mbassoc2003 wrote:You can't seriosly be trying to tell the forum that this had anything to do with 'research'
sauromatian wrote:Well, okay. How then would one go about research? What is the legitimate fair-use method for making a rare 1970s text available for historical work?
TheHistorian wrote:A library or a person loans it to the researcher.
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Most rare documents involved in real historical research are public domain, and therefore copyright ownership is not an issue for the most part. Such resources are held by institutions, not individuals, institutions that have procedures to follow to enable qualified researchers access.None of us here are historians of gaming; we're hobbyists. There is no "legitimate" research. We're not scholars. I can proclaim that I'm going to go around and feel the bumps on people's skulls--it doesn't make me a phrenologist. Let's get a grip here. There is little to no value to the wider society in "research" into obscure gaming items.
Badmike wrote:That's a subjective decision based on present day concerns. At one time, I'm sure scholarly research into comic books, science fiction, Lord of the Rings, pulp heroes or private eyes of the 30s would have been looked at with derision. With the passage of time things that are seen as non-important often become more important in the minds of scholars and researchers.
I cannot predict the future well, and neither can most people. What if someone someday wins a pulitzer or nobel prize for literature and admits their inspiration was a lifetime of reading fantasy and playing Dungeons & Dragons?
What if in 20 years someone directs a LOTR type blockbuster based on the Temple of Elemental Evil, and goes on to become a director with the status of a John Ford, Martin Scorsese, or Steven Spielberg?
Suddenly our hobby becomes a legitimate mainstream subject for research. Tell someone 35 years ago that a newly emerged horror writer named Stephen King would become one of the most published authors of all time (as one of the most influential), with dozens of movies, tv shows and awards to his credit; and the Tolkien trilogy Lord of the Rings would be voted the most influential books of the 20th century and a movie based on them would win the academy award, 99.9% of those told would say you were insane.
History has a habit of sometimes having the most mundane of subjects become important to later generations.
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Most rare documents involved in real historical research are public domain, and therefore copyright ownership is not an issue for the most part. Such resources are held by institutions, not individuals, institutions that have procedures to follow to enable qualified researchers access.
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:None of us here are historians of gaming; we're hobbyists. There is no "legitimate" research. We're not scholars. I can proclaim that I'm going to go around and feel the bumps on people's skulls--it doesn't make me a phrenologist.
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Let's get a grip here. There is little to no value to the wider society in "research" into obscure gaming items.
Badmike wrote:Not a stretch to see Stephen King someday being taught with the same scholarly gravitas as Dickens is nowadays.
TheHistorian wrote:The difference is that Dickens was a good writer.
stratochamp wrote:i think Dickens is wonderful. and will continue to be read for hundreds of years. of course i also expect that led zeppelin will stand the test of time (and not many of their legion of critics would have said that while they were active) and while they will not have the critical standing of mozart, beethoven or bach, they will be acknowledged as the masters of blues based rock, so what do i know.... but i digress. i wanted to comment on MetSigmas comment that we are not historians. i am not a paid historian, but as i have stated too often, i collect so as to save these items for posterity (or for as long as the lousy pulp judges guild paper will last). new collectors occasionally contact me inquiring if i am willing to sell this or that item that they've seen on my wall; i have no inform them that then i would just need another copy (i do happily sell doubles of items that aren't extremely rare). items come in, but they don't go back out. i suppose some might refer to this as hoarding, but my take is while i might not be an historian, i'm preserving things such that will still exist when(if?) the time comes that they are perceived to be worthy of study by legitimate historians. oh and yes i like to play too. with the doubles of course.
JasonZavoda wrote:I disagree. While I don't care for Stephan King I also don't care for Dickens. As a writer he fails to interest me. I don't care for his style, his characters or his prose. I won't classify Dickens as a good writer because other people enjoy him (though I have met few who have) or because some person in the past classified him as good. There are some strong similarities between the popularity of Dickens and Stephan King so I actually find the comparison apt.
Badmike wrote:In comparison, Stephen King has also knocked a few out of the park: Shawshank Redemption, The Body (the movie "Stand By Me"), Apt Pupil (can't remember the movie based on this but it was pretty good), Misery (both book and movie are one of the great thrillers of the 20th century). I agree with acclaimed critic S.T. Joshi that kings supernatural stories are far inferior to his other works, as they seem to go on too long and don't have the writing chops of his shorte works.
