Dear Molotov-

I take issue with your post on a number of levels. Your argument is ill
formed, in that you preface your bull-headed assessment of a profession
that you clearly lack the subtlety to undertake with a speculative
theory on Dumas' ulterior motives. Do not presume to tell a person what
the underlying purpose of their actions is; the bright and talented
citizens of Sapience are by and large perfectly capable of discerning
this on their own. Your opinion is not pertinent to the discussion, and
if you are skeptical of it, please feel free not to partake of it.

I also diagree with your sophmoric distillation of Bards into a one word
assessment. Having been what I consider to be quite a "Serious" Jester
and bard for over half a century, I believe the role of the bard is far
more complicated then just "fun".

The role of the Bard is multifaceted. The bard takes on the guise of
historian, storyteller, actor, singer, and instrumental musician
simultaneously. A good bard must be more than a passable multitasker,
however. The bard is responsible not only for satisfactorily retelling a
tale, but for elevating the material by interpreting it in this format.
A good bard will not needlessly and wreckessly arrange a verse merely
for the sake of doing so. In practicing their craft, bards are duty
bound to enrich the telling of a tale, fictionalized or otherwise by
presenting it skillfully to an audience. This relationship with the
people he plays for cannot be understated, and the responsibility that
comes with it is no small task; however in return, the bard is gifted
with the rare ability to practice dramtism, music, poetry, and
occasionally, visual art, in an imitation of the path defined by
Scarlatti himself. The bard need not focus on a single facet of the
arts, though to do so is his prerogative; rather at his best, the bard
is capable of paying small tribute to all crafts under the eye of
Scarlatti simultaneously: Art, Imitating Life, Imitating Art.

In your one word assessment of all things bardic, you fail to take into
account the greatest mitigating factor in assessing a city, guild, or
any other group of people: the Individual. Surely Bards are not defined
by "fun"; I am a bard, but I am not always fun, and those who are
possessed of greater "fun" than I are not all Bards. It is my assessment
that those who walk the Bardic path are posessed of a Prism through
which the Arts, and the tales they inspire might be diminished,
redirected, or, with the grace of the Gods, illuminated. The power to
utilize these skills to their greatest extent resides within the
individuals who practice the craft. It is not for Bards to be latently
spiritual, mystical, ethical or religious: but a bard posessed of any of
those traits has the rare and beautiful opportunity to place those
traits on a stage where they might be magnified, and in doing so pay
homage to something greater than the Bard himself: his Art.

I am saddened that you have not been satisfactorily impressed by those
of us who walk the Bardic path, and I apologize for the cacophany that
you interpret as bad poetry; there is no accounting for taste in these
things sometimes. The bardic circle is not a new one, and a guildhall
and bureacracy does not somehow validate its reality, any more than a
new varnish makes my flute more instrumental. To distill the essence of
Bards down to a single term is just as errant as distilling Knights into
"Swordbums" or any other derogatory and overly simplistic term. Or
perhaps you should stick to swinging that pigsticker around, and leave
bardic interpretation to those who have something more than thinly
veiled character assasination to contribute.

Good day.

Penned by my hand on the 21st of Lupar, in the year 346 AF.