[smascrns]

Originally Posted by Bochi

You're being inconsistent now, Sergio.

I can't see where or why. In the way I interpret Lev's view? In my own views about the issue?

If film critics can see the charm and brilliance of the original King Kong without being distracted by the lack of CGI and color, then they *can* make allowances for history.

Well, I can see the charm and brilliance of old films since many of my preferred ones are from the 30s/40s. I don't need mo make allowances for history, though.

You told me they *should not* do this for AD&D because it was a game and not a work of art
Now you are saying that they *cannot* do this for AD&D for some mysterious reason that eludes everybody else.

I really don't get what you're speaking about. I was presenting my understanding of what Lev thinks. Granted, I may be wrong about this, but when I do it I'm not saying what I think about proper criticism.

In any case it is not a black and white thing. Reviewing a product with recognition of the historical context it occupies is not the same thing as pretending the next 30 years never happened. And reviewing a product for a contemporary audience is not the same thing as pretending that it was published yesterday.

Let me tell you something, my basic academic training is in Law under the European Continental tradition. It has a very, very strong hermeneutical basis (meaning, theory of interpretation). One of those key discussion points is about history and interpretation of regulations, where these should follow an historical perspective or an "actualist" perspective. There's no final answer to this issue, of course. I'm telling all of this just to the point to the fact that this is not a new issue and that I had to deal with it in much more critical contexts (applying Law as compared with discussing rpgs). So, I'm not ready to accept poorly framed arguments about this kind of issues (and I'm not speaking about you).
Critical analysis requires an historical perspective that factors into it the past and the present. But at the end, if you are to give a recomendation you have to decide what is more important, the past that is gone or the present. Lev thinks that the present is more important. So do I.

However, I'm beginning to realise that the main problem with reviewing the AD&D books is doing them singly instead of looking at the system as a whole and how it divides between the three core books, the settings, the modules and supplements. What you end up with is, I think, rather more than something that's only appropriate for a "single unit wargame".

This is a very important issue about the metodology of reviewing games. The problem is that we have to deal with books that are published separately, so we need to look at them both as part of a whole and as independent products. The fault is not only with the reviewer.