je_kaiser's blog

hey, emily and alex

I dunno if this will be of any use to you, but given that you're talking about gender/POC issues in video games and images thereof, there is WisCon (http://wiscon.info/) which I went to last year, and is a rockin' time, and also I learned that talking to motivated fans gets me a lot of information about games and movies and stuff that I wouldn't have encountered on my own.

/pimp

avatars & appearance

"Do You Wanna Date My Avatar": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU

two items

Item One: Baron tells us a lot about what people are doing online, but he doesn't exactly provide much of an explanation of what impact that has, which means...it's a bit hard to tell why anyone should care.

Item Two, largely unrelated to composition, but it bothers me: Baron doesn't seem to fully understand the concept behind targeted advertising.

vague musings on gaming and such

This is going to make it seem like I'm really stuck on this topic (maybe because I am), but what kept coming to mind, especially in reading the Selfe & Hawisher chapters, was that there are different types of games. Not just ones that allow players to socialize versus encouraging anti-social behavior, but racing games versus puzzle games versus RPGs versus MMORPGs versus casual games.

proposal and teaching unit documents

MLA 2011 CFP: Analog and Digital: New "Textual" Readings. How do digital tools and methods facilitate critical reading and interpretation of humanities "texts," broadly conceived? Emphasis on examples of scholarly arguments resulting from digital interventions. Abstracts by 2 March 2010; Victoria E. Szabo (ves4@duke.edu).

Proposal:

Second Life, and Why It Deserves a Second Try in the Composition Classroom

how hard is it?

One of the most interesting things from these readings was the idea that challenge is a *positive* thing--when video games are hard, people try harder, versus giving up. As noted in Selfe & Hawisher's introduction, when students aren't "getting it," teachers tend to simplify. This implication is not significantly explored (at least, not so far in the book), but it's an interesting one. The question I end up with, though, is: What about people who aren't gamers?

this may be the most incoherent post I've written here to date

I like Adam Banks. If I could, I'd play some Atari with him.

Pitfall, Q-Bert, Pac-Man.

My cousin around the corner had an Atari and we got to play with it sometimes, and then eventually my bro got a Nintendo by virtue of selling golf balls back to the golf course down the street (we lived in a townhouse complex where of course nobody had a membership to the country club but we'd sneak in after they were closed and grab the golf balls out of the sand traps and ponds, then sell them back by the bucket, five dollars a bucket). Later on, there was always some kid we knew who had a Sega Genesis or a Playstation or an N64 or something, but we didn't have those, cause we didn't have money like that and even if we did it would've been spent on something else.

titles elude me

Reading Rickly’s article first in this sequence heavily influenced my feelings about the others, primarily because Rickly spends a significant amount of time explaining her rationale for evaluating the effects of sex and gender, rather than focusing only on biological sex (and as her data clearly indicates, it is gender, not sex, that is the greater differentiating factor). As I read through the other articles, I found myself assessing the theoretical bases of the various arguments; where Sullivan lays out her argument as clearly as Rickly, both Hocks and Wolfe feel a little lacking.

if it seems like I hate Chapman, it's because he doesn't deserve <3

Last night in 1 vs. 100 trivia on Xbox Live, one of the questions was, “What is a person who is opposed to the advancement of technology?” The answer, of course, was “Luddite,” and of the 12,000 or so people playing, about a quarter of them got the answer right; they may not have been the best audience for that question.

<you> = it

In Derrick’s discussion of play, he combines a series of suggestions to create a situation where students are simultaneously playing a game and engaging in “invisible writing,” i.e., writing where they cannot see what they are typing. While I agree with both Daisley and Derrick on the value of play, and would argue that , both Derrick’s explanation and the previous references in other articles to the idea of invisible writing put me somewhere in the realm between dubious and uncomfortable.

Syndicate content