Legitimacy and the Citizen Kane of Gaming

I told myself that I was not going to write about this topic, but here we are. Back to video games.

In the last month or so, there has been some debate about whether or not we have seen the Citizen Kane of gaming. Both Bioshock Infinite (snort) and The Last of Us have been mentioned as recent contenders to this title. There are others. Many, many others.

In the name of Kane, in the name of Kane...

The idea is that a game will come along one day (or has come along already) that will redefine games the way that Citizen Kane was supposed to have redefined and legitimised cinema as an art form -- one that could stand up to its more recognised peers. Now, others have (rightly) argued that comparing a games to films is a mistake that does a disservice to the medium. There is a common idea that we need that one true gaming masterpiece, not just to be the medium's centrepiece, but to legitimise gaming as a whole. Comparisons between apples and oranges aside, that's a lot of work for one game to do.

The use of Citizen Kane as a go-to point for the legitimacy of gaming as an art form is interesting. A bit of history: while the film was critically praised, it was not necessarily popularly recognised as the immortal, genre-defining work that we know it as today. Not until it was brought to France a few years after its release receiving praise there by several famous figures, including Jean-Paul Sartre, and held up as an example by influential critics such as André Bazin, whose works are used to train cinematographers even today.

So, was the influence of Citizen Kane on cinema simply a result of its existence, or a result of its legitimisation? It may very well have been both, as a work of quality was probably necessary to elicit this kind of response, but without it, would Citizen Kane still be considered the best film ever made? The general acceptance or praise of a work as something to aspire to is not only the result of its quality -- the context in which it is received has to be ready to accept its influence, and needs to be prepared to praise it. The right people may be needed to draw the 'right' (influential, literate) public's attention to it. There is a lot of art that really is before its time, and when society is ready to accept it, influential voices sometimes return to the work of a struggling, unrecognised artist and then give it the praise it deserves. Or it is simply lost forever.

You may be wondering why I went off on that tangent to explain what made Citizen Kane 'great', when my point was supposed to be about games. What I wanted to highlight is that being good does not make something  genre-defining, influential or even commonly known. I don't really believe in universal masterpieces anyway*. Legitimacy comes from outside of the ordinary masses who consume the art. It also doesn't just come from art critics' and famous philosophers' endorsements. What art mostly needs in order to gain legitimacy is time, a social environment that will accept it (which may come with the passing of time), and a whole lot of luck. And we already have a certain social environment that accepts games. Should we then still try to court those in the ivory tower? Should we just wait? I don't know. We should just try to make the best games we can, and support what we like.

I can say honestly that good games alone will probably not give wider legitimacy to games as an art form (if that is what you are really after). And that being said, seeking legitimacy for the games that we play will not make us make or play better games. Innovation, if not legitimacy, comes from within, and not from seeking approval from those whose opinions are confined by what already exists. We don't need a feature on Minecraft in Time Magazine to legitimise gaming among ourselves. We don't need to scramble for the attention and affection of people who do not like what we like, because that way, we give the power to decide what is good to them. Games sell, people like them, people are trying new things (they are), and people who quietly appreciate and have appreciated games before are becoming more and more visible.

I'm also not trying to argue the part of the misunderstood genius here, sulking because The Man doesn't get the art I like. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and games are now in the process of being legitimised. I'm also not going to get in the way of anyone discussing and appreciating something that they consider to be genius. I love that sort of thing. These kinds of broad, sensational statements just need a little questioning, that's all.

*Full disclosure: I still really, really like Citizen Kane. But maybe you don't.

How About Reading the Classics?

My book collection is very odd. I have classic books that I love -- Medieval, Romantic, Victorian, Modernist,  Contemporary -- all jammed up next to each other and piled on top of one another in no particular system, and interspersed with recent science fiction books, thrillers and more. What I like is stories, and I love all media that tell stories. Everyone (probably) has books that they would personally consider classics, even if they're pulpy adventure books or romances, and that's okay. But I'd like to put a case forward for reading some books you may not have tried from The Classics. Reading older books is often considered an irrelevant chore. They may even have been 'ruined' for you by some awful high school teachers. But they really are useful, and with the right mindset, reading them can turn out to be some of your favourite experiences. So, why read the classics?

1. The 'olden days' are not a thing
When are the classics set? They're set in 'the olden days', right? This is that perfect time when everyone was polite, children listened to their parents and nobody had sex, or even wanted to. Ever. For maybe 2000 years, everyone is meant to have lived in these mysterious 'olden days'. There's this strangely common idea that the modern world is the only time rapid societal change has ever happened or affected anyone personally. Things like the invasion of 'barbarians' and Romans, the Industrial Revolution, the discovery of the New World, human rights and rights for women, the invention of weapons of mass destruction, the first missions into space (space! think about it), profoundly affected the people who witnessed them (and these are mainly examples we know from western, English-speaking society). We can hardly say that these developments, and many other less talked-about ones, were less important to the people of the time than the rise of American cultural dominance, the internet and global terrorism were to the world today, and the end of apartheid was to us in South Africa. There are as many individual genres, stories and ideas in the classics than there are in the stories we consume now. Reading books written in other social and historical contexts gives a window into a place and time that is unlike, and similar to our own.

2. You don't read to experience what you experience every day
Fantasy and science fiction are very popular genres. Readers love being transported to different, well-constructed societies and settings, and old books do the same, except they may not be as generous with the exposition. If you're going to escape, you may as well also have the option of escaping to another time and place that really existed (or another time's perspective on one that didn't), and have the added bonus of learning about the way that real societies worked and the values they may have had that may not be the same as those you assumed they would have. Characters (and authors) can have revolutionary worldviews that were not necessarily popularised or passed on in modern culture as indicative of a certain generation.

3. People never change
This may be a personal belief, but, while societies change, and beliefs change, people's core natures stay the same. People have the same motivations (love, hate, lust, survival, greed, a wish to have control or security...), and these echo what you see now. A new perspective (for you) on an aspect of human nature can be a revelation that affects you for life, and the more of these perspectives you expose yourself to, the better. The fact that someone made an observation long before you were born doesn't make it less valid. On top of this, the topics that the many, many books available to you deal with are inspired by people. Did old people never talk about, or experience things that we consider 'edgy' now? Sex, violence, profanity and more are all available to you, if potential stuffiness is what's putting you off.

4. Because nobody is telling you how to feel about them now 
If the other three points haven't been convincing, then maybe this one will be better. If you studied books or plays at school, you were often tested on them, and made to learn and study ready-made interpretations. I admit that I was not particularly brilliant at high school English lit for this reason. The liberating thing is realising that you are allowed to dislike a book without anyone telling you that it's wrong to, or that its 'uncultured' or that you're 'too stupid to get it'. You can just stop reading if you're not interested. Just because a book's a classic doesn't mean that it has universal appeal, and you don't even have to think that it's any good. You can file old alongside new, and have your own personal classics. And, importantly, you can take whatever message you want from the books that you read. It doesn't even matter if it was the author's intended message. The only thing that matters is that you get to figure things out for yourself and expose yourself to ideas beyond the same ideas that we are exposed to every day, and break out of the 'ordinary' mindset for our time and context. You can meet some brilliant characters without some boring schoolmarm's version of them affecting your own. You can even try a few books and then totally dismiss my views, if you like.

So, recommendations. How about trying (from easiest to most challenging):

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland  You know the story. But really, the details in Caroll's original are witty, silly and just way better than any adaptation you've seen.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes With the number of crime and detective stories we see today, it may be interesting to see some of the first. And if you enjoyed the BBC's Sherlock, reading these stories will show you all sorts of great easter eggs.

Jorge Luis Borges' Ficciones A true master of speculative fiction (if that's even what his short stories are), Borges experiments with all kinds of 'what if' situations that are unmatched to this day.

The Picture of Dorian Gray A story of debauchery and corruption with a supernatural twist. Need I say more?

The stories of H.P. Lovecraft You haven't read these? Oh, come on. Unfathomable terrors await!

Jane Eyre Romance, a brilliant critique of religion's bond with society, witty banter, a little horror, and almost anachronistic-seeming feminism. It's famous for a reason.

Crime and Punishment Do you like Dexter for the way that it takes the murderer's point of view? This novel is a thought-provoking whydunnit that gives insight into what 19th-century St Petersburg was like.

Many books are available as free ebooks on Project Gutenberg or second hand, so that may be helpful. You may even like to use Sparknotes (or even the brilliant Thug Notes) to get up to speed on the major points of a book. Reading up on historical issues or unknown terms on Wikipedia could also make many things clearer and provide context (your fantasy- and sci-fi-style world-building and exposition). So, how about reading the classics?