147 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Cultural awareness involves both of what people call high and low culture, I think culture can can do without such adjectives. And I must say, I've never had my views so straw maned in my entire life then by those here who like to think that they are the "true defenders of a culture".

I'm fairly certain that nobody in this entire thread (not even you) are behaving in that manner, but okay.

 

And I think it goes without saying, but nobody is strawmanning anything, unless misinterpreting or misrepresenting someone else's point is "strawmanning" (and it isn't).

[o Ventus]

Just ignore this ventus dude, all he knows is to claim that the people he doesn't agree with are "painfully ironic" or somsuch nonsense.. it's just endless strawmen and that irony claim ad nauseam.

Sure.

 

I mean, ignoring the fact that I haven't agreed or disagreed with any statements in this thread so far, sure.

 

I admire your use of the term "straw man" as well (it's entirely wrong and completely irrelevant to anything, but I admire it), and claiming that me pointing out irony is getting old, as if I have a say in what other people say and the double standards they put themselves above.

[Andres Hendrix]

I didn't really feel like explaining the difference between criticizing somebody's attitude and an actual ad hominem attack that is used to say that the other person is wrong because of their character. I suspected that as a literary enthusiast, you should know the difference anyway =P

 

The only time in this thread I've actually said that you're wrong is your claim that video games cannot cover all the same subject matter that books can, and my counter-point wasn't a personal attack.

 

The question has an obvious answer to me, but I was curious to see what your answer would be about it keeping in mind that I'm not talking about societal issues here but purely about if it is technically possible or not to do it.

Ad hominem is a form of red herring, it shifts the subject from the actual argument to the person. A sure fire way to tell is when someone, as you did, starts going on about 'you'. "Give me the impression that you" apparently I think that I'm better then others (I do in fact think that I am better than some people, like Hitler, Milosevic, Jerry Falwell etc) though I've never said as you would probably like me to, that I'm better (I assume that you mean ethically?) just because I've read more. It does obviously make me more knowledgeable in that part of literature, than those who have not read it.

As for your "impressions" which has got nothing to do with me and everything to do with what you simply think.I don't care for you unsubstantiated claims about me, and you should not be treating them like it constitutes an argument. It does seem to have garnered for you, some crowd pleasing. As for what I said last "Both Joyce and Flaubert changed their respective cultures for the better by adding to (and in Joyce's case) starting a resonance in wonderful French and Irish writing. Yes, intellectually, if people are ignoring them they are missing out. Especially if you care about studying such cultures, there would be no Bloomsday in Dublin Ireland without Joyce." That does not make a person exactly better than another, it does make them more knowledgeable on say Irish culture, the Western canon, and English literature-especial Irish literary culture-than those who have not read Joyce. Those who denounce Joyce, as  writing for snobs, are in fact makeing themselves willfully ignorant, which is a shame, as they are missing out on a very witty and beautiful part of Irsh culture.

[Cheviot]

Sure.

 

I mean, ignoring the fact that I haven't agreed or disagreed with any statements in this thread so far, sure.

 

I admire your use of the term "straw man" as well (it's entirely wrong and completely irrelevant to anything, but I admire it), and claiming that me pointing out irony is getting old, as if I have a say in what other people say and the double standards they put themselves above.

I think, in order to understand some posts, you have to accept that meaning of words, or indeed in fact the underpinnings of language itself is liquid, malluable, changable, tied to historical and epistemological context more than we would care to accept.  Words are more than their meanings, and nothing escapes the text. In short, they are the best evidence for post-structuralist thought in this thread. 

[atlantico]

Sure.

 

I mean, ignoring the fact that I haven't agreed or disagreed with any statements in this thread so far, sure.

 

I admire your use of the term "straw man" as well (it's entirely wrong and completely irrelevant to anything, but I admire it), and claiming that me pointing out irony is getting old, as if I have a say in what other people say and the double standards they put themselves above.

 

Wielding sarcasm isn't for the uninitiated, put it down before you hurt yourself - and do try to pick up what "irony" is one day, if you have the chance. That would great.

[Cyonan]

Ad hominem is a form of red herring, it shifts the subject from the actual argument to the person. A sure fire way to tell is when someone, as you did, starts going on about 'you'. "Give me the impression that you" apparently I think that I'm better then others (I do in fact think that I am better than some people, like Hitler, Milosevic, Jerry Falwell etc) though I've never said as you would probably like me to, that I'm better (I assume that you mean ethically?) just because I've read more. It does obviously make me more knowledgeable in that part of literature, than those who have not read it.

As for your "impressions" which has got nothing to do with me an everything to do with what you simply think.I don't care for you unsubstantiated claims about me, and you should not be treating them like it constitutes an argument. It does seem to have garnered for you, some crowd pleasing. As for what I said last "Both Joyce and Flaubert changed their respective cultures for the better by adding to (and in Joyce's case) starting a resonance in wonderful French and Irish writing. Yes, intellectually, if people are ignoring them they are missing out. Especially if you care about studying such cultures, there would be no Bloomsday in Dublin Ireland without Joyce." That does not make a person exactly better than another, it does make them more knowledgeable on say Irish culture, the Western canon, and English literature-especial Irish literary culture-than those who have not read Joyce. Those who denounce Joyce, as  writing for snobs, are in fact makeing themselves willfully ignorant, which is a shame, as they are missing out on a very witty and beautiful part of Irsh culture.

 

I'd argue that it's more about discrediting the person by attacking their character, but in either case you're simply hiding behind it as a defense against criticisms about your general attitude earlier in the thread.

 

I'm not trying to treat impressions as a proper argument which is why I provided you with a post that was a proper argument. Also, while clarification in nice, keep in mind that was merely an example and I also wanted to get across the idea of the tone that you've had throughout this thread. I probably should have clarified that.

 

I don't think I need to explain to you how important getting the right tone is when it comes to text =P

 

The actual claim I have been arguing against is, in your exact words "that video games cannot cover the same subjects as novels". Had you actually been talking about video games not being able to cover the same subjects for societal reasons that should have come out in your very first response to me, because I specifically noted that there are societal reasons but no technical limitations as to covering the same subject matter.

 

Since you started to counter-argue, I can only assume that you feel there is some technical limitations to making a game that covers the same subject matter as Lolita and am honestly curious to know what it is(which is why I keep bringing it back up).

 

and as I said before, everybody is going to intellectually miss out on something. I imagine with enough questioning, I could find something that you have made yourself willfully ignorant of.

[Andres Hendrix]

I'd argue that it's more about discrediting the person by attacking their character, but in either case you're simply hiding behind it as a defense against criticisms about your general attitude earlier in the thread.

 

I'm not trying to treat impressions as a proper argument which is why I provided you with a post that was a proper argument. Also, while clarification in nice, keep in mind that was merely an example and I also wanted to get across the idea of the tone that you've had throughout this thread. I probably should have clarified that.

 

I don't think I need to explain to you how important getting the right tone is when it comes to text =P

 

The actual claim I have been arguing against is, in your exact words "that video games cannot cover the same subjects as novels". Had you actually been talking about video games not being able to cover the same subjects for societal reasons that should have come out in your very first response to me, because I specifically noted that there are societal reasons but no technical limitations as to covering the same subject matter.

 

Since you started to counter-argue, I can only assume that you feel there is some technical limitations to making a game that covers the same subject matter as Lolita and am honestly curious to know what it is(which is why I keep bringing it back up).

 

and as I said before, everybody is going to intellectually miss out on something. I imagine with enough questioning, I could find something that you have made yourself willfully ignorant of.

A technical problem no, perhaps you should ask yourself if you are willing to take on the role of a pedophile who tortures and destroys the life of a child. Then you might want to ask, what kind of society would allow for such kind of agency to take place. What should get in the way is a moral acumen, not a technical issue having to do with the game itself. What a novel lacks in agency, it makes up for in subject matter. Moreover, when I said that novels do not have the same kind of artistry I mean what goes on with language. Think of Milton's use of language, why he used 'pretentious speech' and enjambment in Paradise Lost. Video games have a spoken form of language, which deals with language in a different way.

[Cyonan]

A technical problem no, perhaps you should ask yourself if you are willing to take on the role of a pedophile who tortures and destroys the life of a child. Then you might want to ask, what kind of society would allow for such kind of agency to take place. What should get in the way is a moral acumen, not a technical issue having to do with the game itself. What a novel lacks in agency, it makes up for in subject matter. Moreover, when I said that novels do not have the same kind of artistry I mean what goes on with language. Think of Milton's use of language, why he used 'pretentious speech' and enjambment in Paradise Lost. Video games have a spoken form of language, which deals with language in a different way.

 

If your claim had to do with societal limitations, you should have mentioned that about 3 pages ago when I made first note of it =P

 

Although there are roles in existing video games that I wouldn't want to personally take on, but they still exist. It hardly seems like a good test of things.

 

Then again if you simply want to satisfy the requirement of "covering the same subject matter" you don't actually need the PC to be the pedophile. At that point you're getting into an entirely different delivery, but the core subject hasn't changed.

[Andres Hendrix]

If your claim had to do with societal limitations, you should have mentioned that about 3 pages ago when I made first note of it =P

 

Although there are roles in existing video games that I wouldn't want to personally take on, but they still exist. It hardly seems like a good test of things.

 

Then again if you simply want to satisfy the requirement of "covering the same subject matter" you don't actually need the PC to be the pedophile. At that point you're getting into an entirely different delivery, but the core subject hasn't changed.

The subject matter does change, it would no longer really be about the "Humbet's" point of view--it becomes the detective's etc.

[o Ventus]

Wielding sarcasm isn't for the uninitiated, put it down before you hurt yourself - and do try to pick up what "irony" is one day, if you have the chance. That would great.

You simply telling me to learn what irony is doesn't mean anything. I know full well what it is, and I'm pointing it out as I see it. You plugging your ears and shouting "la la la nope!" and telling me to learn it doesn't change that you and other people are doing it.

[Phoe77]

The subject matter does change, it would no longer really be about the "Humbet's" point of view--it becomes the detective's etc.

 

The point of view that it is approached from doesn't actually change the subject of a piece.  The way that the audience is exposed to the subject is different, but that's inconsequential to your primary assertion that the same subject matter could not be covered.  I would be the first to agree that a video game couldn't cover it in the same way as a novel, but I don't think anyone disputed that.  

 

At least that's how I've been approaching the argument.  I've kept myself willfully ignorant of the methods of literary analysis (because I've chosen to focus myself in other areas), so for all I know a novel's "subject" could be referring to something different.  

[Andres Hendrix]

The point of view that it is approached from doesn't actually change the subject of a piece.  The way that the audience is exposed to the subject is different, but that's inconsequential to your primary assertion that the same subject matter could not be covered.  I would be the first to agree that a video game couldn't cover it in the same way as a novel, but I don't think anyone disputed that.  

 

At least that's how I've been approaching the argument.  I've kept myself willfully ignorant of the methods of literary analysis (because I've chosen to focus myself in other areas), so for all I know a novel's "subject" could be referring to something different.  

It changes the "subject matter," do you think what constitutes a "Humbert's" life will be analogues with what constitutes a detective's?

[AlanC9]

And what was that exactly? If you mean me telling him to have the guts to admit that deconstructionism is an ideology, and then my saying that we are ideological in some way, and using myself as an example; that is not hypocrisy. Post modernists are the ones who act like they are value free. Perhaps instead of just making claims you could actually show said line and make a real argument? Or is that too "logocentric"? As for deconstructionism, on top of begging the question it is 1. Unfalsifiable; thus it places all readings of a text at equal validity even those that are wrong 2. It misuses language (just look at the many ways Culler misuses the word origin in one paragraph, or Millers conflation of writing with facts about the real world--so language was not a product of culture used to convey meaning within a community. Language according to the deconstructionist has no real ‘meaning’ thus linguistics is moot; 3. It is inherently contradictory, if all readings are equally valid what is the point of deconstructionist criticism? 4. Alan Sokal destroyed post modernism with his hoax http://compbio.biosc...-boundaries.pdf. 5.Only a crackpot strain in cultural anthropology and English studies hold on to this piffle, 6. I’m done talking about this; I’ve more “important things to do,” a discovery that made many ‘ex- deconstructionists.’

Heh. If you had actually written something as substantive as this in the post I objected to, I wouldn't have objected in the first place. I'd get into the substance, but I figure I should take your last line seriously.

[Phoe77]

If the premise of the book is a pedophile attempting to defend his predilection to an outside audience then I can definitely see how the subject matter would be well preserved.  After all, the goal of a detective during an interrogation is to get the suspect to open up about their activities.  Once again, I'm thinking that something akin to L.A. Noire's investigation and interrogation style would allow for a relatively faithful preservation.   

[AlanC9]

[font='times new roman', times, serif][size=4]A technical problem no, perhaps you should ask yourself if you are willing to take on the role of a pedophile who tortures and destroys the life of a child. Then you might want to ask, what kind of society would allow for such kind of agency to take place. What should get in the way is a moral acumen, not a technical issue having to do with the game itself. What a novel lacks in agency, it makes up for in subject matter.

Aren't these questions quite similar to those which greeted the original book? I don't think the answers would be any different if they were asked about a game.

[Andres Hendrix]

If the premise of the book is a pedophile attempting to defend his predilection to an outside audience then I can definitely see how the subject matter would be well preserved.  After all, the goal of a detective during an interrogation is to get the suspect to open up about their activities.  Once again, I'm thinking that something akin to L.A. Noire's investigation and interrogation style would allow for a relatively faithful preservation.   

If the games focus is on the detective obviously the subject matter changes. You don't get what is in the "Humbert's" head. The whole subject matter of the game would shift from what it is that a Humbert does to get his "nymphette," what he goes through in his day to day life to get one, how he in his head, actually thinks about what what he does,the type of person he is--Nabokov's Humbert is an English professor etc-All of those aspects eventually get funneled through the perspective of someone else, we experience that someone's (detective etc)aspects not the Humbert's.

[DanteYoda]

Well then i'm in Trouble, i had no emotional attachment in DA:I

 

Origins yes i wanted all the ladies

 

DA2 sure Merril and Bethany were great, Sadly Beth was a sister....

 

DA:I i feel no connection with any of them and they really annoy me, Vivienne especially....even Leilanna has changed into bitter mole..

 

Oh well celibacy till Scout Harding likes me..

[Andres Hendrix]

Aren't these questions quite similar to those which greeted the original book? I don't think the answers would be any different if they were asked about a game.

First of all, I was more concerned with people reading less, and filling that gap with video games. I said that video games will not broach the same subjects as novels.So if people are getting much of their ethical material from games, and skip novels, they are missing out on certain ethical thought experiments etc. No one really talked about my next point, "What a novel lacks in agency, it makes up for in subject matter." People really focused on one of my examples of a game that won't be made-- but their is a novel of, Lolita. They did not bother with Finnegans Wake lol. They focused on the "technical aspects" of a Lolita game. I am a Sociologist, that's why I think about it as a social concern, and a behavioral concern. As long as we have morals, and a revulsion towards pedophilia (I hope this will remain the case) there won't be such a video game. So what's the difference between a novel, a movie, a game? A novel only touches upon a certain degree of experience. It can make that experience a bit more explicit in the readers mind, (more than what can be shown on film) with its particular form of figurative language. A video game could go farthest, with experience so far  "as to simulate". The question then becomes, why would we need the simulation? I think people who have read the novel, will understand how much more icky Humbert's solicitations would be, if simulated, in a medium where people get to have more agency.

[AlanC9]

First of all, I was more concerned with people reading less, and filling that gap with video games. I said that video games will not broach the same subjects as novels.So if people are getting much of their ethical material from games, and skip novels, they are missing out on certain ethical thought experiments etc.

This isn't just a complaint about peoples' tastes in 2015, right? It's an argument about the inherent limitations of the media?I don't really see any deficiency for the game medium in the area of ethical thought experiments. Could you walk me through it a bit? If anything, games strikes me as superior precisely because of player agency. You get to make the choices, and you get to live with the consequences.
 

No one really talked about my next point, "What a novel lacks in agency, it makes up for in subject matter." People really focused on one of my examples of a game that won't be made-- but their is a novel of, Lolita. They did not bother with Finnegans Wake lol. They focused on the "technical aspects" of a Lolita game.

My impression was that we ended up talking about the specifics because nobody saw a good reason to believe the general point, but that's maybe just me.
 

I am a Sociologist, that's why I think about it as a social concern, and a behavioral concern. As long as we have morals, and a revulsion towards pedophilia (I hope this will remain the case) there won't be such a video game. So what's the difference between a novel, a movie, a game? A novel only touches upon a certain degree of experience. It can make that experience a bit more explicit in the readers mind, (more than what can be shown on film) with its particular form of figurative language. A video game could go farthest, with experience so far  "as to simulate". The question then becomes, why would we need the simulation? I think people who have read the novel, will understand how much more icky Humbert's solicitations would be, if simulated, in a medium where people get to have more agency.

This strikes me as, well, a bit of a mess. We've already seen with various other games that the ability to be immoral in a game is, if anything, fairly popular. Stick around on this board long enough and you'll see that the primary argument against including more possible immoral behavior for the PC is not that it's immoral, but that Bio can't properly implement such behavior within their plot-driven designs. At least, not at any reasonable cost.

That leaves revulsion, which looks like it's doing all the work here; e.g., "icky." The problem is, tastes change. In 1900 or even 1940 one could have said that no literary work -- i.e., a non-pornographic work -- would ever be about a pedophile, because the audience would reject it. This would have been plausible; it also would have been wrong. People do things in fantasy that they'd find revolting in real life all the time.

As for "why would we need the simulation", I don't think this is ever a useful question when discussing an artwork.

[Andres Hendrix]

This isn't just a complaint about peoples' tastes in 2015, right? It's an argument about the inherent limitations of the media?I don't really see any deficiency for the game medium in the area of ethical thought experiments. Could you walk me through it a bit? If anything, games strikes me as superior precisely because of player agency. You get to make the choices, and you get to live with the consequences.
 

My impression was that we ended up talking about the specifics because nobody saw a good reason to believe the general point, but that's maybe just me.
 

This strikes me as, well, a bit of a mess. We've already seen with various other games that the ability to be immoral in a game is, if anything, fairly popular. Stick around on this board long enough and you'll see that the primary argument against including more possible immoral behavior for the PC is not that it's immoral, but that Bio can't properly implement such behavior within their plot-driven designs. At least, not at any reasonable cost.

That leaves revulsion, which looks like it's doing all the work here; e.g., "icky." The problem is, tastes change. In 1900 or even 1940 one could have said that no literary work -- i.e., a non-pornographic work -- would ever be about a pedophile, because the audience would reject it. This would have been plausible; it also would have been wrong. People do things in fantasy that they'd find revolting in real life all the time.

As for "why would we need the simulation", I don't think this is ever a useful question when discussing an artwork.

It's more like you are being a reductionist in 2015. It's like you read nothing that I wrote, you honestly think that the makeing of a pedophelia game comes down to a matter of taste? Is this where I find out you are a rediculous amoralist who drinks from the breast of Nietzsche?

[Cyonan]

If the games focus is on the detective obviously the subject matter changes. You don't get what is in the "Humbert's" head. The whole subject matter of the game would shift from what it is that a Humbert does to get his "nymphette," what he goes through in his day to day life to get one, how he in his head, actually thinks about what what he does,the type of person he is--Nabokov's Humbert is an English professor etc-All of those aspects eventually get funneled through the perspective of someone else, we experience that someone's (detective etc)aspects not the Humbert's.

 

That's all about the delivery of the subject matter though, not the actual subject matter. They are two very different things, and two different mediums require a different delivery of the story.

 

You can argue that getting into the person's head is a more powerful delivery and I'd be inclined to agree with that, but you can still have the actual subject matter being covered without doing so.

 

The main point of mentioning another point of view was to kind of pull the idea away from it being "lolita: the video game" because I was never trying to say how you could re-create the exact novel in video game format, but rather just have a game be about the same subject matter. At the core, the subject matter is pedophilia.

 

It's like how you could create a novel that covers the same subjects as a Dragon Age game, but you wouldn't be able to include all the choices that we make in the game or the combat that we go through in the same way that it happens in the game.

[AlanC9]

It's more like you are being a reductionist in 2015. It's like you read nothing that I wrote, you honestly think that the makeing of a pedophelia game comes down to a matter of taste? Is this where I find out you are a rediculous amoralist who drinks from the breast of Nietzsche?

I'd say you could make a game that's a "pedophilia game" to precisely the same extent that Lolita is a "pedophilia book." If you have an actual argument as to why that's impossible, now's the time.

Incidentally, "drinks from the breast of Nietzsche" is the oddest metaphor I've seen in years.

[Phoe77]

The only arguments I've seen regarding why a pedophile game would be impossible have been based on societal values.  I don't think that anyone here disagrees that such a creation is unlikely in today's society (though maybe I'm wrong).  The reasoning is valid, but I don't think it's particularly relevant if we're simply concerned with whether or not the subject matter could be translated into game form.  

 

I would even agree that there are qualities of the video game medium that would make our society's revulsion to such a game particularly vigorous, but that has far more to do with our society than it does with the medium.  If our values were different then there's no guarantee that such an obstacle would still be present.  That's not even saying that we as a society would have to be cool with pedophilia.  It simply suggests that we would have to be more comfortable with the idea of immersing ourselves in the mindset of other people, even if we find them disturbed or repulsive.  

[o Ventus]

The point of view that it is approached from doesn't actually change the subject of a piece.  The way that the audience is exposed to the subject is different, but that's inconsequential to your primary assertion that the same subject matter could not be covered. 

This.

 

The subject matter would be the same (a story about a pedophile is a story about a pedophile is a story about a pedophile), but the way the story is told and the details (along with other context, settings, etc) given would be different.

[Andres Hendrix]

I'd say you could make a game that's a "pedophilia game" to precisely the same extent that Lolita is a "pedophilia book." If you have an actual argument as to why that's impossible, now's the time.

Incidentally, "drinks from the breast of Nietzsche" is the oddest metaphor I've seen in years.

Yep, you read nothing that I wrote.