Can you fathom it?

If someone had asked me the question of whether or not games could socially and educationally improve one's life six years ago, I would have had to think of myself at that time coming home from school only to venture to the computer desk with a bag of twizzlers and a six pack of coca-cola to last me far into the evening.  I thought video games then were the beginning of my demise!  The notion of them providing improvement for people would just seem absurb.  Although thinking back, the accounting class I took with upper classmen during that school year when I was hardcore into video games I got nearly a 100 in the class that stunned all the other students, considering I just looked at the Diablo II barter board the whole time in class.  But even before reading any of Jane McGonigal's book my skepticism was high.  I wondered if she was going to be exerting all this energy only to be proved wrong in the end.  Well then I read the first couple chapters.

I agreed with McGonigal from the onset that video games are "fulfilling genuine human needs that the real work is currently unable to satisfy," which I took as true, but just as another escapist route.  However, she addresses this as being exempt from that category, chiefly because escapist routes typically involve extrinsic reward systems such as clothes shopping or trying to change the appearance of one's body, and other reward systems like booze and drugs are not possible long-term solutions - not that I'm suggesting short-term is either.  For video games to release the same endorphins and dopamine aka pleasure system of the brain made me want to put the book down and fire up the game console right then and there.  Amazing.  And yet (so I can keep this concise and brief so you will keep reading it), McGonigal says every game has the four defining traits such as a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation.  The trick is, how can this be translated into the context of humans' everyday lives outside of the virtual reality world?  Maybe we shall know by the end of the book, but I believe if this ever pans out, McGonigal or someone else will be a very wealthy person.  I think a hindrance to people having as much dedication and motivation for video games as they do real world activites - their job, school work, etc. - is because they lack a clear-cut goal, or an appropriate feedback system.  There is a fundamental flaw somewhere that is preventing these people from reaping the same benefits from real life as they do video games.  And, as the author mentioned, it's not because people do not want to put forth the hard work and effort and just be "entertained" all day; it's that the hard work is lacking a goal, the rules aren't well devised, or maybe the feedback system isn't appropriate and it feels like there's too much coercion.  Yes, so of course "why should we needlessly spend the majority of our lives in boredom and anxiety, [if] games point to a clear and better alternative?"  Because deep down, we want the intrinsic rewards from it all - forget all the mainstream bs that tries to convince you material wealth will provide the same rewards.  And I think McGonigal makes her most important point of the two chapters when she states,

 "Satisfying work always starts with two things: a clear goal and actionable next steps toward achieving that goal.  Having a clear goal motivates us to act: we know what we're supposed to do."

Can you imagine how much better our school systems and work environments would be if teachers and employers provided constant feedback and insightful ways of helping one improve, and showing that their work is valued?

How do you all feel?  Is McGonigal onto something big with this or do you think it's a fancy pipedream that looks better on paper than in real life?

Graphic Novels as a medium for learning.

As we've discussed the issue in class, I believe everyone agreed graphic novels can be incorporated as an effective medium for learning in the classroom.  And why not?  They are fun to read outside any formal school setting, too.  Yet in school, I could understand a teacher simply not adding graphic novels into their classroom because of a set curriculum or because it's not relevant to the overall subject in the course - but to say they're  not a mature form of literature that can facilitate learning, that's rubbish.  My notion is, far too many critics out there want to hold on to old, stereotypical preconceptions of the graphic novel as simply a comic strip full of irrational and fantastical action scenes coupled with over simplified language.  Even family members of mine can't be excluded from this hysteria.  After looking at the book peculiarly and inquiring why I have it, their consternation only left them irreparably befuddled.  But the problem is: many critics who slander graphic novels never even attempted to read one.  However, my experience is, after reading graphic novels more often my appreciation only grew more for them. It's a captivating experience to have sequential art (thinking in McCloud terms here) provided with the text to make a unified learning experience.  And it's certainly a refreshing break from textual works once in a while - many high school students I'd assume would think the same, and given they can be consumed in much less time yet leave just as meaningful of an impression that literary works can provide too.  But the most significant part of them is the ability they have to communicate meaning through text as well as visuals that expands learning in more faculties than one avenue alone may lend, especially for visual-spatial learners, or students who don't respond to text alone as well.  In fact, Shaun Tan's Arrival is full of metaphorical imagery that shows how paralleling the images with the text provided can create even more meaning as a whole. Lastly, even though graphic novels should never be considered an absolute in an English class, much like the literary canon shouldn't, they no doubt have a place in the classroom to serve as a medium for learning much like its counterparts.