| LordTheNightKnight said: "Creativity, be it business oriented or otherwise, cannot - must not - be relegated to deferent stance as regards to the whims of the market." That assumes the mainstream market works on a whim. That is not true. One of the things Malstrom argues is that human nature never changes (culture can change*, morals can change, tastes can change, but human nature does not), and that any work that will "hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature" (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II) has the makings of a classic. That is why myths from cultures long gone still hold up. |
That would a valid criticism, if by 'whims of the market' I was referring to anything other than the myriad of cases of scientifically documented cultural malleability. The rise and fall of traditional adventure games is a good example. It is incredibly conceited of Malstrom to assume that our current paradigm of games has anything but a temporary appeal (since, naturally, he not only posits that there is an essential human nature, but holds that he alone has found the key to our enjoyment of video games). The arcade paradigm has, in any case, shown examples of both zeniths and nadirs, which would indicate that it is not a cultural constant.
Moreover, if popular culture is not subverted, we would never experience change. That was the original point of that argument, and it still strikes me as a fatal flaw in your little episteme.
As an aside, you are aware that your reading of that passage from Hamlet relies on a particular socio-linguistic basis, don't you? I could deconstruct it, if I wanted to. Who, indeed, is actually to say that 'natural meaning' is everlasting? Similarly, what makes you so sure a Japanese reading of Hamlet will even come to that same conclusion?
