Gaming as a Literary Experience

As someone who plays video games regularly, I have developed a vocabulary that I wouldn't otherwise have. Thanks to gaming, I know what a pole arm is, what it means to buff someone, and what it means a provocate something. I know what a rogue or a mage does.

An RPG game sets you up as the protagonist in your own story. Usually, the game has a linear story, much like a written novel. The story progresses at your pace, unlike a film, but the visuals have been imagined for you. Skyrim is an exception to this. In Skyrim, you are deposited in a position to follow one of many storylines at a time, or even to completely ignore all of them and do your own thing. Skyrim has all of the elements of world building of a great fantasy novel, but you aren't forced into following any particular story. You are responsible for providing the main character. Any personality that they might have is what you attribute to them.

A Work that Represents my Generation

I don't know exactly how to define this as a work, but I suppose Miley Cyrus' performance at the VMA's tells a lot about our generation. Not the performance itself, but also our reaction to it.

The performance has some shock value. It has Miley in an unusual outfit and twerking on stage, shattering our perception of her as a wholesome Disney starlet. She can't keep her tongue in her mouth as she humps a man dressed like a referee and waves a freaky foam finger around.

The most interesting part of our reaction to it is that we really aren't shocked. We sort of groan because Miley is just sort of trying too hard to be different. It reminds us of our own blunders made in the name of trying to be different, before we realized everyone is trying to be different. We aren't shocked by Miley's actions because she's being slutty, but we are shocked because we are so embarrassed for her. Strange is in style for our generation. Lady Gaga, Nicky Minage, and now Miley are giving us a spectacle when they perform.

We embrace the weird. Mainstream television shows like The Big Bang Theory celebrate being nerdy. Comic books, once considered nerdy, now make the biggest money at the box office.

The Great Gatsby as a literary work

Personally, I found this to be a strange prompt, because I naturally wouldn't question whether or not The Great Gatsby is a literary work. It's written and its fictional; it tells a story, so doesn't that make it a literary work? Is there a specific definition for "literary work" that I'm not aware of?

Google gives me this:

That is pretty open ended. Thefreedictionary.com lists the same definition. I'm not sure how to write a blog post about it. I'm suspicious its a trick, and I'm going to delve into the story and discuss the characters and then not really be saying anything to do with whether or not The Great Gatsby is a literary work.

I suppose The Great Gatsby is certainly creative, maybe ingenious in the way we are getting the story through the eyes of a character who is both an insider and an outsider in this story. Nick is an insider because he spends time with these characters. He is related to Daisy Buchanan. However, he is still an outsider when it comes to their social scene, seeing as he isn't from the city. Our understanding of the other characters is filtered through Nick's opinions of them. Gatsby has this otherworldly quality because Nick is fascinated by him. Tom is an asshole, and while I think I feel this way based on his actions (hitting his wife etc) I have to admit that Nick is biased because Gatsby is in love with Tom's wife.

The reason this would bias Nick is also interesting. The events of the novel have an unusual way of seeming like a big production, even to Nick who is physically present. The pace of the novel moves us along without us getting to know and more than small pieces of the characters. Daisy has a daughter who appears so briefly that when she disappears we forget that she exists. We know almost nothing about Nick, and nothing about these characters beyond what we are explicitly told. It is as if they are in a play. Normally, in a novel, this would be weak characterization, but here it seems very intentional, maybe because attention is drawn to it, or maybe because more is hinted at than we have access to. It is saying something about these people and their lifestyle, that what we can see of them is so carefully crafted and exposed.

This careful construction of the story, the language, and the characters is what makes The Great Gatsby a literary work.

Hunger Games vs Wizard of Oz

I think the most striking resemblance between the Hunger Games and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is that both books present a society where people are led blindly by a ruler.

While in The Hunger Games, most of the people are oppressed and have tried to rebel before, in the Wizard of Oz, the people still look to the Wizard for guidance even after he himself admits that he really doesn't have any authority over them. In The Hunger Games, the people in the Capitol don't question the morality of pitting children against each other in a battle to the death. They accept that this is the only way that the districts can pay for their rebellion from generations ago.

I think it is interesting that in the Hunger Games, Katniss doesn't have any sort of turning point. She is virtuous when she takes her sister's place in The Hunger Games, and she is compassionate and moral throughout the entire competition. She didn't have anything to repent for by the end of the book.

In the film, The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is not a particularly deep character. For the most part, she makes it through her adventure in Oz just by being kind and lucky. Dorothy lands herself in Oz by chance. Unlike Katniss, she isn't making some kind of sacrifice.

In both stories, we start of in the home of the main characters. Kansas is incredibly bleak and dull. District 12 is poverty stricken, gray, and solemn. Dorothy and Katniss both make a journey and find them selves in Oz and the Capitol respectively. These worlds are bright and exciting and alive, though both are tinged by something less innocent. Oz has wicked witches and an out-of-touch ruler. The Capitol is supported by the sweat, labor, and oppression of the surrounding districts.


Assumptions

We are as innocent as Dorothy is when she first arrives in Oz. Since we are removed from Oz, we don't wonder why an entire race of people, the Munchkins, is segregated into an area of their own. It could be a sort of reservation, for all we know. Why aren't the munchkins living all over Oz? Are they? How do they feel about being ruled over by "The Wizard" who they know nothing about?

My Point of View
As a reader I'm situated as a young adult, a woman. I'm someone who reads a lot. I love fantasy and sci-fi literature. As a kid I loved to read because I was always allowed to read without limits, even after my bedtime. Since I never fell asleep early, I could read for hours every night.