| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 05 Jun 2015 : 20:43:19
Even if there wasn't a character limit, I don't think I could've formulated the subject line very well. 
To explain what I mean: I'm wondering how much say Wizards has over the content that its authors write? Specifically, to what level of detail does their control extend?
I've tried to gather information about this indirectly, but it's gotten to the point where it's difficult to distinguish between different authors being willing to reveal different amounts of things and some authors being able to reveal certain things that other authors aren't due to different levels of "WotC clearance" (is that even a thing?)
So what I'm trying to find out is:
A) Is there, in fact, a "levels of WotC clearance" type thingy that's more lax on some authors than others?
B) How much does WotC control?
To give an example, I was joking around with one of the FR authors in a public post on his Facebook regarding the sexuality of his characters. He stated a clear confirmation regarding one of the subjects. On the other hand, Jarlaxle's sexuality has been something that's been questioned for a long time now, and RAS will hint at Jarlaxle being bi/pan but never confirm it one way or the other. Is what I've observed as the difference between RAS and the other author a matter of their personal styles? Or does WotC have more of a license on Jarlaxle, so that RAS isn't at liberty to decide one way or another on his own?
Thanks much. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 18 Jun 2015 : 07:36:56
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I've been around since the OGB as well, but I guess we each walk away with a different idea of The Forgotten Realms. But isn't that the beauty of it?
*raises glass* Excellent point, sir! |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jun 2015 : 03:17:06
So MT, is what you're saying, basically, that the OGB had a lot of "grey" going on in it?   |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Jun 2015 : 00:47:11
In the early supplement The Savage North, orcs were mentioned (in the High Forest) as living alongside the elves of the forest. Certainly not friends, but there was an 'uneasy truce' going on. Both staunchly defended the forest itself from outsiders, so they had common interests. Those orcs did not raid, and certainly were not 'evil' - they were just savage and wanted to be left alone.
Another early supplement - Old Empires - had a half-orc ruling a city.
On the flip-side, we had several mentions of 'highly xenophobic elves' in forests all over the Realms, most of whom 'shot first and asked questions later' (even against other elves). Evil humans are a given, but we also had many examples of 'evil dwarves' (and even an evil dwarven realm) and even a few 'bad apple' halflings. As for gnomes - their 'dark' cousins were literally called grey (they were more neutral than good or evil).
I've been around since the OGB as well, but I guess we each walk away with a different idea of The Forgotten Realms. But isn't that the beauty of it? If each of us sees something differently - after reading the same exact paragraph(s) - then you really can't get much more 'shades of grey' then that. I recall having heated arguments with LordKarsus (on the WotC boards) about the same exact entries in the GHotR - we each read the same entries and got a totally different take from them. Thats what makes Faerûn feel so real to me - everyone interprets the events differently... just like the RW.
Sure, the top layers (stuff we read) may seem a little B&W, but its the stuff that isn't mentioned - those 'hidden layers' - thats where all those shades of grey are hiding. When the goodly wizard 'Wooldolpho the kind' is said to 'disappear for months at a time', you may see him off doing charity work in Tethyr... I may see him as raping goblins in Chult. We may never know what he was really doing... and thats how FR shines. We can make it our own. |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 23:13:35
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Greyhawk was VERY B&W - ALL Drow were evil, so were all orcs, etc. The Greyhawk Wars tried to blur the lines a bit with Rary becoming a traitor and everything else, but at the end of the day, it was still very much B&W.
With The Forgotten Realms, I never really saw that. I always saw many shades of grey. Elminster - who is often looked upon like FR's "superman" is morally ambiguous, just less so then most others. The Blackstaff is as morally ambiguous as you get - he made deals with the Zhentarrim and is all about 'the greater good' (as HE sees it... which is a slippery slope). Remember, part of Elminster (FR's closest thing to a 'real good guy') was tasked by Mystra to protect the Red Wizards (be destroying the Simbul even, if necessary!) The Chosen aren't the 'Justice League' because they are NOT 'fighting for good', they are there to promote magic. It just so happens the best way to
do that is in open and free societies... so 'good' is byproduct of what they are really doing. Halaster, Larloch, and so many others have also played both sides when the mood suits them.
We have a couple of 'Mustache twirlers', and even a few 'boyscouts' (and girlscouts) type villains and heroes, but even they have been shown to have their questionable moments (like Wulfgar becoming an angry drunk).
So in reality, I think it was 3rd edition that embraced this 'Shades of Grey' thing almost to a fault, and 4th tried to reset things back to be more 'generic D&D', or B&W, and thats when they got the severe fan backlash. They tried to define things TOO much, and in FR, its so much better when things are left vague. Thats what makes Ed's world feel so REAL - you never really sure about anyone's motives.
Nope - the Realms doesn't blur lines... because there never really were any to blur. 
If you look at when I came into the setting, there was a lot of B&W going on. The greybox had orcs and goblinoids as evil, there were no misunderstood monsters, the heroes were painted with flair and there were Snidely Whiplashes everywhere. The novels in that time were similar but you have to remember TSR's draconian rules on novels.
However, coming from the gaming side of the setting and running the Realms in a more B&W, Tolkienesque way it was a shock to see how the novel setting differed from the implied standard of the game setting. Now I know WOTC began to change that but when you see the setting go from the above to more grey in a matter of 14 years (setting time, not real time) it can be a shock to many. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 23:13:34
Much like what Markus neatly summarized, I've always perceived the Realms to contained varied shades of gray by default, more so than was shown during the cautious "Keystone Cops" days of foolish Zhents and bumbling villains. The marketing is another matter, because when Eberron came about, it was marketed as the pulpy, morally ambiguous setting to the Realms' shining high fantasy B&W utopia. That was a mistake.
This unfairly pigeonholed the Realms into a very narrow definition when we've always seen some of the gray shades peek through when the authors could sneak them pass the editors; and in recent years, 3E onwards, the editors are much on the same boat as the authors on this issue.
The loss of support from some fans stems not from this "gritty" outlook, that was present in the 3E already. There are many others things contributing to backlash. A big part of it (IMO) was the hypocrisy of what the 4E team said versus what they did. In part this is due to the claim to aim for the gritty side (points of light), but over reaching and ended up making aspects seem caricatures of the dark fantasy tropes, many of which were unnecessary as there are similar examples available in the former Realms.
There was a certain complexity of things, all balanced on a razor edge, that made the old Realms feel plausible but tenuous. By stripping it away, the simplified setting tipped over and the new status quo rang false despite the marketing claiming it was the newly improved and darker Realms. The shades of gray in the Old Realms worked because there was enough light to make it feel bearable, likeable even, and a worthwhile place to make home. It had true shades of gray.
The New Realms, due to emphasis on these darker components without the rest of the systems in place built up over the years, removes that likeability, while keeping all the dull and dark components. I wouldn't even call it dark since it has moved a bit into caricature going by what I've read and what is being discussed here.
So I would suppose it's not wrong to say the Realms' fall in popularity is due to the encroaching gritty trend, but it's not due to a so called Shades of Gray that was already present. I would say the setting started to feel too "grimdark" and that can be laughable if taken too seriously (i.e. Warhammer treads similar lines, has its successes and has its silly moments). |
| Markustay |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 16:35:45
Greyhawk was VERY B&W - ALL Drow were evil, so were all orcs, etc. The Greyhawk Wars tried to blur the lines a bit with Rary becoming a traitor and everything else, but at the end of the day, it was still very much B&W.
With The Forgotten Realms, I never really saw that. I always saw many shades of grey. Elminster - who is often looked upon like FR's "superman" is morally ambiguous, just less so then most others. Remember, Elminster (FR's closest thing to a 'real good guy') was tasked by Mystra to protect the Red Wizards (be destroying the Simbul even, if necessary!) The Blackstaff is as morally ambiguous as you get - he made deals with the Zhentarrim and is all about 'the greater good' (as HE sees it... which is a slippery slope). The Chosen aren't the 'Justice League' because they are NOT 'fighting for good', they are there to promote magic. It just so happens the best way to do that is in open and free societies... so 'good' is byproduct of what they are really doing. Halaster, Larloch, and so many others have also played both sides when the mood suits them.
We have a couple of 'Mustache twirlers', and even a few 'boyscouts' (and girlscouts) type villains and heroes, but even they have been shown to have their questionable moments (like Wulfgar becoming an angry drunk).
So in reality, I think it was 3rd edition that embraced this 'Shades of Grey' thing almost to a fault, and 4th tried to reset things back to be more 'generic D&D', or B&W, and thats when they got the severe fan backlash. They tried to define things TOO much, and in FR, its so much better when things are left vague. Thats what makes Ed's world feel so REAL - you're never really sure about anyone's motives.
Nope - the Realms doesn't blur lines... because there never really were any to blur. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 08:10:42
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
I'm more interested in reading the book now, since it pushes boundaries. Troy didn't cross a line IMHO. It has more to do with America's ingrained puritanical roots, but yet its penchant for blood sport and violence. Even the more liberal among us still get easily outraged by scenes on television and movies or what we read in a book.
Yet people buy the books and keep on watching. Go figure.
Ehhhhhh, I should perhaps clarify - this book really doesn't push any boundaries in a way that challenges the reader in the way I think you're thinking. I just think it's very poorly written in that it breaks credibility of the Realms' inherent good-vs-evil defining characteristics.
Game of Thrones, that definitely pushes boundaries. But it does so in a way that is consistent with the meta-reality of GRRM's world. GoT has a fluid dynamic of good and evil, where it's intentionally crafted to go against many classic Tolkien/D&D defining characteristics. In D&D gaming play, and in the Realms, you can go "gritty" and very dark, but ultimately good is good and evil is evil. Many of the complaints about the 4E Realms were because too many shades of grey were loaded into the Realms (non-evil orcs, kindly drow having a population explosion, an influx of Far Realm aberrations and even Drizzt getting confused about blurring lines).
Now for some, they loved that blurring of lines, as the black-n-white good vs evil was swept away in favor of blurred variations of gray. But I think it's one of the things that also pushed people away. I'm also fully aware that many contract authors and designers really strived to push that, partly because they believed the Realms was always that way (and having seen Ed's home Realms, that's partly true). But the canon Realms, it's actually fairly black and white when it comes to questions of good and evil. When an author starts to blur that line, particularly by having a Chosen of the goddess Sune start doing things that are unquestionably evil (perhaps in the name of pragmatism), it breaks trust with the reader. There are expectations in this world: evil is not tolerated by good gods or people, and evildoers get their comeuppance.
Violate that expectation, and it's bad writing. It's offensive to the reader's known expectations and beliefs about that universe. People would similarly hate GRRM if he, for instance, flipped over to a typical Tolkien-esque heroic/high-fantasy worldview.
I would say read it if you want to see what happens in the book, but don't read it if you are just doing so to find boundary-pushing or grittiness. It really has neither, IMO. It's just bad writing, because after having been used and violated by someone she'd considered a friend, Arietta should have had far more of a reaction than she did - even if you're only considering how close she was being pushed to commit suicide.
I will say, I also got to a similar place of disgust with one of Salvatore's novels - I think it was perhaps Neverwinter. There's a scene where Drizzt is talking with a commoner woman and she basically describes how no one is trustworthy anymore: not her fellow villagers, who were murdering each other over vegetables, not any of the people in various organizations, etc. The imagery painted in that moment of the common people was completely contrary to how I've viewed the Realms for years. I suppose it was meant to display how gritty and dark the world had become, but honestly it felt like bad parody.
|
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 17:05:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Things are changing, and society is coming to accept broader definitions of sexuality than what was acceptable before -- but we've got a long way to go, there. Because of that, I think that we're still several years away from WotC giving us a novel with a prominent gay male protagonist.
Prominent, and out, perhaps. But there are at least two gay male characters (Mehen and Maranth Goldfeather) in Erin's Fire in the Blood, and I'm fairly sure that Ashes of the Tyrant, which focuses a lot on Mehen’s story, is going to feature the twins’ adoptive dragonborn father fairly prominently.
(Edited for a spacing issue.) |
| Rymac |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 08:36:38
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I am intrigued by Eltheron's post above though. When you say "crossed the line", do you mean "shouldn't have featured at all" or was there something about the scene that wasn't fit to publish? Rape is an unfortunate fact of our human existence. It also exists in the animal world as I recall.
If we can write about murder wthout blinking an eye, why can't authors write about rape? This query flows on also from the recent Game of Thrones hullabaloo. Watching or reading about a murder scene doesn't make me want to kill someone. Same with rape, incest, joining a circus and worshipping Odin. I'm reading about a made up place with made up people and made up events.
I'm clearly not getting it. What did Troy do that "crossed the line"?
-- George Krashos
I'm more interested in reading the book now, since it pushes boundaries. Troy didn't cross a line IMHO. It has more to do with America's ingrained puritanical roots, but yet its penchant for blood sport and violence. Even the more liberal among us still get easily outraged by scenes on television and movies or what we read in a book.
Yet people buy the books and keep on watching. Go figure. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 08:15:00
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
It's in the book, so it happened. There's no question that Joelle magically charmed Arietta with a Chosen-empowered charm and had sex with her (off page). Arietta was confused afterwards, once the charm had worn off. The only real question is whether or not the reader interprets it as a rape. It's really not much different than slipping someone a drug - and remember, Joelle's intention was to ultimately get Arietta to commit suicide "for love" (she didn't), so the deeper intent for violent harm was there.
And like I said, people should read the book themselves and make their own conclusions. In my opinion you're greatly exaggerating those scenes in the book. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 05:01:49
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
<The sad story of the teenager who died, and for which D&D was wrongly blamed>
Thank you for finding that story; I'm not sure I was aware of the entire tale.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I had completely forgotten that he happened to be gay.
That might've been yet another reason why TPTB had been so reluctant to feature a gay male figure in the stories.
I think it's more a fact that until quite recently, American society has not being kind to those who are not heterosexual. Even now, with LGBT rights coming more and more to the forefront and LGBT people finding more acceptance than before, there is still a significant amount of anti-LGBT sentiment in the US.
Given that D&D has been primarily aimed at heterosexual American males for a very long time, it does make a certain amount of sense that WotC would be reluctant to push the boundaries with their audience. I'm not saying this is right; I'm saying that in the business world, there is very much an attitude of maintaining the status quo, as long as that status quo is profitable.
Things are changing, and society is coming to accept broader definitions of sexuality than what was acceptable before -- but we've got a long way to go, there. Because of that, I think that we're still several years away from WotC giving us a novel with a prominent gay male protagonist. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 02:25:33
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Take Troy Denning's Sundering novel, The Sentinel, which featured not only a magically-assisted lesbian seduction but what IMO was an off-page rape between two female main characters. It may not have been intended to be rape, but casting an enhanced magical charm on an apparently straight woman and getting her to have lesbian sex crossed the line IMO.
And as always I advise people to actually read the novel and judge this for themselves.
It's in the book, so it happened. There's no question that Joelle magically charmed Arietta with a Chosen-empowered charm and had sex with her (off page). Arietta was confused afterwards, once the charm had worn off. The only real question is whether or not the reader interprets it as a rape. It's really not much different than slipping someone a drug - and remember, Joelle's intention was to ultimately get Arietta to commit suicide "for love" (she didn't), so the deeper intent for violent harm was there.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I haven't read The Sentinel yet. I may not as I don't think the 5E Realms is going anywhere at the moment and my energies can be devoted in more productive FR areas, but I digress.
I am intrigued by Eltheron's post above though. When you say "crossed the line", do you mean "shouldn't have featured at all" or was there something about the scene that wasn't fit to publish? Rape is an unfortunate fact of our human existence. It also exists in the animal world as I recall.
If we can write about murder wthout blinking an eye, why can't authors write about rape? This query flows on also from the recent Game of Thrones hullabaloo. Watching or reading about a murder scene doesn't make me want to kill someone. Same with rape, incest, joining a circus and worshipping Odin. I'm reading about a made up place with made up people and made up events.
I'm clearly not getting it. What did Troy do that "crossed the line"?
-- George Krashos
It's not so much that rape or murder or horrible things are presented as story elements in books or movies, even in Forgotten Realms adventure novels. There has been over the past few years to have FR feel more "gritty" to draw in a larger audience.
What's offensive IMO and "crossed the line" (again, for me) is that two specific things are tied to the rape:
1) You have a Chosen agent of a good goddess (ostensibly) that has engaged in a highly evil act (again, the ultimate goal was to magically convince Arietta to commit a suicide "sacrifice"), and she's still considered "good" (no loss of powers or contact with her goddess Sune.
2) It's completely glossed over in the novel. Beyond Arietta's confusion and some loss of trust, nothing more is really said about the evil act that happened (magically forced sex) or much about the goal of getting someone to suicide "for love".
And hey, it's fine if people disagree. But I think this is absolutely on topic considering the thread's direction. I'm not lecturing now, and I wasn't lecturing when I mentioned it before. I'm merely explaining how I perceived the events in that book, and my reasons why.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 01:28:01
Count me less than enthused to see this topic come up again; last time the issue of rape was presented in an extremely insensitive manner.
Nobody is interested in being lectured to again, especially those of us who've experienced rape first hand. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 16 Jun 2015 : 00:22:08
I haven't read The Sentinel yet. I may not as I don't think the 5E Realms is going anywhere at the moment and my energies can be devoted in more productive FR areas, but I digress.
I am intrigued by Eltheron's post above though. When you say "crossed the line", do you mean "shouldn't have featured at all" or was there something about the scene that wasn't fit to publish? Rape is an unfortunate fact of our human existence. It also exists in the animal world as I recall.
If we can write about murder wthout blinking an eye, why can't authors write about rape? This query flows on also from the recent Game of Thrones hullabaloo. Watching or reading about a murder scene doesn't make me want to kill someone. Same with rape, incest, joining a circus and worshipping Odin. I'm reading about a made up place with made up people and made up events.
I'm clearly not getting it. What did Troy do that "crossed the line"?
-- George Krashos |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 15 Jun 2015 : 19:52:24
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Take Troy Denning's Sundering novel, The Sentinel, which featured not only a magically-assisted lesbian seduction but what IMO was an off-page rape between two female main characters. It may not have been intended to be rape, but casting an enhanced magical charm on an apparently straight woman and getting her to have lesbian sex crossed the line IMO.
And as always I advise people to actually read the novel and judge this for themselves. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 15 Jun 2015 : 19:23:30
<The sad story of the teenager who died, and for which D&D was wrongly blamed>
I had completely forgotten that he happened to be gay.
That might've been yet another reason why TPTB had been so reluctant to feature a gay male figure in the stories. |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 15 Jun 2015 : 18:39:40
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Mild-to-moderate LGBT content is, from a media standpoint, popular right now. If an author wants to include a gay character, so long as it doesn't cross certain lines (i.e. no really overt sexual scenes), it's going to get in a novel.
Which makes me wonder if a line is not being crossed into exploitation for the sake of profit. What I am seeing lately seems to be a strategy to get more customers so they go with, as Sno4wy puts it, the checklist. So they add in things that would seem to be inclusive but are really ideas to generate sales and increase the bottom line. If that is the case then it is a more extreme form of 'greenwashing' where companies spun their products to look more environmentally friendly when they were not.
If this is the case then everyone suffers from being used for sales and exploited based on current trends. As well, the story lines will suffer when new checklists are made and new tokens are shoehorned into stories for no other reason then to look trendy. Of course, this is all speculation but is something I have been thinking about lately. |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 15 Jun 2015 : 17:25:43
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
I was a different type of dedicated gamer for a very long time (of the digital sort ;P), and I could care less about the philosophies of why we as heroes must slay that which represents the anathema of our values.
You no take candle!
quote:
Oh boy this is all such fascinating information. Teach me more sensei. m(_ _)m
Senpai has finally noticed you.
In terms of what WotC controls, it's everything. Authors are contracted to include specific outlines, and editors keep them on a leash the length of which depends on their record.
Mild-to-moderate LGBT content is, from a media standpoint, popular right now. If an author wants to include a gay character, so long as it doesn't cross certain lines (i.e. no really overt sexual scenes), it's going to get in a novel.
Their editors also can slip up or be lazy. Take Troy Denning's Sundering novel, The Sentinel, which featured not only a magically-assisted lesbian seduction but what IMO was an off-page rape between two female main characters. It may not have been intended to be rape, but casting an enhanced magical charm on an apparently straight woman and getting her to have lesbian sex crossed the line IMO.
So it's a combination of things - authors with a track record of good sales and holding close to the outline probably are given more room to include their own personal elements. Ultimately, though, WotC will put a stop to anything they don't want or think would be bad for sales. |
| GungHo |
Posted - 15 Jun 2015 : 15:22:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think a large part of it was Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" tract. There was also a kid somewhere that killed himself, and it was somehow decided that it was because he played D&D. The kid in question had a lot of issues, but that was ignored in favor of the rising paranoia about D&D.
There was also some parents' group that rose around that time, Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons (BADD).
I recall, around '89 or so, flipping thru the channels and seeing some show on a religious channel where they were talking about the evils of D&D. In particular, I recall one young man claiming that after playing D&D, he heard voices in his head telling him he couldn't be around his friends when they decided to pray.
I think a large part of it was the generational thing of kids liking something their parents didn't understand, and/or parents not liking this new thing their kids were doing because it wasn't what they (the parents) had done, when younger.
There was even a very early Tom Hanks TV movie about the dangers of crazy D&D people... [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes_and_Monsters]Mazes and Monsters[/url], to go along with the Phil Donahue specials. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Jun 2015 : 16:52:03
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I can't put my finger on a specific source at the moment, but this might jog some other scribe's memory. The Satanism/demonology/drug scare of the early '80s really gave D&D a black eye. This lead to tons of changes in the mid-to-late '80s to try to soften D&D's image a bit. Demons were renamed tanar'ri, the assassin class was deleted from the inventory, and there was even a Saturday morning cartoon!
With all that in mind, could you possibly see why TSR, and later even WOTC, might be reluctant to feature any prominent gay male characters? I'm not defending any such reluctance. I'm just asking if you could understand it.
Now, in addition to that, my understanding is that part of the reason why WOTC was able to acquire D&D from TSR was because WOTC was a bit more conservative than the original publisher. WOTC knew how to manage its money better. Perhaps this also meant being more risk-averse? If so, then WOTC's legacy could, in this sense at least, be both a blessing and a curse.
I'm extremely interested if anyone remembers anything about the source! I was born in the mid-80s, and the scare that you mentioned simply wasn't taught to me in any of my history classes. I wouldn't even know to research into it until now! :O
Oh boy this is all such fascinating information. Teach me more sensei. m(_ _)m
I think a large part of it was Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" tract. There was also a kid somewhere that killed himself, and it was somehow decided that it was because he played D&D. The kid in question had a lot of issues, but that was ignored in favor of the rising paranoia about D&D.
There was also some parents' group that rose around that time, Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons (BADD).
I recall, around '89 or so, flipping thru the channels and seeing some show on a religious channel where they were talking about the evils of D&D. In particular, I recall one young man claiming that after playing D&D, he heard voices in his head telling him he couldn't be around his friends when they decided to pray.
I think a large part of it was the generational thing of kids liking something their parents didn't understand, and/or parents not liking this new thing their kids were doing because it wasn't what they (the parents) had done, when younger. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 14 Jun 2015 : 16:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
Surprisingly I liked the Drizzt novels all the way through the Hunter's Blades trilogy. They reminded me of the Elric saga quite a bit.
Through the Hunter's Blades trilogy? Oh man, you're made of tougher stuff than I am! I couldn't read a chapter of Drizzt lamentations without screaming out loud, "STOP BEING EMO AND JUST GO HOME AND CHECK ON THEM FFS!!!" The only thing that kept me going through the whine storm was the knowledge that I'd see Entreri again during Neverwinter.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
You may be surprised that I find the whole idea of women only having a few roles in fantasy to be annoying. Especially when stories only give two uses for women. One of the things that turned me off Robert E. Howard was that while he did have strong female roles in some of his stories, he still went to using tropes that many find distasteful.
Nah, not surprised, but certainly glad. :) I assume that everybody who frequents the Candlekeep forums would be intelligent enough to not harbor bigotted perspectives. I mean, it takes a certain threshold of brains to be able to enjoy D&D, and I find that threshold coincides with the one needed to think with an open mind. Sometimes, there are the exceptions to the rule, but I haven't encountered any on Candlekeep yet, and hope that I never will. :D
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
My only real standard is if it fits the story. I have read too many books and watched too many movies that force sex scenes, romances and drop in token characters to please a wider audience. All it ends up doing is ruing the immersion and distracts from the narrative.
This sort of thing is actually what started me down this road that I'm on. One of the biggest issues I have with Salvatore's books is what very much feels like gratuitous lesbian scenes. I feel like, if an author's going to cheapen his work like that, at least do himself a small service and balance it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
As far as the Realms go for me, it is primary a gaming world that I have used since the late 80's. I do read some of the novels but, as I stated above, I tend to like the ones that are adventure driven and are more about the shenanigan's of the characters than some high morality tale. My preference for fantasy has always been the adventure story which I feel WOTC has moved away from.
What I would ultimately like to see is just a few more pure adventure stories come into the fold and keep the other tales going for those that like them.
I understand where you're coming from. I was a different type of dedicated gamer for a very long time (of the digital sort ;P), and I could care less about the philosophies of why we as heroes must slay that which represents the anathema of our values.
While The Sundering series overall was rather disappointment, I did really like Richard Lee Byers' The Reaver. It has fast-paced adventure and some good old-fashioned magic-slinging and swashbuckling fun.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I'm pretty sure that Afafrenfere was mentioned to be romantically involved with another monk in his original band. But yeah, you do have a point that lesbian relationships are far more common.
Correct, Afrafrenfere is canonically capable of being attracted to a member of the same gender as he is, and I did mention this earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
There is a real possibility that the authors themselves just don't want to add this to their stories. I think this is a thorny issue really. On one hand people want the stories they read to be inclusive, but on the other hand, should authors have a checklist that they need to tick while writing to make sure that everyone is represented in their stories? I mean, I also get annoyed when I read a story and start seeing this checklist. But yeah, I'm a heterosexual male, it's easy for me to talk.
OH NOeS, A HETEROSEXUAL MALE! BY THE GODS, SMITE IT WITH FIRE!!! ;P
In all seriousness, you bring up some valid points. I would prefer it if authors left the "checklist" out of their stories, especially if they can't inlcude it properly. It is indeed a thorny issue and extremely challenging to carry off. Which do I prefer to see, a story without the "checklist" or a story with it that falls flat on its face? Honestly, probably the former, even though I would commend the latter's author for trying. Nonetheless, I would prefer either of those to one that includes elements of the "checklist" unnecessarily and unevenly.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I can't put my finger on a specific source at the moment, but this might jog some other scribe's memory. The Satanism/demonology/drug scare of the early '80s really gave D&D a black eye. This lead to tons of changes in the mid-to-late '80s to try to soften D&D's image a bit. Demons were renamed tanar'ri, the assassin class was deleted from the inventory, and there was even a Saturday morning cartoon!
With all that in mind, could you possibly see why TSR, and later even WOTC, might be reluctant to feature any prominent gay male characters? I'm not defending any such reluctance. I'm just asking if you could understand it.
Now, in addition to that, my understanding is that part of the reason why WOTC was able to acquire D&D from TSR was because WOTC was a bit more conservative than the original publisher. WOTC knew how to manage its money better. Perhaps this also meant being more risk-averse? If so, then WOTC's legacy could, in this sense at least, be both a blessing and a curse.
I'm extremely interested if anyone remembers anything about the source! I was born in the mid-80s, and the scare that you mentioned simply wasn't taught to me in any of my history classes. I wouldn't even know to research into it until now! :O
Oh boy this is all such fascinating information. Teach me more sensei. m(_ _)m |
| BEAST |
Posted - 13 Jun 2015 : 16:35:42
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
BEAST, first off, I wanted to thank you for the stimulating discussion.
Hey, I musta done somethin' right, for a change! 
quote:
Forgive me for addressing your points a bit out of order, as I believe I got the answer that I was ultimately looking for. However, there are things that I still wanted to comment on, and wouldn't mind discussing further if you or other people also care to do so. ;P
Bring it! And there's absolutely no need to reply in the same order that I or anybody else laid things out. Set your own priorities, combine points, or feel free to ignore whatever with complete abandon.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Well, you are certainly free to feel off-put by the ambiguity surrounding the Jarlaxle character.
But I would counterargue that Jarlaxle Baenre is not beholden to any human from Oerthe, Earth, or any other world.
OK, right after you thank me for stimulating convo, you go and quote this brief, terse quip from me. Way to make me look like a complete jerk!
quote:
I believe there's some misunderstanding here about what I'm off-put by. I'm fine with ambiguity about Jarlaxle's character (including his sexuality), if it's indeed there primarily out of an intent to add to the overall effect (I believe Ayrik also touched on this point).
Gotcha.
quote:
However, it very much feels like Salvatore doesn't want to call it one way or the other in order to appease both camps on opposite sides of the spectrum. I'm not saying that's what RAS is doing, I'm simply stating why this is frustrating to me.
From personal email conversations with Bob, I would say that he doesn't seem the slightest bit afraid to go there with Jar. Bob discusses absolutely anything with fans, once he gets to know them and trust that they won't immediately go blabbing it out of context to the world.
And I get it if you're frustrated by the way he has handled Jar, so far. It's oh-so-excrutiating waiting for certain details to be touched upon by authors concerning beloved characters, places, or events!
But, honestly, I think Bob has made Jarlaxle seem pretty darn straight to me. Nevertheless, because of the male-bonding side of the character's life, rumors still abound. And so, I think Bob is tickled by the whole situation. So he uses Jar to play with us. To tease us, if you will. He probably feels that he has already made it clear, but we fans still want to read ambiguity into it, so he goes along with us and plays that up.
I didn't just throw that "Dagnabbit" nugget into the conversation for nothing, before. I mentioned it as a reminder that Bob Salvatore likes to play fun and and games with his fans in his stories. He's a joker and a goof. And Jarlaxle is one of his coolest playing pieces.
Some people dress up their dollies (ahem, action figures) in fine clothes. Bob Salvatore hurtles his characters through high adventure, soul-searching introspection, and ambiguously gay buddy moments.
quote:
I agree, if the texts are all that we have to go on. It's my fault for not mentioning it, but in his recent AMAs, Salvatore has hinted at Jarlaxle's nonbinary sexuality, but has not stated concretely either way. I realize that those examples aren't much more grounds to go off of, but they were what I had in mind and I just assumed that everyone was aware of the content of those. In retrospect, that's not a valid assumption at all. I'd imagine some people aren't even aware that he does the Reddit AMAs.
I'm usually busy when he does those events. I've read the transcripts of one of his earlier AMAs, and it looked like things were flying by so fast that it would've been nearly impossible to discern his responses to any particular question, and even harder still for him to be able to answer anything with a satisfying level of detail. Call me old-fashioned and slow, but that's just not for me. I happened to be in the middle of a road trip the last time he did one, and there's no way my phone could've kept up, at the pace of a Reddit AMA.
I would say to consider the medium in which he gave that info about Jarlaxle, whatever it might've been. Being an unofficial chat session, Bob was pretty much free to joke and speculate and titillate all he wanted (as long as he didn't break any NDA). He used to do a Q&A thread on his official forums, back before facebook and AMAs went mainstream, and we all had to take his comments there in stride, too. I just don't think Bob considers what he says at any given time to be "the Law", per sé, so much as what he considers to be right, right then. He's very fluid with his thinking and his outlook. And he smooths it all over with a laugh and a slap on the knee. To my literal, exacting, dwarven mind, that's just anathema! But as fans, we have to afford him that kind of flexibility.
quote:
It's interesting that you mentioned this point, as I've seen it often used as proof by those seeking to assert Jarlaxle as not purely heterosexual. I agree with you, as if I were to follow that other train of thought, then guys graduating from all-boys schools would all not be straight, which simply isn't the case.
Just like with Jarlaxle and Bregan D'aerthe, rumors abound about seamen <"In the Navy">, as well.
But were all the fighter jocks at Top Gun gay, just because only men were allowed to fly combat jets back in the '80s? Are there no female sailors (or civilians) elsewhere in the Navy, or off base? 'Nuff said (methinks).
quote:
Again, I agree with what you've stated, however I'm also uncomfortable with some of the implications of how much the texts tell. [...]
What I was trying to figure out if Bob's vagueness was entirely due to himself, or if WotC was in part breathing down his neck. Do you happen to know if there's anything citeable that I could point at, that sounds more credible than, "Some guy on some forum stated that it's the case"? With all due respect to you of course, BEAST, but not everyone knows of the Candlekeep Forums (INCONCEIVABLE, right? ;P).
I can't put my finger on a specific source at the moment, but this might jog some other scribe's memory. The Satanism/demonology/drug scare of the early '80s really gave D&D a black eye.  This lead to tons of changes in the mid-to-late '80s to try to soften D&D's image a bit. Demons were renamed tanar'ri, the assassin class was deleted from the inventory, and there was even a Saturday morning cartoon! 
With all that in mind, could you possibly see why TSR, and later even WOTC, might be reluctant to feature any prominent gay male characters? I'm not defending any such reluctance. I'm just asking if you could understand it.
Now, in addition to that, my understanding is that part of the reason why WOTC was able to acquire D&D from TSR was because WOTC was a bit more conservative than the original publisher. WOTC knew how to manage its money better. Perhaps this also meant being more risk-averse? If so, then WOTC's legacy could, in this sense at least, be both a blessing and a curse. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 13 Jun 2015 : 01:50:33
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
I'm fine if representation isn't discussed at all, however, in Salvatore's case, as is with many Realms authors, female-female sexual activity takes place, while the mere mention of male non-heterosexuality seems taboo.
I'm pretty sure that Afafrenfere was mentioned to be romantically involved with another monk in his original band. But yeah, you do have a point that lesbian relationships are far more common. Not sure if you can attribute this wholly to WotC though.
There is a real possibility that the authors themselves just don't want to add this to their stories. I think this is a thorny issue really. On one hand people want the stories they read to be inclusive, but on the other hand, should authors have a checklist that they need to tick while writing to make sure that everyone is represented in their stories? I mean, I also get annoyed when I read a story and start seeing this checklist. But yeah, I'm a heterosexual male, it's easy for me to talk. |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 12 Jun 2015 : 23:42:04
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
One of the reasons I quit reading FR novels was due to things like the above. When I sit down to read a fantasy novel, 9 times out of 10 it is for an adventure story. When themes like Orcs are People Too began creeping in and more misunderstood monsters showed up I began to back off. When 4e came around and WOTC said the Realms would be about progressive themes I began rereading my Black Company, Elric and other pulp style novels not to touch another FR book.
The bottom line is that D&D, FR and the novels are a form of escape for me. If I open a book and get what is thinly disguised allegory wrapped in preaching then I will look elsewhere for my entertainment. Which is what I have sadly done.
There's more reading material out there than any single person could consume in their lifetime, so if themes like the ones I brought up bother you, then by all means, find what doesn't. Might I hazard a guess and state that you didn't touch the Drizzt books, then?
Surprisingly I liked the Drizzt novels all the way through the Hunter's Blades trilogy. They reminded me of the Elric saga quite a bit.
quote:
I read as an escape, too. What appeals to me about the Realms, in addition to the magic, mythical creatures and adventures, are the themes of equality that Ed put in place within it. Traditionally, fantasy worlds weren't much of an escape for me, as the only sorts of roles that I'd be casted in would be those of a tavern wench, a coinlass, or other "professions" in that category.
You may be surprised that I find the whole idea of women only having a few roles in fantasy to be annoying. Especially when stories only give two uses for women. One of the things that turned me off Robert E. Howard was that while he did have strong female roles in some of his stories, he still went to using tropes that many find distasteful.
quote:
I love the realms because, as Ed designed them, people should be blinking at variant sexualities as much as they'd be blinking at variant skintones. It takes away from my escape when sexuality is fetishized, just as when women were objectified. I'm fine if representation isn't discussed at all, however, in Salvatore's case, as is with many Realms authors, female-female sexual activity takes place, while the mere mention of male non-heterosexuality seems taboo.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. While I am in the camp of preferring non-discussion the festishizing gets old very quickly. First you have chainmail bikini's then every drow female is a dominatrix and then we get worse. Part of this still comes from the majority of readers being younger males. I can't tell you where the other part comes from.
quote:
I don't actively look for these themes in books. However, I always look at the content that is presented. I had a discussion in another thread about the (un)necessity of romance in FR novels, and my stance about this stuff is the same as my stance about romance in that one: I don't actively look for it, but if the author chooses to include it, I sure as heck am going to examine it critically and hold the author to standards of equality.
My only real standard is if it fits the story. I have read too many books and watched too many movies that force sex scenes, romances and drop in token characters to please a wider audience. All it ends up doing is ruing the immersion and distracts from the narrative.
As far as the Realms go for me, it is primary a gaming world that I have used since the late 80's. I do read some of the novels but, as I stated above, I tend to like the ones that are adventure driven and are more about the shenanigan's of the characters than some high morality tale. My preference for fantasy has always been the adventure story which I feel WOTC has moved away from.
What I would ultimately like to see is just a few more pure adventure stories come into the fold and keep the other tales going for those that like them. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 12 Jun 2015 : 14:23:54
Blueblade -- Thanks for the info!
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
What's with wikispeak? Let's call things their own names: in 99 cases of 100, it's plain catering.
All right, no more wikispeak, just straight talk (no pun intended ;D). I like that and actually prefer it that way, I just didn't have a feel for how lightly I should tred and didn't want to appear to be charging in here with wands blazing.
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Salvatore definitely gets more leeway with WOTC and editors for that matter. Otherwise his annoying "with abandon" phrase wouldn't be used on every other page of his books.
Let's not forget "magnificent" and "fine" as adjectives for every item of value. Oh, and the sentence structure in which person A performs action X, in which "How person A X-ed!" is used to portray to what a great degree that action is performed. ;P
BEAST, first off, I wanted to thank you for the stimulating discussion. Forgive me for addressing your points a bit out of order, as I believe I got the answer that I was ultimately looking for. However, there are things that I still wanted to comment on, and wouldn't mind discussing further if you or other people also care to do so. ;P
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Well, you are certainly free to feel off-put by the ambiguity surrounding the Jarlaxle character.
But I would counterargue that Jarlaxle Baenre is not beholden to any human from Oerthe, Earth, or any other world.
I believe there's some misunderstanding here about what I'm off-put by. I'm fine with ambiguity about Jarlaxle's character (including his sexuality), if it's indeed there primarily out of an intent to add to the overall effect (I believe Ayrik also touched on this point). However, it very much feels like Salvatore doesn't want to call it one way or the other in order to appease both camps on opposite sides of the spectrum. I'm not saying that's what RAS is doing, I'm simply stating why this is frustrating to me. I don't believe that Rowling is the only author to understand that stating a character's sexuality out of context does not break the character in context. I don't feel that RAS telling us one way or another definitively about Jarlaxle's sexuality will detract from the character's mystique at all. But, then again, that's just my opinion. Other people will likely experience different degrees of immersion resulting from being given such a piece of information.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
All that being said, I should point out that most of the conjecture about Jarlaxle being anything other than purely heterosexual are probably much ado about nothing.
I agree, if the texts are all that we have to go on. It's my fault for not mentioning it, but in his recent AMAs, Salvatore has hinted at Jarlaxle's nonbinary sexuality, but has not stated concretely either way. I realize that those examples aren't much more grounds to go off of, but they were what I had in mind and I just assumed that everyone was aware of the content of those. In retrospect, that's not a valid assumption at all. I'd imagine some people aren't even aware that he does the Reddit AMAs.
quote:
Originally posted by BEASTHe has been the leader of a mostly male criminal organization for centuries, which means that most of his daily dealings have been with other males. This has lead to a certain propensity for male bonding in the stories, which has given rise to all manner of conjecture and speculation.
It's interesting that you mentioned this point, as I've seen it often used as proof by those seeking to assert Jarlaxle as not purely heterosexual. I agree with you, as if I were to follow that other train of thought, then guys graduating from all-boys schools would all not be straight, which simply isn't the case.
quote:
Originally posted by BEASTBut AFAIK, the only actual, overt sexuality that I've ever read about from Jarlaxle has been distinctly of the straight variety. Jarlaxle Baenre appears to be simply secure enough in his heterosexual masculinity that he is perfectly willing to open himself up to questions and insinuations about his sexuality. He's so contentedly unperturbed by such gossip that he doesn't even feel the need to fling his wrist-sheathed daggers into our faces for entertaining the such thoughts.
Again, I agree with what you've stated, however I'm also uncomfortable with some of the implications of how much the texts tell. For instance, until the relatively recent conception of Afrafrenfere, the only characters in Salvatore's "corner" of the realms that have been capable of sexualities other than hetero are exclusively female (please note that I am intentionally leaving out the incident from Entreri's childhood because, in my opinion, pedophilia is a gross perversion and not indicative one way or another about sexuality). Am I to derive from this then that for centuries, that no male non-heterosexual being has existed in Salvatore's side of the world?
Fundamentally, I care little for which way Jarlaxle swings. I admit that it'd be cool if he swung every way, but trying to determine that wasn't the original purpose of my post. In short, you've answered my question with:
quote:
Originally posted by BEASTEither way, I was only showing that the question of Jar's sexuality is not the only issue illustrating that WOTC hasn't tightly clamped down on at least one of its writers.
...
I'm not really sure whether WOTC wants to prevent drama, therefore I don't see any drive on their part to take up your prescription.
What I was trying to figure out if Bob's vagueness was entirely due to himself, or if WotC was in part breathing down his neck. Do you happen to know if there's anything citeable that I could point at, that sounds more credible than, "Some guy on some forum stated that it's the case"? With all due respect to you of course, BEAST, but not everyone knows of the Candlekeep Forums (INCONCEIVABLE, right? ;P).
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Dark
One of the reasons I quit reading FR novels was due to things like the above. When I sit down to read a fantasy novel, 9 times out of 10 it is for an adventure story. When themes like Orcs are People Too began creeping in and more misunderstood monsters showed up I began to back off. When 4e came around and WOTC said the Realms would be about progressive themes I began rereading my Black Company, Elric and other pulp style novels not to touch another FR book.
The bottom line is that D&D, FR and the novels are a form of escape for me. If I open a book and get what is thinly disguised allegory wrapped in preaching then I will look elsewhere for my entertainment. Which is what I have sadly done.
There's more reading material out there than any single person could consume in their lifetime, so if themes like the ones I brought up bother you, then by all means, find what doesn't. Might I hazard a guess and state that you didn't touch the Drizzt books, then?
I read as an escape, too. What appeals to me about the Realms, in addition to the magic, mythical creatures and adventures, are the themes of equality that Ed put in place within it. Traditionally, fantasy worlds weren't much of an escape for me, as the only sorts of roles that I'd be casted in would be those of a tavern wench, a coinlass, or other "professions" in that category. I love the realms because, as Ed designed them, people should be blinking at variant sexualities as much as they'd be blinking at variant skintones. It takes away from my escape when sexuality is fetishized, just as when women were objectified. I'm fine if representation isn't discussed at all, however, in Salvatore's case, as is with many Realms authors, female-female sexual activity takes place, while the mere mention of male non-heterosexuality seems taboo.
I don't actively look for these themes in books. However, I always look at the content that is presented. I had a discussion in another thread about the (un)necessity of romance in FR novels, and my stance about this stuff is the same as my stance about romance in that one: I don't actively look for it, but if the author chooses to include it, I sure as heck am going to examine it critically and hold the author to standards of equality.
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
It can't possibly be easy being a Realms writer with an audience as diverse as that!
That's a universal fact for all writers.
And truly, is it not a universal fact for most professions? ;P |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 11 Jun 2015 : 15:44:55
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
It can't possibly be easy being a Realms writer with an audience as diverse as that!
That's a universal fact for all writers. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 11 Jun 2015 : 05:25:59
On the one hand, Ayrik laments mere pulp.
Then, OTOH, Mr Dark appears to lament Realms literature which strives to be more than mere pulp.
It can't possibly be easy being a Realms writer with an audience as diverse as that! |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 11 Jun 2015 : 03:11:26
One of the reasons I quit reading FR novels was due to things like the above. When I sit down to read a fantasy novel, 9 times out of 10 it is for an adventure story. When themes like Orcs are People Too began creeping in and more misunderstood monsters showed up I began to back off. When 4e came around and WOTC said the Realms would be about progressive themes I began rereading my Black Company, Elric and other pulp style novels not to touch another FR book.
The bottom line is that D&D, FR and the novels are a form of escape for me. If I open a book and get what is thinly disguised allegory wrapped in preaching then I will look elsewhere for my entertainment. Which is what I have sadly done. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 10 Jun 2015 : 20:31:48
I agree that the ambiguity of Jarlaxle's sexual preferences has evolved into something which is now intentionally cryptic. It adds depth and interest to the character and, as said above, it is even a tool the character cultivates for personal advantage. Regardless of personal opinions about sexuality, Salvatore has arguably used characters like Jarlaxle to help engage the curiosity and interest (and maybe also the admiration or even the disgust) of a wider readership who might not otherwise find D&D novels particularly noteworthy. Novels featuring Jarlaxle might evoke strong passions in some readers, but at least they are not forgettable pulp (like so many other FR novels of little note over the years which I've probably read and completely forgotten about).
I think Salvatore's purpose might've originally been to demonstrate - in the less sophisticated and less tolerant earlier decades of fantasy literature - that Jarlaxle is a refined expression of the "perversions" inherent to drow culture. Not judging by today's social criteria, but by our (or perhaps WotC's) prevalent societal perceptions of the 1980s and 90s. At the very least, Jarlaxle has to have "flaws" which justify him being a villain - can't have your good guy harbouring inhuman enmity towards a normal, likable sort of personal nemesis - you need to make your villain look really bad if you want your hero to look really good, after all. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 09 Jun 2015 : 20:34:00
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Well, naming a dwarf "Dagnabbit" and his successors various permutations of that is one thing, but it's another to make the sexuality of a popular character something non-"standard".
Either way, I was only showing that the question of Jar's sexuality is not the only issue illustrating that WOTC hasn't tightly clamped down on at least one of its writers.
quote:
The way that a lot of organizations deal with it is to simply issue a do-not-discuss global ban on it. Thus, in the interest of preventing drama, would WotC rein in on certain issues but not on others?
I'm not really sure whether WOTC wants to prevent drama, therefore I don't see any drive on their part to take up your prescription. Methinks WOTC just wants to avoid certain kinda of drama. For example, WOTC doesn't want to be seen as harboring animosity towards the GLBT community, so it has endeavored to become more openly inclusive of gamers from that community.
That does not mean, however, that it wishes to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, whatsoever.
It could even be argued that taking active steps to be more inclusive toward the GLBT community directly translates into welcoming ambiguity about Jar's sexuality, and accepting any potential controversy that may ensue therefrom.
<Not that there's anything wrong with that!>
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
And it really serves the character to be ambiguous on such a subject. Would a master of manipulation want to paint himself entirely into one corner or the other, or would he prefer to keep his options open, for whatever reason?
I get what you're saying here, but it isn't a matter of one corner or the other. There isn't just one, two or three different types of sexualities. Granted, we've seen Jarlaxle not to be the asexual type, but nonetheless, it isn't a matter of heterosexual vs homosexual. In that case, wouldn't it be just as, if not more, vague to be possibly everything instead of anything?
That last part, whether you want to talk about "everything" or "anything", is exactly what I meant when I inquired whether Jar would want to keep his options open.
Recall that Jarlaxle has bedded at least one copper dragon, in her human form. I am unsure at the present time whether that was the only form in which he partook of her. 
quote:
[...] I can't help but feel that the whole wink-wink nudge-nudge approach is off-putting especially as we're entering an age in which readership desires more diverse representation in literature.
Well, you are certainly free to feel off-put by the ambiguity surrounding the Jarlaxle character.
But I would counterargue that Jarlaxle Baenre is not beholden to any human from Oerthe, Earth, or any other world.
He has been manipulating persons (and dragons) for centuries. His craft is as finely honed as any other weapon in the Realms. And he knows how to wield it as well as any fighter, mage, or cleric you've ever heard tale of.
It behooves Jarlaxle to be and to remain unclear on the subject of his sexuality, because he is in the business of acquiring things from other people. He aims to give a little in order to get a lot. And that means catering to a wide variety of clientele. Therefore, it is best that potential customers not know what his limits are--indeed, if such limits even exist.
All that being said, I should point out that most of the conjecture about Jarlaxle being anything other than purely heterosexual are probably much ado about nothing. He has been the leader of a mostly male criminal organization for centuries, which means that most of his daily dealings have been with other males. This has lead to a certain propensity for male bonding in the stories, which has given rise to all manner of conjecture and speculation. But AFAIK, the only actual, overt sexuality that I've ever read about from Jarlaxle has been distinctly of the straight variety. Jarlaxle Baenre appears to be simply secure enough in his heterosexual masculinity that he is perfectly willing to open himself up to questions and insinuations about his sexuality. He's so contentedly unperturbed by such gossip that he doesn't even feel the need to fling his wrist-sheathed daggers into our faces for entertaining the such thoughts.  |
|
|
