PDA

View Full Version : Christopher Tolkein set to bore and dispoint



Artful Dentures
19th September 06, 01:29 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/09/18/books.newtolkien.ap/index.html

I picked up one of Chris's unfinished tale books years ago it. It sucked he has no talent as a writer or story teller.

The Silmarilion should have been broken up into bits and other "good" writers should have been given a chance to tell the stories in greater detail,

George R.R. martin could have done a great version of the Fall of Numenor.

Oh well.

Odacon
19th September 06, 05:16 PM
The Silmarillion was good but a little dijointed. I'm dreading this barrel scraping exercise.

Iscariot
19th September 06, 07:43 PM
It's exactly what we've been going through with the Dune series for the last eight years.

Shawarma
19th September 06, 07:53 PM
Just like what happened with Yahweh. I mean, he did this totally kickass book with millions of people getting owned and talking animals and badass-as-fuck main characters, and then his pussy son comes along and ruins the WHOLE DAMN SERIES by publishing that totally uncool sequel without ANY ASSKICKING AT ALL, which he only managed to sell because of his famous dad.

Dagon Akujin
19th September 06, 08:19 PM
Just like what happened with Yahweh. I mean, he did this totally kickass book with millions of people getting owned and talking animals and badass-as-fuck main characters, and then his pussy son comes along and ruins the WHOLE DAMN SERIES by publishing that totally uncool sequel without ANY ASSKICKING AT ALL, which he only managed to sell because of his famous dad.

LOL!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Shawarma again.

P.S. (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=2743) http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/03-18-05-scififantasy/TheOneOutside.jpg

Iscariot
19th September 06, 08:46 PM
Dune pwns LOTR, we know.

As does everyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size.


Image is very funny though :D

ICY
19th September 06, 09:00 PM
Shawarma...best post ever.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 12:52 AM
Why doesn't anybody else find Dune to be mind-numbing and boring? Was it because I just couldn't understand the awesome? All I read was a bunch of stuff about the religion of the planet, the economy of the planet, wandering around, and a final battle that didn't deliver. Did I miss something? Did I accidentally turn 100 pages when I meant to turn 1?

Greese
20th September 06, 03:56 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/09/18/books.newtolkien.ap/index.html

I picked up one of Chris's unfinished tale books years ago it. It sucked he has no talent as a writer or story teller.

The Silmarilion should have been broken up into bits and other "good" writers should have been given a chance to tell the stories in greater detail,

George R.R. martin could have done a great version of the Fall of Numenor.

Oh well.
Ah, so he takes after his father.

DAYoung
20th September 06, 04:36 AM
Just like what happened with Yahweh. I mean, he did this totally kickass book with millions of people getting owned and talking animals and badass-as-fuck main characters, and then his pussy son comes along and ruins the WHOLE DAMN SERIES by publishing that totally uncool sequel without ANY ASSKICKING AT ALL, which he only managed to sell because of his famous dad.

You must spread some rep around, yada yada yada.

Anyway, nice one.

Iscariot
20th September 06, 12:05 PM
Why doesn't anybody else find Dune to be mind-numbing and boring? Was it because I just couldn't understand the awesome? All I read was a bunch of stuff about the religion of the planet, the economy of the planet, wandering around, and a final battle that didn't deliver. Did I miss something? Did I accidentally turn 100 pages when I meant to turn 1?
Erm, interesting, what did you think to LOTR?


On a side point, is there anyone on this thread who hasn't given rep to Shawarma?

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 12:26 PM
LotR had its slow parts, like Tolkein going off and talking about elves out of nowhere. And the journey back was pretty boring, too. But there was a lot more stuff that actually happened in LotR, whereas all I remember from Dune was:

*SPOILER*

Let's go to Dune, we own it, you know.

Oh shits! The Harkonnen with Sardak...uhh.. Imperial troops!

We're lost in the desert

Devil child is born

FINAL BATTLE TI... oh, they surrendered...

END

*SPOILER*


With stuff about prophecies being planted, the whole religion of the planet, economy, stuff like that.

Iscariot
20th September 06, 12:30 PM
What sort of stuff do you normally read and like? What genres do you tend to go for? Give me some examples of your favourite books.

I'm at a loss, Dune usually gets a good reception of anyone who reads Sci-Fi.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 12:37 PM
I haven't read many books. Like, at all. I read some Star Wars books. LotR and The Hobbit. And whatever the public educational system forced me to read (which I still didn't do 80% of the time).

Well, I guess I should say I haven't read much literature. I've been reading science books since I was a kid. I guess literature just isn't my thing

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 05:09 PM
I like both Dune and LOTR benefit from rereading them. Once you know the plot you can sit back and enjoy the story telling.

Favorite sci-fi series: The Gap Cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson

DAYoung
20th September 06, 06:13 PM
I haven't read many books. Like, at all. I read some Star Wars books. LotR and The Hobbit. And whatever the public educational system forced me to read (which I still didn't do 80% of the time).

Well, I guess I should say I haven't read much literature. I've been reading science books since I was a kid. I guess literature just isn't my thing

In order to be a brilliant scientist, you have to read literature and philosophy.

It's just the way it is.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 07:23 PM
In order to be a brilliant scientist, you have to read literature and philosophy.

It's just the way it is.

Video games count as literature.

Philosophy is definately interesting, though. I'll have to get around to that some time.

DAYoung
20th September 06, 07:24 PM
Video games count as literature.

Philosophy is definately interesting, though. I'll have to get around to that some time.

Video games are the absolutel antithesis of literature.

Just so you know.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 07:40 PM
How do you define literature?

DAYoung
20th September 06, 07:45 PM
How do you define literature?

Literature is artistic fiction, where the aesthetic qualities of the work inspire imaginative sensations, emotions and thoughts. It does not merely pass the time, or encourage competititon, but imaginatively evokes a rich world of feeling and thinking. In short, it enables you to think and feel yourself and your world with clarity and vividness.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 08:09 PM
Literature is artistic fiction, where the aesthetic qualities of the work inspire imaginative sensations, emotions and thoughts, imaginatively evokes a rich world of feeling and thinking. In short, it enables you to think and feel yourself and your world with clarity and vividness.

I took out the part where you started assuming too much. I hope you don't mind.

So... let's take a gander at what I'm playing now:

Oblivion.

Artistic? Check.
Fiction? Check.
Imaginative sensations? I assume you mean "feels like you're part of it."

Hey, what do you know? It's all there. Better than a book, though, is that I can decide what I want to do in that world instead of following a linear path set by a book. If literature is supposed to be a medium through which we transfer our thoughts, emotions, and experiences, then what better way to learn it than actually experiencing it?

Kiko
20th September 06, 08:14 PM
You could say all that about film, television and the like, which isn't literature. Reading is fundamental ;)

DAYoung
20th September 06, 08:26 PM
I took out the part where you started assuming too much. I hope you don't mind.

So... let's take a gander at what I'm playing now:

Oblivion.

Artistic? Check.
Fiction? Check.
Imaginative sensations? I assume you mean "feels like you're part of it."

Hey, what do you know? It's all there. Better than a book, though, is that I can decide what I want to do in that world instead of following a linear path set by a book. If literature is supposed to be a medium through which we transfer our thoughts, emotions, and experiences, then what better way to learn it than actually experiencing it?

Good question. Firstly, you are not experiencing it imaginatively, nor are you doing so 'actually'. You are passively perceiving it - it is a projected spectacle (see Emery and Emery's research (http://www.newint.org/issue119/light.htm)on projected light).

Second, art involves the creation and recreation of emotions and sensations which aren't properly perceived, felt or understood beforehand. Your game has very well understood emotional and perceptual qualities, which are contrived to produce specific results (they have to, or you don't buy it).

Don't mistake digital fidelity or spectacle for artistic clarity and intensity.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 08:41 PM
You could say all that about film, television and the like, which isn't literature. Reading is fundamental ;)

Since when are movies not literature?

Reading is fundamental? I thought you played RPG's?



Good question. Firstly, you are not experiencing it imaginatively, nor are you doing so 'actually'. You are passively perceiving it - it is a projected spectacle (see Emery and Emery's research (http://www.newint.org/issue119/light.htm)on projected light).

Second, art involves the creation and recreation of emotions and sensations which aren't properly perceived, felt or understood beforehand. Your game has very well understood emotional and perceptual qualities, which are contrived to produce specific results (they have to, or you don't buy it).

Don't mistake digital fidelity or spectacle for artistic clarity and intensity.

And books aren't made to produce specific results? Are you claiming authors just write down random garblings and hope to make it big?

I know that when I play games, such as Resident Evil, I don't want to die. Furthermore, I don't want my allies to die. Not just because I'd get a "game over" sign, but becuase I have just as much an attachment to them as when I read a book. You get that feeling too, don't you? When you read a book and something bad happens, you don't want them to die? Or do you just sit back and objectively reflect on all that has happened?

"Second, art involves the creation and recreation of emotions and sensations which aren't properly perceived, felt or understood beforehand."

What does this part mean? That an artist can create something like Munch's Scream and just say "well... it's supposed to be scary and creepy... we'll see what people feel" whereas a video game will make people feel exact emotions?

Before you answer any of these questions, do you even play video games?

DAYoung
20th September 06, 09:03 PM
And books aren't made to produce specific results? Are you claiming authors just write down random garblings and hope to make it big?

Literature does not hope to get specific results. Popular fiction does. Different kinds of book.


I know that when I play games, such as Resident Evil, I don't want to die. Furthermore, I don't want my allies to die. Not just because I'd get a "game over" sign, but becuase I have just as much an attachment to them as when I read a book. You get that feeling too, don't you? When you read a book and something bad happens, you don't want them to die? Or do you just sit back and objectively reflect on all that has happened?

Attachment is not the issue, and art is not a matter of objective reflection (it involves this, but cannot be reduced to it).

"Second, art involves the creation and recreation of emotions and sensations which aren't properly perceived, felt or understood beforehand."


What does this part mean? That an artist can create something like Munch's Scream and just say "well... it's supposed to be scary and creepy... we'll see what people feel" whereas a video game will make people feel exact emotions?

Video games are contrived to get specific emoptional responses, particularly for young men. Art is the expression of emotions.


Before you answer any of these questions, do you even play video games?

Sometimes. I try to avoid them, for prcisely these reasons. They are crafts, not arts.

Dagon Akujin
20th September 06, 09:41 PM
How do you define literature?

As an English teacher (and snob) I typically define "literature" as something that can be debated, studied, and argued over. You can only argue about if the "Pop fiction" is utter crap or just crap. You can't study (in a meaningful or scholarly sense) most "Pop fiction". It doesn't hold any deeper meaning.

Herman Mellville summed up the entire study of literature in Moby Dick: "Hark ye yet again- the little lower layer."

Dagon

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 10:19 PM
Many books that are now regarded as literature started out as popular fiction.

Video games are not artistic in the sense that reading is, in that video games do to much of the work for you.

In reading we create the world and characters the author creates in our mind. In video games the programmers have done that for you.

Steve
20th September 06, 10:31 PM
Many books that are now regarded as literature started out as popular fiction.

Video games are not artistic in the sense that reading is, in that video games do to much of the work for you.

In reading we create the world and characters the author creates in our mind. In video games the programmers have done that for you.

So are books with illustrations, the Dark Tower series by Stephen King for example, not 'ranked' at the same level as books that don't?

Dagon Akujin
20th September 06, 10:38 PM
Many books that are now regarded as literature started out as popular fiction.

This certainly happens and there are two reasons for it:

1: If a book has been around for a long time, despite the fact that it may be "pop fiction", people start wondering why it is still being read, what it says about the readers, and whether maybe there is just more to it than previously thought.

2: The second reason is that once it gets really old you can also study from it the culture that created it and the history surrounding it.

Again, these are things you can study, debate, research, and argue in a meaningfull and scholarly way. Same applies to all other forms of art. If someone dug up some stupid 15 year-old's art book from 1700 in 1705, they'd just toss it out for being crap. If we dug it up today it'd be a lot more meaningful and interesting to actually look into it.

Dagon Akujin

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:06 PM
Sometimes. I try to avoid them, for prcisely these reasons. They are crafts, not arts.

Thank you. Your opinion on this matter is therefore void. You have no experience on what you are trying to argue. How unphilosophical.

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 11:08 PM
So are books with illustrations, the Dark Tower series by Stephen King for example, not 'ranked' at the same level as books that don't?

It's funny you brought up Steven King because he is someone who is a pop writer who I think will be read 100 years from now and whose books, especially the Dark Tower series will be considered literature.

Illustrations are not the same thing as full animation with site and sound as you get in a video game. I still see Roland looking different than the illustrations and sounding the way my mind interprets him.

Also the illustrations for the Dark Tower series are brilliant because they capture the tone and feel of the books with out being to literal minded.

I am not knocking the artistic merit in video games or movies, just saying they require less of your participation by virtue of leaving little to your imagination.

It why I find a good book to be a more interactive experience than a video game. Even though I am not choosing the actiions or dialogue I am creating theworld in my mind.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:15 PM
Many books that are now regarded as literature started out as popular fiction.

Video games are not artistic in the sense that reading is, in that video games do to much of the work for you.

In reading we create the world and characters the author creates in our mind. In video games the programmers have done that for you.

Here you have to distinguish what is more important: imagining the world you are in, or going through the experiences the author intended?

Not that imagining things isn't useful. It definately developes your mind. I just think there's more to a book than saying "there was a giant tree there. It was dark green with some mold on the side." Things like character developement and experiences are more important than imagining a good scenery. How long was Slaughterhouse 5 or Shawshank Redemption? Was there a lot of describing and imagining there? Most of it was narrated. The experiences were narrated. If you programmed it in a video game, you'd be the one doing it, instead of reading about it. You'd get the same thing out of it, you'd just be more involved.

Hell, anybody here play Max Payne? That's a good example, I think.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:21 PM
I am not knocking the artistic merit in video games or movies, just saying they require less of your participation by virtue of leaving little to your imagination.

And how important is imagination? Does playing with legos and making up a story to go with it count as literature? I've never used more imagination than I did when playing with legos or my action figures.

I'm just saying imagination isn't the central part to literature. It's the experiences and emotions you get from it.

Look at Maus. It's even taught in literature courses now. Yet it has pictures.

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 11:23 PM
My point is this.

Saying you don't read books because you can get the same fulfillment from video games is like saying you don't listen to music because you get the same fullfillment from sculpture.

I am really not debating wither's artistic merits but video game play and reading are not comprable.

"you programmed it in a video game, you'd be the one doing it,"

We are not talking about programmers but the players. The programmer might get the same fulfillment or whatever as an author but I have never felt the same fulfillment as a video game player as I have as an avid reader.

Iscariot
20th September 06, 11:37 PM
Thank you. Your opinion on this matter is therefore void. You have no experience on what you are trying to argue. How unphilosophical.
K then how about then as a Film Student who has also studied Media and English - Video games/movies aren't Literature.

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 11:42 PM
K then how about then as a Film Student who has also studied Media and English - Video games/movies aren't Literature.

Are screenplays?

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:42 PM
My point is this.

Saying you don't read books because you can get the same fulfillment from video games is like saying you don't listen to music because you get the same fullfillment from sculpture.

I'm not claiming that. He said literature. A proper analogy would be "I do sculpture instead of music, therefore I still do art."


I am really not debating wither's artistic merits but video game play and reading are not comprable.

"you programmed it in a video game, you'd be the one doing it,"

We are not talking about programmers but the players. The programmer might get the same fulfillment or whatever as an author but I have never felt the same fulfillment as a video game player as I have as an avid reader.

I know. The player would be doing it. It's one thing to read "and Conan slew his parents' killer fiercly" and another to pick up a virtual sword and do it yourself. You get the same emotion from it, since in one you read about it, in the other, you see it happen.

I never liked books much, or at least, fiction books, because I found them boring. Movies suck just as much. Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me, and I may not remember. Invovle me, and I'll understand. That's basically what I am saying. And when you're trying to express themes, it doesn't really change.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:43 PM
K then how about then as a Film Student who has also studied Media and English - Video games/movies aren't Literature.

Have you played video games?

The King of Siam could come up to me and say that they're not literature and I'd ask him the same thing.

Then, I'd ask him why not? I already said why. Now debunk it.

Steve
20th September 06, 11:44 PM
It's funny you brought up Steven King because he is someone who is a pop writer who I think will be read 100 years from now and whose books, especially the Dark Tower series will be considered literature.

Illustrations are not the same thing as full animation with site and sound as you get in a video game. I still see Roland looking different than the illustrations and sounding the way my mind interprets him.

Interesting. I see the characters as they are depicted in the illustrations (after all, the author approved them) but I use my imagination to interpret their body language that goes with their dialog (if it is not explained by the author).

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I disagree with what I see in illustrations. But I have to begrudgingly face the fact that the author must have saw it that way, or it wouldn't have been in the book.


Also the illustrations for the Dark Tower series are brilliant because they capture the tone and feel of the books with out being to literal minded.

This looks pretty literal minded to me (if you were saying they might be abstract in some way, that is):

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i141/forstevee/darktower6ju.jpg


I am not knocking the artistic merit in video games or movies, just saying they require less of your participation by virtue of leaving little to your imagination.

It why I find a good book to be a more interactive experience than a video game. Even though I am not choosing the actiions or dialogue I am creating theworld in my mind.

Just debating the Dark Tower series, I agree that video games aren't quite up there with books (tho I have played Max Payne, and it comes pretty close to 'playing' a book).

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:50 PM
Interesting. I see the characters as they are depicted in the illustrations (after all, the author approved them) but I use my imagination to interpret their body language that goes with their dialog (if it is not explained by the author).

Another good point. Take SNES RPG's. Crudely drawn sprites. You HAD TO use your imagination to get the whole of the story. When characters get angry or sad, it wasn't really shown except for some jumping up and down.

Even with Oblivion, the NPC's are like robots. You have to use your imagination if you want to get the full experience. And it's just as unconcious an act imagining something while reading the book.

Iscariot
20th September 06, 11:53 PM
Are screenplays?
No, in the same way that news articles or poems aren't literature. Thay are a specialist type of writing written to serve another medium. It'd be like considering a warning label on medicine literature.


Have you played video games?

The King of Siam could come up to me and say that they're not literature and I'd ask him the same thing.

Then, I'd ask him why not? I already said why. Now debunk it.
Yes I play video games, when I have the time or neccessary hardware.

Surely I can use your own argument that you used on DAYoung as a comeback? As someone with limited to no experience of literature comment or argue on it in anyway. Your opinion is void. Thank you for playing.

Artful Dentures
20th September 06, 11:57 PM
This looks pretty literal minded to me (if you were saying they might be abstract in some way, that is):

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i141/forstevee/darktower6ju.jpg




Yeah but that's from the last book and doesn't look like the Roland I picture.

My Roland's a lot more Clint Eastwoody

I prefer this image of Roland, less literal and IMHO captures his essence better
http://photos.hotfreelayouts.com/photos/339/dark_tower.jpg

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:58 PM
Surely I can use your own argument that you used on DAYoung as a comeback? As someone with limited to no experience of literature comment or argue on it in anyway. Your opinion is void. Thank you for playing.

Actually, no, you cannot. As I have read at least a few of the classics, I understand how literature is supposed to work. DAYoung just said "yeah... whatever, it's not, I don't play."

I read it and I didn't like it. That doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I just found it boring. I get more satisfaction from playing video games. I don't see how reading a book can some how make me better. Or do you mean, the message the book is trying to convey? Like I said, my point was that video games can convey the same message in a different way.

Artful Dentures
21st September 06, 12:01 AM
No, in the same way that news articles or poems aren't literature. Thay are a specialist type of writing written to serve another medium. It'd be like considering a warning label on medicine literature.





Then play's aren't literature? Shakespear, Pinter, Shaw and so forth as they are written to serve another medium?

Steve
21st September 06, 12:16 AM
Yeah but that's from the last book and doesn't look like the Roland I picture.

My Roland's a lot more Clint Eastwoody

I prefer this image of Roland, less literal and IMHO captures his essence better
http://photos.hotfreelayouts.com/photos/339/dark_tower.jpg

Ha! If they were ever to make a movie of the Dark Tower series, it would have to have Clint as Roland (too bad Clint's past his The Good, The Bad and The Ugly days)!

I agree that the last 2-3 books were off (I'm guessing that's what you meant). I just picked a picture that was obviously from the series...

Shows that an author taking too much time off and then folding to fan preasure can ruin things.

But I stand by what I said, ie. The Gunslinger.

Iscariot
21st September 06, 12:22 AM
Actually, no, you cannot. As I have read at least a few of the classics, I understand how literature is supposed to work. DAYoung just said "yeah... whatever, it's not, I don't play."

I read it and I didn't like it. That doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. I just found it boring. I get more satisfaction from playing video games. I don't see how reading a book can some how make me better. Or do you mean, the message the book is trying to convey? Like I said, my point was that video games can convey the same message in a different way.
I was just trolling with that comeback.

Anyway, Literature is a term. So we must look at the definition of the term. We will use the definition from the lowest common demoninator, the internet.
1: creative writing of recognized artistic value
2: the humanistic study of a body of literature

Now as 2 clearly defines the field of study (a Literature Student for example) we will concentrate on definition 1.

It quite clearly states writing. This is the major characteristic of lierature, it is written. Video games and movies are not written. Although at some point there will have been written material associated with them, the script, production notes etc, the only form that you are supposed to recieve their content in is audio/visual. This obviously disqualifies video games and movies instantly.

The other point of the definition is 'recognised artistic value'. For this one must look to scholars and critics, not fans.

What I believe you are confusing or misdefining are the terms literature and culture or art.

Are VG/movies written? No - They are therefore excluded from the term literature.

Are they an important and possibly guiding force on modern culture? Some yes - these could be considered a tool or example of a cultural definition.

Do they contain any form of artistic merit? Some yes - these may be considered as art within their genre, or even in general.



VG at the current time, as I follow such things, are dividing into four distinct categories. The big online stuff that never ends (WoW etc), the uber long rpg style stuff (Final Fantasy Series), the shorter plot based games (MGS), and games that are, well, games. Things like the Ridge Racer series that are there to be played primarily for the instantaneous enjoyment.

The first and fourth categories are VG in their most basic form, their only purpose is to play and enjoy on their merits. The second category is the more advanced form of the VG, they borrow heavily from other artistic and performance media such as theatre, painting, sculpture and cinema. The third category heads towards a hybrid genre of VG and film, they are primarily plot driven and linear, compelled by their plot and driven by the actions of the player. They are in the simplest explanation, interactive movies. For me the first and best example of this I came across was MGS, after the second boss I stopped playing for the reason of playing a game, I was moving the character forward to reveal more of the plot, this was my only motivation. I am certain that such games would merit a film style analysis much more than a game style review, I even think it possible that certain examples could be the subject of academic discourse by film scholars with no loss of meaning.

The stuff above, after the end of the the literature proof is a very rough and vague version of a study I was going to do on the synergy of modern media.

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 12:47 AM
Anyway, Literature is a term. So we must look at the definition of the term. We will use the definition from the lowest common demoninator, the internet.
Now as 2 clearly defines the field of study (a Literature Student for example) we will concentrate on definition 1.

It quite clearly states writing. .

I'm not cutting off the rest of your post, I just understand what you were doing from there.

Writing in and of itself is no use to me. If the only reason that a book is better than a video game is because it is written, then I really don't care. If it can do the same things, except it's not black on white, then it's just semantics and I can concede that it is not literature, but then I argue "what's the point of literature when I have video games?"

Second: Text-based games. "You encounter blah blah" Essentially a book written in 1st person.

However, if literature is supposed to communicate experiences and emotions, I point you towards Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy 7. Some of the more popular games out there. For a reason.

Iscariot
21st September 06, 01:08 AM
It is really just a matter of semantics. The fact that writing is no use to you doesn't change the definition. I'm not trying to belittle VG here, some will, but they don't qualify to be described in that way.

If you read the rest of my post I clearly mention MGS as an example, but think that such examples are better examined with film theory and analysis than through literary discourse.

Text based adventures? That's an interesting one, I shall have to go and think about that one.

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 01:24 AM
They don't qualify to be described as literature if you define literature as writing.

However, the purpose for literature is to express emotions, thoughts, and experiences, which I think video games can accomplish just as well as a book, although in a different manner.

http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2005/07/walking_around_inside_a_book_b.html

This isn't entirely serious, but it's a good read. EDIT: and no, there is nothing ironic about me suggesting something to read.

bad credit
21st September 06, 02:05 AM
If you want good fantasy, read Robert E. Howard (Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane) or David Gemmell (Druss, Jon Shannow, and Waylander). It'll make a man out of you. Think spaghetti westerns with swords. Heck, David Gemmell was inspired by Stephen King's Gunslinger and wrote his Jon Shannow series, which is very similar.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 02:32 AM
Thank you. Your opinion on this matter is therefore void. You have no experience on what you are trying to argue. How unphilosophical.

Now you're just being silly. I have more experience with video games than you have with literature.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 02:33 AM
I'm not cutting off the rest of your post, I just understand what you were doing from there.

Writing in and of itself is no use to me. If the only reason that a book is better than a video game is because it is written, then I really don't care. If it can do the same things, except it's not black on white, then it's just semantics and I can concede that it is not literature, but then I argue "what's the point of literature when I have video games?"

Second: Text-based games. "You encounter blah blah" Essentially a book written in 1st person.

However, if literature is supposed to communicate experiences and emotions, I point you towards Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy 7. Some of the more popular games out there. For a reason.

I suggest you take a look at the work of Walter J. Ong on the difference between orality and literacy, and then perhaps compare this stuff to recent work on audiovisual literacy. I also suggest you take a look at Emery and Emery's work on projected light.

I like the point about text-based games, though - an interesting suggestion.

Kiko
21st September 06, 07:13 AM
Since when are movies not literature?

Reading is fundamental? I thought you played RPG's?

Literature must be read or for those who can't physically, I suppose be heard as spoken word. Yes, I play RPG's but the best ones I played were mostly text. We'd type everything, our dialogue, our actions (ya know in between *'s or <emote>).

We also had story forums for interactive fiction. Grand stuff. Closest thing to it might be a series called "Thieves' World" edited by Robert Asprin.

It's about one of the oldest forms of entertainment, storytelling. Film/video is another medium entirely. Books allow each reader to find something different depending on the skill of the author/teller.

However when a distinct and specific mental image is conjured there is a master at work!

T3hJudoChop
21st September 06, 11:08 AM
This thread kind of reads as if the two sides of the argument are talking past one another. Are you debating the merit of video games as art or literature? If we define literature as an artistic form that utilizes the written word, than video games are no more like literature than a film, a sculpture, a painting, or song. The aforementioned, however, are still forms of art, but do not fit under the category of literature.

To me, the question is more like, can we consider video games a form of art?

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 12:44 PM
If all literature is is written word like you said, then I don't care about literature. I can imagine things just fine. I played with legos to enhance my imagination.

If literature is supposed to express emotions, thoughts, and experiences, then video games are just as good as doing that (even if that is not the primary focus, yet).

That's my point. I'm not argueing that playing a video game is the same as reading a book. I've done both, and I can tell a difference.

To me it's the same difference between eating a steak at a fancy restaurant and a hamburger elsewhere. It's basically a snobbish attitude. Just like Poe didn't get acknowledged because he was popular lit at the time, video games are being tossed aside because they are too popular.

To answer your question, only a dumbass would not think of video games as a form of art. http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&hl=en&q=video%20game%20concept%20art&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

And that's just the animation part. There's also the sound that goes with the game and the story line.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 03:29 PM
If all literature is is written word like you said, then I don't care about literature. I can imagine things just fine. I played with legos to enhance my imagination.

If literature is supposed to express emotions, thoughts, and experiences, then video games are just as good as doing that (even if that is not the primary focus, yet).

That's my point. I'm not argueing that playing a video game is the same as reading a book. I've done both, and I can tell a difference.

To me it's the same difference between eating a steak at a fancy restaurant and a hamburger elsewhere. It's basically a snobbish attitude. Just like Poe didn't get acknowledged because he was popular lit at the time, video games are being tossed aside because they are too popular.

To answer your question, only a dumbass would not think of video games as a form of art. http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&hl=en&q=video%20game%20concept%20art&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

And that's just the animation part. There's also the sound that goes with the game and the story line.

You're right to mention imagination in this context - it's essential to creating and appreciating art. Indeed, someone with a particularly good imagination can have rich experiences with almost anything (to see a world in a grain of sand, to paraphrase Blake).

However, the thing about art is that its aesthetic qualities (which differ for each art form) inspire the imagination, taking our sensations and emotions and giving them particularly vivid and intense expression (because that's what hey did for the artist).

These experiences have a series of characteristics, including: attention oriented to an object (led by its qualities); feelings of freedom; feelings of unity with activity, self and others; detachment (e.g. you don't treat it like it's completely real); and afeelings of discovery. Not all artworks have all five - three out of five (which must include the first) is probably enough.

The psychologist Csikszentmihalyi has shown these feelings to actually be part of a broader experience called 'flow', which includes everything from rock-climbing, to martial arts, to surgery, to art appreciation. I suspect it incudes video games (not ll, and not all the time, but certainly some).

However, Csikszentmihalyi also noted that art does things that other flow experiences cannot: communication, human expression and temporal richness. Art expresses feelings and thoughts in a way that rock-climbing doesn't, offers human connections in a way that surgery doesn't, and gains richness over time in a way that many games do not (you finish with them - the challenge is gone). It enables us to understand ourselves and the world (through transforative activity) in a way that non-art doesn't (and never will).

Literature, in its turn, is one kind of art. If video games involves artistic elements, then they would also be art, just not literature. As it stands, their merits are mostly those of non-art (e.g. craft), but this doesn't mean they're bad, it just means they do different things, and are enjoyed in different ways.

Long and garbled post - excuse both.

Shawarma
21st September 06, 06:01 PM
The psychologist Csikszentmihalyi

Come on, admit it, you made that up.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 06:13 PM
Come on, admit it, you made that up.

OK. I was Hungary for recognition.

kungfujew
21st September 06, 06:20 PM
You're such a budaPest.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 06:23 PM
Actually, no, you cannot. As I have read at least a few of the classics, I understand how literature is supposed to work. DAYoung just said "yeah... whatever, it's not, I don't play."

I just realised how ungenerous this was. I didn't say anything of the sort.

You can do better than this.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 06:25 PM
You're such a budaPest.

I resent that. Give me a Liszt of five bad qualities.

Dagon Akujin
21st September 06, 08:03 PM
This thread kind of reads as if the two sides of the argument are talking past one another. Are you debating the merit of video games as art or literature? If we define literature as an artistic form that utilizes the written word, than video games are no more like literature than a film, a sculpture, a painting, or song. The aforementioned, however, are still forms of art, but do not fit under the category of literature.

To me, the question is more like, can we consider video games a form of art?

Except that plays and film are considered "literature". You can study them the same way. Film studies add a bit more to the actual craft of making the film, but there is nothing that you can study in books that you cannot study in the exact same way in film. Music is often the same way too (if it has words).

Literary art will deal with plot and character development that the fine arts will not. The fine arts will deal with space, movement, sound and shape that literary arts will not. Those things that really deal with both are still often considered literary arts (i.e. plays, movies, and some music). And, some things (such as mood or viewer response) are often studied in both.


If all literature is is written word like you said, then I don't care about literature. I can imagine things just fine. I played with legos to enhance my imagination.

If literature is supposed to express emotions, thoughts, and experiences, then video games are just as good as doing that (even if that is not the primary focus, yet).
This is so like the Pluto debate.

And I'm going to put my vote in for "video games can be literature" in the same way that "television can be literature", "movies can be literature", and "comic books can be literature". It often isn't, and it is often meaningless pop-drivel, but the potential exists.

Dagon Akujin... lit snob.

T3hJudoChop
22nd September 06, 07:54 AM
Literary art will deal with plot and character development that the fine arts will not.

What about poems? You dont get much plot or character development in "The Red Wheelbarrow"


The fine arts will deal with space, movement, sound and shape that literary arts will not.

What about texts that utilize photographs? Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo comes to mind, or a text like Danielewski's House of Leaves, which makes use of space on a page to create its effects.


Those things that really deal with both are still often considered literary arts (i.e. plays, movies, and some music). And, some things (such as mood or viewer response) are often studied in both.

I consider screenplays and lyrics a part of the literary arts, but when we are discussing movies or music or a play in its entirety, we don't limit our discussion to the screenplay or lyrics. If we did, we would miss a huge part of the experience. When studying a movie, the screenplay is taken into account, but so are cinematography, costume and set design, and the actors/actresses. Things get real tricky when you start dealing with films that nearly dispose of all dialogue, like Matthew Barney's Cremaster Series. Movies are different animals from the literary arts. Do movies and literature sometimes overlap? Sure they do, but they aren't the same thing.


And I'm going to put my vote in for "video games can be literature" in the same way that "television can be literature", "movies can be literature", and "comic books can be literature". It often isn't, and it is often meaningless pop-drivel, but the potential exists..

I personally see video games as an art form, but one more akin to movies than written literature. Take a game like Halo for example. It requires someone to create a storyline, written from two different perspectives no less. It also needed character and world design, even a soundtrack. They want to create, the good ones anyway, something that can immerse the player.


However, Csikszentmihalyi also noted that art does things that other flow experiences cannot: communication, human expression and temporal richness. Art expresses feelings and thoughts in a way that rock-climbing doesn't, offers human connections in a way that surgery doesn't, and gains richness over time in a way that many games do not (you finish with them - the challenge is gone). It enables us to understand ourselves and the world (through transforative activity) in a way that non-art doesn't (and never will).

I did want to get to this. The thing that separates video games from rock-climbing or surgery is that creators of video games want to actively engage their audience the same way an author, painter, filmmaker or musician does. Rock-climbing or surgery, to use your two examples, are not necessarily interested in audience response. Let's take a game like Metal Gear Solid as an example. If I remember correctly, the game revolved around some of the unintended consequences of war, leftover nukes and whatnot. It even ends with a little info on certain nuclear treaties. Clearly, the creators of the game were trying to express a particular point of view.

The way I see it, video games have at last two of the three things you listed: communication and human expression. I would argue temporal richness is more of a subjective quality. Some people will get more out of a video game than others. Some people like Mark Rothko and some people prefer Homer Martin. It's a horses for courses sort of thing.

DAYoung
22nd September 06, 03:30 PM
I did want to get to this. The thing that separates video games from rock-climbing or surgery is that creators of video games want to actively engage their audience the same way an author, painter, filmmaker or musician does. Rock-climbing or surgery, to use your two examples, are not necessarily interested in audience response. Let's take a game like Metal Gear Solid as an example. If I remember correctly, the game revolved around some of the unintended consequences of war, leftover nukes and whatnot. It even ends with a little info on certain nuclear treaties. Clearly, the creators of the game were trying to express a particular point of view.

I think that's a good example, and certainly shows that vido games can communicate. At his point I'd move from Csikszentmihalyi's insights to those of Collingwood. With the latter, I'd distinguish between giving information and representing consequences on the one hand, and expressing emotions on the other. There might be some expression occurring (I don't deny this), but the primary mode is craft, not art (i.e. they creators knew what they wanted to make the players feel or think - artists do not do this to the same extent).


The way I see it, video games have at last two of the three things you listed: communication and human expression. I would argue temporal richness is more of a subjective quality. Some people will get more out of a video game than others. Some people like Mark Rothko and some people prefer Homer Martin. It's a horses for courses sort of thing.

I don't think so. I think Csikszentmihaly is a little misleading here (I was drawing on him to distinguish between flow and art, but his distinctions are not subtle enough to give a full account of art and its values). The expression has to be understood in the sense articulated by COllingwood and Dewey, i.e. expression of emotions and sensations by attentive transformation of the world. This process takes the substrate of emotions and sensations and gives them a new level of organisation (see 'emergent' theories of consciousness and mind). In this way, it is not merely pre-existing information being 'communicated', but emotions and sensations being re-articulated as novel feelings ('expressed').

For these reasons, there is more subtlety, vivacity, richness, clarity or intensity to artworks (whether they be in paint, sculpture, dance, multimedia), which allows for greater development of novel experiences over time (this can also enable communication and self insights, but not always).

The important thing to note is that video games (on the whole) do not fail as art - they succeed as craft.

T3hJudoChop
22nd September 06, 05:16 PM
There might be some expression occurring (I don't deny this), but the primary mode is craft, not art (i.e. they creators knew what they wanted to make the players feel or think - artists do not do this to the same extent).

Artists know what they want to make their audience think and feel. This may not always be certain when they begin an artistic endeavor, but by the end, they know what they want. That is why editting is such a vital part of writing. It allows a writer to maximize the effect of their work.

The artist may lack control over the audience response, but they certainly try to steer their audience to a particular thought or feeling. To continue with the war theme, you can not say that Wilfred Owen did not intend to shock people with some of the horrors of war, to make them experience some of the suffering, when he wrote Dulce Et Decorum Est. His point of view is as clear as day and he wants the audience to experience it. Wilfred Owen's desire to demonstrate a particular viewpoint is no different from the makers of Metal Gear Solid.



The expression has to be understood in the sense articulated by Collingwood and Dewey, i.e. expression of emotions and sensations by attentive transformation of the world. This process takes the substrate of emotions and sensations and gives them a new level of organisation (see 'emergent' theories of consciousness and mind). In this way, it is not merely pre-existing information being 'communicated', but emotions and sensations being re-articulated as novel feelings ('expressed').

For these reasons, there is more subtlety, vivacity, richness, clarity or intensity to artworks (whether they be in paint, sculpture, dance, multimedia), which allows for greater development of novel experiences over time (this can also enable communication and self insights, but not always).

The important thing to note is that video games (on the whole) do not fail as art - they succeed as craft.

Now it sounds to me as if you do not value the ability of video games to completely immerse its audience, providing them with a whole host of different emotions over the course of a video game. I think the best examples of these can be found in RPGs or similar games like Metal Gear Solid or the Final Fantasy series.
I, personally, feel some sort of emotional investment in the characters of these games. That I am personally involved in the events of the game make it even more compelling. I'm not going to lie. When Palom and Parom sacrified their lives to protect the main characters of Final Fantasy II on the SNES(Final Fantasy IV in Japan), I did try different ways to bring them back to life. There was a bit of sadness there. This was before I reached the end and everything was dandy again.

Games like these can't hold the attention of its audience if it doesn't provide them with some compelling experience. Video games are no longer simply the regurgitation of information (you solved x puzzle. now try y puzzle), but the an experience that immerses its audience.

I have noticed a recurring theme with the notion that games will not yield the same rich rewards that one experiences from art because it is so task specific (you completed the game and therefore have no interest in returning to it), but this argument fails to take into account the appearance of so many open-ended games such as The Sims, Creatures, or Petz, that offer its audience reasons to return to the game and engage the world over and over again.

From where I stand, video games can achieve everything that art is supposed to.

kungfujew
22nd September 06, 05:25 PM
I resent that. Give me a Liszt of five bad qualities.

Let's see if you can Handel this:

1. You're a very Debussyve person.

2. Your jokes all turn out to be Brahms.

3. You Bartok too much.

4. You Ravel in others' Schnittke.

5. You just generally make me want to Scriabin.

Zendetta
22nd September 06, 05:29 PM
Let's see if you can Handel this:

Dear God! Someone please make them stop!!!





(Please don't stop)

kungfujew
22nd September 06, 05:31 PM
Dear God! Someone please make them stop!!!





(Please don't stop)

I Grieg for you.

DAYoung
22nd September 06, 06:17 PM
Artists know what they want to make their audience think and feel. This may not always be certain when they begin an artistic endeavor, but by the end, they know what they want. That is why editting is such a vital part of writing. It allows a writer to maximize the effect of their work.

Artists don't know what they are feeling until they complete their artworks - the testimony from chaps like Matisse, Picasso, Rodin and Kazantzakis is pretty clear on this. Then the craft of refinement begins. Art is not craft. Even if the creation of a work requires a mutualism between the two (art and craft), they are distinct activities.


The artist may lack control over the audience response, but they certainly try to steer their audience to a particular thought or feeling. To continue with the war theme, you can not say that Wilfred Owen did not intend to shock people with some of the horrors of war, to make them experience some of the suffering, when he wrote Dulce Et Decorum Est. His point of view is as clear as day and he wants the audience to experience it. Wilfred Owen's desire to demonstrate a particular viewpoint is no different from the makers of Metal Gear Solid.

You can intend all sorts of things, but this is different to developing an expression. Owen's work shocks, but it had to be honest self-expression before it was shocking.


Now it sounds to me as if you do not value the ability of video games to completely immerse its audience, providing them with a whole host of different emotions over the course of a video game. I think the best examples of these can be found in RPGs or similar games like Metal Gear Solid or the Final Fantasy series.
I, personally, feel some sort of emotional investment in the characters of these games. That I am personally involved in the events of the game make it even more compelling. I'm not going to lie. When Palom and Parom sacrified their lives to protect the main characters of Final Fantasy II on the SNES(Final Fantasy IV in Japan), I did try different ways to bring them back to life. There was a bit of sadness there. This was before I reached the end and everything was dandy again.

You can become emotionally invested in a number of things (people, dogs, drugs, keepsakes, places), but these are not artworks.


Games like these can't hold the attention of its audience if it doesn't provide them with some compelling experience. Video games are no longer simply the regurgitation of information (you solved x puzzle. now try y puzzle), but the an experience that immerses its audience.

Art sometimes involves discovery, but puzzle-solving is not art appreciation. It might be a 'flow' experience, but not all flow experiences are artistic experiences.


I have noticed a recurring theme with the notion that games will not yield the same rich rewards that one experiences from art because it is so task specific (you completed the game and therefore have no interest in returning to it), but this argument fails to take into account the appearance of so many open-ended games such as The Sims, Creatures, or Petz, that offer its audience reasons to return to the game and engage the world over and over again.

From where I stand, video games can achieve everything that art is supposed to.[/QUOTE]

This is one of the reasons most games are not art, but it is not the only one. You can come back to chess over and over again, but it isn't art. Art involves a constellation of features, some shared with games, some shared with entertainment, some shared with sex, but the overall constellation is quite different.

DAYoung
22nd September 06, 06:23 PM
Let's see if you can Handel this:

1. You're a very Debussyve person.

2. Your jokes all turn out to be Brahms.

3. You Bartok too much.

4. You Ravel in others' Schnittke.

5. You just generally make me want to Scriabin.

You're Baching up the wrong tree, and I'm gonna give you a Haydn if you don't stop. You're just playing Verdi-games.

Perhaps you need to take your Purcell full of pennies, and go Chopin for some new jokes.

kungfujew
22nd September 06, 06:32 PM
I Offenbached your Mahler!

DAYoung
22nd September 06, 06:35 PM
I Offenbached your Mahler!

Win.

Your Fauré into music puns was a triumph.

kungfujew
22nd September 06, 06:41 PM
Oh stop it! You're turning me Scarlatti...

Kiko
22nd September 06, 06:43 PM
Let's see if you can Handel this:

1. You're a very Debussyve person.

2. Your jokes all turn out to be Brahms.

3. You Bartok too much.

4. You Ravel in others' Schnittke.

5. You just generally make me want to Scriabin.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kungfujew again.

DAYoung
22nd September 06, 06:45 PM
Oh stop it! You're turning me Scarlatti...

You need to Janacek yourself, fool. That was Orfful.