I was quite happy to leave things as they were and move on. I had more knowledge coming out than I had going in and, in gaining that knowledge, had changed my opinion of one genre of video game in terms of literary content. I am still unconvinced that the content is comparable to great literature.
However...................
....some comments definitely made me cringe. That always puts me on the alert for possible escalations, and it's been a tribute to this community that nothing untoward has occurred here.
Untoward? I can't even imagine what that could mean.
However, in the unlikely event that Tacit or any reader of this thread has actually been offended by its content I'll be the first to apologize.
[quote=ryck]....but it sounded to me as if many of your comments to those who supporting the idea that electronic games could have a plot and/or storyline could easily be interpreted as equally dismissive.
Many of my comments? Hardly.
I expressed an opinion that, based on what I'd seen in documentaries, that Medal of Honor could
not be compared with The Red Badge of Courage on a literary level. In the next post you said you were "....personally inclined to agree...".
You went on to make the point, with a supporting argument, that there are original stories found in graphic novels. Without supporting argument, you also suggested that video games may be extensions of fairy tales. I agreed with your first point, not your second.
In the next post we have the first dismissive comment but, surprise surprise, it's not from me. Without supporting argument, Tacit states that many video games have "very strong storylines". He goes on to dismiss my opinion out-of-hand as nothing more than an emotional reaction.
Despite the fact that there was nothing to support Tacit's contention of the games' literary value, I say I am prepared to accept his word that they have the kinds of plots he described, although there's no evidence they're comparable to great literature.
I decide to do some reading on the plots in Tacit's examples and conclude the plots are formulaic. Based on a Joseph Campbell theory, you suggest my conclusion could be applicable to all literature going back to ancient times.
I don't agree although I admit I am not the best person to debate the merits of the theory. I concede again that some video games have plots (although I have yet to hear any supporting argument).
In the next post we get meat. Tacit writes a comprehensive and excellent description of the plots in the games he mentioned. Sturner adds support with examples. Tacit's post changes my mind about the literary value of some games.
I thank Tacit for taking the time to be so informative. I have a small disagreement about whether conventional storytelling needs to be passive. I reiterate my point about Mr. Gibeau's defense of Medal of Honor and suggest it's a straw man.
Tacit now changes the direction of the thread from video games to books and waxes eloquent about Use of Weapons. He concludes with what I perceive as a veiled swipe at me but I choose to ignore it.
It is definitel my opinion that there are many literary forms which are dismissed as not being "real" literature (science fiction, for example, or graphic novels), but in which you can find some interesting, groundbreaking, and even breathtaking literature. I would venture to say that quite a bit of the cutting-edge works of good literature of the last half of the 20th century have gone totally unnoticed by a lot of people because they're happening in genres which folks are accustomed to dismissing out of hand.
And that's a shame.
However, maybe a response is in order. I am not dismissing anything out of hand. When I was a kid I read a few sci-fi comics but I didn't like them. I found them boring. As I grew into my teens I tried a couple more times to read sci-fi but could never get past a few chapters before finding them a giant snore.
Not an "emotional reaction", not out-of-hand dismissiveness...I just don't care for it. I can understand why others might like it (although I wonder about the costumed convention attendees) but I don't understand why my rightful dislike seems to generate such zealotry.
Anyway, I respond to Tacit and suddenly two Moderators have jumped in.
Your arguments in this thread appear to imply the size of the audience or critical acclaim for a given work of art (I am including all the arts such as visual, musical, literary, performance, etc.) is a determinant its value or worthiness. If that is what you intended to imply, you are treading on quicksand.
How could you possibly draw that conclusion? Not one word in any of my posts suggested that awards matter. In fact, it's only only Tacit who seems to think that they are an important measuring stick.
It's also science fiction, rather than more mainstream fiction...which, as I've
written about here, I believe is the only reason it hasn't won a Pulitzer Prize.
And, in the link Tacit provided, he even underlined the importance of awards by suggesting that even more than the Pulitzer would be appropriate: "....and there's a reason it has not won a Pulitzer Prize. At the very least."
If your awards point is important perhaps you should direct it at the right person.
My sin was to have an opinion that the "because it's science fiction" rationale for not winning the coveted prize might be a weak argument. Sorry about that but I thought opinions were allowed in The Lounge.
ryck