From reading the article it's not clear whether the author ever spoke to Alex, which seems strange given that she opines on his state of mind and internal life. It would be one thing if she were just talking about her reactions to the streams, but she goes further than that. Maybe there was an interview and it's just not directly quoted because it's not a journalistic piece, but I don't think it was described either?
I'll second that it's odd how internal some of the descriptions of Alex are -- what makes it odder is that you could have isolated it to a couple of the external moments that she quoted, and not have lost the thread of the essay very much at all. Good read, though!
Despite criticizing "playbor" and capitalist constructions of the value of time, the author of the article plays into those ideas by suggesting that time spent relaxing has less value to the individual than time spent producing.
I feel like the article could've been better if the author wrote it from her perspective of engaging with two new art forms (video games and streaming) that she was previously not engaging with. Instead she just sort of parroted a bunch of talking points that people who are invested in this industry already talk about all the time. Instead, this reads like a review of a sci-fi movie from someone who doesn't like sci-fi. The author even refers to Giant Bomb as "indie," which is not correct. Alex Navarro, who has a steady-paying job for a gaming site, shouldn't be compared to Twitch streamers trying to get their big break. Instead, the comparison and point that makes sense would be to compare to Patrick Klepek, who has written about making sure any games he plays for work he does so while on the clock.
@bladeofcreation: To be fair to the author, they do make that distinction about Alex and twitch streamers. Also, Patrick gets a salary and benefits (I assume) working for Vice so he's not really the same either. I get your point though.
I thought it was an interesting read. The one comparison that struck me as off was equating labour spent on open-source software to that of Uber drivers. Open source software is free and runs off donations so people working to improve it are contributing to a collaborative effort that has already helped them avoid paying for expensive alternatives. I'm not really seeing the connection between that and the gig economy or Uber drivers being overworked/ and incentivized to benefit higher-ups.
edit: to be clear I still thought it was very neat! thanks for sharing OP
tbh I was expecting something totally cringeworthy at first but this wasn't bad, especially for someone coming from an academic perspective with little exposure to video games.
Log in to comment