Sigh. Just because it exists in film, does not suddenly make it "not literary".
Hmmmm... I was not aware that I was arguing this position, Hussar. So where did you get this from?
Where do you think film gets it from?
::Looks at my post several posts before yours, quoted below for your convenience::
The main reason why these media are discussed as "text" is because literary criticism is far more advanced chronologically than other burgeoning forms. Literary criticism dictated the terms of conversation, and many of the earliest film studies academics came out literary studies or imported their terms from literary studies. Film studies was largely discussed through literary criticism until the discipline began establishing for itself its own identity, idioms, and issues as a field. We probably should not claim that films are literature simply as a result of this historical accident.
So no, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I clearly have no idea where film gets it from. But the point is not where film gets "it" from but the fact that we cannot say that RPGs or film are literature just because they both have "it."
Normally, we see fairly eye-to-eye, Hussar. But since we are not here, I will be clear with what I am arguing so you don't repeat errors like the above.
I am aware that the discourse of film studies originally came out of literary studies. I am not arguing that because these elements exist in film they do not exist in literature. My point is that these things are
not distinctly literary elements. Instead, there is an overlapping set of storytelling techniques that exist
across different types of media. [insert venn diagram here] It is inaccurate, for example, to say that pacing in TTRPGs is literary on the basis that story pacing also exists as a technique of literature. This is the categorical error that you dismissively sighed about while ignoring.
This is because story pacing is also an integral part of storytelling in oral stories, theater, television, film, and video game media. Moreover, the issues of story pacing will also be unique to each particular medium. How to appropriately pace your book's story will differ from how to appropriately pace your theatrical play, or your video game, or your movie, or your serialized television show,* or your TTRPG game sessions. This is something that most people recognize outside of this niche web forum.
* This issue of pacing in television has also changed with the advent of online original produced by streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. These services have changed how we watch shows, which changes how these shows are produced, scripted, and paced. E.g., A cliffhanger makes less sense at the end of a midseason episode of a Netflix original when you will immediately watch the next episode of an entire season that has been uploaded at once.
So, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], and anyone else who cares to weigh in, would you PLEASE define your terms. What do YOU mean by "literary". Not, playstyle or any other dodge, or comparisons to baking a cake. What do YOU mean, and we'll discuss using THAT definition.
Because, boys and girls, until such time as you folks want to plant the goal posts, this conversation is just going to keep circling the same rabbit hole. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is, if we use his definition of literary, 100% correct. But, if we use [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s definition, he's 100% wrong. So, which definition do you want us to use? Pick one, stick with it, and we can move on.
There are two definitions that have been floated and utilized in this thread. (And often with the equivocation that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has rightfully criticized.) So in regards to one definition:
You agree, for example, that if we take the position that literature pertains to "higher literature" (per its cognitive association, connotation, and common parole) then RPGs probably would not qualify as literature. I have not argued either way regarding that. So we can put that definition to the side and instead focus on Max's definition, which is what I have been criticizing.
I don't think that Maxperson is 100% correct that RPGs are literature or literary on the basis that RPGs utilize literature, using his broader definition of "pertaining to a written text." You may call it a dodge, but my point with raising the analogy of cooking and sports is to illustrate that both activities are defined by more than their associated literature (i.e., recipes and rulebooks, respectively) and we do not consider either of these activities to be "literature" (with Max's sense) simply because they have associated written texts. There is more to cooking than the recipe. There is more to a sport than the rulebook. There is more to TTRPGS than the rulebook, character sheet, or other associated literature. We typically talk more about playing the game and the processes around it. We may argue about the rulebooks, much as sports fans argue about its rules or changes thereof (e.g., changing the shot clock time, what constitutes a foul, what is a legal catch, what is unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.). This is typically for the sake of making informed rulings.
