By Slunks 1 Comments
I just realized I haven't posted for nearly a full year. That's quite embarrassing for me. I feel disgraced. I feel like I've let people down. "Where is Slunkadunka, with the slamdunka," people ask (I don't call myself that). So let's give a quick update on what the hell has been going on over the last year that's kept me so busy. Then we'll move onto the real topic.
- I met the love of my life (I hate saying that in a blog, for some reason)
- Been working my ass off
- Currently taking three classes
- Writing for the college's newspaper (Student Life beat, and video games too)
- Unfortunately have barely played any games.
- Got about 15 hours into Dragon Age: Origins and loved it. Then...
- Mass Effect 2 came out. Loved it for about 15 hours, then lacked time to play it.
- I squeeze in Company of Heroes to fulfill my kick, but that's it. That game is like nicotine.
Well, that was a lot shorter than I thought. Makes my life seem boring in some way. Regardless, I've been pretty out of it in terms of the gaming industry, but my experience in journalism has really grown. I'm enjoying that part of it, just not all the time it takes away. It's a love/hate relationship, really.
But I recently butted heads with my editors. Here's the situation: I wrote a story on how used video games affect the gaming industry a few weeks ago. Obviously, I put a lot of hard effort into it and talked to many people about the issue. It was a great, educational piece that I believe really, really informs gamers (and moms too! :D) on something they may not know. Now, I could give you a huge background on this, but I know it'd be boring and I'm also low on time. To put it quick as possible, the story never was published because one of my editors fooled around with the structure and really messed it up. The other editor, whom didn't work with me on the story, read that version and wouldn't let it run.
Now, I understand if the piece is unacceptable and doesn't serve a purpose, then a good editor should work with the reporter to make it better. Or if the hypothesis has really gone off of its original path, perhaps move on to something else. But I have yet to be told why exactly the editor didn't want to run it. I gave her the original, untampered version, but she couldn't wrap her head around it. My time is valuable god-damnit, and if you don't like something, then get over it and look at it objectively. Then tell me. Obviously, I'm still not quite over the situation. It's always hard the first time, most journalists say (Eric Lipton of NYTimes told me that). But I'd be completely fine if I had a well thought-out reason to back up the rejection.
Here's the main kicker: I'm now writing a story about the history of sex in video games. Something so fucking opposite of integrity and a good image for journalism and gamers that it makes me cringe. I'm doing the best as I can to make the story tasteful, but I really just don't know. I'm going with a "the evolution of sex in video games" approach. Trying to show how it has matured, but at the same time it really hasn't.
Part of me wants to just stand up and yell, "This isn't right!" or "Why should I write this shit?!" But what can I do. I've decided to post the story below, which is why this blog will be humongous. Feel free to read at your own leisure. Also, random disclaimer: Pretty awkward that I ran into another Steven Granieri. If anybody used to know him, he went by "whitecloud" on GameSpot & Giantbomb. The one in my story is a different Granieri -- pretty weird! When he told me his name, I was a little stunned. Heh heh.