Ruminations on fiction, roleplaying, and assorted irritants.
Showing posts with label H.P. Lovecraft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label H.P. Lovecraft. Show all posts
Monday, December 11, 2017
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Saturday, October 28, 2017
TRUST: Interlude 1 - The Colour Out of Space
Hey, into Lovecraft? Wanna hear a recording of me reading The Colour Out of Space? You DO? Then come on over to TRUST for this week's reading.
Monday, August 31, 2015
The Authorship Problem
Orson Scott Card is a man I have learned both to revere and despise in equal measure. This topic has come to mind in the wake of the dismal events of the Hugo Awards a few weeks ago, monopolized by equally grotesque people whose personal agendas reflect some barbaric dystopia-that-never-was. Science fiction has been a platform for progressive, liberal, tolerance in the United States since as early as the 40s. The greatest works of sci-fi were pioneered by figures like Asimov and Bradbury. Though Ray may have turned his back on his early, more liberal roots, as expressed in his short stories and his humanity-damning Martian Chronicles.
The question, then, is whether or not an artist's work stands out as its own object, separately from the artist. This is related to the question of Lovecraft that recently plagued the internet, which I will restate here, in this format: Is it ok to enjoy the fruit of an admittedly racist author which is, itself, in some places racist? The answer I've always had to this question is a qualified yes. Obviously the work must be recognized as containing racist elements. The same goes for ANY complicated work produced outside of the reader's "home" culture. Ovid and his Greek predecessors think nothing of rape, for example. Does this mean we throw away Ovid and the Greeks? No.
This corollary to the much-debated Lovecraft Question has the possibility of an interesting twist. On the one hand, it seems simpler to answer a fortiori. If it's ok to enjoy (racist) Lovecraft's (racist) stories, surely it must be ok to enjoy (homophobic) Orson Scott Card's (non-homophobic) stories. But that belies an essential difference between Orson Scott Card and H.P. Lovecraft: Orson Scott Card is still alive.
He is one of the great's in science fiction. Few would dispute that. Yet, he is also a vile human being possessed of vomitous agendas and idiotic religious convictions.
The reason his being alive makes a difference is this: in a direct way, purchasing things written by Orson Scott Card rewards him. Because I despise him, in no way would I want to reward him. Regardless of the art he has created, I personally find him repugnant. Surely, some people will be fine with his personal views, and that is their right. But I will not spend a scent in support of such a man.
What does that mean? Does it mean I am more than willing to rob certain authors of their livelihood based on personally held beliefs? It may. I yearn for good artwork, but I yearn for good people more. I love Orson Scott Card's stories. I would never want them censored, removed, or destroyed. Yet, in my loathing for the man behind the pen, I simply do not wish to enable him to write any further, nor do will I make any effort to ease his place in life.
Perhaps that makes me a dick. But such is life.
The question, then, is whether or not an artist's work stands out as its own object, separately from the artist. This is related to the question of Lovecraft that recently plagued the internet, which I will restate here, in this format: Is it ok to enjoy the fruit of an admittedly racist author which is, itself, in some places racist? The answer I've always had to this question is a qualified yes. Obviously the work must be recognized as containing racist elements. The same goes for ANY complicated work produced outside of the reader's "home" culture. Ovid and his Greek predecessors think nothing of rape, for example. Does this mean we throw away Ovid and the Greeks? No.
This corollary to the much-debated Lovecraft Question has the possibility of an interesting twist. On the one hand, it seems simpler to answer a fortiori. If it's ok to enjoy (racist) Lovecraft's (racist) stories, surely it must be ok to enjoy (homophobic) Orson Scott Card's (non-homophobic) stories. But that belies an essential difference between Orson Scott Card and H.P. Lovecraft: Orson Scott Card is still alive.
He is one of the great's in science fiction. Few would dispute that. Yet, he is also a vile human being possessed of vomitous agendas and idiotic religious convictions.
The reason his being alive makes a difference is this: in a direct way, purchasing things written by Orson Scott Card rewards him. Because I despise him, in no way would I want to reward him. Regardless of the art he has created, I personally find him repugnant. Surely, some people will be fine with his personal views, and that is their right. But I will not spend a scent in support of such a man.
What does that mean? Does it mean I am more than willing to rob certain authors of their livelihood based on personally held beliefs? It may. I yearn for good artwork, but I yearn for good people more. I love Orson Scott Card's stories. I would never want them censored, removed, or destroyed. Yet, in my loathing for the man behind the pen, I simply do not wish to enable him to write any further, nor do will I make any effort to ease his place in life.
Perhaps that makes me a dick. But such is life.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Ever Changing Appendix N
I've been thinking recently about the sea-change in pen and paper attitudes that marks the difference between the old, hard, "realistic" games from the 70s and the newer, shinier, "fun" games from the now. Since the OSR blogosphere is abuzz with additions to, discoveries in, and reviews of things from Appendix N, my thoughts recently turned to what exactly is going on here in the pen and paper world. Games have certainly changed, and they have changed because the people who play them have changed. Gygax was 36 when he and Arneson released the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons (or so my rapid and poor calculation skills tell me). He certainly wasn't in high school, and he already had a lifelong dedication to wargaming.
But that's not the big difference. The difference between games of today and games of yesteryear are their Appendix N. What sources do they draw on? What the are they trying to be, trying to emulate? What's the feel that inspired them? It's different now than it used to be, in large part because the intended audience of D&D keeps getting younger. Like a cigarette company, Hasboro wants to hook 'em young, hook 'em strong, and keep 'em stringing along. TSR had bad penetration into the very young demographics, probably because of the language of their books and the relatively strenuous weight placed on simulation.
But that's not the big difference. The difference between games of today and games of yesteryear are their Appendix N. What sources do they draw on? What the are they trying to be, trying to emulate? What's the feel that inspired them? It's different now than it used to be, in large part because the intended audience of D&D keeps getting younger. Like a cigarette company, Hasboro wants to hook 'em young, hook 'em strong, and keep 'em stringing along. TSR had bad penetration into the very young demographics, probably because of the language of their books and the relatively strenuous weight placed on simulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)