PASSIVE ACTIVITIES AND ACTIVE PASSTIMES
By Carrington Vanston - February 6, 2008
http://www.carringtonvanston.net/archives/passive_activities

As someone who engages in the activity of playing video games, it would be hypocritical of me to judge you for believing that video games are an engaging activity. But I'm probably going to judge you anyway. It's just my way.

Sometimes I'll ask my nephew what he did on a given day and he'll go on at length about a video game. He'll tell me how he beat his best time on a race track, or slew some many-tentacled bugaboo, or defended the Earth against aliens (or defended aliens against the Earth, depending on the flittering political affiliations of an 11 year old).

And I don't judge him for spending his day in these ephemeral pursuits because I've been a video game kid since way back when I was still a kid and they were still called video games. Of course, when I was a kid video games were made out of rocks and wooly mammoth bones, but we were happy.

Even so, when my nephew tells me he defeated some Boss to acquire the Golden Ring of Whatchamacallit, I'll sometimes think: "No, you didn't." The fact is, the activity of playing video games isn't actually an activity at all. That's the big lie of video games: the illusion of activity. You aren't really racing cars, slaying dextrous bugaboos, or defending (or attacking) Earth. You aren't exploring new lands. You aren't playing hockey. You aren't using your shotgun to defend people against zombies. You aren't even playing. Not really.

What you are doing is sitting down, staring at flashing lights and wiggling your thumbs on command. Go you.

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I like video games, too. A lot. I'm probably playing them right now while you're reading this. But I still judge you a little bit because I imagine you play them more than I do. Also, as I wrote earlier, I tend toward hypocrisy. I prefer to think it's part of my charm.

So what's the difference between video games and, say, reading a book? With reading, aren't we really just sitting still and turning pages? We don't really explore new lands or fend off zombies while reading a book. Well, not unless we are extremely good multitaskers.

It's true that when we read a book we aren't doing much in real life, or IRL as the internet kids would say. (Handy tips for old people: IRL = "In Real Life"; WTF = "Where's The Food"; OMG = "Odin's Manly Goats"; LOL = Something about your mother.) But nonetheless I think there's a difference between the kind of nothing we're doing when we read and the kind of nothing we're doing when we play video games. It's an active nothing versus a passive nothing. This is probably the most Zen I have ever sounded in my life. If I wasn't writing this in boxer shorts I'd be indistinguishable from a wizened and serene monk. Well, a wizened and serene monk with a Mac Pro and a penchant for point-and-click adventure games. But still, wizened and serene, you know?

Anyway, my highly Zen point is that with books we are actively engaged in a way we aren't with video games. That may seem counter intuitive considering the adrenaline rush that games can give us. I know it's akin to the old cliche that hearing something on the radio is more active than watching it on television, reading something in a book is more active than hearing it on radio, and doing something tonight while surrounded by paparazzi is more active than seeing yourself in the tabloids tomorrow. But just because something is an old cliche doesn't mean it's not true. Paris Hilton is an old cliche and she's real, much to my eternal disappointment.

[aside]

Why oh why do I even know who she is? I hate the thought that part of my brain is still being used up to retain knowledge of her existence. If I don't have room left to learn Spanish because of her, I'm going to be so mad.

[end of aside]

Video games, particularly the twitch-and-shoot kind, are remarkably passive activities for ones that involve such an increase in heart rate. I wonder what kind of effect that has on us? Do we feel less need to do other activities because, at least chemically, we feel we've already accomplished so much? ("I think I'll write the Great Canadian Novel ... but then again, I've already claimed a foreign land in the name of the Empire today. Maybe I'll just have a nap instead.")

But I suppose the same thing is said every time a generation embraces some newfangled medium. It was the same with the player pianos. It was the same with the talkies. It'll be the same when my nephew's kids inject virtual reality simulations directly into their brains. With each paradigm shift, the older generation looks upon the younger and weeps for the loss of so-called real entertainment, real relationships, real communication, real culture, real sex, real food, real reality...

As for me, I'm not all that worried about us. We're having fun, and that's gotta count for something. Doesn't it? And the Golden Ring of Whatchamacallit is kinda swell. Besides, it would seem that it takes a very long time for our brains to atrophy.

So I continue not judging my nephew (and, sometimes, not you either) for prostrating before the console game gods, but I also can see that I'm right on the cusp of telling you meddlesome kids with your jazz music and loose morals to stay off my lawn.

And get a haircut!

Carrington Vanston
carrington@carringtonvanston.net

[This article is released to the public domain.]