Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki
In this case, I might be talking specifically to you, but more than likely, since this is a hypothetical situation, I mean that any person could be denoted by "you." We use such expressions in daily life all the time, and plenty of times in articles or scholarly journals. This is, in America, at least, called Proverbial You. If I were to speak about what "I" could or should do, but could be replaced by anyone else, then I am speaking of Proverbial I. Since I was speaking not about me personally, but me as member of the public, and therefore could be replaced by any member of the public, not just myself specifically, I was using Proverbial I. Does this make sense?
|
Perfectly.
I did understand how you were using it after that last post and I wasn't trying to imply you were making it up, but it definitely seems be a discrepancy between British and American english. Over here I think it's called the "Generalized You" and what you know as the 'proverbial I' then must be what I understand to be something like a second-person 'I'. As I mentioned before, in my experience something 'proverbial' is normally understood to be related directly to a specific idiom. Such as, "If I wore that I'd stick out like the proverbial thumb" or "We're getting up the proverbial creek here guys...". Glad to have cleared that up!
Unfortunately as to whether the producer is thinking them is probably shaky ground. The cynic in me doubts whether as a money-spinner they really care or not, and don't simply possess a "lets milk it while we can" mentality. I think for practical reasons, proving that any producer (if they do) are purposefully being incisive could well be impossible, but they could simply be neglecting close scrutiny of what the affects are.
What bothers me, and perhaps this is a very western perspective, is that if these games were say, focused on the abuse of a single racial stereotype, they possibly would never have even hit the production line on grounds of racism. Why then is it acceptable for a focus on abuse of women, or at least for it to be considered in very different terms?
In continuation from that, I'm not sure I fully understand your last point, so I will simply say that the impression I have is that these games seem to be quite gendered in and of themselves, and so that, to me, makes gender issues relevant.