»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Video Games--Misunderstood?
| The Alley |
|
Video Games--Misunderstood? |
|
|
CloudedDreams Member
since 2002-11-23
Posts 210My Fantasy Realm |
I hate this... Media, government, my neighbors down the street... they all complain about how video games are warping our minds and teaching us to kill. Oh, so does this mean if I play Grand theft Auto that I will be a killer and theif? NO! I believe that parents have a large portion in this. at an early age, children are to be taught what is real and what is not. they should also be taugh what is wrong and what is right. I was taught these many things, and i know that if I shoot someone, i am not going to get 300 points, and that they really are dead. People are ready to blame anybody, but they never look at themselves. Some games are violent, and at times explicit, but if we are taught morals and guardians evaluate whether a child/teen is mature enough to handle a game. I can shoot a sniper in a game, but does that make me more likely to shoot down a person in real life? Games improve reading, hand-eye coordination, and reflexes, but not actual gun-combat skills. Yes there will be tommorrow, but will you be there to greet it? |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Eliza K. - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Stinky Twinkie Member
since 2002-11-26
Posts 204Dinwiddie |
Excellent! I agree 138%. Good vent. -Stinky Twinkie- |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Maybe the right question to ask is why anyone would want to shoot a sniper? If someone has been taught morals and is mature, how could they derive pleasure from the vicarious taking of human life? Is violence really something to be enjoyed? |
||
|
Kosetsu Member
since 2001-03-10
Posts 450Alabama, USA |
Perhaps not, Ron. At the same time, humans are naturally violent creatures. The majority of society enjoys seeing violence, so violence appears in entertainment. In the end, it all comes down to perspective and circumstance. Say that sniper is willing to kill and capable of killing ten, fifteen, twenty innocents. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the shot if you knew you could take him out and put an end to the death he could and would cause? I honestly believe that it would take a great deal of maturity to be able to make the decision to kill one person in order to save the lives of five, ten, fifteen or more. As for morals...I don't think morals can be taught. They can be pressed upon a person, but it up to that person to decide what their own morals are. I know a pair of twins who, despite being brought up exactly the same by the same people, have entirely different morals and standards. They chose them on their own, not because they were taught that "This is right, and this is wrong," but because they chose what felt right to them. -Adam |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Yes, games can improve eye-hand coordination and some skills. I'm not convinced they are actually the cause of violence, but rather a reflection of what already exists. However, I do believe they tend to make light of a serious flaw in humanity's approach to disputes. I do think they often glorify the worst of our collective insanity. Recently, there seems to be an increase in the number of youth who have acted out some horrific and self-destructive movie scenes, as well as violent gaming scenarios. I do worry about this, as it does seem to implicate the gaming and movie industry. But it also seems to me that GI Joe's and Barbies have done their share of damage too. Rather than placing blame, I'd like to see us spend money and energy promoting conflict resolution techniques that don't require fists and weapons. I don't see many games or movies that even try to approach the world's problems from this angle. [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (01-01-2003 04:53 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Perhaps one of the things misunderstood here is that one of the principal methods of military training is simulate, simulate, simulate. Army psychologists have said such games are training kids to kill... |
||
|
quietlydying
since 2001-06-10
Posts 935the wonderful land of oz |
ron, i was about to post, when i realised you took the words right out of my mouth.  nicely said. i agree fully. /jen/ 'i don't care if it hurts, i want to have control. i want a perfect body, i want a perfect soul.' [radiohead] |
||
|
quietlydying
since 2001-06-10
Posts 935the wonderful land of oz |
a few more things. how do games improve reading? the most reading you'll ever have to do is 'number of players' and 'choice of murder weapon'. games also increase levels of illiterateness, obesity, [which lead to obesity-related illnesses], agression, violence, etc. /jen/ 'i don't care if it hurts, i want to have control. i want a perfect body, i want a perfect soul.' [radiohead] |
||
|
Kosetsu Member
since 2001-03-10
Posts 450Alabama, USA |
quote: I'll take this piece by piece. First, many games have complex storylines and plots, most of which require the player to read in order to learn the plot. Of course, there are people who play games simply for the violence and pay no attention to the story, but just the same there are people who go to a movie to see the big mandatory conflict rather than pay attention to the rest of the story. Even those games that lack any storyline whatsoever tend to have complex instructions and such, which must be at least somewhat understood in order to play the game. I fail to see how videogames increase levels of illiteracy. Perhaps they do less to promote literacy than a good novel does, but most games require some degree of literacy to understand, unlike most movies or television shows. As for obesity, perhaps so. But the same could be said about sitting around reading books all day. Even spending a few hours writing rather than a few hours playing basketball could be said to "promote obesity". It's the person's decision. If a person doesn't motivate themself to exercise, it won't matter whether videogames or novels are the "cause" of it. I'll take aggression and violence together, and honestly, I don't see these either. I've been playing videogames all of my life, and many of them have had a good deal of violence in them. I've been exposed to violence through television and the news, as well as in personal life. Funny how I'm a pacifist. The general concensus seems to think I should be roaming the streets about now raping and murdering like the heartless beast that such things should have rotted my mind into. Again, it all comes down to the person. People have to choose to be violent. They have the choice to be peaceful. Most simply ignore that choice. -Adam |
||
|
CloudedDreams Member
since 2002-11-23
Posts 210My Fantasy Realm |
wow... go Adam! I say that yes, most games do have something to read, and some games, the ones with complex plots, take not only reading, but being able to get an idea of what's going on. My PlayStaion controller is in no way related to a gun. I don't think I'll be able to find the X button on a sniper weapon. And if we are able to take our anger out playing video games, Isn't killing a couple thousand of polygons better that an actual person? Yes there will be tommorrow, but will you be there to greet it? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But that's precisely where I start having serious problems with this whole issue. There are three ways to deal with anger. One way is to suppress it, something most of us do on an almost daily basis. Your boss is a jerk, your teacher is an idiot, and your parents just don't have a clue. But as reasonably intelligent humans, we quickly learn that expressing our anger at authority figures usually carries a price. So we swallow our anger and let it become a dense knot of dissatisfaction lodged uncomfortably just south of the sternum. Contrary to common wisdom, suppressing your anger isn't necessarily unhealthy. Most of the time, your boss turns around and does something nice or your teacher gives you a good grade or your parents tell you how proud they are and all the anger that was swallowed melts into nothingness. Suppression of anger only becomes unhealthy, I think, when it becomes constant and the lump continues to grow. The other common way to deal with anger, and the one suggested here, is to redirect it. When I was a teen, and later in the Marines, I used boxing to that end. I'm sure violent video games would serve the same purpose, and probably with a lot fewer bruises than I suffered. Unfortunately, redirecting anger is just another way of suppressing it. That's fine as long as the knot in our guts melts from time to time, but when the anger is allowed to continuously grow, the redirection has a terrible tendency to grow with it. For most people, hitting people while in the ring or shooting imaginary snipers is a harmless diversion. But for those who cannot rid themselves of their anger, it is a step in the wrong direction. As the anger escalates, so too does the violence, until gloves and little buttons are no longer enough. What was a diversion for most becomes a path for a few. Tragedy ensues, and people suffer. Both suppression and redirection of anger necessarily depend on other people to help us melt the lump of anger in our gut. I get mad at my boss. He does something nice. The anger dissipates. But if I get mad at my boss over and over and over, and he never seems to do anything to counter-balance my anger, something is going to eventually blow. I believe there is a third way to deal with anger, one that doesn't depend on others. I believe it is the only way that truly works. The first step is to stop trying to control other people. I'm guessing that 98 percent of the anger in this world is a direct result of wanting someone else to do (or be) something and having them refuse to cooperate. This is particularly true, I think, in close relationships. I want her to call more often. I want him to send flowers for no reason. I want more respect. I want to be trusted. Anytime you allow your happiness to depend on the actions of another human being, I guarantee you will eventually be hurt, disappointed, and angry. This is particularly ironic, I think, because most of the time what you think you want isn't really what you need. You don't really want flowers for no reason. You want reassurance and security, and that will NEVER come from someone else. Wanting something from someone else usually reflects something missing in yourself. Deal with that, instead, and stop putting your destiny in someone else's hands. When you stop trying to control people and let them be who they are, you'll rid yourself of most reasons to get angry. The second step is to stop letting other people control you. This is even tougher for most of us than the first step. Why are teens, as a group, often more angry than adults. A large part of it, I think, is because they feel as if they have no control over their own lives. If you absolutely positively NEED that job or that friendship or that relationship, then you have lost control of your own life. And nothing, I think, is more likely to lead to anger than that feeling of helplessness. The alternative, of course, is to have enough confidence in yourself to know you can get a better job or a better friendship or a more fulfilling relationship. You may ultimately choose to do none of those things, but giving yourself the option by believing you can will restore your own sense of control. Finally, I believe the only real way to deal with anger is to learn to understand other people. Learn to recognize their imperfections and appreciate them for who they are. Your boss is a total jerk? WHY is he a jerk? I guarantee if you learn to see his motivations and desires, his insecurities and frailties, if you truly gain a deep understanding of who he is, you will no longer be able to be angry at him. You might still well disagree with what he does, but your understanding will temper your anger. That little knot just below the sternum will fade because of YOUR actions, not because of someone else's. In my opinion, video games, most movies, and most television are all a complete waste of time. But in moderation, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Humans NEED to waste time, maybe just as much as we need to eat and sleep. I don't think video games need to be justified beyond their simple enjoyment, and they most certainly should not be used for anger management. To paraphrase a common slogan, video games don't kill people. People kill people. |
||
|
CloudedDreams Member
since 2002-11-23
Posts 210My Fantasy Realm |
how can you not let people control you if you have no choice but to be controled? |
||
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
I just love how that guy from the FBI came to my highschool last year and taught us about how the FBI conditions people to kill without remorse... Not surprisingly, violent video games were on the list of conditioning exercises. Just one question: Why the heck would you want to spend your days inside playing a GAME instead of being outside? Geeze, it's no wonder kids these days dont' know how to entertain themselves. Before you bring up the obvious, yes, I spend a lot of my time on my computer. Unfortunately. You think I enjoy it? Occasionally, but most of my time on this stupid thing is because of school work. Video games ARE rather anti-social, everyone has to admit that one. Sorry, I'm just sick of people saying that video games are useful. Yeah. Useful to get kids out of parents' hair, and allow the parents to neglect in their parenting duties. I just don't buy into that one. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?  But we always have choices, even if we don't always like what those choices are. Ever spent the night in jail? Signed your life away to Uncle Sam for four years? No matter how limited your options might feel, you still have to make the decision how best to deal. Sometimes, the best choice is simply to exercise patience, knowing "this too shall pass." With an end in sight, that's often enough. |
||
|
CloudedDreams Member
since 2002-11-23
Posts 210My Fantasy Realm |
I am sorry, but there are online games in which kids/adults interact and meet other people. It is not only kids who play video games, lots of mature, successful people play video games. Video games open a new world to people. Many people become friends by simply discussing video games. i myself met my best friend by discussing games and then learning more about each other. Video games also bridge the gap between generations and ethnic groups by bringing them together at conventions, meetings, chatrooms, and like mentioned earlier, online gaming. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
In the 50s, they blamed Elvis and rock'n'roll. It is easy to play the blame game. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I agree with Ron. Video games are, essentially, a waste of time. They are a fun, sometimes consuming waste of time, but that is essentially what they are. Wasting time is also essential. There's no need to justify it beyond that. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Hush said, "Video games are, essentially, a waste of time. They are a fun, sometimes consuming waste of time, but that is essentially what they are." ~ In your opinion, of course. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
So because they create no tangible, real life benefits, they are a waste of time? Are video games the only form of entertainment that has such results? I agree that video games are very unfairly considered by people as a "waste of time." It's a form of entertainment - if it entertains and makes you happy, that's a real result, isn't it? Know what NES stands for? Nintendo Entertainment System. You can't say something is bad because it doesn't do a bunch of stuff it never claimed to do anyways. I couldn't complain that my car sucks because it doesn't know how to make me breakfast. I'd say playing video games does about the same as reading fictional novels - fiction won't enrich your life any more than playing Final Fantasy will. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
My daughter loves the Final Fantasy series. I'd rather her play that then watch the boobtube, which she hardly watches at all. Btw, by playing RPGs, like Final Fantasy (series), she is actually reading instead of just watching and she went ahead and created her own strategy guide, which she intends to submit to gamefaqs.com She also love to read Harry Potter books. I would say her playing these games is not a waste of time. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If we see video games as a drug, doesn't it follow that they aren't the essential cause? Personally, I don't enjoy them -- interesting for fifteen minutes and then I go to the bar(My fingers start to hurt.). But we are still, I mean we, responsible for our actions on a drug, on a video game, on the internet. People kill people and if it's not video games the people who will kill will find something else. Going to have to develop this idea a bit more sometime soon (Got it from Ron by the way), but it seems Clouded Dreams is right. Video Games aren't the problem, aren't a problem, just are. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Depends on who you're reading, LR. The difference between fiction and literature is defined by enrichment. Read a good book, say, by Tolstoy or Hemingway, and you'll walk away with a better understanding of humanity. Good books have depth and truth. Bad books are shallow and show us only stereotypical caricatures of ourselves. That's why I lump most television and movies with video games. Each is generally shallow and offers little legitimate insight. There is nothing wrong with simple entertainment. Everything we do doesn't have to enrich us. But I also believe some forms of time-wasting entertainment are intrinsically healthier than others. Media that both distorts our understanding of human nature and simultaneously insulates us from society while we enjoy it is always going to fall pretty low on my list. |
||
|
Kosetsu Member
since 2001-03-10
Posts 450Alabama, USA |
Some might argue that being insulated from society could be a blessing, particularly to teens and children. Think how many times these days teens are pressured by society to act a certain way, do a certain thing, wear certain clothes, go to certain places. Isolation is not always a bad thing. With society the way it is, I can't honestly see why anyone would want to be near it. Growing up, I kept to myself. I occupied myself with videogames and fantasies. Call it as you will, but I wouldn't be the same person I am now if I hadn't occupied myself with such things. Through videogames, I learned concepts I would not have learned from playing outside with the friends I might have had. I learned sacrifice for the sake of others, such as when Palom and Porom, the child wizards, turned themselves to stone to save their friends. Through the characters of Final Fantasy 6, I saw the devastation of a planet, and the will of its people to survive. I learned through them determination, undying hope. Basics, of course, but these things kept me thinking. Why? Why would someone let themself die in order to save someone else? What could possess someone to continue on when they have nothing left? Of course, there is the point that many games don't possess such underlying themes. Indeed, some are merely about picking a weapon and seeing how many kills you can rack up. For the last couple of weeks, I've been playing Counterstrike with some friends. It's a 1st person shooter game, multiplayer...you divide into two teams, Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist. The former's job is to either plant a bomb or keep the CTs from saving the hostages. The latter's is to save the hostages or defuse the bomb. The game never ends. As soon as one side loses, the game reloads, and the players continue as if nothing happens. Players rush blindly into crossfire, knowing that if they fall, they'll simply be respawned next round. This, I do not think is healthy...but even this is not so harmful as I think some people might believe. None of the people I have ever played with have ever lead me to believe that they could not distinguish reality from fiction. Most of them have never held a gun, and those that have are limited to hunting rifles or paintball guns. As has been said, playing a game where you shoot a gun won't teach you to shoot a real one. For that matter, most videogames even use flawed methods of holding a weapon, simply because it looks cooler (one case being using two handguns simultaneously...doing so would be difficult, let along inaccurate). Videogames don't teach you about recoil. Most don't require you to lead a target. Maybe videogames do have some influence on people. Big deal. So do television, books, music, junk food, and any of a thousand other things. 99.5%+ of videogames have no restrooms to be found, anywhere! Tell me, when was the last time you saw a gamer refuse to go to the bathroom, claiming that no such thing existed? Maybe try to hold it until an exciting point in the game is passed, or until one is at a point where one can pause...but never completely neglect the duty. Still...if videogames can affect one's perception of reality so easily... Call it an over-exaggerated example or even a crazy one. The principle is the same. Violence is so common in the modern world, one can expect to see it as easily as one can expect every house to have a restroom. If videogames can make people more violent and aggressive, why isn't there also a huge increase in people refusing to use the restroom? -Adam |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Yeah, I'll concede that storyline RPG's have more merit to them than most other video games. In fact, over my winter break, I decided to get my playstation out and have a third go at Final Fantasy 7. I am wasting a whole lot of time. Yeah, there's a storyline, but you know what else there's a lot of? Time-consuming battles, levelling up, chocobo racing, and the ever-time-consuming goal of defeating that ultimate weapon thing. Hours and hours of my life will be pumped into a controller before I beat the game again. I could be doing much more useful things with my time, rather than squandering it. But I'd rather squander it, at least some of it. I never said that gaming systems aren't entertaining. They are. But they rarely do more than entertain. What are the real-life applications of limit breaks and magic points? I spend so much time on those trivial, non-applicable features to advance the storyline (while it is very good and very mature)- time during which I could have read maybe three or four hefty novels, worked off my freshamn fifteen, built a house with Habitat for Humanity, or so many other useful things. But I don't feel like being useful right now. I feel like pushing some buttons, getting some new magic, and killing some more enemies. On hand-eye-coordination, I have this to say: nobody, and I mean nobody, could beat me at the old SNES Tetris Attack game. I got so good at lining same-colored boxes up together and planning sequences that the freakin' controller couldn't keep up with me. Put me in a gym with a ball and I'm utterly helpless to catch it. Other than seeing a rainbow-grid of moving pixels instead of a blackboard at school, and giving me big-time dork bragging rights, that game did nothing for me. In fact, the distraction it provided, simply by my constant yearning to play it, probably had a serious impact on other areas of my life. But, hey, I loved wasting my time on a stupid little puzzle game. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"Some games are violent, and at times explicit, but if we are taught morals and guardians evaluate whether a child/teen is mature enough to handle a game." Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Besides if people want video games they will get them. I know. I just came from the child/teen years you describe. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
wow my thesis has some relevance.. I wrote about the effects of animation violence on children. I believe that computer games have similar if not even more direct effect on children. After all with computer games the children are interacting, they are the cause of the violence. Watching a violent film or playing a computer game can not turn a child into a cold-blooded killer but what according to The American Psychological Association it has the following effects: Children become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. They are more fearful of the world around them. They behave in an aggressive manner towards others. A number of factors contribute to people's attitudes towards violence, television and video games are one contributing factor as well as social and economic circumstances. I don't have the source of this following quote at the moment: "For most children, fantasy may help drain off excess aggression, but for some it may actually build aggression and contribute to violent act. This, we repeat, is not wholly predictable from the content; it is necessary also to know the children". watched from the wings as the scenes were replayed we saw ourselves now as we never have seen" ian curtis |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: LP. And LP wholly agrees with you. A lot of fiction is excellent for expanding your horizons. Right now I'm reading Huxley's "Island" and it's absolutely blowing my mind... pushing me places I've never thought of exploring. There is a lot of fiction out there that can expand your horizons, make you question your beliefs, I don't deny that. I wasn't referring to literature, what I had in mind is Stephen King novels and things you see people reading on the bus... entertainment fiction. I could agree with Kosetsu to less of an extreme that many video games (like some of the Final Fantasy series) have an incredible amount of depth and are often so beautifully done in story, concept and yes, even (often especially) music. I do consider video games, like most things, capable of being an art form. Final Fantasy 7 is a good example. Buganhagen's speech about the planet deserves an oscar, in my opinion. So many times Sephiroth's very atmosphere was definitive of the romantic sublime... And Hush, did you cry when Aeris died? I almost did.  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Aeris got on my nerves. So no, I didn't cry, but I kind of sat there thinking 'huh.' But hey, you know what else the Final Fantasies are besides having a good storyline, artistic graphics, and good music? They're violent. "Hey look, someone's evil, now let's kill them!" Oh, and did I mention, a pretty big chunk of dissappearing time. And, hey, what's wrong with Stephen King. I will definitely argue that if there is some meaning and depth in certain video games, there is definitely some meaning and depth in Stephen King novels. I haven't read that many, but The Shining is one of my favorite books- I think the psychological process he shows is realy detailed and really effective. And what about the Bachman books? I'm kind of wishy-washy on Rage, but I definitely think The Long Walk and The Running Man are good exampled of social satire, albeit terribly dark and violent. I'll even concede that there's some titillation involved in them, but I think that's part of the point. He's showing us that we're not immune- that we get off on the violence, even if we don't approve. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LP, I think hush is essentially right. The only quantifiable difference between literature (Huxley) and entertainment (King) is one of timing. During his lifetime, Shakespeare wrote entertainment. It was only later we started calling it literature. p.s. Who, in 1974, could have foreseen the Columbine tragedy? Anyone read Carrie? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
It all comes down to parenting and raising your children with love and caring, not video games, tv, or any other source of media. "The devil made me do it." ~ Flip Wilson |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
That is a good point to bring up, Ron... a lot of people would say that the only difference between what we consider literature and what we just see as fiction is the age of the writing. You know, we had that exact same discussion last year in my English Literature class. Sure it was a high school class, but hey, we still had some good discussions. I talked to my teacher a bit about his feelings on what constitutes literature and he and I came to the agreement that literature isn't necessarily what is old, nor is non-literary fiction something that's just a new trend... I agree completely that Shakespeare wrote a lot for the sake of entertainment, but he still packed his work with a lot of social criticism, philosophical sentiments and the like... so that by actually reading (or seeing) one of his plays, there would be room for entertainment as well as insight. Take the clowns, for instance... Shakespeare had a clown in a lot of his plays, for the sake of entertainment, but not really making that entertainment value crucial to the story. I also remember doing Hamlet as a class, and all of us analyzing the purpose of a lot of Shakespeare's humour... seems he mixed a lot in there just to keep the attention and intrigue of his audience, but behind that intrigue, gave a lot of underlying insight. I've read one Stephen King novel and it wasn't a very well-known one, it was a ten-dollar paperback that I bought at a convenience store (I don't like first reading popular works by authors because of all the outer interference you get with your own comprehension of the text)... from what I could see, it was filled with the supernatural, with some psychological exploration in the characters, but mostly just a very detailed description of events. I don't recall coming back from the book with any questions, really, or it making any serious points to me that I stirred around for weeks afterwards. Honestly I didn't enjoy the book... King is a good writer, but the book seemed to be written with entertainment in mind. This doesn't mean literature can't do the same thing. I'm going to refer to one of my favourite works - Wordsworth and Coleridge's late 1700/early 1800 publication of the Lyrical Ballads... right at the start of the text, Wordsworth makes an argument that it is a collection of poetry that deals both with the ordinary and the supernatural, in such a way that can be appreciated by common people, in common language. This is pretty plainly stating that the content is written for entertainment, but using entertainment as a vehicle for a more important message. I would say that literature does use entertainment, but it doesn't focus on entertainment. Stephen King, from what I could see, focused on entertainment as the primary motive to his work. Of course, only he knows what he really focuses on with his work... in any case, the motive of the reader is all that matters. Ever been to a book club meeting? Any one that I've seen is full of "what-did-you-likes" in the story. Most people who read Stephen King read it for entertainment, and not because they're interested in what the author himself has to say. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Try this on for size, LP. The primary purpose of ALL fiction is to entertain. If it doesn't, the author might as well have written non-fiction (and would likely find more readers that way). The best authors, however, realize that entertainment happens on many different levels. For every reader entertained solely by "what happens next," there is another reader who will find their enjoyment only when they understand WHY what happens next should be important to them. Good writers weave a tapestry that only a very few readers will ever see in its entirety. Corollary: If a popular writer seems shallow, maybe he is. OR maybe the reader is seeing only the surface of the tapestry in front of him? |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: There's a perfect example of how wrong you are sitting on my desk right now. I just finished reading it a while ago. Plato's "Republic." It's written in the form of dialogue that never actually occurred as it is written, but was invented by the author. Yeah, I'd call that fiction. The primary purpose of the text is clearly not entertainment. That doesn't mean that entertainment wasn't on Plato's mind - the original greek text (from what I hear) was beautifully written in a very flowing and almost poetic style. Writing can be extremely entertaining without entertainment being the primary intent of the author. [This message has been edited by Local Parasite (01-08-2003 08:31 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm not sure I would consider Plato a novelist, any more than I would call "In Cold Blood" a novel. Still, I won't quibble over details, but instead will ask a simple question. If the primary purpose of the text is clearly not entertainment, LP, why did he bother writing it as a dialogue? Plato knew that entertainment is the horse that pulls the cart filled with enlightenment and enrichment. Put the cart in the front of the horse and nothing is going to happen. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: Well, he didn't write it for the sake of entertainment... in fact that was a question on our mid-term exam - Plato wrote in dialogue in order to show the process of philosophic discussion and socratic method. That can't be demonstrated quite as well in essay form. It's also a more convenient way of introducing challenges to Plato's points, as well as showing his refutations to popular established opinions... a character in the Republic could represent a common belief or set of beliefs, that Plato could analyze in conversation. It's not just Plato. Have you read 1984? I doubt that was written primarily for entertainment, because of all the important questions it raises, the points it makes about the relationship between thought and language (which have been made before, of course), et cetera. Even very young children have fiction that is written to educate them, not to entertain. I'm young and basic teenager, so naturally I haven't read a lot of literature, I admit... but I've read enough to know that it's not always about entertainment. Of course there's a lot of "literature" out there that are basically just old entertainment novels... Joyce is a brilliant author whose writing style I admire, but I never saw much past the entertainment in his writing. Stuff like Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby is plain fiction, written a long time ago with some social criticism, but nothing I'd really call important... I know that in its time, Catcher in the Rye was really popular with the youth. All entertainment. The bottom line is that fiction is often a more effective approach to communicating your message than non-fiction would be... and it shouldn't always be lumped under written-for-entertainment-value. All this aside, I must seem really annoying, always bringing up Plato... hehe... I just really liked that book, that's all...  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
You don't think the Catcher in the Rye held cultural pertinence? Talk about yourn social criticism- in the fifties, there wasnt a whole lot of room to criticize "phonies." That book broke the mold. I didn't like it very much. I didn't find it very entertaining, because i thought Holden Caulfield was a whiny pain in the butt. You know what else? I didn't like 1984 that much either. It wasn't all that entertaining. I read it dutifully, because it's a classic book of social criticism and I sure like to criticize society, and there's no easier way to do that than to liberally sprinkle essays and articles (I was an editor on my high school newspaper) with thought police and Big Brother reference. But I thought the book was boring. I liked Animal Farm much better. In any case, I'd rather read a juicy Stephen King novel than 1984 or the Catcher in the Rye again. Did you ever consider that the book you read by him wasn't very popular because it wasn't his best work? I don't claim to know that much about King, but my boyfriend's read a great deal of his books, and according to him, everything after the Green Mile pretty much sucks. But I think there's a good reason that the Shining is as famous as it is- it's a complex book with interesting characters... and you know what the Shining does that 1984 failed to do? It honestly sent chills up my spine. I found the idea of a hotel that can manipulate peoples' minds more terrifying than a government that does the same. Why? King wrote in a much more emotive, accessible way. He made it matter to me- Orwell bored me. A poet I like, Daphne Gottlieb, wrote a poem called "The Personal is Political." I think that's true, and I think that entertainment is probably one of the best ways to get someone politically involved in something. I mean, I'd much rather sit down and have a conversation with Micheal Moore than with, say, Bill Bennet, because Micheal Moore is so funny, and furthermore, he uses his incredible sense of ironic humor to make extremely pertinent points. When's the last time Bill Bennet made me laugh on Fox News? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're certainly right that fiction is a more effective approach for communicating a message. Not just often, in my opinion, but always. But why is it more effective? Because it is more entertaining than essay! As an essay, 1984 would have been probably ten or twenty pages long. Everything Huxley had to say could have been distilled down to a fairly short essay. It would have been just as understandable, too, just as informative and interesting. But it would NOT have had the impact the novel did. Knowing a thing is never the same as feeling a thing. It's all relative, of course, which I think is all you're really proving. If you grasp something of the underlying meaning, then it's literature. If you don't, then it's entertainment. What you haven't seen yet is that those are your limitations, not the limitations of the genre. Catcher in the Rye and Gatsby are both incredibly deep stories, LP. Far more so than 1984, where the intended meaning was usually a big stick Huxley used to beat you over the head. (Amy is right, Animal Farm was a far superior and deeper story than 1984.) That you apparently missed much of the meaning in those stories by Fitzgerald and Salinger is okay, though. You've got plenty of time and, if you continue to read critically, you WILL return to them someday. Probably more than once, as I know I did. Here's something else to consider, too. I think it's important to realize is that social commentary is not the only important thing that can be learned from quality fiction. It's not even the most important, because you can always learn it elsewhere (if with less entertainment). But you will never live long enough or widely enough to meet and understand all the people you can encounter in fiction. Nick Carraway is more than just a character in a book, he's an archetype for much of humanity. You think social structure is important? Or engineering or medicine or art? Or computer programming? No matter what you do in life, no matter how much skill or knowledge or expertise you might accumulate, you will fail miserably if you don't understand people. Conversely, with a deep understanding of what makes people tick, even mediocrity will rise to stellar levels. Writers like Fitzgerald, Salinger, Hemingway, Shakespeare, and Dickinson use fiction as a vehicle to share their uncanny understanding of humanity. And, yea, even King should probably be included, because to grasp the nature of a man's fear is to better understand the man. Here's the rub, LP. If Plato or Huxley weren't entertaining, YOU WOULDN'T READ THEM. How many good phone books have you read lately? As with the poetry we write in these forums, what you have to say is never more important than how you say it. Because the writer who thinks it is will never be heard. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
You know what, Ron? The more I read what you're saying, the more I think that you and I actually agree... I only ever challenged that entertainment is the primary purpose of all fiction. Almost everything you're saying I agree with. Entertainment value is important, it's very important, but it's still not the primary purpose of the text. Also, I do think it is possible to have entertainment in a non-fictional text. Haven't read any interesting phone books lately. I have, however, read some interesting text books, some interesting essays, the like. You still can't deny that there are writers who write entirely for the purpose of being entertaining. Ever read something in the Goosebumps series by R.L. Stine? Spent a lot of my elementary school time reading those books. "Stay Out Of The Basement" didn't exactly have any deeper, more global meaning behind it - and if it did, I'm sure Stine didn't intend it to. These are books written for the sake of entertainment. That's what I was arguing when I said the primary purpose of all fiction isn't entertainment. Read something like "The Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield (a light read - give it a weekend or so) and you'll see that there are still people who write what are considered fictional novels, with the primary purpose of educating or spreading their message, as opposed to simple entertainment with the inadvertent (sp?) possibility of conveying a deeper message. And who knows? Maybe I will come back and read Catcher and Gatsby sometime. I might even enjoy them a bit more. Or maybe our tastes in literature just differ. Who knows? Thanks for the insight, as usual.  [This message has been edited by Local Parasite (01-09-2003 03:18 PM).] |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
For the record - 1984 and Animal Farm were written by George Orwell, NOT Huxley, if I remember right. I had the opportunity to read "Animal Farm" in my english lit class, but opted for 1984... more people chose Animal Farm because it was so much shorter a novel. Go figure. I like Huxley a whole lot better, personally. And it's not just because he's more entertaining - from what I've read, his points are more clearly justified in his writing than Orwell's are. [This message has been edited by Local Parasite (01-09-2003 03:19 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I guess our clash, then, is just over a definition of the word primary. If I say the primary purpose of food is to be palatable, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't or shouldn't be nutritious. It just means that nutrition MUST be secondary to taste because there will be NO nutrition if you aren't willing to eat it. And, yes, I purposely chose phone book to make my point because it's one of very few written documents not meant to entertain. I even discarded "dictionary" because a decent dictionary is well written and marginally entertaining (at least for nerds like me). Non-fiction falls under the same identical entertainment constraints as fiction. Otherwise, people wouldn't read it. But there's a very good reason why so many more people crawl up in front of a fire with a novel than with a text book. It's much more difficult to write non-fiction that entertains on the same level as fiction. I read The Celestine Prophecy a long time ago. Must be over ten years? Didn't care for it much. The king of this genre was Ogden Nash, who wrote a lot of self-help books in a similar fictional style. Haven't heard anything from Nash in a while, though? The best fictionalized non-fiction book I could recommend would be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." A remarkably good read. Oh, and sorry about the Huxley / Orwell slip. Unforgivable.  |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
 At least now I have something to throw back at you, eh?  Oh... and as I just remembered I have a copy of it on hand, and I'm going to read Gatsby again sometime this weekend. I first read it such a long time ago that I'm not surprised if I missed something. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, you guys have defined 'entertainment' to the point where it doesn't mean anything except that it is readable. Great, if something isn't readable, it isn't going to get read. I think this is a mistake in that entertainment is too often equated with accessibility. I offered my father once a copy of "Slaughterhouse 5", he turned it down saying it was too difficult. Vonnegut may be many things but he's not difficult, he may write about 'serious' things, but it is not a difficult pill to swallow. It's a clever slide if you think about it. While I have no interest in trying to demean fiction or narrative, I do think the genre, any genre, is better for some things rather than others. Would "A Modest Proposal" be better if it had been a narrative? I doubt it. Is it entertaining? I read it, didn't I? Oscar Wilde's "Man under Socialism", the travel writings of Salmon Rushdie, or even "The Diary of Anne Frank"? Plato's dialogues created a genre (even if it wasn't the first dialogue), the genre of philosophy and I think that even today the best philosophy written is written in that spirit. It wouldn't work as well if it were a novel. For a good counter-example, take a look at John Galt's speech in "Atlas Shrugged". You may have liked the novel, but I haven't met anyone who 'likes' that speech. Which was more entertaining King's "I have a Dream" speech or Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man"? Where indeed does one place Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" in all this? The "Gettysburg Address" or "I have a Dream" may not be entertainment but they are captivating, enthralling, mesmerising. But there's probably more meat, less appetizing meat certainly, in "Invisible Man" than in both speeches put together. But the point in question is entertainment and the schism between entertainment and serious writing is quite pronounced today. Why is that? To some extent, I agree that it is time, but not the time that Ron and Hush speak of, I mean the time it takes to understand a piece. If it takes more time, if more time is spent thinking, "What is he/she trying to say?" than it is, by definition, less entertaining. It is art and we all know what that means. The importance of difficulty (here defined, not as ambiguity or opaqueness, but as the consumption of time) as entertainment should not be overlooked in the rush to embrace entertainment as accessibility. I won't expand on this idea here, save it for another time, but a narrative is not always better if it is easier to swallow/follow (Try out Thomas Pynchon), and neither is any other form of writing or speaking that is initially entertaining. --------------------------- "1984" is a better novel than "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World". Though I suppose it's difficult to look at ourselves in the mirror, far easier to place it in the far future or as an allegory than as an extrapolation. After all, nobody really believes that a good book tells you what you want to hear or that one needn't be an animal or a genetically manipulated slave to realize that you, you and I, are being manipulated by words to the point of incredulity. Orwell's thesis on language, ever present in that book, is something we can talk about or even countered as in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun" and as a result I find that that book is far more prescient, far more thought provoking, than either of the other two. That is, "1984" resonates whereas I don't see the other two doing that. And all three contain elements of futility. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Geesh, Brad, you sure know how to make a guy feel old. When I read 1984, it WAS considered the far future. Yes, 1984 resonates. Ironically, I don't think it was as good as Animal Farm for the very reason you mentioned. It provokes thought, but doesn't require much thought. Sit back, read, and Orwell will tell you everything he wants you to know. Of course, I have to also admit that when I read Animal Farm it perhaps had greater significance than it does today. Strange how that works. One was science fiction, the other current events, and now both are relics of history. Yep, feeling pretty old tonight. p.s. You may not have liked Galt's speech, but it's hard to deny the impact that Rand had on the average man. Not the academic elite, but the average man. Objectivism, for many, almost reaches cult status even fifty years later. Were her ideas really that powerful? Or did the emotional presentation of those ideas give them much of their appeal? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Rand's ideas are a simple reversal of Marx. And, no, I do not think that never-ending train ride in "Atlas Shrugged" contributed to her cult status. She appeals to the same sort of 'us and them' relationship that Marx does. Galt's Gulch was a great description of communism in action, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and all other people are described as if they were blood suckers -- just like Marx described the Capitalists. It's a good strategy, it works (I know, I've succumbed to both types at various times in my life, I probably will again as well.) Hey, are there still any Objectivists sneaking about these days? I think, maybe, the problem with "1984" as opposed to "Animal Farm" is that one always get the feeling that Napoleon knew he was cheating the people, er, animals and this climaxes in his standing up (becoming like the reader -- we always knew this is what he wanted), his becoming the very thing he's fighting. The same thing happens to Winston of course, but the difference, I think, is that he turns away from the reader's view to O'Brian's and O'Brian believes in the system. Still, you can certainly make the point that Orwell failed to convey this point adequately to the reader, that he didn't make us feel this. "1984" is by far the more ambitious work and it fails, perhaps, because of that ambition. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad- Interesting that you brought up Galt's speech. I feel the same way about the chapter of Goldstein's book in 1984. Both were long, tedius summaries of what the fictional parts of the book had already stated. I agree that Ayn Rand appeals to an 'us and them' mentality- my biggest problem with her was always the stark black-and-white quality of her ideas. But I do think that one of the reasons Atlas Shrugged works is because of her dynamic characters- Galt was my least favorite character... perfection incarnate? A perfect man can never change. Dagny changed. Francisco, Hank Rearden, Cheryl Taggart (one of my favorite characters)- all of these characters struggle with identity, and the assertion of their identities in a world that doesn't allow it. I thought Francisco's struggle with following his heart and staying with Dagny and doing what was right or doing what he considered to be the most morally right thing was really well played out. I don't necessarily agree with what he did... but that's beside the point. The point is that for me, and probably for a lot for other people, it's a lot easier to think about things effectively if I have tangible characters and actions to attach them to. I couldn't put Atlas Shrugged down, and I'm kind of wrestling with the Virtue of Selfishness. It's not that I don't find it interesting- I do- but I think that compelling characters and plot lines are an important aid in getting people to think. I'm more likely to think a lot harder about something if I can actually make personal associations (oh, well, I can relate to why Dagny did this) than if I have to struggle with abstracts in my mind. It's a lot easier to visualize a character than an idea, and maybe that's just a flaw in the way I (and presumably, a lot of other people) think. For example, I saw the movie In the Bedroom, after hearing everyone rave about it- and I thought it just sucked. It was boring, heavy-handed drama, and while it had compelling aspects, I couldn't stay interested. Contrast that with, say, Unfaithful. Another drama where sexual passion leads to the new partner being murdered. I thought it was an excellent movie, because the presentation of it just caught my eye and my interest more. I know these are completely subjective calls, but the point is, I think much more about the movie that entertained me. The one that bored me? I remeber some vague plot synopsis, a couple scenes and details... it's the same with anything, really. The more you like it, the more you think about it. [This message has been edited by hush (01-12-2003 12:15 PM).] |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
It’s amazing the way these conversations twist and turn. The thread on what constitutes entertainment is interesting but the one I want to focus on is 1984. To go through some of the points made. “I read it dutifully, because it's a classic book of social criticism and I sure like to criticize society, and there's no easier way to do that than to liberally sprinkle essays and articles (I was an editor on my high school newspaper) with thought police and Big Brother reference.” Hush, I disagree with you that Orwell used Big Brother and Thought police merely to give the book clout or to criticise society. These concepts may be part of every sci fi cliché by now but Orwell’s vision, owing much to both his views on communism and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, is a chilling account of totalitarianism. Personally I found 1984 more powerful than Animal Farm. With Animal Farm we see the world through the eyes to animals, it reads like an extended metaphor for how power can corrupt, its an analogy for the failings of communism. With 1984 we are dealing with a world of constant surveillance, where people live in fear of the law. It shows the workings of a political system with complete control and their impact on the individual. In some sense 1984's impact is not in its politic satire, its in the human aspect of the book and how The human spirit can be broken. So for me, 1984 is a far deeper book than Animal Farm. Hate to disagree Ron, but I will. In Animal Farm the characters were too symbolic, not as fleshed out in 1984. 1984 connects on a human level. 1984 was the first book I read that really dug beneath my skin, the ending was no big surprise. It was inevitable but that’s what made it more chilling. Agreeing with most of what Brad said. With Animal Farm Napoleon was the villain (symbolising Stalin. Snowball symbolised Lenin). He was completely obsessed with power and crushed everyone in his path. Where as with 1984 O’Brien is not the villain, “Big Brother” is. O’Brien is merely a pawn of Big Brother, brainwashed to be faithfully. He believes he is justified, he believes that his actions are honourable, where as Napoleon is aware that he is causing the suffering of others. “his becoming the very thing he's fighting. The same thing happens to Winston of course” Not to the same extent. Winston is disenchanted with the part system and is crushed for this, before he can even incite a rebellion Napoleon’s an opportunist who uses a rebellion, lead by others, to seize power. Power did not change him, it merely gives him to chance to reveal his darker side. He becomes the animal’s new oppressor. watched from the wings as the scenes were replayed we saw ourselves now as we never have seen" ian curtis |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brian- that comment was tongue-in-cheek, and I think you misunderstood what I mean. I never meant to insinuate that Orwell's use of thought police or Big Brother was contrived or cheap- just the fact that, having been born in 1984, I heard quite the multitude of allusions and references before I got around to reading the book. The sarcasm you noted had more to do with a cynical attitude toward my highschool newspaper instructor, who basically said that you can stump the student population by presenting articles in a snobbish "I bet you don't know where this comment originated" way- that writing in a voice that vaunted myself as a writer would inevitably lead to more convincing and compelling editorials, because a student body who thinks they are reading somebody who is smarter than they are will inevitably listen to that superior voice. It inevitably appealed to my easily inflated estimation of my own writing and (heh heh, imagine this) it inevitably didn't acheive the desired affect. Go figure. Rant over. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Snowball is Trotsky, isn't he? |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
hmm... thought it was Lenin, though I could be wrong. not 100% sure. watched from the wings as the scenes were replayed we saw ourselves now as we never have seen" ian curtis |
||
|
quietlydying
since 2001-06-10
Posts 935the wonderful land of oz |
::shudders at ron's revival of a story i'd rather forget:: i'm not arguing my case because i personally just don't care enough. i think video games are stupid. [not to mention detrimental to today's youth.] what's left to say? /jen/ 'Christianity is the complete negation of common sense and sound reason.' |
||
|
CloudedDreams Member
since 2002-11-23
Posts 210My Fantasy Realm |
we use video games for entertainment Same for poetry.... ...is poetry stupid? |
||
|
Aceo Fathi Junior Member
since 2003-03-02
Posts 17Anchorage, AK |
Hey!!! I love video games, and poetry. Neither are stupid! Certain types are, however. Games that shoot people, I hate. I like the strategic games, where you kill something thats gonna destroy the world, but the world is never earth. You know, like Final Fantasy and games like that I learned how to write from a friend of mine. Sometimes I think the student has surpassed the teacher. :) |
||
Brad Majors
since 2001-04-03
Posts 2647Georgia |
This is an interesting question. My wife did a paper in one of her classes. I am am on the fence on this one. Should younger kids be allowed to play games such as hitman, vice city etc no because they are not yet able to separate fantasy from reality. As a older child and as a adult you are able to. I wont say games and media don't influence because they do. As parents and fellow citizens we need to instill values into our children and pay attention to what they injest. I personally question alot of cartoon channel programs then violent games. The armed forces uses certain modifified FPS to help train soldiers. People went after this again after columbine but there were alot more more glaring issues then what music or video games they watched. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
