OK, so now to the really pressing issue of our times: Are video games bad, both for kids who don't learn to read and for parents who play them rather than grow up--and thus bad for U.S. culture and the American way of life?
Believe it or not, that was actually the central question of a column last week by George Will.
Will, long an icon of the right-wing intelligentsia, has sometimes written probing, intelligent pieces that, whether one agreed with his point or not, raised questions worth considering. For that matter, his dismissive characterization of former President George Bush--"a political lapdog"--was not only concise, it was accurate.
But it's Will who now seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
Of course, for every columnist, there's a place for "slice of life" columns, for droll commentary on social trivia or novel perspectives on enduring issues.
But Will misses all of these points, and falls into the worst stereotypes of social conservatism. He thereby not only fails to prove his own points but undercuts the very ideology of his position.
He leads into that column with a lengthy exposition of the over-commercialism that accompanies Harry Potter, but concludes that this is excusable because it's gotten children to read. So far, so good--although it's amusing to see Will, who praises the free market as the optimal cure for whatever-ails-society, slamming commercialism.
Then Will breathlessly reports that "the forces of darkness are counter-attacking." He refers to the introduction of the Sony PlayStation 2, Nintendo Gamecube and Microsoft Xbox. (OK, we'll grant the "force of darkness" label to Microsoft, but only because it's been proved in numerous court findings of fact, which have been repeatedly upheld on appeal.)
Will doesn't care which machine is in use--he objects to the fact that children are buying and playing video games--and that their parents are, too!
Oh, come on.
This was a cutting-edge issue in what, 1981? Back then, Breakout and Pac-Man were just giving way to Tron and Joust. Those, in turn, led to "Altered Beast," "Uncanny X-Men" and a host of games right up to today. There were three evident trends: increasing reality of graphics, increasing "first-person" gameplay and increasing complexity.
Granted, video games should be taken in moderation, especially if they risk the development of normal social skills--but then that's true of any entertainment or activity. Yet Will objects to all of this video-game tomfoolery and especially to a new genre of more complex games that appeal to grown-ups.
Will's argument appears to rest entirely on two social-conservative canards: These diversions prevent kids from learning deferred gratification, and adults are now playing them, which--to Will--implies profound immaturity in every sphere of existence. Will even closes his column with this remarkable passage, which ought to be an attempt at self-parody: "Adulthood isn't what it used to be... but you knew that just from looking at how grown-ups dress down.... Adults increasingly dress like children... in airport concourses you see them... wearing jeans and T-shirts and running shoes, holding the hands of small boys dressed similarly. Small wonder they play similar games."
Again: Come on. Rent a clue.
Deferred gratification is an issue independent of video games; it has little to do with either the medium or the message. As for immaturity from youthful pursuits: What about the suburbanites of the 1950s, the Eisenhower Republicans? Those parents, in their "proper" adulthood--men quaffing three-martini lunches and women numbing frustrated intelligences with valium-- are the ones we're supposed to emulate: the people whose baby boom rebelled against social repressiveness and became the radicals of the late 1960s?
Or, for that matter, where's the harm in playing games with children--my parents and I played board games, card games and so forth, including the hopelessly inane "Candyland." Does that mean my parents were immature? Of course not. In fact, over time we wound up playing more sophisticated games, and once all of us grew up, sometimes played fun diversions like "Scrabble," a game which--brace yourself--is made to appeal to adults.
Meanwhile, if people choose to dress comfortably, then good for them. As long as they're not offensively attired, that anyone else should care is unfathomable.
It's sad, really. George Will was one of the "intellectuals" who helped to usher in the Reagan era. Now, with communism imploded, and the son of the lapdog the best that the conservative movement could put forward, Will's reduced to regurgitating old material that was dated when it was first introduced, 20 years ago.
Incisive column-writing, it seems, isn't what it used to be.
There goes the nation, hmm?
O, tempora! O, mores!
Edward Benson is a Durham resident.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.