D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

Hussar said:

That's kinda where you lose me though. When an author claims that what was written means X, that's certainly one interpretation, but, since we also have to divorce the artist from the art, that means that the artists interpretation carries no more weight than anyone else's. After all, the artist cannot be given both a privileged position - to be able to make definitive claims about meaning - while at the same time we separate the artist from what the artist has created.

Click to expand...

I think a certain degree of threading the needle can occur here.

An artist can, if you think they're being honest, absolutely tell you what their conscious intent was in a way no one else can. I think that does have some weight.

However, there are two caveats there: first, you have to believe they're being honest with both you and themselves, and second, you have to assume they understand all their own motivations in doing everything in their work. Neither of those is a give, and the second in particular is something I suspect very few people fully understand.

With regards to the author/artist discussion, I think there are a few things that make up the various axis's that the issues turn on.

Already discussed previously, but whether or not the author/artist is dead makes a big difference. Earlier in the thread someone made a oops and referenced HG Wells, to which a second poster said he had some problematic views as well, and a third asked a very pertinent question. "More than a typical Victorian man?" Because, yes, no one expects an author/artist from the past to have modern values. I am quite certain that Shakespeare likely held some views on women and government that would be unacceptable to the modern audience. It has been 400 years, a lot has changed in the world.

There is also the idea of "money well spent". I've mentioned in the past I'm a HUGE fan of the LitRPG genre of fantasy. Well, two authors who I had read in the past are Aleron Kong and Tao Wong, and I enjoyed their work.... and I have since learned that in the time between when I last read their work and now, they've done some bad things. Not like, horrid beyond belief, but they have been demeaning to others in the community, litigious and greedy about basic terms used in the community, and just generally not been good people. Kong in particular had a series I was interested in and has a new book he is marketing.... But why should I spend money on that book instead of money on an equally interesting series by someone who HASN'T been a jerk to people? It isn't like I have a choice between buying a book written by someone who has taken actions I disagree with or burning my money, I could just as easily by a book from someone who hasn't done something like that.

Will that second author still be a flawed human being? Yes, obviously, the point isn't to find someone who is perfect in all respects, but if I have a choice between someone who seems to hate that other people are active in the community of writers and wants to stifle them, or someone who takes up two spaces in the Wal-mart parking lot... well one of those imperfections is more tolerable in a writer for me than the other. And if I have a choice between the two, and both are doing good work... it seems obvious to me to support the person who is a more positive influence in the community.

And I think, it is between these two ideas, that DnD becomes a bit of a mess.

The vast, vast majority of the worst things in DnD were created by people who have since died, or have long since retired from public life. Their work is 50 to 40 years old, and as someone who has lived through the past few decades, a LOT has changed about public views on a lot of issues. My own views have shifted quite a bit. However, DnD maintains a lot of that early work and actively continues to publish some small parts of it. Especially until just a few years ago, WoTC held the position that all that old, weird, and baffling content was still canon. One example I mentioned before is that Tiamat has several dragon consorts... who are also her children... with the goal of having children who will be strong enough to be stronger consorts... I heard this from the Dungeoncast, who I know researchs old Dragon articles, but they don't directly cite their sources. But, oof, that's just nasty and weird and yet at one point was likely canon. On the other hand... canon is meaningless in DnD because we are all our own authors. DnD is itself more of a genre and a community than a single piece of art.

So, you have dead authors from the past, a modern company still selling their material, and we are also all out own authors making out our own material in the rule set which can be completely divorced from the lore. So, depending on your own position in the community.... it gets complicated. Do we preserve the work of people who clearly had different values than us? Do we demand change from people currently profiting off of work that has obvious problems? Do we defend our right to make our own material as we see fit, and not interfere with each other? It is a bit of a mess.

But, I think WoTC has found a good balance. They do preserve the old art in its original packaging and context, just with a warning label letting people know that it doesn't reflect their current values. They do attempt to not carry forward bad ideas and weird canon from that time period, I actually think it was a great boon to the company to declare anything previous to not be confirmed canon, because they can more easily look at some of the bizarre things put in Dragon Magazine and say "nope, that is no longer true". But, throughout it all, they tell us that it is our game, and that in your home game you can do whatever you like. So even as we hold the public company responsible for the public content, you can continue with anything you want to continue with.

And that seems to be the best answer we can come up with for right now. Deal with what is actively in the public, support those authors and artists doing good work, and try to muddle our way through as best we can.

MGibster said:

What's a successful debate versus a failure?

Click to expand...

Like almost everything else, it's on a spectrum. As someone who coached and judged debates, the best one is where both sides clearly understood the core argument and argued their positions and one side was clearly able to make better arguments.

A really good debate is one where both sides make good arguments and an outsider can see both perspectives. You come away with a better understanding of the issue.

A fair debate is one where both sides are making points, but they are clearly just using platitudes they've heard somewhere else.

And a poor debate is where one or both sides aren't arguing the issue you agreed on, or there never was an agreement about it. Essentially you don't have a debate as everyone is just telling you there opinion on a variety of somewhat similar issues. Unfortunately, that's what happens most of the time on online debates.

That's obviously just my opinion, but I would challenge people to look back at threads we've had here that really went on and on and look to see how many different premises were being argued.

Chaosmancer said:

With regards to the author/artist discussion, I think there are a few things that make up the various axis's that the issues turn on.
...

Click to expand...

This true.

Chaosmancer said:

But why should I spend money on that book instead of money on an equally interesting series by someone who HASN'T been a jerk to people? ...

Click to expand...

AND this is the core of the issue. Who you think is a JERK? And who I think is a JERK? Are five different things. I do find it interesting is how much passion goes into labeling an artist a jerk; and various methods of condemning people who don't find the author a jerk.

jasper said:

This true.

AND this is the core of the issue. Who you think is a JERK? And who I think is a JERK? Are five different things. I do find it interesting is how much passion goes into labeling an artist a jerk; and various methods of condemning people who don't find the author a jerk.

Click to expand...

There is this and also: when I hear about an interesting new book, my first question is not 'but is the author Mr. Rogers?'. I haven't noticed any correlation between being a nice person and writing good fiction. I want to read good fiction, I want to listen to good music. It isn't especially important to me how the person who made it conducts their personal life

Bedrockgames said:

There is this and also: when I hear about an interesting new book, my first question is not 'but is the author Mr. Rogers?'. I haven't noticed any correlation between being a nice person and writing good fiction. I want to read good fiction, I want to listen to good music. It isn't especially important to me how the person who made it conducts their personal life

Click to expand...

I was kind of shocked when I found out the author of a popular history book I had picked up during college and found interesting turned out years later to have been written by a really virulent racist. It feels like for some kinds of non-fiction I don't trust some kinds of people to have done a good job (I mean, I have trouble imagining math or physics being off because of bigotry... but if its history or psychology...). I generally back-check things that I find a bit extraordinary in supposedly non-fiction books, but I don't have time to read one if the whole thing is suspect.

For fiction, the stack of fiction I haven't gotten to yet is big enough I can be picky if someone seems particularly odious and it would be lining their pockets.

Cadence said:

I was kind of shocked when I found out the author of a popular history book I had picked up during college and found interesting turned out to have been written by a really virulent racist. It feels like for some kinds of non-fiction I don't some kinds of people to have done a good job (I mean, I have trouble imagining math or physics being off because of bigotry... but if its history or psychology...).

For fiction, the stack of fiction I haven't gotten to yet is big enough I can be picky if someone seems particularly odious and it would be lining their pockets.

Click to expand...

That is disturbing actually. For psychology in particular…I got a gift once from a professor by way of the book “the mismeasure of man”
And it was good for anyone doing research to read:

Cadence said:

I was kind of shocked when I found out the author of a popular history book I had picked up during college and found interesting turned out years later to have been written by a really virulent racist. It feels like for some kinds of non-fiction I don't trust some kinds of people to have done a good job (I mean, I have trouble imagining math or physics being off because of bigotry... but if its history or psychology...). I generally back-check things that I find a bit extraordinary in supposedly non-fiction books, but I don't have time to read one if the whole thing is suspect.

Click to expand...

When it comes to history books, it is definitely a good idea to be aware of an author's bias and what causes are on their agenda because that will often play into their analysis. So it makes sense to me to be concerned about the personal beliefs of someone writing history, especially when those beliefs have a high chance of shaping what they write

Cadence said:

For fiction, the stack of fiction I haven't gotten to yet is big enough I can be picky if someone seems particularly odious and it would be lining their pockets.

Click to expand...

For me this is just something I never understood when it comes to things like novels, movies and music. If this matters to you, fair, I am not criticizing you for doing this. But it feels like a lot of peopel when they experience art now, almost do it like how some peopel buy products at whole foods or something. To me the connection between personal character and good writing is so not there (maybe even in the direction of bad people making more interesting art), and the percentage of really good writing so rare, I just can't use the personal life of the author as a measure for whether I would read something (obviously though there may be lines in certain cases or around key issues where it just colors the experience too much for me).

SteveC said:

Like almost everything else, it's on a spectrum. As someone who coached and judged debates, the best one is where both sides clearly understood the core argument and argued their positions and one side was clearly able to make better arguments.

A really good debate is one where both sides make good arguments and an outsider can see both perspectives. You come away with a better understanding of the issue.

A fair debate is one where both sides are making points, but they are clearly just using platitudes they've heard somewhere else.

And a poor debate is where one or both sides aren't arguing the issue you agreed on, or there never was an agreement about it. Essentially you don't have a debate as everyone is just telling you there opinion on a variety of somewhat similar issues. Unfortunately, that's what happens most of the time on online debates.

That's obviously just my opinion, but I would challenge people to look back at threads we've had here that really went on and on and look to see how many different premises were being argued.

Click to expand...

Well, part of the issue is most people don't think they're having a debate in anything but a general sense. They're having a discussion that may include arguing one or more points, but the borders are entirely defined by what they're interested in talking about, and I doubt too many thing more than, at best, they might be informing third parties in a vaguely useful way.

Bedrockgames said:

To me the connection between personal character and good writing is so not there (maybe even in the direction of bad people making more interesting art), and the percentage of really good writing so rare, I just can't use the personal life of the author as a measure for whether I would read something (obviously though there may be lines in certain cases or around key issues where it just colors the experience too much for me).

Click to expand...

The problem is that its rare that certain sorts of personal views don't color someone's fiction writing at some point or another. Ask one-time fans of Marion Zimmer-Bradley how they now view in retrospect some scenes and subplots in some books in light the revelation that she'd been an enabler for her husband's sexual offenses.