Ranting regrets…

Of course the rant hasn’t been up a day yet and I feel like I should clarify it.

I like the work of all the bloggers mentioned. Even with the person who has the quote that I strongly disagree with is entitled to his opinion and I really don’t mean anything personal by it.

I read Mia Consalvo’s blog that she noted that violence isn’t mentioned at all, and I have to agree that this is a great step.

However, I sitll think that the article is dangerous in that it presents a very elitist vision of what videogame studies could end up being. Elitism sucks. Beware of it! (and of course I am aware of my own biases of reverse-elitism, or automatically tending to privledge the popular)

And of course there are typographical errors. I cannot spell. I may have a BA (or is it a BS? I really don’t remember) in English, but that doesn’t mean I can spell. I would go back and fix it, becasue it is embarasing, but I it is published and so be it.

3 Comments Showing 50 most recent
  1. Walter

    I think the whole elitism/populism thing is ultimately not reconciliable, at least barring any radical changes in technologically-minded socities. Googling for my own blog, I ran across someone who for all intents and purposes accused me of being someone who doesn’t really play games, based on my usage of terms like ‘agonistic integrity’ and ‘epistemic conditions’. Thing is, I feel I have good reason to use those terms: they have good utility. We have to coin new words and terms so we’re not trading gigantic sacks of words every time we want to reference a concept. But I also can’t blame someone for feeling put off by those words: I used to be someone who utterly loathed the dictionary, and hated everything that refused to communicate in plainspeak. For whatever reasons, I’ve changed, but it’d be foolish to advocate as a norm that everybody must likewise have the same attitude I now do.

    I also think it’s interesting to note how biased our society is towards the physical sciences and disciplines based off of them. You rarely hear anyone complaining about the obscurantism of physics, biology, medicine, engineering, etc. It’s just accepted that they need their own exclusionary languages. Why do other fields get crap for doing likewise? It’d be hypocritical if only people could recognize the hypocrisy.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, it’s all about the division of labor: people have to specialize, and specialization creates exclusion. We shouldn’t expect to be able to tear down all exclusions. Of course, I’m in favor of tearing down most exclusions about what we can legitimately study. For instance, while I don’t think building a canon is entirely wrongheaded, I also don’t think that canon-builders can ever rest easy about their decisions and their decision-making processes.

    Blah, that’s enough for now.

  2. bryan young

    Thanks for the input!

    I certainly don’t think there is anything wrong with complexity. However, there is something wrong with being purposefully obtuse and using words simply to sound important. Honestly, I find that a lot of the most brilliant theorists, are not the best writers. They have great ideas, but communicate them very poorly.

    We are in the process of building a new dicipline. The errors of the old discipline are well known. I see no reason why we should model ourselves after something we know to be flawed.

    This does not mean that we should not have rigor. That we should not have standards. What it means is that we should be sure that we are aware of the results of our work and what predjudices and exclusions we are building into our work.

  3. Walter

    I can agree with that.

    Interestingly, the name of the NYT article has been changed from “The Ivy-Covered Console” to “Deconstructing the Videogame”.