Pulitzer Prize winning author says GTA IV ain't art

I didn't think the story was all that great either, but I don't like The Sopranos or The Godfather very much either. I've never been able to really get into that kind of stuff.

It occurs to me that Diaz only explained his thoughts on the matter of the tremendous, and in some ways well-deserved, hype leading up to GTA4's release and the subsequent joyous mouth-froth and wild comparisons. His opinion may, to some, reflect his ignorance on certain matters, but even that fact does not make him stupid, a pretentious member of the cloistered elite, or, horror of horrors, a non-gamer. All it makes him is a talented writer with a well-articulated perspective on something he enjoys doing. A person may disagree--and retreating behind the argument of universal subjectivity in art or calling Junot Diaz names and attempting to impugn his reputation on Joystiq's comment boards certainly serve as expressions of disagreement--but one should be glad that someone of his education and credentials took the time not only to say he plays video games regularly but to imply that he thinks discussing the artistic merit of video games is worth his time and the time of the WSJ's expansive readership. It seems everyone bristles whenever someone with an MA dares to put video games on a lower shelf than Tolstoy.

For my part, GTA4 is an entertaining game when I have hours to put into it, and it may one day be classified as interactive art. The intricacies of what that classification would entail elude me, but I would not mind seeing it. Having said that, I'm in no hurry to see it, either, nor do I think it'll happen anytime soon. Critics (literary or otherwise) have hardly argued comic strips into a category, for goodness' sake, and film critics--even in something as high-crust as the New Yorker--still don't have much influence in the art community. You won't see anyone get to video games for a while.

I should've said "a MA." Darn consonant sounds.