|
|
Post by tombowings on Mar 21, 2021 12:30:18 GMT -6
I don't think a person has to take Piper 's post personally. It's a basic fact that nationalism, peppered with racial stereo typing, pervaded the pulp fiction and closely tied comic industry during the war and post war period. Comics were used richly as a medium of propaganda. It could be argued that this generation reached it's zenith when man literally reached the moon- something the pulp sf produced as pure fantasy prior. What couldn't humanity accomplish? From there the pendulum of public opinion started to swing in the other direction starting with the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, and the Vietnam war. Some things are just a part of the time period. My son, whose in his first year of college, has been discussing communication theory with me. One such theory is known as the "Inoculation Theory". He associated the concept with smoking for the benefit of clarity with me. Which was helpful. My children are a product of this theory in practice. So much so that none of them can appreciate the reality that during my childhood everyone, or nearly so, smoked. It was pervasive, permitted, and accepted everywhere- work space, public transportation, doctors offices, barber shops, family gatherings, etc. Ashtrays were found everywhere, a token to our culture. It was just a fact of the period that had no real moral attributes at the time. I don't want to overstate this though. People did recognize it as being less than healthy and eventually it's association with lung cancer would lead to the valid criticism of the tobacco industry. ...which is a wonderful discussion for the right context. Unfortunately, discussions related to the real-world politics tend only towards animosity. I'd prefer if these forums remained friendly and free of politics. Otherwise, I'll probably take my (O)D&D-related discussion elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 21, 2021 13:53:02 GMT -6
...which is a wonderful discussion for the right context. Unfortunately, discussions related to the real-world politics tend only towards animosity. I'd prefer if these forums remained friendly and free of politics. Otherwise, I'll probably take my (O)D&D-related discussion elsewhere. I guess I didn't take it as really being a political comment. Not sure why I would. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 21, 2021 16:29:31 GMT -6
Well, there is no doubt that stories written in previous ages often targeted a certain audience and reflected certain beliefs which are no longer accepted in mainstream society. Many of Robert E Howard's stories would never see publication if written today because of racial profiles, and the same is true for Mark Twain and other literary giants around 1900. Those authors are a product of their times and much of that wasn't noted as being particularly objectionable at the time, much like "cowboys and indians" westerns featured certain stereotypes. And authors tend to be more uplifting towards characters more like themselves.
I am a little frustrated, however, where a "modern" interpretation can besmirch literature in ways not necessarily intended. The whole notion that orcs might feel bad by being stereotyped bugs me because they never existed. The fact that Ravenloft is trying to revise the Vistani is sort of borderline as well, since they may have been patterned after real world gypsies but they also never actually existed. There is a fine line that is being crossed a lot and I think it's not clear whether or not such a crossing makes any sense if the creatures involved are totally fictional.
These are just one person's opinion, obviously, and like tombowings noted we do need to beware of treading into the realm of real world politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Mar 21, 2021 22:01:25 GMT -6
I’ve deleted the posts and apologized for the misunderstanding. When I posted that I believed it more a societal issue than a political one (but know better now) and certainly meant no harm or offense. I don’t know what else to do, so I believe I’ll just go silent for a while. I apologize for disrupting the forum.  No need to apologize or go silent. I was just trying to cut off the real-world talk before it devolved into a bugbear. The problem is that some people here (like me) have such radically divergent and atypical world-views that when real-life issues peek their hideous had, the topic inevitably takes a turn into the realm of unpleasantness. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 22, 2021 0:22:23 GMT -6
No matter how awful it looks from our today view, it's still a valid interpretation. It doesn't imply conscious racism on part of any of the game designers who were (like many of us) reading literature from a time when racism was completely normal and even "scientific". I wouldn't say Gary had a "distaste for the demi-human races" (simply because I don't know if it's true or not), but level limits might represent the edge humans have over the demi-humans which we find in said literature.
As a product of their upbringing, some religious folk may be put off by the free use of magic in D&D and the fact that it's not generally associated with the devil or chaos, and to be destroyed. Most of us probably wouldn't agree, but that wouldn't make anyone a satanist.
Some DMs play without allowing PC demi-humans, but that's not seen as racism, is it?
Very similarly, I dislike pretty much all post-Star Wars/Trek science fiction I've read because it's clearly influenced by one of the "great ones" of sci-fi. Boring. These books are clearly influenced, while earlier books are not.
What I'm saying is, we should be able to talk about things while keeping their historical context in mind.
Edit: Personally, I don't see any of that discussion as real-world politics, more like a historical research of social influences. If it's unwanted, just delete my post. I clearly don't want to offend anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Mar 22, 2021 0:43:05 GMT -6
Edit: Personally, I don't see any of that discussion as real-world politics, more like a historical research of social influences. If it's unwanted, just delete my post. I clearly don't want to offend anyone. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the way I see it, any topic that involves race/religion/ideology/etc. either a) excludes some poster's viewpoints (as a result of following the forum rules), thereby alienating them from the forum, or b) devolves into ankle-biting. I don't see either of those as desirable outcomes. Therefore, I find it's best just to avoid discussions of the real world all-together. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Mar 22, 2021 7:17:06 GMT -6
Yeah, social mores change. The next generation will be horrified by many of the things we take as normal today and there is no way to predict what exactly that will be.
Old literature has disagreeable stuff. There was likely stuff in The Illiad that offended the citizens of Carthage that we wouldn't even notice or get why today.
I've been a tad sensitive about it with all the cancelling going on lately, and this is nothing new. Huckleberry Finn was censored from my school library when I was a kid. Yet it is unquestionably an important literary classic.
That said, I'm not going to read into the author's intent any more than what is there. I'm a huge ER Burroughs fan, yet his writings are an odd mix of incredibly progressive for its day and old fashioned, even occasionally offensive by today's standards.
Demi-humans, non-humans, and humanoids in fantasy literature are not analogues for real world peoples. Even when borrowing a real world 'flavor' like Egyptian or Norse or African to flesh out these make believe creatures.
That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 22, 2021 8:36:33 GMT -6
Edit: Personally, I don't see any of that discussion as real-world politics, more like a historical research of social influences. If it's unwanted, just delete my post. I clearly don't want to offend anyone. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the way I see it, any topic that involves race/religion/ideology/etc. either a) excludes some poster's viewpoints (as a result of following the forum rules), thereby alienating them from the forum, or b) devolves into ankle-biting. I don't see either of those as desirable outcomes. Therefore, I find it's best just to avoid discussions of the real world all-together. Agreed. That said, I'm not going to read into the author's intent any more than what is there. I'm a huge ER Burroughs fan, yet his writings are an odd mix of incredibly progressive for its day and old fashioned, even occasionally offensive by today's standards. I think as long as we know about the historical context, it's easier for us to put it into perspective. People who don't have any of the background info might be offended more easily. It doesn't make it right, of course, but who knows how we'd have thought about these matters if we had lived in those times.... |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 9, 2021 17:17:20 GMT -6
My son, whose in his first year of college, has been discussing communication theory with me. One such theory is known as the "Inoculation Theory". He associated the concept with smoking for the benefit of clarity with me. Which was helpful. My children are a product of this theory in practice. So much so that none of them can appreciate the reality that during my childhood everyone, or nearly so, smoked. It was pervasive, permitted, and accepted everywhere- work space, public transportation, doctors offices, barber shops, family gatherings, etc. Ashtrays were found everywhere, a token to our culture. It was just a fact of the period that had no real moral attributes at the time. I don't want to overstate this though. People did recognize it as being less than healthy and eventually it's association with lung cancer would lead to the valid criticism of the tobacco industry. I didn't recognize this at the time of the posting, but this is essentially CRT, which Americans have rightly taken serious issues with. A poison that American colleges have been feeding to students for decades. The tobacco analogy is not a good or accurate one. Every society in history has stories of heroes, and naturally those heroes will look like the society they came from. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 9, 2021 17:52:31 GMT -6
Inoculation Theory is not CRT, but CRT could certainly use Inoculation Theory. Inoculation Theory has more to do with building up resistance to persuasion- through smaller messages that support convictions. The goal is to make a person less vulnerable to social pressures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Dec 10, 2021 0:29:39 GMT -6
|
|
