An Observation on Authorization

I saw, today, that a book has been released recently by an author that I know to be (for lack of a more sensitive term) a hack. He is not a very popular writer, and I'm not going to release his name here because that feels, somehow, tacky and this person's identity isn't actually the point of this blog entry.

I have read several examples of this author's work over several years and was unimpressed even before I began studying literature from the perspective of a writer. I have noticed consistent mistakes on the author's part to which I was once unable to give words. Now, though, I have the training and the experience to no exactly what was wrong with this author's work and why it doesn't work. The mistakes that this author makes in the works that I have seen are, frankly, amateur.

I realize how pompous this sounds, but please bear with me for two reasons. One: I plan on explaining myself in a moment, and two: some people get to earn fat wads of cash for the knowledge they attain with their degrees, but all I get is this, so don't take it from me.

Experienced writers use certain guidelines in their works. These guidelines change depending on the type of fiction being written (i.e. short story or novel) and by the genre (i.e. fantasy or western). These guidelines serve as a basis for how the story should go, but they are violated often by authors so that they can tell a better story. These violations of conventions are conscious decisions on the part of the author to deviate from what is proven to work for a particular type of story so that this particular story can work and benefit from the change it represents. This typically results in a strong piece of fiction that it would had the author simply stuck to some sort of formula.

The hack author in question violates certain typical rules, which would be okay, but his story suffers for it. This author seems to violate these guidelines not out of a conscious decision, but because he doesn't realize that they are there. This makes him look like an amateur.

Today, I can look at a piece of work by this author and pick out the specific details of why the work isn't good, but even before I started attending college, where I was trained to look for these things, I could look that this person's work and tell that it was not good writing, yet on the back cover of his book, there is a small blurb that tells me a little about this author. One of the things that it said was that he lives off of his writing. As a perspective author, I find this very comforting.

Maybe I'll be able to eat once I graduate from college after all,
Zac

Welcome back, gentle reader. This week, I have something interesting to discuss. Some of you may be aware that there have been attempts in state congresses to censor video games. I am, naturally, against such legislations, but not just because I like the way shooting someone in the head makes a Rorschach blot in the air for a split second (I usually see butterflies).

I make it no secret that I think gaming is growing into an art form. Over the two decades since I have been alive, games have made a movement from thirty-minute diversions to vast, epic tales that can take one hundred hours or more to play out.

I've given this rant before, I'm sure no one needs to see my eccentric views on gaming as an art once more, but here is the point: I'm backing whomever votes down gaming censorship laws, but not without price. In my mind, video-games are still just entertainment, and in order for me to back its protection under the First Amendment, I have to believe that I can be something more. This falls on the Gaming Industry. The challenge has been sounded. I am against censorship because I believe that games can be art, but it's up to the industry to prove me right.

Happy V-Day,
Zac