Interview: Karen Healey
A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed the fabulous Karen Healey. Part 1 is below:
Karen Healey is a New Zealand writer, gamer, and academic, currently based at the University of Melbourne. She's studying the fan culture surrounding superhero comics, is involved with the feminist collective Girl-Wonder and the women-oriented gaming magazine Cerise, and has a young adult novel, Guardian of the Dead, due out in April 2010.
You've described yourself as a casual gamer. Can you unpack that a bit for us? What, to you, defines a casual game or casual gamer? What bits of gaming give you fun?
Okay! I'm a casual gamer in that I don't commit the same time to gaming that I do to my less casual pursuits. I'm not a casual reader, for example. I play an RPG weekly, more or less, and Bejeweled on my iPhone, and I have a love/hate affair with WoW.
So for you it's more about time spent than approach to?
Yep. I love gaming when I'm actually doing it, but I don't devote a lot of time to it.
So, moving on to roleplaying (because that's Gametime's real obsession :-)), what's the thing that most attracts you to it?
The roleplaying part - the improvised storytelling. I have a background in drama and theatresports, so I really love those moments where the DM and players suddenly crack out the most amazing reactions to situations.
What kind of a reaction, or event, would get you really involved in your game?
Well, you have to understand that this game is purest crack. We have been playing with the same group for about five years now, and though we do different settings (Buffy RPG, Angel RPG, X-men RPG, and the current is the Harry Potter universe, but in an American school for magic) a lot of the same things turn up. Like, for instance, Nicolas Cage appears in every game as an inept wizard. So every time that happens, I'm instantly delighted.
But my favourite game-involving thing is usually when something's happening with my character that the DM and I know about; but the other players are oblivious.
BAM! He can fly!
Or, it is time for a TRAGIC DEATH.
Does this mean you spend time talking to the DM behind the scenes about how you want your character or the game to go?
Definitely. It's a really collaborative process. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but it's great for our group.
This is going to make me sound like a bit of a dweeb - over the last few years I've seen people describe things as ‘crack,’ like fanfic they're written, or a roleplaying game they're in, or a TV programme that they like. I've kind of got a handle on the term, but I don't think exactly. What would you mean by it?
Oh, it's crack. It's bad for you, but YOU CANNOT STOP, because it makes you feel good. Or maybe it's just hilarious weird and crazy.
Have you ever had issues getting on the same page as your DM and other players? What kind of things would you do to get around miscommunication issues?
I can't remember any. Basically our philosophy is that things should be as awesome as possible, always.
Getting back to your definition of a casual game - you’ve been roleplaying with the same group of people once a week for five years, but you don’t think you spend a lot of time on it?
No, I don't think 2-3 hours a week is that much. Of course, that's comparative. And we skip out a lot - I've missed the last three sessions because of other commitments. I know I'm going to turn up and someone will have dyed my character's hair green.
So it's OK for people to take over protagonist control of other people's characters?
In our group, sure, although not for really drastic changes. Once, the last time the player was in control of the PC in question, she was eating chicken, so we dragged her around for the next four sessions with a rotting drumstick in her hand. That was fun.
In your regular online RPGs, what kind of system(s) does your group use. Like, a formally published one, or homebrew, or freeform...?
I think it's based on the Buffy RPG system, but we play pretty fast and loose with it. We tried to play the X-men game with their RPG system, but it's a total mess, so we kinda gave up on it.
About the only thing I know about the Buffy RPG is that there's an explicit inequality in spotlight time - the Slayer who gets lots of time upfront, and various mates who might spend a lot of time as supporting cast. Is that something that comes through in your games?
Oh, no. It's not actually spotlight time. What happens is the Slayer gets more upfront character strengths, but the White Hats have more points to spend during each session. So a Slayer will be very strong, and very fast. But she doesn't, for example, get to say "You know what, I'm going to use my good luck and reroll that." Or whatever.
But yeah, we screwed around with it anyway. I think that's a good idea in general - fit the system to your group, not your group to the system.
Right. I notice that your list of games is very media-influenced. Is that a deliberate choice by your group?
Those are the things that we like. I've done fantasy gaming and traditional D&D with other groups, but you know, less potential for inept Nicolas Cage. (One of our members was pretty miffed that we did Harry Potter this time, because she had vowed never to read the books, but she didn't have to to make it work, so that's cool.)
Do you have a preference for online or real life roleplaying? Does it vary for different games?
Hah, well, my current group live in four time zones, so real life would be a little tricky.
But compared to the games that you have played in real life, do you think there's a functional difference in how the game goes?
Yeah, people spend less time talking over each other and the jokes are better. There's less energy, but it feels faster - I don't know if that's a function of the format or because we tend to streamline the gaming process.
Do you get problems with game mechanics? I mean, things like people having different ideas about what they should be able to do, or who is winning a particular conflict?
I can't remember any. People tend to have a pretty good grasp on what their characters can and can't do, and if the DM rules against something we trust it's for a good reason. She's evil, but in a fun way.
This is a question from Morgue: Female participation in tabletop RPGs is significantly less than male participation, whereas in the world of online "RP" female participation far outstrips male participation. Why do you think these superficially similar pastimes are so gendered? Is this problematic in any way?
I think that part of it is that online participation is significantly physically safer, and for women, especially young women, that is a genuine concern. A fifteen year old boy goes to his mate's house and plays an RPG all Sunday with people he's never met before, and that's usually going to be okay. A girl in the same situation might feel considerably more trepidation about it, especially if she believes, rightly or wrongly, that she'll be the only girl there.
So that's one factor.
Another is that media fandom is a huge draw into online RP gaming. And there are thousands of fandom communities that are female-run and female-driven, so that's a starting point for a lot of women.
Do you see much of a tie-in with fan fiction writing?
Oh, god yes. Have you seen the LJ RPG communities? There's a ton. That's not a method of gaming I'm attracted to, but they're really huge. So, there are these big gaming communities where people take a role and play through comments and in their own journals - producing a collaborative story, again.
Right. One of the things I've noticed about the fan fiction I’ve read is how much of a relationship there is between the writers and the readers - the review comments are a really big deal to each writer, they'll often pick up ideas from each other, or give specific prompts or writing challenges - now that I think about it, it heads very much into collaborative storytelling as well.
Absolutely. Go collective media.
You've spent a lot of time studying the world of comics, and particularly the fandom of superhero comics. Is there the same kind of collaboration between writers and readers going on there?
Very much so. I could talk about it a bit, but I'd start pulling out words like 'archontic literature' and 'hierarchy‑in‑flux' and we'd be here a while. Basically, though, most people professionally involved in the comics industry are working on titles they were fans of first, they're actually third or fourth generation pro-fans. Not just of comics in general, but of, say, Spiderman. (When I say comics industry here, I mean the Big Two - indies and the smaller pros have a very different vibe, but even there they generally owe some debt to the tights brigade.)
Most Twilight fans know they're never going to work on Twilight, but it's different for comics, and it's really interesting to see what effects that collaboration and movement has on the industry and the fan relationships.
Can you give a brief definition of ‘archontic literature’ and ‘hierarchy‑in‑flux’?
Well, the first one takes several pages in my dissertation, so, let's see. Archontic lit is where you have an original text, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer the TV series, and that is the original text of the Buffy archive. Then people start taking things from that text - like the concept of Slayers, or Chosen Ones, or Buffy and Angel being in love - and create new entries to the archive. So, for example, all the tie-in novels. Or the comics. Or fanfic. Or fanvids. They are all entries into the Buffy archive.
Buffy is actually a weird example, because the actual originary text is the movie. But most people approach the series as the originary text. Anyway, my dissertation argues that superhero comics are, and have been for at least three decades, a corporate archontic literature.
So you could argue that things like the literature surrounding mythologies are archontic? They're added to over time by many authors?
Absolutely. But those aren't corporatised. I mean, Disney owns bits of the archive, but doesn't seek to control the whole thing. And hierarchy-in-flux is a hierarchy where who has the power tends to shift a bit.
Can you give an example?
Sure. Okay, Buffy again. The network has the power in that situation, nominally. They own the copyright, they fund the show. The creators - writers, directors, actors - have some power in what happens with the show. And the watchers are at the bottom of the hierarchical pile - they have nominally no power at all, they have to take what they're given. BUT if there are no watchers, there's no show.
(Actually, the advertisers should be in this hierarchy too, so pretend I said that.) So the network and the creators have to keep in mind what the watchers are watching, or what they don't want to see. That's not hierarchy‑in‑flux, yet. But if Buffy carried on for, say, twenty years, and the watchers became creators, and some became network people, and those boundaries started to give, that would be.
So, third or fourth generation pro-fans rolling into the writing teams for superhero comics.
Yep.
Karen Healey is a New Zealand writer, gamer, and academic, currently based at the University of Melbourne. She's studying the fan culture surrounding superhero comics, is involved with the feminist collective Girl-Wonder and the women-oriented gaming magazine Cerise, and has a young adult novel, Guardian of the Dead, due out in April 2010.
You've described yourself as a casual gamer. Can you unpack that a bit for us? What, to you, defines a casual game or casual gamer? What bits of gaming give you fun?
Okay! I'm a casual gamer in that I don't commit the same time to gaming that I do to my less casual pursuits. I'm not a casual reader, for example. I play an RPG weekly, more or less, and Bejeweled on my iPhone, and I have a love/hate affair with WoW.
So for you it's more about time spent than approach to?
Yep. I love gaming when I'm actually doing it, but I don't devote a lot of time to it.
So, moving on to roleplaying (because that's Gametime's real obsession :-)), what's the thing that most attracts you to it?
The roleplaying part - the improvised storytelling. I have a background in drama and theatresports, so I really love those moments where the DM and players suddenly crack out the most amazing reactions to situations.
What kind of a reaction, or event, would get you really involved in your game?
Well, you have to understand that this game is purest crack. We have been playing with the same group for about five years now, and though we do different settings (Buffy RPG, Angel RPG, X-men RPG, and the current is the Harry Potter universe, but in an American school for magic) a lot of the same things turn up. Like, for instance, Nicolas Cage appears in every game as an inept wizard. So every time that happens, I'm instantly delighted.
But my favourite game-involving thing is usually when something's happening with my character that the DM and I know about; but the other players are oblivious.
BAM! He can fly!
Or, it is time for a TRAGIC DEATH.
Does this mean you spend time talking to the DM behind the scenes about how you want your character or the game to go?
Definitely. It's a really collaborative process. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but it's great for our group.
This is going to make me sound like a bit of a dweeb - over the last few years I've seen people describe things as ‘crack,’ like fanfic they're written, or a roleplaying game they're in, or a TV programme that they like. I've kind of got a handle on the term, but I don't think exactly. What would you mean by it?
Oh, it's crack. It's bad for you, but YOU CANNOT STOP, because it makes you feel good. Or maybe it's just hilarious weird and crazy.
Have you ever had issues getting on the same page as your DM and other players? What kind of things would you do to get around miscommunication issues?
I can't remember any. Basically our philosophy is that things should be as awesome as possible, always.
Getting back to your definition of a casual game - you’ve been roleplaying with the same group of people once a week for five years, but you don’t think you spend a lot of time on it?
No, I don't think 2-3 hours a week is that much. Of course, that's comparative. And we skip out a lot - I've missed the last three sessions because of other commitments. I know I'm going to turn up and someone will have dyed my character's hair green.
So it's OK for people to take over protagonist control of other people's characters?
In our group, sure, although not for really drastic changes. Once, the last time the player was in control of the PC in question, she was eating chicken, so we dragged her around for the next four sessions with a rotting drumstick in her hand. That was fun.
In your regular online RPGs, what kind of system(s) does your group use. Like, a formally published one, or homebrew, or freeform...?
I think it's based on the Buffy RPG system, but we play pretty fast and loose with it. We tried to play the X-men game with their RPG system, but it's a total mess, so we kinda gave up on it.
About the only thing I know about the Buffy RPG is that there's an explicit inequality in spotlight time - the Slayer who gets lots of time upfront, and various mates who might spend a lot of time as supporting cast. Is that something that comes through in your games?
Oh, no. It's not actually spotlight time. What happens is the Slayer gets more upfront character strengths, but the White Hats have more points to spend during each session. So a Slayer will be very strong, and very fast. But she doesn't, for example, get to say "You know what, I'm going to use my good luck and reroll that." Or whatever.
But yeah, we screwed around with it anyway. I think that's a good idea in general - fit the system to your group, not your group to the system.
Right. I notice that your list of games is very media-influenced. Is that a deliberate choice by your group?
Those are the things that we like. I've done fantasy gaming and traditional D&D with other groups, but you know, less potential for inept Nicolas Cage. (One of our members was pretty miffed that we did Harry Potter this time, because she had vowed never to read the books, but she didn't have to to make it work, so that's cool.)
Do you have a preference for online or real life roleplaying? Does it vary for different games?
Hah, well, my current group live in four time zones, so real life would be a little tricky.
But compared to the games that you have played in real life, do you think there's a functional difference in how the game goes?
Yeah, people spend less time talking over each other and the jokes are better. There's less energy, but it feels faster - I don't know if that's a function of the format or because we tend to streamline the gaming process.
Do you get problems with game mechanics? I mean, things like people having different ideas about what they should be able to do, or who is winning a particular conflict?
I can't remember any. People tend to have a pretty good grasp on what their characters can and can't do, and if the DM rules against something we trust it's for a good reason. She's evil, but in a fun way.
This is a question from Morgue: Female participation in tabletop RPGs is significantly less than male participation, whereas in the world of online "RP" female participation far outstrips male participation. Why do you think these superficially similar pastimes are so gendered? Is this problematic in any way?
I think that part of it is that online participation is significantly physically safer, and for women, especially young women, that is a genuine concern. A fifteen year old boy goes to his mate's house and plays an RPG all Sunday with people he's never met before, and that's usually going to be okay. A girl in the same situation might feel considerably more trepidation about it, especially if she believes, rightly or wrongly, that she'll be the only girl there.
So that's one factor.
Another is that media fandom is a huge draw into online RP gaming. And there are thousands of fandom communities that are female-run and female-driven, so that's a starting point for a lot of women.
Do you see much of a tie-in with fan fiction writing?
Oh, god yes. Have you seen the LJ RPG communities? There's a ton. That's not a method of gaming I'm attracted to, but they're really huge. So, there are these big gaming communities where people take a role and play through comments and in their own journals - producing a collaborative story, again.
Right. One of the things I've noticed about the fan fiction I’ve read is how much of a relationship there is between the writers and the readers - the review comments are a really big deal to each writer, they'll often pick up ideas from each other, or give specific prompts or writing challenges - now that I think about it, it heads very much into collaborative storytelling as well.
Absolutely. Go collective media.
You've spent a lot of time studying the world of comics, and particularly the fandom of superhero comics. Is there the same kind of collaboration between writers and readers going on there?
Very much so. I could talk about it a bit, but I'd start pulling out words like 'archontic literature' and 'hierarchy‑in‑flux' and we'd be here a while. Basically, though, most people professionally involved in the comics industry are working on titles they were fans of first, they're actually third or fourth generation pro-fans. Not just of comics in general, but of, say, Spiderman. (When I say comics industry here, I mean the Big Two - indies and the smaller pros have a very different vibe, but even there they generally owe some debt to the tights brigade.)
Most Twilight fans know they're never going to work on Twilight, but it's different for comics, and it's really interesting to see what effects that collaboration and movement has on the industry and the fan relationships.
Can you give a brief definition of ‘archontic literature’ and ‘hierarchy‑in‑flux’?
Well, the first one takes several pages in my dissertation, so, let's see. Archontic lit is where you have an original text, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer the TV series, and that is the original text of the Buffy archive. Then people start taking things from that text - like the concept of Slayers, or Chosen Ones, or Buffy and Angel being in love - and create new entries to the archive. So, for example, all the tie-in novels. Or the comics. Or fanfic. Or fanvids. They are all entries into the Buffy archive.
Buffy is actually a weird example, because the actual originary text is the movie. But most people approach the series as the originary text. Anyway, my dissertation argues that superhero comics are, and have been for at least three decades, a corporate archontic literature.
So you could argue that things like the literature surrounding mythologies are archontic? They're added to over time by many authors?
Absolutely. But those aren't corporatised. I mean, Disney owns bits of the archive, but doesn't seek to control the whole thing. And hierarchy-in-flux is a hierarchy where who has the power tends to shift a bit.
Can you give an example?
Sure. Okay, Buffy again. The network has the power in that situation, nominally. They own the copyright, they fund the show. The creators - writers, directors, actors - have some power in what happens with the show. And the watchers are at the bottom of the hierarchical pile - they have nominally no power at all, they have to take what they're given. BUT if there are no watchers, there's no show.
(Actually, the advertisers should be in this hierarchy too, so pretend I said that.) So the network and the creators have to keep in mind what the watchers are watching, or what they don't want to see. That's not hierarchy‑in‑flux, yet. But if Buffy carried on for, say, twenty years, and the watchers became creators, and some became network people, and those boundaries started to give, that would be.
So, third or fourth generation pro-fans rolling into the writing teams for superhero comics.
Yep.