Younger readers (e.g., those born in the late 1960s instead of the 1940s) of course are generally not only less experienced but informed by different experiences -- and the same held for the wider demographic of new D&Ders without the originally assumed background in medieval-period miniatures campaigns and other war games.
The first D&D booklets were addressed mainly to people who were already playing the game, as oral tradition and practical example provided the usual introduction. The first-edition Advanced books likewise aimed primarily at experienced D&Ders. The fellows at TSR expected the Basic set to serve the needs of those with no recourse but to learn the game by reading.
Many people seemed to have started with AD&D, though, which made it all the more important to rectify shortcomings in those books. The game design had been evolving even as they were published over about three years, and the DMG in particular had gone to press with less than polished editing. Whatever the weaknesses of 2e, clarity and organization were among its strengths relative to the Gygaxian works.
Holmes, Moldvay and Mentzer in turn paid attention to reducing demands on reading comprehension. Younger readers (e.g., those born in the late 1960s instead of the 1940s) of course are generally not only less experienced but informed by different experiences -- and the same held for the wider demographic of new D&Ders without the originally assumed background in medieval-period miniatures campaigns and other war games.
The first D&D booklets were addressed mainly to people who were already playing the game, as oral tradition and practical example provided the usual introduction. The first-edition Advanced books likewise aimed primarily at experienced D&Ders. The fellows at TSR expected the Basic set to serve the needs of those with no recourse but to learn the game by reading.
Many people seemed to have started with AD&D, though, which made it all the more important to rectify shortcomings in those books. The game design had been evolving even as they were published over about three years, and the DMG in particular had gone to press with less than polished editing. Whatever the weaknesses of 2e, clarity and organization were among its strengths relative to the Gygaxian works.
kaomera
Explorer
Yeah, I was aware of "Rube" as "sucker" too... I didn't feel confused, because IIRC one of the rumors suggested to the PCs that "Bree-Yark" was a Kobold greeting: so these Rubes where expecting a nice, friendly welcome, while the Kobold was actually calling allies to the fray!Your "definition" has nothing at all to do with "Hey Rube!" In fact, if that's what you think when you see "Hey Rube!" then I bet that text in B2 was even more confusing for you.
coyote6
Adventurer
But were they already the best there was at what they did?
Yeah, I read it in comics first. Not sure if it was the X-Men vs. Mesmero story, though; I think it may have been a reprint of an earlier story. Golden Age & Silver Age comics are occasionally full of slang that's fallen out of use, and thus somewhat impenetrable.
Storm Raven
First Post
I don't recall where I heard the term "dog-eared" first. It is just one of those things that I always remember knowing. Maybe I learned it from my father, who used to dog-ear the pages of books, and then tell me that it was bad for the book.
I don't recall where I first heard of the term "Hey Rube", but it wasn't B2 or an X-Man comic. I remember knowing that it was associated with circus people and was an alarm. I read Toby Tyler as a kid, maybe it is in there.
I don't recall where I first heard of the term "Hey Rube", but it wasn't B2 or an X-Man comic. I remember knowing that it was associated with circus people and was an alarm. I read Toby Tyler as a kid, maybe it is in there.
Similar Threads
