Athelind Speaks

The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)

Favourite edition: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition

Wiiiizarrds? ...With the notable addition of nazis to the whole vibe

Wizardry's 1991 adaptation, which I can't seem to find a decent cover of

I started gaming in the late 1970s, but because I spent most of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s playing other systems entirely, I sort of skipped directly from AD&D1 to Pathfinder 2e.¹ Oh, I had brief flirtations with AD&D2 and D&D3.X, but I skipped 4e and 5e entirely.

¹ Yes, I am counting Pathfinder 1e, 2e, and Remastered as "Editions of D&D". The Paizo pedigree is as valid as any WotC release. Fight me.

I don't know if AD&D1 is my favorite edition (I would certainly rather play Pathfinder, whose mechanics have benefitted from half a century of playtesting and refinement), but I'll always have an affection for it -- especially for those early days, when everyone was playing a mishmash of AD&D1, "Three Little Books" D&D, third-party supplements like The Arduin Grimoire, and whatever house rules they came up with.

For me, the movie that best captures The Spirit of Dungeons & Dragons is 1981's Clash of the Titans.

I'd been playing D&D for three whole years when Clash came out. It's from that strange post-Jaws, post-Star Wars era, where all the studios were pivoting toward the new paradigm of the Summer Blockbuster. They all knew that Star Wars had finally broken Fantastic Adventure free of the B-Movie Genre Ghetto, and were trying to figure out just how to jump on that bandwagon.

Sometimes, they got it right, and gave us other classics like Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and Alien (1979).

Sometimes, they weren't quite sure what they were doing, and we'd get odd artifacts like The Black Hole (1979) ... and Clash of the Titans.

I mean, I'm sure the idea sounded good in the meetings. Ray Harryhausen was one of the Big Names in special effects. He was the genius of stop-motion animation, and had been cranking out well-regarded Saturday Matinee fare since the late 1950s. "Let's give this B-Movie icon an A-List budget and an A-List cast and see what happens!"

What happened looked and felt like a very expensive B movie, full of distinguished actors who never quite seemed in sync with the material.

The plot beats are very D&D, as young Perseus levels up (very very quickly), obtains the various magic items and companions that he needs for his quest (that sword is unquestionably +3 and Vorpal), and wins the day by Clever Use of This Thing He Picked Up rather than whittling away at the kaiju's Hit Points.

Harryhausen's other sword & sorcery excursions -- Jason and the Argonauts, the Sinbad movies -- are hugely influential on the hobby, but they're B-Movies, and they know exactly what they are. Clash, on the other claw, the Very Expensive B Movie, has an awkwardness that really captures that spirit of early D&D, a sense of "we're breaking new ground, we're not sure what we're doing, and the dice may screw us at any point, but whatever this is, it's gonna be BIG."

I've also got to give a nod to 1984's Conan the Destroyer. Yeah, that's right, Arnold Schwarzenegger's second turn in the role. It's not a very good movie, and it's certainly not a better movie than Conan the Barbarian. However, it feels very D&D, in part because it backs away from the Biblical Epic pretensions of Milius' film, in part because it has that B Movie Charm, but most of all, it's because, unlike the first film, it has a full party of D&D archetypes: Barbarian, Wizard, Thief, and, um ... I'm gonna go with "Monk" for Grace Jones.

And if we're allowing TV shows as well as movies, well, then, I've got to include Thundarr the Barbarian.

In the dominant schools of economics, if the empirical data doesn't match the predictions of theory, then the usual conclusion is that the data is at fault: the participants in the studies aren't the "rational actors" of the theory, or there are outside factors that have "corrupted" the experiment, and these should be eliminated rather than incorporated into a revised model.

When I took economics in college, I was taught about "The Tragedy of the Commons" as if it were an historical fact, an enshrined inevitability that had emerged time and again throughout the historical record. I was astonished and aghast to discover, years later, that it was actually the title of an essay written within my lifetime, and almost completely contradicted by the actual institution of the commons, which endured for centuries without the apocalyptic consequences predicted by economic theory.

It is the task of older generations to bear witness to the younger, to recount the events of their lives, so that they are remembered. These personal, first-hand accounts are as important to history as any formal documentation … and because those official accounts often play to an agenda, they are often more important.

In these troubled times, those who have borne witness to the atrocities of the past continue this vital task, standing firm against those who would deny their role in repeating the worst and darkest moments of the last century.

Their words must be heard. There are some things that we must always remember, some things that we must never forget.

But not all of these are hard, dark things. History is more than bleak cruelty. There are moments of light, of hope, of triumph, and it is our duty to remember and share these, as well, to keep that light of hope alive.

I am, as I write, listening to one of those moments, courtesy of https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/, a real-time replay of the Apollo 11 flight. A few minutes ago, I heard Neil Armstrong announce those immortal words: “The Eagle Has Landed.”

I heard them when they were first uttered.

My memories of the Apollo program are entwined with my memories of my mother, who left us not long ago. We watched every one of the Apollo flights, and she kept us home from school to do so on at least one of them. (Of course, one of her Good Republican Cloth Coat acquaintances asked her, “aren’t you worried that they’ll miss something important in school?” I can only image the LOOK Mom must have given them when she responded, “What could be more important than THIS?”) *

I have always suspected that the midsummer scheduling of Apollo 11 was no accident: only the most ardent space flight devotees (like my family) were glued to the television for the dry runs of 8, 9, and 10, but NASA knew that when it was time for the actual landing, the whole world would just stop.

I am aware that much of the manned space program of my childhood was political. The “Space Race” was as much for prestige as for science, a grandiose game of Capture the Flag played to one-up our Soviet counterparts. That’s the official account, these days. That’s the excuse for canceling the last three Apollo missions, the justification for half a century of shoestring budgets. We “won the race,” so why should we still keep running?

I suppose that in the adult world of 1969, this was common knowledge, the enthusiasm leavened with the world-weary cynicism of the times.

But I was five. All I knew about the Soviet Union was that they called their astronauts “cosmonauts.” I didn’t have politics: I had WONDER. I BELIEVED.

I know that I will always see the events of that day through that five-year-old’s eyes … but I have to think that, when the Eagle landed, and a few hours later, when Armstrong took that One Small Step …  for just a day, even just an hour … three and a half billion human beings let themselves believe, too. For all the cynical rhetoric then and now about the Apollo program being a nationalistic publicity stunt … for a brief, fragile moment, this was a victory not just for the United States, but for humanity as a whole.

The truth of Apollo 11 isn’t in the flag they raised, which toppled in the exhaust of their departure and has almost certainly faded in half a century of the hard and unrelenting lunar sunlight. It’s etched in the plaque on the leg of the lunar module, in gleaming stainless steel:

HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH  FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON JULY 1969, A.D.  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND

For all mankind.

Look into the night sky tonight, at the the waning gibbous Moon.

And remember:

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, we reached for the Moon, and had it in our grasp. That we let it go all too soon doesn’t matter: we have touched the sky.

All of us.

In the face of tyranny and cruelty, in the face of catastrophe, remember what we have done, and dare to believe in what we yet can do.

The Eagle Has Landed.

It’s a waxing gibbous moon tonight, not a waning, and I’m not listening to https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/, but everything else I said still holds.

“We came in peace for all mankind.”

Maybe that was all just crepe-paper and glitter draped over cynical politics. Maybe it was just a fantasy.

But Terry Pratchett said it best:

“Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.”

Certainly, all of the emotional resonance still holds true for me. I am certainly of the political and propaganda aspects of this flight, but in this midst of all this hellish turmoil, I am setting those aside to let my inner child embrace that sense of joy and wonder and unity.

We're going back to the moon.

And, yes, "we." Much of the lead-in to yesterday's launch on NASA's streaming service was full of idealistic rhetoric about "discovery and exploration for all", and certainly, there is an element of propaganda there. But I think that for the astronauts and the support staff behind them, those ideals are sincere. The mission patch encapsulates it, with the "AII" deliberately depicted in such a way that it spells "All":

[source]

Life in these Untidy States: They've Given You A Number, and Made You Think It's a Name

Nov. 13th, 2011 10:19 am

It is a classic trope of science fiction that In the Future, We Will Have Numbers Instead Of Names.

In almost every instance of this trope more recent than Ralph 124C 41+, this is a sure sign that you live in a dystopia. It suggests a world in which human concerns are devalued, and society itself is engineered to make it easier for a large, impersonal bureaucracy to track and monitor its citizens subjects.

Over the last few centuries, as Nation-States have arisen and consolidated their power, there has emerged a doctrine that everyone should have one and only one name, used in any and every context; that this is your only "real" name; and that the only possible reasons to use nicknames, pseudonyms, or any alternative to the name recorded in your governmental and financial records are to conceal unsavory practices, or perpetrate outright fraud.

A name that falls outside a limited range of acceptance criteria may not be accepted as a "real" name, and will certainly engender harsh feelings from governmental and corporate bureaucrats inconvenienced by the nonconformity.

As so many things have, this memetic push has accelerated across the close of the 20th Century and the dawn of the 21st.

Be advised, and be aware:

The only difference between this doctrine of "real" names and the dystopian trope of numbers that replace names is the number of bits in your designation.

The intent is to make you easier to track. The intent is to make you a product.

Vernor Vinge warned us, thirty years ago: when someone knows your True Name, they have power over you.

Government watchlists aside, Google and Facebook aren't making money providing you with free email and search and "social networking". They're making money by selling your easily-monitored habits and interests to other corporations. If you operate under more than one name, if you compartmentalize your life and your purchasing power amongst multiple identities, you are diluting their product by making it more difficult to thoroughly profile you—and they consider that intolerable.

Enlightening References:

EFF: Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online

BoingBoing: Google Plus's "Real Name" policy is abusive; Facebook is not a "Real Name" success story

BoingBoing: Why are more people opting for legal name-changes than ever before?

xkcd: Password Strength

Addendum:Lauren Weinstein: The Coming Fascist Internet

(I have noticed, and not without irony, that the same kind of people who once ranted about Social Security Numbers as "the Mark of the Beast" tend to automatically and reflexively agree with the idea that people only have one "real name".)

Postscript: True Names and True Selves

Nov. 16th, 2011 05:44 am

In a response to my post about the Doctrine of "Real" Names, araquan provided the following insight from a Charlie Rose interview [2026 note: Dead Link] with Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg:

Facebook COO Sandberg talked about the power of relationship-based networks, contrasting "the wisdom of crowds to the wisdom of friends." "So that's Google versus Facebook right there," Rose replied. Sandberg didn't agree. She thinks the entire first phase of the Web's development -- which led to "a lot of wonderful things" -- was largely based on "anonymity and links between crowds." The next stage of development, the one Facebook has spearheaded, is built around identity. "The social Web can't exist until you are your real self online," Sandberg said. "I have to be me, you have to be Charlie Rose."

The logical fallacy, of course, is the conflation of "real self" with "legal name". You can't be your "real self" if you're always wondering, "what would my family think of this? What if my boss Googles me?"

I am my "real self" online, and my "social Web" is woven among those who know me as "Athelind" and "Your Obedient Serpent".

That other name?

That's not my "real self", Ms. Sandberg.

That's my banking information, and I know why you want it.

[notes under cut]

Ramadan starts tonight (Feb 17) as well, AND the Winter Olympics are going on. Technically, Ramadan starts tomorrow, but since Islamic days start at sunset, it effectively begins at sunset tonight. So:

Basically, the point of Oscar the Grouch is so that kids know it’s okay to have fucking emotions and moods that aren’t all cheery. That’s the fucking point. And that’s even more important to the kids who are living in harsh realities. Realities where their families are falling apart or they’re not getting food every day or they’re getting abused. Telling them it’s okay to express that they are NOT HAPPY because they are HURTING is so fucking important I cannot even say it. 

Big Bird is nice, but goddamn, when you’re a kid who’s hungry and you just got beat by your caretaker and all you wanna do is hole up somewhere and tell everyone else to go away because you don’t even have words for how bad things feel? Big Bird is not your dude. Cheery happy, “well, let’s play a happy game!” Big Bird ain’t cutting it for you. Oscar the Grouch is your dude. Oscar the Grouch is the dude who tells you it’s okay to put the lid on your garbage can and be alone and be upset.

Big Bird tries to talk you out of being upset (and maybe sometimes that’s okay). But Oscar the Grouch teaches you that, no, it’s okay to be upset and you have every right to stay upset and grouchy and unhappy until you’re at a point where that can change. Oscar the Grouch teaches you that you have a right to your emotions, whatever they are.

On a more advanced level, the point of Oscar is to start teaching kids that it’s okay to have boundaries, it’s okay to want to just go into your trash can (home/safe place) and not be bothered, it’s okay to defend those boundaries and say “go away!” when you want people to go the fuck away and that you can still have a place on Sesame Street. That not everyone has to be shiny, happy Big Bird. 

The fact that people tell you things you like are stupid doesn’t make it’s true. He loves trash. He loves it because it’s trash. That’s important too.

As is the fact that *even though everyone thinks his interests are stupid*, people don’t take his trash away and they don’t drag him out of his can.

Also he has *fantastic* body language. Boundary laden but also very emotional. And just the way he likes stuff and expresses interest…

Nothing frustrates me more than people who talk about whether a presidential candidate would be a “strong leader”. People who want to be led are and always have been the single greatest danger to freedom.

The role of the President is not to lead the country.

The role of the President is to serve the country.

If you think the United States is “choosing a leader” tomorrow, you do not understand American democracy. 

The last year and a half has been a job interview.

August 2015

October 2016

April 2017

July 2017

September 2018

December 2018

June 2019

February 2020

August 2020

May 2021

January 2022

October 2022

April 2023

July 2023

June 2024

February 2025

March 2025

In the 1970s, Don Rosa wrote and drew a comic called The Pertwillaby Papers, first for his college newspaper, then for a comic collector fanzine. Rosa had grown up on the epic Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge tales from comics legend Carl Barks, and The Pertwillaby Papers evolved soon into was a high adventure in the Barks style. One of the first story arcs was actually a stealth sequel/homage to one of Barks' classic Duck stories, with the human cast of the series standing in for the Duck cast.

In the '80s, Disney relaunched its US comics line, and Rosa got the opportunity to write and draw new Duck stories. His first story was an adaptation of that first Pertwillaby arc, with the Ducks taking back their roles from the Pertwillaby cast.

Rosa went on to write Duck stories for Disney for almost twenty years, and is now considered with the same high regard as Barks himself. Eventually, he mined all of the Pertwillaby story arcs for plots and ideas, completing one story left hanging in its original form.