On mattering

August 10, 2010

When I began reading Tom Bissell’s new book Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, I wanted very badly for him to answer the question posed in his subtitle. In particular I wanted something I could recommend to non-gamers that would be accessible but literary, informed but not transparently fanboyish: an evangelical silver bullet.

And although it is largely successful, Extra Lives occasionally lapses into a fervent enthusiasm that felt at best self-indulgent and at worst alienating. Reading from the perspective of a curious non-gamer I imagined myself tossing the book aside, giving up on the medium once and for all.

Consider, for example, this protracted explanation of the “special infected” zombies in Left 4 Dead:

These special infected come in five nightmare flavors: the Hunter (a hoodied zombie who pounces upon and then tears into his prey, rendering the pouncee helpless until a friend comes along to shoot or push the Hunter off); the Smoker (a coughing, shambolic, elastically tongued zombie who operates much like a sniper, extending his tongue to pluck survivors from the pack); the Boomer (an obese and suppurating slob zombie who is as fragile and explosive as a Pinto but whose vomit and bile attract the dreaded horde, and whose vomit, on top of that, is blinding, so that during a well-coordinated attack you cannot see the Hunter tearing to pieces your screaming friend right in front of you); the Tank (as advertised, a steroidally distended zombie as tough as an armored car, but who mercifully appears only a few times a game); and, finally, the Witch (a crying lost-soul zombie who seems the very picture of helplessness, until she is startled by a flashlight or loud noise, upon which she uses her razored manicure to instantly kill the survivor who startled her, and whom you must try to sneak past, and who is as upsetting and inspired a video game character as any). (pp. 43-44)

The level of detail here was mildly cringeworthy on first reading (as it was in a couple of similar passages), but listening to Bissell read the passage aloud at a book signing event was mortifying. Nothing, I thought, could be less affirming of video games’ importance than a minutes-long dialectic — for it seemed even longer when I was forced to listen — on the particulars of zombies.

So: why include it, then? Bissell could have written something with the high-level accessibility of “Painkiller Deathstreak,” a gee-whiz look at video games from Nicholson Baker in the August 9 New Yorker, but he chose not to. If his intention was to convince people that video games matter, why draw attention to their puerile side?

The answer is that “why video games matter” is only half of Bissell’s concern in Extra Lives; the other half, which he says was cut from the subtitle, is “why video games don’t matter more.” During his appearance on the Brainy Gamer podcast, he explains how difficult it was to balance these goals: “On the one hand you want to make people who aren’t convinced [about video games mattering], convinced. And on the other hand you want to tell people who are convinced that their case isn’t as good as they think it is.”

Encouraging two separate groups to reach opposing conclusions is no mean feat, and it’s a wonder that Extra Lives succeeds at all. But I think it does — at least, it articulates the ambivalence I’ve sometimes felt while championing the medium. I can’t say how effective it’s been for the unconvinced, but closing the gap between us will be important if we’re to have meaningful discussions in the future.

9 comments

I enjoyed the book and could see past most of the faltering bits, but I have to admit that the detailed description of the cocaine fueled GTA IV binge would probably be a bit much for the casual reader.

by Mitya on August 10, 2010 at 1:49 am #

Heh, the L4D passage you highlight also stuck out to me as jargon-plagued. I tried to imagine, say, my gaming-allergic sister reading it and simply could not do it. However, I could easily imagine her reading and enjoying much of the rest of the book.

On the whole, I just couldn’t get around the humor and the playful language on display in so much Extra Lives… it felt like a love letter to the very lines of reasoning I so enjoy myself, and I enjoyed the living hell out of it.

But yeah – contrasted with the chapter on Resident Evil (which I would say is the strongest description of the act of play in the book) the L4D section is certainly lacking in accessibility. As an avid L4D fan, I was glad I was able to enjoy it, particularly as he came back around to reinforce that silent second subtitle – why video games don’t matter more.

In general, that ambiguity is what draws me to the conversation, so it seems fitting that it is also the very thing that can make the conversation so difficult to have.

by Kirk Hamilton on August 10, 2010 at 2:05 am #

While I agree that such detail hurts more than helps, I also wonder if he’s just trying to make the best of what we got.

If we truly want to reach out to more people, we need to make games that can speak to many groups of people. I’m not saying we need to get rid of our zombies and the like, but pointing to zombies to show gaming’s importance to those who may not give a lick about zombies is a failure right out the starting gate.

by JPLC on August 10, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

Reading your comments it strikes me that my post suffers from the same problem (if it is a problem) as Extra Lives. On the one hand I want to make people who aren’t convinced about it convincing people who aren’t convinced, convinced. And on the other hand I want to tell people who are convinced that it convinces people who aren’t convinced that their case isn’t as good as they think it is. Or something like that. :-)

by Dan Bruno on August 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

Dan, I’m sorry to have mortified you during that reading–why didn’t you tell me, dammit!–but the whole point of that chapter is bringing to the surface this discomfort. Mortification and embarrassment is what it’s about. I struggled with that passage (and probably shouldn’t have read it aloud–and didn’t I stop in the middle of reading and say something funny, like, “Oh my god I can’t believe I’m actually reading this?”; no? well, I usually try to do something like that) but the amount of special-infected detail is in there for a reason because I am embarrassed by it. I’m also enthralled by it. Anyway. I’ll take criticism of the book, god knows, but it sucks to be criticized for being unaware of something you are, in fact, aware of.

by Tom Bissell on August 11, 2010 at 10:40 am #

Now with fewer typos!

Dan, I’m sorry to have mortified you during that reading–why didn’t you tell me, dammit!–but the whole point of that chapter is bringing to the surface this discomfort. Mortification and embarrassment are what it’s about. I struggled with that passage (and probably shouldn’t have read it aloud–and didn’t I stop in the middle of reading and say something funny, like, “Oh my god I can’t believe I’m actually reading this?”; no? well, I usually try to do something like that) but the amount of special-infected detail is in there because I am embarrassed by it. I’m also enthralled by it. Anyway. I’ll take criticism of the book, god knows, but it sucks to be criticized for being unaware of something you are, in fact, aware of.

by Tom Bissell on August 11, 2010 at 10:43 am #

Hey! Thanks for coming by, Tom.

I’m sorry if my post sounded like an unwarranted attack. I actually didn’t mean for it to be criticism so much as a chronicle of how I, personally, responded to your book — I initially thought it would be strictly about “why video games matter,” and I was confused by the elements that seemed at odds with that goal (like the special infected passage) until I grew wise to the “and why they don’t matter more” part.

As I said above, I was really impressed that you managed to go after both goals at the same time — but I think that approach carries the risk that people will misunderstand your intentions. (Clearly, though, I had the same problem writing this post!)

Anyway, I did like Extra Lives quite a lot, and I’d hate for you to get a different impression because I expressed myself poorly. I hope I explained it a little better!

by Dan Bruno on August 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

Dear Dan,
No, no, I very much appreciate that, and I thank you for talking about the book at all. I didn’t regard it as an attack in the least. But “mortifying” is a tough word to hear, particularly when I tried to send every possible signal that, in that section at least, I’m in on the joke, as it were. Anyway, as for the subtitle…. A lot of people have complained that the book doesn’t explain why games matter so much, beyond why they matter to me. I’m sort of touchy about that complaint, 1) because I’ve heard it a lot now, 2) because I suspect there’s something to it, and 3) because I also, finally, reject it as a criticism. In what way, I ask, can a writer explain why or how something objectively matters, beyond how it matters to him or her? I mean, there’s no other algebra for meaning, is there, other than your own? We’re not talking about hard science here; we’re talking about an art form. At the same time … it’s my subtitle and enough people who otherwise like the book have complained about it. If you’re interested, I wrote something more elaborately intended to explain the matteryness of games, which is here:

http://www.powells.com/blog/?p=20736

by Tom Bissell on August 11, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

I’m willing to believe it was my fault for not picking up on your signals. I could spend all day reading passages like the special infected one (and in fact often do; it’d have to get a whole lot nerdier before I’d be mortified on my own account). But scanning the room at your reading I couldn’t help wondering what, say, the parents of the young gamers made of it. Were the philistines in on the joke as well?

Maybe I give them too little credit, but I worried that they weren’t — that they would see in it an opportunity to confirm their ideas about juvenile zombie-killing fantasies and ignore the main thrust of the chapter. It was my selfish (and slightly unrealistic) desire that everyone would come out of that reading convinced that video games are important, and I despaired at the chance of losing that. I’d love to be wrong, though.

I’m with you on your rejection of the other criticism you’ve gotten. Certainly I would not argue that your defense of games’ importance was too personal. I’m not sure how those critics would suggest that you make it more “objective” — more statistics, maybe? — but it seems like that would be at cross purposes with the book as it stands now.

Thanks for that link. I seem to remember you citing your lack of a blog as one reason for writing a book, back on Michael’s podcast. :-) It’s too bad that it was only a brief guest stint, but hopefully I’ll see you around on some comment threads if nothing else.

by Dan Bruno on August 12, 2010 at 1:30 am #