Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Written Defense
My video is not an infringement of any copyrights because it is a not-for-profit exercise in education and amusement only. The original source material - the feature film "Mrs. Doubtfire" and several episodes of Fox's "Arrested Development" - is not misrepresented, mistreated, or deceptively edited in any way. It is also unaltered by any unauthorized music or dialogue, and as such it is a fair representation of the original material and does not violate any of the creators' original intent.
It's amazing to me that anyone anywhere could consider this video a moral or ethical transgression of any kind. If I have taken anything from this class - primarily from Cory Doctorow's book and interview, and Larry Lessig's talks - it's that harmless videos or other remix materials made for fun and not intended for profit should not be considered illegal. It's a mistake to create laws that turn ordinary, creative, well-intended people into criminals. The laws in place are inspired by greed and not any sense of fairness or even of common sense. Perhaps if someone is directly profiting from the work and creativity of another person, that is cause for concern. But to pursue and prosecute innocent hobbyists seems like a huge mistake, and a huge waste of time.
It's amazing to me that anyone anywhere could consider this video a moral or ethical transgression of any kind. If I have taken anything from this class - primarily from Cory Doctorow's book and interview, and Larry Lessig's talks - it's that harmless videos or other remix materials made for fun and not intended for profit should not be considered illegal. It's a mistake to create laws that turn ordinary, creative, well-intended people into criminals. The laws in place are inspired by greed and not any sense of fairness or even of common sense. Perhaps if someone is directly profiting from the work and creativity of another person, that is cause for concern. But to pursue and prosecute innocent hobbyists seems like a huge mistake, and a huge waste of time.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Remix Ideas
I'm pretty certain I want to do a video project, and probably it will be a parody movie trailer (or more like teaser trailer, since I think I want to use some kind of youtube video and those aren't usually very long.) I'm definitely going to go for a funny parody. I've been inspired in the past by Shining and Brokeback to the Future, and I hope to do something along those same lines. I plan to use the keeptube software to put together the video footage, and some sort of stock music or sound (creepy horror music, etc) laid down over it.
Since youtube posters don't typically copyright their footage, and there are plenty of free stock music tracks/sounds out there, I don't think I'll have a problem with copyright issues. I will probably make the titles myself in Photoshop - they'll look like a real movie trailer but won't be violating any existing copyrights (I hope).
Since youtube posters don't typically copyright their footage, and there are plenty of free stock music tracks/sounds out there, I don't think I'll have a problem with copyright issues. I will probably make the titles myself in Photoshop - they'll look like a real movie trailer but won't be violating any existing copyrights (I hope).
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Rip! Response
Do you believe that creativity is limited if you don’t have access to tools,
technology or libraries of content (i.e. musical samples or video clips)? Would
your creativity be redirected into another medium, or might it cease to exist
without this access?
Good question! I do believe it is limited, yes, in that with access you can develop a certain kind of creativity - and develop certain talents much more quickly than you could otherwise. I think remixing is a unique medium for commenting upon our cultural experiences that isn't easily replicable in other mediums, if at all.
This documentary really emphasized the senseless greed and out-of-bounds power and influence of media corporations. Suing a lower middle class mother over a couple Shania Twain songs - to the "tune" of $9k per song - is just pathetic and disgusting in every way. Why take a quarter of her salary every month? To what end? That's the most outrageous part of the documentary, to my mind. The punishment so exceeds the actual crime committed that it is objectionable on every moral and ethical principle imaginable. It's just senseless bullying.
The Brazil stuff and the footage from music festivals was all pretty cool. Now I feel like dancing.
technology or libraries of content (i.e. musical samples or video clips)? Would
your creativity be redirected into another medium, or might it cease to exist
without this access?
Good question! I do believe it is limited, yes, in that with access you can develop a certain kind of creativity - and develop certain talents much more quickly than you could otherwise. I think remixing is a unique medium for commenting upon our cultural experiences that isn't easily replicable in other mediums, if at all.
This documentary really emphasized the senseless greed and out-of-bounds power and influence of media corporations. Suing a lower middle class mother over a couple Shania Twain songs - to the "tune" of $9k per song - is just pathetic and disgusting in every way. Why take a quarter of her salary every month? To what end? That's the most outrageous part of the documentary, to my mind. The punishment so exceeds the actual crime committed that it is objectionable on every moral and ethical principle imaginable. It's just senseless bullying.
The Brazil stuff and the footage from music festivals was all pretty cool. Now I feel like dancing.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Review, Final Draft
But first, FUN FACT!! Putting two spaces between sentences is grammatically incorrect. That convention is a relic from the typewriter age of monospaced type.
Now on to the review...
Cory Doctorow's Little Brother takes place in a slightly-futuristic, slightly-dystopian San Francisco; it's a setting that is similar enough to our current reality to make the implications of a total surveillance culture all the more terrifying. A terrorist attack blows up the Bay Bridge in the first few pages of the novel, creating the permissive atmosphere required for a whole lot of very invasive security procedures, all conceived and carried out by the villainous Department of Homeland Security.
If this sounds like a familiar narrative, it's no accident: Doctorow's political agenda is apparent from the moment that 17-year-old Marcus, our protagonist, is abducted by Homeland Security and imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism. Is Marcus a terrorist? Hardly. He's an ace at hacking through his school's secure internet and evading their gait-recognition cameras. But the post-attack environment is such that everyone, it seems, is a suspect. And that's exactly what Marcus and I take issue with: under the guise of keeping us safe, our country is making criminals of us all.
He faces formidable obstacles in his quest to defend our Bill of Rights. Among them: his own father, who was spooked enough by Marcus's presumed death after the attack to find even the most Draconian measures appropriate. And Marcus does question himself along the way, particularly after he gains a huge online following and his worshipers are at risk of retribution for their "treasonous" acts. But his passion for his cause is infectious, and my reaction, as a liberal twenty-something in a discouraging political climate, is that this world could use way more Marcuses.
Little Brother is classified as a young adult novel. So how's the writing? There is a touch of that adult condescension, a not-quite grasp of kid slang that made me cringe from time to time. There is also a tendency to over-elaborate when it comes to the finer technological details of Marcus's war against his oppressors. The characters are strong for the most part, with a slight tendency toward caricature. Marcus's friends are an array of quirky young geniuses, and his girlfriend is intelligent, funny, and fiercely supportive. It's nice to get female characters that are more than peripheral admirers or untouchable beauties.
The book itself is easy to access online at no cost whatsoever. This, too, is part of Doctorow's philosophy. We learn from his impassioned introduction that he believes unfettered access to books is not only a good thing but is now simply a reality that publishers and distributors need to embrace. Sharing something that you have purchased legally - something that by every reasonable definition is now your property - is still seen by many as a criminal act, and this ties into his central theme: a society that makes criminals of all its citizens is undeniably a dysfunctional one. It's up to us to follow Marcus's example, and use our collective ingenuity to protect our freedoms and preserve common sense.
Now on to the review...
Cory Doctorow's Little Brother takes place in a slightly-futuristic, slightly-dystopian San Francisco; it's a setting that is similar enough to our current reality to make the implications of a total surveillance culture all the more terrifying. A terrorist attack blows up the Bay Bridge in the first few pages of the novel, creating the permissive atmosphere required for a whole lot of very invasive security procedures, all conceived and carried out by the villainous Department of Homeland Security.
If this sounds like a familiar narrative, it's no accident: Doctorow's political agenda is apparent from the moment that 17-year-old Marcus, our protagonist, is abducted by Homeland Security and imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism. Is Marcus a terrorist? Hardly. He's an ace at hacking through his school's secure internet and evading their gait-recognition cameras. But the post-attack environment is such that everyone, it seems, is a suspect. And that's exactly what Marcus and I take issue with: under the guise of keeping us safe, our country is making criminals of us all.
He faces formidable obstacles in his quest to defend our Bill of Rights. Among them: his own father, who was spooked enough by Marcus's presumed death after the attack to find even the most Draconian measures appropriate. And Marcus does question himself along the way, particularly after he gains a huge online following and his worshipers are at risk of retribution for their "treasonous" acts. But his passion for his cause is infectious, and my reaction, as a liberal twenty-something in a discouraging political climate, is that this world could use way more Marcuses.
Little Brother is classified as a young adult novel. So how's the writing? There is a touch of that adult condescension, a not-quite grasp of kid slang that made me cringe from time to time. There is also a tendency to over-elaborate when it comes to the finer technological details of Marcus's war against his oppressors. The characters are strong for the most part, with a slight tendency toward caricature. Marcus's friends are an array of quirky young geniuses, and his girlfriend is intelligent, funny, and fiercely supportive. It's nice to get female characters that are more than peripheral admirers or untouchable beauties.
The book itself is easy to access online at no cost whatsoever. This, too, is part of Doctorow's philosophy. We learn from his impassioned introduction that he believes unfettered access to books is not only a good thing but is now simply a reality that publishers and distributors need to embrace. Sharing something that you have purchased legally - something that by every reasonable definition is now your property - is still seen by many as a criminal act, and this ties into his central theme: a society that makes criminals of all its citizens is undeniably a dysfunctional one. It's up to us to follow Marcus's example, and use our collective ingenuity to protect our freedoms and preserve common sense.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Review Proposal & Draft
My Project Proposal
First person writing has always been difficult for me - I generally prefer a polished & somewhat detached tone - so with this Amazon Review project I was eager to put more of myself into it and really make it personal. It fits the genre perfectly and I know it's something I need to work on as a writer. After the first draft I wrote, I felt like I succeeded in doing that to some extent, and I want to work to make my voice even more apparent.
My concern with deliberately crafting reviews from other perspectives is that it will feel disingenuous, and I really want to be honest and sincere with my review. I had an intense personal reaction to the themes in the book, and I think it would help my growth as a writer if I really focus on making this one review the best -and most personal - it can be.
My Review, First Draft
Cory Doctorow's Little Brother takes place in a slightly-futuristic, slightly-dystopian San Francisco; it's a setting that is similar enough to our current reality to make the implications of a total surveillance culture all the more terrifying. A terrorist attack blows up the Bay Bridge in the first few pages of the novel, creating the permissive atmosphere required for a whole lot of very invasive security procedures, all conceived and carried out by the villainous Department of Homeland Security.
If this sounds like a familiar narrative, it's no accident: Doctorow's political agenda is apparent from the moment that 17-year-old Marcus, our protagonist, is abducted by Homeland Security and imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism. Is Marcus a terrorist? Hardly. He's an ace at hacking through his school's secure internet and evading their gait-recognition cameras. He builds his own laptops, and he likes to cut class to play a city-wide interactive game with his best friends. But the post-attack environment is such that everyone, it seems, is a suspect. And that's exactly what Marcus and I take issue with: under the guise of keeping us safe, our country is making criminals of us all.
He faces formidable obstacles in his quest to defend the Bill of Rights. Among them: his very own father, who was spooked enough by Marcus's presumed death after the attack to find even the most Draconian measures acceptable and appropriate. And yes, Marcus does question himself along the way, particularly after he gains an enormous online following and his worshipers seem at risk of retribution for their "treasonous" acts. But Doctorow paints us a picture of a smart, courageous, industrious high school student, willing to use every technological resource at hand to stand up for what he believes is right. And my reaction, as a liberal twenty-something looking for inspiration in a discouraging political climate, is that this world could use way more Marcuses.
Little Brother is classified as a young adult novel. So how's the writing? There is a touch of that adult condescension, a not-quite grasp of kid slang that made me cringe from time to time. There is also a tendency to over-elaborate when it comes to the finer technological details of Marcus's plans. I sense that it's an effort on Doctorow's part to show that with a basic grasp of some simple mathematical concepts, we too can confound the oppressors who would seek to track our every move and bust us for some crime (any crime will do). But that didn't keep my eyes from going a little blurry every time the exposition train went off the tracks.
The characters are strong for the most part, with a slight tendency toward caricature. Marcus feels intensely throughout the novel, and we are along for the ride on a mostly-believable emotional roller coaster. (The stakes are appropriately high.) His best friends are an array of quirky young geniuses, and his girlfriend is incredibly intelligent, funny, and fiercely supportive. It's nice to get female characters that are more than peripheral admirers or untouchable beauties - Ange has a voice all her own, and that's why Marcus falls for her. His parents are loving, despite the varied conflicts at home. I would have related to his complex relationships with his parents at that age.
The great thing about this book is that it's incredible easy to access online for no cost whatsoever - though, if I had it all to do over again, I would much prefer a physical copy for ease of use and for note-taking. (I'm all about scribbling in margins.) But this, too, is part of Doctorow's philosophy. We learn from his impassioned introduction that he believes unfettered access to books is not only a good thing but is now simply a reality that publishers and distributors need to embrace, and he had me convinced without much difficulty.
"For me, for pretty much every writer, the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity," Doctorow tells us. "Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy." Yet sharing something that you have purchased legally - something that by every reasonable definition is now your property - is seen by many as a criminal act. This ties into his central theme: a society that makes criminals of all its citizens is undeniably a dysfunctional one. It's up to us to follow Marcus's example, and use our collective ingenuity to protect our freedoms and preserve common sense.
First person writing has always been difficult for me - I generally prefer a polished & somewhat detached tone - so with this Amazon Review project I was eager to put more of myself into it and really make it personal. It fits the genre perfectly and I know it's something I need to work on as a writer. After the first draft I wrote, I felt like I succeeded in doing that to some extent, and I want to work to make my voice even more apparent.
My concern with deliberately crafting reviews from other perspectives is that it will feel disingenuous, and I really want to be honest and sincere with my review. I had an intense personal reaction to the themes in the book, and I think it would help my growth as a writer if I really focus on making this one review the best -and most personal - it can be.
My Review, First Draft
Cory Doctorow's Little Brother takes place in a slightly-futuristic, slightly-dystopian San Francisco; it's a setting that is similar enough to our current reality to make the implications of a total surveillance culture all the more terrifying. A terrorist attack blows up the Bay Bridge in the first few pages of the novel, creating the permissive atmosphere required for a whole lot of very invasive security procedures, all conceived and carried out by the villainous Department of Homeland Security.
If this sounds like a familiar narrative, it's no accident: Doctorow's political agenda is apparent from the moment that 17-year-old Marcus, our protagonist, is abducted by Homeland Security and imprisoned under suspicion of terrorism. Is Marcus a terrorist? Hardly. He's an ace at hacking through his school's secure internet and evading their gait-recognition cameras. He builds his own laptops, and he likes to cut class to play a city-wide interactive game with his best friends. But the post-attack environment is such that everyone, it seems, is a suspect. And that's exactly what Marcus and I take issue with: under the guise of keeping us safe, our country is making criminals of us all.
He faces formidable obstacles in his quest to defend the Bill of Rights. Among them: his very own father, who was spooked enough by Marcus's presumed death after the attack to find even the most Draconian measures acceptable and appropriate. And yes, Marcus does question himself along the way, particularly after he gains an enormous online following and his worshipers seem at risk of retribution for their "treasonous" acts. But Doctorow paints us a picture of a smart, courageous, industrious high school student, willing to use every technological resource at hand to stand up for what he believes is right. And my reaction, as a liberal twenty-something looking for inspiration in a discouraging political climate, is that this world could use way more Marcuses.
Little Brother is classified as a young adult novel. So how's the writing? There is a touch of that adult condescension, a not-quite grasp of kid slang that made me cringe from time to time. There is also a tendency to over-elaborate when it comes to the finer technological details of Marcus's plans. I sense that it's an effort on Doctorow's part to show that with a basic grasp of some simple mathematical concepts, we too can confound the oppressors who would seek to track our every move and bust us for some crime (any crime will do). But that didn't keep my eyes from going a little blurry every time the exposition train went off the tracks.
The characters are strong for the most part, with a slight tendency toward caricature. Marcus feels intensely throughout the novel, and we are along for the ride on a mostly-believable emotional roller coaster. (The stakes are appropriately high.) His best friends are an array of quirky young geniuses, and his girlfriend is incredibly intelligent, funny, and fiercely supportive. It's nice to get female characters that are more than peripheral admirers or untouchable beauties - Ange has a voice all her own, and that's why Marcus falls for her. His parents are loving, despite the varied conflicts at home. I would have related to his complex relationships with his parents at that age.
The great thing about this book is that it's incredible easy to access online for no cost whatsoever - though, if I had it all to do over again, I would much prefer a physical copy for ease of use and for note-taking. (I'm all about scribbling in margins.) But this, too, is part of Doctorow's philosophy. We learn from his impassioned introduction that he believes unfettered access to books is not only a good thing but is now simply a reality that publishers and distributors need to embrace, and he had me convinced without much difficulty.
"For me, for pretty much every writer, the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity," Doctorow tells us. "Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy." Yet sharing something that you have purchased legally - something that by every reasonable definition is now your property - is seen by many as a criminal act. This ties into his central theme: a society that makes criminals of all its citizens is undeniably a dysfunctional one. It's up to us to follow Marcus's example, and use our collective ingenuity to protect our freedoms and preserve common sense.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Letter to Malcolm Gladwell
Dear Malcolm Gladwell,
I am very familiar with two of your books, having read them personally, and I have a passing familiarity with several of the others, as my boyfriend is a fan of yours. You actually signed a copy of "The Tipping Point" that I stole from him and mailed to your assistant in New York City, then gave him as a gag Christmas gift. That was very kind of you and I deeply appreciate the gesture.
However - and this is a big however - I think you're kind of lame. There's a lot of interesting stuff in your books, but there is also a lot of not-so-interesting, not-so-helpful stuff that you try to pass off as massively brilliant and deeply perceptive. You look like a cross between Martin Short and Michael Jackson. I don't like it, not one little bit.
Plus an afro, I guess.
You make the observation in your New Yorker essay, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted," that the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s were founded on a network of close personal ties and not, for instance, distant acquaintances on Facebook. And you do have a point there. The courage of those activists in facing the dogs and fire hoses shouldn't be compared to a stray tweet about starving children in a third world nation, no matter how many times it might be retweeted by like-minded users.
But then again, we live in a country where we are generally allowed to voice our dissent, and the savage beatings of our citizens that occur on our soil (hopefully fewer and further between than other nations) are not taken lying down. We have a Bill of Rights, we have a Constitution. We feel entitled by birth to our freedoms, and if some of us are allowed to take advantage of them while others are not, it becomes a matter of broader national interest by nature of our laws and our sense of fairness.
Other countries aren't like us. Other countries have severely limited access to the kinds of public news organizations that we take for granted here. In one of his talks, Clay Shirky pointed out that a massive earthquake in China was shared with the world almost instantly due to our new communication technologies. Contrast with the last major earthquake they experienced: "It took the Chinese government 3 months to admit it had even happened." At some point, close personal ties drop off due to geographic impossibilities, and that's when social media becomes invaluable. The aforementioned distant acquaintances on Facebook can keep each other in the know. Someone who didn't know to donate money can now do so, if they are moved enough. And the voiceless, living under the information suppression imposed by their governments, are given a voice.
In your different ways, I think you and Shirky are both right. Those whom you describe as "social media evangelists" may be overestimating the impact that people who barely know each other and live thousands of miles apart may have on one another. It's true that it takes far more courage to face the brutality of your government-sponsored oppressors in the name of your cause than it does to tweet a picture of said brutality. But let's not look at things in terms of either/or. The two phenomena can and must work together to publicize injustices and make this world safer and more just. However portentous Clay Shirky may seem to you, he is right in his claim that social networking is changing the speed at which and the manner in which we share information. And information facilitates activism, for you can only correct an injustice if you've learned of it in the first place.
I am very familiar with two of your books, having read them personally, and I have a passing familiarity with several of the others, as my boyfriend is a fan of yours. You actually signed a copy of "The Tipping Point" that I stole from him and mailed to your assistant in New York City, then gave him as a gag Christmas gift. That was very kind of you and I deeply appreciate the gesture.
However - and this is a big however - I think you're kind of lame. There's a lot of interesting stuff in your books, but there is also a lot of not-so-interesting, not-so-helpful stuff that you try to pass off as massively brilliant and deeply perceptive. You look like a cross between Martin Short and Michael Jackson. I don't like it, not one little bit.
Plus an afro, I guess.
You make the observation in your New Yorker essay, "The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted," that the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s were founded on a network of close personal ties and not, for instance, distant acquaintances on Facebook. And you do have a point there. The courage of those activists in facing the dogs and fire hoses shouldn't be compared to a stray tweet about starving children in a third world nation, no matter how many times it might be retweeted by like-minded users.
But then again, we live in a country where we are generally allowed to voice our dissent, and the savage beatings of our citizens that occur on our soil (hopefully fewer and further between than other nations) are not taken lying down. We have a Bill of Rights, we have a Constitution. We feel entitled by birth to our freedoms, and if some of us are allowed to take advantage of them while others are not, it becomes a matter of broader national interest by nature of our laws and our sense of fairness.
Other countries aren't like us. Other countries have severely limited access to the kinds of public news organizations that we take for granted here. In one of his talks, Clay Shirky pointed out that a massive earthquake in China was shared with the world almost instantly due to our new communication technologies. Contrast with the last major earthquake they experienced: "It took the Chinese government 3 months to admit it had even happened." At some point, close personal ties drop off due to geographic impossibilities, and that's when social media becomes invaluable. The aforementioned distant acquaintances on Facebook can keep each other in the know. Someone who didn't know to donate money can now do so, if they are moved enough. And the voiceless, living under the information suppression imposed by their governments, are given a voice.
In your different ways, I think you and Shirky are both right. Those whom you describe as "social media evangelists" may be overestimating the impact that people who barely know each other and live thousands of miles apart may have on one another. It's true that it takes far more courage to face the brutality of your government-sponsored oppressors in the name of your cause than it does to tweet a picture of said brutality. But let's not look at things in terms of either/or. The two phenomena can and must work together to publicize injustices and make this world safer and more just. However portentous Clay Shirky may seem to you, he is right in his claim that social networking is changing the speed at which and the manner in which we share information. And information facilitates activism, for you can only correct an injustice if you've learned of it in the first place.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Amazon Book Reviews
Community
These reviews are intended for potential purchasers (because it's an online store) and readers of the book. They could belong to any number of communities - but within the young adult genre, I'm sure it's as likely parents or grandparents looking for a gift as the young adults themselves. For instance, in the Ender's game review: "Also the themes of murder, deception, isolation, rules of engagement in battle might be viewed as inappropriate by parents for their kids."
Purpose
Review writers might have any number of reasons for taking the time to write reviews, but I think people are particularly inclined to share stories that they find inspirational. In one of the reviews: "'His Dark Materials' centers on Lyra, a feisty, smooth-talking, brave, highly independent, young, intelligent female protagonist. She absolutely explodes gender expectations and her adventurous, hilariously gutsy spirit leaves you realizing just how few strong female characters we have in fantasy children's (or young adult's) literature." This reader found the protagonist inspiring and the book more enjoyable for that reason.
Content/Subject
There is generally a summary of the story that doesn't give away too many details but rather focuses on the age of their characters, their disposition and relationships to one another, and the general theme of the story. The Ender's game review is a particularly good example of this. It would be inappropriate within this genre to give away the ending, but review writers might want to tease at it.
Structure
The structure varies, but most generally it involves a brief summary of the story, the themes, what the reviewer thought of the book overall, and finally, how appropriate it might be for the targeted age group. There were several comments throughout my chosen reviews about how adults might be able to better grasp the themes in the stories. There seems to always be a comment about how the social/political content might affect children on a moral level.
Style/Language
The style seems to be very personal and informal, which is nice because it lends an air of authenticity to the review - sometimes official reviewers in magazines, etc. sound a little stuff and out of touch. Perhaps this is because bias and subjectivity are more permissible in this genre. There really doesn't seem to be any specialized language that I can see, other than the word "recommend" being used a whole bunch.
Patterns
See above.
How might your discoveries guide you as you write your own review?
I think that looking at the genre more closely has freed me up to be very personal with the review, and look at the book from a more subjective perspective, rather than from the objective "good or bad" standpoint of most formal reviews. I don't often write from personal experience, so I think this will be a good experience.
ENDER'S GAME
This was a book recommended to me by a friend who also happened to tell me the ending before I read it. Remind me to give him a nasty stare!
A WRINKLE IN TIME
After hearing some high praise of this children's classic, I finally decided to give it a try to see what all the hype was about. I had somehow missed being exposed to this as a child, so this review is really from an adult perspective. First, I found this book to be a very enjoyable, light read, with enough excitement and imagination-stimulating content to keep it interesting. The characters and settings were convincing, but vague and undefined enough to allow for plenty of fill-in-the-holes type visualizations. The story itself is a kind of fantasy/mystery/SciFi melding that succeeds at all three, and comes to a satisfactory ending (while leaving enough unsaid for there to be follow-up novels). I highly recommend this book to any reader who hasn't previously experienced it, and think it would be a great option for those looking for something to get their children to read (~11+).
Like many others, I was surprised by the repeated references to God and Jesus throughout this book. While the story is not overtly religious, the characters within, including time-travel-experimenting scientists and extraterrestrial beings, are obviously Christian. It makes the book seem a bit strange with our modern-day perspectives and sensibilities, but I think the God references are more of a sign of the times than they are an attempt at indoctrination. Written at a time when the vast majority of Americans at least identified themselves as Christian, these references probably went largely unnoticed in the past. And, unlike many other reviewers who seem to be somehow offended by the inclusion of God in the story, I didn't find it to be a problem, just a bit confusing and surprising to see in an otherwise secular novel.
As with all children's literature, the moral of this story is easy to discern. A lot of the moral content could have come right out of an Ayn Rand novel, praising individuality and independence while condemning conformation and reliance on others. IMO, these are some of the most powerful and important lessons to teach young people, so they greatly increased my appreciation for, and enjoyment of, this book. Obviously, many other readers disagree with that sentiment. Again, these themes were popular ones at the time of the book's writing, pertinent to the political happenings both at home (in the USA) and abroad, with fears of rising Communism. I'm not sure if the rest of Madeleine L'Engle's books contain such overt political messages, but as long as they are in the same vein as this one, it'd be fine by me if they do.
HIS DARK MATERIALS TRILOGY
I just finished re-reading Phillip Pullman's astonishing trilogy for the third time. No, I'm not an eager 11-year-old desperate for a Potter substitute. I'm a thirty-two year old English teacher happily immersed in the modern day renaissance that is children's fantasy. Of course, like any renaissance, there are the founding fathers, such as C.S. Lewis. There are the, at times, appallingly bad writers like Stephenie Meyer and there are the highly capable, thrilling storytellers like Madeleine L'engle, Lois Lowry, and J.K. Rowling.
And then there is Phillip Pullman outstripping them all with his spiritually complex, daringly original trilogy, "His Dark Materials."
The great thing about Pullman's series is that it works on two levels. Adult readers (and even academics) will note his ingenious use of literary allusions, scientific theories, history, and various myths and religious beliefs to bring to life not just multiple worlds, but multiple universes. Young readers will appreciate his carefully crafted, highly suspenseful plot, his exciting descriptions of exotic worlds, and his heroic, compelling characters, all of whom must suffer and make difficult choices in a time of great upheaval.
I dare not give any plot details away--the twists and turns are too clever to ruin--but I do want to say a word about Pullman's contribution in terms of fantasy literature for young girls. This series is certainly one that boys will enjoy, chalk full as it is with giant armored bears, action-packed battle sequences, texas ballooners, gyspies, and a young boy, Will, who becomes the second protagonist when he shows up in book two and learns to wield a knife that cuts through the very fabric of the universe.
However, unlike, say, "The Chronicles of Narnia," which demonizes female power, or "The Lord of the Rings," which pushes women to the side, or even "Harry Potter," which, let's face it, is mostly about a young boy's quest, "His Dark Materials" centers on Lyra, a feisty, smooth-talking, brave, highly independent, young, intelligent female protagonist. She absolutely explodes gender expectations and her adventurous, hilariously gutsy spirit leaves you realizing just how few strong female characters we have in fantasy children's (or young adult's) literature. Pullman reverses expectations again with his sympathetic depiction of female witches and with his complex portrayal of Mrs. Coulter, who is neither entirely good nor entirely evil.
Come with an open mind and you will not be disappointed.
These reviews are intended for potential purchasers (because it's an online store) and readers of the book. They could belong to any number of communities - but within the young adult genre, I'm sure it's as likely parents or grandparents looking for a gift as the young adults themselves. For instance, in the Ender's game review: "Also the themes of murder, deception, isolation, rules of engagement in battle might be viewed as inappropriate by parents for their kids."
Purpose
Review writers might have any number of reasons for taking the time to write reviews, but I think people are particularly inclined to share stories that they find inspirational. In one of the reviews: "'His Dark Materials' centers on Lyra, a feisty, smooth-talking, brave, highly independent, young, intelligent female protagonist. She absolutely explodes gender expectations and her adventurous, hilariously gutsy spirit leaves you realizing just how few strong female characters we have in fantasy children's (or young adult's) literature." This reader found the protagonist inspiring and the book more enjoyable for that reason.
Content/Subject
There is generally a summary of the story that doesn't give away too many details but rather focuses on the age of their characters, their disposition and relationships to one another, and the general theme of the story. The Ender's game review is a particularly good example of this. It would be inappropriate within this genre to give away the ending, but review writers might want to tease at it.
Structure
The structure varies, but most generally it involves a brief summary of the story, the themes, what the reviewer thought of the book overall, and finally, how appropriate it might be for the targeted age group. There were several comments throughout my chosen reviews about how adults might be able to better grasp the themes in the stories. There seems to always be a comment about how the social/political content might affect children on a moral level.
Style/Language
The style seems to be very personal and informal, which is nice because it lends an air of authenticity to the review - sometimes official reviewers in magazines, etc. sound a little stuff and out of touch. Perhaps this is because bias and subjectivity are more permissible in this genre. There really doesn't seem to be any specialized language that I can see, other than the word "recommend" being used a whole bunch.
Patterns
See above.
How might your discoveries guide you as you write your own review?
I think that looking at the genre more closely has freed me up to be very personal with the review, and look at the book from a more subjective perspective, rather than from the objective "good or bad" standpoint of most formal reviews. I don't often write from personal experience, so I think this will be a good experience.
ENDER'S GAME
This was a book recommended to me by a friend who also happened to tell me the ending before I read it. Remind me to give him a nasty stare!
Anyway, this book starts off with a rather long introduction which the author wrote himself about his influences and motivation for writing Ender's Game. The author has had the idea of a Battle Room since he was sixteen. Only much later did he piece together the story of Ender and his mission to save the earth.
Ender Wiggin is a special boy. He is the youngest (6 yrs old when the story starts) of a family of child geniuses (Peter being the eldest, then Valentine). This story is set in the future where aliens (called Buggers because of their physical and mental traits) have tried to invade the earth twice. Twice the Earth defeated them, but at great cost. The government is scrambling to make sure this never happens again by training the next set of star fleet commanders from childhood.
In this futuristic world, only the government could sanction the birth of a third child (for population control reasons). In a way, Ender was born for a purpose. Peter and Valentine were both tested for giftedness and they both possessed it; however, he was ruthless and evil, and she was too soft and kind. Ender was a perfect balance of decisiveness and innocence, and so chosen from the beginning to go through Battle School. It is in Battle School that Ender learns military strategy and the history of wars between the Earth and the Buggers. It is also in Battle School that Ender makes friends and molds the perfect platoon leaders.
What's really unique about this story is that Ender is forced to grow up so quickly by the "adults." The teachers of the school and high government officials all have one thought in their minds. And that is to eliminate the alien threat at all costs. Even if it means sacrificing the health and sanity of a child. Ender is subjected to so much isolation and abuse throughout the story, that I felt really bad for him. He has to learn to think like an adult through the eyes of a child. His biggest fear is becoming like his brother Peter (who, in Ender's eyes, is a cold blooded killer -- keep in mind that we're talking about the thoughts of a child who hasn't even reached puberty) is slowly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy as he matures. The ending of this story is just amazing. I will not give it away!
I recommended this book to a 13 year old boy before having finished the book. Now I'm thinking twice about my recommendation. Although this book's main characters are children and centers around the premise that child geniuses will save the world, there are a lot of adult themes and references to ancient history that probably only an adult would appreciate. I believe references to the Warsaw Pact, the League of Nations, Locke and Demosthenes will confuse the younger readers. Also the themes of murder, deception, isolation, rules of engagement in battle might be viewed as inappropriate by parents for their kids. With this in mind, I urge the reader to consider the maturity of the intended audience before recommending this book even though this is a terrific story.
A WRINKLE IN TIME
After hearing some high praise of this children's classic, I finally decided to give it a try to see what all the hype was about. I had somehow missed being exposed to this as a child, so this review is really from an adult perspective. First, I found this book to be a very enjoyable, light read, with enough excitement and imagination-stimulating content to keep it interesting. The characters and settings were convincing, but vague and undefined enough to allow for plenty of fill-in-the-holes type visualizations. The story itself is a kind of fantasy/mystery/SciFi melding that succeeds at all three, and comes to a satisfactory ending (while leaving enough unsaid for there to be follow-up novels). I highly recommend this book to any reader who hasn't previously experienced it, and think it would be a great option for those looking for something to get their children to read (~11+).
Like many others, I was surprised by the repeated references to God and Jesus throughout this book. While the story is not overtly religious, the characters within, including time-travel-experimenting scientists and extraterrestrial beings, are obviously Christian. It makes the book seem a bit strange with our modern-day perspectives and sensibilities, but I think the God references are more of a sign of the times than they are an attempt at indoctrination. Written at a time when the vast majority of Americans at least identified themselves as Christian, these references probably went largely unnoticed in the past. And, unlike many other reviewers who seem to be somehow offended by the inclusion of God in the story, I didn't find it to be a problem, just a bit confusing and surprising to see in an otherwise secular novel.
As with all children's literature, the moral of this story is easy to discern. A lot of the moral content could have come right out of an Ayn Rand novel, praising individuality and independence while condemning conformation and reliance on others. IMO, these are some of the most powerful and important lessons to teach young people, so they greatly increased my appreciation for, and enjoyment of, this book. Obviously, many other readers disagree with that sentiment. Again, these themes were popular ones at the time of the book's writing, pertinent to the political happenings both at home (in the USA) and abroad, with fears of rising Communism. I'm not sure if the rest of Madeleine L'Engle's books contain such overt political messages, but as long as they are in the same vein as this one, it'd be fine by me if they do.
HIS DARK MATERIALS TRILOGY
I just finished re-reading Phillip Pullman's astonishing trilogy for the third time. No, I'm not an eager 11-year-old desperate for a Potter substitute. I'm a thirty-two year old English teacher happily immersed in the modern day renaissance that is children's fantasy. Of course, like any renaissance, there are the founding fathers, such as C.S. Lewis. There are the, at times, appallingly bad writers like Stephenie Meyer and there are the highly capable, thrilling storytellers like Madeleine L'engle, Lois Lowry, and J.K. Rowling.
And then there is Phillip Pullman outstripping them all with his spiritually complex, daringly original trilogy, "His Dark Materials."
The great thing about Pullman's series is that it works on two levels. Adult readers (and even academics) will note his ingenious use of literary allusions, scientific theories, history, and various myths and religious beliefs to bring to life not just multiple worlds, but multiple universes. Young readers will appreciate his carefully crafted, highly suspenseful plot, his exciting descriptions of exotic worlds, and his heroic, compelling characters, all of whom must suffer and make difficult choices in a time of great upheaval.
I dare not give any plot details away--the twists and turns are too clever to ruin--but I do want to say a word about Pullman's contribution in terms of fantasy literature for young girls. This series is certainly one that boys will enjoy, chalk full as it is with giant armored bears, action-packed battle sequences, texas ballooners, gyspies, and a young boy, Will, who becomes the second protagonist when he shows up in book two and learns to wield a knife that cuts through the very fabric of the universe.
However, unlike, say, "The Chronicles of Narnia," which demonizes female power, or "The Lord of the Rings," which pushes women to the side, or even "Harry Potter," which, let's face it, is mostly about a young boy's quest, "His Dark Materials" centers on Lyra, a feisty, smooth-talking, brave, highly independent, young, intelligent female protagonist. She absolutely explodes gender expectations and her adventurous, hilariously gutsy spirit leaves you realizing just how few strong female characters we have in fantasy children's (or young adult's) literature. Pullman reverses expectations again with his sympathetic depiction of female witches and with his complex portrayal of Mrs. Coulter, who is neither entirely good nor entirely evil.
Come with an open mind and you will not be disappointed.
Little Brother So Far
The themes in this book are very current, very controversial, and they are presented using extreme perspectives without much of a gray area in the middle. The villains - Homeland Security, and by extension the SFPD - are a youth-hating, conspiratorial Big Brother-type presence in the story. The conspiracy, of course, goes all the way to the top. And while it's tempting to roll your eyes a little bit at the uncompromising moral superiority of the author and his main character, I appreciate the sentiment and I, too, am passionately moved by the issues of privacy, surveillance and censorship.
The writing itself is pretty good - lots of mathematical and technological details that make my eyes go blurry after a while. There is also a touch of condescension, I think, in the way the book is written. It's clear that the author really respects young people and supports their freedoms and their right to privacy, but it's written in that forced "young adult" tone that always sounds a little out-of-touch. But the underdog element to the story is universally compelling, and I am definitely rooting for the protagonist to triumph over his grimly terrifying oppressors. The periphery characters are decent, though they too have feel of being caricatures at times.
Doctorow is successful in perhaps the most important way - I have had to stop myself several times from reading the whole book in one sitting. He definitely has me wondering what will happen next.
Relevant articles:
The writing itself is pretty good - lots of mathematical and technological details that make my eyes go blurry after a while. There is also a touch of condescension, I think, in the way the book is written. It's clear that the author really respects young people and supports their freedoms and their right to privacy, but it's written in that forced "young adult" tone that always sounds a little out-of-touch. But the underdog element to the story is universally compelling, and I am definitely rooting for the protagonist to triumph over his grimly terrifying oppressors. The periphery characters are decent, though they too have feel of being caricatures at times.
Doctorow is successful in perhaps the most important way - I have had to stop myself several times from reading the whole book in one sitting. He definitely has me wondering what will happen next.
Relevant articles:
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Profile Final Draft
Ryan Seago, 25, left high school after his sophomore year to enroll in the Early Entrance program at the University of Washington. Four years later, he graduated with a degree in Architecture, and now builds custom furniture and home additions with his boss, the only other employee in their small Seattle-based company. He plays in a gay soccer league and often goes out with friends on the weekends; he likes spending his free time with his boyfriend Jacob, whom he met on OkCupid. He is also a guild officer and raid team leader in World of Warcraft, a fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online role-playing game released in 2004 by Blizzard Entertainment.
With 11.4 million paying subscribers as of March 2011, World of Warcraft is by far the most popular MMORPG out there. It serves as a prime example of the kind of activity parents and teachers decry, painted as anything from a complete waste of time to a breeding ground for full-on video game addiction. It's also a target of disdain for many young people, who freely assume that World of Warcraft players are socially inept losers and would rather prance around pretending to be an elf than spend time with real, human friends. The stigma is powerful, and it comes from all sides. But do the players feel it?
Call this guy a nerd and see what happens.
"There was and is a stigma attached to it," Seago confirms. "Like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do, or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink." When I ask him if he's ever reluctant to tell people he plays World of Warcraft, he again replies in the affirmative: "I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own."
Social stigma aside, what are the players themselves actually like? In the PBS documentary Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, we watch World of Warcraft players convene for a giant gathering sponsored by Blizzard Entertainment. Many are wearing elaborate, hand-made costumes and seem downright giddy, surrounded by other similarly devoted players. We are introduced to a couple that met inside the game and ended up married; we see friends who have been playing together for years, finally putting faces to the voices. Then comes a declaration from one woman that would give anyone pause: "I'm closer to my friends inside the game than anyone I know in real life!"
If these World of Warcraft players are truly finding themselves unable to relate to others outside the game, that would certainly be cause for concern on a broader societal level. Seago, however, is skeptical. "I think that's a really unusual circumstance, compared to the way most people's lives work. Most WoW players too." He pauses, weighing his next words. "There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population, and to me that's still a very unusual perspective to have among WoW players."
You can laugh, but this guy's tank has mad good armor.
Still, there is certainly a vibrant social element to the game, which is perhaps its biggest draw for some. "The solo element is more boring to me," Seago explains. It's the same thing over and over. Within the game it's called 'the grind.'" He and his best friends joined a gay-friendly server, called "Proudmore," and formed a guild whose purpose was "not to tolerate the nastiness and immaturity you see out in the game at large." Seago serves as an officer for this guild, and as such he has the privelege of voting on whether or not to admit new recruits. "There's a rigorous screening process...we are only taking applicants who are referred by someone else because we are really trying to keep it small."
So, has he made friends within this more tolerant community? "Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff." Has the game itself facilitated these connections? "I am friends with some people in Warcraft that I wouldn't be friends with in real life, but the people I am closest to, I could definitely be friends with in real life. Gay guys in their mid-twenties, that kind of thing." When asked if he'd meet them in real life, he hesitates. "I would consider it, but I don't know, unless it was somehow avoidable I probably wouldn't."
In the same Digital Nation documentary, we saw South Korean teenagers sent to "video game rehab" by the dozens; one boy's mother washed dishes 12 feet away from her son, who sat gaming at his computer, and claimed to be helpless - there was nothing she could do to get her son to step away from video games, even for a moment. Whether she was in fact so helpless is up for debate, but regardless, American parents surely have this same fear for their children. And the pull of games is a mighty one, especially when there is such a strong social element. Says Seago, "You feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve." But are all players powerless against the game's allure?
Dr. Drew can help your children break the vicious cycle.
"Some weeks I don't play at all, some weeks I play up to 8 hours. Usually when I play, I play for at least 3 hours a time." He adds that since he started playing, he has deliberately scaled back his playing time. "If I let myself, I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much you could do, or try to do, that I would ultimately feel was not worth doing." Has he ever felt the pull of addiction? "No. I never felt addicted to it, or like it was affecting other parts of my life negatively. Also, I try hard not to buy into the stigmas about it. It's something I enjoy, it doesn't have negative consequences. Why shouldn't I do it? Before I played, what was I doing? Watching movies, playing other computer games, playing video games. Just because it's more concentrated in one place doesn't make it worse."
Surely, though, there are those without the self control to police their own playing time and maintain a healthy balance in their lives through sheer force of will. Children, in particular, might be prone to such excesses. But what of the theory that these elaborate, cooperative games might help children develop valuable communication and career skills? In another PBS documentary, Digital Learners of the 21st Century, kids at a charter school play and even design video games as an integral part of the curriculum. Our new digital world is all about problem solving, these educators claim, and a video game is nothing if not a world with a series of problems that must be solved in order to increase ability and eventually "win," or beat the game.
Charter school kids are awesome and smart!!
Having firsthand knowledge of the gaming environment, Seago is a little skeptical about whether or not World of Warcraft could help children develop these crucial abilities. "I think it could definitely do that. But I would be really hesitant to put children in the sort of inflammatory environment that it fosters and just hope there is a positive takeaway. I think in a very controlled environment, kids could learn things about social interaction by playing WoW or something similar."
There is a common thread of perspective, however, when it comes to the value judgments parents and teachers assign to video games versus other traditionally "virtuous" activities. One interviewee in the Digital Learners documentary pointed out that often children are rewarded for staying up all night to study, but playing a video game into the wee hours is seen as a delinquent behavior. There may be a contradiction at work here, especially if playing certain games is a kind of preparation for their future lives.
Seago's take is similar: "What do you feel like you should be doing with your life? If you read books ten hours a day because that's a 'good' thing to do, would you say 'I need to moderate this somehow'? If you want to keep your job, that's great. If you're moderating from a vague sense that it's a bad thing to do, but you can't explain why, that should be examined futher."
"If it's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone," he adds with a shrug, "Why not do it?"
-fin-
With 11.4 million paying subscribers as of March 2011, World of Warcraft is by far the most popular MMORPG out there. It serves as a prime example of the kind of activity parents and teachers decry, painted as anything from a complete waste of time to a breeding ground for full-on video game addiction. It's also a target of disdain for many young people, who freely assume that World of Warcraft players are socially inept losers and would rather prance around pretending to be an elf than spend time with real, human friends. The stigma is powerful, and it comes from all sides. But do the players feel it?
Call this guy a nerd and see what happens.
"There was and is a stigma attached to it," Seago confirms. "Like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do, or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink." When I ask him if he's ever reluctant to tell people he plays World of Warcraft, he again replies in the affirmative: "I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own."
Social stigma aside, what are the players themselves actually like? In the PBS documentary Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, we watch World of Warcraft players convene for a giant gathering sponsored by Blizzard Entertainment. Many are wearing elaborate, hand-made costumes and seem downright giddy, surrounded by other similarly devoted players. We are introduced to a couple that met inside the game and ended up married; we see friends who have been playing together for years, finally putting faces to the voices. Then comes a declaration from one woman that would give anyone pause: "I'm closer to my friends inside the game than anyone I know in real life!"
If these World of Warcraft players are truly finding themselves unable to relate to others outside the game, that would certainly be cause for concern on a broader societal level. Seago, however, is skeptical. "I think that's a really unusual circumstance, compared to the way most people's lives work. Most WoW players too." He pauses, weighing his next words. "There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population, and to me that's still a very unusual perspective to have among WoW players."
You can laugh, but this guy's tank has mad good armor.
Still, there is certainly a vibrant social element to the game, which is perhaps its biggest draw for some. "The solo element is more boring to me," Seago explains. It's the same thing over and over. Within the game it's called 'the grind.'" He and his best friends joined a gay-friendly server, called "Proudmore," and formed a guild whose purpose was "not to tolerate the nastiness and immaturity you see out in the game at large." Seago serves as an officer for this guild, and as such he has the privelege of voting on whether or not to admit new recruits. "There's a rigorous screening process...we are only taking applicants who are referred by someone else because we are really trying to keep it small."
So, has he made friends within this more tolerant community? "Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff." Has the game itself facilitated these connections? "I am friends with some people in Warcraft that I wouldn't be friends with in real life, but the people I am closest to, I could definitely be friends with in real life. Gay guys in their mid-twenties, that kind of thing." When asked if he'd meet them in real life, he hesitates. "I would consider it, but I don't know, unless it was somehow avoidable I probably wouldn't."
In the same Digital Nation documentary, we saw South Korean teenagers sent to "video game rehab" by the dozens; one boy's mother washed dishes 12 feet away from her son, who sat gaming at his computer, and claimed to be helpless - there was nothing she could do to get her son to step away from video games, even for a moment. Whether she was in fact so helpless is up for debate, but regardless, American parents surely have this same fear for their children. And the pull of games is a mighty one, especially when there is such a strong social element. Says Seago, "You feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve." But are all players powerless against the game's allure?
Dr. Drew can help your children break the vicious cycle.
"Some weeks I don't play at all, some weeks I play up to 8 hours. Usually when I play, I play for at least 3 hours a time." He adds that since he started playing, he has deliberately scaled back his playing time. "If I let myself, I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much you could do, or try to do, that I would ultimately feel was not worth doing." Has he ever felt the pull of addiction? "No. I never felt addicted to it, or like it was affecting other parts of my life negatively. Also, I try hard not to buy into the stigmas about it. It's something I enjoy, it doesn't have negative consequences. Why shouldn't I do it? Before I played, what was I doing? Watching movies, playing other computer games, playing video games. Just because it's more concentrated in one place doesn't make it worse."
Surely, though, there are those without the self control to police their own playing time and maintain a healthy balance in their lives through sheer force of will. Children, in particular, might be prone to such excesses. But what of the theory that these elaborate, cooperative games might help children develop valuable communication and career skills? In another PBS documentary, Digital Learners of the 21st Century, kids at a charter school play and even design video games as an integral part of the curriculum. Our new digital world is all about problem solving, these educators claim, and a video game is nothing if not a world with a series of problems that must be solved in order to increase ability and eventually "win," or beat the game.
Charter school kids are awesome and smart!!
Having firsthand knowledge of the gaming environment, Seago is a little skeptical about whether or not World of Warcraft could help children develop these crucial abilities. "I think it could definitely do that. But I would be really hesitant to put children in the sort of inflammatory environment that it fosters and just hope there is a positive takeaway. I think in a very controlled environment, kids could learn things about social interaction by playing WoW or something similar."
There is a common thread of perspective, however, when it comes to the value judgments parents and teachers assign to video games versus other traditionally "virtuous" activities. One interviewee in the Digital Learners documentary pointed out that often children are rewarded for staying up all night to study, but playing a video game into the wee hours is seen as a delinquent behavior. There may be a contradiction at work here, especially if playing certain games is a kind of preparation for their future lives.
Seago's take is similar: "What do you feel like you should be doing with your life? If you read books ten hours a day because that's a 'good' thing to do, would you say 'I need to moderate this somehow'? If you want to keep your job, that's great. If you're moderating from a vague sense that it's a bad thing to do, but you can't explain why, that should be examined futher."
"If it's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone," he adds with a shrug, "Why not do it?"
-fin-
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Profile Outline/Quotes
Plan of attack: introducing World of Warcraft as my topic, give some facts about the game, address the assumptions and conventional wisdom about immersive video games in general. Introduce my interview subjects. Address the claims about and charges against WoW (and gaming in general), who says what. Responding with quotes from my interview as an additional enlightening perspective. End with a summary of why conventional wisdom in many aspects may be wrong, and how, gamers or not, people are people and they are mostly the same everywhere in every situation.
Relevant quotes:
"There was and is a stigma attached to it, like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink."
"It has a lot of cooperative elements where you can take on other challenges with other people that require a lot of cooperation and communication."
"I consciously tried to play less, because if I let myself I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much that you could do, or try to do, that I would feel was ultimately not worth doing. Both within the game and outisde the game. But you feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve."
"A lot of people, when they receive media, just take everything in and don't give anything back. In the game, there is a certain give and take, and a lot of people can't adjust to that. There's a lot of immaturity and there are deliberately inflammatory comments, people just seeking attention."
"There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population."
"It's skewed towards people who have enough privilege to afford a computer, afford the subscription, and sit in front of a computer all day. They don't have 3 kids they need to support, or some other financial or social obligation that prevents them from taking part."
"I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own. But I do think some of the complaints people have about it are very valid. Some of my own perspective on WoW includes that ridicule - paying for the subscription and spending the time playing that I do. But I haven't faced a lot of ridicule, just because I usually don't tell people I play."
"Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them are on a raid team that Aisa and I lead together. We're as close to them as anyone in the game, they have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff. Two of them live in LA and one of them lives in Florida. There's another guy that lives in Boston that we're close to too."
Relevant quotes:
"There was and is a stigma attached to it, like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink."
"It has a lot of cooperative elements where you can take on other challenges with other people that require a lot of cooperation and communication."
"I consciously tried to play less, because if I let myself I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much that you could do, or try to do, that I would feel was ultimately not worth doing. Both within the game and outisde the game. But you feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve."
"A lot of people, when they receive media, just take everything in and don't give anything back. In the game, there is a certain give and take, and a lot of people can't adjust to that. There's a lot of immaturity and there are deliberately inflammatory comments, people just seeking attention."
"There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population."
"It's skewed towards people who have enough privilege to afford a computer, afford the subscription, and sit in front of a computer all day. They don't have 3 kids they need to support, or some other financial or social obligation that prevents them from taking part."
"I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own. But I do think some of the complaints people have about it are very valid. Some of my own perspective on WoW includes that ridicule - paying for the subscription and spending the time playing that I do. But I haven't faced a lot of ridicule, just because I usually don't tell people I play."
"Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them are on a raid team that Aisa and I lead together. We're as close to them as anyone in the game, they have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff. Two of them live in LA and one of them lives in Florida. There's another guy that lives in Boston that we're close to too."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Profile Feedback
Miranda liked my interviewee's honesty and self-awareness, and she thought it was interesting that he was embarrassed to tell other people he plays WoW, because other people are so prone to making judgment about things they don't understand. My interviewee is biased against video games in general, but he also pointed out how this perspective is flawed and people shouldn't assume that video games are a less valuable pastime compared to other pastimes. This is something I could raise as an overarching question: "Is the idea that video games are a waste of time a relic of the past?"
Clarkia pointed out that I could ask my 2nd interviewee more about education and video game design, and how designing intricate realities is a whole new skill set that we can't even conceive of, having received the education that we did. I'm glad I interviewed one person and got feedback about that and about my topics, so I can take a more refined and targeted approach with my 2nd interview. I will definitely broach this subject with Robert.
I think I need to put together an outline next, with the various questions I want to raise and the relevant responses from my interviewees. I plan on doing this tonight and writing up my final draft tomorrow night!
Clarkia pointed out that I could ask my 2nd interviewee more about education and video game design, and how designing intricate realities is a whole new skill set that we can't even conceive of, having received the education that we did. I'm glad I interviewed one person and got feedback about that and about my topics, so I can take a more refined and targeted approach with my 2nd interview. I will definitely broach this subject with Robert.
I think I need to put together an outline next, with the various questions I want to raise and the relevant responses from my interviewees. I plan on doing this tonight and writing up my final draft tomorrow night!
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Little Brother Intro & Chapters 1-5
INTRO
Readers more likely to discover writers for "free" versus throwing down money in a bookstore & the idea of being able to "borrow" electronically (books and music) as we always could in real life...both good points.
Biggest music pirates are also the biggest music spenders! Does that make sense?
CHAPTER ONE
"Spent our textbook money" on the gait recognition software...suggesting that administrators are more interested in security than in actual education. What has contributed to that in our society?
The measures Marcus uses to get around the school security are super elaborate. Do you think young people will always find ways to flout rules? Or are most people willing to accept the limitations imposed on them by authority figures?
CHAPTER THREE
Kidnapped! Did you imagine that these would be the stakes for the novel? I was surprised by the expanded scope of the book.
CHAPTER FIVE
"Never underestimate the determination of a kid who is time rich and cash poor." Does that quote resonate with anyone else?
Readers more likely to discover writers for "free" versus throwing down money in a bookstore & the idea of being able to "borrow" electronically (books and music) as we always could in real life...both good points.
Biggest music pirates are also the biggest music spenders! Does that make sense?
CHAPTER ONE
"Spent our textbook money" on the gait recognition software...suggesting that administrators are more interested in security than in actual education. What has contributed to that in our society?
The measures Marcus uses to get around the school security are super elaborate. Do you think young people will always find ways to flout rules? Or are most people willing to accept the limitations imposed on them by authority figures?
CHAPTER THREE
Kidnapped! Did you imagine that these would be the stakes for the novel? I was surprised by the expanded scope of the book.
CHAPTER FIVE
"Never underestimate the determination of a kid who is time rich and cash poor." Does that quote resonate with anyone else?
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Profile Interview #1
How long have you been playing World of Warcraft?
Ummmm....I started in January of 2010. I don't think that's right. Actually, I think it was 2009. We were still living in the Wallingford House.
What got you started?
[My two best friends] played and they tried to convince me to start playing. And it worked.
Did you have any hesitations?
Yes. There was and is a stigma attached to it, like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink. I was hesitant for both those reasons, but mostly the first. But having two people I was really close to that played was a huge draw for me.
What do you like about it, in brief?
I like that it has a lot of cooperative elements where you can take on other challenges with other people that require a lot of cooperation and communication, and it's really fun when you achieve stuff with other people. The solo element of it is more boring to me. It's the same thing over and over. Within the game it's called "the grind."
How many hours a week do you play on average? Does this vary much from week to week?
Some weeks I don't play at all, some weeks I play up to 8 hours. Usually when I play, I play for at least 3 hours at a time.
Was this always the case?
I used to play more, but when I first started I played very infrequently, like once or twice a week for two hours at a time. That was for the six months or a year that I played. After my first character hit max level, we transferred realms and we started raiding.
Why do you play less now?
I consciously tried to play less, because if I let myself I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much that you could do, or try to do, that I would feel was ultimately not worth doing. Both within the game and outisde the game. But you feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve.
Have you ever deliberately taken a break from playing WoW? If yes, why is that?
No. I never felt addicted to it, or like it was affecting other parts of my life negatively. Also, I try hard not to buy into the stigmas about it. It's something I enjoy, it doesn't have negative consequences. Why shouldn't I do it? Before I played, what was I doing? Watching movies, playing other computer games, playing video games. Just because it's more concentrated in one place doesn't make it worse.
Do you play with people you know in real life? Did you know them before you started playing WoW?
Yes, my two best friends.
Have you formed any friendships solely within the game?
Yes. We were originally characters on a random server (there are about a hundred servers in the game), and it turned out the one we chose was a low population server. It was a "horde" server, and you can't play interactively with those people. We wanted to start raiding, but there was nothing going on. [One of my friends] was and is much more involved in the game than I am, and she'd read lots of blogs, so she found out there was a gay server called "Proudmore." They're actually having a pride celebration on Saturday inside the game - I marched in it last year, it was really fun. She had found that realm and she wanted to transfer there. It was less douchey and a lot more gay friendly.
We eventually joined a guild that was led by this insane dude, a megalomaniac who was so weird, he was an ex-Navy Seal who was Dutch and lived in Canada and posted pictures of himself on...it was almost like a porn site but not really. He was so weird. That guild fell apart because he was so insane . Some of the officers on that guild started another guild, and that's the one I'm in. The point of the guild was to not tolerate the nastiness and immaturity that you see out in the game at large. There's a rigorous screening process where you have to write a long application to get in, there are 10 or 12 questions, and the officers on the guild get to vote on whether the people get admitted. We are only taking applicants that are referred by someone else because we are really trying to keep it small.
Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them are on a raid team that Aisa and I lead together. We're as close to them as anyone in the game, they have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff. Two of them live in LA and one of them lives in Florida. There's another guy that lives in Boston that we're close to too.
When you say there is nastiness and immaturity in the game at large, what do you mean?
A lot of people, when they receive media, just take everything in and don't give anything back. In the game, there is a certain give and take, and a lot of people can't adjust to that. There's a lot of immaturity and there are deliberately inflammatory comments, people just seeking attention.
How do you react to the statement in one documentary about media usage, "I'm closer to my WoW friends than my friends in real life"?
I would question what that closeness means to them. I don't think that's a completely outlandish statement to make, but I think that's a really unusual circumstance, compared to the way most people's lives work. Most WoW players too. There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population, and to me that's still a very unusual perspective to have among WoW players.
Are your friends in Warcraft people you would have been able to form connections with in real life, or did World of Warcraft specifically facilitate the connection?
I am friends with some people in Warcraft that I wouldn't be friends with in real life, but the people I am closest to in Warcraft are people that I could definitely be friends with in real life. Gay guys in their mid 20s, that sort of thing.
Have you met any of these friends in real life since meeting them online? If yes, how did it go? If not, would you consider it? Why or why not?
I've never met them. I would consider it, but I don't know, unless it was somehow unavoidable I probably wouldn't. I don't feel any need to meet them. I guess I don't really see what I would get out of it. A lot of people play Warcraft because they like the social aspect, and they like that they can meet people within the medium, but that's not why I play.
Do you ever turn down real world social invitations specifically in favor of playing WoW? If yes, how do you feel about that?
Yes, I have done that in the past, but I guess in hindsight I would say that most of those things I wouldn't have been interested in participating in anyway. It's a thin line between turning it down in order to play WoW or turning it down because I wasn't really interested in the first place. But I make a point not to do that now.
Do you think WoW players overall tend to share your interests and your points of view more than the average person?
No. It's skewed towards people who have enough privilege to afford a computer, afford the subscription, and sit in front of a computer all day. They don't have 3 kids they need to support, or some other financial or social obligation that prevents them from taking part in this activity every single day.
Are you ever reluctant to tell people you play WoW? Have you faced ridicule in the past?
Yes, I'm reluctant. I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own.
I do think some of the complaints people have about it are very valid. Some of my own perspective on WoW includes that ridicule - paying for the subscription and spending the time playing that I do. But I haven't faced a lot of ridicule, just because I usually don't tell people I play.
What would you say in response to the theory that playing these games (in moderation of course) could actually help prepare children in school for future real-life situations, both social and career-related?
I think that it definitely could do that. But I would be really hesitant to put children in the sort of immature, inflammatory environment that it fosters and just hope there is really positive takeaway. I think in a very controlled environment, kids could learn things about social interaction by playing WoW or something similar.
Do you think it's possible for someone to be "addicted" to gaming?
Yes, I think it's possible. But having never felt like I was addicted to anything, it's hard for me to personally say.
Do you have any advice for those seeking to find moderation in their gaming?
I think for me, and this is sort of weird, but I think that question sort of comes down to expectations, and as an offshoot of that, shame. What do you feel like you should be doing with your life? If you read books 10 hours a day because that's a "good" thing to do, would you say "I need to moderate this somehow"?
In other words, this question has a bias, assuming video games are bad. But I would say that's also my bias. So I think first you would need to examine why you feel you must moderate, and second, what do you hope to gain or lose from moderating? If you want to keep your job, that's great. If you're moderating from a vague sense that it's a bad thing to do, but you can't explain why, that should be examined futher. If it's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone, why not do it?
Ummmm....I started in January of 2010. I don't think that's right. Actually, I think it was 2009. We were still living in the Wallingford House.
What got you started?
[My two best friends] played and they tried to convince me to start playing. And it worked.
Did you have any hesitations?
Yes. There was and is a stigma attached to it, like it's a weird thing that only super nerds do or it's not cool for whatever reason. Also that it takes over your life when it starts and it's a huge time sink. I was hesitant for both those reasons, but mostly the first. But having two people I was really close to that played was a huge draw for me.
What do you like about it, in brief?
I like that it has a lot of cooperative elements where you can take on other challenges with other people that require a lot of cooperation and communication, and it's really fun when you achieve stuff with other people. The solo element of it is more boring to me. It's the same thing over and over. Within the game it's called "the grind."
How many hours a week do you play on average? Does this vary much from week to week?
Some weeks I don't play at all, some weeks I play up to 8 hours. Usually when I play, I play for at least 3 hours at a time.
Was this always the case?
I used to play more, but when I first started I played very infrequently, like once or twice a week for two hours at a time. That was for the six months or a year that I played. After my first character hit max level, we transferred realms and we started raiding.
Why do you play less now?
I consciously tried to play less, because if I let myself I could spend a lot more time playing the game than I want to. There's so much that you could do, or try to do, that I would feel was ultimately not worth doing. Both within the game and outisde the game. But you feel like you want to keep pace with the people you play with, and achieve what they achieve.
Have you ever deliberately taken a break from playing WoW? If yes, why is that?
No. I never felt addicted to it, or like it was affecting other parts of my life negatively. Also, I try hard not to buy into the stigmas about it. It's something I enjoy, it doesn't have negative consequences. Why shouldn't I do it? Before I played, what was I doing? Watching movies, playing other computer games, playing video games. Just because it's more concentrated in one place doesn't make it worse.
Do you play with people you know in real life? Did you know them before you started playing WoW?
Yes, my two best friends.
Have you formed any friendships solely within the game?
Yes. We were originally characters on a random server (there are about a hundred servers in the game), and it turned out the one we chose was a low population server. It was a "horde" server, and you can't play interactively with those people. We wanted to start raiding, but there was nothing going on. [One of my friends] was and is much more involved in the game than I am, and she'd read lots of blogs, so she found out there was a gay server called "Proudmore." They're actually having a pride celebration on Saturday inside the game - I marched in it last year, it was really fun. She had found that realm and she wanted to transfer there. It was less douchey and a lot more gay friendly.
We eventually joined a guild that was led by this insane dude, a megalomaniac who was so weird, he was an ex-Navy Seal who was Dutch and lived in Canada and posted pictures of himself on...it was almost like a porn site but not really. He was so weird. That guild fell apart because he was so insane . Some of the officers on that guild started another guild, and that's the one I'm in. The point of the guild was to not tolerate the nastiness and immaturity that you see out in the game at large. There's a rigorous screening process where you have to write a long application to get in, there are 10 or 12 questions, and the officers on the guild get to vote on whether the people get admitted. We are only taking applicants that are referred by someone else because we are really trying to keep it small.
Most of the officers in the guild I would consider friends. Three of them are on a raid team that Aisa and I lead together. We're as close to them as anyone in the game, they have my cell phone number, they can text me and stuff. Two of them live in LA and one of them lives in Florida. There's another guy that lives in Boston that we're close to too.
When you say there is nastiness and immaturity in the game at large, what do you mean?
A lot of people, when they receive media, just take everything in and don't give anything back. In the game, there is a certain give and take, and a lot of people can't adjust to that. There's a lot of immaturity and there are deliberately inflammatory comments, people just seeking attention.
How do you react to the statement in one documentary about media usage, "I'm closer to my WoW friends than my friends in real life"?
I would question what that closeness means to them. I don't think that's a completely outlandish statement to make, but I think that's a really unusual circumstance, compared to the way most people's lives work. Most WoW players too. There are so many people that play WoW - I found out my cousin plays, I found out my uncle, a conservative Southern Baptist minister, plays too - so it's a huge sample of the population, and to me that's still a very unusual perspective to have among WoW players.
Are your friends in Warcraft people you would have been able to form connections with in real life, or did World of Warcraft specifically facilitate the connection?
I am friends with some people in Warcraft that I wouldn't be friends with in real life, but the people I am closest to in Warcraft are people that I could definitely be friends with in real life. Gay guys in their mid 20s, that sort of thing.
Have you met any of these friends in real life since meeting them online? If yes, how did it go? If not, would you consider it? Why or why not?
I've never met them. I would consider it, but I don't know, unless it was somehow unavoidable I probably wouldn't. I don't feel any need to meet them. I guess I don't really see what I would get out of it. A lot of people play Warcraft because they like the social aspect, and they like that they can meet people within the medium, but that's not why I play.
Do you ever turn down real world social invitations specifically in favor of playing WoW? If yes, how do you feel about that?
Yes, I have done that in the past, but I guess in hindsight I would say that most of those things I wouldn't have been interested in participating in anyway. It's a thin line between turning it down in order to play WoW or turning it down because I wasn't really interested in the first place. But I make a point not to do that now.
Do you think WoW players overall tend to share your interests and your points of view more than the average person?
No. It's skewed towards people who have enough privilege to afford a computer, afford the subscription, and sit in front of a computer all day. They don't have 3 kids they need to support, or some other financial or social obligation that prevents them from taking part in this activity every single day.
Are you ever reluctant to tell people you play WoW? Have you faced ridicule in the past?
Yes, I'm reluctant. I think people mostly don't understand how fun it can be, and I 'm not the kind of person to ridicule something someone else does that I haven't personally tried. So I tend to think the people who ridicule it are doing so out of some sort of insecurity of their own.
I do think some of the complaints people have about it are very valid. Some of my own perspective on WoW includes that ridicule - paying for the subscription and spending the time playing that I do. But I haven't faced a lot of ridicule, just because I usually don't tell people I play.
What would you say in response to the theory that playing these games (in moderation of course) could actually help prepare children in school for future real-life situations, both social and career-related?
I think that it definitely could do that. But I would be really hesitant to put children in the sort of immature, inflammatory environment that it fosters and just hope there is really positive takeaway. I think in a very controlled environment, kids could learn things about social interaction by playing WoW or something similar.
Do you think it's possible for someone to be "addicted" to gaming?
Yes, I think it's possible. But having never felt like I was addicted to anything, it's hard for me to personally say.
Do you have any advice for those seeking to find moderation in their gaming?
I think for me, and this is sort of weird, but I think that question sort of comes down to expectations, and as an offshoot of that, shame. What do you feel like you should be doing with your life? If you read books 10 hours a day because that's a "good" thing to do, would you say "I need to moderate this somehow"?
In other words, this question has a bias, assuming video games are bad. But I would say that's also my bias. So I think first you would need to examine why you feel you must moderate, and second, what do you hope to gain or lose from moderating? If you want to keep your job, that's great. If you're moderating from a vague sense that it's a bad thing to do, but you can't explain why, that should be examined futher. If it's fun, and it doesn't hurt anyone, why not do it?
Profile Freewrite
RE: South Korean kids in the "Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier" video - the fact that there is so much awareness there of gaming addiction in that country and it's such an issue: 15 year old kids sent to rehab for 2 weeks, people gaming in arcades for so long that they're dying in their seats, etc. Can gaming really be an addiction in the scientific, chemical sense? What causes the obsessiveness? What triggers an obsessive gamer to take conscious measures to restore balance to his or her life?
World of Warcraft convention, also in the "Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier" video - when a woman claimed that her WoW friendships were closer than the relationships she has with people in real life. Why would that come to be? Does it indicate a serious problem for us as a society? What prevents close, genuine connections between people IRL and what allows for them to occur over the internet? To what extent do these relationships encourage the video game "addictions" mentioned in the paragraph above?
Moving in a different direction, does WoW encourage valuable life skills? Should we promote this type of collaborative gaming in schools (a parallel with the old school game Oregon Trail springs to mind here). In Jenkins (page 4) there is a list of important abilities to acquire in this new participatory culture and a number of them seem potentially applicable to my topic. For example:
World of Warcraft convention, also in the "Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier" video - when a woman claimed that her WoW friendships were closer than the relationships she has with people in real life. Why would that come to be? Does it indicate a serious problem for us as a society? What prevents close, genuine connections between people IRL and what allows for them to occur over the internet? To what extent do these relationships encourage the video game "addictions" mentioned in the paragraph above?
Moving in a different direction, does WoW encourage valuable life skills? Should we promote this type of collaborative gaming in schools (a parallel with the old school game Oregon Trail springs to mind here). In Jenkins (page 4) there is a list of important abilities to acquire in this new participatory culture and a number of them seem potentially applicable to my topic. For example:
- Play — the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving
- Performance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery
- Multitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.
- Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal
- Networking — the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information
- Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Digital Participant Brainstorm
My immediate idea is to focus on the world of MMO RPGs - massive multiplayer online role playing games like World of Warcraft. My live-in boyfriend and my two former roommates are avid players, so they are great candidates for interview. I was intrigued by the claim in the most recent documentary that "my relationships within the game are more intimate than my real life relationships" (paraphrasing), so I think my take on the subject might be the question of "intimacy without proximity" and how the relationships you develop with other people inside these gaming worlds affect your desire to play longer and more often.
As someone who has never participated in these games, I am inclined to hypothesize that anyone who claims real emotional/spiritual intimacy with people they never see, or only ever perform one activity with, have a pretty messed up idea of what intimacy means. That's a pretty biased hypothesis, I know, so I'll probably have to tweak it a little if I want to get good information out of my interview subjects and not piss them off by implying they all have personality disorders. I will try to discover, however, what deficiencies might exist in a person's "real life" to make them seek intimacy with people they rarely see, and whether these deficiencies are created by the choices and personal qualities of individuals or whether they are brought on by larger social/societal forces.
Some possible questions:
As someone who has never participated in these games, I am inclined to hypothesize that anyone who claims real emotional/spiritual intimacy with people they never see, or only ever perform one activity with, have a pretty messed up idea of what intimacy means. That's a pretty biased hypothesis, I know, so I'll probably have to tweak it a little if I want to get good information out of my interview subjects and not piss them off by implying they all have personality disorders. I will try to discover, however, what deficiencies might exist in a person's "real life" to make them seek intimacy with people they rarely see, and whether these deficiencies are created by the choices and personal qualities of individuals or whether they are brought on by larger social/societal forces.
Some possible questions:
- What got you started playing World of Warcraft?
- How many hours a week/in one sitting?
- Do you think spending that time on the computer precludes other, more traditional social activities? If yes, do you ever consider scaling back your play time for that reason?
- Do you feel more connected to the people around you or to the people you meet in the game?
- Do you think a proportionately higher number of WoW players share your interests and your point of view?
- If you could change anything about your life, what would it be?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Digital Learners Documentary
It was awesome to see young kids interacting so competently with the technologies we were introduced to in our teenage and adult years and are still working to master. I wonder how much of what we saw in the documentary was sincere engagement with the learning experience, and how much was selectively shown to support the film's point of view. (Maybe that's a little cynical.) Still, it's hard to imagine kids wouldn't prefer designing a video game to busywork math assignments. And it's hard to deny the problem-solving implications.
What I absorbed most was the idea of educating 21st century problem-solvers versus future factory workers and menial laborers. Our educational model does seem awfully outdated now. I know budgets for school districts are always a huge issue, and most parents and school boards are pretty traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum. It's probably hard to be innovative and flexible unless you have large-scale cooperation from those forces. I look forward to watching the rest of the documentary and hearing the response from other students.
What I absorbed most was the idea of educating 21st century problem-solvers versus future factory workers and menial laborers. Our educational model does seem awfully outdated now. I know budgets for school districts are always a huge issue, and most parents and school boards are pretty traditionalist when it comes to the curriculum. It's probably hard to be innovative and flexible unless you have large-scale cooperation from those forces. I look forward to watching the rest of the documentary and hearing the response from other students.
Shirky/Jenkins Videos
Shirky:
His theory about our collective free time as a vast, underutilized social resource strikes me as pretty true, and yet I think a bit of mental downtime every day promotes overall sanity. I myself have said "Where do people find the time?" in reference to some of the more pointless and elaborate projects one finds online (and also specifically in reference to World of Warcraft, which he mentioned during his talk). Yes, there are a lot of hours of free time out there when you add them all up, but there is a large portion of the population (with families and/or pets to care for, or perhaps multiple jobs) that has barely enough free time to do anything other than read a novel for 10 minutes before bed.
I don't necessarily agree with "It's always better to be doing something than nothing," although I guess all that depends on how you define "something" and "nothing" - for example, if you compare the "something" that is 6 straight hours of playing World of Warcraft to the "nothing" that might be taking a walk or just sitting outside, alone with your own thoughts, I would personally assign more merit to the latter. So many people have such a hard time being alone with themselves. I can't credit gamers for contributing anything more to society than, say, a person meditating silently for half an hour.
I really responded to his point about interactive media - producing & sharing your own content in addition to consuming. I think that's a succinct and accurate way to describe the direction new media is taking, as it should.
Jenkins:
I really disliked the presentation format, specifically the power point presentation with a single word in the center of the screen. Extremely distracting. I was able to absorb his point about a "read/write culture" versus "read-only culture" immediately, and I responded well to it, but my favorite part of his presentation was when he discussed "ordinary people living outside the law" and how corrosive that is for a democracy. I think that applies to many aspects of our lives aside from the digital realm, although that's probably tangential in terms of the class.
I'm curious if any of you saw the link between these two videos and the documentary we watched (at least in part). To my mind, the connective detail was the interactive quality of new media and how that activates our brain so much more than merely consuming it. Was anyone else inspired by the implied possibilities?
His theory about our collective free time as a vast, underutilized social resource strikes me as pretty true, and yet I think a bit of mental downtime every day promotes overall sanity. I myself have said "Where do people find the time?" in reference to some of the more pointless and elaborate projects one finds online (and also specifically in reference to World of Warcraft, which he mentioned during his talk). Yes, there are a lot of hours of free time out there when you add them all up, but there is a large portion of the population (with families and/or pets to care for, or perhaps multiple jobs) that has barely enough free time to do anything other than read a novel for 10 minutes before bed.
I don't necessarily agree with "It's always better to be doing something than nothing," although I guess all that depends on how you define "something" and "nothing" - for example, if you compare the "something" that is 6 straight hours of playing World of Warcraft to the "nothing" that might be taking a walk or just sitting outside, alone with your own thoughts, I would personally assign more merit to the latter. So many people have such a hard time being alone with themselves. I can't credit gamers for contributing anything more to society than, say, a person meditating silently for half an hour.
I really responded to his point about interactive media - producing & sharing your own content in addition to consuming. I think that's a succinct and accurate way to describe the direction new media is taking, as it should.
Jenkins:
I really disliked the presentation format, specifically the power point presentation with a single word in the center of the screen. Extremely distracting. I was able to absorb his point about a "read/write culture" versus "read-only culture" immediately, and I responded well to it, but my favorite part of his presentation was when he discussed "ordinary people living outside the law" and how corrosive that is for a democracy. I think that applies to many aspects of our lives aside from the digital realm, although that's probably tangential in terms of the class.
I'm curious if any of you saw the link between these two videos and the documentary we watched (at least in part). To my mind, the connective detail was the interactive quality of new media and how that activates our brain so much more than merely consuming it. Was anyone else inspired by the implied possibilities?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)