Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-08-15 06:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:brian crecente, bully, joan bertin, kotaku, national coalition against censorship, rockstar

Free Speech Advocate Speaks Out on Bully

The critics, it seems, are lining up to rip Rockstar's upcoming Bully. GamePolitics has reported on several over the last week.

But a free speech advocate sees the game in a different light. In an interview with Rocky Mountain News reporter Brian Crecente (you may know him better as editor of Kotaku), Joan Bertin (left), executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, said, "This is plainly a new way to communicate messages, to tell stories and a new way to get people conversing with one another."

"(Video games) plainly have certain levels of subtlety that are not easily available to other genres. The story can move in a lot of different directions, depending on how you play it... I think that censorship is a kind of reaction that can occur across the board with regard to almost anything. It can be high art or low art, but it still gets the reaction it gets because someone finds it threatening or subversive or offensive."

Unlike most critics, Crecente reports that Bertin has seen Bully close-up during a visit to Rockstar. She compares the furor over the game to that surrounding the classic James Joyce novel Ulysses in its time.

"Ulysses was targeted because it had sex in it... it wasn't targeted because it was a great piece of literature. These (video games) are things not being assessed by their content or value; they are being assessed by the topics."

Bertin added that youth culture is often demonized.




(Post a new comment)


[info]jaykaos
2006-08-15 12:30 pm UTC (link)
She... she gets it.


Thank god someone does.

(Reply to this)


[info]jahbulon
2006-08-15 12:38 pm UTC (link)
Ooo baby.. It gets me hot when sexy foxes start speaking sense..

Bertin added that youth culture is often demonized.

I would say youth culture is always demonised.. First rock n roll, then comic books.. What's next?

YOU'LL GET MY ZOMBIE GOAT BUKKAKE WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hayabusa75
2006-08-15 05:44 pm UTC (link)
"YOU'LL GET MY ZOMBIE GOAT BUKKAKE WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

Dude, that's disgusting...funny as hell, but disgusting!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zombology
2006-08-15 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Dungeons and Dragons... J.R.R. Tolkien Novels...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nedlum
2006-08-15 12:55 pm UTC (link)
... Ulysses?!? We're comparing Bully to Ulysses now? Isn't that just a little bit more praise than it probably deserves?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the1jeffy
2006-08-15 04:13 pm UTC (link)
The point was that they are being treated the same upon release, not that Ulysses and Bully are in any way comparable, from a literary standpoint. She's speaking from an anti-censorship standpoint, not from a critique standpoint.

Her point was that "low-brow" speech is still free.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nightwng2000
2006-08-15 04:16 pm UTC (link)
It's the furor over the two that is being compared. Not whether either are deserving of a title of legendary media.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]xlorep_darkhelm
2006-08-15 06:32 pm UTC (link)
The comparison would be like comparing how an artist like Marilyn Manson has been treated in modern day, against how Wolfgang Mozart was treated in his day. The parallels exist. Bully is getting the same kind of treatment that Ulysses did when it was released. The content and context of the two mediums are different, but that doesn't even begin to make the fact they were treated the same any less truthful, and any less horrible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]semperar
2006-08-15 12:56 pm UTC (link)
I've taken a bit of flak here and there for my almost fanatical belief that anti-gaming politics and feuds are just an extension of America's war on youth culture, but dammit, I stand by it.

America has a sick love/hate issue with children, in which they are always victims of their own stupidity that must be 'saved' by the powers that be. Children and teenagers are just toys of political maneuvering, and what little rights they have are trampled by the patronizing values and stereotypes our society promotes.

Video games are apparently children's playthings; children are apparently murderous psychopaths waiting to snap... good God, did the baby boomers read a whole lot of Lord of the Flies? This premise that teenagers are all criminals and idiots is going to be made worse not by movies and video games but by the fact that America wants to treat them all like criminals and idiots.

(Reply to this)


[info]xwaix
2006-08-15 01:09 pm UTC (link)
Bertin added that youth culture is often demonized.

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

(Reply to this)


[info]hedgeworth
2006-08-15 01:20 pm UTC (link)
I like her already lol

(Reply to this)

It's about freaking time.
[info]terminator44
2006-08-15 01:55 pm UTC (link)
When will these censorcrats wake up from their "save teh children" crusade and realize they are treating games the same way almost every painting, almost every novel, and almost every movie with mature themes was treated at the time it was created?

(Reply to this)

Bertin PWNS critics
[info]grls_r_gamers_2
2006-08-15 02:30 pm UTC (link)
Congratulations, Ms. Bertin. You get a cookie. ^_^

(Reply to this)

Adopts "conservative pundit" mode
[info]jabrwock
2006-08-15 03:32 pm UTC (link)
Oh, but she's just an elitist hippy liberal femenist who would rather we embolden the terrorists... I mean, just look at that hairdo! ;)

Unfortunately, the more vocal conservatives take a "you're either with us or against us" attitude. They are incapable of holding two thought in their head at the same time. So a concept of "it's filthy" and "but it's art" are mutually exclusive. I'm surprised such people don't hemmorage their brains every time they see a statue of "David"...

I glad though, to hear that an organization outside the entertainment industry is speaking up for Bully. The more outside groups that acknowledge that games can be art, the less arguments the hacks have against it, because then it's not just the "profit seeking smut peddlers" who are in defense of it.

(Reply to this)

Sound and Fury
[info]verbinator
2006-08-15 03:32 pm UTC (link)
Wouldn't it be amusing, if after all this sound and fury, if Bully turns out to be a piece of relatively innocuous entertainment?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Sound and Fury
[info]ianc14
2006-08-15 04:20 pm UTC (link)
Its looking like that already to me, imo (going by the recent press release and pictures etc)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Sound and Fury
[info]taintedecho
2006-08-15 04:26 pm UTC (link)
I would not only find that funny, but rather unsurprising to be honest. Whatever the hype is, good or bad, many games fail at living up to it.


Yeah I'm talking about you Fable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Sound and Fury
[info]eusisnaphtali
2006-08-15 05:04 pm UTC (link)
E10+

After watching the trailer, I see this being that or (more likely) a T rated game. The worst bullying will probably be /against/ the bullies anyway. :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Sound and Fury (Caution: Opinion frenzy)
[info]eternallegenduk
2006-08-15 10:53 pm UTC (link)
I imagine that Bully won't be all that bad, really. Think about it. What could be in that game? Fights? With weapons? I suspect they won't allow you to inflict major damage, and that wrestling-style use of scenery would be the worst that you could do. They might include knives, because some crazy kids actually take them to school. I can't see them using firearms for so many reasons of taste and authenticity.

Now, what else might there be? We can rule out sexual themes. There might be a love interest, but we're talking kids here. Rockstar nearly imploded after hidden badly animated consensual adult clothed sex. Paedophilia? Possible. There could be a pervy staff member or whatever making up the ranks of enemies. It's not an uncommon theme in other forms of entertainment.

Drugs? I'd say almost certainly. Rockstar love the drugs, particularly when it comes to being against them. A fiver says the school will be teeming with pushers, and another says you are expected to clean up at one point.

So, it seems likely to include kids getting beat up, drug use in some form, oppression from the system, and the occasional adult theme. Which makes it the game version of Grange Hill, Byker Grove, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

She's right.
[info]dustin1986
2006-08-15 03:47 pm UTC (link)
She holds the same opinions about videogames that I do. Therefore, I declare her to be the smartest person in the world.

(Reply to this)


[info]finaleve
2006-08-15 04:42 pm UTC (link)
censorship is such an ugly term used by the people who target gaming...

...let's use "Political gain over your tax money and just throwing it away because we know it won't pass but we want to look good for you"


Shes right. There are games that are linear (straight foreward, tells the story on how it should be) and games that are complex (games that give multiple endings or how you think characters should be stats/skills wise). Games are meant to be enjoyed, not to mess with peoples minds. I don't know why these people are so hell bent when the companies that make it are completely sane.

(Reply to this)

Give us choice and we can make the decisions
[info]monkeyincorner
2006-08-15 04:51 pm UTC (link)
I appreciate when someone actualy treat gamers with respect and show understadning for our ability to make informed decisions. Thank you Joan Bertin for fighting the good fight because it takes courage and intelligence to combat fear mongering and ignorance.

(Reply to this)

w00t w00t
[info]penpaperprint
2006-08-15 05:09 pm UTC (link)
For the first time in a long time, SOME ONE SEEMS LIKE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A HEAD ON THEIR SHOULDERS!!!!!

I was almost scared by the article when i saw her serious face and saw the censorship sign in the back ground... i was thinking "oh god, another dumbass blaming games for the crimes of the world."

I think she deserves an uber cookie with white chocolate chips and macadamion nutz... mmmmm making me hungry also a glass of milk =D

Ms. Bertin your a badass XD
and have been noted in my cool persons book.

(Reply to this)


[info]barfo
2006-08-15 05:17 pm UTC (link)
Its nice to see that, as others have already poitned out, there are some people that just "get it" in regards to that stuff. Theres a fair number of people defending the video games in that article.

Also, I dont think its completely ridiculous to compare Rockstar with Joyce, in terms of their effect on their individual media. More time will be needed to really see the historicity of it, but it seems a fair statement to say that GTA really could be a genre-defining series that redfined a subset of the video game space (which is the basis for comparing it with Ulysses), though its far to early to know if Bully will outshine GTA or just be sort of a 'meh' game that does not really impact on the cultural landscape aside form the controversy. That was more the poitn in the analogy and not so much trying to imply that Bully or GTA were as high art as say Ulysses.

"Bertin added that youth culture is often demonized."

Youth culture killed my dog (and I don't think its fair) -TMBG

(Reply to this)

Ulysses: The Video Game
[info]madovid
2006-08-15 05:18 pm UTC (link)
I would love a game that was equal to Ulysses, or any great text. Then I wouldn't feel so guilty playing my Mario Kart when I should be reading The Republic or something.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Ulysses: The Video Game
[info]froggersrevenge
2006-08-16 02:33 am UTC (link)
I think the real point, though, is that we shouldn't assume that Ulysses was preserved and allowed because it turned out to be a great novel. In fact, it was subjected to censorship because no one cared that it was a great novel - they only judged based on the "bad parts" of the book.



We shouldn't slip into thinking that our free speech rights are somehow dependant on the value of our speech. If we only allowed ourselves to say things of great value, we would never learn how to say anything of great value. Freedom from censorship is freedom from critique-based sanction - because as our friend pointed out, censors will always assign the lowest possible value to something that upsets them. They aren't fair judges of a work's worth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]godsy
2006-08-15 05:49 pm UTC (link)
Amazing.

(Reply to this)


[info]dudelovenext
2006-08-15 06:01 pm UTC (link)
I'm really happy to see someone who supports free speech, not just the speech of what the "older generation" deems to be worthy of it.

Someone should send her a link to this LJ post to let her know how much we appreciate her words. :)

(Reply to this)

Two things
[info]blitzfitness
2006-08-15 06:34 pm UTC (link)
A) What are we trying to say by having that picture and the word "furor/fuhrer" in there. Sorry, just something I laughed at and had to comment on.

B) GP or anyone else, I didn't see this in this article, but I do see it often where, usually in quotes, "blah blah blah (sic) blah blah blah". Can someone explain what sic is?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Two things
[info]gamepolitics
2006-08-15 09:02 pm UTC (link)
sic is a cue to the reader that the thing before it is a mistake that was intentionally uncorreceted. For example, a direct quote in which the person makes an ungrammatical phrasing, like:

John Smith said, "Miami attorneys am (sic) foolish..."

You can't change the person's quote, but you want the reader to know that they messed up, not you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Two things
[info]barfo
2006-08-15 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Its also used sometimes passive-aggressively by writers as you can quote somebody you dislike and the (sic) specifically calls attention to where taht person has made a grammar or spelling mistake.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Willing the World Away
[info]kharne83
2006-08-15 07:38 pm UTC (link)
Though a little off topic, I feel that this might be worth mentioning. The links's about the censorship of writing, though I think it raises an interesting question: This censorship, Are they trying to protect the kids? or are they simply trying to remove something the censors themselves can't handle? The reason for all the attampts at censorship and banning might be nothing more than someine saying "Because I don't like it."

(Reply to this)


[info]deronimo
2006-08-15 08:40 pm UTC (link)
Someone should send that lady flowers.

(Reply to this)


[info]toxic_offender
2006-08-15 10:17 pm UTC (link)
Awesome. Joan Bertin is simply awesome.

(Reply to this)


[info]thefremen
2006-08-15 11:46 pm UTC (link)
Woah woah woah woah woah woah woah woah woah woah! Lois this is not my batman glass!

Really though, it's nice to see a liberal who doesn't want to sacrifice their rights to live in a socialist utopia.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]terminator44
2006-08-16 02:09 am UTC (link)
Way to sneak in a Family Guy reference. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bingo!
[info]jessi_b
2006-08-16 12:21 am UTC (link)
Bertin is right on the money with her statements, especially this:
"I think that censorship is a kind of reaction that can occur across the board with regard to almost anything. It can be high art or low art, but it still gets the reaction it gets because someone finds it threatening or subversive or offensive."

Art is relative - each person has a different view on what art truly is, how it's viewed. If a piece does not fit a person's definition of art, it really could be deemed offensive. This raises another issue: Can videogames be regarded as 'art'? If so, why would you classify it as such? (Was it Kojima who was stating the opposite, that video games are not art? I can't remember.)

Either way, Bertin is acknowledging that games are a form of expression, which is a hell of a lot more than some people. The comparison she had was a little extreme, but it gets the point across. Awesome.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Bingo!
[info]terminator44
2006-08-16 02:17 am UTC (link)
I believe it was Roger Ebert saying games are artistically inferior to movies. I can't imagine Kojima saying something like that, since his games always have movie-caliber storylines.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bingo!
[info]spartan_sword
2006-08-16 03:47 am UTC (link)
I don't remember if it was in the new EMG or the last one, but I think it was Warren Spector who said Roger was wrong and that they art. It was on the Overhead page.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bingo!
[info]terminator44
2006-08-16 02:35 pm UTC (link)
I also remeber an editorial from a Cinninati newspaper that utterly pwned Ebert's misinformed statement. I'll try to find a link to it, but it was a while ago, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Bingo!
[info]eusisnaphtali
2006-08-16 05:41 pm UTC (link)
Kojima /did/ say they weren't art: Instead, he likened them to a museum, that a game itself isn't art, but is meant to present the art contained within well.

Personally, I think presentation in and of itself can be an art, and /gameplay/ that is art in and of itself certainly isn't 'part of the museum exhibition' like the story, graphics, and music are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Bingo!
[info]jessi_b
2006-08-17 08:44 pm UTC (link)
I wouldn't doubt that Ebert said that. But I think I found what I was talking about on Kotaku - Kojima's quote: "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Seems that his answer just raises more questions. ...brain... ...hurtiiiiing...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bully and Ulysses - a clarification
[info]joanbertin
2006-08-17 07:50 pm UTC (link)
As I said to Brian Crecente, I’m not comparing Bully to Ulysses. I referred to Ulysses to make the point that all kind of material gets censored, from acknowledged highbrow art (like Ulysses, Rodin’s The Kiss, and Michaelangelo’s David), to rock and roll, comics, and now video games. Censorship usually represents an objection to particular content, rather than a value judgment about “good” or “bad” art, although that judgment is often used as an add-on if the subject is arguably "low-value" expression. In this case, it's obvious that its critics object to the subject matter of the game, bullying, since that's all they know about it. They equate depicting, describing or discussing an issue as equivalent to endorsing it. This is classic censorship-think - e.g., sex education = promoting sex.
My thanks to those who realized what I was getting at.

BTW, lots of stuff initially viewed as "low value" expression eventually becomes "serious" art.
Joan Bertin

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Bully and Ulysses - a clarification
[info]gamepolitics
2006-08-17 07:58 pm UTC (link)
awesome to have you add to the discussion here at GamePolitics, Joan!

-Dennis

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bully and Ulysses - a clarification
[info]terminator44
2006-08-17 10:12 pm UTC (link)
Ditto. I checked through your site, pretty insightful stuff. I urge anyone here who hasn't gone on the site yet to do so ASAP.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…