- ARPDAUPosted 4 years ago
- What’s an impressive conversion rate? And other stats updatesPosted 5 years ago
- Your quick guide to metricsPosted 5 years ago
Salman Rushdie, video games and my letter to the Financial Times
Salman Rushdie has just written a book for children.
Entitled Luka and the Fire of Life, it’s a fable about a child entering the world of magic to rescue his father.
Philip Womack’s primary criticism of the book is what he calls “the computer game aspect”. He says, for example:
“Since Haroun (Salman Rushdie’s first book) was published, computer games have encroached upon the childhood imagination. In a computer game, once you have learnt the necessary skills (usually by pressing some impossibly complex combination of buttons), you can complete a level and thus eventually succeed. They are not necessarily good metaphors for life; although, as Rashid says, they may improve your hand-eye co-ordination (not mine; I couldn’t get Lara Croft on to the first level, let alone through it”
The facile criticism of computer games incensed me. It incensed me so much that I wrote a letter to the Financial Times about it, which they published on Saturday.
My first thought when I read the review was “if this is a book aimed at children which carries a computer game metaphor at its heart, why did they ask some technophobic old fogey to review it? Isn’t that like asking Jeremy Clarkson to review chick-lit or Jordan to review the latest Martin Amis?”
The I did some research and discovered that Philip Womack is in fact 29. So he is not an old fogey. He is just prejudiced and bigoted against video games.
The perfect reviewer for Salman Rushdie’s book? I don’t think so.
The full text of my letter is below.
With reference to Philip Womack’s review of Luka and the Fire of Life (“Game on”, Life & Arts, October 2), I despair at the approach of asking a person who seems to take no joy in computer games to review Salman Rushdie’s new children’s book, which uses computer games as a central theme. The author claims, for example, that computer games which allow you to progress simply by learning the necessary skills “are not a good metaphor for life”.
I can think of no better metaphor. Computer games encourage commitment, practice, lateral thinking and a sense that if your first approach does not work, try a different one. They are ideal training for entrepreneurs, for independent thinkers, for a future generation where jobs for life are a distant memory and where adults will be expected to change jobs and acquire new skills throughout their careers.
James Gee of the University of Wisconsin found that games are embedded with one of the core principles of learning: students prosper when the subject matter challenges them right at the edge of their abilities. Games are perfectly structured to deliver a “regime of competence”. Prof Gee’s interest was stimulated when he tried to play a game enjoyed by his six-year-old son. He said: “I hadn’t done that kind of new learning since graduate school. You know, as you get older, you kind of rest on your laurels.”
Perhaps it’s time Mr Womack started some new learning too.
London SW1, UK”