Games writing on games writing continues

I've been taking some time off recently. After spending the best part of March writing like a speed freak, I spent a while away from the Internet to recuperate. I picked a good time to do it too, as nothing particularly exciting seemed to be happening.

That was until James Temperton posted his latest issue of 'The Hound' at Cubed3. James took expressed an opinion of the Frag Dolls that some people found to be highly offensive. Whether or not I agree with James' points is irrelevant; I have already written an editorial on the issue and stand by my comments. What I found interesting enough to write about was his response to his readers' views:

"The way you have looked at the article is totally wrong, I mean come on, I end on For shame Ubi Soft not For shame Frag Dolls. Read before you rant".
� James Temperton, Cubed3

By the same rationale (And potentially evoking Godwin's law), I could say the Holocaust is only bad by the way you look at it. Once you have committed words to paper or actions to the real world, you have no control over how they are interpreted and no right to dictate how people do so. More over, it is the point of a journalist to present meaning to his reader through his words, so if your readers walk away thinking you're racist or prejudice due to a badly phrased pun, then you've failed.

This problem is common on message boards, comment boards and news groups, where people who don't purport to be journalists write with passion and emotion, rather than craft and grace. A badly used word or ill-considered remark often causes threads to spiral out of control, as tempers flare and readers pick apart posts line by line, looking for anything to retort to. No longer about the subject in hand, it becomes an endurance contest to see who can go without posting something so abundantly stupid that they lose credibility.

With journalists, however, it should be different. We live by our words and therefore should master them so our points are as clear and distinct as possible. It is almost impossible to completely avoid misinterpretation, but we can limit it by keeping an eye on what we write and how we write it.

"My quarrel if with Ubi, not girls playing games...as frankly I don't see that as an issue even worth raising. Do we see EA sponsoring the 'Frag Niggers', a group of black gamers? Or Activision sponsoring the 'Frag Chinks' a group of Asian gamers? Don't think so, and how wrong does THAT sound. Wake up."
� James Temperton, Cubed3, Hound Issue 81 Comment Board

This is clearly not thinking about what you're writing.

Videogames journalism is perhaps the most sterile, bland and boring area of writing today. Online journalism is its one saviour, where journalists can write about aspects of gaming culture that print magazines don't yet touch. We have licence to write daring and controversial pieces, which highlight neglected topics and question dominant ideology. Calling a group 'gaming whores' is not controversial, however, it's simply offensive. One of the great tragedies about the legacy of comedian Bill Hicks is that some people respond to only his vulgar mouth and don't realise he uses profanity to underline his points. According to his biography, late in his life he questioned his need to swear. For all his insights into the human condition, he realised his style made them inaccessible to a large part of the public.

The more arrogant of us would argue if someone was offended by their comments, they wouldn't want them to read their work anyway. This is a terrible approach to journalism. If you write an editorial, you express an opinion and subsequently want as many people as possible to read and understand it. Controversy is presenting an argument that goes against dominant ideology, not using offensive comments to invoke a reaction. That way, all you get is discussion on the validity of your argument, not the argument itself. Had James Temperton not called the Frag Dolls 'gaming whores' in his article, the response would have focused more on the points he made about Ubisoft. As it stands, the feedback largely revolves around that one remark.

Cropping pictures and inaccurate data doesn't help either. There's an interesting point buried underneath James' article, but he undermines his credibility by resorting to cheap visual tricks and unsubstantiated information to emphasise this point. It wasn't necessary and now damages his argument. How can you champion an article that takes promotional photos and edits them so they support its point? Why would you leave yourself open to dismissal by not researching your facts before publishing? Whilst it may draw in hits and generate some response, it also dashes the authors credibility and places doubt on their other work. In music, people remember the Clash for their commentary on late seventies Britain and the Sex Pistols for swearing on television. Cheap shots work for a moment, but in the long-term only end up damaging reputations.

Between this and New Games Journalism, I am sick of writing articles about writing articles. That said, it seems commentary is still needed, as we're still writing things that would be laughable in any other field of journalism. For all its faults, Kieron Gillen's manifesto contains at least one absolute truth that is undeniable. "If Games Journalism is just a job to you, you really shouldn't be doing it. The word should be 'vocation'." If you want to write for a living, first accept that you can't write and never will be able to, then start learning how to write anyway. We're all terrible writers, but only by continually questioning whether we need to use that word or invoke that analogy can we ever hope to improve. Does it really help labelling a group of women 'gaming whores' when your intent is to defend women from exploitation?

Oh, and just for arguments sake, I invoke the first use of a new Law. That being If any article refers to Kieron Gillen or NGJ� the probability of its credibility being dashed draws close to one.

Chris Hicks
eatmyfear

[Editor's Note: this article is not intended in any way as an attack on Cubed3.com, who are a decent site, and have an art design I'm personally in love with. Just so we don't get any flaming.]