How Have Tolkien and Lewis Affected Today's Society?

Here's C. Dunn's overview:

To begin with, Tolkien and Lewis, writers of The Hobbit and The Chronicles of Narnia respectively, did influence some well-known and not-so-well-known stories, almost all of which are of the fantasy genre. One example of Tolkien's influence is Dennis L. McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy which "was intended to be a direct sequel to The Lord of the Rings but had to be altered" [1]. The Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling "mirrors some themes from ideas from The Lord of the Rings" [1]. A couple of examples of Lewis's influence include A Series of Unfortunate Events (Daniel Handler) and even the Harry Potter series. In addition to works of prose, there were also the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, and The Last Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Video games based on The Lord of the Rings and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe have also been made. While the video game based on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has only been made based on the movie, The Lord of the Rings has had video games based not only on the film adaptations, but also the novels--and even games just based in the world of Middle-Earth. These games weren't the only ones based on The Lord of the Rings. It had a much greater influence on games in today’s culture. Because of its influence on fantasy, the late Gary Gygax was driven to create one of the most prominent role-playing games of the '90s: Dungeons & Dragons. This game was based on Tolkien's concepts of elves, dwarves, humans, and even hobbits (even though Gygax called them Halflings, they have very similar characteristics to those of the hobbit race). Dungeons & Dragons is still in production today, on their 4th edition of the game (which many avid Dungeons & Dragons players have come to shun). Dungeons & Dragons, in turn, had a large influence on the most popular MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) of today, World of Warcraft. The great Dungeon Master, Gary Gygax, passed away on March 4, 2008 at the age of 69. On March 25, 2008, Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft, released patch 2.4.0 of the game, which was dedicated in memoriam to Gygax with this paragraph from the patch notes:

Blizzard Entertainment would like to dedicate the patch in memory of Gary Gygax. His work on D&D was an inspiration to us in many ways and helped spark our passion for creating games of our own. As avid D&D players and fellow game developers, we were all saddened by the news of his passing; we feel we've lost a true adventuring companion. Thanks for everything and farewell, Gary. You will be missed. [2]

So, if it weren't for Tolkien's influence on Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons would likely not have been made, or at least been very different, and if Dungeons & Dragons hadn't been made, then World of Warcraft could very well have been excluded from the history of games as well. It should also be noted that, while Dungeons & Dragons has been and still is a game with a large fan base, World of Warcraft, as of October 2010, has 12 million subscribers.

Several music bands have been influenced by Tolkien, ranging from one or two songs to the whole band's theme. Some examples of this include such songs as "Elvenpath" (by power metal band Nightwish) and a few songs by the rock band Led Zeppelin. Examples of a greater influence by Tolkien in music include: "Gorgoroth take their name from an area of Mordor, Burzum take their name from the Black Speech of Mordor, and Amon Amarth take their name after an alternative name for Mount Doom" [1].

To summarize what I've explained here, if it weren't for Lewis and Tolkien's stories, Harry Potter and other stories who were influenced by Lewis and Tolkien would likely be quite different, if they even still existed; a handful of video games wouldn’t exist; Dungeons & Dragons, if it actually existed, would likely be radically different; World of Warcraft probably wouldn't exist, at least not how it is today. Lewis and Tolkien were very influential writers on not only the works of fantasy literature today but games that have over 10 million people playing.

Bibliography
[1] Works Inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. Wikipedia. 10-15-2010. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_inspired_by_J._R._R._Tolkien#Literature
[2] World of Warcraft Patch Notes 2.4.3. Blizzard Entertainment, 7-15-2008. 10-15-2010. www.worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/patch2p43.html

Check It Out: Fall 2009 Student Web Projects

From ENGL 208/AMST 210: American Popular and Mass Cultures

Disney vs. Grimm
Panic at the Cinema
Video Games and Film
Viral Media Check

And don't miss Steve Bosco's post on his decision to re-score the "star gate" sequence in Stanley Kubrick's 2001.

From ENGL 427: Major Writers

Gary Aloisio on myth and Tolkien, Donaldson, and Pullman
Max Soule-Oneto on Pullman's His Dark Materials

Why The Sims Fad?

Duck Hunt, Super Mario, and SIMS were about my only experiences with video games as I was growing up. At a young age, I can remember my dad teaching me how to shoot the over-sized, orange plastic gun at the 10" television screen we had in our living room. After my finger hurt from pushing the trigger so many times, I would move onto Super Mario, my all time favorite. Super Mario was the kinda game you could just play for hours on end (as long as you could get it to work after blowing every ounce of oxygen you owned into the open side of the cartridge). Although playing Super Mario was a true hobby of mine, I don't really think my interest had anything to do with eventually beating the game. Instead, I think I was infatuated with the idea that I could shoot awesome fire balls at enemies and head butt bricks to get extra lives.

Looking back on those days of small, square remote controls with two buttons, I cannot believe how far video games have come in graphics, content, and technology in general.The most recent video game I think I have experienced is probably The Sims game for Playstation 2. Actually, I did play a little GTA but I only played to run people over or to use the cheat code to get the massive army tank.

But back to The Sims.

After buying the original Sims game in 2000, I spent roughly 5 hours a day as a ten year old developing houses, cooking meals, and even keeping up on my Sim's personal hygiene. Why? Looking back on my experience with this video game, I often wonder what it was that was so appealing to me. Why did I find myself playing this meaningless game for hours on end and even sneaking the playstation into my room at night so I could play past bedtime?

I mean don't get me wrong- at the time I thought The Sims game was the best thing anyone had ever come up with. I could make massive houses, have endless money, and even trap my Sim in the swimming pool if I really didn't want him anymore. But looking back on all of it--I really wonder why the game is so popular, any ideas?

I decided to research a little about it:

So, in 2000 The Sims game came out and following it were these expansion packs: The Sims: Livin' Large, House Party, Hot Date, Vacation, Unleashed, Superstar, and Makin' Magic. Then came Sims 2, which included: University, Nightlife, Open for Business, Pets, Seasons, Bon Voyage, Free Time, and Apartment Life. Wow, who would of thought your Sim could go to college, have a pet, and even be a superstar! Well, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Sims 3 came out, and now your Sim could even partake in some World Adventures. Although the game might not lend anything to your child about reality, I can kind of understand why the games are Top Sellers...because there isn't anything that your gibberish speaking avatar can't do!!

Although I am not familiar with the video game culture, I really am intrigued to know what makes this game so special? Yes I am guilty of playing it myself, but I would never spend 50 dollars on the various expansion packs. In an article called "Reading, writing, and the Sims" by Marco Visscher, Marco discusses that "Video games support the great gift that young people possess to learn by themselves." So in other words, today's children learn how to eat, sleep, and shower because of The Sims.

Great, the game has sold 6 million copies worldwide, but I don't think that the game supports people learning by themselves. In my own experiences, I never played the game the right way, cheatcodes.com was my best friend and I didn't care if my Sim had a job or not; I could push L, L, R, L2, R2, Up, Down and get all the money I ever wanted. So, now that I am done with my rant, I have come to the conclusion that if we are all going to spend pointless hours escaping reality, lets not pretend that The Sims is teaching us anything about reality and lets just reconfigure Duck Hunt and Super Mario for 50" HD televisions so that the world never has to buy another Sims expansion pack again.




And for your own entertainment....

Video Game Violence Close to Home

I know, I know; You're saying "Not another article claiming video games harvest violence". This article is, and is not that. I am not insinuating that video games make everyone bloodthirsty zombies. However, I would like to show, or disprove, the common myth that video games only affect people with problems to begin with. A person predisposed to violence will of course be affected by video games, as well as violent literature, movies, or other media. No, my focus is on how everyday people are affected by video game exposure, even if limited.

I will not waste time going in-depth with what people already think about violence and video games. Of course people who waste their entire lives playing video games will have more real life issues; and the same goes for people with supposed "violent predispositions" or mental illnesses. How about You? What have studies shown happens to the everyday gamer who only plays on occasion, or for a few hours a day? According to a study supported by the American Psychological Association (APA). The study looked at random individuals; they did not target specific groups, rather they looked at anyone and everyone. What the study found was that playing violent video games correlates with five major behavioral patterns; "increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior" (apa.org).

Still not convinced. I didn't think so. The study also found that, although people identified as "high risk" were more susceptible to violence, non-aggressive individuals were shown to be more aggressive after playing violent video games. The aggression comes out in various forms such as delinquency, violent criminal behaviors, and escalating aggression.

The research group admits that there are holes and unanswered questions that can only be answered with prolonged research. My argument is that we don't all become serial killers and try to reenact what we play, but that we are affected nonetheless is more subtle ways, yet problematic ways.

Fine Wine Versus Cheap Beer

In writing the Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien was not trying to alter a genre or create some crazy phenomenon that would eventual be known by children and parents, geeks and jocks, and everyone in between. He was only trying to create a bedtime fairy story for his children, but in writing this innocent story for his children, Tolkien did indeed create this genre changing trilogy. Not only did Tolkien create one of the best known, well written, and time tested trilogy’s, he also has become one of the most well-known authors in the fantasy world. Tolkien’s story has crossed so many media forms: literature, film, plays, and even more recently videogames.

What effects has Stephen Donaldson’s The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever done? Has Donaldson changed a genre? Effected readers? Has this trilogy become a household name? How about crossing media platforms? Definitely not.

I almost feel bad for comparing these two authors and their trilogies; I feel that in doing this I am causing some sort of insult to Tolkien. I want to apologize before I go any further. With that said, let’s continue.

Comparing these two authors is not like comparing apples and oranges, but more like comparing fine wine to… ummm… Golden Anniversary maybe? Fine wine needs to be at the right temperature, let the wine breathe for a moment so that the complexities of the different flavors shine, and enjoyed slowly while being sipped; very much like Tolkien’s trilogy. Like wine, Tolkien’s fantasy story needs to be enjoyed slowly so that the “complexities of the different flavors shine”. There is so much time and attention spent on details and complexities of world building and plot structure within The Lord of the Rings that it is easily comparable to Dom. Romane Conti 1997 (which is a red burgundy wine that runs about $1,540 a bottle).

Unlike Tolkien however, Donaldson is more like a really cheap beer; something that you would drink underage because you can’t afford anything better and also because you have no experience drinking, so you have no idea what taste is all about. Just like cheap beer, Donaldson leaves you with a headache, nausea, and the spins (not to mention what I like to call the horrible feeling of “beer-s*** syndrome”).

Video Games

Recently, we watched the documentary "Second Skin" in class. It was a documentary about people who play video games (focusing on role playing games). Role Playing games include World of Warcraft (which i think almost everyone has heard of), and Everquest. Before we began watching the movie, I was kind of interested in seeing what type of documentary that we were going to be watching about video games. I mean, how interesting can you really make a documentary about people who play video games?

The overall message that the documentary sends is that Role Playing games can really ruin your life and that the average gamer looks like your stereotypical extreme video game player. It mostly focused on romantic relationships formed from role playing games and followed these people around who played video games almost all hours of the day. What really aggravated me about this documentary was that it portrayed people who play video games as people who have no life, and just care about their role playing game. In fact, someone in class had made the comment that it just reinforced the stereotypical gamer to them. I can see how this documentary can do that to people who don't personally know someone who likes video games.

I wasn't a big fan of this unit so much because I didn't really learn more than what I already knew about video games. It's not the most interesting topic to me, and i was really annoyed that the documentary that we watched wasn't anything positive about video games and gamers. I wish that we would have watched a documentary showing a different side to video games. Maybe how they're developed and why they're popular.

Project Natal

The new Microsoft project, Project Natal (pronounced Nah-tall) is one that is promising to be more groundbreaking then Nintendo's Wii. The most unique and intriguing feature, which the project is based off of is the fact that the person playing IS the controller. The youtube video below is a good preview of what Microsoft intends to accomplish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM&feature=related

Now as interesting and as futuristic as this seems, a few different issues come into my mind. This is a system where one can do almost anything very realistically from the comfort of their own couch. From playing simple exercises to action games to just meeting virtual characters and seeing their world, it seems that users will be creating a virtual life.


My main concern is that with all of these virtual opportunities, how addicted are players going to get? With the lives you can live through video games being so interesting and exciting I feel as if players will become attached to this system. Why wouldn't you want to live a life full of adventure vicariously through a t.v. screen? I'm definitely not against this new idea, for I would probably be one of those to get addicted. Yet I can't help but wonder what the repercussions will be in the long run.

Video Games

I never really got into Video Games partly because my mom is totally against video games therefore when I was younger they weren't in my house or really apart of my life for that matter. The only time i was ever exposed to video games was when i went to my friends house and they would be playing Xbox or playstation or whatever was popular at that time. I never played because the controlers were intimidating and confusing to me who has never played, plus i was terrible at it, having no idea what i was doing or what the point of it was. To this day i dont play video games all though when i go to friends i understand the wii, and guitar hero which i do play, not well but i play.

After watching Second Skin i dont think that video games are a healthy way to spend your time, unless you are aware of how much time you do spend playing them because they suck you right in, and will take over your life. I'm not into the whole shooting killing people i am one of those people that think the violence in video games is over the top, and parents should take the ratings on them much more seriously, but that is more the parents fault then the video game makers. Second skin i thought was pretty pointless unless you were trying to promote anti-video games which i dont think it was ment to do. it really pointed out the worst, and wierdness in people. and how it really takes over peoples lives. i could understand playing a little now and then but the people on the movie were addictded. I think that movie totally defeated its purpose of being made.

Control vs Conditioning in Video Games

In considering the ways in which the process of playing video games is different from other forms of entertainment media it seems at first that video games offer the user more freedom and control. Reading or watching TV and movies could be seen as more passive because the reader or viewer must simply watch events unfold without being able to influence them in any way. Video games seem to offer the user at least some input as they are allowed to control the characters and influence the events that occur.

How much control and freedom do video games really offer users though? It seems that at least with a lot of action and platform games the user is being given a series of choices that result in positive and negative stimuli. Certain actions kill the character while others advance them further. As the game progresses the user learns to avoid the negative stimuli and eventually is able to play the game the correct way and advance the character through the entire game. In this way rather than offering users freedom to influence the outcome of the game it is really conditioning them to play the game the right way. To me it seems debatable whether the act of being conditioned could be considered a more active process than watching the events of a plot unfold in a book, TV show, or movie.

I will say that I think some video games do offer the user more choices and freedom and are more difficult to see as simply a conditioning process. Process oriented games like the Sims allow users to make various choices with no real predetermined goals in order to just see how the choices play out. Similarly games like Fable allow users to really set up and achieve their own goals and decide which directions to take the plot and how to develop the character in terms 0f appearance, actions, and abilities.

It is somewhat difficult for me to make a value judgement on video games. While it seems that games which offer the user more freedom rather than conditioning them would be preferable these games also tend to lack concrete goals and objectives to achieve. While a game might just be conditioning you, it does feel good when you finally get it right and overcome increasingly difficult obstacles. You can argue that this process might not be as active as it seems but I do not think that neccessarily makes these types of games any less valuable or enjoyable than other games.

The Control of Video Games

America is all about freedom and subsequently control and power. There is no such thing as complete freedom and there never will be. Media is no exception. Television and film give us limited freedom. We can choose to watch a comedy movie instead of a horror, but generally we can't decide what the content of a movie or a television show will be.

In the past two decades video games have risen to the top tier of entertainment. Everyone I know has at least one gaming system and most Americans have computers which allow gameplay on the internet as well as PC games. Humans like to be in control or feel as if they are, even if it is a character in a video game. If I want to shoot someone just to take their money on Grand Theft Auto, I can. There are a few different results that can come from this, which were programmed into the game therefore giving me no control over, but how I have the character react to the consequences is up to me.

When I was little all I wanted to do was watch my sister and cousins play video games. When I was between the ages of about 4-10 I mostly watched them rather than play. I knew how to play and I would every once in awhile, but mostly I was too young to get very far. As I got older I wasn't as comfortable watching and I would irritate my sister by being a sort of "back-seat driver." I would tell her go over there or jump here. I was growing up and I wanted more control over what I was seeing. Needless to say, my sister and I are still avid video gamers now (as much as we can be on a limited budget and working our way through college).

Video games can be an escape into a world where we are something better than ourselves. Who wouldn't love to explode a gas station without consequences in Grand Theft Auto, kill hordes of zombies in Resident Evil, or create and live the perfect life in The Sims (PC version). I can see how easy it would be to get lost in these non-existant (and sometimes fantastical) worlds. Yes, there are limits to what a certain game is programmed to do and content is created by someone else, but there's a level of control in video games that's unavailable in other forms of media (and life itself). However, there are books and movies starting to profit off of the idea of audience control. Choose your own adventure books are a great example and Final Destination 3 on DVD follows the same sort of idea. The movie can be watched in it's intended progression and conclusion or you can click on the choose your path version on the DVD menu. In this version of the film there are places where it will stop and ask which way you would prefer to go or which action should be taken providing many different paths through the movie. While this is more time-consuming and expensive for the filmmakers (more scenes need to be made and a lot more editing needs to be done), it gives the audience control that they want and if you give the people what they want the profits will follow.

In video games we aren't just along for the ride (keeping our hands and feet in the vehicle at all times) we make the ride and navigate our way through it. So who knows where video games will lead us, maybe all movies will function like Final Destination 3. We'll just have to wait and see.

Television and Video Games

I am of the opinion that playing video games is better than watching television. When you watch television youare sitting and watching the screen without interacting at all. When you play video games at least you are doing something more than just watching. You are actually thinking because you are in control of what is happening. Depending on the game you might actually be thinking quite hard if you are for example trying to solve a puzzle. Or coming up with a strategy to accomplish a certain goal in the game.

When you are watching television you may be thinking but only to the extent of understanding the plot. Where as in a video game you need to understand the plot and control and navigate the game skillfully enough to not lose. Although i don't think all games fit into the category i am talking about. Simple games like Warblade that have you performing nearly mindless repetitive tasks may require you to interact but not very much. But in many more complex games puzzle solving is a major aspect of the game and requires you to actually use your brain to solve the puzzle.

There are television shows that require you to think more, like game shows if you are competing with the contestants from your couch. But the majority of shows simply require that you watch in order to understand what is going on. I know that i personally feel much more engaged when i'm playing a game and actually need to think in order to proceed.

Spyro the Dragon's Further Adventures in the Video Game World

The trilogy of Playstation 1 "Spyro the Dragon" video games, I believe, is one of the best that were ever made for that particular console. It came along at a time when video games were starting to have better details and graphics, taking on a cartoonish/caracturistic design. In this writing, I attempt to talk about that trilogy and the audience of that trilogy, and the failure of the Playstation 2 Spyro, to the modern Spyro games.

From 1998-2000, the first trilogy of the adventures of Spyro, a purple dragon, came out. I don't particulary remember when it first came out, but discovered the game around 1999 at my cousin's house, and liked it from the beginning. By 2001, I had the complete Playstation 1 trilogy. These games were different from any that came out at that time. First, there was no blood or extreme violence. The person who controlled Spyro while playing the game just pressed a button for a head-butt or flame breath, and the enemy vanished into thin air. The audience was mainly targeted towards children and adolescents. Spyro did make appearences on television commercials, with humorous plots, as the makers of the games were intending to market their product towards the youth. Around early 2001, Spyro took a hiatus, as the trilogy completed with him finding the 150 dragon eggs in the final game and living happily ever after.

By late 2002, Spyro reappeared for Playstation 2, and was pretty much the same. The market was still towards the youth, and new commercials were airing for other Spyro products on other consoles, such as Gameboy and PSP. This game for Playstation 2 had one particular flub, it was rushed too fast, hence the poor design and gameplay of the game. This makes me think of the "E.T." game for the Atari console that was mentioned in the textbook we read "Understanding Video Games," to capitalize on the success of the film back in the 1980s. Those games sold so poorly, that they had to be dumped in the Arizona desert. The first Spyro for PS2 was a disaster, and sold poorly. My brother had a copy of the game and it was so tough and frustrating to play, that we got rid of it.

By around 2004 or 2005, Spyro took a whole new direction and audience. The new Spyro games are now darker with violence and some blood that never would have been thought of in the original trilogy and failed PS2 version. The audience, I believe, has taken a dramatic shift. When Spyro was first marketed, he was innocent, friendly, and portrayed as a kid dragon. Spyro now is a young adult dragon, and thus the audience is now older teenagers and young adults. He fights enemies that don't vanish, but die like other video game characters. He still saves the day, but with darker themes and elements. This is not the Spyro I once knew and have not planned to play any of these newer games. A Spyro movie is still in the works, and I do plan to see that when it arrives in theatres. All in all, Spyro is a dragon that was once friendly, but is now confused about who his audience is.

My opinion on the "Second Skin" Movie

To me, this movie felt very doom-and-gloom about the whole gaming community. No example could explain this better than the mother who started the 12-step program for 'addicted' gamers. She asserted that excessive gaming was equal to excessive drinking and that nearly all gamers play games too much, saying that the only way to get out of it is to go through the same 12-step program as an alcoholic. Mind you, she was a 'recovered' alcoholic herself.

Needless to say, I was absolutely horrified, especially as she talked about her son who committed suicide. I have always been interested in medicine and as I listened to her talk more, the itching in the back of my mind increased. It wasn't until after class did I realize that she was a nearly classical example of Munchhausen Syndrome, a disease in which the caretaker ends up making their patient sick. In the case of this woman, she wanted the doctors to say that the gaming was the cause of her sons manic depression. She dragged him from doctor to doctor to doctor, further upsetting him, until she found the answer she wanted to hear.

Put yourself in her sons shoes for a moment: your mother is insisting that something you take pleasure in (could be games, movies, books, music, etc) is causing your supposed mental illness and is relentless in finding someone who agrees with her, successfully further alienating you from your own family.

I hate to say it, but the woman smothering her grown child like that was more likely the cause of his suicide. Perhaps she should have backed off, realized that she, in fact, was mentally ill as well. Instead, she now is asserting her will on other gamers who (by their own testament) could have done far better on their own, not being insulted and belittled by that mentally ill woman.

Perhaps this woman needs to take a step back, adjust her focus, and see who she is and where her mental state is. It saddens me that people like that can go so long without assessing their place in the world.

Games in the Palm of Your Hand- good or bad?

In class today, Professor Simon mentioned iPhones and other cellphones that now have video games on them at a person can play without the use of a console or outlet.

I too once thought about buying games for my phone, then realized that the $7.99 Verizon wanted to charge me to have unlimited use of Tetris on my phone was just ridiculous. I can go to the video game shop in Dunkirk, (Gamerz Haven) and possibly spend $5 on a cartridge for my original NES. This made me think why people would need games on their phones anyway.

Yes, I'm sure having those time consumer right at your finger tips is an easy way to pass the time while traveling, but increasingly, people are using them at times when they should be doing something else. For example, I have a friend who has Guitar Hero on her phone and usually only played it while she was at work in a retail store. Working in retail myself, I know there are times when you don't have customers or work to be done, but I know if I was ever caught playing a game on my cellphone, or using my cellphone at all, my job would be on the line.

The question that I have is then: Why do people need constant entertaining with moving objects, noises and flashing lights? Have the whole world developed ADD?

I believe Americans, I can't lump the rest of the world in this, are so used to being business all the time, the idea of having a chance for pure relaxation and turning one's brain off may be kind of scary. We must be constantly thinking and doing something.

This may not be true to all cellphone game users. May be it is more of the need to have the hands busy. We are a country of figit-ers! When I quit smoking cigarettes, the one problem I had most was figuring out what to do with my hands. The motion of my arm bringing my hand, holding a cigarette, to my lips and repeat became second nature and stopping this motion seemed unnatural. I believe this is the direction that cellphones are going. You can ask young adults now and they will tell you how lost they would be without their cellphone. We depend on a small, handheld device so so much, the concept must be to see how much of a consumer;s life can be packed into its programming. The next thing you know, you'll be able to file your taxes through text messages.

Welcoming New Student Authors to sf@SF

This semester I'm teaching 2 courses that are going to stretch the boundaries of this blog's "science fiction at SUNY Fredonia" focus. American Popular and Mass Cultures looks at fantasy, comic books, video games, tv, and film in addition to science fiction, while Major Writers: Tolkien, Donaldson, Pullman focuses primarily on fantasy. In both courses, I'm requiring a certain number of blog posts from everyone--whether here or on their own blogs (which I'll link to)--and expecting everyone to be reading, commenting on, and responding to each other's writing. The dialogues that I hope to see emerge here will be the public face of what goes on in class discussions and on our ANGEL discussion forum, which are for class members only, but will hopefully go beyond the limitations of the 50-minute class meeting or the quick-hit nature of a discussion board. Our common text to start the semester, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring (and the Peter Jackson movie based on it) should give us enough of a common ground to get some discussions going. Let's see what comes of them!

World of Warcraft as a dumbed down version of The Matrix

Let me begin by saying that any MMORPG could have been used to illustrate this point but I chose WoW for its ridiculous popularity and rampant takeover of everything. I believe that the majority of people who play World of Warcraft do so for the escape that it offers. Much like Case turns to The Matrix and feels elated to leave himself behind, so do WoW players tire of the series of sex cravings and identity crises that we call life and find solace in the game. Unlike The Matrix, though, you can only do and be so many things in WoW. In The Matrix you can move in any which direction, in WoW you have your average everyday physics only it is totally vicarious. A vicarious relationship with a poorly rendered model that has limited feature customization. Your activities in WoW pretty much boil down to mashing a few buttons (as a former player I know that most classes eventually start spamming one attack because it works best,) moving great distances by holding forward and saving up fake money so that you can spend it and then start saving up for a replacement of whatever you just bought. I believe that WoW, in the long run, is very similar to working in factory only you are spending money to do it rather than making it. Now after all of the hearty criticism I have to conclude that when I played Wow I had a fucking blast. My question is, WHY IS THIS GAME FUN? That question has no answer because logically it totally sucks. It is pretty colorful, though.