Read on Twitter
Some quick thoughts re: games, politics, persuasiveness, and labels/genres--"non-fiction" in particular.
First, I highly suggest reading Ian& #39;s thread. He& #39;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">https://twitter.com/ibogost/s...
First, I highly suggest reading Ian& #39;s thread. He& #39;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">https://twitter.com/ibogost/s...
Cameron& #39;s thoughts on what Bogost wrote are really fantastic. I think the interpretation is *maybe* generous, but that& #39;s surface stuff. What matters here: the ways in which labels (and yes, the & #39;content& #39; attached) are twisted by various forces. https://twitter.com/ckunzelman/status/1319306736575123460?s=20">https://twitter.com/ckunzelma...
I& #39;ll link directly to Sianne Ngai& #39;s work because holy shit please read it. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088122">https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...
Returning to Ian& #39;s tweets, the issue I have with"serious non-fiction representation" is the same issue I& #39;ve had with the idea of certain media forms being *essentially* & #39;better& #39; at doing certain things. Or that & #39;non-fiction& #39; has an edge, a worth, a potency lacking in fiction.
(Or, since I can& #39;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& #39;t know that "serious non-fiction" was ever a possibility for games. Not just because of the attention economy, or the medium& #39;s history, or because it& #39;s a symptom of wider issues re: textual & #39;authority& #39; 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& #39;re striving for the seriousness, or persuasiveness, or rhetorical power of it *now*? What is it we& #39;re seeking, honestly? Is it even relevant?
Whenever those conversations pop up, they become eerily reminiscent of Lisa Nakamura& #39;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 & #39;effective& #39; (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& #39;s about shaping how we mold and interpret material formations
But we& #39;re not there anymore. I& #39;m not sure we& #39;ve ever been there in the way Bogost means it. And more importantly, even if that is the case, was it & #39;good& #39;? I& #39;ve read all of Ian& #39;s stuff and honestly, there are huge parts I respect tremendously. But what& #39;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& #39;m sorry, but whatever& #39;s deemed & #39;effective& #39; or & #39;impactful& #39; 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.
