Something that came to me regarding what is considered literature?

[DioShiba]

Not essentially sure where this kind of topic would belong, However I kind of had to ask my self after having a slight argument in the toilet of the internet's literature board and figured this could be an interesting thing to discuss.

It all started when I replied to someone who believed that video games can't be considered literature.

So mind I ask that if forms of literature have kept on evolving since the Epic of Gilgamesh since forms of writing can be used different ways. Why are there people that insist that Books, Poetry, Essays, and so on are the only things that count?

True there are different forms of media, ranging from books, movies, and video games that more or less have a level of writing in them, which is something they all have in common. Sure about two of the things I mentioned are not the other but I kind of had to ask myself if that the scripts and dialogue helped make a movie's or game's story then, isn't that some form of written art being expressed differently? I remember what I learned in my world literature class that the ancient Greeks originally told their epics orally until Homer decided to write them down, and then I realized that movies and video games aren't really any different from that, but they're done the exact opposite way.

That all being said I'm sort of wondering what could be considered as written art. Obviously you can't say a painting is a piece of literature since that isn't necessarily a written art, but movies and video games these days are pretty much a combination of art, writing, and music, and other things. Which almost makes them fall under an art of it's own but in the sense that you still can tell it has other forms of art crafting it's anatomy in a pretty figurative way.

Normally I hate the kind of people who say that video games or movies can't be _____. I can see their reasoning why, but I just don't agree with it since forms of entertainment and art has always been evolving. I remember in a thread awhile back regarding some guy's opinion on how video games can't be art, someone stated that practically anything can be a form of art. In a sense why can't movies be literature? Or why can't today's video games be literature? I'm not going to get into how games that were made before the playstation or N64 can be considered a form of literature because most of them practically had no story in them unless they were RPG's, which is understandable since gaming was back in it's baby steps during the 80's and 90's and we didn't have the technology then, but by today's standards anything is possible since consoles have more power to do more with games in a nutshell *coughMetalGearSolidcough*. There isn't necessarily a concrete definition of literature aside from "a form of written art" so I kind of want to put this up for debate to see what people think.

[Rosencrantz]

Also going to throw it out there: Shakespeare's plays are considered some of the finest pieces of literature we have to this day, and yet they're nothing more than the Elizabethan equivalent of movies.

That said, games can have some amazing story behind them, with the sole difference being the fact that you get to be the main character of the stories. I mean, games started off with very little, if any, story behind them, and nowadays we just get a ton of graphic violence instead of stories.

But then we get games like Heavy Rain. I don't know what the general opinion is of this game with you guys, but Heavy Rain's actually pretty well regarded for its story. So much so that my game design suitemate says they kind of refer to it often in their story-telling classes.

Really, the only thing keeping a video game script from being taken seriously is the implications behind the "gamer" stereotype. Nobody ever takes them and their interests seriously, so why should scholars?

[qman102]

The way I personally see it is that as with everything else it is up to individual interpretation. By that I mean its as much the game being reviewed as the person reviewing it. As with film and other literary arts, games mean many different things to different people. However, video games are a much younger version of entertainment than film, plays, or books which is part of the reason topics like these are discussed as much as they are. It's understandable if someone says a game like Space Invaders or Pacman aren't literature because they were the first generation of their craft much like cave paintings before novels. Many games today are driven by their stories. Games like Uncharted gray the line between interaction and cinema. To me a game like Uncharted is both a wonderful piece of film and a great interactive experience. It doesn't have to be just one or the other and I think most people fail to see that.

[puggsoy]

Lemme just chuck in the Oxford Dictionary definition here:

written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit:
a great work of literature

• books and writings published on a particular subject:
  the literature on environmental epidemiology
  
• leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice:
  advertising and promotional literature
  

So according to this, it has to be written. In that definition alone you can say that neither movies nor video games are really literature. The script of a movie, maybe. The text of the dialogue in a game, maybe. But not the complete movie or game.
But if we're talking that specifically, books aren't literature either. The words on the pages might be, but the cover probably isn't a "written work of superior or lasting artistic value", and thus the entire book isn't literature.

That being said, literature nowadays isn't used as the official definition anyway. From what I see, people use literature as, basically, "art in words". Therefore anything that has words is eligible for trying to be literature. Movies and video games have words, so they're qualified. Now you have to decide if the writing is artistic, then you can decide whether a movie or video game is literature.

This is where the confusion comes in. Art is hugely, largely, almost completely opinion. An art "expert" can show me a painting of a guy stroking a tree, and he might find it the most artistic painting ever. I might not. Whenever I go to art museums, half the things I see aren't artistic to me. I mean the fact that they're in art museums make them "artistic", but I won't see what's so great or elegant about it. There's no specified requirements for something to be art, it's all opinion.
The Oxford definition of art means "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". See that word "beauty" there? Opinion.
Therefore literature is also opinion. If something is literature depends on how artistic you find it.

But in the end we're talking about if movies and video games can be literature. Yes they can. But that depends on what you find artistic. They qualify for it, as long as they have words (which is pretty much always), and the final decision if a game is or isn't literature is your opinion. One person says it is, the other says it isn't, they're both right.

[DioShiba]

But in the end we're talking about if movies and video games can be literature. Yes they can. But that depends on what you find artistic. They qualify for it, as long as they have words (which is pretty much always), and the final decision if a game is or isn't literature is your opinion. One person says it is, the other says it isn't, they're both right.

So basically it all comes down to what people's opinion in on what they consider "literature".

Which makes sense in a way. But if I were to give a game like Heavy Rain to about "20 intelligent people" and ask them what their opinion is on the written parts of the games as a piece of literature, then what would that do? you'd have about 20 different opinions on what they think of it.

[Chris2Balls [:B]]

Is this a convoluted way of asking if (once again) videogames can be considered works of art?

[Keiang]

While I don't think Video Games qualify as literature (at least in the sense of something comprised solely, or at least mostly of written language), they can easily qualify as art.

Which makes sense in a way. But if I were to give a game like Heavy Rain to about "20 intelligent people" and ask them what their opinion is on the written parts of the games as a piece of literature, then what would that do? you'd have about 20 different opinions on what they think of it.

Heavy Rain is a great movie.

[Chris2Balls [:B]]

I don't think you can consider videogames as literature, because it isn't written.
It's visual. So it could be visual art, but not literature.

[Phantom Killah]

I don't think you can consider videogames as literature, because it isn't written.
It's visual. So it could be visual art, but not literature.

What about text based adventure games???

[Chameleon]

I don't think you can consider videogames as literature, because it isn't written.
It's visual. So it could be visual art, but not literature.

What about text based adventure games???

Yeah! Come on, text-based games have to count, right?

Personally, I think it is detrimental to consider one medium, such as film or games, to be the same as another medium, such as literature. Each has their own strengths/weaknesses and capabilities/impossibilities, and need to be explored as their own form of expression. I think what you are really asking here is whether or not movies or video games cannot be considered ART along with literature.

The most important thing to remember is that the industry which creates these games and all the money put into it very heavily influences the resulting products. Would you consider the "Twilight" series art? Would you consider the "Call of Duty" series art? What about "The Great Gatsby" or "Zelda: Windwaker"? It really comes down to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned, very few games (even my favorites) have come anywhere near the depth of experience needed for something to be considered true art. The majority of the movie and gaming industries are particularly exclusive, very over-funded, and particularly profit-oriented.

This is one reason the indie-game scene is so popular, and while indie producers have created some massive hits we unfortunately have yet to see any with comparable funding to the pioneering, creative, and adventurous projects that the "Industry" put out in the early years of console gaming (though on this note I am excited about the next game by Jonathan Blow who created Braid -- his next project looks quite different).

However you wish to consider your medium of entertainment is up to you, but my advice would be to use discretion with your purchases and the kind of ideas or creative directions you thereby support. If anyone's diggin' what I'm putting down, here's a speech regarding a similar discussion by Charlie Kaufman, the screenwriter who created films such as "Adaptation" and "Being John Malkovich." I highly recommend having at least a quick listen.


EDIT: One last, important thought: I think it is prudent to remember that video games are still very much in their infancy.

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

videogames can be art when shitty nerds on the fucking internet can get over people analyzing their awful fucking pulp genre fiction distilled into shooting and hitting buttons to get rewards

that's it
that's really the only answer to this question
videogame, as it is now, is not art. it is not approaching art as a whole, cohesive medium. there are videogame that have artistic qualities, some of them even provoke thought. unfortunately, one or two titles every few years that posses these qualities do not validate "videogame" as an artistic medium.

which means you can't, ergo, consider them literature
because when anyone actually seriously says "literature" they never think of the hottest fuckin harry potter or hunger games book they just read with all the snappy dialogue, don't kid yourself.
you're thinking of fiction and non fiction that has gravity and weight to it, actual substance that can be analyzed and thought about.



maybe cheap genre pulp trash
or dime novels

[DioShiba]

I don't think you can consider videogames as literature, because it isn't written.
It's visual. So it could be visual art, but not literature.

What about text based adventure games???

That and the majority of text based RPG's out there.

[Chris2Balls [:B]]

I don't think you can consider videogames as literature, because it isn't written.
It's visual. So it could be visual art, but not literature.

What about text based adventure games???

That and the majority of text based RPGs out there.

Haha, I forgot about them, but that's true. I guess you could consider them as literature: but then you could consider multiple choice adventure stories as games, too.
You could say, "No, it's a book, it's literature!", but I could easily retort, "Well, you're interacting with a story on a screen, so it's a videogame."
That's why I prefer putting videogames in visual arts.

[Goemar]

With Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey and the new Battle Royale Hunger Games being 'literature' the term, like art (where a black line on a blue canvas is art) isn't worth fighting for.

However as others have said, the definition of literature is written work, so I think games are just out of luck.

[Chutzpar]

"they're just videogames stop criticising them for being offensive"
or
"this is a serious and valid art form"

pick one.