ver the last several weeks the subject of my senior independent research project has come up in quite a few conversations, and it has raised quite a few brows. "I'm writing on the concept of video games as a viable conduit for literature," I say. One professor asked, "Adam, is anyone buying that?"
At first, this question threw me off-base a little. To my knowledge, most people who have played video games in their lives will acknowledge the potential for superb story-telling and depth, though they will also be aware that many games fail to realize such a potential. Yet here I was dealing with someone who had never played a game. From what, precisely, had she formed an opinion on the medium?
It is typical for the mature gamers to commiserate over the unfortunate (seeming) omnipresence of pre-pubescent, foul-mouthed players that populate the digital landscape in which we purport to spend our leisure time. Perhaps we have forgotten that those players — en masse — constitute the siblings, children, neighbors, students, classmates, and teammates of a tremendous number of non-gamers.
The result is that many people learn to consider games, at best, an immature and unruly expenditure of time and money to be grown out of as quickly as possible; at worst, a brain-rotting, socially-atrophying lifestyle to be avoided at all costs. As conscientious gamers, we face a rising tide of hostility towards our cherished pastime. If we continue to permit that tide to rise unabated, we may drown in it.For people to whom Halo-obsessed teenagers are the only exhibit of gaming culture, a "gamer" is someone you'd prefer not to even be associated with, let alone to become.
This unfortunate impression is reinforced by media attention which, particularly in the past several years, focuses exclusively on the potential (and, notably, unproven) negative psychosocial effects of violent gaming. To wit: in the Wikipedia article discussing the tragic Columbine High School massacre of 1999, the section on video games as a factor in the killing is larger than the sections on social climate, bullying, "goth subculture," and music combined.
As conscientious gamers, we face a rising tide of hostility towards our cherished pastime. And if we continue to permit that tide to rise unabated, I fear we will drown in it. Yes, the voices of all those obnoxious kids on Xbox Live are loud — and yes, the media likes to focus on the downside — but we, too, have voices, if only we are willing to raise them.
On November 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States will convene to discuss video games. Granted, the case at hand is technically a matter of Californian law, sales, and labeling. But as with many SCOTUS cases, this is about precedent: the ESA argues on the basis of free speech and artistic expression, and a judgment in the Association's favor will more or less translate to a legal legitimization of the claim of games to the title of art. The opposite is also true: if California wins, gamers lose, and research like mine becomes anathema.
It is not often that gamers — who have built a culture around being considered fringe — take the public spotlight. Yet now, for a brief moment, we have it, an opportunity to bring up conversations with coworkers and peers, friends and family, and to present a different side to the story they have been hearing for twenty years.
The window is small, but it is there.
And it is open.
Hey Palmer,
Glad as always for feedback. I'll try tackling your points chronologically.
Your statements in response to my thesis suggest a concept that I have already taken into consideration, as it seems you associate "literature" with printed text alone. Part of my study actually entails finding out from people how they define (or at least what the basic requirements are for) literature. I am aware that some will take the position you have--but I also have further questions. Would you say Shakespeare ceases to be literature when it is portrayed on stage? Is the definition of literature truly tied to the written word alone? I would say it is not--but then, perhaps I am a minority. Hence the research.
To be fair, in regards to "video games are not pure words, they convey stories, concepts, and ideas through a vastly different medium,"--perhaps you might rephrase. I sincerely doubt that you consider literature in any form to be "pure words," lacking stories, concepts, and ideas. Your point on whether the interactive nature of games discounts it from literary titleship is good--it is indeed a matter of great professional debate within the field.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I believe "that video games have no effect on those that play them," but I'd agree anyone possessing such a belief would indeed be quite naive. I assume you are referring to my parenthetical aside, in which case I stand by it: to date, most research about the link between violent games and violent behavior has been either inconclusive or greatly biased and faulty. That such a link exists, well...it may very well be there, but no more than in other media. Games today undergo the same hostility faced by film in the 20th century and literature even earlier as each became popular forms of storytelling and exploring the seedier aspects and ideas in culture.
I firmly agree that much content is inappropriate for younger viewers/players, and I further agree with your stipulation that a responsible parent would prevent his child from accessing such content until proper maturity had been reached. The media, unfortunately, never blames the parents or relatives who have purchased these games for underage kids--always, the implication seems to be that the games themselves are the problem, and that they need to be regulated and/or banned. It is against this unfair treatment of games (note, no other medium is being scrutinized in this way) that the ESA, ECA, and other organizations (and myself and a great many gamers) are fighting.
...I think that covers everything ^_^
Lastly, I do think that it is a bit naive to believe that video games have no effect on those that play them.
Considering how widely video games are disseminated among youth, evidence should be there — but isn't. Studies come up empty. Delinquency, violent crime, and other forms of miscreant behavior are down. Anything else is conjecture, and while conflating correlation with causation isn't naive, it is unpersuasive.
Incidentally, I exhibited a similar reaction to an otherwise tragic event as the fifth-grader when I was in sixth grade — which was several years before violent video games (and I've never liked intensely violent flicks). My levity was simply a combination of incomprehension and embarrassment over an emotional response.
Finally, I'm not sure how "viable conduit" can be fairly interpreted as "permanent substitution." ;)
Adam -
I would say that words read aloud remains literature, because reading (as Lewis says in Experiment in Criticism) is an aural activity. So whether it is heard in your head or heard from your own mouth, it remains literature in the purest sense. As LONG as the medium remains the same. In the example of Shakespeare ACTED, it becomes theater, which has a great many elements of literature, and is based on literature. But the mere staging of it limits the interpretation and reception of the art for the audience. Art is about the personal reception of the beauty which the art has independently inside it. By watching another's interpretation, you necessarily skew (sometimes more, sometimes less) the full content and power of the art itself. In the case of the art of literature, it is written in a particular medium in order to convey a particular message, and any change of the medium limits or skews that intent at least a little.
The question of the medium that Neil Postman raises is, I believe, the most important. Television, movies, and video games can be A conduit FOR literature, but I don't think you can say that they BECOME literature, or even that they are completely viable as a conduit. Because if the medium is changed, the amount and type of information it can convey changed. Even Peter Jackson could not convey the same thing that the Lord of the Rings books conveyed, because he was using a different medium.
Of course, if you define literature as the transfer of words in any form to an audience, then of course you would be right in that any medium could equally convey literature. But that's not the denotative definition of literature. If you're speaking of mere popular connotations, then you're just doing a statistical study of opinions. But any accepted denotative definition of literature at the very least directly involves writing.
Many movies and video games and tv shows may begin as literature, but once they become movies, video games, and tv shows, their medium in changed, and they convey different information than the original literature.
This is why you could NEVER completely reproduce a book in the form of a movie, and why any books based on movies will never be the same as the movie. They are not the same not only in medium, but in message as well.
This idea of the medium limiting the message is the most integral idea for this issue, and the one point to which you failed to respond.
Michael -
I didn't say how video games affect people; I said merely that they do. I am not a believer that everyone who listens to violent music or plays an FPS will turn into a violent person. I've played so many first person shooters in my life, and listened to my fair share of hard rock, and I'm not shooting anyone up. So I am certainly not making any causal inferences based on loose correlation between violence in games and actual violence. I am, however, saying that it is naive to say that there is NO effect. And all studies have shown is that it's almost impossible to know what that effect is on each specific person. Again, let me STRESS that when I say that video games, music (and any thing else we are exposed to, down to the sights and smells of each day) do affect us, I am NOT making any conclusions or inferences as to what those effects are. That is for each one of us to know, to judge, and to act accordingly.
I am not condoning the desire of the government to limit the sale of games to minors. I believe that if the family still existed, and if parents were doing their jobs and parenting their children instead of being consumed with themselves for the most part, this issue which is facing the Supreme Court would be non-existent.
Lastly, I never interpreted viable conduit as permanent substitution, merely as what a "viable conduit" means based on definition: a sufficient mechanism for conveyance (in this case, the conveyance of literature sufficiently). My argument is, while other mediums do convey "literature," (or more accurately, attempt to convey the message of a certain work of literature) I believe they convey it insufficiently.
Both - Please note that I am NOT saying that the message which is conveyed in movies, tv shows, and video games is bad or unhealthy. On the contrary, I believe these mediums have the ability to do great things, and have very positive effects on their audiences. I am not saying that no adult should play video games. I am not saying that any affect even violent games or movies. have on their audience is negative. Please, please, please, do not infer I am saying something which I am not saying.
My ONLY point of conjecture is Adam's "concept of video games as a viable conduit for literature." I think that concept is not feasible, and I think there are better arguments for why video games can be a positive and worthwhile medium.
But that claim of Adam's is the only claim I do not agree with. That is the claim that I am "not buying."
As you know Adam, I enjoy my video gaming. When FFXIII came out, I went out, bought a new PS3slim, the game, and beat it within two days. And the countless Guild Wars and Aion hours remain fond memories, and occasionally when I have time these days, I will open the file again.
However, I still cannot agree that video games are in anyway a "viable conduit for literature." In fact, I would go so far as to say both the experience and even the information retained from reading a book from physical pages versus reading a book from a backlit computer screen are very different. And video games are not pure words, they convey stories, concepts, and ideas through a vastly different medium. It is interactive, visual, subject to change and judgment, etc. It is a different medium from television and from physical printed literature. So to assume that such vastly different mediums can be substituted for each other is at best optimistic, and more likely nearsighted.
I'm sure you have read it, but in "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Postman makes a more eloquent version of a similar argument. How do you respond to him?
I'm not against TV, movies, or video games. On the contrary, I am a lover of all three. However, I do not play or watch instead of read. Each have different uses. Some better than others. But all having their time and place.
Lastly, I do think that it is a bit naive to believe that video games have no effect on those that play them. Because just as music affects its listeners, television affects its watchers, and literature affects its readers, so every medium, and every message affects those that receive it. Same with video games. And just as I wouldn't let my kids (once I have them) see Saving Private Ryan until they were more mature, I wouldn't let them play CoD until they were mature enough not only to handle the content, but able to process it appropriately.
A child at the school where I teach yesterday told his 5th grade teacher that the Children's Crusade (the slavery and slaughter of thousands of children) was "funny" and he laughed. Not the correct response and reaction to that tragedy. So we must first be taught how to respond to certain things appropriately, and then we can be introduced to more entertaining mediums which contain them. Otherwise, you're throwing the child out into the wild without teaching how to survive (or even realize how serious his plight is).
Thoughts?