ENG 651 Week 3: Let’s Talk Jobs

Today’s Plan:

  • Week 3 Write Ups
  • Discuss Week 2 Write Ups and Week 3 Readings
  • In-class writing exercise: Let’s Play Tom
  • Share Journal Analysis Ideas
  • For Next Session

A Quick Review of Last Weeks Write Ups

I’ve returned last week’s write ups with comments, so let me know if you can’t find yours. I wanted to highlight/revisit a few points.

Rhetorically reaching out to an audience
I commented on a few papers (Cole, Erika, and Emily’s for sure) about how a goal of rhetorical theory–particular rhetorical theory in the public sector, advocacy for nonprofits–has to conceptualize information not as something to be delivered, but something that has to be received, understood. We need to care if other people hear us. We need to do whatever work we can to help them become willing to hear us.

As someone invested in postmodern ethics, I try to treat everyone as, in Levinas’ terms, “absolutely other,” resisting the urge to categorize them, “know” them, identify with them. Instead, the goal is to open a space in which they can feel comfortable being themselves. They might then call to me, to identify—but the act of identification should come from the other.

When we write—there’s a difference between reaching out to grasp and reaching out to welcome.

Resisting the Temptation to kNOw Too Much
Jacob wrote this about the Fadde and Sullivan case study: The case study leaves plenty of room open for the opportunity for making rhetorical moves that could illuminate understanding between the Bangalore and North Carolina teams. Reducing and clarifying lines of communication and so forth. But this like the patient-therapist relationship assumes an alliance of goals in so far as bringing the conceptual engineering to life.

Amy wrote: Knowing one’s audience can prove to be fruitful in any situation.

I liked Jacob’s callback to Corder, and the warning that we should not be too confident in our “diagnosing” of the cross-cultural situation. Chances are, we do know a lot about how other people think and feel, and there are times where we might even know more about what is impacting their thought than they do. But getting the most fruit out of knowing one’s audience requires some hesitancy, some sophistication (if for no other reason than people would find such knowledge incredibly arrogant–but there’s better, more ethical reasons). We should resist the temptation to think we are the doctors (even when we have PhDs and *are* the doctors) who can fix others. We’re more experts (hopefully) at developing conditions in which we can work together to fix our collective problems, aware of how our various selves might interrupt that work.

Finally, while responding to another paper, I took a shot at defining the humanities:

The Humanities (originally Philosophy, Rhetoric, Grammar, and slightly later Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy and Music, later still including History and Poetry, now including Women and Gender Studies, Multicultural Studies, and others that I probably can’t think of right now) teach us how to deal with the struggles of being—being mortal, being frail, being scared, being uncertain. Humans aren’t good at facing those things on their own. They need professionals who can help them explore life’s most difficult and trying questions, to deal with the affect/discomfort/disequilibrium those questions engender. Tech Writing can do those things, but we need to be precise and explicit that the value of the Humanities lies in those essential dimension. Clear communication is just a nice byproduct.

My wife joked “that’s what therapists are for.”

Week 3 Reading Notes / Materials

Before we start discussing the readings, I whipped up a quick (if somewhat confusing) survey.

Link to my workspace

Hey, look, a local job ad.

We might play around with this.

Let’s Play Tom

Consider this a quickfire challenge, inspired by what Lauer and Brumberger call “sprint assignments.”

Tom’s job:

For instance, Tom, the social media strategist, often posted visual and verbal content that was sent to him by others in the company and by the PR firm with which the company contracted. On one of the days we observed, a company rep sent Tom a photo and description of a trade show she was attending; Tom’s job was to edit the photo (crop it and clean it up) and adapt the descriptive text so that the tone, length, and style were suitable for posting it to the multiple social media channels (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) the company used to communicate with its customers. In one instance, the rep realized after the fact that she had forgotten to include a hashtag for the tweet; to address the oversight, Tom had to delete the tweet and rework it with fewer characters, so that he had room to include the hashtag. Tom posted about the trade show to several of the company’s social media and web channels; for each platform, he edited the post to emphasize different elements that would better fit audience expectations, style, and length limitations of the various platforms. Tom told us that he often gets press releases overnight and will then extract tweets, blog content, and other social media text from them. He usually pulls between four and five excerpts out of a white paper or press release, as well as an infographic or other visuals, which he then adapts to meet the needs of the intended audience and purpose, as well as to maximize the exposure and reach of that content for the company.

Take a break for ten minutes.

Then spend 30 minutes turning 1 of the articles we read for today’s class into 2 different tweets and one an Instagram post (if you don’t have a Canva account, then you can design your Instagram post in PowerPoint or Google Slides or whatever. Just put some text on an image). Pretend that we are the social media writers for an online education service. The audience for these tweets should be Professional Writing educators. We are attempting to get them to click on the article/link (drive that traffic!).

Your tweet to the article should include at least two suitable hashtags and a link to the article (pro-tip: you can Google a URL and use tiny URL to shorten it).

Let’s talk hooks.

Share Journal Analysis Ideas

I’ve posted the text from last week below in case we need it.

For today, you should have read one article and generated a list of 10 other related articles that you could potentially read. I didn’t have anyone pop into office hours last Friday, nor did I get any panicked emails, so I am guessing that everyone completed this assignment without issue. I’ve published a turn-in on Canvas.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about people’s topics.

Professional Writing Review Essay

Our first month’s foray into Professional Writing scholarship will culminate with an analytical / bibliographic review essay. You will select a keyword/topic and trace how that topic has appeared across a range of journals over the past 4 years (so 2018-2021). I am hoping your keyword/idea is narrow enough to focus on 6-8 interrelated articles.

My expectation is that many of you are new to PWTC as an academic discipline, and likely have limited familiarity with the range of scholarship and research published. This project is meant to both give you a sense of that range and help you develop some expertise that might help you either in our community engagement project or in your own scholarly/professional trajectory.

Here’s the list of the journals with which we will work:

Your essay will work to create an ontology that helps organize and synthesize contemporary work.

So, what is a scholarly review essay? It is a kind of review essay–similar to a book review–that synthesizes several recent/important perspectives on an emerging disciplinary trend. Essentially, they offer scholars to stay abreast of developments in related fields without having to read dozens of articles. Generally a review essay is organized by topic not by source, and is the 2500-3500 word range (so slightly less than 1/2 of an academic article).

Think of a review essay as a micro-lit review, except for folks who aren’t necessarily experts in the topic.

For next week: I’d like you to look through the journals above and identify an article you want to read. Ideally, this will be an article written in the last calendar year. Skim the article, taking note of the studies that lie central to its methods and argument. Then use that article–especially its keywords and bibliography–to compile a list of 10 other articles on the subject (book chapters in edited collections are also acceptable; given our time constraints, I would push you away from whole books). Don’t worry–you won’t necessarily read all ten, but I’d like you to have 10 on the list.

Final Due Date for this review essay: February 5th (I will respond to them on the morning of the 6th).

For Next Session

My plan for next week’s class:

  • Write Up #4
  • Talking about Review Essays (Organize Ideas)
  • Introducing Our Partners
  • In class: Weber and Spartz exercise (getting to know one of our nonprofits)

Next week I want to introduce you more to our potential service learning partners and projects. In preparation for that, I’d like you to read the following articles:

  • Nelson, 2021, Developing Evaluable Principles for Community-University Partnerships
  • Rentz and Mattingly, 2005, Selling Peace in a Time of War

For your Write Ups, I’d like you to focus on what you are reading for your review essays rather than on the weekly reading. Share with us what you are reading. Please read 3 articles from your list of 10 for next week. We’ll handle the weekly reading via class discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 651 Week 3: Let’s Talk Jobs

ENG 231 3.T: Reviewing Procedural Rhetoric (Again), [Academic] Paper Crash Course

Today’s Plan:

  • Game Journals & Feedback
  • Academic Paper Crash Course
  • Any time remaining? Two Games
  • Homework

Game Journals & Feedback

I’ve been checking in on the game journals–I think I got through about 1/2 of them yesterday. I tried to leave you with comments that can help your progress. I likely will not get to the rest of the journals until Thursday afternoon (since I teach until 9pm tonight and have a pretty busy Wednesday).

I wanted to share three comments I left in folks’ journals that I think are instructive:

To do procedural analysis, you have to know what a game is trying to do

Does this game have a rhetorical purpose? A message? A theme/meaning? And, if so, how does the games systems, mechanics, etc help amplify (or detract) from that goal?

Remember that this is essentially an interpretive, hermeneutic exercise. That requires that you oscillate between the concrete details of a text and the overarching purpose. I saw a number of journals that were working through the heuristic questions, but wasn’t sure if it was leading anywhere.

Agency is a potentially useful term

Freedom is a fine word here, but in video game scholarship folks often use the word “agency” to frame how much control it feels like you have; especially as regards whether you can change the game world (are you shaping a story or merely experiencing it?)

In the next unit, we are going to talk a lot about “player complicity,” the belief that what you do in a video game feels “real,” that you own the decisions you make and feel responsible for there consequences. Complicity is enmeshed with a sense of agency–that you feel you can change things, that you have actual power, that you are not merely the pawn of the designer. Of course, a procedural analysis highlights what developers allow you do, and perhaps helps you recognize what they do not allow you to do.

But How Do You Feel?

Based on the interview I posted above, I am a bit curious whether you felt as if the choices in the game became too predictable? Or whether you “checked out” emotionally? Were you playing a story or winning a game?

Along with agency, we can ask two things–if a game offers you choices, then do those options feel frustratingly satisfying? Are they restrictive enough that the choice is difficult without feeling overly manipulative?

And–at the same time–how do you feel making the choice? Does it feel easy? Do you feel anxious? (See Republica game below).

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?

Format / Style
NOTE: The following is for those of you who want to practice academic writing.
This paper should be formatted in APA format, but it does not require an abstract. It does require a title page and a Running Head. The paper should include a References list. It is quite likely that Sicart will be the only reference on the list (I am just checking for global formatting). Information regarding APA formatting is in the Hackers and Sommers Pocket Manual or can be found at the Purdue University OWL.

Papers should include an APA Title page (just so you get some experience formatting one) and a running head (APA has really weird rules for the header/page number–I am testing whether you can find and execute these rules). Papers will need a reference list (even though I doubt there will be more than two sources).

Looking through past papers, expected length is 1200 to 1700 words.

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.

Let’s talk about some examples.

Okay, on to point #2–working with sources. From the rubric:

  • Is the evidence in each paragraph sufficient to support claims?
  • Does the writer’s transitions provide enough context to help a reader? A description of the methods to understand the value of a statistic, for instance, or enough explication of a quote’s significance? Do I feel like I know where the evidence comes from or is it suddenly thrust at me?
  • Connect the evidence to the claim of the paragraph? Put the evidence in conversation with other paragraphs?
  • Is it clear where a source stops thinking and the writer’s own thoughts begin? Is there an “I” that differentiates the writer from her sources/”they”? Is the writer adding something to the quote, or just leaving it there?

Plagiarism. It isn’t stealing words, it is stealing thoughts, ideas. Be sure to make a parenthetical reference when you use a idea from Sicart.

Also, think about what periods do. Example:

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, writing: “To play is to inhabit a wiggle space of possibility in which we can express ourselves–our values, beliefs, and politics” (p. 9). Play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives. Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle rooom. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Next paragraph begins with some kind of transition. Then topic sentence. then context some evidence.

Even if I took the quote out, I need a reference:

Sicart’s theory of ethical games centers around an idea of play as more than merely diversion or enjoyment. Sicart’s believes play is important because it allows us to explore ourselves and our beliefs. He refers to the ambiguity of moral rules as wiggle room, noting how play, as imaginative activity, makes possible explorations that we might never consider in our regular daily lives (pp. 8-9). Of course, not all play might meet Sicart’s notion of wiggle room. Playing Madden Football allows me to pretend I’m an NFL executive, but rarely does it call me to question my personal or political beliefs. But X game, however, does make me confront questions of Y and Z. When evaluating the ethical power of a game, Sicart’s notion of play asks us to think about how much wiggle space of possibility the game provides.

Let’s work with a passage from Sicart:

Player complicity means surrendering to the fact that actions in a game have a moral dimension. Players use their morality to engage with and adapt to the context of the game. When playing, players become complicit with the game’s moral system and with their own set of values. That capacity of players to accept decision making in games and to make choices base on moral facts gives meaning to player complicity.

This complicity allows players to experience the kind of fringe themes that games often develop without necessarily risking their moral integrity. By becoming complicit with the kind of experience that the game wants players to enjoy, they are also critically open to whatever values they are going to enact. And the degree of their complicity, the weight that they give to their values and not to those of the game, will determine their moral behavior in the game. (p. 23)

So, to summarize the typical academic paragraph:

  • Topic sentence [Claim, terms]
  • Transition into evidence [provide the reader context, relevance, etc]
  • Present evidence [quote, paraphrase, statistic, visual, whatever–maybe a detailed description of a mechanic]
  • Summarize the evidence [if a direct quote, then make sure you put it in your own words–summarize that thing]
  • Analyze the evidence [do not leave it to the reader to figure out how the evidence supports the claim. Make the sausage.]
  • If necessary, anticipate and respond to criticism/other perspectives [this might be its own paragraph]
  • Wrap it up [end the paragraph hammering home how this paragraph contributes to that overall thesis thing

Avoiding Plagiarism: Providing Contextual Information and Attributing Sources

Essentially, I consider handling sources a 4 part process. There’s the signal, the quote/evidence, the summary, and the analysis. While we’ll be using this specifically for direct quotes today and this weekend, this is essentially the underlying structure for most (academic) argumentative paragraphs: a claim, followed by evidence, and analysis. 

  • Signal: who, what, where, when. Note that what/where can be a reference to a kind of media [article, book, poem, website, blog post], a genre [sonnet, dialogue, operational manual], or location/event [press conference, reporting from the steps of the White House]. The signal helps create ethos, establishing the credibility of your source, addressing their disposition toward the issue, and positioning them within the context of a particular conversation. 
  • Quote/evidence: in-line citations use quotation marks and are generally three lines or less. Block citations do not use quotation marks and are indented from the rest of the text. Generally, quotes present logos of some kind–be it in the form of statistics or argumentation. Of course, quotes can also be used in an attempt to engender pathos, or a strong emotional reaction. 
  • Summary: especially for block quotations, you need to reduce a block of text to a single-line. You need to put the quote in your own words. Because language is slippery, and your readers might not read the quote as you do. So, offering a summary after a quote– particularly a long one (which many readers simply do not read)–allows readers an opportunity to see if they are on the same page as you. 
  • Analysis: Reaction, counter-argument, point to similar situation, offer further information, use the bridge, “in order to appreciate X’s argument, it helps to know about/explore/etc. This is where the thinking happens. 

Here’s an example; let’s say I was writing a blog on the struggles of newspapers to survive the digital transition, I might want to point to the October 15th, 2009 NYT’s article dealing with the Times Co. decision to hold on to the Boston Globe.

In his recent article, Richard Perez-Pena explains that the Times Co. has decided to hold onto the Boston Globe, at least for now. Perez-Pena explains that the Times Co. has been trying to sell the newspaper for the past month, but, since it hasn’t received what it deems a credible offer, it has decided to pull the paper off the market. He writes:

Dan Kennedy, a journalism professor at Northeastern University who has closely followed The Globe’s troubles, said it might be better for The Globe to remain with the Times Company than to go to a new owner that might do more cutting or replace top executives. “But the company has its work cut out for it in terms of rebuilding credibility with the employees and the community,” he said.

Perez-Pena explains that the Times Co. has been involved in bitter labor disputes over the past year, as advertising revenues continue to fall: this move, as Kennedy notes above, could be a solid first move in rebuilding an important relationship with one of America’s oldest, and most significant, newspapers. However, I think we still need to be a bit skeptical here: the fact that no one even proposed a reasonable offer for a newspaper that only 15 years ago commanded 1 billion dollars, the highest price ever for a single newspaper (Perez-Pena), does not bode well for the future of the industry. Like many newspapers, the Globe was slow to adapt to the digitalization of America’s infosphere. Time will tell if recent efforts are too little too late.

If you look above, I first contextualize the quote–not only supplying where/when/who it came from, but also providing some sense of what the whole article discusses. Then I focus attention toward a particular point and supply the quote. After the quote, I first reiterate what the quote said (providing a bit of new information). This is an important step that a lot of writers skip. Always make sure you summarize a quote, so a reader knows precisely what you think it says. Then, in the final part of the paragraph above, I analyze the material. I respond to it. In this particular case, I am somewhat critical of the optimism that underlies Perez-Pena’s piece.

A few other small points:

  • Notice the first time I reference an author, I use there first and last name. After that, it is sufficient to only use the last name.
  • Notice that I don’t have a citation after the direct quotation: the reason here is that it is obvious where the quote came from thanks to my signal. This is an electronic source, so there is no page number citation, were it a print source I would have to include that. NEVER USE A PAGE NUMBER IN THE SIGNAL TEXT, page numbers only belong in the parenthetical reference.
  • Notice in my analysis that I make a parenthetical to the author–its because I pulled the price of the Globe purchase in 1993 from his article. I don’t directly quote it, so no quotation marks.
  • Finally, there’s two kinds of quotations, in-line quotations and block quotations. Each have there own rules for academic papers (the dreaded MLA and APA guidelines). We will deal with those later in the course. In terms of blogging: quotes longer than 4 lines need to be blockquoted. Blogger has a button to help you do this. Blockquotes don’t receive quotation marks.

The First (Best?) Step Toward Avoiding Plagiarism: Crafting Quality Signals

Today I want to focus a bit on the first part of what I introduce above, crafting a quality signal that introduces a reader to a source (be it a quote or statistical evidence). Here it is:

Shakespeare’s Renaissance tragedy Romeo and Juliet documents the titular characters’ intense love and foolhardy demise. Shakespeare’s play leads us to question both the sincerity of young love. 

I came up with this sentence while prepping high school students to take placement exams, hence the literary material. But the semantics of the sentence make it useful for virtually every kind of writing. I especially want to highlight the importance of the verbs in this sentence, because choosing the proper verb often reveals both our appraisal of the source and our thinking on the questions it raises. 

[Author]’s [time period] [genre] [title] [verb] [plot summary]. [Author] [verb] [theme/purpose]. 

Ok, so in reality I have two sentences here. But, when dealing with non-fiction works, they can often be combined into one:

[Author’s] [time period] [genre] [title] [verb] [purpose]. 

As I indicated above, it is the verb that is the silent star of the show here. Consider for a minute the following example:

Malcom Gladwell’s 2005 book Blink exposes how subconscious part of our brain think in ways we are not consciously aware. 

Exposes. How does the meaning of the sentence change if I use the verb:

  • suggests
  • argues
  • questions whether
  • supposes 
  • explicates
  • details
  • offers a theory of
  • explores

Each of these verb choices subtly alters the way I approach the work discussed. Exposes suggests something secret and perhaps mysterious is being uncovered. Suggests suggests that an amount of doubt surrounds the issue. Supposes implies that I am hostile or at least quite skeptical toward the idea. This subtle indicator allows my an opportunity to softly align or distance myself from the source I am using. Good authors do this all the time to subconsciously prepare readers for their arguments. 

Let’s Play a Few Games

Two Games:

Homework

Continue to play/work/draft in your Gaming Journal. I plan on checking in and evaluating your progress on Friday afternoon. Remember that you should have passed in the paper by Monday, January 31st at midnight.

The first paper assignment is posted here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 3.T: Reviewing Procedural Rhetoric (Again), [Academic] Paper Crash Course

ENG 301 3.T: What is(n’t) Rhetoric?

Today’s Plan:

  • Reviewing Herrick
  • Job Codes
  • Homework

Rhetorical Theory

Let’s take a crack at defining rhetoric.

And then let’s take a crack at defining “the humanities.” What does it mean to study a humanity? *Why* study the humanities?

Reviewing the Herrick

Let’s carve up and quickly summarize the Herrick article. Here’s how I usually divide it:

  1. Rhetoric and Persuasion (pg. 3-5). How does Herrick attempt to nudge/change/complicate our understanding of persuasion? Sean K., Ryan K., Grace
  2. Rhetoric is Adapted to an Audience (pg. 8-10) Shay, Dakota
  3. Rhetoric Reveals Human Motives and Rhetoric is Responsive (pg. 10-12) Justin, Joey
  4. Rhetoric Addresses Contingent Issues (pg. 15-16) Augustus and Rae
  5. Rhetoric Tests Ideas (pg. 16-17)Macaila and Sam F
  6. Rhetoric Assists Advocacy (pg. 17-19)Dave and Riley
  7. Rhetoric Distributes Power (pg. 19-21)
  8. Rhetoric Discovers Facts and Rhetoric Shapes Knowledge (pg. 21-22) Arianna, Lily
  9. Rhetoric Builds Community (pg. 22-23) Mya, Josh, Sam H

I’ll give you five minutes to review your assigned pages and give us something specific.

Rhetorical Appeals:

  • Logos
    • What is the argument?
    • What evidence is presented?
    • What is the nature of that evidence? Stats, scientific, personal experience, common wisdom, historic example)
  • Ethos
    • Who is speaking? Why are they credible? What kind of voice are they? What grounds their authority?
    • Who are they speaking to (and how do you know this)?
    • Who are “we” (are they speaking to us or to another audience through us? Or both?
  • Pathos
    • What emotions does the speaker feel? Assume we feel? Assume the target audience feels?
    • How would you describe the speaker’s emotional state/style?
    • What emotions does the speaker attempt to engender?
    • How do you feel as you listen to the speech?
  • Kairos
    • Why is now the right time for this speech?
    • What historic/contextual information would someone need to know to understand this speech in 10 (or 100) years?
    • What must we do after the speech is done?

Rhetorical Theory Part 2

Let’s take another crack at defining rhetoric.

Plato and Aristotle:

  • What is truth?
  • What is reality (from where comes reality?

Protagoras, Gorigas, and Isocrates:

  • How do we get people to change their minds?
  • How do we mvoe people from thought to action?

At some point I might want to point to this [Lanham].

And maybe this [Proctor–40,42,56,58].

Coding Questions

Okay, who has questions?

Homework

The work for the next week is pretty simple. By next Wednesday at midnight you’ll need to code another 10 jobs. Please pick jobs that have not already been coded. Our collective goal is to code as many of the jobs in the sheet as we can. We will review codes a bit in the computer lab this Thursday, and review a few more next Thursday.

Additionally, I’ll ask you to read the Carolyn Miller essay “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.” There’s a Canvas discussion post.

I consider rhetoric as the study and practice of how we can develop experiences, spaces, collaborations, encounters, through which we help ourselves and others negotiate the disequilibrium produced by difference in order to potentially foster more productive collaboration, negotiation, and change.

Rhetoric seeks a way to inhabit the world that recognizes the dangers like lie in our selfish, powerful, and often unconscious desire for security, comfort, and mastery.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 301 3.T: What is(n’t) Rhetoric?

ENG 651 Week 2: Foundation of PWTC

  • Write Ups
  • Further Discussion
  • Fadde and Sullivan Email (Part One)
  • Fadde and Sullivan Email (Part Two)
  • Professional Writing Review Essay
  • Readings for Next Week’s Write Up

Write Ups

Here’s mine.

Resources for Further Discussion

Miller questions:

  • What is positivism? Why is it a problem for technical writing? Why does positivism lead us to devalue the traditional humanities course?
  • What does Miller identify as the most problematic dimension of a non-rhetorical approach to scientific communication?
  • Miller identifies 4 problems for technical writing pedagogy that stem from the positivist tradition. How do we avoid them?
  • How does Miller–writing in 1979–describe the epistemology that is replacing positivism?
  • What does it mean to teach technical writing from a communalist perspective? Why might some students reject a communalist approach to teaching writing?
  • How can we describe the humanistic value of a technical writing course? What do we say in the faculty meeting? Or the job interview??

Fadde and Sullivan Notes:
Case studies are a common pedagogical tool not only in professional writing, but in business and communication programs as well. Attempt to highlight all of the contextual nuances and complications real folks navigate in professional settings. (See for instance Harvard Business Publishing).

I indicated last week that while the case focuses on international communication (which, obviously, adds extra layers of complication), it also helps us perceive some of the general difficulties that circulate through just about any professional writing (rhetorical) situation: how we navigate different value systems, power hierarchies, expectations, ambiguities, personalities, etc.

Yu (2012): How can we identify our own underlying cultural assumptions (think Corder–what can make us aware of our own narrative).

One thing I found particularly fascinating was Hofstede’s 6 Dimensional model of national culture. What is something on these maps that surprises you?

Assignment:
We are going to take 20 minutes and draft an email to Kevin Smith. We will CC this email to every member of the Cumberland and Bangalore team, and we will BCC Dr. Kumar into this email. Our email should make 2-3 recommendations. (In this way I am combining the Recommendation Report and Internal Memo assignments on page 152).

Below I have copied most of the vital information from the report into easier to access/scan lists.

Fadde and Sullivan Email Activity

A link to the resource document.

Professional Writing Review Essay

Our first month’s foray into Professional Writing scholarship will culminate with an analytical / bibliographic review essay. You will select a keyword/topic and trace how that topic has appeared across a range of journals over the past 4 years (so 2018-2021). I am hoping your keyword/idea is narrow enough to focus on 6-8 interrelated articles.

My expectation is that many of you are new to PWTC as an academic discipline, and likely have limited familiarity with the range of scholarship and research published. This project is meant to both give you a sense of that range and help you develop some expertise that might help you either in our community engagement project or in your own scholarly/professional trajectory.

Here’s the list of the journals with which we will work:

Your essay will work to create an ontology that helps organize and synthesize contemporary work.

So, what is a scholarly review essay? It is a kind of review essay–similar to a book review–that synthesizes several recent/important perspectives on an emerging disciplinary trend. Essentially, they offer scholars to stay abreast of developments in related fields without having to read dozens of articles. Generally a review essay is organized by topic not by source, and is the 2500-3500 word range (so slightly less than 1/2 of an academic article).

Think of a review essay as a micro-lit review, except for folks who aren’t necessarily experts in the topic.

For next week: I’d like you to look through the journals above and identify an article you want to read. Ideally, this will be an article written in the last calendar year. Skim the article, taking note of the studies that lie central to its methods and argument. Then use that article–especially its keywords and bibliography–to compile a list of 10 other articles on the subject (book chapters in edited collections are also acceptable; given our time constraints, I would push you away from whole books). Don’t worry–you won’t necessarily read all ten, but I’d like you to have 10 on the list.

Final Due Date for this review essay: February 5th (I will respond to them on the morning of the 6th).

Readings for Next Week: Read any three of the following four articles. Write your Write Ups.

  • Clegg et al. 2021. Programmatic outcomes in undergraduate technical and professional communication programs
  • Brumberger and Lauer. 2015. The evolution of technical communication: An analysis of industry job postings
  • Lauer and Brumberger. 2019. Redefining writing for the responsive workplace
  • Spartz and Weber. 2015. Writing entrepreneurs: A survey of attitudes, habits, skills, and genres
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 651 Week 2: Foundation of PWTC

ENG 301 2.T: Brumberger and Lauer, Analyzing Job Ads

Today’s Plan:

  • Brumberger and Lauer
  • Selecting Jobs from the Corpus
  • Practice Coding
  • Homework

Brumberger and Lauer

Canvas discussion.

Selecting Jobs from the Corpus

There’s an assignment in Canvas. Let’s take a look.

Practice Coding

Let’s pick up where we left off last week. We will need a few sample jobs to code and the coding sheet. Let’s do one together.

Let’s break into eight teams:

  • Team #1: Stephanie B, Sam H, Gracie M
  • Team #2: Justin D, Micaila H, David M
  • Team #3: Mollie D, Lily K, Allison M
  • Team #4: Sam F, Riley K, Mya M
  • Team #5: Josh F, Ryan K,
  • Team #6: Rae F, Sean K, Mariana V
  • Team #7: Shay G, Arianna L,
  • Team #8: Augustus R, Joey M,

Note: difference between what counts as knowledge and what counts as data.

Homework

Let me lay out the work for the next week. There’s going to be four assignments:

  • First, for Thursday, you will complete the Selecting Jobs from the Corpus Canvas assignment
  • Second, for Thursday, you will code 2 more job ads before class. I will email these out with the class notes. We will open Thursday’s class discussing these ads.
  • In Thursday’s class, you will begin coding the 10 job ads you identified for the Selecting Jobs assignment. You will finish coding those jobs and add them to the spreadsheet before Tuesday’s class
  • Before next Tuesday’s class, you will read the Herrick article (in the Files section of Canvas) and complete the Canvas discussion post.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 301 2.T: Brumberger and Lauer, Analyzing Job Ads

ENG 231 2.T/R: Nuts and Bolts of a Procedural Analysis

  • Reviewing Bogost Questions / Feedback
  • Procedural Rhetoric: Identifying Mechanics
  • To The Google Doc
  • Let’s Play: Papers Please
  • Homework: First Project, a Procedural Analysis

Thursday Update

I’ve gone through the ideas we developed on Tuesday for a procedural analysis and attempted to transform it into a more organized heuristic. Let’s take a look.

I quickly skimmed through the first set of gaming journal entries and was impressed by the range of games folks are playing–let’s walk through that quickly.

Homework for Tuesday:

I want to budget a “double session” over the weekend (and I’m giving you some time today to get a head start). Play your game for 2 hours, writing for about 20 minutes after each session. So, by next Tuesday, you should have played your game for at least 3 hours, and written for at least an hour.

After this, you should have a pretty clear what the 2-4 most significant procedural dimensions of your game are. In other words, the thesis of your paper should be starting to take shape. You should have more guided questions/focus for your remaining 2 hours of gameplay.

We’ve got a tentative due date on this first paper of January 31st. So that means next week would involve playing your game for 2 hours and then turning your gaming journal notes into a paper. I’m guessing at paper length here: this feels like 4-5 double-spaced? Honestly, I’m less concerned about length and more curious about the depth of ideas and analysis. Also: tone/voice/style. I hate academic papers. I teach another class on video games in which people write academic papers. This is not technically a CO writing class, so you don’t have to write academic papers. Write in any voice that suits you. Pretend you are an IGN reviewer. Hate something? Channel your inner Zero Punctuation. Or, perhaps more better, your inner Extra Credits. Or, just go ahead and write a 5 paragraph-ish essay. Or don’t.

Tuesday’s class will be my stock “How to organize an academic paper” lecture thingy. If you *need* to learn how to write/organize an academic paper, then I will certainly read one and help you. Consider this an opportunity to practice the style of writing you want.

Reviewing Bogost Questions

Looking through the Bogost reading responses, I noticed a number of people who had questions regarding procedural rhetoric. I think this response captures a lot of the uncertainty I was reading:

I was confused about what exactly procedurality is. Is procedurality/process the software itself or the rules the computer software makes? I think after reading the article that I’ve
come to understand that process is what determines what the players can and can’t do in the game.

And I could see some additional confusion manifest in responses to Q4, since many people gave examples of “choose your own adventure” decisions or character choice. In many cases, choosing a playable character or navigating a decision tree isn’t necessarily procedural. (Sicart veterans: things get dicey if a supposedly ethical decision is tied too closely to an in-game reward or power level; that’s when decision-making might be procedural because of a game’s reward structure).

Let’s recall Custer’s questions for players:

  • What does this game “represent” (different potential meanings: Literal? Symbolic/Theme? Is this game modeling something from the real world? Beyond this real world model, is there a deeper meaning / attempt to persuade?
  • What mechanics does the game use to support that representation?
  • What are some potential arguments made by the mechanics?
  • In what ways do the mechanics match the argument?
  • In what ways do the mechanics clash with/ignore the argument?
  • So what is procedural? Let’s begin by thinking about the mechanical systems that players navigate.

What I would like to do today is to further develop Custer’s heuristic. In Rhetoric and Composition, a heuristic is a set of open answered (not yes/no) questions intended to help spur thought and generate ideas. I would like to extend Custer’s heuristic by flushing out what kinds of mechanics, and what kinds of questions, we can ask about the games we play. What are the kinds of “mechanical processes” we encounter in games?

I’ve already started this a bit above, trying to tease out sophisticated multiple meanings for the term “represent” in question #1. As an old literature major, I tend to think about representation in terms of “theme” or “moral”: the element of the human condition that a game attempts to illustrate (for you non-English majors, this will make more sense when we discuss Aristotle in the *next* project). But we can also take representation more literally–for instance, Out of the Park baseball attempts to represent the machinations of a baseball season from the perspective of a general manager. Sim City affords you the opportunity to design, manage, and grow a city. Not all games necessarily represent something that we can/do in the real world, but many do, or, at the very least, incorporate real world systems into their design. Other games incorporate real world “ideas” about the ways the world works into their designs (ideologies).

Okay, to the Google Doc. Activity #1: What do we mean by mechanics?

What happens when we run “Every Day the Same Dream” through our developing heuristic idea machine?

One thing that might help us here is Love’s (n.d.) “Problematizing Videogames: Students to be Critical Players. Let’s start by looking at his summary of Bogost and “unit operations” (p. 7). Love offers a handful of preliminary discussion questions on page 11–let’s take a look at those, too, and identify which of them feel procedural.

The meat of Love’s article focuses Consalvo and Dutton’s (2006) 4 categories for analyzing a video game:

  • Object Inventory (12-13)
  • Interface Study (14)
  • Interaction Map (15)
  • Gameplay Log (16-17)

Break and attack.

First Project: Procedural Analysis of a Video Game

My hope is the discussion above and collaborative work in our Google Doc helps clarify a range of procedural analytic approaches. (If time/interest allows, Hayden (2017) on how Mass Effect proceduralizes particular theories of international relations. Particularly the thesis work on 177 and sample analysis on 182.

Your assignment is to identify a game (or games) for procedural analysis. This can be a game with which you are already familiar or one that you have never played–either option should produce results. I expect you to play the game(s) for 6 hours, writing a gaming log for every hour of play. Our heuristic activity should provide you with plenty of avenues for thought regarding your game log entries and eventual paper focus. Your ultimate paper focus should be on the most interesting (whether positive or terrible) rhetorical purposes/mechanics in your game. This might vary widely depending on what game you choose to play.

I rarely assign students to write something that I have not done myself–but this is one of those cases. While I have written extensively about video games, I have not written a procedural analysis (the closest I got was on the psychological implications of Resident Evil’s typewriter save system). In Thursday’s class, I’m going to try and model how I might approach this paper by playing “Papers Please” with you and applying the heuristic questions to our collective play.

Logistically, it is quite tricky for me to anticipate how long these papers will be. We will figure that out down the road. I would like to set the due date for these papers as Monday, January 31st.

Homework

I would like you to create a Google Doc and submit it to the Canvas Assignment Week 2: Procedural Gaming Journal. Let me walk you through that now.

Between now and Thursday, you should identify a game you want to play and write about, and play it for 45 minutes. Then write in your gaming journal for 15-20 minutes. Use the heuristics we examined and developed in class today to guide your writing. Your paper will be on the procedural dimensions of your game–what is procedural interesting? Sophisticated? Frustrating? Do the mechanics feel “realistic” to you? Do they pull you out of an immersive experience? Is this game making an explicit social argument (even explicit requires nuance, there’s a difference between, say, the PETA games we examined last week and FFXIV’s Shadowbringer’s critique of Trump).

Additionally, you might experiment with a game highlighted on the Games For Change website. As the title suggests, many of these are “serious games.” You might conduct a procedural analysis to see if they are a “good” game, if they are taking advantage of mechanical/procedural affordances in a way that intensifies their intended message.

You are also free to compare contrast how a particular mechanic works/differs in a number of different games (say, my question about how movement differs in World of Warcraft and FFXIV–why does this matter, how does it impact my experience as a player?)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 2.T/R: Nuts and Bolts of a Procedural Analysis

ENG 231 1.R: Bogost, Procedurality /

Today’s Plan:

  • Defining Rhetoric
  • Bogost Discussion
  • Playing Some Games
  • Homework

Defining Rhetoric

One thing I forgot to do: circle back and “define” rhetoric (how Aristotelian, to singularly identify what some/thing “is”). Let me take a swing.

I consider rhetoric as the study and practice of how we can develop experiences, spaces, collaborations, encounters, through which we help ourselves and others negotiate the disequilibrium produced by difference in order to potentially foster more productive collaboration, negotiation, and change.

I’m surprisingly happy with that.

Bogost Discussion

A pre-discussion exercise. Go through your answers to the four questions and decide which one you would like to revise and present to the class.

At some point I want to talk about Collin’s question and visual enthymeme.

You can put that material (question, any quotes, etc) in this document.

Thinking About Procedurality

It might be useful to define “serious games,” which can have two definitions. First and second.

Okay, let’s watch something.

Okay, let’s play something.

This project is based on Jason Custer’s article on teaching procedurality. In the article, Jason distills the Bogost article you read (and a few other materials) into a “heuristic,” a set of generative questions we can apply to any game. I’ve modified those a bit, so here’s our collective heuristic:

  • What does this game represent? [What is the theme? Rhetorical Purpose? Argument? Message?]
  • Mechanically, what stands out to you?
  • What mechanics does the game use to support that representation?
  • What are some potential arguments made by the mechanics?
  • In what ways do the mechanics match the argument?
  • In what ways do the mechanics clash with/ignore the argument?
  • How might we modify the mechanics to create more procedural harmony/aesthetic impact?

Homework

First, read the Custer article in the files section of Canvas–it should help you better understand how to do a procedural analysis.

After you have read the Custer, visit this Google Doc. Everyone should play at least 2 of the games on Jason’s list for 15 minutes. Complete as many of the heuristic questions for that entry as possible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 1.R: Bogost, Procedurality /

ENG 301 1.R: Questions, Job Ads

Today’s Plan:

  • Reviewing Your Questions
  • Coding Job Ads
  • Homework: Brumberger & Lauer Reading and Discussion

Reviewing Your Questions

My question for you is about what the job market looks like for students graduating with their bachelors in English.

I’m going to hold off on answering this one. I think the first project will take care of it.

What is your favorite part about this course? Or, what is the one thing you wish all of your students would take away from this course?
We get to do stuff in the world that actually makes a difference. Internships are really, really important. Despite the generalization that internships are sketchy, my experience has been almost universally positive. Generally, students locate an internship opportunity via Linkedin (etc) and I work with them to submit the ENG 490 internship paperwork.

Thinking of a few internships the past few years:

  • Molly Riggs, music blog writer at Audible Addiction
  • Carl McDonald, grant writing internship with Impact Locally
  • Rand Hooks, grant writing internship with Holocaust Memorial Organization
  • Jasmine Day, social media internship with Go West Film Festival
  • Katrina Jedue, editorial intern with the CEA Critic
  • Keelie Reagan, Denver Scholarship Foundation

what classes available in the writing minor do you think are most beneficial and informative for creating a strong writer?
Obviously, all our creative writing classes. Prof. Zimmerman is amazing. But I’d also bring up Robert Pinsky.

After attending our first meeting, I felt overwhelmed, and wondered if I needed other courses to support my success within ‘Writing as a Job.’ I would appreciate your input and feedback based on my experience, as most of my classmates seemed to have a wide background of writing experiences.

Yeah, a lot of people in this class will have extensive writing experience. But that isn’t necessary to succeed.

I also want to ask for any advice you might have as far as choosing a career and sticking to it goes. I am not always indecisive but when it comes to my future I feel like it’s easy for me to go back and forth about what I want to do because I fear stagnation. I would hate to spend all this time in school studying what I think I want to do only for years to pass and later realizing that I chose the wrong path. Am I focused on the wrong things? What are your thoughts on it?

What’s nice is that writing is a meta-skill. It travels well.

Question for you: Genuinely, how the hell do creative writers break into the job market? I’m a very analytical person and I like to have a plan. And am definitely not stressed about making enough money to stay alive.
This one is tricky.

With that said, I do have a question for you, what is your favorite literary genre? and where is your comfort zone in relation to your favorite literary genre? (e.g. my favorite literary genre is poetry, and it is the most comfortable genre for me to write in, but I also enjoy creative nonfiction).

For reading? Murder mysteries. Almost all of my writing is either academic or philosophical.

How much do you use social media and do you have any tips for being smart on it?
I use it a lot, but mostly as a consumer/lurker. But..

Lastly, I would love to hear your insight on how to take professional writing or editing gigs: Should one work full-time, salaried positions or be completely freelance, completing small individual projects for a wide variety of clients, or somewhere in between?
Get a job that gives you medical benefits.


I was curious about what the requirements of the writing major look like. I only have one semester left of my graphic design degree, but a double major in writing is very tempting to me depending on how much longer it would take me. Also, have you looked any more into Blaseball at all since last Spring? It is still deeply fascinating to me on both an academic and general nerdery level.

A draft of the Writing major.

As someone just getting their toes wet in the sea of academia, I wonder if you have any advice. Do you enjoy working as a professor? Is there anything you have encountered along the way that I should avoid or seek out? What kinds of things can I be doing now to strengthen my candidacy for a Ph.D program and beyond?

Phew. Buckle up.

I don’t have any questions, but I hope you had a good winter break.
I did. I visited my parents in MA. Flying back to Colorado was nerve-wracking, since our original flight was cancelled, but we did manage to get back without catching omicron. Hidden cost of academia.

What was your first job experience?
Dishwasher, then pizza cook.

Without spending too much time, (I’m sure you’re a busy person) answer in what (just a couple) ways have you noticed the incline or decline in life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness since the founding of America?

Phew. This one would take me bit to flush out. A few quick hits. Taxes. Wages. “>Cost of living.
Income inequality.

I guess, if you could only watch one single TV show for the rest of your life, what show would you pick. Mine would be the cartoon Steven Universe.
I have questions.

What is your favorite game to play with friends, family, or both? This includes card games, board games, mind games, etc.
I play DnD twice a week. I play Dominion as often as my family will tolerate. I play Destiny 2 for at least an hour every night (often 2). I teach two courses on video game scholarship and research.

How do you feel about pets on furniture? Are you a snuggle up on the couch with Fido type of person, or does Fido belong on the floor or in his own bed type of person?

Practice Coding

We’ll get some practice in using my modified version of B&L’s coding scheme.

Homework

Read the B&L article (.pdf in the files section of Canvas) and the discussion post assignment by Monday at midnight (I will be reviewing them before Tuesday’s class).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on ENG 301 1.R: Questions, Job Ads

ENG 651 Week 1: Rhetoric

Today’s Plan:

  • Syllabus
  • Reading Responses (?)
  • Some Kind of Lecture Thing
  • Talking About Corder
  • For Next Class

Syllabus

Let’s take a quick peek.

Reading Responses

Due to my messaging snafu, I’m unsure how many folks will have read the Herrick and the Lanham–as of 4:40, only one person has posted to the Canvas Discussion forum (thanks Erika–those were great responses). So I’m hoping at least a few other people will be ready to discuss those two readings.

Topology of the Herrick reading:

    1. Rhetoric and Persuasion (pg. 3-5). How does Herrick attempt to nudge our understanding of persuasion?
    2. Rhetoric is Adapted to an Audience (pg. 8-10)
    3. Rhetoric Reveals Human Motives and Rhetoric is Responsive (pg. 10-12)
    4. Rhetoric Addresses Contingent Issues (pg. 15-16)
    5. Rhetoric Tests Ideas (pg. 16-17)
    6. Rhetoric Assists Advocacy (pg. 17-19)
    7. Rhetoric Distributes Power (pg. 19-21)
    8. Rhetoric Discovers Facts and Rhetoric Shapes Knowledge (pg. 21-22)
    9. Rhetoric Builds Community (pg. 22-23)

Some Kind of Lecture Thing

I want to think a bit differently about the two rhetorics Lanham outlines, the Rationalist Platonic/Ramist tradition and the “architectonic” McKeon-ist tradition.

In doing so, I want to work towards a definition of rhetoric.

I consider rhetoric as the study and practice of how we can develop experiences, spaces, collaborations, encounters, through which we help ourselves and others negotiate the disequilibrium produced by difference in order to potentially foster more productive collaboration, negotiation, and change.

Rhetoric seeks a way to inhabit the world that recognizes the dangers like lie in our selfish, powerful, and often unconscious desire for security, comfort, and mastery.

Corder Discussion

My standard array of questions:

  • What challenge does Corder issue that problematizes all rhetoric, but especially positivistic rhetoric?
  • Explicate what Corder means by “narrative.” What are some other words we might use in its place? (Hint: I think Corder is rhetorically avoiding one charged term)
  • 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)
  • What dimension(s) does Corder add to argument that is/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]

Homework

      • Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 610–617.
      • Clark, Dave. (2004). Is professional writing relevant?
      • Fadde and Sullivan. (2013). Designing communication for collaboration across engineering cultures.

The Miller and the Clark move us from thinking about rhetorical theory to professional/technical writing–from its humble beginning seeking legitimacy from literature faculty, while simultaneously attempting to identify and explicate its intellectual foundations, to wrestling with the theory/practice divide and how to make application and service-learning something more than “charity work” (for those who have taken 301–the Clark piece haunts me a bit–I know it will be something I think about as we work with non-profits this semester).

While the Fadde and Sullivan speak to cross-cultural situations, their methods of audience awareness, attendance to local power configurations, and action deliberation are relevant to virtually any rhetorical situation. Let me suggest you read carefully the narrative piece in the beginning, because I’m going to ask you to compose a few emails in next week’s class.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 651 Week 1: Rhetoric

ENG 231 1.T: Welcome, Rhetoric & Procedurality

Today’s Plan:

  • Syllabus
  • WTF is Rhetoric?
  • Ian Bogost and Procedurality
  • Homework

Syllabus

I sort of have one.

WTF is(n’t) Rhetoric?

Here we go again.

Levinas:
“Ontology, which reduces the other to the same, promotes freedom–the freedom that is the identification of the same, not allowing itself to be alienated by the other.”

“We name this calling into question of my spontaneity by the presence of the Other ethics. The strangeness of the Other, his irreducibility to the I, to my thoughts and possessions, is precisely accomplished as a calling into question of my spontaneity, as ethics. ” (Totality and Infinity 42-43; “freedom” in direct conflict with “responsibility/obligation”)

Davis:
“An ethics of decision in a world that has lost its criteria for responsible action begins with straining to hear the excess that gets drowned out, sacrificied for the clarity of One voice, One call, One legitimate position.”
(Breaking Up at Totality 19)

Hyde:
“Rhetoric facilitates acknowledgement by transforming space and time into dwelling places where people can feel at home with each other, engage in collaborative deliberation, and know together ways of resolving disputed concerns. […] The rhetor is an architect, a builder of dwelling places, homes, habitats, where the caress of others is a welcoming occurrence.”

Cavarero:
Thinking and speaking are different activities. Thinking wants to be timeless […] furthermore, it is always solitary, even when it takes place between several people […] As Maria Zambrano notes, too, “logos proceeds without any other opposition than what it, in order to better show itself, poses to itself.”

Speaking, on the contrary […] does not know in advance where it is going, and it entrusts itself to the unpredictable nature of what the interlocutors say. In short, thought is as solitary as speech is relational.

Vitanza:
My position is, especially in the next chapter, that we are not at home in our world/whirl of language. Any and every attempt to assume that we are has or will have created for human beings dangerous situations. (Negation, Subjectivity, and the History of Rhetoric, 157

Now it is crucial to understand that, for Heidegger, all that “we speak” by way of logos/language, or “speaking/saying” is perpetually an act of concealing/unconcealing. For Heidegger, this Being/essence cannot be realized, completely revealed or unconcealed. Any and every attempt to unconceal or answer definitively is to perpetrate an act of violence on Being and on human being. (NSHoR, 177)

Rickert:
Dwelling places us in the insight that rhetoric, being worldly, cannot be understood solely as human doing and that persuasion gains its bearings from an affectability that emerges with our material environments both prior to and alongside the human…

Kristeva:
To worry or to smile, such is the choice when we are assailed by the strange; our decision depends on how familiar we are with our own ghosts. (Strangers to Ourselves)

Constructive end point / foundations of rhetorical analysis of a video game:

  • Game: What is the *purpose* of this text? What statement does it *intend* to make about our world, society, human condition, struggles?
  • Player: How do you relate to the game’s intended purpose? Does it resonate with you?
  • Speaker: Who are they trying to be? What voice/style do they assume? How do they position themselves in relation to genre/audience?

Now we will complicate this by adding a procedural layer to our questioning.

Ian Bogost and Procedurality

The first way we will analyze games this semester stems from Ian Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric. Bogost seeks to add procedural rhetoric to its other dominant traditions–oral/written rhetoric and visual rhetoric (which has gained increasing importance in the late 20th and early 21st centuries). Given the messy diatribe that preceded this paragraph, let’s just say that Bogost tends to define rhetoric as “influence,” close to persuasion, but recognizing non-rational and non-conscious dimensions to rhetoric. That is, we are being “persuaded” at almost every point in our lives by forces explicit and implicit (for instance, the ways that desks are arranged in rows are “persuading” you to accept my authority etc etc). Bogost believes video games are extraordinary good at this kind of passive, non-conscious persuasion. Let’s figure out why.

Homework

Your first assignment is due before Thursday’s class. Read Bogost’s 2017 article “The Rhetoric of Video Games” (.pdf in the files section of Canvas).

I’m curious to learn you perception of this article–do you understand what Bogost is talking about? Do you find this article difficult to follow?–and so I’m going to ask you to reflect on a few questions. You can write your answers directly in Canvas or submit them as a Google Doc / Word docx.

These responses are meant to prime you for Thursday’s discussion. I’m hoping everyone comes to class Thursday with something to contribute (so you don’t have to be super happy with every response below, but you should be ready to share one of them).

  • Question #1: Find me the line where Bogost defines procedural rhetoric. Try putting it in your own words.
  • Question #2: Is there a term/part of this article you don’t understand or want me to address in detail? And/or is there a part of this article with which you disagree?
  • Question #3: What do you make of Bogost’s analysis of Take Back Illinois and Bully?
  • Question #4: Can you think of a time when a game did something interesting procedurally? What game? What did it do? Or can you think of a game in which the procedures and mechanics lack any kind of meaningful relationship to the argument/purpose/theme?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 1.T: Welcome, Rhetoric & Procedurality