ENG 231 11.T: Ethics, Morals, and Decisions in Video Games

Posted on March 19, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan

  • A Brief Lecture on Ethics and Morals
  • Do A Thing!
  • A Quick Check and Responses
  • Trolley Problems, and a Few Absurd Trolley Problems
  • Homework

A Brief Lecture on Morals and Ethics

For me, morality is the study of the rules that govern our behavior, our internalization of the rules, what we value and believe. The spiritual-internal vs. secular-external distinction isn’t particularly productive for me. I don’t care if the rules come from state agencies, critical reason or thinking (Kant) or spiritual institutions (religion). I simply think about morality as the rules we would right down if I asked you waht is right and what is wrong. Morality is how we develop and internalize the rules: thou shalt not kill. A moral. I am not particularly concerned where the rule comes from or who enforces it. I see morality as the study of the rules we internalize, and how those rules govern our behavior, how those rules influence the way we come to see ourselves and the way we formulate/articulate our desires.

Ethics, for me, signals how we employ, actualize, our moral values in lived experience. It is how/whether we (choose to) act. What do we do when our rules seem to fail us? When our rules come into conflict? When it is unclear how our generic rules apply to a messy, complicated, specific situation? Ethics attends to those moments when we make a decision that we think feels right even though the rules might tell us it is probably wrong (I think you can probably see how Papers, Please is an ethical game in the sense I am describing–a game in which what is “right” isn’t clear, a game that makes us decide through a haze of uncertainty). If morality is our sense of what should be, ethics is the study of how we actually act. Ethics operates in relation to morality, often in its shadow, in the places where morals break down. I think the study of ethics is the most interesting when we encounter a situation in which or moral convictions come into conflict. Again, if we believe that “thou shalt not kill,” then how do we also celebrate the soldier? How do we operate in the face of competing morals, competing “goods,” competing obligations?

My understanding of ethics is heavily indebted to the work of philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas’s work encourages us to recognize our aversion to difference, and the lengths humans will go to eliminate alterity (that which is strange, different, unknown or unknowable to them). He jests that we have an allergy to the strange and different, to what he terms “the other.” We seek to “joyously possess” the world as a certain knowledge. Such possession is akin to mastery–to rule the world without question. To eliminate questions that make us uncomfortable. Rather than deal with the other, we desire the same–we desire to know, label, categorize, understand something. Facing something we do not know, or cannot know, can bring out the worst in us. To be ethical, for Levinas, is to learn to inhabit this discomfort, disequilibrium and repress the desire to transform something other into something familiar, what he calls “the same.” To welcome the other as an other, to let them be different, rather than to convert them into the “same” thing that I already know. [First principle is ethics not ontology–before we know what is, we are aware of the presence of an-other that calls us into being etc etc].

Ethics, for Levinas, is learning to recognize and prioritize others, to put their needs ahead of our own. Ethics becomes extra complicated when we realize that others make different demands on us–and no matter how generous we might want to be, we cannot give everything to everyone. To give to one other often means we have to take away from an other. Thus, in his later career, Levinas pays more attention to the concept of justice. Justice requires I choose between the competing demands of the other and the neighbor–that I chose knowing I must betray one of them. Their is no justice without choice, no choice without imposition. [Levinas’s formula: to make the choice that causes the least amount of violence].

More than just an analytical science of how we act, ethics for me marks our ability to handle, to process, the unknown. How do we feel, and respond to our feelings, when we encounter the strange? Do we curl back in repulsion? Express exasperation (*why do they do that? that’s so weird?*). Or do we become self-critical? Do we invite reflection (*why don’t I do that?*). In short, for Levinas ethics is a practice of hospitality. How/do we welcome the stranger? Something different? Further, what happens when we encounter something we cannot control, when we have to make a decision with no clear right answer, when we face something that resists our mastery?

What does this have to do with the distinction between morality and ethics? I believe that the more we recognize and study ethics (as moments of moral indecision), the better we become at carefully choosing how to act when we have no one true, certain, “right” answer to guide our choice. We have to learn to deal with complexity, and the icky feeling that it can produce in us. Video games can help us do that. The point of moral philosophy, of interrogating why we think or feel a particular way, why we make a decision, is to become more familiar with what we value. To reveal consistency, or inconsistency. To invite indecision or the second guess. To, hopefully, learn to live more thoughtfully.

Our last project, focused on the work of Miguel Sicart and the game Detroit Become Human questions whether games, by constructing *sophisticated* ethical problems, can make players more ethical in the sense I have just worked out. The reading you will do for homework will provide us some insight into how Sicart thinks moral problems should (and shouldn’t) be formulated in games to best encourage the kind of critical thinking and questioning I describe in the previous paragraph.

Do A Thing

A link to a Google Form.

Trolley Problems, and a Few Absurd Trolley Problems

Let’s talk about the Trolley Problem, created by Foot and complicated by Thompson. Very simply: the trolley problem is a philosophical thought experiment created in the 1970’s by philosopher Philippa Foot.

TED on Trolley Problems.

So, if you haven’t guessed by now, here is my theory for what video games have learned is their unique province: they can leverage the emotional unrest, affectation, difficulty, disequilibrium of Trolley Problems. Foot’s trolley problem is meant to explore the moral consistency, or lack thereof, people use to make life or death decisions. Video games can proceduralize this thought experiment, to make it more visceral or “real.” We feel the decision–this kind of feeling is called “affective” or pathetic (deriving from the Greek term for emotion, pathos).

In a book or a film, we are left to watch the trolley driver pull the switch or not. The author decides. The author justifies. Perhaps she does so to secretly stir our outrage, to get us to deconstruct her flawed reasoning. She can spur reflection, contemplation, resistance. But we are always a bystander to the action, distanced from the choice. We are witness.

But not so in a game. I remember my first play through of Dragon Age: Origins. The details are a bit foggy–I remember encountering some elves and some werewolves. The werewolves were created by dark elven magic? And then, like Frankenstein’s monster, abandoned by their creators. At some point a wolf had killed an elf. Maybe it was self-defense? I honestly don’t remember. But I remember, unexpectedly, having to decide which species to exterminate. Only one can survive. Neither is innocent. And there is no heroic path to saving them both (well there is, but you are probably only going to have that option if you have made a series of other decisions, and only about 1 in every 10 player unlocks that “perfect” ending). The game forced me to be responsible. I must pull the lever and determine who gets hit by the train.

I’ve played games since roughly 1984 on my Atari 2600. I’ve murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of aliens and demons and terrorists and zombies and horde (“For the Vanguard” or “For the Alliance!”). I’ve killed all these things from a moral position that authorizes their death. I’ve never been troubled by all this killing. Those aliens threaten our light. Those demons threaten Tristram. Those terrorists threaten democracy. Those zombies would eat me and the few others remaining in Raccoon City. I killed them all without friction. (Save for Silent Hill 3, one of the greatest mindfuck games of all-time unfortunately lost to history–“they look like monsters to you?”).

But Dragon Age interrupted my joyous possession of the world, my righteous action, my moral foundation. It stung me. This was something different. I introduce the Trolley Problem, the lever, the notions of disequilibrium, ethics, and agency as a way of thinking about games. I imagine many of you are already thinking of games that leverage this dynamic. Soon we will work together to generate lists of games–AAA, mobile, indie–that we can play and explore as a class (in addition to my required experience: Walking Dead episode 1).

As should become clear through the next project, I feel that games can spur ethical reflection. However, as Miguel Sicart notes, there are things that both programmers and players must do for games to best realize this potential. We will explore these things in class. For now, I would suggest that reflection is a key component of ethical thinking and growth. It isn’t enough to simply “do,” we must ask why we do. It isn’t enough to simply “feel,” we must ask why we feel. Both the procedural paper and the tragedy paper have begun this kind of work.

A Wicked Brief Introduction to Moral Systems

Last class I lectured on how I think about ethics, arguing for a sense of ethics:

  • Tied to moments in which moral laws come into conflict or when it is unclear which choice is the more moral. Moments of pause or indecision in which the plentitude of possibilities give us pause
  • And as attempts to overcome our inability to handle the stranger and the strange.

Today I’ll open over-simplifying those definitions a bit. Let’s call ethics the study of how we make difficult choices. To study ethics is to become more self-reflective and self-aware. As the skit from The Good Life implied, this can lead to a kind of paralysis by analysis (philosophers and theorists often are excellent at discovering and mapping complexity, less great at deciding on one definitive course of action). Rhetoricians (some of us) recognize the need for deep analysis, but often insist on a moment of decision, where analysis has to turn into action. That is a lecture for another course. (In my rhetorical theory class we work with an essay called “The Q Question” by Richard Lanham that urges humanities scholars toward more public, pragmatic projects; see also the work of Bruno Latour, especially Politics of Nature).

Given the complexity of human decision making, there’s a lot of different theories and approaches to ethics. Let me lay out 4 of them:

  • Deontology or Moral Law
  • Teleology or Consequentialism
  • Virtue Ethics
  • Hospitality Ethics

Deontological ethics are based on identifying moral laws and obligations. To know if we are making the right decision, we ask ourselves what the rules are. For instance, if you didn’t lie to Herschel because lying is wrong, then you were invoking a deontological frame. You made a deontological decision. You worked back from the specific concrete moment to a (prior) conviction (philosophical knowledge that precedes any human experience, stuff we might “innately” know, is termed “a priori”–some empirical philosophers, like John Locke, argue that nothing is a priori, everything is learned). Deontological ethics get critiqued because sometimes moral laws come into conflict and because it requires absolute adherence to the law without thought of context. At core: God, Reason, Science, common sense dictate right from wrong.

Consequential ethics look ahead, from the action and decision, to its consequences. You use prior knowledge to make hypotheses about what will happen. Your focus here isn’t on what other people or institutions would declare right or wrong, but on producing “the greater good.” This is often called utilitarianism, which strives to imagine what will make the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Another form of consequentialism is hedonism, which strives to make the most (personal) pleasure and minimize (personal) pain. If you didn’t lie to Herschel because you thought lying might lead him to question you further or kick you out of the farm, then you probably made a hedonistic decision. If you didn’t lie to Herschel because you thought lying might lead him to question you and kick you and Clementine out of the farm, then you made a consequential decision. Consequential ethics get critiqued because they can lead us into hurting minority populations. One could argue, for instance, that slavery contributed to the “greater good”–that enslaving 3 people makes life wonderful for 7. I’d say they are wrong–but one can rationalize pain in relation to happiness, which can lead us down dark paths, trying to calculate levels of pain, which is precisely why Kant thought of consequentialist ethics as “wishy washy” and wanted to develop something more universal. At core: act in service to the greater good.

Virtue ethics are a bit different–though, like consequential ethics they rely on our imagination. Virtue ethics asks us to imagine, in that situation how a good person would act. This, in a sense, mixes deontology (who is the good here? what rules do they follow? what institutions would they represent?) with the situational flexibility of consequentialism. If deontology operates around rules that govern behavior, virtue ethics begins by establishing the characteristics common to good people (bravery, compassion, justice, etc). Often we tie virtue ethics to a particular person–for instance, we might cite Martin Luther King’s dedication to non-violence, self-sacrifice, and self-discipline (but, like, if you try to tell me that MLK was “cooperative” or “less radical” then you are simply telling me you haven’t read MLK. MLK’s domestication is a topic for another day). At core: imagine what a great person would do in this situation.
If you didn’t lie to Herschel because you believe a good person should tell the truth and be brave, and trust others (etc.), then you are exercising virtue ethics. Note: this is different than deontology, because here you don’t *have* to follow the rules, and there might be times that lying (say, to protect someone from Nazi pursuit), is justified.

Ethics of hospitality also involve an effort of imagination; this time it is our task to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes and imagine a decision from their perspective. Is this a decision we would want someone to make if they were in our position? We can think of this as a more radical version of the Christian ethic of the Golden Rule (from Lev. “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), except here we are self-skeptical enough to realize that the other might not want the same things as us. So rather than assume the other is just like us, we train ourselves to recognize and honor their difference, their alterity. Hence hospitality, since we train ourselves to welcome the strange, the unfamiliar. Ethics, here, trains people to negotiate the unknown and the contingent. Ethics as the impossibility of ever walking in another’s shoes, but trying like hell all the same. At core: ethics as making “space” for other people.

Final Thought: Morals, Ethics, and Video Games

I want to reserve the final 10 minutes of class for you to write a comments, question, response to today’s class. What stuck out? What are you unsure of? What would you challenge? What would you want to contribute?

Homework

There is no class on Thursday as I will be away at an academic conference. In lieu of class, do two things:

  • Read Sicart’s “Moral Dilemmas” essay in the Files section of Canvas and respond to the questions in the Canvas 11.R assignment
  • Download the PollEverywhere App for a cell phone, tablet, or create an account on a laptop. We will start using this in next Tuesday’s class to collaboratively play Detroit: Become Human
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 11.T: Ethics, Morals, and Decisions in Video Games

ENG 319 11.T: Crucible Design Project

Posted on March 19, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com
Today’s Plan
  • Crucible Final Deliverables
  • Crucible Inspection
  • Crucible Design Checklist
  • Saving Files
  • Pages / Parent Pages
Note: I will be out of town Wednesday and Friday. I am uncertain when I will receive the final copy from The Crucible. Eventually, I will get it and share with you a folder that looks like this:

My hope is that you can start this project this week. I can give you a link to last year’s copy, if you want to start by setting your page styles. You might also start by thinking about cover design. Several past issues use a piece of art as the cover (Bittersweet, Notice, Refrain), but not all do. Take, for instance, Space or Unearthed. There is a template from Lulu printing that you can use for your cover design.

Final Deliverables

You will share a link to a .zip folder that contains:

  • .indd and .pdf files of your Fall 2023 Crucible layout
  • Assets folder containing any custom fonts and/or images you used in your issue. NOTE: this includes all of the art images in the Crucible issue. You can drag the Crucible folder I provide you (once I have it) into your project folder.
  • .psd and .pdf files of your Fall 2023 Crucible cover (front and back using Lulu template)

Note on saving files: remember to start a folder on the machine you will be using to design your Crucible issue. As you download fonts, save them in that folder. Save images in that folder BEFORE you place them in InDesign. Remember that InDesign does not create copies of the media you place in, but rather creates links to that media’s location on your computer. We need all of those assets to be saved properly for your .indd file to work.

You are welcome to do this project on your own or in pairs. It is quite a bit of work–so teaming up with someone can help, provided you have a way of sharing your project folder and files. That can be tricky.

Design Parameters and Checklist

Remember that this semester’s theme is “mirage.” There’s obviously a lot of different ways to think about what that means as a designer. How literal do you want to be? How playful? What colors does that suggest to you? Please, I beg you, no papyrus.

General Requirements:

  • Formatting a Table of Contents [I will dedicate class time to this once I get back]
  • Page Numbers
  • Image Credits / Artist Name
  • Crucible logo has to appear on the back cover. It should also appear inside on the “production” page.
  • Title Page (typically we use one of the art submissions for this, although it is usually okay to modify / edit the piece. This requires artist permission. Due to lower submissions this year, you are welcome to design your own title from scratch.) Remember that the cover is a separate file, created in Photoshop, using the Lulu template as a guide.

Spring 2024 Concerns:

  • “Concrete” spacing
  • Misreflection has paragraph indents (mostly)
  • Ill Thoughts on a Sunday Night: indents, italics
  • Throwing Shit at the Wall–concrete poem with very specific spacing
  • Dysmorphia – column-like spacing alignment

Typography:

  • Font selection and balance [mix at least two different fonts / title / author / body copy / footer]
  • Should you justify your text?
  • Font size [likely 10-11pt depending on style]/ kerning-tracking-leading / Use a modular scale [I’ll be paying attention to how your typography scales; we will work on this once I get back]
  • Leading/Line spacing [note: the higher your x-height, the more you should try bumping your leading up; generally leading is set between 1.2 and 1.5–also, the more leading, the more pages, the higher the cost of production]
  • Line length (how many characters per line? Be sure for print not web). General rule: 45 characters for columns, 70 max characters across a page (and 70 is a lot).
  • Dealing with Orphans. We will cover this when I get back.

Other Design Stuff:

  • Backgrounds and bleeds (zine format: we’re paying for color printing with [crucible folk?] full bleeds–make sure your design takes advantage of this throughout the document)
  • Strategic use of color / Developing a color scheme. More than just images should be in color, and we have free reign to do a bleed. Think about developing a motif that can be spread across pages.

Below are old notes that I will revisit / update as we go through the project.

Working with Parent Pages

To help kick start this project, I’ve set up a template to get you started. To do this, I created a new document with the following settings:

Document settings are 6x9, facing pages, with a .25 inch margin and a .125 inch bleed

I then set up a very simple Parent Page for the document (these used to be called Master pages). This page only has a reserved space for the Footer (which will be the page number and the contributor’s name).

Parent pages can be incredibly powerful in InDesign, but also frustrating and confusing. Often I have found students prefer simply copy and pasting existing pages to tinkering with a Parent. The benefit of Parent pages is that if you make a change to one page it will effect every page of that type.

One thing I learned from last time we did this was to pay special attention to paragraph styles as we are developing the document. Paragraph styles are an essential part of professional editing and technical documentation, since you are basically “tagging” (coding) information so that it can be processed en masse. For our project, we will be using paragraph styles to automate making a table of contents.

We will have a decision to make down the line:

  • A very simple ToC simply has the title of the work and the page number. There’s a number of straight-forward tutorials for this. Basic carpentry.
  • A more complicated ToC has the title of the work and the author’s name. This might require sorcery.
Everyone will prepare for sorcery. What does this mean. It means that you need to create two special paragraph styles:
  • Title of Work
  • Author Name
You will apply those two styles to every piece in the edition. This might be a bit disorienting, so let’s walk this through this together.
  • Create a Title field
    • Open the Paragraph Styles box; add it to your workspace
    • Name Paragraph Style
    • Set a Paragraph Shade
    • Set Indent to Away from Spine
    • Turn off Baseline Grid
  • Create an Author field
    • Set Indent to “Towards Spine”
    • Text Box Option > Align > Center
  • Create Text Box
    • Adjust Tracking
    • Space After Paragraph Option
    • Justification
  • Hack For Master Pages–using some guide lines
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 319 11.T: Crucible Design Project

ENG 319 11.T: Syllabus Check, Project 3, Rhetoric and Technology

Posted on March 19, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Syllabus Check-In
  • Project 3 Schedule
  • Time Permitting: ENG 492 Rhetoric and Technology / On Writing, Thinking, and Artificial Intelligence

Syllabus Check-In

Significant Things as the year draws to a close:

  • Final “Exam”: The final paper for this class will be a slightly extended Write-Up. In it, you will offer a definition of rhetoric. We will share these papers on our final exam day.
  • One last note, to earn an A for the course does require a bit of extra work:
    • Share one or two extra write-ups with the class
    • Read an additional book on contemporary rhetorical theory and write up an academic book review. I will have a list of books by week 2. Book reviews will be due week 12. You will design a class presentation and activity for week 13, 14, or 15 (note: these can be collaborative team projects).

Given how tight our calendar is the rest of the way, I want to propose a modification here. There will still be a final “exam” day, in preparation for which you will respond to a prompt that I provide.

If you want to earn an “A” for the class, then you will have to incorporate an additional book into that response. [Note that some of the following books are long; I only expect you to read about 120 pages–so the Introduction and 2-3 body chapters based on length]. Here is a list of potential books:

If you would like to read another book on demagoguery, race, feminism/queer theory, human difference and ethics, or “politics” (in the sense that Arendt/Cavarero offer) that *isn’t* on this list, email me and include a link to the work (Amazon links are fine).

Note that you still qualify for an A- even if you do not complete this extra reading (and provided you have completed all other assignments).

To clarify, the workload for the rest of the year is:

  • Read the Cavarero and complete two write-ups on her book (see schedule below)
  • Participate in the Cavarero Surging Democracy project
  • Complete the Cavarero reflection (shorter but similar to the Race and Rhetoric reflection
  • Complete the final Write Up for exam week; those wanting an A will discuss their extra book in this write-up
  • Complete the self-assessment form

Project 3: Surging Democracy

From the syllabus:

Staging a Rhetorical Carnival: In the spring, our class will host a “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, participatory” event on campus. I have tentatively named this event a “rhetorical carnival.” The class will have an opportunity to rename it. I want it to feel like a county fair, with various “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, and participatory” events designed and ran by my “carnies.” You are my carnies. I have no idea what a “horizontal, nonviolent, creative, and participatory” event is. Well, I have a few ideas that my grad class brainstormed last year when I first read of this book and designed this project. But I probably won’t share them with you. Your goal as a class will be to design and stage this event, and then write a paper reflecting on the process and product.

Here’s a bit more articulate description.
Schedule

  • Tuesday, March 19th: That’s today! Project 3, Cavarero Preface,
  • Thursday, March 21st: No class, reading assignment is to read Cavarero 1-56
  • Tuesday, March 26th: Discuss Cavarero 1-56 (brainstorm Write-Up topics); Homework: Cavarero Write Up #1
  • Thursday, March 28th: Share Write Up #1; Homework: Read Cavarero 57-86
  • Tuesday, April 2nd: Pitch potential “Carnival” ideas. Rename the “Carnival.” Homework: Cavarero Write Up #2
  • Thursday, April 4th: Share Cavarero Write-Up #2
  • Tuesday, April 9th: Final Write-Up Prompt and discussion: What is Rhetoric?
  • Thursday, April 11th: Revisit “carnival” ideas – “A” folks tell us what they are reading
  • Tuesday, April 16th: Event Planning
  • Thursday, April 18th: Event Planning
  • Tuesday, April, 23rd: Event Rehearsal
  • Thursday, April 25th: EVENT DAY
  • Exam Week: Final Write-Up Share

Let’s turn to Cavarero’s “preface.”

ENG 429 Rhetoric and Technology

Advising season is upon us. I will be teaching ENG 429 Rhetoric and Technology in the fall of 2024. ENG 429 will be a special topics seminar; for its inaugural run I will be teaching a course on rhetoric and AI. There will be 3 major projects one, each dedicated to exploring the affordances and limitations of AI writing technologies.

  • Project One: Based on an article by Scott Graham, we will all try to write a paper using ONLY AI generators. You are not allowed to write or edit any of the AI output.
  • Project Two: Based on an article by Doug Eyman, we will compare how 6 different AI generators summarize an academic work (which will likely be a foundational piece of techno-philosophy, something like Benamin’s “Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” or Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology” or something similar. We will spend a week or so carefully reading and discussing the essay ourselves before turning to AI. You will write a report that compares/evaluates/critiques the AI performance.
  • Project Three: This is a project of my own design, based on somewhat recent (2004-2014) rhetorical work on “glitching” technology as a form of resistance. You will design a project / work / performance that attempts to “glitch” an AI generator.

Like ENG 319, this course will employ write-ups and use a hybrid self-assessment approach to grading.
Note: I will be able to provide access to several different AI Generators for project 2. The final project will require you pay for one month’s access to Chat GPT4, which currently costs $10. That should be the course’s only material cost, all other readings will be supplied as .pdfs.

Time-permitting: I spent break working on a conference paper that bridges the work we’ve done in 319 and some of the theoretical under-pinnings of ENG 429.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 319 11.T: Syllabus Check, Project 3, Rhetoric and Technology

ENG 328 8.T: Menu Project

Posted on February 27, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • IFS Project Folder
  • Menu Project
  • Adobe Classroom in a Book Assignments
  • Calendar

IFS Project Folder

Please be sure to upload your designs into the folder. Include a .jpg or .pdf (a file I can view) AND a .psd or .indd (depending on what program you used).

Menus

For the next two weeks we will be designing a restaurant menu. This is a multiple-birds-with-one-project project, since we’ll be:

  • Learning InDesign
  • Learning Design Process and Grid Layout (developing a mock-up/sketch)
  • Practicing Typography

Pre-Writing a Design

Most of you are writers. As writers, you all probably have a different approach to pre-writing. Me? I read and write comments in the margins of a book. Then I type out quotes into a Google Doc with some transitions and some analysis. Pieces of stuff. I’m looking for terms I’ll need to explicate. Connectionss to other passages or writers. Places where I can offer a concrete example of an abstract concept. I try to identify what I have to write *first*, what idea or term I need to understand and pin down in order to explicate the other terms/materials/examples I plan on analyzing in the paper.

Eventually I start thinking of an outline (what, in my writing classes, I call a road map: first this paper explains X, then it uses X to examine A, B, and C. Or first it reviews how X and Y have defined Z. Then it compares X and Y’s treatment of Z to M, stressing A and B). Whatever. I do some math and start guessing how many pages I can dedicate to each element in the outline. As a profession academic, I often work backwards a bit on this part, since virtually anything I write will be 8-10 pages (for a conference) or 20-30 pages (for an article).

However we approach pre-writing, I think we can think of it as developing “a sketch” of what our work will look like. It is an exercise in planning organization, mapping ideas. It is also, at least for me, an exercise in space management, making sure I can fit what is needed in the area with which I have to work. I think you can see where this is going. The challenge of the menu project, the reason it is our last mini-project, is that it asks you to squeeze quite a bit of content into a rather small space, while making that content scannable and keeping that content readable.

When I used to design websites, I would always begin with a mock-up: a hand-drawn sketch of site. That would become a mock-up, a Photoshop picture of what I wanted the site to look like. This would include some basic measurements and grid work. We’re going to use a similar, but more lo-fi, approach to developing a draft for the menu project: a hand-drawn map on a piece of paper. We’ll work on this Thursday.

Working in InDesign

Things to cover:

  • Layers
  • Properties (and text styles)
  • Image Placeholder

General Design Advice and Resources for Menu Design

Schedule / Homework

For Thursday, I would like you to bring a copy of a printed menu to class. We’re going to look at menus for a bit and discuss layout for the upcoming project.

  • Tuesday Feb 27: Complete the InDesign Classroom in a Book Lesson on “Working with Typography.” According to the book, this should take around 90 minutes–I should be able to give you 60 minutes in class today. For homework over the weekend, I will ask you to also complete the “Working with Objects” lesson. If you want to get ahead, we will complete the “Flowing Text” and “Working with Styles” lessons *after* spring break. One other piece of homework: Bring a restaurant menu to class on Thursday.
  • Thursday Feb 29: Project copy. Invention. Looking at Menus. Art time. Homework: draft up a restaurant menu.
  • Tuesday Mar 5: Work day in class. End of class crit. Homework: revise menu.
  • Thursday Mar 7: Work on menus. Menu reflection assignment. Final turn-in before we leave for spring break.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on ENG 328 8.T: Menu Project

ENG 231 7.R: Tragedy Paper and Presentation Expectations

Posted on February 22, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Project Two: The Tragedy Paper Expectations
  • Tragedy Project Resources (and Santos 2023 post on catharsis)
  • Tragedy Presentation Expectations
  • Tragedy Presentation Sign-Ups

If you have a question regarding the paper or presentations, then you can ask it here.

Project Two: The Tragedy Paper Expectations

When we started this project back on February 1st, I promised you 4-5 weeks to complete your game and develop your papers. Today marks the end of week four. The time of writing is upon us. Many of you have done some work already both in your journals and in your presentations. My hope is that ideas are fomenting. It is time to calcify them.

If you are still generating ideas, then refer back to the heuristic I shared last class.

Final papers will be due March 10th. I will respond to papers over the break.

Vitals:

  • The paper should be 7 to 10 pages (say 1700 to 3000 words)
  • The paper should be written in MLA or APA format with a corresponding Works Cited / Reference List. You should use the OWL MLA or OWL APA websites for formatting.
  • The paper needs to develop a definition of catharsis. This should include citing and explaining (the ambiguities) in Aristotle’s definition and explaining at least two of the competing definitions Curran presents. It will likely take you 2 pages (double-spaced) to do this. You might explain two versions of catharsis relevant to your paper, or contrast two and ultimately only use one. The learning objective for this part of the paper is that you can summarize/explicate intricate theory in your own terms.
  • The paper needs to work with one additional term we’ve discussed this project (see resources below). You might have to look up other sources to help develop your understanding of the term (Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc). Be sure to include these in your Works Cited / Reference List (check formatting in OWL). It is your job to talk about how/why this term relates to catharsis and then, in the paper, to talk about why that term is specifically important to understanding your experience of that game.
  • Taken together, these explications build what we, in the humanities, often call the Theoretical or Critical Lens for analyzing a game. The interpretation of catharsis you champion here HAS to show up in your analysis. Did you feel clarification, purge, refinement?

The paper should then close read 2-4 scenes from the game that help me understand the answer to one (or more) of the following questions:

  • Is this game a tragedy (by Aristotelian standards)?
  • Did you have a cathartic experience? What is that experience? To what extent does it concern “pity” or “fear”? Might you suggest a different word/emotion?
  • How/does the interactive nature of the game augment/diminish its potential as a tragedy capable of producing catharsis? Think of the Joel scene: what amplifies there is that we are not *watching* Joel shoot those doctors, but doing it ourselves. HOWEVER, if you were to focus on Joel’s final lie to Ellie, then we aren’t “acting,” we are merely witnessing, watching. (And, were I to write about this game, I would have 3 sections of the paper: Loss (focusing on the opening scene, Tess’ death, Sam’s death), Murder (detailing the hospital scene), and Lies (detailing that final epilogue).
  • Explore the complex relationship to the game’s protagonist / argue for the agent of the tragic action etc. What other term comes to mind when you think of your game?

Remember that this part is mostly advisory. Meaning–you have to show me you can read several academic sources and define catharsis–the stuff in the first bulleted list is non-negotiable. The stuff in the second bulleted list is offered as potential avenues for analysis. However, what you do in the paper is up to you. I want to read a paper that uses the concept of catharsis and another Greek aesthetic term to say something smart. Point to specific elements, scenes, choices, dialogue in the game. Don’t merely summarize plot, but analyze aesthetic intent and effects.

Finally, the paper needs to have an introduction that details your argument. Your answer(s) to that/those question(s) is your thesis. It is the point that your paper is attempting to prove. Make sure your introduction lays the argument out and “road maps” the route the paper will take to get there. The paragraphs examining scenes are your evidence in support.

The exact argument and organization of the paper is up to you: I cannot predict or assure that the questions I lay out above will work for every person’s experience with any given game. They are starting points. If you analyze specific scenes of the game using the theoretical readings we’ve read and discussed in order to reflect on your play and the designer’s intentions, you are ensured at least a B on the paper (see the rubric in Canvas).

Catharsis Resources

Note that there should be .pdfs of all readings in Canvas.

Aristotle’s Definition of Tragedy:

VI.2-3
Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of emotions.

What if Catharsis Wasn’t Merely Fear and Pity?

One more resource. Here is a blog post I wrote on Catharsis last year. You are free to cite this. You are also encouraged to argue against it (should you decide to do so).

  • MLA Citation: Santos, Marc C. “What if Catharsis Wasn’t Merely Fear and Pity?” Insignificant Wranglings, May 2022, https://www.marccsantos.com/eng-231-7-r-tragedy-paper-expectations/
  • APA Citation: Santos, M.C. (2022, May). What if catharsis wasn’t merely fear and pity?” Insignificant Wranglings. https://www.marccsantos.com/eng-231-7-r-tragedy-paper-expectations/

Okay, here goes:

First, let’s clear up what catharsis might mean, especially the idea that catharsis is a kind of pleasure. We all get that catharsis for Aristotle means that we watch something painful and then (sort of) feel good about it. But why do we feel good about it? How do we flush out the particulars? This is where things get tricky. Let me introduce two/ interpretations–I roll with the second more than the first.

Okay, the first is that we recognize in the protagonist something that plagues ourselves, one of our foibles, weaknesses, flaws. Hence we pity them. Or we see that they are the victims of the bad circumstances and we pity them. And, at the same time, because we identify with them, we fear that we could make the same bad decisions or find ourselves a pawn of a similarly unjust fate.

Perhaps the play resolves itself, and through the play we learn to overcome those bad things, to fix our flaw, to be better. Thus, we are purged, cleansed, of our pity and fear. The pleasure here is tied to the pleasure of learning, of becoming better.

I don’t really buy that model. Rather, I think we reconcile, accept, those flaws. Perhaps we learn the importance of overcoming our flaws, perhaps we are better at avoiding them. But I think catharsis more as a coming to terms with our frailties, learning to live with them, coming to recognize humanity as something over than divine, ideal, or perfect. The rhetorician Kenneth Burke once said that humans are “rotten with perfection,” with the idea of perfection, with creating ideals and then comparing ourselves to them. Judging ourselves lacking for our inability to meet the impossible ideal. I think the cathartic “pleasure” of coming to terms with our frailty is timid, subdued. It is a kind of peace that eschews from a contentment with our/selves.

I’ll also say that I don’t think the purpose of tragedy is to release just fear or pity. That’s feels too narrow to me. Both in the sense that I don’t think tragic exploration limits itself to what we fear and who we pity (for suffering what seems injust or caprice whims of fate).

Catharsis reaches out to us and reminds us, rekindles, relights, what is already there. Our fear of death. Our fear of loss. So, yes, fear is certainly part of us. But what about our struggle to find meaning in our lives? Our desire for a soulmate. Is there a fear that we won’t find meaning or love (we could spin it that way). But rather than fear, what about the frustration love (or its absence, or its betrayal) causes us? The pain of rejection or betrayal. Catharsis is a term for the resonance between what we see on the stage, the screen, the page, and our own troubles, thoughts, feelings. And we can have powerful relationships to characters that do not necessarily amount to only pity.

This isn’t to say we can’t have a powerful sympathetic response to a narrative to which we have no lived correlate– I find Eli Weisel’s Night to be incredibly powerful despite the fact that I have not experienced genocide. Night is doing powerful work; I would simply insist that it is not cathartic work, because there is no personal resonance for me. It operates in the realm of sympathy (feeling for) rather than empathy (feeling with). This does not mean it is not “pedagogic,” i.e., instructive– it certainly aims to teach us how (not) to live. But there is no connection to my life (and, without falling into the “universal” rabbit hole, etc. etc), no identification. I experience it from a distance.

So, if I had to lay down a fundamental first principle for catharsis, it would be that there must be a fundamental identification between the action of the tragedy and the audience/reader/player.

Tragedy Presentation Expectations and Materials

First let me say that these are not supposed to be formal or stressful. If you are not a fan of public speaking, you are welcome to put together a video recording of you giving a talk or produce a narrated PowerPoint presentation that we can listen to in class.

As of today, we have 23 people who are active in the class. We have 150 minutes to complete these presentations. Leaving about a minute and a half between presentations for a few quick questions and transition, you each have 5 minutes for your presentation. So that’s about 650-750 words. I want those words to be your best words, for you to show us your best thing.

The presentation should probably spend about 150 words summarizing the plot of the game for us. THAT IS NOT A LOT OF WORDS–but you should give everyone a big picture view of the topic/action/main character in a very tight paragraph.

The main part of the presentation should focus on a particularly interesting scene that produces catharsis. Given that we are all pretty familiar with catharsis, you should simply identify what flavor of Curran’s menu you are tasting and give us no more than a one sentence definition.

Then take us to a scene and give us a close reading. Think of my explication of Marlene and Last of Us last class. I would have more work to do on that–but that sample is 380+ words.

If you are concise, then you can discuss two scenes of the game. During your talk, I will signal when you hit 4:00 minutes and shut you down when you hit five. Practice your speech enough that it fits in that 4:00-4:45 minute window.

Your presentation should be accompanied with a slide show. Unless you are recording your presentation, I strongly prefer you use Google Slides for this–you can submit a link to the presentation to Canvas and it will make transitioning between speakers much faster as everyone presents. These do not need to be fancy–just share materials relevant to your presentation. Or maybe like this. Note how those speakers put notes in some of the slides–copy and pasted from their paper. They know when to read and when to speak. Again, if anxiety is a problem, you are welcome to read a paper. When I present theoretical material at conferences, I tend to read more than speak, and I write [change slide] in my paper to remind me when to advance my presentation.

There isn’t any one right way to do this, and the presentations will look and feel different. To provide some clarity, I will grade on three things:

  • Time and Polish [whether spoken or prerecorded]
  • Identifies a type of catharsis
  • Close reads a scene
  • Has “good” slides

Tragedy Presentation Sign Ups

Back to the Conference Sign Up Google Doc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 7.R: Tragedy Paper and Presentation Expectations

ENG 231 7.T: Last of Us as a Tragedy

Posted on February 20, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Watch: Last of Us Final Scene
  • Last of Us as a Tragedy (group discussions)
  • Last of Us as a Tragedy (class discussion)
  • Checking in with our project calendar

Last of Us Final Chapter (“Hospital”)

Let’s watch.

  • Open:9:17:45
  • Skip to 9:33:45

Last of Us as a Tragedy Prompt

Today I want to spend some time using the theoretical terms we researched at the beginning of this project. Working in groups of 3-4, I want you to think about how the following terms/concepts apply to our class playthrough (and, um, watch) of the Last of Us’s opening prologue and first chapter.

I’ve created a set of heuristic questions at the beginning of this document to help with this. Because we haven’t finished playing the Last of Us yet, some of these might be more difficult to discuss than others.

Hypothetical Timeline (Updated)

Here is what I am thinking:

  • Thursday, Feb 1st: Santos lecture. Discussion of Meakin et al. Building a vocabulary for analyzing tragedy. Homework: Identify a game you will play outside of class. Play it for two hours.
  • Tuesday, Feb 6th: Introduction to Aristotle’s Poetics (and the best/worst definition of tragedy). Close reading activity. Homework: Read Curran.
  • Thursday, Feb 8th: Start Developing our Handbook of Tragic Terms. The Last of Us, “Hometown / Prologue.” Homework: Play your game for 2 hours and finish Gaming Reflection #1.
  • Tuesday, Feb 13th: Last of Us, “The Outskirts: Capitol Building.” Play your game for 1 hour.
  • Thursday. Feb 15th: Santos lecture: Player complicity. “Reading” Sicart together. Last of Us, “Suburbs”. Homework: Read Potzsch and Waszkiewicz. Play your game for 2 hours and finish Gaming Reflection #2.
  • Tuesday. Feb 17th: Discuss Potzsch and Waskiewicz. HW: Play your game for one hour.
  • Thursday. Feb 19th: Last of Us, “Hospital” (time for “Epilogue”?). HW: Play your game for 2 hours.
  • Tuesday. Feb 20th: [Changed to Last of Us and tragedy discussion]Writing the Paper Workshop. HW: Start drafting your paper.
  • Thursday. Feb 22nd: [Changed to Writign the Paper Workshop / Overview]. Presentation expectations. Conference Sign-Ups.
  • Tuesday and Thursday Feb 27 & 29: Writing Conferences
  • Tuesday and Thursday March 5 & 7: Presentations

Parts of Tragedy–catharsis, hubris/hamaritia, anagnorisis, peripeteia, epiphany, aporia (? not expected, but Meakin), “action,” mimesis. Sicart: player complicity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 231 7.T: Last of Us as a Tragedy

7.T: Project Two Race and Rhetoric Outline

Posted on February 20, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Blankenship Write-Up #2 (One or Two Volunteers)
  • Journal Posts
  • Project 2 Introduction and Timeline

Project 2 Introduction and Timeline

Last time I taught this class was spring of 2021. I built our second project around Ersula J. Ore’s book Lynching: Violence, Rhetoric, and American Identity. The title is pretty indicative of the book’s argument: that white American identity has always been built on the subjugation of and violence against black bodies; contemporary police violence then is simply another manifestation of a very long tradition of state sanctioned or ordered cruelty and murder. It is a powerful argument. This violence operates rhetorically by helping to instantiate and support white identity whic , as Coates mentioned in the interview we watched, is first and foremost a political mark of power and superiority. It is a claim to be able to claim. This is beyond the economic necessity of cheap if not slave labor to drive corporate profits. That justification exists as well.

When I was planning that unit, I deliberated between assigning Ore’s book and Kendi’s best-seller How to Be Anti-Racist. Ore’s book is more scholarly, while Kendi’s is written for a wider audience. It is more accessible–both in terms of the sophistication of its terminology and prose *and* in terms of the palpability of its argument. Kendi’s argument is both eloquent and simple, and I think I mentioned it in our last class: rather than thinking about racism as something someone is (as ethos, or identity in Miller’s terms), we need to think about it as what someone does (more in terms of logos, or policy in Miller’s terms). Being antiracist isn’t an attitude or a value–it is a path of action. You have to do stuff to be anti-racist. You have to look at your world, where you live, and figure out what you can do to dismantle inequality.

Let me put Kendi in conversation with Miller’s stases for policy debate. Being anti-racist requires that:

  • Ill: We recognize a problem. Que up *a lot* of statistics on the unequal educational, financial, penal outcomes between blacks and whites
  • Narrative of Causality: Debate why those inequalities exist (essentialism vs. contextualism).
  • Inherency: Argue whether the problem needs intervention, will it go away. Imagine and challenge the arguments for why racism doesn’t require intervention

Miller’s stases for productive policy, for invigorating rather than suppressing democracy require that we focus on *doing* something to fix an ill. Those stases were:

  • Solvency (what do you propose?)
  • Feasability (how is it possible?)
  • Unintended Consequences (imagine and address to the best of one’s ability)

Kendi’s approach to anti-racism resonates with Miller because he argues that being anti-racist means supporting policies with measurable outcomes that actively work to redress racial inequalities.

So, if Kendi’s work resonates so nicely with Miller, why didn’t I pick it? Because I did not think it would challenge in the way that Ore’s book would. The premises and examples from Ore’s book aren’t meant to persuade us to a movement. Kendi wants to change how we act, and is quite rhetorical in how he operates. Yes, his argument is supported with examples, both personal and historical, that are meant to outrage. But he gives us a path down which we can challenge that outrage. He allows us to skip over dwelling with our own responsibility, our obligation, by focusing attention on what we might do.

Those last two sentences above are meant to be read with a bit of skepticism. Because, as a rhetorician, I don’t want people to become comfortable too quickly. I believe that if we are to motivate ourselves and others to do that work, to follow through, then we have to understand racial injustice as part of our ethical identity. I thought Ore’s work had potential for such work because it is is historical, rather than analytical. By this, I mean that, chapter by chapter, she documents the construction, formalization, authorization of state sanctioned violence. Her argument is that violence isn’t something just outside of the system (like say, a hate group such as the KKK). And violence isn’t necessarily just physical force. I cannot know what you have been taught about America and race. I can make some assumptions, but I know enough to tread carefully lest what I make you and mean. I feel kind of safe assuming that you *probably* have not read a book like this one.

As I mentioned previously, during this class we read Coates’ “A Case for Reparations.” Like Ore, Coates makes rhetorical arguments by documenting, with fine grain, historical facts. He forces us to see something that you probably didn’t learn in high school history classes. It was through Coates’ essay that I first learned about Black Wall Street and the 1921 Tulsa Massacre. I am curious how many of you have heard of that one.

Between now and spring break, I am going to ask you to do some reading and some thinking. Instead of Ore, I’ll ask you to read two essays by Ta-Nehisi Coates, both of which are available in Canvas. Based on those readings, I will ask you to read another 75-100 pages or so by any author Coates mentions, or on a subject that comes up in the Coates reading.

In addition to your reading, I’ll ask you to write 3 reflection journal entries on your reading. Each entry should be about the length of a write-up: one page single-spaced. Your journal entries should be structured around Blankenship’s four questions for empathy:

  1. Yielding to others by sharing and listening to personal stories [thinking about when stories sting us, and when we feel resistance, hesitancy to accept, cognitive friction? What does this person believe that I do not?]
  2. Considering motives behind speech acts and actions [what is the writer trying to do? What is the argument/purpose/goal of this text? What is it doing besides communicating facts? Who is their audience? How does the context/kairos of the text show up? Why write this now?]
  3. Engaging in reflection and self-critique? [Why don’t I believe the things that this person believes?]
  4. Addressing difference, power, and embodiment [How and where you see, engage with them? What we might do?]

As I mentioned in previous classes, I will not see these journal entries. These are meant to be a space in which you can think through the readings. Let me share something I wrote about this project in 2021.
If needed, I can share an extended discussion of postpedagogy.

Journaling Discussion

I got two questions about the journaling assignment and wanted to share my response here. Here’s one of the questions:

Would writing down my notes and thoughts count as a reflection? Or do you want a more formal sense of writing about our comments ad ideas, more like our write-ups? Please let me know.

A fair and reasonable question. My first crack at an answer:

The reflections are your space. They aren’t something I will see, unless you really want me to read it. My idea was more of a free-write, because I think ideas emerge when you just pose a question and start writing.

My own process involves taking notes as I write—first in the margins of texts and then in a Google Doc. Then I start writing a summary of a piece, attempting to lay out its major argument and points of evidence. Then I start *really* writing about it: about how it compliments or challenges my understanding of an idea, policy, practice, etc.

I sort of realize that I didn’t directly answer the question. Because I don’t want to answer that question. My theory is that people need space to think through things, and people think in different ways. One of my reflection questions essentially asks if you thought providing you a space to read and think without my oversight was valuable or a waste of time. I know (from research and experience) that students tend to view discussion boards as busy work. There’s skepticism toward journaling and reflective writing. So, think of this as a hypothesis, does that work become more meaningful to you if you are “free” to choose to do it? And free to determine how to do it?

That said, I know not everyone here has experience in humanities research classes, so I don’t know (and please don’t take this critically) if you feel confident that you know how to do the hard work of thinking. I mean this sincerely. Thought isn’t a magical thing that happens, it is often the product of productive engagement, will, labor. And you might have questions about how to do that labor. (Does this stuff get taught here at UNC?)

Proposed Timeline

  • Tuesday, Feb 20: Project Introduction. Home: Finish Coates’ “A Case” reading.
  • Thursday, Feb 22: In class: watch Kendi TED Talk, “The Difference Between Being Not Racist and Antiracist” (2020). Homework: Journal #1. Start reading: Coates’ “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration”
  • Tuesday, Feb 27: Watch Ore, “Lynching in American Public Memory”. Homework: continue reading Coates. Prepare one thought on Coates’ reading thus far that you want to share. The thought should be 200 words or less. It can reflect on the reading, identify what you might read next, or identify something that you might do based on your reading thus far.
  • Thursday, Feb 29: One Thought. List of Other Readings [50-100 pages]. Homework: Finish Coates’ reading. HW: Do Your Reading
  • Tuesday, Mar 5: Discussion of Coates, other readings. Exercise: What is a question that I might ask you? Longer group exercise: What is an MA exam question I might ask you?
  • Thursday, Mar 7: Computer Lab day to do Race and Rhetoric Project Reflection
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on 7.T: Project Two Race and Rhetoric Outline

ENG 231 5.T: Aristotle’s Poetics

Posted on February 6, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Thinking of Tragedy?
  • Aristotle’s Poetics
  • What Game Are You Playing?
  • Homework

Writing Exercise

I’ve put up a quick assignment in Canvas.

Aristotle’s Poetics

Let’s read some Aristotle.

Homework

Read the Curran. There’s a short assignment in Canvas

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on ENG 231 5.T: Aristotle’s Poetics

ENG 231 4.R: Games as Tragedy

Posted on February 1, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Games as Tragedy Project
  • Meakin et al

Games as Tragedy Project

Overview: For the next 5 weeks we will think about how video games reflect, amplify, or defy the traditional Western genre of tragedy. We will read and discuss theory on tragedy, especially its most slippery term, catharsis. We will read and discuss theory on how, as players, we relate to the games/characters we play (as): particularly Miguel Sicart’s concept of “player complicity.” We will also read a few works that analyze games in terms of tragedy as ideas for how to approach your paper. In class, we will play and discuss Naughty Dogs’ iconic The Last of Us, which I think epitomizes the aesthetic potential for the genre (tragedy) and the medium (video game).

Outside of class, you will be responsible for playing a game (any game other than The Last of Us, which we will be playing in class. As you play, you will keep notes in a gaming journal, thinking about how some of our key tragic terms (listed below) show up in your game and your experience of that game (meaning, in part, that your paper can think about the space between what a game is trying to do, how it is trying to make you feel, and whether/why that is/n’t working).

That was the short version, now for the longer one.

Hypothetical Timeline

Here is what I am thinking:

  • Thursday, Feb 1st: Santos lecture. Discussion of Meakin et al. Building a vocabulary for analyzing tragedy. Homework: Identify a game you will play outside of class. Play it for two hours.
  • Tuesday, Feb 6th: Introduction to Aristotle’s Poetics (and the best/worst definition of tragedy). Close reading activity. Homework: Read Curran.
  • Thursday, Feb 8th: Start Developing our Handbook of Tragic Terms. The Last of Us, “Hometown / Prologue.” Homework: Play your game for 2 hours and finish Gaming Reflection #1.
  • Tuesday, Feb 13th: Last of Us, “The Outskirts: Capitol Building.” Play your game for 1 hour.
  • Thursday. Feb 15th: Santos lecture: Player complicity. “Reading” Sicart together. Last of Us, “Suburbs”. Homework: Read Potzsch and Waszkiewicz. Play your game for 2 hours and finish Gaming Reflection #2.
  • Tuesday. Feb 17th: Discuss Potzsch and Waskiewicz. HW: Play your game for one hour.
  • Thursday. Feb 19th: Last of Us, “Hospital” (time for “Epilogue”?). HW: Play your game for 2 hours.
  • Tuesday. Feb 20th: Writing the Paper Workshop. HW: Start drafting your paper.
  • Thursday. Feb 22nd: Writing Time. Presentation expectations.
  • Tuesday and Thursday Feb 27 & 29: Writing Conferences
  • Tuesday and Thursday March 5 & 7: Presentations

Parts of Tragedy–catharsis, hubris/hamaritia, anagnorisis, peripeteia, epiphany, aporia (? not expected, but Meakin), “action,” mimesis. Sicart: player complicity.

Play your game. The list:

  • Last of Us 2. 24-30 hours.
  • God of War. 20-30 hours.
  • Shadow of the Colossus. 7-9 hours.
  • The Walking Dead. 12-13 hours. (Many sequels).
  • Bioshock Infinite. 12-16 hours. (Not sure).
  • Spiritfarer: Easing into the Steps of Grief. 25-30 hours.
  • Heavy Rain. (Haven’t Played). 10-12 hours.
  • Beyond: Two Souls. 10-12 hours.
  • What Remains of Edith Finch. 2.5 hours.
  • Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
  • Firewatch (?). 4 hours
  • A Plague Tale: Requiem. 15 hours
  • Life is Strange: True Colors 10 hours.
  • Life is Strange. 14 hours
  • Doki Doki Literature Club. 4-8 hours (but really 8 hours)

The syllabus maps out 10 hours for playing games. If you play a short game, then I expect you to play it twice or for you to compare it to a second short game (minimum of 6 hours of play for this project).

Not all of these games are tragedies by a strict definition. But all of these games should help us think about how video games, and their interactive nature, utilize/transform catharsis. Papers can argue that games function as tragedies or argue that games fail to meet their cathartic potential.

For this project, papers will be academic conference length (meaning 8-10 pages double-spaced, about 2000-2500 words). Some papers will be much longer than that, and that’s okay. It is virtually impossible to do all the things this paper has to do in less than 8 pages. Papers will have a title and a works cited or reference list (MLA or APA, your choice).

Let’s Discuss Meakin et al

Here’s a link to the article.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ENG 231 4.R: Games as Tragedy

ENG 319 4.R: The Paper

Posted on February 1, 2024 by insignificantwrangler@gmail.com

Today’s Plan:

  • Thoughts on the Paper
  • Questions about the Paper

Thoughts on the Paper

A few things that are true enough:

  • I have not given you much guidance on how to write this paper
  • I do not *want* to give you much guidance on how to write this paper
  • I do not want to give you guidance because I want you to invent your own assignment
  • You, I imagine, would much prefer I tell you what to do
  • You, I imagine, also probably believe that I have a very specific idea of what I want this paper to do and will penalize you if you do not do the thing that I want you to do but won’t tell you how to do

Let’s quickly watch a thing that I like.

Let me write a thing here. I have published numerous articles on “postpedagogy.” Postpedagogy kind of literally translates to “after teaching.” It is the idea that students will learn more, grow more, if we do not try to “teach” them how to do things. Particularly things like writing, which, as I have already ranted about, really cannot be taught. And I get that you are totally used to being taught all kinds of things and then measured to make sure you did them right. I hate that system, my complicity in it, and your expectation for it. But I certainly don’t hate you. I like you. I like you enough that I am going to hurt you a bit by not telling you what to do so we can break out of that cycle.

I had a graduate student a few years ago write, in a collaborative article, that my teaching style walks the line between “hopelessly lost” and “productively confused” and that is one of the nicest things a student has every said about me. It was a gift. Because it identifies precisely where I want students to be. My sense, from a few conversations, is that too many of you are in the “hopelessly lost” place, so let’s try to clear that up. In a second I’ll ask you to ask me questions. Anonymously, if you prefer.

First, a few things:

  • I have asked you to write a close analysis of a candidate’s campaign materials. That candidate should be someone that you like, or are at least likely to vote for. That analysis should use the Miller, Burke, and/or Mercieca as a lens. I do not expect the analysis to be complimentary or critical in the traditional senses. Rather, the analysis should be trying to make some kind of argument about democracy/policy or demagoguery/identity and the candidate’s use of rhetoric in the terms that M, B, and M offer us. Do you have questions about those terms? Are you clear on what you are looking for?
  • Do we want to look at a thing and see if, just based on the instructions above, we can say something smart?
  • Note, too, that your paper doesn’t have to be on a politician. It can use those terms to try and do something else.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ENG 319 4.R: The Paper