Am I the only person fascinated by the comparison of targeting/shooting games to the writings of the Marquis de Sade? I comprehend the validity of the comparison, and while it is definitely a first to see the Marquis de Sade referred to academically I think it is a brilliant connection made by Wark. The vast majority of shooting games function as little more than a thinly veiled phallic glorification, after all. The storyline is an afterthought, it is only the form which is filled with the experience to create a concrete whole. Going out on a strange tangential limb here I would postulate that shooting games are more closely related to modern pornography than anything else. Wark compares them to a work of Sade, in which the storyline pretends to illustrate a complicated concept and yet is just a vehicle for the experience. Much the same as FPS or pornography: there may be a storyline, or none at all, but the important thing is the visceral. Perhaps again a reason why FPS find difficulty appealing to female players. And how interesting is it that in Wark’s description of the usage of the Trance Vibrator, we finally have a bridging of these two genres in a way; a means for the game to finally become the ultimate in phallic representation, that every action by the gamer creates a reaction in the observer.
Moving away from my vaguely obscene tangent to Shooting War: how inelegant was that? Granted, a fascinating medium for storytelling. (And was anyone else amused by the McCain ad banners at the top of the webpages?) This story is sobering in ways, especially with the news that May was the deadliest month in Iraq for US soldiers since November 2004. No mention of how many civilians died though…shocker. However, in some ways I feel as if the artists here were elaborating their points with all the finesse of a monkey driving a bulldozer. I think to some degree the artists are doing a disservice here by cramming well-known theories down out throats, and losing some credibility in doing so. Everyone is aware of the battle-cries: corporate America is the devil, US foreign policy is a joke, etc. etc. And I subscribe to these beliefs as much as the next left-wing nutter, I’m proud to label myself a liberal. But I think it’s a telling panel (chapter 2, panel 13) where the news bigwig belittles Burns and his beliefs, because it is so often true. All Americans lip-service about how we want to improve the lives of people in other countries, but we all reside at bloodyhypocrite.com comfortable with our cheaper-than-the-rest-of-the-world oil and our $150 Nikes and our cathartic ‘Save Darfur!’ ‘Free Tibet!’ bumper stickers that lull us into thinking we care. But do we check the labels on our clothing, or live a completely energy-free existence? Hell no. Maybe Daniel Quinn has it right, Anarcho-Primitivism is the only way to equality…but then I’d have to give up my high-speed internet and my PS2.
But I think it is an interesting comic nonetheless, as far as its examination of the US war machine, and its prophesying the future of Iraq without definite changes in our war policy. I also appreciate its examination of the war hero, as a being that may not always be the paragon of morality and heroism that we make them out to be. I do not think that being a soldier is inherently wrong, or that the people who choose to do so are in the wrong. It takes a greater amount of courage than I possess to volunteer for a job that might result in your death. But I also think that the glorification of our military attracts people who may indulge in behavior unacceptable to most of society, as illustrated by Crash. In what normal situation would it be considered appropriate to turn a gun on an unarmed civilian, regardless of the circumstances you may believe he was a participant in? My biggest problem with our military is that it provides carte blanche for actions that should not be tolerated under any means. (Guantanamo Bay, anyone?)
You have a PSP? Awesome!
Brat. I meant to write PS2, no need to be a smartass