I found the article "Archetypes on Acid" by Rebecca R. Tews very interesting. I was enthralled by everything from the inaccurate studies performed on the gamer populus to the Jungian references of character archetypes. The only thing that confuses me about this article is the title. Archetypes on Acid? The context in which the only reference to the drug is used was on page 176, "Here they (the archetypes) appear as if on LSD--caricatures of the traditional images, highly transformed by technology, color, speed and sound, but elementally the same." I understand the need for an eye catching title, but I highly dout how the comparison between story archetypes of old and more modern story archetypes can be referenced to the act of experienceing a highly mind altering hallucinagine.
If I were to comment on one of the logical aspects of this author's arguement, it would have to be on the ability to automatically become interested in a subject that a child might observe a parent participating in. Since the generation video games were made for are now adults and have children of their own, will the use of video games become an inherent trait that will now be passed through generations? Maybe, but history has already shown us that when children come of age, they usually move away from their parents in mainly every aspect of their lives. Does this mean that the next generation will shirk off their learned childhood activities in light of something cooler than what they're parents (us) enjoy doing in their free time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, as the generations who grew up playing games get older, I think they will mainstream more. In particular, I think we're peaking in terms of resistance to gaming. My daughter will certainly game in a different way than I do, though.
Post a Comment