Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Mordhau]

Well if we want an alternative to the podcast, there's always this article. (Which truly is dreadful - never trust the writing of anyone who uses the phrase "always already").

Does anyone know of any writing on the topic that's actually good?

 

[Bill Zebub]

For what? the concept of Plausible Deniability?

if you don’t already see the difference between a leader sending coded messages to followers, and nobodies on a web forum expressing opinions, I’ll pass on trying to enlighten you.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

if you don’t already see the difference between a leader sending coded messages to followers, and nobodies on a web forum expressing opinions, I’ll pass on trying to enlighten you.

Nice dodge

 

[Hussar]

That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go. People still enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi. John Carter of Mars and Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them. These are works that have and continue to influence us. They're culturally relevant. So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?

And that’s not an unreasonable take.

To be fair though, at a guess, I’d say far far more people read Burroughs in a library than going out and buying it.

Heck you can read all of Burroughs online legally for free, so it’s not like it’s not available. Likewise Breakfast at Tiffanies will enter public domain very soon. Again it’s not lost.

Not being available to purchase doesn’t mean it’s no longer available at all.

—-
Dammit autocorrect UNreasonable.

 

[Irlo]

So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?

2.74%

 

[Bill Zebub]

Nice dodge

I recognize a windmill for what it is.

 

[MGibster]

To be fair though, at a guess, I’d say far far more people read Burroughs in a library than going out and buying it.

You may very well be correct but I don't know how we'd verify it. I know I've never checked out anything by Lovecraft from the public library and probably bought all the stories I own from Barnes & Noble and Amazon. I did purchase John Carter of Mars as a teenager in the early 90s but that was probably from a B. Dalton or Waldenbooks at the mall. But let's not get too hung up on the examples I used. Surely there are other works that will not be in the public domain any time soon which might be culturally relevant and yet contain problematic aspects. (I think Breakfast at Tiffany's might already be in the public domain.)

Not being available to purchase doesn’t mean it’s no longer available at all.

No, but it can make it more difficult to get ahold of the work. The internet does make it easier to make sure that works are still available. I don't think I've ever purchased a REH Conan story but got them all from Project Gutenberg.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, but it can make it more difficult to get ahold of the work. The internet does make it easier to make sure that works are still available. I don't think I've ever purchased a REH Conan story but got them all from Project Gutenberg.

Totally off-topic, but I acquired my full set one by one in used bookstores while wandering around on a Eurail pass as a teenager in the 80’s, reading them on trains. Still have them, and always will.

 

[Irlo]

My feeling on this is the conversation itself is good to have. It is healthy to have conversations so long as we aren't despising each other at the end of them over elf games and fantasy media. I do think the disclaimer itself is misguided. It isn't the end of the world to have one. I just don't believe they are the best idea in the world. They are also extremely broad reaching. I think it is better for people to read older books and come to their own conclusions about what moral failings they have, rather than WOTC make that determination in advance for the reader.

I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.

I genuinely find it fascinating that others see it differently.

 

[Hussar]

I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.

I genuinely find it fascinating that others see it differently.

Let’s be honest here. Leading people to conclusions is the last thing we want. And, it’s hardly like this is being done in a vacuum. It would’ve pretty hard not to know what’s meant by the disclaimers.

It raises awareness. That’s what it’s supposed to do. Which means that if someone reads this and then wonders what the fuss is, they can ask.

It’s simply public recognition.