A Study of Genre
For the late, great Lou Reed, a true genre-defying genius.
Foreword
You may have noticed by now that this isn't the Magical History Tour (or, if not, you will probably be well on your way to noticing.) Don't fear: that series is more
Resurrection than
Indies and will be continuing next month.As for this month; well, let me explain why I have decided to take a short break.
First of all, writing and researching the History is a big task, and can take up a lot of my time. Writing this, on this other hand, is a relatively short process – a process which is also (largely) subjective, and therefore allows me to record thoughts straight away – and in a more organic fashion – without the need to keep everything I write completely (which autocorrect just changed to 'simpleton'...) factually accurate.
Secondly; this article will actually eventually form part of the History Tour series as a useful companion article – something which places what I'm researching and you, the reader, are (hopefully) learning into a more modern context. Genre is one of those things that we take for granted – that is, there is a feeling (or I certainly feel) that there is an underlying sense of 'yes, genres exist; we don't need any philosophical articles about them. Let's please leave them be for the good of our sanity'.
Indeed, there is only really a superficial simplicity to genrology (and that, it could be argued, depends which school of thought you advocate.) Yes, it could just be said that there are four genres, but that in itself – something which has been for years taken to be a core tenet of AARland – is contentious.
In this article, I won't be looking at how each genre evolved over time. That is more suited to the main History. Instead, I'll be looking at each of the 'main four' (a term I'll be using a lot – largely so that I don't have to repeatedly type
gameplay, history book, narrative and comedy), identifying notable sub-genres (or styles, depending on your personal views – more on that later) and notable AARs. This article will probably be quite scientific (or pseudo-scientific, as the case may be) in nature (and as such I'll probably litter it it's the occasional humorous quip or non-sequitur.) What was it I said about subjectivity earlier?
Hopefully you'll enjoy reading this – even if you outright disagree with everything I have to say. If so, please feel free to say such in this thread (which by no means has to die because this article has been published.)
Thanks,
DensleyBlair
Ideologies
It is important when studying genre to note the many different viewpoints and schools of thought to which people adhere. The authority with which I am able to classify the different schools of thought largely through my experiences with and impressions of posts in my
Can you help? thread. Of course, these are by no means definitive groupings, but I think they work well enough.
So, without further ado, I present the Genrological Spectrum of Ideologies!
(Listed from 'right' to 'left' – handily presented using Victoria-style political ideologies.)
Reactionism (or: Uncommon Tern-ism)
Arguably a sub-set of the Genre Conservatives, Reactionaries advocate the existence of only tree true genres, with comedy relegated to sub-genre status. Often, what liberals would consider sub-genres are 'styles'.
Conservatism (or: Not-So-Reluctant Fundamentalism)
Advocates the belief that there are (and always will be) four AAR genres – namely, the 'main four'. They accept the existence of many varying styles, but would not go so far as classing any as genres in their own right. More liberal conservatives (oxymoron count: 1) may acknowledge certain sub-genres.
Centrism (or: Confusionism)
The centrists advocate anything from liberal conservatism to conservatism liberalism. Sits between accepting only the main four as genres in their own right and a complex system involving a plethora of sub-genres (hence 'confusion'.)
Liberalism (or: Accepting All; Excepting None)
Genrological liberals are those who advocate the acceptance of many genres (notably Interactive and Video AARs) and a wide range of sub-genres.
[I don't know of any people who campaign to abolish the classification structure altogether, and therefore there are no anarcho-liberals. Similarly, I don't know of any people who would rather we just called everything a genre, and therefore there are no socialists. If there were, however, I'd bet good money that Belgiumruler would have something to do with it.
]
Genres
And finally we get to the meat of the article. In the following few paragraphs, I'll be looking at each of the main four, giving a bit of history and identifying common or notable sub-genres and styles. I'll also look at some of the more contentious genres out there in the dame fashion.
Gameplay
Gameplay AARs were the first to develop after the first proto-AARs. It was a natural progression to go from simply recording a log of events to adding pictures, as well as small explanations for why the author did certain things in the game. Though now often considered the least literarily rewarding, without gameplay AARs, we certainly wouldn't be a part of the same AARland. This small innovation developed gradually by EUII writers led to further, more experimental innovations – which in turn led to genres such as the history book and the narrative.
Today, there exists a large diversity amongst gameplay AARs. At their simplest form, they consist solely of pictures with captions underneath, offering a small amount of insight or rationale. Of these, the most basic will be told from the point of view of the player. Others are told from the points of view of the characters themselves (though I have seen instances in which this was mixed to create AARs where we have characters who apparently understand certain game mechanics giving their thoughts. These might also be tutorial AARs – with examples coming from eminent figures such as Avindian and Rensslaer.
Because of their simplicity, this genre is often best for those who aren't writing in their native language. Often, readers of gameplay AARs come to see just that – the gameplay. It is seldom that an author in these instances will be penalised for poor grammar or inaccurate spelling. This can also make gameplay a popular choice for new writers.
History Book
History Book was the first definite new genre to evolve from the early gameplay AARs – the result of experimentation by early authors who sought to make their own efforts different by writing as if a chronicler or historian.
Essentially, they are a slightly more refined version of the gameplay AAR. The premise of having a historian narrator allows for writers to give reasons for their actions in game into the text – usually altering it slightly so that, instead of just saying 'And lo! the king in his almighty wisdom did implement high crown authority' we would get some idea of a (potentially fictional) socio-political context in which the event supposedly took place.
Because of this propensity to include aspects not strictly in game, history book AARs are often a lot more wordy than simple gameplay works, and (the most accomplished, at least) therefore do often require more control over the language in which the piece is being written on the author's part. Despite this, those who comment on such AARs will likely not be too fussed should the occasional grammatical error occur.
History book AARs are perennial favourites – especially those done well (the work of Tanzhang, Jape, Merrick Chance' and MondoPotato come to mind) and can be very successful, if you're into that sort of thing. Due to being almost a halfway point between full on narratives and gameplays, history books tend also to attract not inconsiderable followings drawn from those who like seeing a game progress quickly, as well as those who are interested in background information and context. I have also noticed that Victoria and Europa Universalis tend to favour this genre more often than other fora.
Narrative
Narrative AARs were, along with history books, amongst the first few works to evolve from simple gameplay. In their purest form, narratives are essentially serialised novels, taking thousands upon thousands of words and full of polished, deft English.
At the other end of the narrative scale, we have what are often termed 'mixed narratives' – AARs which are almost a smorgasbord of different styles in one thread. These hybrids will often contain snippets of narrative – perhaps displayed in the form of a diary – and will combine elements of either history book, gameplay or both. Often, narratives that take long periods of time to write, and might only cover short periods of gameplay. History book sections can therefore be useful in providing a means of advancing the story quickly, whilst still giving readers an idea of what has happened in that particular history. This is a technique I have employed in my own work, which saw about four years pass in the first nine or so months of writing.
Being novels or novellas does, however, mean that narrative AARs are often not as popular amongst those with a less-than-confident grasp of the tongue in which they're writing. This also means that they do require a lot of effort to follow actively. Due to their verbose nature, they are often a big time investment to follow, and are as such not always as popular as other, lighter genres. Indeed, even compared with the popularity of the genre three to five years ago, we are seeing a sort of decline. Epic works of the past by the likes of Lord Durham, CatKnight and canonized which enjoyed immense popularity are rare now. Though the most polished works of narrative do often enjoy success, a narrative writer should expect a small but dedicated following, with only a handful of comments per update.
That said, the feeling of completing a narrative AAR can make the whole process worth it (imagine writing a >50,000 word novel) – and the genre by no means shows signs of waning. There will always be those prepared to write epic pieces of narrative fiction, but all too often we see these works being nipped in the bud by an apparent lack of interest – something common across all fora, though CKII seems to enjoy the highest number of such AARs. (I have written about this phenomena before in this very publication.)
My advice to anyone looking to write a narrative is this: don't expect big things straight away, but don't be put off by this. People will be reading, but often those who do read can find little about which to comment aside from writing techniques.
Comedy
Comedy is interesting as a genre, in that it can be said to straddle each of the other 'big three'. Comedy didn't particularly develop in the way that other genres did – that is, people actively experimenting. Instead, the genre came more from writers adding elements of humour to early gameplay AARs. Indeed, comedy AARs do tend to be gameplay AARs at their heart – possibly with humorous captions under pictures or some sort of narrator who adds a comedic element, whether intentional or not.
And this is the interesting thing. Often, comedy AARs don't set out as such, but will develop over time. A person might begin writing and be told that his style is funny, then seek to develop on that. AARs that start out as comedies are rare, though people such as Peter Ebbesen and phargle crafted and delivered them with aplomb in days gone by, creating hugely popular and successful pieces of work.
When done well, these are the potential rewards for comedy writers – awards and comments galore. When not done so well, comedy AARs can often just revert to gameplay – or even stop altogether.
Stylistically, comedies are often simple. Very seldom will we see actual narratives — more common forms of delivery including dialogue, and the classic gameplay templates. Comedy will often be derived from farcical situations or amusing characters. In-jokes can also prove popular, though aren't always assured routes to a laugh, as can deliberate anachronisms and nonsensical situations. Many comedies can even turn 'Pythonesque'.
The Contentious Genres
As I have done for the main four genres (and the only real universally accepted genres) I will now look at two of the more controversial genres to have emerged in recent years.
Interactive (IAAR)
Interactive AARs have existed for many years, though have taken time to develop – and have done so in different ways. According to Tanzhang, there are really four different types of interactive AARs, which I shall briefly cover.
Collaborative
Collaborative AARs are essentially narratives written by a group of people all contributing to make one story. These are the oldest sorts of interactive AARs – and, arguably, aren't interactive at all. Instead, Tanzhang proposes, these can either be considered 'proto-interactive' or just collaborative, and fall into two further sub-genres – namely, the MCAAR and the common multiplayer AAR. MCAARs see many people writing to form one story, and enjoyed most popularity during the EU1 and 2 period, with Lord Durham's
The Free Company and Ariel's
Who Killed Charles Cromwell? These are essentially collaborative writing projects, and seemingly extinct as a genre nowadays.
The latter – multiplayer AARs – involve a write up on an MP game by all players, and often assume gameplay styles. These tend to be popular with HoI players (see the Carnage series) but not exclusively.
Reactive
These were the first real interactive AARs – and the first AARs that we would still recognise as such. These AARs would see commenters form political parties with manifestoes and goals. Other commenters will then vote, and the 'host' will play the game according to the manifesto of the victorious party. This cycle continues until the end of the game.
With these AARs, while some aspects of later role-playing AARs were present (for example, with people creating their own party leaders) it is important to note that the driving force – and main aspect – of these AARs was the commenters voting and reacting to in-game events.
Realpolitik and
E Pluribus Unum are notable (and possibly the only) examples of such AARs.
Second Person
Like reactive AARs, commenters in second person AARs get the chance to vote in elections – the results of which determine how the game as out. They differ from reactive AARs, however, in that commenters so not create their own parties and leaders, and do simply vote. Most aspects of role playing are not present in second person AARs, with commenters voting as themselves – though one's can assume the viewpoint of someone else when voting.
These AARs are best seen in Tommy4Ever's interactive AARs, with the latest interactive AAR in these fora –
Blood and Iron – created in this format.
Role Playing
Role playing interactive AARs are the furthest away from the conventional AAR. Though they still function with updates and such, players (rather than commenters) assume fictional personae and progress via debates – proposing laws (that may or may not affect the actual game) and actually controlling the game.
This type of interactive AAR is often the source of the most controversy, with many not considering them AARs at all – more Role Playing games befitting more the OT fora than AARland. Nonetheless, they remain very popular, and do have a dedicated following.
The first of these AARs was
The Presidents.
Video (Let's Play)
Video AARs have always been controversial in AARland – even more so than the aforementioned RP Interactive AARs. To my mind, this is largely because they are inherently different – there are no readers, as such; they are on a different website; we see the action as it happens rather than reading it afterwards (thereby actually possibly disqualifying itself from being an After Action Report)... The list goes on.
I actually really like so-called 'Let's Plays' when they're well done, though. The work of people like quill18 and Arumba is polished, and the commentary is coherent and relevant. Above all, I believe that actually watching someone playing the game as if in front of you is also the best way to learn (I have never watched an LP for HoI – I have no idea how to play the game.)
Yet they do remain an external, alien world. It seems to me like this is why they are currently not accepted as universally as a standard gameplay piece (essentially, an LP is just a gameplay AAR in video form.) Will they ever be regarded as such? I don't know.
Thanks
Thank you once again to all of you who helped by contributing your views and opinions – especially Tanzhang for his detailed thoughts and history of interactive AARs. This article would've been a lot harder without you all. And of course, thank you to my magazine colleagues who continue to make the AARlander a fantastic, high-quality publication.
Oh, and thanks for reading. If you were affected by any aspects of this article, please feel free to send shrapnel in the general direction of my posterior either via PM, or this thread.
Next Month: EU2 – 2003 Onwards: A Look at Greatness