Okay! So! I seem to be on a roll here re: tl;dr meta so I might as well jump right in here.
First and foremost: I agree with calling the media hierarchy utter nonsense. I just want to make that clear right off. I'm an unrepentant media maven myself and don't think it's that great when my interest are devalued by society for no good reason.
I want to toss out, too, some media that I think would occupy an interesting place in your argument: plays/musicals, opera, animation/cartoons, and comic books/graphic novels. If I have to place these in your hierarchy, by, say, what's considered most "cultured", it goes like this: opera, plays/musicals, books, movies, graphic novels/comic books, tv, animation/cartoons, video games. I feel safe separating animation/cartoons from movies just because they ARE valued so much less than "real" TV.
I'm kind of surprised, actually, that you left out comic books and graphic novels; I would think that they too would be really interesting from your perspective, especially since they're gaining acceptance now. It's interesting to watch this process, and it's telling, I think, that I can put comic books above TV in that hierarchy -- we probably have Gaiman's Sandman, among others, to thank for that. But I do think I've placed it correctly in the hierarchy -- for one, my college is currently offering a class on narrative in graphic novels (goddamn it, it was capped and I'm not in the major GRRRRRRRRR).
Also that article about getting boys to read mentioned comics. And how they are controversial re: reading. I don't get it. You still READ and you're still able to do interpretive work. Where's the beef?
Anyway, just a note about plays and operas being above books -- I think this hierarchy is some kind of hybrid love-child between your chronological theory and madlori's event-attendance theory from her post that you linked.
Back to video games. I, uh. Just ranted a lot about storytelling in video games (http://justira.livejournal.com/219309.html), which started out as a comment here until it got to be ten bajillion words long. So I guess I can refer you to that, since you're part of what got me thinking. The point I want to emphasize here, in response to your post specifically, is that I do think there are ways to creatively fuse storytelling and interactivity, and while this may be hard, it's by no means limiting. In fact, I think video games have an enormous potential for truly innovative, immersive, compelling storytelling; something completely different that no other medium can provide.
The Citizen Kane of video games... you know, that's a really good question. Are we in a comparable place in the history of video games? Citizen Kane happened at a certain point in the development of film -- are we there yet with video games? Have we passed it? The links you provided actually put forth some candidates, and I'll agree that those games are special. My personal list of special games goes: Planescape: Torment, Psychonauts, ICO. Are these special enough? Are they special in the right way? It's hard to call these Citizen Kanes, since the thing is, most games like these -- unique, artistic, philosophical, truly original games -- get ignored by the market. To my knowledge, all of these games tanked in retail. Video games are a peculiar medium like that. I sense a lot of tl;dr coming on the subject, so I'll just stop myself here and sit back and consider this point for a more coherent discussion later.
As for what libraries are for... good question. I thought libraries were there to enrich our minds. At least, that's what I use them for. Education is part of enriching our minds; so is exercising our imaginations; so is collecting and experiencing stories. I think "enriching the mind" is a good umbrella term, something broad that allows libraries a lot of flexibility.
no subject
First and foremost: I agree with calling the media hierarchy utter nonsense. I just want to make that clear right off. I'm an unrepentant media maven myself and don't think it's that great when my interest are devalued by society for no good reason.
I want to toss out, too, some media that I think would occupy an interesting place in your argument: plays/musicals, opera, animation/cartoons, and comic books/graphic novels. If I have to place these in your hierarchy, by, say, what's considered most "cultured", it goes like this: opera, plays/musicals, books, movies, graphic novels/comic books, tv, animation/cartoons, video games. I feel safe separating animation/cartoons from movies just because they ARE valued so much less than "real" TV.
I'm kind of surprised, actually, that you left out comic books and graphic novels; I would think that they too would be really interesting from your perspective, especially since they're gaining acceptance now. It's interesting to watch this process, and it's telling, I think, that I can put comic books above TV in that hierarchy -- we probably have Gaiman's Sandman, among others, to thank for that. But I do think I've placed it correctly in the hierarchy -- for one, my college is currently offering a class on narrative in graphic novels (goddamn it, it was capped and I'm not in the major GRRRRRRRRR).
Also that article about getting boys to read mentioned comics. And how they are controversial re: reading. I don't get it. You still READ and you're still able to do interpretive work. Where's the beef?
Anyway, just a note about plays and operas being above books -- I think this hierarchy is some kind of hybrid love-child between your chronological theory and
Back to video games. I, uh. Just ranted a lot about storytelling in video games (http://justira.livejournal.com/219309.html), which started out as a comment here until it got to be ten bajillion words long. So I guess I can refer you to that, since you're part of what got me thinking. The point I want to emphasize here, in response to your post specifically, is that I do think there are ways to creatively fuse storytelling and interactivity, and while this may be hard, it's by no means limiting. In fact, I think video games have an enormous potential for truly innovative, immersive, compelling storytelling; something completely different that no other medium can provide.
The Citizen Kane of video games... you know, that's a really good question. Are we in a comparable place in the history of video games? Citizen Kane happened at a certain point in the development of film -- are we there yet with video games? Have we passed it? The links you provided actually put forth some candidates, and I'll agree that those games are special. My personal list of special games goes: Planescape: Torment, Psychonauts, ICO. Are these special enough? Are they special in the right way? It's hard to call these Citizen Kanes, since the thing is, most games like these -- unique, artistic, philosophical, truly original games -- get ignored by the market. To my knowledge, all of these games tanked in retail. Video games are a peculiar medium like that. I sense a lot of tl;dr coming on the subject, so I'll just stop myself here and sit back and consider this point for a more coherent discussion later.
As for what libraries are for... good question. I thought libraries were there to enrich our minds. At least, that's what I use them for. Education is part of enriching our minds; so is exercising our imaginations; so is collecting and experiencing stories. I think "enriching the mind" is a good umbrella term, something broad that allows libraries a lot of flexibility.