tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post8274090037524146493..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Dear Esther as a Deconstruction Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-16502204182939408452013-11-09T12:10:35.064-05:002013-11-09T12:10:35.064-05:00Overall:
You do a lot well here. You think about...Overall:<br /><br />You do a lot well here. You think about the philosophy of language, the importance of definitions, how some objects push against definitions, how DE is a video game, and a deconstruction of a video game, and what that means. While I'm a little nauseated that you use Wikipedia rather than reading a little Derrida, I still think you *perform* perfectly well when discussing what is absent in DE as a special form of presence.<br /><br />So there is honestly a lot to like. What is absent, though, is glaringly important, too: a discussion of actual details of the game and how they support or challenge your reading. It bothers me, for instance, that you don't engage *at all* with what to me is almost the hegemony that the story of Saul becoming Paul has over this game. To my mind, this is the trap that "deconstructionists" fall into with depressing regularity - failing to engage with the particulars of a given artistic object.<br /><br />If you were to turn this into a final project, I would want you to foreground an actual "reading" (playing, if you prefer) of the game, and to do *something* directly with Derrida if he is really important here. Also, despite some good writing, there is a ton of material that could easily be cut from the start of the essay.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-5502079874457457962013-11-09T12:10:25.260-05:002013-11-09T12:10:25.260-05:00Part of me thinks the introductory paragraphs are ...Part of me thinks the introductory paragraphs are too wordy. Parts of me think they're setting the stage of an interesting work of (in part) theory. The footnote about tetris is very good - there's probably an essay there.<br /><br />I think you get a little tangle when discussing definitions. The Death Metal vs. Mozart thing, if anything, illustrates that definitions are *not* arbitrary, at least not fully so - I feel like you're in danger of losing yourself in a problematic (not useless or bad, but problematic) theoretical discussion.<br /><br />How disjointed is the narrative, really? I also think that your ostensible emphasis on gameplay vs. text is initially undermined by your first image, which contains a important piece of text in it...<br /><br />I'm not convinced that "the stories of Jacobson, Esther, and Donnely" don't impact how we define the game. I'm just saying that we might understand the definition of the game to be more intertwined with the nature of its narrative (if any - going back to your footnote about tetris) than you assume.<br /><br />I'm not sure why you define DE as a video game in the paragraph beginning "knowing." I mean, I agree that it is, and I can understand simply saying that it's viscerally obvious (if it quacks like a duck) - I just don't understand why you talked so long about definitions if it's so obvious. I also think that we might ask whether the DE is a game vs. Die Hard is a movie is really productive; Die Hard is a very particular *type* of movie (it fits very neatly into genre categories), and asking whether DE does (or does not) do the same might be the productive direction to take here.<br /><br />I am 100% fine with an essay about Derrida and Dear Esther. I have mixed feelings about how you approached that, though - that seems like a good thing to begin on, say, page 1.<br /><br />"By stripping down the ‘interactive’ aspect of video games, Dear Esther is able to make the player aware of what is missing." - I love this sentence. This would be a great idea around which to organize the first page of the essay before launching into Derrida.<br /><br />I don't feel comfortable saying that there is no plot. My point of view is that the narrator walks from the sea to the top of a mountain, in the process passing through a kind of underworld, literally walking beside biblical quotations en route to what is both a suicide and an apotheosis. I'm not saying that you're insane for seeing it as more plotless - I just would like to see you engage with the details of the game more in order to make a claim like this. The passage through the caves sure feels like a plot to me!<br /><br />"his ultimately results in a game that both relies on multiple playthroughs while simultaneously discouraging them. " - very clever<br /><br />Your closing discussion of the game vs. his filmic possibilities is very good - probably the best response (albeit an indirect one) to the destructoid review from anyone in this class.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com