Game Studies – New Issue

A new issue of Game Studies – Special Issue – EQ 10 Years Later has just come out. This issue is dear to my heart not only because of the fact that we (Bart Simon & Mark Silverman) have an article in the issue, but also because it is the game that brought me to game studies. The game that has been an impossible benchmark for any other mmo’ since I stopped playing (regularly) in 2004, and that with the mere mention of its name, brings back a flood of memories and ridiculously long stories.

I, Avatar: Reading Review in Progress

I am reading the book I, Avatar: The Culture and Consequencese of Having a Second Life – yet another book that has been sitting on my shelf waiting to be read, and I was struck by a few things. First of all, I am really enjoying it so far. To be honest, when I first received the book in the mail (thank you internet!) and browsed through the pages, I was a little sad that it reminded me of an avant garde comic book than an academic text. I mean, it looks cool, and innovative indeed, but I think I had misunderstood what the book itself was – or what its intent was. I had flipped through the book a few times, but mostly to look at the pictures and layout then the actual text.

Now that I am over its aesthetic feel (which is quite cool if I allow myself to admit it), my second issue was that I am not necessarily interested (directly) in Second Life both personally and in regards to research. It is not that there isn’t a vast amount to experience and learn about human nature in social digital environments, but I have always been more interested in goal-oriented digital spaces (yes .. games – straightforward, no mistaken it, games… I have been told that there are games IN Second Life, but for me, they are not the focus or purpose of the space/place, but again, my focus has always been on how we construct identity in structured worlds – and what kinds of identity are developed in these worlds in particular – to paint a VERY loose picture of my research interest). All that being said, I am really enjoying the fast pace feeling of the writing. It is punchy, straightforward and to the point – sentences are clear and concise.  What I do find odd (and perhaps admire) is that there are no references! Of course, the book is an auto/ethnography of avatar, but the in the beginning, when Meadows gives definitions of community, of avatars and genres of virtual worlds, my instinct was to flip to the back and see who he ‘used’ (especially hoping to do some lateral reading on the matter – hoping to see things I haven’t read yet). But nope! Nothing! Between the acknowledgements and the index … nothing! No references.

In some ways, it is every writer’s dream to be able to simply write a book out of their head. I mean, I am positive Meadows has done his homework – read a book or ten – the definitions he uses are familiar, I have read variations of them 100 times before in many texts, but his are so clear and well written – but as an academic – I am uneasy … no, perhaps uneasy isn’t the right word here – but I have a hard time reading without seeing a reference to an idea (let alone the fact that there isn’t a quote to be seen – other than discussions between avatars). I remember feeling the same way when I read Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games… how can someone write a history with scarcely a reference!

All that being said, I am still intrigued by this book. He has a fabulous drawing of player perspectives showing the point of view of the player depending on what view they use – first person, third person etc – the drawing is so simple, I sat there for a moment staring at it wondering why I had spent pages of text in most of my papers trying to describe exactly what each perspective gave to the player.

I am still only halfway through the book – and it is a small book, but for an entertaining, yet thought provoking (at least for me and my work) relatively quick read, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in ethnography, digital culture, avatars and players.

Translating – Working through Martin Lefebvre’s ‘Psycho: de la figure au musée imaginaire’

I am working on a paper for my class on the figure in film and the primary text I chose to base my argument on happens to be in French – Martin Lefebvres “Psycho: de la figure au musée imaginaire”. I really enjoy the text, which essentially argues that the figural is not a property of the film, but rather a mental process that occurs within the spectator enabling them to ‘read’ the film (and ultimately make figural meaning out of it). It is more complicated than that – and to be fair, I am oversimplifying (and omitting) elements of Lefebvre’s argument (.. primarily the ‘imaginary museum’ part – which really is his core point – and I promise to get to that in another post). I really like this article, as it shifts meaning from artefact to spectator – and discusses the process in which this meaning occurs. Since my core work on (hybrid, digital) identity is all about the process, I am hoping to carry some of Lefebvre’s arguments into my own work.

But … translating … the text is in french. Which is all good since I can read and understand French, and Lefebvre writing style is clear, articulate with little jargon (or invented words). But I always find myself translating 80% of any French article simply for the purpose of using quotes in my work. This becomes problematic as sometimes words and concepts don’t quite translate. The French language is extensive in their use of adjectives, often which have no equivalent in English. I often find myself losing the emphasis of an idea through translation – and find myself interjecting lots of parenthesis with colloquial explanations to describe the emphasis found in the original text.

All that being said, I wonder about my ability to translate these texts – mainly since some of the work I have belabored through, I know have no (official) translations. Are my translations true to the real texts? And should I ever make them public (either on an amateur or professional level) since some of my colleagues who do not read French could benefit from even a layman’s translation. So the question is … how does one find themselves (professionally) translating a uni-lingual text? Who would one talk to if I were interested in doing it? Heck, is it even a project I would want to delve into?!

More Books

And I complain about the lack of time for reading! However, I am extremely excited about the two that arrived today; Rodowick’s Reading the Figural, or philosophy after the new media (odd, I must have received the last one as it is now temporarily unavailable to order from Indigo Online … weird) and Massumi’s Parables for the Virtual; Movement, Affect, Sensation. Both are directly relevant for what I need to accomplish in the next few weeks – I am glad free shipping only took 3 days!

When In Doubt – Procrastinate

I have been trying to wrap my brain around some material that I am supposed to submit to my advisor by Friday for a Monday morning meeting. I have everything in bits and pieces, but have no real idea as to how to get the ball rolling (a continuation of my earlier post about flood gates etc..). Every day, I look at the bits and pieces, and theoretically I KNOW what I have to do, but for some reason, I am blocked. I read and re-read my 4 page proposal outline, and think that it is simply a job of fill in the blanks (since the outline makes pretty good sense). If I “know” what to do – why can’t I do it?

In response to my brain blockage, I spent some more time on Amazon.ca, and bought a few more books. I am not sure when I will have time to read them what with my reading heavy PhD seminar on The Figure in Film, a new writing project that I will chat about once I am able, and my chosen duties for getting gameCODE into full swing for the fall semester. Nonetheless, they will be fun to have around for those days when all I can think of doing is procrastinate.

Today’s book list: Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games by Barton; Gamer Theory by McKenzie Wark; How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics by N. Katherine Hayles; Digital Culture, Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft® Reader (edited collection) Hilde G. Corneliussen (Editor), Jill Walker Rettberg (Editor); Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media by Mark B. N. Hansen; I, Avatar: The Culture and Consequences of Having a Second Life by Mark Stephen Meadows.

Two Second Update

First of all, I am happy to say that the last two songs on GH1 that were unfinished (at expert) have been completed thanks to my oldest daughter’s lightning fast fingers.

I have 16 days left of summer holiday – and while it hasn’t been my most productive summer compared to the last few years, I still managed to get some reading done and some notes made. Notably, Brubaker & Cooper’s article “Beyond Identity”. While it has some very valid points about the vastness and often ambiguous use of the term identity, it also has a few great points that I can argue against when making my case for my using the term identity in my thesis.

I am also reading Rune Klevjer’s PhD thesis from 2006 “What is the Avatar? Fiction and Embodiement in Avatar-based single player computer games“. It is well written, clear and articulate. While not 100% on track with that I am aiming to do in my thesis (a good thing too hehe) it is a good primer considering I have always worked with multi-player games.

Finally, I have been trudging through Deleuze’s Cinema 2: Time-Image. While I admit to not reading Cinema 1 prior, it is going well (with enough post it tabs to keep me busy note-taking for a while!).

I must say, I am looking forward to getting home – to a stable internet connection and some time to get some play time in (for research of course).

Working Bibliography

I am putting together my reading list / working bibliography for my “Atelier de Recherche” course (Research Workshop …) which is essentially a prep course for my comprehensive exam and thesis proposal. I am looking for suggestions in film theory - on spectatorship, actor/role relationships … hmm what else… Well, I am opening to any suggestions really – any reading is good reading in my book. I suppose it is time to get busy and really start thinking about my theoretical framework – might make creating a bibliography a bit easier.

Some Thoughts on Gadamer and Zizek

I am trying to put together my bibliography as I head into a summer and fall of thesis proposal writing and comprehensive exam preparation. Moving from Sociology to Film Studies has been a logical step in terms of my research on some levels, but perhaps not on others. I am trying to marry my work on video games and identity (an ambiguous, networked identity – not necessarily/specifically the identity of the player) and my desire to be working towards theories of (as broadly speaking as possible) (social) humans and technology. I guess in the end, the goal is to talk about how technology and perhaps specifically – video games, affect traditional definitions and processes of (social) identity. There is quite a bit of work in this area, but more often dealing with concepts of splintering selves, gender and representation issues (to name only a few). Although I am currently unable to completely articulate it (which I suppose is the goal of proposal writing and eventually thesis writing) this is not where my thinking is – or heading.

In terms of reading, I have been having a hard time getting back into the idea that it’s ok to read ALL day and have it considered work – especially since the texts are not ‘assigned’ or directly useful. I feel a little all over the place but at the same time am enjoying the chance to simply read and think about the ideas – not feeling the pressing need to make it fit my research, fit it into a paper or ditch it. I am currently working on my notes from Gadamer’s Truth and Method. I have been planning on reading it cover to cover, but admittedly, focused primarily on the section “Play as the clue to ontological explanation” (I did start another section, to read a bit more leisurely). This part of the text is centered on aesthetics and the role of the spectator in relation to works of art (and theater) through his working definition of play as a non-goal oriented ‘to- and fro-” while ‘game’ is that which gives purpose to play (my 2 second synopsis). He continues to talk about the idea that those who ‘play’ are always conscious of it since it is outside of himself since the “player experiences the game as a reality that surpasses him” (109). This got me thinking about the use of concepts of immersion in video game play – as when the player turns the console/game on (enters into play – and performs the tasks of the game,  (s)he is making a conscious decision to move outside of him/herself and their ‘reality’.  This conscious choice puts the spectator/player in a (default) refective role. To be fair, Gadamer explains it much more clearly than I am right now. The section continues on to talk about signifiers, representation, ornaments, momentos and architecture – some very interesting bits to extrapolate for sure.

Seemingly unrelated, I picked up Slavoj Zizek’s “For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a political factor“. This is a second edition (first print 1991). I am currently working through the forward – which is a good 100 pages long – as it contextualizes the changes made for the second edition. There are many interesting references to digital technology and the internet – particularly the relationship between ‘virtual’ interactions and reality (in terms of one’s sense of obligation and commitment). While wading through the text, I came across this bit of text – which talks about the way people perceive online relationships and interactions in terms of commitment and ‘reality’:

This means the Real is not the hard kernel of reality which resists virtualization. Hubert Dreyfus (On the Internet, 2001) is right to identitfy the fundamental feature of today’s virtualization of our life-experience as a reflective distance which prevents any full engagement: as in sexual games on the Internet, you are never fully committed since, as we put it, “if the thing doesn’t work out, I can always leave!” If you reach and impasse you can say “OK, I’m leaving the game, I’m stepping out! Let’s start again with a different game!” – but the very fact of this withdrawal implies that you were somehow aware from the very beginning that you could leave the game, which means that you were never fully committed (xv)

What I liked when I read this passage, is the link it illuminated for me between Gadamer’s text and Zizek’s. With this line of thinking – between Gadamer’s purposive actions (and I am inferring meaning here – purposive equates conscious which may eliminate true immersion) and Zizek’s comments on the ability to enter and leave ‘virtual’ space (as a game) at any given time, again, negating any pure immersion since a choice is always present. By entering cyberspace (in the context given above), one is consciously stepping outside of their everyday and entering a space of ‘play’.

Although one would argue that both “real” and “virtual” (using those terms loosely here) can be an equal part of one’s life, the fact that it is easier to leave one than the other positions it into spaces of play and game while simultaneously removing the possibility of ‘pure immersion’ (if there ever is / was such a thing in [video] gameplay). I know this is not new – thinking back to Turkle, but just that I didn’t expect to pick up on this from these two texts). I know that this is an easy paragraph to pick apart – but just to have the opportunity to read both texts at the same time, and have them (appear to) speak with each other is a luxury I have not had in a while.

I am not sure what track this takes me on – closer to where I am trying to go, or further away from where I started – nonetheless, it is always the journey that is the best part as they say.

 

Quick Update

Cannot believe that we are already mid-May … I have been scurrying around tying up all my loose ends from the winter semester. The dates are later at UdeM (I would have already had all my grades back by now). Nonetheless, I have two more little things for tomorrow then I get to dive into summer session. This will be my favorite session I think. I am enrolled in a degree specific course called “Atelier de Recherche”. It runs over two semesters, and is when / where I put together my bibliography, prepare for my comprehensive exams and work on my proposal. Knowing other students at various other institutions who don’t quite have such an overarching prep course, I am looking forward to it. It will also be nice to have it all rolled into one course (bib, comp, proposal) because I think it is beneficial to see them as three things that must fit together, so best they be worked on together.

Anyways, I will also post my bibliography for the paper I wrote on the spectator/actor/character – player:spectator/avatar paper. Some interesting things, but my favorite this time around is a book called Reality Transformed: Film as meaning and technique by Irving Singer. Where I would usually skim and read key parts of a book when writing a relatively large paper, I actually read every page.

Reading; Narrative, Film Analysis & Dead Links

As anyone who has read this blog over the last few months, or know me at all really, know that I have been lamenting over my inability (or mental block) to do film analysis. In so many ways, it is not very different than the analysis of a text, image or game even. One book I would recommend strongly (if you can read in French) is Laurent Jullier’s L’ Analyse de Sequence. Written as a student method handbook, it is well written – the key ideas are not buried deep in obscure french grammar; and he is very linear in unfolding what is and is not a good filmic analysis. So far, I am quite enjoying the book – both as someone who has to do (formal)film analysis for the first time and someone who is interested in the conveying of research methods.

While working on a small narrative deconstruction of a film for an undergraduate class, I came across this great project on narrative. Here is the original reference:

Jahn, Manfred. 2003. A Guide to Narratological Film Analysis. Poems, Plays, and Prose: A Guide to the Theory of Literary Genres. English Department, University of Cologne. (Available at: http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppf.htm)

It was a straightforward, clear discussion about narrative in all of its genres - fully equipped with diagrams and all! Via Google, below the above-mentioned link, is a ling to an introduction to the Encyclopedia of Narrative, which looks quite interesting (of which Manfred contributed).

On a side note, I was quite happy when I Googled cognitive film theory & narrative (in two seperate searches) and on the first page came across a colleague’s translated Master’s thesis. Thank you Dominic, I really should simply print this out! After a round of presentations last week, I have come to realize that as colleagues, we do not read nearly as much of each other’s work as we should!