Tracy Hickman's view of the Dragon #300 sealed section

[Ziona]

Re: Terrorism????

Even if you dont' agree with that work (and that stance is understandable), calling it terrorism simply because you didn't agree with it is irresponsible, and worse, it's a insult...to people that die in terrorist attacks for Mr. Hickman to equate him seeing magazine articles he doesn't like to others who are killed or disfigured, or lose loved ones to real terrorist attacks, and using the world "terrorism" over such a small thing, which is not terrorism by *any* definition of the word, trivialises the term.

Mr. Hickman should be ashamed.

Just wanted to say that you said my thoughts perfectly!

Nothing against the "mature" work of Mr. Hickman, (I love Dragonlance), but this is ludicrous. If you thought that the sealed pages in Dragon were inappropriate, then just say so. Don't make it sound like you were a victim of a horrible tragedy.

Hickman is more than welcome to his opinion (as we all are) but give your opinion straight out. Say you don't approve or you thought it was tasteless, don't call it terrorism.

Personally, my husband & I get Dragon in the mail, and we received the issue on the same day. I don't see what the hubbub is about...but hey, that's just my opinion.

ps. just for the record, this does not effect my opinion of his writing. i am still a dragonlance fan...

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Anyone want to take a guess at how many more copies of Dragon 300 were just guaranteed by Mr. Hickman's letter?

Hardly any- it is such a small market, and those interested in getting it are already getting it.

It may have generated more sales, but less then the cover did.

FD

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Nice Straw Man!!

No, but it indicates that you are telling me (and others) not only what, but also how to think.

At the risk of being vile and dark myself, I will merely tell you that you do not have that right.

Well at least you get the point. I am telling people both what and how to think. So are you. If you could admit that you're doing the same, we might be able to have a polite conversation.

You'll note that I not only asserted that the content in question was bad but that I also gave reasons for doing so--reasons which were intended to provoke thought and discussion. If you don't wish to engage in either, that's your choice--an unfortunate one but a common one.

And as to the last, of course I have the right to tell people what and how to think. That's what being in a community that values free speech and the free exchange of ideas is all about. (Note that this is an exchange--that implies that I don't sit in one corner with my ideas and others sit in their corners with their ideas and we all slap little labels on each other and go about the business of ignoring each other. Instead, you give your reasons and I give mine and then we can both make up our minds about whether our ideas were wholly or partially correct). What I don't have a right to do is to use violence to compel you to accept my ideas. But then, I haven't even come close to doing that, have I?

 

[Darrin Drader]

You know, personally I never liked the comic book code that Tracy refers to. I don't want to get off ona rant here, but I think that the game, comics, or fiction in general should be allowed to go wherever the creativity of the authors go. If this means that it gets a bit gross or depraved, then so be it. In my opinion, a system of self censorship in order to put a pleasant face on something plays into the hands of all the groups that have wrongly damned D&D for so many years, and is exactly what was wrong with 2nd edition AD&D and late TSR products. Why do you think so many people stopped playing the game during the last 10 years of old TSR?

Lets also not forget that really, this is a pretty nasty game we play. Our characters are trained killers, and the subject matter includes avenging murders, hunting down and killing outlaws, preventing genocide (or sometimes simply moving on from genocide), deal with fictitious terrorism, and depopulating entire regions. The fact that we still play means that we accept this as part of the world our characters live in. There's also few of the nasty parts that don't in some way mirror large portions of human history. I think that what Tracy finds so objectionable is the fact that it discusses the darker side of our own humanity. We may choose to see the darkness and use it for entertainment or turn a blind eye towards it and pretend it never existed, but either way these are still things that humans are capable of doing.

Lets also not forget the fact that Tracy Hickman is a pretty devoted Christian. Now I don't have a problem with anyone because of their religious beliefs. I really don't. The issue is that Tracy's website delves into reconciling him playing D&D with his strong faith. If someone needs to post all of this in a public forum, isn't that the same as making excuses for their activities? Isn't that also the same as admitting that the activity is wrong in the first place? I'm not trying to insult Tracy on a personal level here, because I have read a great deal of his work, and I think that he is a gifted author, but why does he feel the need to treat this as though its a personal betrayal?

I also agree with everyone who has said that they're getting sick of people branding everything they don't like with the title of terrorism. It seems to be the new social fad and in my opinion, it completely trivializes the deaths of all the innocent people that have died as the result of real terrorism.

The truth is that worse material has been published under the D&D and D20 logos already, and In this case the objectionable pages were sealed with a big old warning label on the front for god's sake. If you don't want to look at it, don't open it! And more to the point, don't try to tell the editors of one of my favorite magazines what they can and cannot include.

 

[Zappo]

You know, personally I never liked the comic book code that Tracy refers to. I don't want to get off ona rant here, but I think that the game, comics, or fiction in general should be allowed to go wherever the creativity of the authors go. If this means that it gets a bit gross or depraved, then so be it. In my opinion, a system of self censorship in order to put a pleasant face on something plays into the hands of all the groups that have wrongly damned D&D for so many years, and is exactly what was wrong with 2nd edition AD&D and late TSR products. Why do you think so many people stopped playing the game during the last 10 years of old TSR?

My thoughts exactly. Not publishing for fear of reprisal - that is evil. Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[Katerek]

PErsonally I find Mr. Hickman's whole little rant a bit offensive by opportunizing on the flagrant use of the word terrorism. Terrorism kills, and quite frankly the use of that word has become too comoon recently.

I just pre-ordered twenty copies of dragon #300, I am tempted to mail them, page by page to Mr. Hickman, but that WOULD be a crime so I will not. I however just got a bonus a work, so I cannot think of a better thing than to vote with my dollar.

I also noted that Mr Hickman touted GenCON has a high moral family affair. Talk about blind shmuckism. I was at GenCON two years ago, know what I picked up while I was there? Pam and Tommy on video, and a whole collection of Foglio XXX comics. Comics which were laying out at eye level for ANYONE to see. Including a small boy, no more than ten, who I shooed away from the booth. Me, not his parents, or Mr Foglio mind you.

Im a notorious decadent and morally flexible individual; I find Hickmans choice of horses so high to ride ethically ambiguous at best. He just doesn't like Monte, because of old bad blood. It is obvious, and painful to see, especially when the source is from someone I used to admire.

Ah well. He is as entitled to his opinion as I am, I s'pose.

EDIT PS Oh and one more thing: The COMIC BOOK CODE???? Come on already! That's a hoot. Has he even SEEN a comic book lately? Every woman on the cover looks like an anorexic Dolly Partin in zero gravity wearing a hand towel and some body paint.

 

[CrusaderX]

I applaud Mr. Hickman for his courage and convictions.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!

Just to toss something out here...

"What is bad for children is seldom good for adults." (This happens to be one of my own moral premises. On this grounds I reject the argument that "sometimes adults want to read material designed for them." That doesn't mean you can't use it as a point to back your views, just that I won't agree with you - but I will agree to disagree).

IMO, the core of the issue - and discussion here - warrants the following questions:

If the material in question (the Dragon #300 content) is judged to be "mature," why include it at all? What moral premise(s) can you resort to in order to justify such an inclusion? (I can think of a couple, I just want to see what other people think). What moral premise(s) can you resort to in order to justify the exclusion of such material? Which set of moral premises do you hold in higher regard? Why?

Does this material enrich the hobby of D&D? If so, how? If not, why not?

What was the purpose for inclusion of the material? What principles (moral or otherwise) drove the decision? (My guess: A Marketing/Money decision - an amoral but not immoral principle IMO.) Are the principles I follow in line with this decision? Do I hold my morals in higher or lower regard than other peoples' morals?

When you can bring forward your answers to these questions, recognizing that others may proceed forth from different moral premises, we will begin having meaningful discussion on the topic (at least that is my hope).

--The Sigil

 

[JLXC]

Could Tracy have overreacted any more?

No.

Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.

Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game! My youngest player is 35. You babies can go cry to your mommas. We like mature ideas and material.

 

[Ziona]

Not publishing for fear of reprisal - that is evil. Don't like it, don't buy it.

Gotta agree with you, Zappo...