Defining Language, and Remembering Roots.
Holly : May 19, 2012 11:54 pm : Digital IncorrectnessAs I’ve stated quite a few times before, I’m not sure I consider myself a writer, an aspiring one perhaps, but not a real one. My grammar is horrible, my vocabulary is fairly limited. I have a lot of mannerisms and language quirks that I think come out in my writing. Words that don’t actually exist make it into my writing a lot. Technically, I probably make everyone cringe. I had a discussion with a friend of mine that considers herself a linguist. Now, the words of friends are never to be trusted, they’re always more kind or subtle than the situation calls for, but we got into an interesting discussion about the history and purpose of language.
To her the beauty of language isn’t academic language, but the use of language, communicating ideas. I really like that thought, in a lot of ways that’s what I’ve always tried to do. That all words originate as ‘made-up’ and academic language is just a standard and consensus about the language as a whole, used to rate works, and to form cohesion. You can look at most important or major works of any time, even modern times and find where they’ve broken standard rules a dozen times. Everybody has their own flavour, their own nuances, their own style.
As cheesy as that is, it’s very appropriate. It’s not something I think about very often, not to say it’s changed my opinion on me as a writer, but it helps give me more hope. They recently added Finding Forrester to Netflix, and in it they bring it up as well, talking about using “And” and “But” at the start of a sentence. I do better with static things, or things that are very clearly defined. Science, math, games. Things that are open to interpretation, or comma usage for example, are just out of my league.
_______________________________
Remembering Our Roots.
I certainly feel sometimes that one thing a lot of gaming today fails to do is to go back and analyse what came before. Figure out why things did poorly, or just to re-examine what made the early, simple games so compelling. Why did early arcades explode so dramatically that Ronald Reagan felt he had to make a public speech about them? Especially when graphics were crude, the reason was the compelling aspects of game-play still existed. I’m certain some people do, and certainly Extra Credits does, but it’s not something I hear much about outside that.
It’s also interesting to just learn about the history of such a young medium, to see it through eyes that can really understand and grasp it. I can read about the history of movies, but I can’t imagine what that transition was like. I can try but I always feel like I utterly fail. But I can read interesting facts about say Breakout, the first colour game for the Atari, was actually created by Steve Jobs. And that a lot of the Atari’s hardware went into the Apple PC that he made shortly after. That’s interesting, graspable.
Learning about the struggles of early developers in the titan fisted days of Atari and Nintendo, that’s interesting. The emergence of story, from Invaders to Defender. Gaming is the medium that cut it’s teeth while I was. Perhaps that’s one reason I feel such a connection and passion for it, I’m not sure. We grew up together, and we get smarter, better, every day.