Salon's "Why We Fight"

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear this Wagner James Au guy is improving. Of course it’s all uphill from that Black and White review.

Au’s a schmuck.

In related news, Salon is now trading at 1 penny a share.

Is there a single, coherent thought in this? How can a guy go from talking about tactical shooters to bashing leftists to quoting Henry Jenkins to spouting heavily pro-american “war is inevitable, and all al-quaeda must die because they are fascist hate-mongers” to Novalogic is putting out a new Delta Force game to etc. etc.

4 pages of this stuff is too long.

>Salon is now trading at 1 penny a share

Ha ha! Au’s article caused the company to lose 75% of its value in one day. The boy is poison.

I think Wagner Au or Au Wagner or whatever the #)($*#$ is really a doctoral thesis CS project attempting to simulate a litcrit graduate student.

You guys are being a bit hard on the guy. That article at least had some merits… I very much valued the soldier talking about the relationship between his FPS experience and his military war experience. An interesting read.

The heavy Pro-America slant made me fairly sick, however.

Despite being pretentious (with Au fitting in well), Salon manages to provide good material on a semi-regular basis.

Finding a good source in the soldier and letting him talk in no way makes up for the atrocious article itself. :(

Edit: Not that this sentence is any better. Ow.

His Au-ness said:

There’s nothing generic about the opponents in NovaLogic’s Delta Force: Black Hawk Down, who fire at you from turret-mounted jeeps

Errr. . .

It’d probably be easier for them to drive and shoot from Jeep mounted turrets, but maybe that’s just me.

shouldn’t you be the last guy on earth to complain about something being pretentious?

shouldn’t you be the last guy on earth to complain about something being pretentious?[/quote]

Don’t confuse ambition with pretension.

Go away. Now.

Go away. Now.[/quote]


Obligatory disclaimer for the more recently joined Qt3ers: I am not related to that Wagner James guy.

  • Alan “not related to Wagner James” Au

[size=1]* this announcement brought to you by the Qt3 Department of Redundancy Department [/size]

There should be therapy groups for those who have the misfortune of being related to Au (Wagner James, not Alan).

After reading one of Au’s Salon essays a year or so ago, I looked up his phone number in the White Pages and called him up, introducing myself and imploring him never to write again.

When he published his next Salon essay, I got hold of his editor at Salon and implored him to stop buying Au’s hysterical pitches.

Both of them blew me off. At least I can say I’ve done all I can, short of physical interdiction, to put a halt to him.

Probably, it is the reaction that WJAu gets from his readers that makes him valuable as a “writer you love to hate.” Only there is no hate, and no love.

Guys, I might not be in the loop of things, but I thought Wagner James Au was a pretty good gaming journalist.

He wrote that lovely article about the fall of Looking Glass Studios a few years back (ok maybe I am a bit biased about that article since I was mentioned in it!), and other pieces of his I was impressed of.

Can someone give me the low-down on perhaps why all this discussion on his ability (or lack thereof) to write articles relating to the gaming community?

In an attempt to be fair, I think the main reason Au is attacked around here is basically his pretention. He’s the most visible member of the group of game journalists that want to “scholasticize” gaming. They generally want to advance it as an art form (or potential art form – they are quick to point out how immature it is), analyze it like literature, and discuss its significance to life and popular culture. This isn’t meant as a personal attack, but Brian Koontz does the same thing around here and faces similar… um… dialectic reprisal.

I have a feeling Au is exactly the sort of person a site like Salon wants. He discusses a popular subject (video games) in a way that legitimizes it for a “serious” and “thoughtful” readership.

The problem though Chris, is that he does it clumsily. Salon’s editors probably don’t care enough about videogames as a subject to notice… or care.