ENG 231 5.M: Complicating Aristotle’s Notion of Catharsis

Today’s Plan:

  • Ross 1240 Computer Lab Wednesday and Friday
  • Game Sign Ups
  • Curran on Catharsis

Ross 1240 Computer Lab Wednesday and Friday

My goal is for us to work out a heuristic on tragedy in class. As with our first project, we will be working collaboratively in a Google Doc.

Game Sign Ups

Let’s make it official.

Curran on Catharsis

Once again we read. Note that in your paper I will ask you to cite this Anglea Curran chapter and argue for which senses of catharsis she explicates help you make sense of your gaming experience.

Homework

Keep on playing and writing in your gaming journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 231 5.M: Complicating Aristotle’s Notion of Catharsis

ENG 328 5.M: Mini-Project #3, IFS Flyer Design

Today’s Plan:

  • Project Change! / Schedule
  • Flyer Information

Project Change!

As I was looking at our schedule this morning, I decided to make a change and flip-flop our next two mini-projects. While I am sure you are growing tired of making flyers, we’ve got one more to make–promotional movie flyers and instagram posts for UNCo’s International Film Series, led by the English Department’s own Yavanna Brownlee. I want us to work on these flyers this week (in-class crit on Friday, final drafts due Monday) and then we will move into InDesign and the menu assignment next week. I want to do this project first to make sure we get the posters to them in time to print and advertise the March 3rd film. So here’s our revised upcoming schedule:

  • 4.Friday: Typography, HW: Read WSINYE Chapter on Type (you do not have to read the section on logo design). HW: Adobe InDesign Classroom in a Book, start chapter 4 “Working with Objects” (90 minutes).
  • 5.Monday: Intro IFS Assignment. Discuss Typography. Quick InDesign Assignment.
  • 5.Wednesday: Work Day. Work on IFS Draft, InDesign Classroom in a Book 5 “Flowing Text”(45 minutes) and/or 6 “Editing Text” (45 minutes).
  • 5.Friday: IFS Crit
  • 6.Monday: IFS Final. Complete IDCiaB 5 and 6.
  • 6.Wednesday: Introduce Menu Assignment WSINYE Color. HW: InDesign Classroom in a Book 7 “Typography” (60 minutes).
  • 6.Friday: Menu Work day. HW: WSINYE Mini-Art School
  • 7.Monday: Menu Work day
  • 7.Wednesday: Menu draft. Menu reflection assignment.
  • 7.Friday: Menu Final. Reward: a glorious weekend without homework. Unless you didn’t complete the reflection assignment.

IFS Flyer Information

Here’s the information Tori Beaty supplied me back in early January. I emailed today to get confirmations on need/times/places:

They Called Me King Tiger as part of the LatinX Film Festival in partnership with the Caesar Chavez Center: March 3rd 2023

– ***This one is a maybe, it is part of a film festival and may have flyers being made for it already, I will let you know if we need it as soon as I know. It will be in Lindou Auditorium – Time isn’t set in stone yet but probably somewhere around 4 or 4:30, I’ll get those details to you if we need the flyer.

The Breadwinner: March 23, 2023 @ 7 PM in Lindou Auditorium (For Women’s History Month)

Cyrano (Peter Dinklage version): April 6th, 2023 @ 7 PM in Lindou Auditorium

Nausicaa – For the week of Earth Day: April 20th, 2023 in Lindou Auditorium @ 7 PM

The Last Shop on Main Street in partnership with the Greeley Holocaust Observance: April 27th, 2023 @ 6 PM in Lindou Auditorium.

We are still in the process of scheduling Lindou auditorium, so the date and venue for a few of these may change, but I will let you know of any changes ASAP. These should be finalized within the next couple of weeks. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist you.

We appreciate you.

Deliverables:

  • One standard 8.5 x 11 design, preferably in InDesign (but Photoshop is acceptable)
    • You are free to design this with or without a bleed; however, if you do utilize a full-page bleed design, make sure it is no-bleed friendly (nothing essential sitting near a 1.2 inch of the edge)
    • Your flyer design should incorporate a description of the film. I want you to work with a block of body text and to find a place for it in your design
    • Your image can include as much or as little of the original movie design as possible
    • Your image needs to include UNC English and IFS logos
  • One square design for social media

I imagine we will be ripping and scrubbing some images for these projects, so I have created a folder to share .png assets.

I have also created a table for sign-ups.

While I expect collaboration on this project, I also want everyone to create their own design. Everyone, no matter your current proficiency level, will benefit from getting more practice with our technological tools and applying our design concepts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on ENG 328 5.M: Mini-Project #3, IFS Flyer Design

ENG 328 4.F: Typography & InDesign

Today’s Plan:

  • Did You Complete the English Department Student Survey?
  • Introduction to Typography
  • Upcoming Schedule
  • Homework

Introduction to Typography

So far this semester we’ve generally worked with layouts and alignment. We’ve talked about creating focal points (often by) developing contrast. In a sense, we’ve been thinking about design in terms of grabbing attention more than communicating information. Most of our designs have included minimal amounts of body copy, if any. Now we are going to transition a bit to working with more text, and that means we have to talk about typography.

For homework I’ll ask you to read the WSINYE chapter on Typography. But, to be honest, I learned a lot about typography from websites and communities dedicated to mocking bad typography. Here’s my theory, typographers and designers are often a fragile bunch because no one really wants to pay them for the work they do. Everyone sort of thinks that they can just do it. This is a problem with art in general. My wife has an MFA in painting, worked in some great theaters over the years. After our daughter was born, she decided she would do some painting to make some extra money. She found that people generally were willing to pay about $100 for a portrait of their child or dog. A portrait that might take her 8 hours to complete. Do the math. It is bad.

Hmm. Might be time for this. (As a counterpoint).

Anyways, on to the mockery.

A few keys terms:

  • Font: style (serif (traditional, old style, modern), sans-serif (thin or slab), decorative (script, weird stuff). (see WSINYE for which fonts work best on paper and which on screen). Note that Canva has a useful page for pairing fonts.
  • Font: weight, thick / thin
  • (Vertical) Space
  • : leading (pronounced ledding), line-spacing. If your letter has exaggerated x-height, then you might increase line-height.

  • (Horizontal) Space: tracking and kerning, space between letters. Do we have time for a game?

Upcoming Schedule

  • Friday (today): Typography, HW: Read WSINYE Chapter on Type (you do not have to read the section on logo design). HW: Adobe InDesign Classroom in a Book, start chapter 4 “Working with Objects” (90 minutes).
  • Monday: Intro Menu Assignment. Discuss Typography. Quick InDesign Assignment.
  • Wednesday: Work on InDesign Classroom in a Book 5 “Flowing Text”(45 minutes) and 6 “Editing Text” (45 minutes).
  • Friday: Work Day. HW: Menu draft.
  • Monday: Menu Crit.
  • Wednesday: Final Menu / IFS Posters Assignment / WSINYE Color. HW: InDesign Classroom in a Book 7 “Typography” (60 minutes).
  • Friday: IFS Poster Work Day, HW: WSINYE Mini-Art School
  • Monday: IFS Poster Crit
  • Wednesday: IFS Poster Final
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 328 4.F: Typography & InDesign

ENG 231 4.M/W: Games and/as Tragedy

Today’s Plan:

  • Meakin Reading
  • Tragedy Introductory Lecture
  • Homework

Meakin Reading

I asked you to respond to 3 of the following 5 questions:
What do Meakin et al see as the purpose and/or value of tragedy?
How do Meakin et al define catharsis?
How do Meakin et al define aporia? How does it relate to catharsis?
How do Meakin et al define epiphany? How does it relate to catharsis?
How do Meakin et al describe our relationship to a tragic character (hint: they describe it as movement)?

Tragedy

Introductory lecture.

Homework

For homework I would like you to read the Mateas article in the files section of Canvas. The article draws on Janet Murray’s 1998 book Hamlet on the Holodeck, which is a classic in video game studies. As Mateas notes, Murray provides us with three key terms for thinking about “interactive narrative” (or video games, there was this debate in the 1990’s about whether we need to call serious-artsy-games something other than video games, in the same way that we call serious books novels). Those three terms:

  • Immersion
  • Transformation
  • Agency

Read sections 3, 4, and 5 and come up with descriptive and useful definitions for those terms. What is agency? How do we know when we have it? Etc.

Then, watch this play-through video of Mateas’ conceptual interactive narrative “Facade” (he describes it in the remainder of the article). If you have a PC, you can still download and play the game. Use the terms you have just defined, Immersion, Transformation, and Agency to reflect on your own experience of playing (or watching a playthrough video) of that game.

I’m thinking about two things here: first, are those terms useful? On Friday we are going to start building a Handbook for Digital Tragedy. Should we include them? Second, Facade is a 20 year old game. At the time it was launched, it was heralded as the future of video games. That hasn’t happened. Why not?

Here is another playthrough video I want to talk about a bit in Friday’s class.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 231 4.M/W: Games and/as Tragedy

ENG 640 Week 4: Levinas

Today’s Plan:

  • Responding to the Reading Responses
  • Levinas: Major Themes
  • Break
  • Let’s Actually Pick Those End of Year Readings
  • Paper Day #1
  • Jim Corder

Levinas: Major Themes

I have a handout.

Let’s Actually Pick Those End of Year Readings

Let’s revisit the syllabus.

Paper Day #1

Let’s go look in Canvas.
I also have a second handout.

Jim Corder

Standard Battery of Questions:

  • What does Corder mean by the idea that we make narratives? Why do said narratives complicate traditional notions of argument and rhetoric? What challenge does Corder issue that problematizes all rhetoric, but especially positivistic [rational] rhetoric?
  • Why is Corder opposed to framing Rogers as a model for *all* argument? (His critique of Maxine Hairston, which involves one of the greatest “shade” sentences in the history of academia)(my favorite question)
  • What dimensions does Corder add to argument that are often ignored?
  • What is the meaning(s) of the anecdote Corder uses later in the essay? Why include it? What claim/idea does it support?
  • Why does Corder use the word “love”? In what way is Corder’s approach to rhetoric like “love”? [That’s a really interesting terministic choice. I have a few ideas that I’ll share with you in class, but I am interested in how you interpret his decision. Note that I think this is *by far* the hardest question]

I have my stock lecture.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 640 Week 4: Levinas

ENG 328 3.F: Photoshop Friday

Today’s Plan:

  • Some Review
  • Photoshop
  • Homework

Photoshop Friday

A few basics

  • If at any time you cannot find a panel in a tutorial, then go Windows > Workspaces > Reset Essentials. Sometimes as I am working I accidentally close a panel or click on a different workspace. This will take you back to home base.
  • First thing: always make sure to unlock the image with which you are working in the layers panel. It is generally good practice to make a copy of the original just in case.
  • Once you merge layers in a photoshop file, there is no going back. Generally, there is no reason to ever do this (except for rasterizing some layer masks for transformation, but this is super high end stuff. If you think you need to do this, make a copy of the .psd file first). TL;DR: beware the word “rasterize.”
  • On the left-side of the screen is the tool panel. Any tool with an arrow in the bottom-right corner has extra options. Left-click and hold to see those options.
  • If you get into trouble with marching ants, then go Select > Deselect. Hold shift to add more, hold alt to take away.

Here’s the list of things that we listed on the board last class and a few other things I remembered reviewing previous tutorial days:

  • How to resize an image (image size vs. canvas size; how to change between inches, pixels, and picas)[Download this image]
    • Note image display size on the bottom-left corner
    • Image > Image Size vs. Image > Canvas Size
    • Reminder: Resolution; 72 for most screen projects, 300 for print. Photoshop has gotten a lot better at improving the resolution of an image. Save first; this can crash a machine.
    • Left-toolbar > Crop Tool. First rotate, then trim. Then hit the check mark to commit to the crop. NOTE: notice how the crop is a permanent effect.
  • Repairing an image. Left-toolbar > Magic Healing (looks like a band-aid).
    • More complicated: sharpening a blurry image. With the photo layer selected in the Layers panel, go to the Filter menu and choose Convert for Smart Filters, so you can sharpen without permanently changing the photo. In the Filter menu, choose Sharpen > Unsharp Mask.
  • How to work with text (resizing, selecting, placing text on a line)
  • How to work with color
  • Selectin objects and Using Blur and other effects
    • Simple Blur
    • Blur Effect on one layer
    • Spot Grab
    • New Content Aware Grab (note–this nearly crashed my computer). Select > Select Inverse. Now we can do all kinds of stuff.
      • Erase a background
      • Layer > New Layer Adjustment > Black and White
      • Filter > Go Nuts
  • Creating a Background Gradient
  • Using a layer mask. Here is a fairly quick (11 minute) tutorial on how to clip an image into block text. Doing so isn’t hard and teaches you some advanced layer techniques.
  • Saving and exporting

Homework

Complete and submit the Photoshop exercise in Canvas (if you didn’t do that Wednesday).

Work on your poster designs–I’d like to do a crit on Monday so that I have time to comment on them and you have time to revise them before Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 328 3.F: Photoshop Friday

ENG 231 3.W: Collaboratively Describing Procedural Rhetoric

Today’s Plan:

  • Resources / Group Formation
  • Read, Write, Transcribe for 20 minutes
  • Synthesize and Discuss for 20 minutes

As I indicated Monday, I want to spend some time today having you work in groups. Our goal is to try and define/explain Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric in a few paragraphs–at least 2 but probably not more than 4. I want this paragraph to combine primary and secondary sources–so quotes and paraphrases from Bogost’s own writing as well as descriptions by other scholars. We should identify key terms with which the audience might be unfamiliar and provide some clear examples that help a reader visualize/comprehend the theoretical terms.

As an experiment, here is the response the AI ChatGPT provides when I ask it to “explain Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric:

Bogost’s procedural rhetoric is a theory of how the design and structure of a computer program can be used to persuade or argue for a particular point of view. The term was introduced by Ian Bogost, a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology and a leading thinker in the field of game design and game studies.

According to Bogost, procedural rhetoric is not about the use of language, images, or other traditional forms of rhetoric in the user interface of a program, but rather about the way the program itself operates. He argues that the processes and procedures of a program can be used to create an experience that is not just informative or entertaining, but also persuasive.

For example, Bogost suggests that a computer game that simulates the experience of a factory worker might be used to make a political argument about the conditions of factory work, and that the experience of playing the game would be a form of persuasion in itself.

He also explain that the way the program represented the world, the kind of interactions the player could have and the outcome of those interactions will shape the user’s understanding of the theme.

Additionally, the design of the code, the structure of the program, the way data is represented, the flow of the code are used to make a point and to shape how a user interacts and understand the digital artifact in question.

Bogost’s work has been influential in the field of game design and game studies, but also in other fields where computational artifacts are used as a form of persuasion such as Human Computer Interaction, Critical Code Studies, and more.

While this is pretty impressive–it also has some “empty calories” and/or fails to explicate Bogost to the point where I, as a reader, would feel I could conduct a procedural analysis. But it does give us a staring point, some categories to think about. I have questions:

  • How does the design of a computer game, the world in which it places us, the world as backdrop for player action, make an argument?
  • What kinds of actions are more likely to shape a user’s understanding of a game’s theme?
  • Is procedural rhetoric something designers intend to do?
  • What are examples of how the “experience” of playing a game is an argument? [we can do better than the factory worker example]
  • What are the elements of a procedural analysis
  • Group 1: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games” 117-123. Pay particular attention to bottom of 119–note how he is differentiating his analysis from the values of the game’s community. Page 121 and possibility space and rules. Finally, paragraph that begins “video games depict real and imagined systems on the bottom of 122 through the end of that section.
  • Group 2: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 125- top of 128. Y’all get to tackle the “Procedural Rhetoric” section. Why does Bogost think procedural rhetoric is necessary and important?
  • Group 3: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 128-130. You’ll tackle the “Ways of Using Procedural Rhetoric: Interrogating Ideology” section. Note: we probably need to distinguish procedural rhetoric form the study of epistemic and/or serious games.
  • Group 4: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 130-136. You’ll tackle the “Ways of Using Procedural Rhetoric: Making and Unpacking an Argument” section. This is a long chunk–note the distinction between games designed to make arguments and games that might make those arguments less intentionally (the Bully vs. McDonald’s Game paragraphs at the bottom of 134).
  • Group 5: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 136-137. Y’all get the conclusion–short but dense.
  • Group 6: Custer, “Understanding Procedural Rhetoric.” 1-5
  • Group 7: Custer, “Understanding Procedural Rehtoric” 5-8 (has useful “how to” list)
  • Group 8: Love, “Problematizing Videogames: Teaching Students to be Critical Players.” p. 7’s paragraphs on Bogost. Good luck summarizing what an enthymeme is in a few sentences–if you Google it, you’ll get explanations about how an enthyememe is a “truncated syllogism.” Essentially, it is an argument that leaves out a few claims that an audience will fill in themselves.

Stage One: Gather, Collect, Copy/Paste, Label

Your group will have 20 minutes to go through the pages you have been assigned and collect and catalogue the valuable ideas, terms, passages, quotes, and examples it contains. We will dump that material into this document, which has sections similar to the questions I have laid out above.

You can use anything we develop collaboratively in your papers.

Stage Two: Share, Discuss, Paraphrase or Quote?

Let’s talk and mess with what we have.

Homework

Play your game. Finish your journals. Start drafting your paper. Think about what smart things you have to say about your game, and what parts of today’s explication are necessary for your paper.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 3.W: Collaboratively Describing Procedural Rhetoric

ENG 640 Week 3: Heidegger, Worsham, Questions Concerning Technology, Invention, and Inventional Technology

Today’s Plan:

  • A few questions
  • Discuss Worsham
  • Break
  • Discuss Heidegger
  • Prep Levinas and company

A Few Questions

  • What does it mean to teach writing?
  • Why is it important to teach writing>
  • When did you learn to write? (And, perhaps, who taught you?
  • How sure are you that/ can writing be taught?

I want to listen to a Bomani Jones clip from the Jan 23 episode “Coverage Dak” (starts at 35:31).

One more question:

  • Does Chat GPT threaten what you think writing is, how we teach it, or why we think writing is important?
  • In what ways *might/should* we rethink our pedagogy based on the emergence of ChatGPT

We might want to read this.
On why ChatGPT might be more “worrisome,” see Worsham 209.

Discussing Worsham

Chances are we will have already started to do so. I’d like everyone to pick a favorite moment or line in the Worsham and share it.

A few questions to consider:

  • What is Heidegerrian about Worsham’s critique of invention in R/C?
  • What is Heideggerian about the model of invention she introduces in the essay’s closing sections?

It might be worth illustrating Worsham’s approach, or comparing it, to Kalman.

Discussing Heidegger

  • Explicate the nature of danger that Heidegger sees in the destining/enframing of revealing as standing-reserve? Why is the destining of revealing (of the essence of technology) the greatest danger humanity faces?
  • How does Heidegger’s solution to the question concerning technology (poesis) compare to Lyotard’s solution for the emerging metanarrative of performativity (parology)? In explicating this distinction you *might* want to think back to how Heidegger opens the essay pointing to Aristotle’s four causes Links to an external site.. Bring the essay full circle.

I want to pay especial attention to pages 320-322. Let’s read.

Levinas and Company

Here’s the reading for next week:

  • Levinas, Ethics and Infinity:
    • Translator’s Introduction, 1-15
    • Chapter 4, Solitude of Being, 55-62
    • Chapter 7, The Face, 85-92
    • Chapter 8, Responsibility
  • Selections from essays pdf in Canvas:
    • Being for the Other, 114-117
    • Philosophy, Justice, and Love, 167
    • The Awakening of the I, 182-183 and 186-187
    • The Question of the Other, 99
  • Alphonso Lingis, Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common
    • Intro 1-13
    • Chap 4 Murmur of the World, 69-91
    • Chap 5 The Element that Faces, 107-127
  • Diane Davis, “Addressing Alterity: Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and the Nonappropriative Relation”
  • Jim Corder, Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love

I want to explicate a few difficulties you will face reading Levinas. I’ll call this “Levinas, the Other, the other, and the face (to face)”

One difficulty reading Levinas: French has two words for other: autre and autrui. (Levinas adds a layer of complexity by sometimes capitalizing these terms and sometimes using them lowercase, although most translators–inclduing Cohen in Ethics and Infinity, simply ignore this distinction). Put simply, autrui refers to another person, in their concrete materiality. L’autre is the more abstract sense of alterity in general, when (in French) Levinas capitalizes either term, it is often to mark off its (im)possible transcendence (the ultimate other as God, or the resonance of God that sounds in my perception of another human face).

Another difficulty: Levinas will often talk of the encounter with another person as an encounter with the face of the other. Face here is tricky. The French is visage, a word that has some resonance with our English word semblance. Levinas is also playing with the fact that (even in French) “face” can operate as a noun and a verb. As a phenomenologist, he is caught up in analyzing the affective contours in the encounter with another person. It doesn’t necessarily mean the fleshy, material thing on your head. Rather the face of the other is there presence–their Being (there) before they arrive to you as a person. That’s a really tricky concept to grasp, but hopefully Heidegger and Worsham help you conceptualize a phenomenological encounter prior to consciousness in knowledge–the presence of a person (as an other) before they appear to human subjectivity as a person (who can be known). Here’s how Bruce Young describes it:

By “face” Levinas means the human face (or in French, visage), but not thought of or experienced as a physical or aesthetic object. Rather, the first, usual, unreflective encounter with the face is as the living presence of another person and, therefore, as something experienced socially and ethically. “Living presence,” for Levinas, would imply that the other person (as someone genuinely other than myself) is exposed to me and expresses him or herself simply by being there as an undeniable reality that I cannot reduce to images or ideas in my head. This impossibility of capturing the other conceptually or otherwise indicates the other’s “infinity” (i.e., irreducibility to a finite [bounded] entity over which I can have power). The other person is, of course, exposed and expressive in other ways than through the literal face (e.g., through speech, gesture, action, and bodily presence generally), but the face is the most exposed, most vulnerable, and most expressive aspect of the other’s presence.

Which leads us to think about this seemingly hyperbolic line in Levinas:

[An] infinite resistance to murder, . . . firm and insurmountable, gleams in the face of the Other, in the total nudity of his defenceless eyes, in the nudity of the absolute openness of the Transcendent. (Totality and Infinity 199)

Of course I can murder someone. There is nothing in the injunction voiced by the face of the other that prevents me from beating them to death with a crowbar. But even having done so I will not be able to murder their face–nor counter my ability to master (know) them (hence, reading Young above, the infinity of the face).

As you read Levinas, understand that he considers his work indebted to Heidegger but also a critical response to him. If, as Worsham describes, Heidegger seeks to help us recover a more authentic relation to the mystery of Being, then Levinas would remind Heidegger that the ultimate experience of mystery, of the limitations of our powers, lies in the relationship to others and, more important, to Other. Not to the world in general, but specifically to the call inherent in the faces of others.

Also, the heart of Levinas’ project is to suggest that the central concern of philosophy lies not in the pursuit of knowledge, but rather in recognizing our obligations to others (what he terms ethics).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 640 Week 3: Heidegger, Worsham, Questions Concerning Technology, Invention, and Inventional Technology

ENG 231 3.M: Procedural Analysis Paper

  • Some Quick Journal Feedback
  • Procedural Analysis Paper
  • Academic Paper Crash Course

Some Quick Journal Feedback

Working through the rubric question on theme, one student wrote:

The theme of the game is about choice. The narrator sets up a story in which Stanley learns that he is being mind controlled by his boss and “frees” Stanley from a life that is controlled by other people. Interestingly enough, as much as the narrator paints the idea of being controlled in a bad light, when Stanley does not make the decisions that the narrator wants him to make, the narrator gets irritated and even angry.

To which I responded:

I’m not sure what you mean by “choice” in that first sentence. I think you are working through this, but also that you need to chisel away at what choice means here, in what ways the problem of choice operates in our society. Or in what way people struggle with or against choice? Is the target of the designer’s critique the capitalist expectation that we sit at our desks and obey/produce, or a more Socratic critique that people choose obedience because they are too frail, to cowardly, to make important choices in their own life?

Similarly a reflection on Doki Doki:

I believe that this game’s depiction of mental illness is important to discover. I think the authors used mental health as an added factor in the horror relam because of the realness that depression shows in the physical world.

Cool–this writer has identified the game’s topic, but I don’t think we have enough specific focus to identify the argument or theme. What are the developers saying about mental health, the way it is commonly (mis?)portrayed, how we might approach it, etc. How do they want me to perceive mental health differently? What do they want to change?

Some initial reflection on A Blind Legend:

The clear mechanics to be found interesting is the lack of visuals – although it is not entirely barren. As the player slashes with a sword or gets attacked, there are occasionally flashes of white or red to indicate contact or being harmed, respectively. Similarly, the “health system” is based on heartbeats, entirely audible as well; the more the player gets injured, the faster the heart will beat. Timing is also important, as to hear when to attack; important cues given like growls to tell you when and where to slash. A disembodied voice also narrates you through learning the keys and mechanics, and I am surprised it is not a better done voice, or one given through a character for example. I am curious if this has a point, and will have to consider that while playing, if the voice remains relevant.

So far I feel lost, although I am sure this is intentional. As there are no visual clues as to what is going on in the story, it is developing slowly through dialogue. So far we have run from the kingdom, hacked through woods, and are taking shelter in a cave from the rain, where we had to fight off some animal (a bear, I assume, although perhaps something more fantastical, it was not explicitly stated).

An initial reflection to Journey:

Summary of session: This was a fantastic intro to the game. This is unlike anything I have played before. I felt totally serene, but curious the whole time. I wanted to know how to play and what to do, but I let that subside and just played around, figuring it out along the way. It was gratifying to figure out a mechanic or goal without being told. The movement was satisfying and I loved how it felt as I got better and it became more fluid. As I moved to the next level, the camera was focused on a huge looming mountain/volcano in the distance. I am guessing that it is my goal to get there by the end of the game. I like the idea of having a general direction, but no idea of what is in between.
I love how the game keeps you aware of your own body, when you shift around your physical position, the camera angle reflects it. It reminds you of your interactivity with the character and the game itself. I am super excited to play more, but I will probably reserve it for calm, late nights like this.

Reading this, I want to the writer to put their experience (and Bogost’s language) in conversation with previous discussions of what makes Journey great. Let’s take this one.

Procedural Analysis Paper

Vitals:

  • The paper is due Monday, January 30th at noon.
  • Papers should generally be between 1000 and 2000 words, so 4 to 8 pages double-spaced (note that I check word count and not page length)
  • Use either MLA, APA, or Chicago Style to format the paper and citations
  • If papers meet base expectations (see below), then they will receive a “B.” I will provide every writer with 3-4 things they must revise to earn an A

Base expectations:

  • The paper must provide an explication of Bogost’s concept of procedural rhetoric, citing Bogost, Custer, and this essay by Mark Love (also in the files section of Canvas)
  • The paper must identify what it thinks the theme/argument/purpose of the game is (speculating on the designer’s intentions)
  • The paper must identify at least two ways the mechanics work with or against that theme/argument/purpose. Remember that “mechanics” refers to rules, procedures, abilities, scoring systems, etc. Anything related to how we play the game. [Note: multiple path narratives are tricky here]
  • The paper must supply and describe examples from the game that support those identifications
  • The paper must, at some point, reflect upon how this game made them feel, whether that feeling matches up with the designers intentions, and speculate as to why/why not this game foster procedural persuasion
  • The paper must have a title that does not suck
  • Optional: the paper can suggest how the designers might tweak a mechanic, scoring system, etc to increase procedurality

A note: the hardest element of writing for developing writers concerns “audience.” To whom are you writing this paper? I would like you to write this paper for someone who:

  1. Has never read Bogost or heard of procedural rhetoric
  2. Has never played the video game you are analyzing
  3. Has some sense of typical video game genres (i.e., you do not have to tell them what an action platformer is, but you probably do need to identify and describe specific genre conventions of those genres). So, like, if you showed them a picture of Super Mario Brothers they would say “hey, that’s Super Mario Brothers!” but they wouldn’t necessarily know what a “meta loadout” is. In other words, maybe, your parents. Or a favorite high school teacher. Or a non-gamer friend/partner who has watched you play some games. Base familiarity without deep knowledge.

Academic Writing Crash Course

This is not a writing class as much as it is a thinking class–but, like many humanities classes, I will interface with your thinking through writing. Like video games and music and movies, writing has genres. The genre for this paper is probably the academic essay, which is boring. I encourage you to channel your own voice here, to play around, to have fun, to write as if this would be published on a website or whatever. And so the struggle for me here is to identify how much I should “discipline” these papers, temper your creative range with boring rules and expectations for academic prose.

I’m going to make a few suggestions for the paper because some folks like clear rules. Rules make them happy, or at least more comfortable. I should say that I don’t think thinking and writing are activities conducive to comfort. But, alas.

Academic Paper Crash Course (Hermeneutic Edition)

Okay, a few of my stock speeches.

  • Writing cannot be taught, only learned
  • “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (student edition)
  • “Teaching” Writing is not like “teaching” Math (teacher edition)
  • New Procedurality Paper Choice. I wrote a thing once.

Now, despite all that, I am going to try and teach you how to write a paper (fully aware that this won’t “work” and that we’re all a bit annoyed).

Invention/Content: What Should This Paper Do?
Your task is to use theories of procedural rhetoric to analyze a game. This analysis should attempt to identify:

  • what the designers are attempting to communicate
  • what clear mechanical (procedural) choices they have made to amplify that message
  • whether those choices worked on you
  • additionally, it should be able to recommend how they might have better achieved their goals

Organization / Arrangement

Generally, this kind of analysis paper looks something like this:

  • Introduction: with a concrete detailed “thesis statement” that condenses and summarizes all the fucking shit you will say in the paper. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT WRITING THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE WRITTEN THE PAPER. Don’t do it. Ever. I’ll know. (See argument below)
  • Theoretical Lens: Describe the ideas you are using to analyze the textual object. In this case, we are talking “procedural rhetoric,” so you need a section of the paper that cites Bogost and Custer (files section of Canvas) and focuses on what ideas you use in your paper. I call this building the meat grinder.
  • Body sections with interesting subheadings: Then there’s any number of sections that put a particular part/scene/chapter/system of the textual object through the meat grinder
  • Conclusion: These are tricky

This first assignment checks your handle on the fundamentals of academic writing. These include:

  • Argument. Does the paper’s introduction lay out a CLAIM rather than ask a QUESTION? Does the introduction lay out what the paper will conclude? Does it include specifics? LIKE REAL CONCRETE DETAILS. I cannot stress the importance of crafting a sophisticated thesis paragraph (not necessarily a statement, do I have time to rant about the 5 paragraph essay?)
  • Paragraph StructureDoes each paragraph open with a topic sentence that lays out the claim of that paragraph? Does it transition into and contextualize evidence? Does it supply evidence (quote, reason, anecdote, etc). Does it summarize and then analyze evidence? [Note summarize and analyze are two different things!] Does the closing sentence of the paragraph “end” the thought by referring the specific claim of the paragraph back to the overall argument of the paper?
  • Handling of Evidence I’ll be paying closer attention to two of the elements above–how well do you transition into a quote? Do you know how to contextualize a quote [that is, briefly tell the reader where the quote falls in view of the original author’s argument]. What do you do after the quote? How deftly can you summarize the quote–putting it into your own words in a way that “opens” it up for the reader without sounding too repetitive. This is a skill, a real hard one. AND then, how well do you add something to that quote/evidence that does something with it? For instance, if you are talking about player complicity, what can you add to the quote(s) from Sicart to help me understand it more. Do you recognize what keywords in the quote require more explication? Do you have personal experience that can help illuminate the concept? Do you have something to add to the quote to amplify its argument? Extend? Examples?
  • Note–writing about procedurality means you might be analyzing elements of a game, so can you describe that element concisely and meaningfully to someone who hasn’t played the game? If you use a screenshot, can your provide enough context for me to understand your argument/analysis?

Crafting a Thesis Paragraph

Below I articulate three important elements of writing that I will use to evaluate your first paper: developing a specific thesis, properly contextualizing and analyzing evidence, and maintaining logical development.

That said, every piece of academic writing should offer a “thesis” in the introduction. I tend to hate this word, because it comes with so much baggage. For me, a strong thesis lays out AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE what information a paper will present. It is a kind of idea map. Let me show you a few potential thesis statements:

  • I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment
  • I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment, noting his key terms and summarizing his suggestions for new teachers
  • I/this paper explain(s) how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment might create problems for teachers who prioritize grammar as the central concern of writing. instruction

All those examples are bad. Though not equally bad. The first one is an F. The second one is also an F. They are equally devoid of specific thought. They are a placeholder for a thought that, at the time of writing, the writer did not yet have.

The third one is better. It is in the high C, low B range. It could potentially be higher based on what comes before or after it. If the next sentence detailed a list of problems, then it would be an “A.”

Okay, so what does an “A” look like? Examples:

  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment emphasizes the importance of familiarizing students with assessment rubrics, often through practice norming sessions
  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment calls for teachers to separate grading and assessment from the act of providing feedback. When students encounter feedback alongside grades, they often receive that feedback as a justification for a (bad) grade rather than as an attempt to guide and develop their abilities. Inoue makes clear that providing distance between grades and feedback increases the likelihood that students engage and implement feedback
  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment challenges traditional enforcement of “standard” English on the grounds that it severely and unjustly punishes students from multilingual backgrounds. The evidence Inoue presents creates problems for teachers who prioritize “proper” grammar as the central concern of writing.

Here’s the deal y’all: WRITE YOUR THESIS LAST. Trust me, I’ll know if you write the introduction before you write the paper. I’m a fucking Jedi when it comes to this. And I will die on this hill (those of you who have taken 301 should know why). Pro-tip: when you are done with your rough draft compare the thesis in your intro to the conclusion. You won’t know what a paper is actually going to say until you write it!

Pro-tip #2: academic and professional writing are not mysteries. This isn’t Scooby-Doo. Don’t keep me in suspense. Make sure all the important things you find in the course of a paper appear in the first few sentences, paragraphs, or pages (depending on the length of the paper). Front load, front load, front load.

Remember that an actual, breathing human is grading your papers. Sometimes they are grading as many as 80 papers a week. I’m not supposed to say this, but very often they are formulating an attitude toward your paper from the first paragraph. If it is some lazy first-draft-think-aloud-stream-of-consciousness-bullshit, then it is highly unlikely that anything you do later in the paper is going to reverse that first impression.

Working With Sources

Crafting a Thesis Paragraph

Below I articulate three important elements of writing that I will use to evaluate your first paper: developing a specific thesis, properly contextualizing and analyzing evidence, and maintaining logical development.

That said, every piece of academic writing should offer a “thesis” in the introduction. I tend to hate this word, because it comes with so much baggage. For me, a strong thesis lays out AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE what information a paper will present. It is a kind of idea map. Let me show you a few potential thesis statements:

  • I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment
  • I/this paper explain(s) Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment, noting his key terms and summarizing his suggestions for new teachers
  • I/this paper explain(s) how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment might create problems for teachers who prioritize grammar as the central concern of writing. instruction

All those examples are bad. Though not equally bad. The first one is an F. The second one is also an F. They are equally devoid of specific thought. They are a placeholder for a thought that, at the time of writing, the writer did not yet have.

The third one is better. It is in the high C, low B range. It could potentially be higher based on what comes before or after it. If the next sentence detailed a list of problems, then it would be an “A.”

Okay, so what does an “A” look like? Examples:

  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment emphasizes the importance of familiarizing students with assessment rubrics, often through practice norming sessions
  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment calls for teachers to separate grading and assessment from the act of providing feedback. When students encounter feedback alongside grades, they often receive that feedback as a justification for a (bad) grade rather than as an attempt to guide and develop their abilities. Inoue makes clear that providing distance between grades and feedback increases the likelihood that students engage and implement feedback
  • I explain how Inoue’s theory of anti-racist writing assessment challenges traditional enforcement of “standard” English on the grounds that it severely and unjustly punishes students from multilingual backgrounds. The evidence Inoue presents creates problems for teachers who prioritize “proper” grammar as the central concern of writing.

Here’s the deal y’all: WRITE YOUR THESIS LAST. Trust me, I’ll know if you write the introduction before you write the paper. I’m a fucking Jedi when it comes to this. And I will die on this hill (those of you who have taken 301 should know why). Pro-tip: when you are done with your rough draft compare the thesis in your intro to the conclusion. You won’t know what a paper is actually going to say until you write it!

Pro-tip #2: academic and professional writing are not mysteries. This isn’t Scooby-Doo. Don’t keep me in suspense. Make sure all the important things you find in the course of a paper appear in the first few sentences, paragraphs, or pages (depending on the length of the paper). Front load, front load, front load.

Remember that an actual, breathing human is grading your papers. Sometimes they are grading as many as 80 papers a week. I’m not supposed to say this, but very often they are formulating an attitude toward your paper from the first paragraph. If it is some lazy first-draft-think-aloud-stream-of-consciousness-bullshit, then it is highly unlikely that anything you do later in the paper is going to reverse that first impression.

Homework

What you have to complete this week depends on how diligently you have kept up with the journal work.
I asked you to complete 3 different journal entries. I will be grading the journal entries Friday morning (and, hopefully, I have scored the first gaming journal entries via the Gaming Journal Link today).

The whole purpose of the gaming journal entries assignment is to help you generate ideas for the paper. So the only other homework you have this week is to finish writing the paper before next week’s class.

To make my life easier, I ask that you use the heading feature to identify the three different entries in your journal. Let me demonstrate.

Final Note: I have submitted a request to reserve the Ross Computer lab for our classes on Wednesday and Friday this week. I will let you know once I have confirmation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 3.M: Procedural Analysis Paper

ENG 231 2.F: Catching Up, Moving On

Today’s Plan:

  • Google Doc Contribution Issues / Make-Up Assignment
  • Homework
  • From A Rhetorical Triangle to a Ludic One
  • Revised Procedural Rhetoric Heuristic

Google Doc Contribution Issues / Make-Up Assignment

I’ve scored the first assignment–I had a bit of an issue using the “find” feature in Firefox, so I had to double-check with the Google Docs find. If you completed this and I missed it, just let me know and/or copy and paste some of your contributions into Canvas.

If you haven’t completed the assignment yet, then I will give you a 4/5 if you spend some time reflecting on the game you are currently playing and using the rubric I’ve laid out below.

Homework

Keep on playing your game for the first paper and include another entry in your gaming journal Google Doc. I will cover the first paper in Monday’s class–it will be due January 30th. I will do my best to review progress in the gaming journals before next Wednesday’s class. In Wednesday’s class, we will work on summarizing procedural rhetoric.

From A Rhetorical Triangle Square to a Ludic One

I will spend 30 minutes thinking about our current project. I want to revise and adapt the heuristic we’ve been using. I mentioned last Friday that I wanted to incorporate “phenomenology” into our heuristic a bit. Here goes.

In rhetorical studies there’s the concept of the rhetorical triangle, offered by Lloyd Bitzer in his canonical essay “The Rhetorical Situation.” The essay is the foundation of many first-year writing courses, as it teaches us to analyze any “text” (which means message) in terms of its writer (who they are, what they want, why they write), its audience (where are they? what do they already think and feel, etc), and the subject matter and purpose of the text. Over the last half of the 20th century, scholars have turned this triangle into a square, adding context (the social, political, cultural, economic, networks/rules etc. in which the writer, audience, and purpose are enmeshed).

In essence, we’ve been asking similar questions about video games, treating them as a “text” in Bitzer’s sense. We think about the developer and her aims–whether those aims are clear (a serious game) or more ambiguous (which I think would characterize most of the games y’all are analyzing). We are certainly attending to the message/purpose of a game, attempting to identify what kind of changes that game wants to engender in us or our world. And–I hope–you recognize that often a procedural analysis will compare a game to others in its genre, isolating unique mechanics and then speculating as to whether those mechanics work with the game’s thematic and/or rhetorical ambitions or against them.

I want to spend some time today thinking about the fourth corner of the square, then: audience. In our case, I am thinking about us as players. I want to offer “phenomenology” as a philosophical methodology that can help us more thoroughly analyze our own experiences. What makes this tricky is that some of the most famous phenomenological philosophers resist the idea that it can be reduced to a method–that it is more a mindset. Either way, I think it can be helpful. Let’s see where this takes me.

The preeminent phenomenologist is Martin Heidegger. Required acknowledgement: Heidegger is a Nazi, both in politics and in spirit; he is also, unfortunately, the most important Western philosopher of the 20th century and probably the third most important philosopher in Western history. Whether you know it or not, his philosophy has influenced the entire world in which we live and learn.

Okay, back to phenomenology. Heidegger’s approach to phenomenology, influenced by pscyhoanalysis, pushed against previous notions developed by modern, Enlightenment philosophy. Those approaches asked the question: how does the world come into our consciousness? What is, how does the real, external world, appear to my subjective mind? And how can I “cleanse” my perception of the world of subjective noise and bothersome emotions? How do I translate the external real world into the real world (yes, I know, that sounds repetitive).

So, to summarize a bit too quickly here, Heidegger’s answer was both radical and transformative: you can’t. First, subjectivity isn’t something that can be wiped away. There is no way to see the world other than how we see and experience it. Our perspective is always limited by who we are, where we stand, when we look, and how we feel when we look (I’ll come back to this last one). I don’t just mean this physically, either. If I hold up an object, obviously you can’t see behind it. But I also mean this ideologically, where we “sit” in a cultural field of values etc. [Running out of time]. Heidegger then develops a “method” of deep reflection on human experience, one that identifies the primacy of our emotional states and the way that often unconscious emotional states transform/influence the way we perceive and navigate the world.

The philosopher Miguel Sicart applies Heidegger’s method to playing video games. He’s a “post-phenomenologist,” the “post” there resonates with postmodern theorists, such as Jacques Derrida, who would argue that Heidegger’s phenomenology was guilty of assuming that a kind of ubiquity to human feeling–that how I feel playing Walking Dead or reading Jacques Derrida or watching Battlestar Galactica ’04 would be the same as how any of you would feel in that situation–that there was one objective language of feeling that every human (or every “normal” human, but I don’t have time to critique the terror inherent in modern notions of “normal” today)–that every human would feel. So Sicart argues that it is important that we all learn how to analyze the contours of our own feeling and how that might be shaping our experience.

I will pick this up on Monday–two ways that Sicart’s post-phenomenology helps us analyze our experiences:

  • Player Complicity (Suspension of Disbelief)
  • How do I feel playing this game?

Revised Procedural Rhetoric Heuristic

Developer:

  • What do you know about the writer/developer? Have you found interviews in which they talk about the game?
  • How do you “feel” playing this game? What emotions do you believe the developers want the game to evoke?

Player:

  • How does this game make you feel. Describe your emotions as you play, and what you think is causing them. For instance, are you frustrated by mechanics, or are your emotions more rooted in the game’s story and themes?
  • What emotions might you feel while playing? (see Bringula et al)
  • Do you feel complicit, or is that complicty diminished?
  • Do you find yourself playing instrumentally or ethically?

Purpose / Message:

  • What is the plot / summary / topic of this game?
  • What it the theme of this game?
  • Theme is what a game is saying about how we do, should, or could live our lives. It addresses problems that we often face, emotions that we might not know how to handle, and/or seeks to “unfamiliarize” us with the way our wold has been structured (unsettles us, asks questions, provokes critical or creative thinking).

Mechanics:

  • Is there any interesting about the scoring system for this game? Is it clear (or possible) to “win” the game?
  • Is there anything interesting about the mechanics or play of this game? Does it mess with a traditional genre convention?
  • What are some potential “arguments” made by the mechanics or scoring systems?
  • In what ways do the mechanics match the argument or “mood” of the game?
  • In what ways do the mechanics clash with/ignore the argument or “mood” of the game?
  • How might we modify the mechanics to create more procedural harmony/aesthetic impact?

If we have time, I’d like to watch some of this and then use the heuristic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 2.F: Catching Up, Moving On