While I'm a snob and prefer all my media to be as high a grade as possible, if I were creating said media myself I'd probably strive towards hitting a wider range of comprehension levels like ZP does. After all, the best art is always that which can be appreciated by everyone yet offers more depth to those with the ability to perceive it.
What Grade is Your Content Comprehension?
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
I simply think that the kind of escapism "The Escapist" caters to such as video games, comic books (especially nowadays), PnP RPGs, etc... attracts a specific crowd. All of these things are escapism for those seeking mental/imaginative escapism. As such I think your attracting a relatively smart crowd of "snobs" by the very nature of the site. Especially when your looking at regulars, and those who check things like "Zero Punctuation" every week.
The more "mainstream" guys with that 4th-6th grade comprehension level tend to seek other things for escapism and communication. There are a lot of things out there like "Facebook" which see massive traffic, and tend to be disdained as "banal" by a lot of the people on sites like this one. What's more there are plenty of people who seek escapism in ways other than video games and the like. Religiously following pro-sports or pro-wrestling or whatever with few other interests for example.... and this has nothing to do with the legions of people who become junkies or wind up in really messed up subcultures due to their choice of escapism.
There is some overlap, but consider also that in most cases those who frequent The Escapist seem to disdain "Casual Gamers", even if they say there is nothing wrong with them, it seems most people here are quick to make it clear that they aren't one themselves. Those casual gamers being the gaming equivilent of the above group.
What's more there are other forums dedicated to video games which come accross very much like the XBL chat people here make fun of. Yet if anything, you find a loathing of that attitude and type of behavior here, and you even have features that routinely mock it. Sort of like a recent clip of ENN that portrayed an exagerrated stereotype of an XBL player being unable to figure out what the RROD was on his XBL and allegedly getting confused because of the three lights of Sam Fisher's Nightvision. That right there being entertainment for "The Escapist" shows a degree of intellecual elitism above other gamers.... as does things like the contreversy over "Zynga" during the last March Madness.
Apologies if this is not articulated well. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this isn't your average site even by gaming standards. Given the abillity to filter the internet easily I'd imagine guys like Yahtzee are simply avoided by people who don't get it, where those millions of hits that are generated are those that do.
How many hits does ZP get compared to the number of people known to be playing casual games and such?
The more "mainstream" guys with that 4th-6th grade comprehension level tend to seek other things for escapism and communication. There are a lot of things out there like "Facebook" which see massive traffic, and tend to be disdained as "banal" by a lot of the people on sites like this one. What's more there are plenty of people who seek escapism in ways other than video games and the like. Religiously following pro-sports or pro-wrestling or whatever with few other interests for example.... and this has nothing to do with the legions of people who become junkies or wind up in really messed up subcultures due to their choice of escapism.
There is some overlap, but consider also that in most cases those who frequent The Escapist seem to disdain "Casual Gamers", even if they say there is nothing wrong with them, it seems most people here are quick to make it clear that they aren't one themselves. Those casual gamers being the gaming equivilent of the above group.
What's more there are other forums dedicated to video games which come accross very much like the XBL chat people here make fun of. Yet if anything, you find a loathing of that attitude and type of behavior here, and you even have features that routinely mock it. Sort of like a recent clip of ENN that portrayed an exagerrated stereotype of an XBL player being unable to figure out what the RROD was on his XBL and allegedly getting confused because of the three lights of Sam Fisher's Nightvision. That right there being entertainment for "The Escapist" shows a degree of intellecual elitism above other gamers.... as does things like the contreversy over "Zynga" during the last March Madness.
Apologies if this is not articulated well. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this isn't your average site even by gaming standards. Given the abillity to filter the internet easily I'd imagine guys like Yahtzee are simply avoided by people who don't get it, where those millions of hits that are generated are those that do.
How many hits does ZP get compared to the number of people known to be playing casual games and such?
After sifting through three pages of forum thread about this, a rather enlightening and enjoyable little missive, I am unfortunately forced to draw an unpleasant conclusion:
Almost no one here (or elsewhere, give me a moment to explain) can resist a chance to talk about how intelligent they are. Maybe this phenomenon is a product of our community's overall intelligence factor - which I would wager is higher than your average internet forum - or maybe it's just human nature, but just about every second or third post (go back and look!) is someone either expounding their own intelligence, or talking about how they have/own/frequently read Decline and Fall. We all like knowing that we're smart (and by smart, I mean "comprehend things at a high level") and this article kindly gives us all a reach-around, but we're still all falling prey to the classic internet symptom of anonymity. No one knows if you actually have a 14th-grade reading/writing level, and frankly, no one really cares, here or elsewhere. Some people have done a great job of keeping the discussion to that - a discussion - but others (the first post, for example) are largely self-aggrandizing, verbose intellectual masturbation. Long-form versions of "Haha, I TOTALLY comprehend everything Bach has written! And I read Decline when I was 12!!" still are targeted at demoralizing those who have not, and do not serve to advance discussion.
That having been said, I am aware that a chastisement of the kind I have just provided does not advance discussion at all either. Help is on the way!
What interests me most is the author's teetering description of what he considers a "snob." I am really quite enamored with the idea that a snob is one who chooses not to give credence to media of lower comprehension levels, and spurns said media as "lower" or "lesser." My question is, do you honestly feel that it's never okay, under any circumstance, to look down upon what you may feel is a lesser form of media (or a lesser work within a medium) if you do not want to be given the title of "snob"? That is, when is the line crossed: when do I become a snob because I can't stand listening to preschoolers on recorders?
TL;DR: I can uze big werds too!
Almost no one here (or elsewhere, give me a moment to explain) can resist a chance to talk about how intelligent they are. Maybe this phenomenon is a product of our community's overall intelligence factor - which I would wager is higher than your average internet forum - or maybe it's just human nature, but just about every second or third post (go back and look!) is someone either expounding their own intelligence, or talking about how they have/own/frequently read Decline and Fall. We all like knowing that we're smart (and by smart, I mean "comprehend things at a high level") and this article kindly gives us all a reach-around, but we're still all falling prey to the classic internet symptom of anonymity. No one knows if you actually have a 14th-grade reading/writing level, and frankly, no one really cares, here or elsewhere. Some people have done a great job of keeping the discussion to that - a discussion - but others (the first post, for example) are largely self-aggrandizing, verbose intellectual masturbation. Long-form versions of "Haha, I TOTALLY comprehend everything Bach has written! And I read Decline when I was 12!!" still are targeted at demoralizing those who have not, and do not serve to advance discussion.
That having been said, I am aware that a chastisement of the kind I have just provided does not advance discussion at all either. Help is on the way!
What interests me most is the author's teetering description of what he considers a "snob." I am really quite enamored with the idea that a snob is one who chooses not to give credence to media of lower comprehension levels, and spurns said media as "lower" or "lesser." My question is, do you honestly feel that it's never okay, under any circumstance, to look down upon what you may feel is a lesser form of media (or a lesser work within a medium) if you do not want to be given the title of "snob"? That is, when is the line crossed: when do I become a snob because I can't stand listening to preschoolers on recorders?
TL;DR: I can uze big werds too!
As far as I can tell, this article is simply arguing against audience competence tests, first because they encourage publishers to "dumb down" their content, and later because it's possible to throw off the measurement system by having content that can be appreciated at several levels. I don't like this argument.
Most importantly, there is no indication of why it is bad that these metrics encourage simplification of content. Why is it bad that the New York TImes is written at a 9th-grade level? Isn't it better that such a leading news source be easily accessible to the masses, or should we just exclude people with lesser educations from the public discourse?
Is it bad because snobs won't have anything to read/watch/play? No, it's not, because snobs are notorious for creating their own inaccessible and arcane works that they can all have a good old-fashioned circle jerk over. Additionally, it's not bad for video game snobs because there simply aren't enough inaccessible games for anyone to be a snob ? either you're going to be playing X3: The Reunion every second of every day, or you're going to be lowering yourself to games accessible to the masses.
Content that can be appreciated at several levels ultimately provides the solution to this problem in games, as in most other forms of communication. The idea that now my entertainment is accessible to the masses indeed a problem for the snob, because they don't get to feel like they're better than everyone else because they're able to appreciate the textual subtleties of Smegma Princess X. This problem is exactly why calling someone a "snob" is not a form of flattery.
Most importantly, there is no indication of why it is bad that these metrics encourage simplification of content. Why is it bad that the New York TImes is written at a 9th-grade level? Isn't it better that such a leading news source be easily accessible to the masses, or should we just exclude people with lesser educations from the public discourse?
Is it bad because snobs won't have anything to read/watch/play? No, it's not, because snobs are notorious for creating their own inaccessible and arcane works that they can all have a good old-fashioned circle jerk over. Additionally, it's not bad for video game snobs because there simply aren't enough inaccessible games for anyone to be a snob ? either you're going to be playing X3: The Reunion every second of every day, or you're going to be lowering yourself to games accessible to the masses.
Content that can be appreciated at several levels ultimately provides the solution to this problem in games, as in most other forms of communication. The idea that now my entertainment is accessible to the masses indeed a problem for the snob, because they don't get to feel like they're better than everyone else because they're able to appreciate the textual subtleties of Smegma Princess X. This problem is exactly why calling someone a "snob" is not a form of flattery.
Great question. My answer would be as follows. The "comprehension level" of a work is only one input into its value. There are, for instance, excellent pieces of content at the 7th grade level -- much of Stephen King's writing, say. And there are terrible pieces of content at the 14th grade level - say, drivel I spew out on a bad day.HollywoodH17 said:
I think you become a snob if you are unwilling or unable to enjoy "easily comprehended" work, regardless of its quality, by virtue of it being easily comprehended. In short, if the reason you won't access it is because it's accessible.
Let's contrast that with a word with less negative connotation, but which also speaks to one who has a reverence for quality--such as "connoisseur". You might say that a connoisseur concerns himself less with how easily comprehended a work is, but acutely feels the difference in the quality for any given comprehension level.
So a snob will simply never go see Star Wars because it is easily comprehended. A connoisseur enjoys Star Wars as a well-crafted sci-fi epic, regardless of its easy comprehensibility.
A snob prefers to drink a beverage which is an "acquired taste", preferably very hard to acquire, such as very bitter beer. A connoisseur enjoys beer that's well-brewed, even if the taste is not hard to acquire.
Let's call the opposite of a snob a populist. They actively seek out work which requires little comprehension. This could be because they are intellectually lazy, but it could also be because they enjoy consuming content which lots of other people consume.
Let's call the opposite of a connoisseur a boor. They are unaware of the difference in quality at any given comprehension level. They can't tell the difference between The Matrix and Ultraviolet.
So then you could have:
A Populist Connoisseur, who seeks out the best mass market content - "pop maven"
A Snobbish Connoisseur, who seeks out the best hard-to-comprehend content - "elite maven"
A Populist Boor, who seeks out mass market content without any sense of its quality - "vidiot"
A Snobbish Boor, who seeks out hard-to-comprehend content without any sense of its quality - "poseur"
We can easily imagine the Populist Boor as the vidiot who watches whatever's on the Boob Tube. The Snobbish Boor is that obnoxious pseudo-intellectual who can't really tell why an artist's found object is any different from the junk from my mom's garage.
Snobbish Boors can't tell the difference between Populist Connoisseurs and Populist Boors and look down on both. Populist Connoisseurs generally recognize that Snobbish Boors can't tell that half what they read is total crap, and make fun of them for it. Populist Connoisseurs and Populist Boors probably share favorite movies etc, but the Boors watch a lot of crap the Connoisseurs don't.
Meanwhile, Snobbish Connoisseurs don't understand why Populist Connoisseurs are wasting their taste on "junk for the masses", and try to avoid being in the same room with Populist Boors. Snobbish Boors idoloze Snobbish Connoisseurs while being intimidated by them, and in turn, SCs are glad that SBs exist because they need to have someone who understands why they are better.
I can clearly say, for instance, that I'm a Snobbish Connoisseur of tabletop games. I respect great game design and frown on bad game design, but my prefernece is to play hard to find and understand games.
i don't see myself as a snob, in fact, im quite the opposite; i'm just a well educated, working class man.
Interesting piece, I don't have much of a comment, but I sure learned a bit from the article.
Also, quite oddly, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is sitting in front of me right now.
Also, quite oddly, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is sitting in front of me right now.
Hey, I read and understood Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I found it fairly comprehensive really. But then again I am a historian so I kind of got used to that sort of writing (and worse) during my studies. Was it understandable, yes, but it was also rather boring at times since I've read Gibbons ideas worded in a more easily comprehendable way by other historians.
I watch ZP far more for the "jaded misanthrope" -level expressiveness than the potty humour or the force-feedback codpiece gags.
Likewise, "Escape to the Movies" is great because of the intelligent and layered commentary. Oh damn, I hope I didn't just sink Movie Bob's career by claiming he was high-brow! :-/
Likewise, "Escape to the Movies" is great because of the intelligent and layered commentary. Oh damn, I hope I didn't just sink Movie Bob's career by claiming he was high-brow! :-/
I'd say that my comprehension level is a little higher than the 9th grade average or whatever, in regards to literature and gaming both.
I draw my evidence for gaming from the fact that I am SICK of First Person Shooters and games featuring generic characters and storylines. While I can appreciate good core shooting mechanics, that is not enough to satisfy me and I more and more want a good story as well in recent years (perhaps directly because of my love of reading). And I seek different main characters in games as a whole - the space marine archetype (big, tough, hardcore dangerous guy) just isn't cutting it.
I draw my evidence for gaming from the fact that I am SICK of First Person Shooters and games featuring generic characters and storylines. While I can appreciate good core shooting mechanics, that is not enough to satisfy me and I more and more want a good story as well in recent years (perhaps directly because of my love of reading). And I seek different main characters in games as a whole - the space marine archetype (big, tough, hardcore dangerous guy) just isn't cutting it.
At a lighthouse, either in the Marin Headlands or Point Reyes, I read a letter written by a 20 year old a century ago, writing to his parents complaining about his job and I think his boss. But the writing was so elegant and beautiful, from someone probably making whatever the minimum wage was back then--that just thinking about the garbage written by your typical 20 something of today, or even a 30 or 40 something, it gave me pause how far our standards have fallen.
I was sad to see Scientific American finally collapse into populist garbage.
While many gamers may not be beyond the 17-18th level, the majority would definitly be graded higher than the 9th level most media providers currently supply their information/entertainment at. The interactive nature of gaming suggests that it appeals to those who prefer not to sit idle while letting the medium dictate the experience to them, but to have an active influence in the generating of the said experience. The difference between enjoying passive and interactive entertainment may be directly attributed the level of education and or intelligence, the two being related yet not entirely reliant on each others presence. ZP is probably so popular with gamers because gaming links those who are intelligent, educated or both, while not excluding the remainder of the audience that possibly fall outside the guidelines of the typical gamer...if there is such a thing.
I don't like to advertise that I'm a literary snob, but at the same time I really can't get into books I don't feel have even tasted the word thesaurus before. I'm slightly dyslexic so I often eat my own words on alot of things, so going around claiming to be a superior being of infinite literary wisdom is just not a smart thing to do.
I have been tested and while the lady wouldn't give me the result (went straight to my school) I was apparently way above the reading level of my age group at the time (grade 10 equivalent) so through my daily reading I hope I've kept that up. Reading is a subtle but consistent joy to me.
Mathematics on the other hand I am a total dunce at.
I have been tested and while the lady wouldn't give me the result (went straight to my school) I was apparently way above the reading level of my age group at the time (grade 10 equivalent) so through my daily reading I hope I've kept that up. Reading is a subtle but consistent joy to me.
Mathematics on the other hand I am a total dunce at.
I come from a family of literary and film snobs with a rather dim view on the average intelligence of the "man on the street" - nowhere was this more apparent than with our shared mirth at a letter a reader penned to the editors of one of the periodicals we read, complaining that their writing style was too far removed from prose, and that they should essentially "dumb it down" to the average conversational vocabulary level.
That isn't particularly amusing by itself - what made us laugh was how all the examples of words he picked that were supposedly "not prose" were words we each used on a daily basis.
That isn't particularly amusing by itself - what made us laugh was how all the examples of words he picked that were supposedly "not prose" were words we each used on a daily basis.
I shall now be using that comparison whenever fate conspires to afford me a moderately appropriate opportunity - it's so very true, and eminently condescending at the same time. Yay snobbery!Alexander Macris said: