Temporality, Authorial Intentions, and Truth in Video Game Fiction
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Temporality, Authorial Intentions, and Truth in Video Game Fiction Martin Ricksand (BA, MA) January 2020 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy This work or any part thereof has not previously been presented in any form to the University or to any other body whether for the purposes of assessment, publication or for any other purpose (unless otherwise indicated). Save for any express acknowledgements, references and/or bibliographies cited in the work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is the result of my own efforts and of no other person. The right of Martin Ricksand to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the author. Signature……………………………………….. Date…………………………………………….. Abstract This thesis examines the claim that video games differ fundamentally from other media in terms of fictional truth. Fictional truth has been treated extensively in the field of philosophy of fiction, primarily in relation to literature and, to a certain extent, film, but video games have been far too neglected. Truth in game fiction has been discussed by game scholars, and one prevalent view is that fictional truth in games can be altered through the interaction of the player. Scholars support this claim with reference to the purportedly unique nature of games as a medium in terms of temporality and authorial intentions, asserting that these two factors determine truth differently in game fiction. Game scholars often argue that video game stories have other temporal properties than novels and films, that game stories take place in the present and that this makes it possible for players to alter the truth-value of fictional propositions. They also argue that games have an interactive fictional truth, and that the player is some kind of author. However, by applying theories from philosophy of fiction, and with a methodology based in analytic philosophy, the thesis refutes these claims. I show that there are fundamental issues with their conception of time in fiction and that they fail to show why the arguments used to defend this conception are applicable exclusively to games. I also show that they fail to connect their claims regarding authorship to corresponding discussions in philosophy of fiction, where there have been extensive debates surrounding the importance of authorial intentions and to what extent these can determine the fictional truth of a given work; the same issues making it problematic to ascribe too much authority to the creator of a fictional work are retained and/or exacerbated when players are seen as authors. The thesis thus refutes common claims in game studies and expands the scope of philosophy of fiction. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements...................................................................................................5 Presentations............................................................................................................6 Introduction................................................................................................................7 Purpose and Research Questions........................................................................8 Methodology.......................................................................................................13 Terminology.........................................................................................................14 Theoretical limitations.........................................................................................16 Thesis structure..................................................................................................18 Chapter 1 – Temporality..........................................................................................20 1.1 The Claim of Presentness in game studies..................................................23 1.2 Simultaneity of representation and its events...............................................28 1.3 Duration.........................................................................................................39 1.3.1 Duration of story events.........................................................................41 1.3.2 Separating the CoP and the Duration Assumption................................50 1.4 Future truth...................................................................................................58 1.4.1 Characters with foreknowledge of the future.........................................62 1.4.2 Non-diegetic premonitions.....................................................................64 1.4.3 Open and closed futures in narratives without anachronies.................73 Chapter 2 – Temporal manipulation and relocation................................................75 2.1 Problems with flashbacks.............................................................................75 2.1.1 Anachronies in games...........................................................................75 2.1.2 Flashbacks as memories ......................................................................77 2.2 Separate screenings, pauses, and temporality............................................88 2.2.1 Separate screenings and playthroughs.................................................88 2.2.2 Pauses...................................................................................................92 2.2.3 Resetting time .......................................................................................98 2.3 The existence of the fictional present.........................................................101 2.3.1 Temporality and narration ...................................................................109 2.3.2 The relation between an A-series and a B-series................................110 2.3.3 The absence of B-series properties.....................................................116 2.3.4 The absence of A-series properties.....................................................118 Chapter 3 – Authorship and actual intentionalism................................................123 3.1 Authorship and intentionalism in game studies..........................................123 3.2 Criticism and defence of actual intentionalism...........................................130 3.3 Extreme intentionalism in games................................................................136 3.3.1 Infallibility of authorial intentions..........................................................137 3.3.2 Reasonably inferable intentions..........................................................141 3.3.3 Retroactive alteration of meaning........................................................148 3.3.4 Using unrealized intentions as evidence.............................................153 3.4 Moderate actual intentionalism...................................................................160 3.4.1 Advantages of MAI in video games.....................................................164 3.4.2 Problems with MAI in video games.....................................................168 3.4.3 Success conditions..............................................................................170 3.4.4 Ambiguity.............................................................................................178 3.4.5 Partial success....................................................................................181 3.4.6 Changing intentions.............................................................................184 Chapter 4 – Collective authorship.........................................................................187 4.1 Defining coauthorship.............................................................................188 4.1.1 Player as contributor............................................................................193 4.1.2 Control over work-creation..................................................................195 4.1.3 Authorship as an expression of attitudes............................................197 3 4.1.4 Group membership..............................................................................201 4.1.5 Responsibility.......................................................................................211 4.2 The Conversation analogy..........................................................................214 4.2.1 Art as conversation..............................................................................215 4.2.3 Moderate intentionalism and the conversation analogy......................219 4.2.4 One-dimensionality of interpretation...................................................221 4.2.5 Meta-conversation...............................................................................224 4.2.6 Independence and relevance of interpretations..................................227 Conclusions...........................................................................................................234 Future research.................................................................................................246 Bibliography...........................................................................................................248 Appendix – Key games discussed in the thesis....................................................267 4 Acknowledgements This thesis has been completed under the generous guidance of my Director of Studies, John