Some quick thoughts re: games, politics, persuasiveness, and labels/genres--"non-fiction" in particular.

First, I highly suggest reading Ian's thread. He's tapping into something crucial. At the same time, I think the idea of "serious non-fiction representation" is dubious. https://twitter.com/ibogost/status/1319303480226578433

Cameron's thoughts on what Bogost wrote are really fantastic. I think the interpretation is *maybe* generous, but that's surface stuff. What matters here: the ways in which labels (and yes, the 'content' attached) are twisted by various forces. https://twitter.com/ckunzelman/status/1319306736575123460?s=20

I'll link directly to Sianne Ngai's work because holy shit please read it. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088122

Returning to Ian's tweets, the issue I have with"serious non-fiction representation" is the same issue I've had with the idea of certain media forms being *essentially* 'better' at doing certain things. Or that 'non-fiction' has an edge, a worth, a potency lacking in fiction.

(Or, since I can't seem to get over it: Ian using the terms "middling"/"better than"/etc. to talk about game narratives in relation to novels and films.)

I just don't know that "serious non-fiction" was ever a possibility for games. Not just because of the attention economy, or the medium's history, or because it's a symptom of wider issues re: textual 'authority' or potency (as Cameron points out).

This is nothing groundbreaking, but non-fiction has always been a misnomer. Yes, the term has an affect, and so does the materialization of whatever non-fiction is. But labels and categories are, in part, interfaces. They inform our performances as we engage with media.

I use misnomer broadly, and as a temporal marker more than anything. Maybe non-fiction was (more?) potent at one point in time, but if we're striving for the seriousness, or persuasiveness, or rhetorical power of it *now*? What is it we're seeking, honestly? Is it even relevant?

Whenever those conversations pop up, they become eerily reminiscent of Lisa Nakamura's thoughts on the dangers of "scientism". Specific arrangements of knowledge become more valued than others, but the reasons for this valuing (this *hierarchy of worth*) are baffling to me.

So when we talk about "serious non-fiction representation", or the value of non-fiction over fiction, or narratives as lesser than [whatever], again, what are we seeking? Serious on whose terms? Representations of what, and to what end? What are the intended consequences?

Sure, some certain texts may be more 'effective' (persuasively) because of their label + form than others. See: scientific articles. And maybe I agree, but not because of anything inherent or essential. Only because it's about shaping how we mold and interpret material formations

But we're not there anymore. I'm not sure we've ever been there in the way Bogost means it. And more importantly, even if that is the case, was it 'good'? I've read all of Ian's stuff and honestly, there are huge parts I respect tremendously. But what's the destination here?

If the claim, buried between bouts of rhetoric, is that games would be better if they did X, and that they should because medium Y did it well, and games would be even better at it--well, I'm sorry, but whatever's deemed 'effective' or 'impactful' has always been highly selective

Which is to say: if we want games to emulate non-fiction (or harness the notion but do whatever is done more effectively) then maybe, before craving it, we should have some serious reservations as to what non-fiction (or science, or...) has done for us in the first place.

Who's been left out by these 'serious representations'? Who's been inscribed strategically? Who's been objectified and weaponized?

I can think of entire libraries filled with non-fiction (but ultimately fiction.) and we call those colonial archives.

This thread's long enough, but couple things before I bounce. 1) Look, I've dunked on Ian a few times in the past, but I wouldn't even bother if I didn't think the dude had made huge contributions to game studies. Otherwise, I'd treat him like N!ck Lan/d instead.