Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gaming Academia Gets More Mainstream Press

Posted by simoniker on from the they're-so-populaire dept.

jimharris writes "Eventually every area of human activity comes under the scrutiny of scholars. After thirty years, it's time for video games to go to college. The New York Times has an article (free registration required) called 'The Ivy-Covered Console', that talks about several lucky professors who play games for a living. The challenge, they say, is to develop a language of criticism to analyze video games." One particularly unfortunate quote: "Dr. [Barry] Atkins admitted that he didn't finish Half-Life before writing about it in his 2003 book, 'More Than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form,' (Manchester University Press), and only later realized he was two minutes from the shocking plot reversal at the end when he stopped. 'I am very nervous that I got it wrong,' he said."

36 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. plot twist at the end and game as fiction.. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that's what happens to lot of players.

    they see only half of the story, since the game is too boring, too easy or too hard to finish. this is something that they should have take into consideration when writing up the critique.

    I remember fondly some games from my childhood that I never got around to finish :)

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:plot twist at the end and game as fiction.. by kabocox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did pitfall actually have an end? I played that game forever, and I never felt the sense that I was finishing anything. I guess the same could be said for Pacman, asteriods, and breakout.

    2. Re:plot twist at the end and game as fiction.. by ksiddique · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. I never saw it though. You can check a walkthrough on GameFAQs.

  2. Quandry by mwheeler01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a game enthusiast I find it fascinating. As an academic, I find this is symptomatic of the walmartization of education. I'm sure this may be a nice small subsection of sociology or psychology but to me gaming doesn't seem to warrant a whole new field.

    --
    Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
    1. Re:Quandry by Snowspinner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it should be a new field - I think that media studies people, who tend to either have their own department or to be in the English department - can handle this just fine.

      But even still, there are going to be a few places that are going to just have such a concentration of people who do this that it makes sense to make a department. I'd be distressed if every university had a gaming department, but I'm glad a few do - especially while the field is small enough that distributing them over a lot of places would really inhibit its development by preventing the production of well-trained graduate students.

      --
      Philip Sandifer's academic website
  3. Reg free link by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reg Free

    --
    My user number is prime. Is yours?
  4. Unfinished Games by Jodiamonds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, many players end up not seeing the whole story of a game because they don't finish the game. But that's just a sign of a bad game.

    I shouldn't be *forced* to keep playing because the game might get better *later*. The player should be having fun the whole time, right? Obviously, some parts will be better than others, but ten minutes of boredom can kill a gaming experience. Especially if there's ANOTHER game that will be fun RIGHT NOW. =)

    --
    - Jodiamonds
    1. Re:Unfinished Games by Alkaiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      How many games have you played where the gameplay is just horrid 95% of the way through, and then all of a sudden gameplay mechanics change for the last 5% of the game, and it totally rocks?

      None?

      Yeah, me too. Even so...why would you make your game crap half the time? That IS the mark of a bad game. When I play good games...I don't wait for them to get better...they're just good, there's not these huge peaks and valleys in enjoyment. Repetition kicks in at some point...but that's totally different.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    2. Re:Unfinished Games by Rallion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not always a sign of a bad game. I've never finished some of the games I LOVE, because, well, I stop for a while. That happens. Then I forget about it, play other games, and then I just don't want to finish the old game because I'm not into it anymore.

      My favorite type of game is RPG -- console-style, D&D-style, any kind is good for me. The only three I've ever beaten are Fallout, Chrono Trigger and KotOR, and both because I almost just played straight through from beginning to end and had no distractions. I helped my girlfriend with the final battle in one of the Avernum games, but that doesn't count. I've never even finished a Final Fantasy, though I came very close in FF7. I stopped in the middle of Planescape: Torment and never came back. Same for both Icewind Dales, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Morrowind. That's all I can remember at the moment, but there are certainly many more. These, though, are not bad games. In fact, I think most of them are fantastic games.

      Maybe it's as much a sign of a horrible gamer as of a bad game.

    3. Re:Unfinished Games by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

      How many games have you played where the gameplay is just horrid 95% of the way through, and then all of a sudden gameplay mechanics change for the last 5% of the game, and it totally rocks?
      None?
      Yeah, me too.

      Quite. On the other hand, the opposite is often true - take Final Fantasy VII as the classic example of a game that starts out excellent and ceases to be worth playing a couple of hours into the second disk. Or Xenogears, come to that - the story improves rapidly towards the end, but the gameplay is long gone by then. Or Deus Ex, which many people consider falls into a rut about two thirds of the way through (personally I'm rather fond of the Ocean Lab and Missile Base missions, but I know a lot of people consider them annoying distractions).

      People who fail to finish games often have quite some justification, in other words...

    4. Re:Unfinished Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a game player that came to video games in my early twenties on computers, as opposed to my husband whose parents had an Intellivision when he was young.

      I think there is approximately 3 games that we have at home that I have actually finished. Most console games I get to a point about 3/4 of the way through where I cannot make progress any further.

      The worst one for me was actually Super Mario Sunshine, where I got stuck about 10% of the way in. It's not that I don't know what to do, it's just that I have been unable to do whatever difficult task that has been set, and you cannot progress until you have done it.

      Baldur's Gate in one of the three I have finished, and what enabled me to finish was the ability, once I had tried and failed several times to get past a particular boss/situation was to turn on God mode, get past that obstacle, and turn it off again.

      I paid the same amount of money for the game as someone who could beat the boss by themselves - why shouldn't I get to see what is around the next corner?

      Perhaps that would be the trick to getting more women into gaming - we often don't have the time to play the same level for 5 hours (as I've seen my husband do this week in Time Splitters 2 while trying to get a Platinum medal), let us try, and if we chose to, move on. Being able to go back and try again later would mean we still get the chance to beat it ourselves later if we wish, but let us see the rest of the game.

      cheers
      Sara
      a Macgrrl in an NT world

    5. Re:Unfinished Games by TrickFred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hah.

      Perhaps that would be the trick to getting more women into gaming

      My girlfriend just called you a cheater. She's not hardcore [she does play The Sims, Buffy on PS2, and we play Starcraft and Warcraft together, and she tries stuff I recommend], but I pointed this post out to her, and she feels that regardless of gender, cheating's cheating. What's the point in playing the game if you're going to play 'around' the game?

  5. Researchers vs. Developers by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Being a former developer, half the article pissed me off watching academics talking out of their ass about something they know nothing about. The first intelligent thing I read was this:

    "So far, the academic and the industry worlds, they're very far away," said Mr. Frasca, who intends to play a role of a bridge. "Developers do not read academic articles, and that's not going to happen any time soon." Academics generated animosity early on by judging games as violent. "They were also not gamers," he said, "which made it weird to listen to their analyses."

    Which is why I'm taking whatever an academic currently says with a grain of salt. For the past thirty years, academics have totally discounted our industry and getting it just plain wrong. In my book, they are currently 30 years behind the curve.

    There are plenty of journalists and historians like Leonard Hermann and Johnny Wilson that are getting it. Next week these "ivy-league" academics are holding a conference consisting of "a lawyer, a journalist, a composer, two professors, two lecturers and six graduate students will present papers with titles like 'Musical Byproducts of Atari 2600 Games' and 'But Our Princess Is in Another Castle: Towards a 'Close-Playing' of Super Mario Brothers.'" Too bad that they seemed to have forgotten to invite a few developers. Perhaps the academics would be better served by going to the Game Developers Conference two weeks later and learn a thing or to.

    1. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by Snowspinner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would we invite developers here?

      It's not as though we invite authors to talk about books, or filmmakers to talk about film.

      Academics are not interested in documenting the process of production. We figure that the developers are plenty good at explaining their own process.

      What we're interested in doing is trying to give an accounting of the medium as it functions - in this case, to create a vocabulary of terms for video games, much like the vocabulary Aristotle created for narrative. We're interested in what narrative means in interactive fiction, in what the aesthetic effects of it can be, in the function of the medium in practice (i.e. how does a video game elicit response, and what is the nature of that response).

      These are, frankly, not questions developers think about. They certainly don't think about them in the language of academia. i.e. they may think practically about "What will a player do when this happens," but they will not think about whether or not the intermediation of the controller makes it so that the avatar is never "ready-to-hand" and is thus perpetually a thing in the Heideggarian sense.

      This is not a bad thing. Heidegger probably isn't relevent to the production of games. But the production of games isn't really relevent to what we do either.

      --
      Philip Sandifer's academic website
    2. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by *weasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To discount the way game developers feel about academics the way you do is naive, and flat-out wrong.

      Developers (designers in particular) are trying to do largely the same things as academics. Perhaps only because academics have so long ignored our field, someone had to step up and do it - so we could better understand the field.

      Year after year the big round-table discussions at conferences revolve around creating a vocabulary, response analysis and intentionally evoking responses, implications of camera angle, avatar choice, etc.

      The technical production of games may not be relevant to what interests academics - but the design of games and gameplay certainly is, and vice-versa.

      Game Designers want to understand the feelings they evoke with function the same way a good cinematographer understands the feelings they evoke with color, composition, and angle - all while not caring particularly much about the technical details of how the camera works, or how the computers work that let him composite digitally.

      Sure, there is animosity between the academics that discount(ed) gaming and game designers/developers. And your entire post neatly sums up the very attitude of academia that causes the problem.

      Despite the attitude of academia - game designers and developers are very carefully studying the academic analyses of other arts: painting, music, film, and fiction to better understand the artform.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    3. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by OminousOrange · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Why does there need to be such a hard-and-fast division between developers and academics?

      I'm a member of a rare breed: I'm writing my thesis on games, so I'm familiar with all the academic literature on them. but I also code my own games. Without my coding background, I would never be able to analyze games in the same depth.

      Most of the literature out there would be vastly improved if these researchers had even a cursory knowledge of programming. Instead, most of the academics are still clinging to what they're familiar with, like literary and film theory, instead of apporaching games on their own grounds. Procedural logic, artificial intelligence issues, and emergent behavior are all ingored by most academics in favor of more comfortable facets like narrative or visuals. Honestly, how many academic articles do we need on Lara Croft's breasts?

      The Georgia Tech program mentioned in the article has exactly the right idea. For most of the classes, assignments are split between theory *and* production.

    4. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're right. While the researcher conference is presenting the topics "Musical Byproducts of Atari 2600 Games" and "But Our Princess Is in Another Castle: Towards a 'Close-Playing' of Super Mario Brothers", the GDC is going a different route.

      Topics like "Multiplayer Play: Designing Social Interaction in Games", "How to Write an Unforgettable Story", and "10 Tricks from Psychology for Making Better Characters" wouldn't interest the academics. "Creating the Right Mix of Static Versus Dynamic Content in a Massively Multiplayer Game" and "Entering the World: Cognitive Dissonance and Immersion in Electronic Games" is off-track. "The Philosophical Roots of Computer Game Design" is just speaking a totally different language from what universities are teaching.

      Oh wait, my sarcasm is overtaking me. You see, these are questions that developers think about. We're selling a product and we damn sure know how things things work. To say that developers don't think about how a game can evoke emotional responses or how the social aspects of a game design can impact a game like Everquest is just ignorant. You think that these things just randomly happen during development? Developers don't just throw things in a compiler and see what sells. For that matter, Richard Evans used Heidegger as a major influence in creating the social AI routines for Black&White.

      If this isn't proof of continuing ignorance then I don't know what is. Do me a favor and attend Toru Iwatani's "The Secret of Pac-Man's Success: Making Fun First" seminar. Perhaps you can learn a thing or two about what we already knew 25 years ago.

      Consider yourself 0wn3d.

    5. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by Snowspinner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're still not grasping the fundamental difference between the two.

      We have no interest in designing better video games, by and large. Academic study took a turn away from those kinds of concerns in the 60s, and hasn't ever really gone back.

      Put another way, there are two kinds of English Masters degrees - the MA and the MFA. The MFA is concerned with the productive aspects - with how to create a good poem, play, story, whatever.

      The MA has no concern whatsoever with that. The MA does not want to write a poem - it wants to understand what a poem demonstrates about the changing conception of science in 19th century England.

      To do this, it needs to have some vocabulary of the construction of the poem, but the vocabulary it develops for that end is going to be a completely different vocabulary from the one used to understand how to write the poem.

      --
      Philip Sandifer's academic website
    6. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by PlayfulAcademic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Perhaps the academics would be better served by going to the Game Developers Conference two weeks later and learn a thing or to." [And I agree with the points made by Dennis above -- I am busy lighting candles at this very moment.] Ah, but the bitter truth is that I doubt that I can convince my department to send me to GDC or E3, but (as the fact that this got into the NYTimes shows) an academic conference at Princeton is the kind of thing other academics understand. These are early days and interesting times, at least for me, and I think it might be better for academic critics to be just a little humble and not try to imply that we know everything and are somehow setting ourselves in a position from which we will dispense wisdom. Critics are critics. Academics are academics. Developers are developers. Sometimes, as with Eric Zimmerman or Gonzalo Frasca, individuals can wear more than one hat, but it is still fairly rare. We can learn from each other, but I'm all for haphazard intersections rather than a fixed game plan to demand utility from my work rather than the application of curiosity with extra disciplinary knowledge. Barry

    7. Re:Researchers vs. Developers by domsalvia · · Score: 2, Funny
      1) If a scientist who studies the mating habits has never actually mated with a rhinoceros, does that discount all of his or her research?
      No, but the one who has at least has an interesting story to tell...
  6. Half-Life by Tom7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, well, he was right to give up as soon as he got to that Zen planet or whatever. Man, I hated that shit.

    The very ending was cute, though.

    1. Re:Half-Life by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The biggest revelation in the game that I can think of is fairly close to the beginning, when you see the scientist get slaughtered by some commando's. Now _there_ is a revelation - these people are NOT your friend!

      Of course if he meant that, he has only seen a rather small portion of the game. But think about it: how would he know if it was two minutes from the end, if he has never played that far?

  7. Subjective Criticism by leadfoot2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As with any kind of evaluation, it is very difficult to come up with a 'formula' in analyzing video games. There is some element of subjectivism when critiquing video games -- just look at thousands of game reviews sites. I think scholars have given up trying to analyze movies and press a long time ago. It would be interesting to see how long would the novelty of video games in academics stay before it wears off.

    1. Re:Subjective Criticism by Snowspinner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can assure you, scholars have not given up trying to analyze movies and press.

      We have largely given up the notion of "review," I'll admit - but popular culture studies remains big.

      And, believe me, we're well aware of subjectivism - it's there for most things.

      I doubt this is a novelty thing - we'll be around to study video games as long as they remain popular. And if they die off, some people will focus on them in 150 years when they do 20th and 21st century studies.

      --
      Philip Sandifer's academic website
    2. Re:Subjective Criticism by metroid+composite · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And, believe me, we're well aware of subjectivism - it's there for most things.

      In fact, my understanding is that subjectivity is rather central to postmodernism. As far as I'm concerned the idea in social sciences is to be subjective, just to be subjective from as many angles of subjectivity as possible (thus completeness increases over multiple academics).

  8. Wow, Ikaruga and Virtua Fighter 4 in the NY Times! by AtaruMoroboshi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Two of my all time favorite games mentioned in a positive light in the "paper of record". Wow!

    Also, I'm a Library and Information Sciences graduate student and I'm working on a few projects related to video games. It's really exciting and challenging to present information and analysis of gaming in an academic context. I'm hoping to attend the conference at Princeton mentioned in this NY Times article.

    .

  9. Narrow selection of games by MMaestro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why do I say this? Simple.

    Researchers shouldn't use cheat codes, she said.

    Yeah, lets see you get all 150/250/whatever they're up to now Pokemon without cheating while maintaining your job as a professor. I spent over 50 hours in the original Pokemon and didn't even get 100 of them. Good luck trying to get double that number while writing an analyze of it up. Admittedly not exactly a fair statement considering the game, but how about RPGs? On average they now tend to average about 30-70 hours. Each.

    Others say that games need a Shakespeare, someone who can catapult the digital medium forward.

    You mean someone like John Carmack who is already considered to be the founder of the FPS genre, one of the best programmers in the industry, and the creator of some of the most recognizable video game serieses in history (Doom and Quake)? What about the people at Valve? They got Half-Life right, something great must be there. What about Hideo Kojima? He makes storylines so dense even hardcore gamers get pissed at him.

    1. Re:Narrow selection of games by OminousOrange · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yes, Doom and Quake are *just* like Shakespeare's works.

      Prince Hamlet enters, torn by guilt, grief, jealousy, and vengeance, and soliloquizes with stirring poetry about his problems. Then he proceeds to launch heavy artillery at Queen Gertrude and Claudius. "O that this too too solid flesh would melt 'Neath the heat of a Plasma rifle blast." Wow, even better than the original!

    2. Re:Narrow selection of games by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, Doom and Quake are *just* like Shakespeare's works.
      Prince Hamlet enters, torn by guilt, grief, jealousy, and vengeance, and soliloquizes with stirring poetry about his problems. Then he proceeds to launch heavy artillery at Queen Gertrude and Claudius.

      But just imagine the duel with Laertes!

      Trumpets the while

      HAMLET. Come on sir.
      LAERTES. Come my lord.

      They play

      HAM. One.
      LAE. No.
      HAM. Judgement.
      OSRIC. A hit, a very palpable hit.
      LAE. Nay, thou'rt lame; thou campest; I'll not play with thee.

  10. It'd be a subsection of English, actually by metroid+composite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least that's what I suspect. In fact a prof I know back at UBC has already written a paper on a collection of games. Then again English is known for studying movies, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, WWE, Chatelaine Magazine, and soup can labels, so this is really nothing new.

    1. Re:It'd be a subsection of English, actually by Alkaiser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly.

      When they were trying to get the Video Game Studies minor approved at UC Irvine, the mucky-mucks there balked, and someone pointed out that they had a Film Studies major there, and that people back in the 70s had made the same claims against that major.

      How can you NOT realize that critiquing video games and the procedures for creating them are at LEAST as complex as the ones needed for movies? To allow for one and scoff at the other is stupidity with Flavor Crystals(TM).

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
  11. We've come a long way by Teppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was an undergrad at Carnegie Mellon in 1989, I decided it would be fun to make a game (actually a system for making platform games) as my senior project. I was really psyched about this, and figured that any professor would be honored to be my advisor on such an innovative project.

    I set out looking for an advisor. I picked one of CMU's best known professors. I called his secretary, made an appointment, and described my idea. His response? "Do you know who I am? There is *no way in hell* that I am attaching my name to a video game."

    Bah, his loss. I set out to find another professor to serve as advisor. I wandered around the halls until I found a professor that I had for a class once. This guy wasn't a big shot. He didn't have a secretary, and didn't have such a big office, but that was ok. I jazzed up my presentation a bit, threw in a few buzzwords of the day: "It's an 'object oriented' system for 'rapid application development' of a class of interactive entertainment, blah blah blah.

    He was intrigued! "Hmm, object oriented, rapid applica... Er, wait a minute - this is a video game? No, I'm not putting my name on that."

    Ok, so no cigar just yet, but I was picking up on a trend. I wandered around some more. I went deep into the lower levels of Wean Hall. I walked down a corridor carved out of solid rock - the offices here were the size of closets, and they didn't even have windows. I found someone who appeared to have just been hired, and gave my pitch, filled with as many ridiculous buzzwords as I could think up. He mulled it over "object oriented, um, rapid stuff, um, 'Oh, you mean a video game! Yeah, cool, I'll be your advisor for that!'"

    So I found my advisor. He didn't get fired for putting his name of a Senior Project video game, and it came out pretty good in the end, and nobody else got embarrassed.

    BUT

    Looks like I was ahead of all of them! Carnegie Mellon now touts it's Entertainment Technology Center, and proudly proclaims how they're considered the Harvard of Game Development Programs, and they've even had me back to speak on a few occasions about my latest game. They've come a long way ;)

  12. I frankly think both are wrong by metroid+composite · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As someone who has worked briefly with an academic studying Video Games I thought his choice of games didn't allow for much interpretation of art (DOOM was one game he looked at, for instance, analyzing the main character) and it doesn't look like these scholars are doing much better. On the other hand, you will have a tough time convincing me that, oh, say Tony Hawk 4 or Bond Shooting game 17 is artistic either. Developers are focused more on what sells, or at least that's the impression I get from the internet (having developed an edutainment game, but never been to a conference).

    Wouldn't it make more sense for the Academics to grab a more plot-intensive game? (I'm thinking RPGs in particular; Xenogears, Koudelka, et. al.) After all, character and plot are something that we (academics) certainly know how to analyze academically, while gameplay is something new (and likely more interdiciplinary requiring knowledge from CPSC, Physics, Math, as well as social sciences so that you can actually analyze it using postmodernist theories after you understand it).

  13. Distances and Realities by stuffduff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Part of the problem is that the Gamers have an intutive knowledge gained by experience which the academics have yet to even begin to quantify. A gamer can tell by a 6th sense when they are in the groove and a good designer can actually tell if the groove is being created properly by the game. Science currently has absolutly no mechanism by which to explain this phenomon. Gamers should be studied so that scientists can actually see not only that gamers can use their brain differently than ordinary people; but they can work to distinguish exactly what those differences are. Fighter pilots experience a situational awareness in an environment that only a very few individuals ever see; which is also relatively unexplored. However I feel certain that experiments will one day show that what an immersed gamer experiences is not that different from the experience of the fighter pilot. Some day when the dust settles and the sicence is there, the academics will, no doubt, have a newfound respect for the gamer and the game developer alike.

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  14. Pokemon... by herrvinny · · Score: 4, Funny

    I got all 151 in the original Pokemon Yellow, (yes, including Mew, without cheating, got it at a Nintendo event), all 251 in Pokemon Silver (Yes, Celebi too), and I'm working on Ruby. Just need to trade a few more pokemon, and grab Jirachi from the upcoming Pokemon Colosseum, I don't have any idea how to get Deoxy without cheating, Nintendo is still holding the cards on that one ;-). I'm holding off buying a GameCube until Colosseum comes out.

    Yes, I am a pokemon fanatic. How did you guess? I would have filled up my Ruby's Pokedex months ago, except for the fact that I have to do actual work up here in the University of Wisc @ Madison...

    In case you're wondering, I do have hundreds, if not thousands, of hours logged on my Pokemon games.. Have Yellow (first one), Blue, Red, Silver, Gold (2), Crystal, Sapphire, Ruby, Pokemon Stadiums 1 & 2, and the special release of Pokemon Yellow Gameboy. It does take dedication, and hard work, but you can catch em all.

  15. Perhaps not objectivity, but completeness... by metroid+composite · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One interesting way I've heard postmodernism described is through Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. For those that don't know, any system of theories cannot be complete (have a true/false for any statement) or if it is then it will be inconsistent (have statements that are both true and false). Math (and science by extension) strives for consistency, and will add axioms whenever they find a hole in completeness.

    Postmodernism, on the other hand, tosses consistency out the window in an attempt to be complete.

    Well...it's as good a definition of postmodernism as any I guess. Certainly more tangible to me than "the curvy buildings in architecture from the 60s"; I mean how am I supposed to apply -that- to literature?