Over the course of this class, we've covered a lot of information about rhetoric, both verbal and visual. We've made significant decisions and choices about how parts and components of a proposal, and we've determined what needs to be done to make a fantastic proposal.
I've learned more than just that, however. I learned the importance of maintaining a network of colleagues to review and assist with the writing process. I learned the necessity of a couple of extra hours for editing and review. I learned that a good idea often proliferates itself. I also learned not to overestimate project availability, and to make the best out of a situation gone wrong. I found a new application for voice modulation and face synch, even if I didn't get the chance to use them this time around.
And, at the risk of sounding absurdly sentimental, I learned the importance of having someone who will listen to your writing and tell you, during the absolute depths of writer's self-doubt, that what you are doing is brilliant. That might be the most important lesson of all.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Progress Report 4
Introduction: This proposal will explain my plan to develop a rhetorical analysis of machinima projects as part of a wider discourse community.
Work Completed: All clear. I finished the proposal, finished the video supplement, and turned the whole bit in. Feels great!
Next Steps: The last part of the course is the examination this afternoon. However, that's not the end of the proposal. I'm wondering if I'll be getting any final revisions before I submit the proposal to my committee members.
Conclusion: I'm almost done with this proposal, and it feels really great to have completed so much. My final step is to get the proposal to my committee members, and then to get to the real work: developing and writing my thesis.
Work Completed: All clear. I finished the proposal, finished the video supplement, and turned the whole bit in. Feels great!
Next Steps: The last part of the course is the examination this afternoon. However, that's not the end of the proposal. I'm wondering if I'll be getting any final revisions before I submit the proposal to my committee members.
Conclusion: I'm almost done with this proposal, and it feels really great to have completed so much. My final step is to get the proposal to my committee members, and then to get to the real work: developing and writing my thesis.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Video progress
First of all, I HATE Windows MovieMaker. Point of fact, this entire Windows creation process has cost me more sleep and gray hair that anything I've done since the war.
Now that that is out of my system, the video is progressing nicely. I've completed all of my YouTube captures, scripted and recorded my audio, and edited the whole thing in Final Cut Pro. It's such a relief to have a sizeable portion finished. I'd say that it's 85% done. I still need to add transitions and a credit sequence, not to mention publish it to DVD, but I anticipate total completion tonight after class.
Now that that is out of my system, the video is progressing nicely. I've completed all of my YouTube captures, scripted and recorded my audio, and edited the whole thing in Final Cut Pro. It's such a relief to have a sizeable portion finished. I'd say that it's 85% done. I still need to add transitions and a credit sequence, not to mention publish it to DVD, but I anticipate total completion tonight after class.
Chapter 12 notes and comments
Finally, we reach the last step of the document creation process. I've tried writing a major document like this in the exact opposite sequence... it doesn't work. However, getting to the front and back matter at this point seems to be an important step most people do not recognize.
I do have a question about the executive summary. Is this really necessary if you have a letter of transmittal? After all, can't you include the information from the executive summary in the letter?
Back matter seems more pertinent to what we're doing for our thesis proposals. Including all of your graphics in the back, even though we just discussed placing them in the main body, is confusing. Do you print the graphics twice, or do you choose between providing breaks in the main body text or preserving the flow of the document?
Finally, we have final revisions. At this point, it's important to leave at least one day to finalize everything and, apparently, obsess about this document. I would be curious to learn just how many grant writers are OCD.
I do have a question about the executive summary. Is this really necessary if you have a letter of transmittal? After all, can't you include the information from the executive summary in the letter?
Back matter seems more pertinent to what we're doing for our thesis proposals. Including all of your graphics in the back, even though we just discussed placing them in the main body, is confusing. Do you print the graphics twice, or do you choose between providing breaks in the main body text or preserving the flow of the document?
Finally, we have final revisions. At this point, it's important to leave at least one day to finalize everything and, apparently, obsess about this document. I would be curious to learn just how many grant writers are OCD.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Stylesheet draft
I made a simple dummy page of the finished proposal. Since I'll be binding it, I figure it will make sense to use nonstandard margins. The rest should be self-explanatory.
Chapter 11 Notes and Comments
I approve of Johnson-Sheehan's approach to graphics. It seems very simple, but so many projects I've seen fail to use graphics adequately to explain themselves, and only succeed in detracting from the text.
The majority of the chapter is a simple review of 2nd Grade visual mathematics, but given that for almost all of us 2nd grade was decades ago, it makes sense to include a simple description of what graphs are needed for certain bodies of statistics. The ethics of graphs, such as including all pertinent data and actually labeling axes (Al Gore, are you paying attention?) drew my attention.
Then we have pictures. Again, too often pictures do not accurately represent what the text is explaining, or detracts from the interaction. A key piece of information I think should have been included is to ensure that references to graphics of any kind should be included on the same page as the graphic. Otherwise, the reader can get amazingly confused flipping back and forth within a document. Would you reprint the graphic if it were used on several pages? Also, a more thorough explanation of the rules of photographing objects and people, especially using the rule of thirds, would have been more useful.
Overall, I think the biggest thing to remember is that graphics work best when they mesh with the text, not when they replace the text. Dan, I guess Tufte might have a point.
The majority of the chapter is a simple review of 2nd Grade visual mathematics, but given that for almost all of us 2nd grade was decades ago, it makes sense to include a simple description of what graphs are needed for certain bodies of statistics. The ethics of graphs, such as including all pertinent data and actually labeling axes (Al Gore, are you paying attention?) drew my attention.
Then we have pictures. Again, too often pictures do not accurately represent what the text is explaining, or detracts from the interaction. A key piece of information I think should have been included is to ensure that references to graphics of any kind should be included on the same page as the graphic. Otherwise, the reader can get amazingly confused flipping back and forth within a document. Would you reprint the graphic if it were used on several pages? Also, a more thorough explanation of the rules of photographing objects and people, especially using the rule of thirds, would have been more useful.
Overall, I think the biggest thing to remember is that graphics work best when they mesh with the text, not when they replace the text. Dan, I guess Tufte might have a point.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Chapter 10 Notes and Comments
Layout of a document can be tricky. It's a careful balance, as gestalt theory explains. You have to build a pleasant and balanced page every time. I've encountered gestalt theory in journalism editing, where an interesting and clear page design can mean the difference between publishing success and disaster.
However, I never considered using non-standard page designs in the proposal design, especially at this stage. I've used some of the alignment guides as Johnson-Sheehan explains, but other than that I've stuck with one-column layouts throughout this proposal. I don't think I'll be changing away from that design scheme, especially this late in the game, but I do see using a three-column format for my thesis itself. Grouping using headings is very important in designing and organizing large documents, since the eye needs organizational breaks.
Finally, consistency in page design, as aided by style sheets, is absolutely essential in every document design. I like the step-by-step guide on 196 as an organizational tool. We have several tools in the MATRF to help with this kind of design activity, most notably InDesign. Given the short timeframe we're working with, though, I doubt anyone is going to have enough time to design a proposal at that level of complexity. Again, the projects themselves will benefit, and if we had this design portion earlier in the class the case might be different, but I just don't see the time constraints working to our advantage.
However, I never considered using non-standard page designs in the proposal design, especially at this stage. I've used some of the alignment guides as Johnson-Sheehan explains, but other than that I've stuck with one-column layouts throughout this proposal. I don't think I'll be changing away from that design scheme, especially this late in the game, but I do see using a three-column format for my thesis itself. Grouping using headings is very important in designing and organizing large documents, since the eye needs organizational breaks.
Finally, consistency in page design, as aided by style sheets, is absolutely essential in every document design. I like the step-by-step guide on 196 as an organizational tool. We have several tools in the MATRF to help with this kind of design activity, most notably InDesign. Given the short timeframe we're working with, though, I doubt anyone is going to have enough time to design a proposal at that level of complexity. Again, the projects themselves will benefit, and if we had this design portion earlier in the class the case might be different, but I just don't see the time constraints working to our advantage.
Progress Report 3
Introduction: This proposal will explain my plan to develop a rhetorical analysis of machinima projects as part of a wider discourse community.
Work Completed: I finished a complete draft of my proposal this weekend, including a more complete (albeit in the wrong format) bibliography and chapter outline. Dr. H. was pleased with this draft, but of course there was some room for improvement. I'm awaiting further comments and suggestions from peer evaluation, but I think I'm on the right track. Also, I've decided to build a multimedia presentation for the MM portion of the class deliverables. I'm very excited about this part, as it will give me the opportunity to showcase what I've been studying about machinima in a medium that I think is better suited to that mode.
Next Steps: As we enter the last couple weeks before the deadline, there's quite a lot of work to finish before the exam. The next thing I'll be focusing on is the video. By combining motion and stills with either prerecorded dialog or talking through the presentation, I'll build a convincing case for my thesis. I'm also going to select the videos I will be examining in the thesis itself. If I can show these in my presentation, I think the presentation will be stronger and my dedication to the thesis much more clear. It's going to be a long production weekend, as usual.
Conclusion: It feels great to have a draft of the thesis finished and to know that there are only a couple hours of minor changes left on it. The report and the video are the last two steps, and that's fine by me. I'm just excited to be getting things done and to know that my screwball ideas are actually coming to fruition.
Work Completed: I finished a complete draft of my proposal this weekend, including a more complete (albeit in the wrong format) bibliography and chapter outline. Dr. H. was pleased with this draft, but of course there was some room for improvement. I'm awaiting further comments and suggestions from peer evaluation, but I think I'm on the right track. Also, I've decided to build a multimedia presentation for the MM portion of the class deliverables. I'm very excited about this part, as it will give me the opportunity to showcase what I've been studying about machinima in a medium that I think is better suited to that mode.
Next Steps: As we enter the last couple weeks before the deadline, there's quite a lot of work to finish before the exam. The next thing I'll be focusing on is the video. By combining motion and stills with either prerecorded dialog or talking through the presentation, I'll build a convincing case for my thesis. I'm also going to select the videos I will be examining in the thesis itself. If I can show these in my presentation, I think the presentation will be stronger and my dedication to the thesis much more clear. It's going to be a long production weekend, as usual.
Conclusion: It feels great to have a draft of the thesis finished and to know that there are only a couple hours of minor changes left on it. The report and the video are the last two steps, and that's fine by me. I'm just excited to be getting things done and to know that my screwball ideas are actually coming to fruition.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Chapter 9 Notes and Comments
Having just finished my conference with Dr. Holmevik, I have to say that style was one of the biggest issues we covered regarding my thesis proposal. Active language versus passive, especially in a proposal, is much more engaging. I thought I used active language, but I was mistaken.
I do like the style refresher in this chapter, but in conversation with some of my colleagues, it came to my attention that they were not as pleased with the style recommendations the author made. I think this is due primarily to the level of attachment most folks have to their writing style at the graduate level. After all, if it worked for two decades, in most cases, why not continue with it now? I maintain that in building a rhetorically-sound and persuasive argument in favor of your proposal, you need to adjust your language to fit the paradigm. Leave the longer sentences for when you have time and page space, such as in the final report.
I may use this style guide in teaching next semester as well as the prescribed texts.
I do like the style refresher in this chapter, but in conversation with some of my colleagues, it came to my attention that they were not as pleased with the style recommendations the author made. I think this is due primarily to the level of attachment most folks have to their writing style at the graduate level. After all, if it worked for two decades, in most cases, why not continue with it now? I maintain that in building a rhetorically-sound and persuasive argument in favor of your proposal, you need to adjust your language to fit the paradigm. Leave the longer sentences for when you have time and page space, such as in the final report.
I may use this style guide in teaching next semester as well as the prescribed texts.
Chapter 8 Notes and Comments
For the purposes of a thesis proposal, a budget is unnecessary. However, when preparing the thesis itself, it is important to keep budgetary constraints in mind. I conducted a brief budget plan for my thesis, in a nonitemized, flexible format. This allows for the maximum flexibility in my planning without breaking the bank.
The majority of the chapter covers a lot of important topics for business-related budgets, which I'm certain are critical to the proposal process. It is nice to see the emphasis the authors placed on certain areas, especially on hidden cost concerns. However, a lot of this information would do better in a personal finance class.
The majority of the chapter covers a lot of important topics for business-related budgets, which I'm certain are critical to the proposal process. It is nice to see the emphasis the authors placed on certain areas, especially on hidden cost concerns. However, a lot of this information would do better in a personal finance class.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Introduction and conclusion, first draft
Introduction
State Subject
Machinima, the user-centered production of video presentations using pre-rendered animated content, as generated from video games, have been used in various capacities for the past several years.
Background
Machinima has been used in various capacities since the beginning of video game communities. By taking video game content and modifying or remediating that content to serve a different purpose, members of the gaming community have been able to recount their in-game exploits or build entirely new creative projects with limited resources. Game developers also use their own game engines to build gameplay movies, often in order to develop the plot of the game’s narrative or to reward the player for progress through the game.
Video game advertising also uses in-game graphics, including both still images and video content, to advertise the various aspects of a game.
Identify purpose
Since machinima exists as a critical part of the gamer community, and has broken into larger media markets, the need to understand what decisions machinima producers make and why they make those decisions is important to understand. The purpose of this thesis proposal is to examine machinima projects as participation within a discourse community by remediating existing intellectual property for new ends.
Main point
It is my belief that machinima provides an important piece of the gamer discourse community and serves as persuasive argumentation devices for the audiences they address. This thesis proposal will build a case to support this belief.
Importance
In order to best examine evolving discourse communities, especially those of the latest generation of communicators, it is important to understand the emergence of machinima and the means by which machinima producers build their arguments.
ForecastThis proposal will briefly outline the research which has been conducted in new media, with as much of a focus on machinima and user generated content as possible. I will then lay out my plan for building my own rhetorical analysis of machinima as they participate within discourse communities. Finally, I will demonstrate the importance of machinima as a rhetorical mode of discourse by describing my plan to produce a machinima in accordance with the rhetorical theories I will be examining and applying.
Conclusion
Transition from body
In conclusion, this proposal has laid out a clear picture of what research has been done so far into machinima as participation within a discourse community. By demonstrating the gap in the current literature, I have also built the case for further research into this genre, especially using the structure of a rhetorical analysis.
Benefits
By conducting such an analysis, both the academic and gamer cultures will benefit. Academia will gain insight into the possible application of existing rhetorical theories to modern media practices, which should provide incentive to conduct further investigations into other genres of new media. Gamers will benefit from opening their community to academic investigation by earning a kind of academic legitimacy. This may also help further the study of new media by getting gamers interested in taking their work further than simply posting YouTube videos of their courageous endeavors.
Look to the Future
By proving that the examination of user-generated machinima projects is a viable avenue of rhetorical study, it is possible that further research into the genre will help further develop machinima into a viable pedagogical or expository tool. It is entirely likely that students will be able to express their creative inquiries using machinima projects due to their low cost of production and the inherent freedom to create almost anything. Additionally, by understanding the machinima project’s rhetorical structure, the potential for using machinima to describe new thoughts and ideas more effectively than with other forms of media is all but limitless. After all, through what other mode can an environmental scholar demonstrate the effects of global warming or a nuclear incident more effectively than with an animated tour through a devastated wasteland?
Chapter 7 Notes and Comments
It makes sense for the introduction and conclusion chapter to follow at this point in the book. I find that even in creative writing, it helps to decide where you are going and then get there before you write the introduction. Often while writing the body of a paper, you'll find the introduction you wrote two or three days ago no longer exactly explains what you want to do.
The flow design this book proposes seems to work well and make sense. It's a microcosm of the proposal, and it follows that having a complete synopsis of the project at the beginning of the proposal would make good rhetorical sense.
The conclusion plan also makes pretty good sense. In a master's proposal, there's no need for a cost or budget portion, but it always seems important to place the financial requirements of the proposal at the end. At that point, you've explained what needs to happen and why, and sold the project to your committee. Closing with the bad news looks to be a useful arrangement. It also helps to recap the benefits immediately after the costs. This is a technique I often used during my days selling cameras. Finally, by explaining the next steps of the proposal plan and giving the review committee an incentive to act, the writer would hopefully gain an edge over the competition. This is another important technique to apply to other aspects of rhetoric, including application letters and even dating!
The flow design this book proposes seems to work well and make sense. It's a microcosm of the proposal, and it follows that having a complete synopsis of the project at the beginning of the proposal would make good rhetorical sense.
The conclusion plan also makes pretty good sense. In a master's proposal, there's no need for a cost or budget portion, but it always seems important to place the financial requirements of the proposal at the end. At that point, you've explained what needs to happen and why, and sold the project to your committee. Closing with the bad news looks to be a useful arrangement. It also helps to recap the benefits immediately after the costs. This is a technique I often used during my days selling cameras. Finally, by explaining the next steps of the proposal plan and giving the review committee an incentive to act, the writer would hopefully gain an edge over the competition. This is another important technique to apply to other aspects of rhetoric, including application letters and even dating!
Introduction: This proposal will explain my plan to develop a rhetorical analysis of machinima projects as part of a wider discourse community.
Work Completed: So far I've developed my introduction, current situation, and project plan sections of my proposal. I've begun compiling additional research for a wider view of the discourse community, including video game theories and expanded media theories. I have also spoken with several class members to develop and refine my plan. Every step has been recorded on this blog. It's been a lot of hard work so far, but I'm more exhilarated than exhausted.
Next Steps: The next step is to combine all of these pieces into a comprehensive project proposal. This will include a full explanation of the complete plan as well as a conclusion. I'll be finishing the complete draft of this proposal this weekend. Finally, I'm going to build a multimedia presentation explaining the whole proposal. I haven't figured out exactly what I'm going to build, but since I'm working on machinima, it would follow that a machinima project would best fit the rhetorical situation. That being the case, I need to select a game to record and edit. This will be the most difficult part of the project, I think.
Conclusion: I'm excited about this project, and I've received nothing but compliments and positive suggestions so far. The best part is that I've been wanting to build another machinima this summer, and now I have a good reason to build one. The biggest question is what game will work best?
Work Completed: So far I've developed my introduction, current situation, and project plan sections of my proposal. I've begun compiling additional research for a wider view of the discourse community, including video game theories and expanded media theories. I have also spoken with several class members to develop and refine my plan. Every step has been recorded on this blog. It's been a lot of hard work so far, but I'm more exhilarated than exhausted.
Next Steps: The next step is to combine all of these pieces into a comprehensive project proposal. This will include a full explanation of the complete plan as well as a conclusion. I'll be finishing the complete draft of this proposal this weekend. Finally, I'm going to build a multimedia presentation explaining the whole proposal. I haven't figured out exactly what I'm going to build, but since I'm working on machinima, it would follow that a machinima project would best fit the rhetorical situation. That being the case, I need to select a game to record and edit. This will be the most difficult part of the project, I think.
Conclusion: I'm excited about this project, and I've received nothing but compliments and positive suggestions so far. The best part is that I've been wanting to build another machinima this summer, and now I have a good reason to build one. The biggest question is what game will work best?
Academic Bio
Sean Callot is a graduate of
After graduation, Sean worked in retail management and public relations. Throughout his degree and professional career, Sean focused on multimedia presentations and rhetoric.
Currently, Sean is a graduate student at
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Chapter 6 notes and comments
I agree with Dan in that this section does not seem to apply to the Master's Thesis requirements. I imagine that by meeting with your adviser and vocalizing your qualifications, you evade the necessity of a written section of qualification.
However, there are other aspects which address the author's qualifications. The project plan, for example, addresses what you know by forcing the author to research and build an effective argument for taking a specific tack on addressing the research question.
Additionally, I was confused by the organizational chart on p. 105. Including an organizational chart in the proposal appears useless.
I'm just generally confused by this chapter.
However, there are other aspects which address the author's qualifications. The project plan, for example, addresses what you know by forcing the author to research and build an effective argument for taking a specific tack on addressing the research question.
Additionally, I was confused by the organizational chart on p. 105. Including an organizational chart in the proposal appears useless.
I'm just generally confused by this chapter.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Project Plan, first draft
As a side note, I'm still not certain where I should explain the theoretical constructs I'll be using, so I included a brief explanation of the main theories I'll be applying in this plan. I also decided not to include the machinima production portion in this draft, due to possible time constraints. However, I'm still considering adding an example of machinima to the project as well.
August 20, 2008 - Begin reviewing and selecting machinima examples
September 1, 2008 - Finalize machinima selections and contact producers; request committee members
October 1, 2008 - Construct review worksheet; update committee on status; begin analysis
November 1, 2008 - Update committee on status
December 1, 2008 - Update committee on status; complete analysis through the month
January 5, 2009 - Update committee on status; begin writing
January 19, 2009 - Chapter 1 complete
February 4, 2009 - Chapter 2 complete
February 19, 2009 - Chapter 3 complete
March 4, 2009 - Chapter 4 complete
March 19, 2009 - Thesis complete, submitted to committee
April 4, 2009 - Revisions
April 11, 2009 - Thesis defense
A rhetorical analysis of machinima seems to be a daunting task. There are many hundreds of pieces of machinima available through many different discourse communities. Game developers have used machinima for several different purposes, ranging from marketing applications to narrative devices. However, the focus of this rhetorical analysis would center on user-generated machinima content. By examining user-generated content, a more complete image of the greater discourse community is possible, and larger assertions may be made regarding the rhetorical devices used and rhetorical conditions each piece of the discourse attempts to address.
To this end, this study would select three machinima projects made available by their creators for public display. Such machinima projects are easily available from second-generation websites, such as YouTube.com or Machinima.com. Each of these sources offers server space for machinima producers, as well as forums for machinima enthusiasts and producers to collaborate and discuss what they have made and how to improve their creations. Machinima projects selected from these sources would embody effective artifacts from the discourse community. Thus, these projects would best suit a rhetorical analysis of this type.
Once the projects are selected and contact has been made with the producers themselves, interviews with the producers of these machinima projects would be conducted. This would allow the producers an opportunity to discuss what their driving motivations were when creating their projects, and what questions or situations they were hoping to address. The results from these interviews would also guide the questions applied in subsequent stages of the rhetorical analysis. After all, if a machinima producer had very specific intentions for his participation in the discourse community, then those intentions would be critical in analyzing the overall project. These interviews would serve much the same purpose that a director’s commentary of a film or author’s epilogue of a novel serves.
The next stage of the analysis would be to apply the rhetorical theoretical constructs described above to the machinima projects themselves. Burke’s pentad would be assisted by data collected from the interview portion, but would also evaluate the effectiveness of the machinima from an independent observational point of view. By assessing the act, agent, agency, setting, and purpose of a machinima project, this study would examine the overall effectiveness of the dramatic aspects of the project.
Bitzer’s rhetorical situation would examine different aspects of the machinima projects. This analysis, combined with data collected from the interview portion of the study, would review and assess the effectiveness of each project at addressing their presupposed rhetorical situation. This proposal included a very brief analysis of 9/11 Survivor’s rhetorical situation, and how effective this project was at addressing the situation. In truth, this could be the most difficult portion of the analysis, as interaction with each project and assessment of the effectiveness of the project can only be effectively gauged by examining responses to the project. The tools each website allows for commentary will hopefully assist this portion of the analysis. Additionally, information garnered from the interview process would also provide illuminating data toward the effectiveness and acceptance of the examined projects.
If a Bitzerean analysis proves unwieldy, or if the analysis proves insufficient, conducting an analysis of the modality of the project as outlined by Kress and Van Leeuwan would provide a different, and possibly more useful, perspective. By analyzing the modality, or the believability a particular project, I will be able to conduct a more holistic examination of the machinima projects. Since there are so many cinematographic techniques available, and Kress and Van Leeuwan examine and provide tools for the analysis of cinematic techniques in a rhetorical context, it follows that using their theories of modality examination is appropriate.
Finally, Foucault’s social discourse analysis would help tie the entire project together. By examining the interviews, the results from the Burkean and Bitzerean analyses, and comments taken from the associated websites, the machinima project’s place in the discourse community will be assessed. Additionally, this kind of analysis will determine to what extent the project either reinforces socially-constructed standards of discourse or subverts them, and how effective the projects are. This kind of analysis will also help build an Ulmerean “wide view” of how machinima fits into the gamer and intellectual community. This final portion of the analysis will help guide recommendations for further research, such as the possibility of further pedagogical use of machinima across the curriculum.
Tentative Schedule
June 30, 2008 - Thesis Proposal submitted to committee chairAugust 20, 2008 - Begin reviewing and selecting machinima examples
September 1, 2008 - Finalize machinima selections and contact producers; request committee members
October 1, 2008 - Construct review worksheet; update committee on status; begin analysis
November 1, 2008 - Update committee on status
December 1, 2008 - Update committee on status; complete analysis through the month
January 5, 2009 - Update committee on status; begin writing
January 19, 2009 - Chapter 1 complete
February 4, 2009 - Chapter 2 complete
February 19, 2009 - Chapter 3 complete
March 4, 2009 - Chapter 4 complete
March 19, 2009 - Thesis complete, submitted to committee
April 4, 2009 - Revisions
April 11, 2009 - Thesis defense
Monday, June 2, 2008
Project Plan, first draft outline
- Select machinima videos to analyze
- Select machinima which address an issue
- Ensure machinima are not copywritten
- if so, secure permission to analyze
- Include selection criteria in final paper
- Select key theories to apply
- rhetorical
- Burke
- Foucault
- Bitzer
- game
- WoW reader
- Game theory books enroute
- media
- Bolter
- Ulmer
- rhetorical
- Apply theories to videos
- apply theories as they appear necessary
- if excluding one theory, explain why
- Analyze results and determine effectiveness
- Compose thesis
- Create a machinima adhering to theories
- Select game
- game should have sufficient user-control
- should maintain focus on gameplay
- modality concerns should be paramount
- plan video production
- screenplay
- storyboard and plan shots
- script and determine sound synchronization techniques
- Produce machinima
- record gameplay footage
- embed and synchonize sound
- edit until you want to cry
- review
- Select game
Chapter 5 notes and comments
We return, again, to the RFP to develop a plan of attack. This reminds me of how military leaders build operations orders for missions. You figure out what the objectives are, then you plan out what you are going to do.
First you map out your objectives, selecting your primary followed by secondary and tertiary objectives. You get these by paying attention to your RFP and POC. You then build your plan with all the objectives in mind but focusing on the primary objective. Make sure you keep an eye on your audience analysis from earlier, especially ethical considerations. I have a friend who does not do this, and his approaches to any given problem will work, but will also have unfortunate repercussions.
Next you build your plan of attack, focusing initially on the how. This seems very important, especially when you build a mind map for the solution to find the best fit solution.
I have a little difficulty determining the "Why?" question. I suppose this section is a control measure, ensuring that the proposal remains cohesive and structured, and should also be structured to address the audience's concerns. Again, as with all rhetoric, the audience needs are key.
First you map out your objectives, selecting your primary followed by secondary and tertiary objectives. You get these by paying attention to your RFP and POC. You then build your plan with all the objectives in mind but focusing on the primary objective. Make sure you keep an eye on your audience analysis from earlier, especially ethical considerations. I have a friend who does not do this, and his approaches to any given problem will work, but will also have unfortunate repercussions.
Next you build your plan of attack, focusing initially on the how. This seems very important, especially when you build a mind map for the solution to find the best fit solution.
I have a little difficulty determining the "Why?" question. I suppose this section is a control measure, ensuring that the proposal remains cohesive and structured, and should also be structured to address the audience's concerns. Again, as with all rhetoric, the audience needs are key.
Current situation, first draft
This first draft of my current situation section consists of a condensed version of my original introduction and literature review. I'll be revising and updating it when I receive three new books of video game and media theory.
Current situation
For almost thirty years, the concept of a computer-generated entertainment system has captured the imagination of writers, researchers, and countless children and adults who demanded more interactivity in their play. Beginning with the first AI-driven game, Pong, and the two-dimensional adventure game Super Mario Brothers, and evolving into the life-like graphics of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Assassin’s Creed, these games have stirred the imagination of gamers and researchers alike. Playing and beating the latest game became a driving force for children through the 1980’s and 90’s.
Building upon those accomplishments, early gamers realized that their game consoles could be connected to a video recorder in order to produce simple movies of their conquests. Gamers eventually built upon this concept to produce full movies of their gaming excursions.(Lowood, 2007) Shortly after gameplay videos began circulating, gamers realized their games could also be used to produce simple computer-generated animated short films. This foretold the beginning of what would come to be known as “machinima.” Recently, more advanced machinima projects have entered some areas of mainstream entertainment. By replacing the soundtrack and using game characters as actors to tell their story, wildly popular television shows such as South Park and CSI: New York included video game-generated content in their 2007-08 seasons. Radio and television news programs have also reported on commercially successful machinima projects, such as Red vs. Blue, a comedy series solely utilizing the Microsoft console games Halo and Halo 2. (Chong, 2008) Despite the increasing popularity of machinima projects, the academic community has spent very little time examining the various creative and rhetorical aspects machinima projects entail. As the following literature review and subsequent theoretical constructs will reveal, there is a significant gap between what scholarly research has been conducted and where popular media is progressing. Given that there has been so much attention paid to machinima in popular media, it should follow that scholarly attention be paid to this burgeoning form of media. To that end, this thesis will examine machinima projects as participation within a discourse community by remediating existing intellectual property for new ends.
While so little scholarly research has been conducted regarding machinima as a whole, there has been a fairly large body of research into the parts and components that comprise the whole. These parts include the video games that are used, available software tools, and copyright concerns. Additionally, artists have taken to using tools similar to those used by machinima creators to remediate video games for their own artistic goals.
Henry Lowood’s article “High-Performance Play: The Making of Machinima” lends the most directly pertinent information to the scholarly examination of machinima projects. He begins by calling video games the “art form of the digital age.” (Lowood, 2007) Lowood explains that machinima projects combine gameplay communities, subversion, and gameplay performance into a single art form. Much of the introduction material from this proposal comes from Lowood’s historical analysis into the development of the first generation of machinima. He places a heavy emphasis on the fact that, since machinima is produced entirely using open-source or commercially produced computer software, movies made from video games reduce the cost concerns inherent in making movies. When producing a machinima, even in the earliest days of graphics-intensive video games, gameplay is the key. (Lowood, 2007) id Software, a pioneer in early game development, embraced the game communities which emerged around their flagship games, Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM, allowing gamers access to level design tools and early gameplay display capture software. The graphics and gameplay were top quality, but id Software took a step further and opened the source code of their games to gaming communities. This, Lowood insists, gave gamers the opportunity to improve id Software’s creations and maintain a vested interest in the game. Gamers were able to build new levels of the game, apply new “skins” to enemy characters, and even build entirely new games (Lowood, 2007). When id Software released the successor to DOOM, titled Quake, game developer John Carmack described it as “the coolest thing anyone has ever seen…” (Lowood, 2007). Again, id Software made all the development tools available to the gamer community, including a dynamic rotating camera tool. While DOOM only supported first-person camera views, Quake offered a third-person perspective that could be manipulated to view the action from different angles. This tool helped to build the first true user-generated, story-driven machinima movie, entitled Diary of a Camper. (Lowood, 2007) This first machinima, Lowood explains, demonstrated what could be done using the kind of tools that were originally reserved for game developers. Subsequent examples of machinima projects offer variations on this basic theme. This essay demonstrates the kinds of creative opportunities available to talented gamers with a desire to remediate traditional media into something wholly new.
However, Lowood does not examine the creative and rhetorical choices project developers make. Jim Andrews examines the remediation of games into artwork in his essay, “Videogames as Literary Devices.” In this essay, Andrews provides several examples of artists incorporating video games into their larger projects. For example, one piece called Pac Mondrian, which combines the classic video game Pac-Man with a Piet Mondrian painting, Broadway Boogie Woogie, uses the game engine as a metaphor for running through the very real streets of New York City. (Andrews, 2007; Hennessy et al, 2004) This kind of remediation is very similar to the production of machinima in that it re-imagines the game in a different context. Similar projects Andrews describes further demonstrate this kind of mash-up as works of art using new media. Hennessy’s explanation of Mondrian’s original work, which combines the emotions he felt when first experiencing the rhythms of New York jazz music with the city layout of the area surrounding Broadway, also demonstrates how different kinds of media can be combined to create altogether new artwork. (Hennessy et al, 2004)
Narrative machinima being the norm, there are art projects which take a much more abstract approach to remediating video games. Rebecca Cannon’s article “Meltdown” touches on certain key aspects of remediating video games for rhetorical means. While her work focuses on artistic modification of game engines, such as the work of the anti-war gamer community Velvet Strike, she also addresses a non-playable encounter called 9/11 Survivor. This user-created gamelplay modification was designed to depict the plight of a survivor of the World Trade Center attack of 11 September, 2001. This piece of user generated content, built using the Unreal Tournament 2003 engine, follows a businessman in one of the towers contemplating what had just happened before jumping to his death. The player has no control over the action whatsoever. The only control the viewer, now relegated to an observer stance, maintains is to change the camera angle around the central character. (Cannon, 2007) Technologically, this mod emulates the earliest gameplay videos Lowood described, where the videos had to be played using game engine itself, as opposed to watching a streamed video. However, the makers of the mod, unlike the pioneers of machinima described earlier, were pilloried by the public and castigated in mass media. Cannon explains that the modders were simply using their preferred medium to express their level of concern. It should also be noted that 9/11 Survivor was created as a class project, indicating some of the teaching possibilities of machinima in a pedagogical setting. (Cannon, 2007)
Cannon’s article comes closest to a true rhetorical analysis of machinima. She examines artistic mods in light of the arguments their creators are trying to make. However, she does not apply traditional rhetorical theory to these projects. Her analytical approach is primarily artistic, and while she does address the artists’ original interests in using video games as media for building arguments, she focuses primarily on the technical and artistic aspects, not rhetorical or literary constructs.
In light of this limited body of research, it becomes clear that a gap exists in the field of rhetoric. Machinima projects have received focused attention from artistic inquiries, technical researchers, and members of the academic community at all levels. A rhetorical analysis of several machinima projects would at least partially fill the gap in the research.
Current situation
For almost thirty years, the concept of a computer-generated entertainment system has captured the imagination of writers, researchers, and countless children and adults who demanded more interactivity in their play. Beginning with the first AI-driven game, Pong, and the two-dimensional adventure game Super Mario Brothers, and evolving into the life-like graphics of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Assassin’s Creed, these games have stirred the imagination of gamers and researchers alike. Playing and beating the latest game became a driving force for children through the 1980’s and 90’s.
Building upon those accomplishments, early gamers realized that their game consoles could be connected to a video recorder in order to produce simple movies of their conquests. Gamers eventually built upon this concept to produce full movies of their gaming excursions.(Lowood, 2007) Shortly after gameplay videos began circulating, gamers realized their games could also be used to produce simple computer-generated animated short films. This foretold the beginning of what would come to be known as “machinima.” Recently, more advanced machinima projects have entered some areas of mainstream entertainment. By replacing the soundtrack and using game characters as actors to tell their story, wildly popular television shows such as South Park and CSI: New York included video game-generated content in their 2007-08 seasons. Radio and television news programs have also reported on commercially successful machinima projects, such as Red vs. Blue, a comedy series solely utilizing the Microsoft console games Halo and Halo 2. (Chong, 2008) Despite the increasing popularity of machinima projects, the academic community has spent very little time examining the various creative and rhetorical aspects machinima projects entail. As the following literature review and subsequent theoretical constructs will reveal, there is a significant gap between what scholarly research has been conducted and where popular media is progressing. Given that there has been so much attention paid to machinima in popular media, it should follow that scholarly attention be paid to this burgeoning form of media. To that end, this thesis will examine machinima projects as participation within a discourse community by remediating existing intellectual property for new ends.
While so little scholarly research has been conducted regarding machinima as a whole, there has been a fairly large body of research into the parts and components that comprise the whole. These parts include the video games that are used, available software tools, and copyright concerns. Additionally, artists have taken to using tools similar to those used by machinima creators to remediate video games for their own artistic goals.
Henry Lowood’s article “High-Performance Play: The Making of Machinima” lends the most directly pertinent information to the scholarly examination of machinima projects. He begins by calling video games the “art form of the digital age.” (Lowood, 2007) Lowood explains that machinima projects combine gameplay communities, subversion, and gameplay performance into a single art form. Much of the introduction material from this proposal comes from Lowood’s historical analysis into the development of the first generation of machinima. He places a heavy emphasis on the fact that, since machinima is produced entirely using open-source or commercially produced computer software, movies made from video games reduce the cost concerns inherent in making movies. When producing a machinima, even in the earliest days of graphics-intensive video games, gameplay is the key. (Lowood, 2007) id Software, a pioneer in early game development, embraced the game communities which emerged around their flagship games, Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM, allowing gamers access to level design tools and early gameplay display capture software. The graphics and gameplay were top quality, but id Software took a step further and opened the source code of their games to gaming communities. This, Lowood insists, gave gamers the opportunity to improve id Software’s creations and maintain a vested interest in the game. Gamers were able to build new levels of the game, apply new “skins” to enemy characters, and even build entirely new games (Lowood, 2007). When id Software released the successor to DOOM, titled Quake, game developer John Carmack described it as “the coolest thing anyone has ever seen…” (Lowood, 2007). Again, id Software made all the development tools available to the gamer community, including a dynamic rotating camera tool. While DOOM only supported first-person camera views, Quake offered a third-person perspective that could be manipulated to view the action from different angles. This tool helped to build the first true user-generated, story-driven machinima movie, entitled Diary of a Camper. (Lowood, 2007) This first machinima, Lowood explains, demonstrated what could be done using the kind of tools that were originally reserved for game developers. Subsequent examples of machinima projects offer variations on this basic theme. This essay demonstrates the kinds of creative opportunities available to talented gamers with a desire to remediate traditional media into something wholly new.
However, Lowood does not examine the creative and rhetorical choices project developers make. Jim Andrews examines the remediation of games into artwork in his essay, “Videogames as Literary Devices.” In this essay, Andrews provides several examples of artists incorporating video games into their larger projects. For example, one piece called Pac Mondrian, which combines the classic video game Pac-Man with a Piet Mondrian painting, Broadway Boogie Woogie, uses the game engine as a metaphor for running through the very real streets of New York City. (Andrews, 2007; Hennessy et al, 2004) This kind of remediation is very similar to the production of machinima in that it re-imagines the game in a different context. Similar projects Andrews describes further demonstrate this kind of mash-up as works of art using new media. Hennessy’s explanation of Mondrian’s original work, which combines the emotions he felt when first experiencing the rhythms of New York jazz music with the city layout of the area surrounding Broadway, also demonstrates how different kinds of media can be combined to create altogether new artwork. (Hennessy et al, 2004)
Narrative machinima being the norm, there are art projects which take a much more abstract approach to remediating video games. Rebecca Cannon’s article “Meltdown” touches on certain key aspects of remediating video games for rhetorical means. While her work focuses on artistic modification of game engines, such as the work of the anti-war gamer community Velvet Strike, she also addresses a non-playable encounter called 9/11 Survivor. This user-created gamelplay modification was designed to depict the plight of a survivor of the World Trade Center attack of 11 September, 2001. This piece of user generated content, built using the Unreal Tournament 2003 engine, follows a businessman in one of the towers contemplating what had just happened before jumping to his death. The player has no control over the action whatsoever. The only control the viewer, now relegated to an observer stance, maintains is to change the camera angle around the central character. (Cannon, 2007) Technologically, this mod emulates the earliest gameplay videos Lowood described, where the videos had to be played using game engine itself, as opposed to watching a streamed video. However, the makers of the mod, unlike the pioneers of machinima described earlier, were pilloried by the public and castigated in mass media. Cannon explains that the modders were simply using their preferred medium to express their level of concern. It should also be noted that 9/11 Survivor was created as a class project, indicating some of the teaching possibilities of machinima in a pedagogical setting. (Cannon, 2007)
Cannon’s article comes closest to a true rhetorical analysis of machinima. She examines artistic mods in light of the arguments their creators are trying to make. However, she does not apply traditional rhetorical theory to these projects. Her analytical approach is primarily artistic, and while she does address the artists’ original interests in using video games as media for building arguments, she focuses primarily on the technical and artistic aspects, not rhetorical or literary constructs.
In light of this limited body of research, it becomes clear that a gap exists in the field of rhetoric. Machinima projects have received focused attention from artistic inquiries, technical researchers, and members of the academic community at all levels. A rhetorical analysis of several machinima projects would at least partially fill the gap in the research.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Chapter 4 Notes and Discussion
For every problem, there are causes and effects. That's about the crux of this chapter. There are a lot of variations on this theme, but what I like the best of this is how the authors used visual mapping techniques. I find that these maps work best at building flowing arguments, especially in new media techniques. I suppose it's much more of a visual arrangement. It's almost Tuftean in design. (Yes, Dan, I just referred to Tufte)
I'm of Dan's opinion that one can have too much lit review, especially given our discussion last week of "need to know vs. want to say," but my question is how little is too little?
I'm of Dan's opinion that one can have too much lit review, especially given our discussion last week of "need to know vs. want to say," but my question is how little is too little?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Progress Report 1
Introduction: This proposal will explain my plan to develop a rhetorical analysis of machinima projects as part of a wider discourse community.
Work Completed: I completed a first draft of my proposal several weeks ago and submitted this draft to my committee chair and a potential member of my thesis committee (this member saw the proposal draft as an assignment for another class). My chair reviewed the draft and returned it with recommendations, as well as suggesting that I re-evaluate my argument strategy through this course. This week I returned to the draft proposal and distilled my initial idea into an executive summary and a purpose statement. I also examined some additional sources and, based on suggestions a colleague made, have ordered additional source materials. I'm a little behind in uploading class work to this blog, but I hope to finish this tomorrow morning before class.
Next Steps: So far, this class has helped to solidify what I've already done, and given me some other suggestions as to how to tighten and consolidate what I've written. I seem to be a little ahead of schedule, but I know I'll have to do a lot of revisions over the next few weeks for my proposal to fit department requirements.
Conclusion: I feel confident that I will be able to meet my advisor's revision suggestions and consolidate my proposal. I'm also learning a lot about how to build a coherent and concise argument.
Work Completed: I completed a first draft of my proposal several weeks ago and submitted this draft to my committee chair and a potential member of my thesis committee (this member saw the proposal draft as an assignment for another class). My chair reviewed the draft and returned it with recommendations, as well as suggesting that I re-evaluate my argument strategy through this course. This week I returned to the draft proposal and distilled my initial idea into an executive summary and a purpose statement. I also examined some additional sources and, based on suggestions a colleague made, have ordered additional source materials. I'm a little behind in uploading class work to this blog, but I hope to finish this tomorrow morning before class.
Next Steps: So far, this class has helped to solidify what I've already done, and given me some other suggestions as to how to tighten and consolidate what I've written. I seem to be a little ahead of schedule, but I know I'll have to do a lot of revisions over the next few weeks for my proposal to fit department requirements.
Conclusion: I feel confident that I will be able to meet my advisor's revision suggestions and consolidate my proposal. I'm also learning a lot about how to build a coherent and concise argument.
Executive Summary, second draft
For almost thirty years, the concept of a computer-generated entertainment system has captured the imagination of writers, researchers, as well as countless children and adults who have demanded more interactivity in their play. As video games have developed, so too have the modes of discourse in talking about those games. Machinima, video projects created from video game footage, originally only recounted the successes of individual gamers and small groups. Since those early projects, machinima project developers have produced videos using game content to tell a story or to prove a point.
Machinima has shifted into the mainstream in the past few years. In addition to marketing video games, some aspects of video game culture can only be communicated by machinima projects. Communities focused on making social or political statements have used video games as either their prime targets or as a canvas for building their message. Several examples of user-generated content have sprung into popular culture, from the six o’clock news to prime time broadcasting.
Given that so many sectors have taken advantage of the various aspects of machinima production to demonstrate their arguments, this thesis will examine machinima as a mode of discourse, as well as the means by which machinima developers build and display their arguments. I will select three examples of different kinds of machinima videos, focusing especially on those projects which try to build an argument. I will apply classic rhetorical theories, game theory, and new media development theories such as espoused by Ulmer’s “wide view” and Bolter’s “remediation” to these projects. Using these theories, I hope to explain how machinima developers explain their arguments, and how multimedia presentations support these arguments.
Purpose Statement: The purpose of this project is to examine machinima projects as participation within a discourse community by remediating existing intellectual property for new ends.
Chapter 3 Notes and comments
Evidently, Johnson-Sheehan advocates reading a proposal situation as a rhetorical situation. As we discussed in class last time, the focus is not only on the audience, but also on explaining the critical information of a proposal, and how best to address it. Brevity seems to be the key.
This focus on brevity and the audience permeates the strategy section. I like the worksheets on p 39 and 42 as focusing tools for examining the possible audiences who will read the proposal.
It is also important to determine the all major objectives. I performed a kind of this analysis when I was examining the focus areas for my proposal in order to maximize the research areas. When examining a huge proposal area, like that found in a thesis research proposal, it's important to break down the large topic into smaller, easier to handle objectives. Then, as the example on p45 explains, you have to rank those objectives and address them in order of importance. This will not only help organize the proposal, but will also help organize the research.
This process appears to be time-consuming, but it looks like it works.
1) Grant writing people: Have you used these kinds of strategy techniques? How did they work for you?
2) Rhetoricians: This rhetorical situation seems very similar to Bitzer. Do you think another rhetorical theory would provide more information and help focus proposals?
3) A question about the tertiary readers: should we concern ourselves with other people who would read our proposal outside of the primary and secondary subjects? For a thesis proposal, who would a tertiary reader be? How would we assess and then address their needs?
This focus on brevity and the audience permeates the strategy section. I like the worksheets on p 39 and 42 as focusing tools for examining the possible audiences who will read the proposal.
It is also important to determine the all major objectives. I performed a kind of this analysis when I was examining the focus areas for my proposal in order to maximize the research areas. When examining a huge proposal area, like that found in a thesis research proposal, it's important to break down the large topic into smaller, easier to handle objectives. Then, as the example on p45 explains, you have to rank those objectives and address them in order of importance. This will not only help organize the proposal, but will also help organize the research.
This process appears to be time-consuming, but it looks like it works.
1) Grant writing people: Have you used these kinds of strategy techniques? How did they work for you?
2) Rhetoricians: This rhetorical situation seems very similar to Bitzer. Do you think another rhetorical theory would provide more information and help focus proposals?
3) A question about the tertiary readers: should we concern ourselves with other people who would read our proposal outside of the primary and secondary subjects? For a thesis proposal, who would a tertiary reader be? How would we assess and then address their needs?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Executive Summary, first draft
Executive Summary
For almost thirty years, the concept of a computer-generated entertainment system has captured the imagination of writers, researchers, and countless children and adults who demanded more interactivity in their play. As video games have developed, so too have the modes of discourse in talking about those games. Machinima, video projects created from video game footage, originally only recounted the successes of individual gamers and small groups.
Machinima has shifted into the mainstream in the past few years. In addition to marketing, some aspects of video game culture can only be communicated by machinima projects. Also, communities focused on making social or political statements will use video games either as either their prime targets or as their canvas for building their message. Several examples of user-generated content have sprung into popular culture, from the six o’clock news to prime time broadcasting.
Given that so many sectors have taken advantage of the various aspects of machinima production, this thesis will examine machinima as a mode of discourse, as well as the means by which machinima developers build their arguments. I will select three examples of different kinds of machinima videos, focusing especially on those projects which try to build an argument. I will apply classic rhetorical theories, game theory, and new media development theories such as espoused by Ulmer and Bolter to these projects. By using these theories, I hope to examine not only the technological aspects of machinima, but also the rhetorical aspects and how best to combine them to build effective game discourse.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Chapter 2 Notes and comments
My mother said that journalism would never teach me anything except how to make coffee without a coffee maker and how to type more than thirty words per minute. After reading this second chapter of our book, Mom has been proven wrong again (she said the same thing about video games and playing with firecrackers...).
I was surprised to see that the suggested method of analyzing a call for proposal (or any of the dozen alternate acronyms and synonymous terms) is to use the exact same procedures a journalist uses when preparing a story for publication. By using W5+H, a proposal writer can quickly assess the situation of a CFP and determine the most effective means of response. I agree with this approach to preparing argumentative writing.
1) By breaking a CFP into six simple statements using W5+H, what does the proposal writer gain?
Status and stasis questions, also taken from rhetorical preparation, seems to address many of the initial proposal writer's concerns. I appreciate the argument the writers use to explain the question of fact, since in my old jobs I've often found my bosses pressuring me to solve problems that didn't exist or were outside my area of control. By determining the presence of a problem, what the problem is, the severity of the problem, and how to address it, the stasis questions mimic the questions I used to use as a combat leader to assess a situation during a combat patrol. Admittedly, the conditions are less dangerous but no less severe. Mis-reading a situation in the business world can be devastating to the company, and can cost jobs.
2) What kinds of situations can stasis questions address? Are there other questions one should also ask based on the situation?
I also like that communication with the point of contact is emphasized. Too often I've colleagues put significant research and effort into proposals only to be defeated utterly because they simply did not speak with their secondary point of contact. Sometimes this means having to make modifications to their approach. In one case, this meant my brother was excused from his master's program.
3) How important is initial communication to the proposal writing process? Are there any drawbacks to communicating with the POC during the pre-writing process (social appearance and social conventions)?
I will also post my executive summary in this blog in the morning.
I was surprised to see that the suggested method of analyzing a call for proposal (or any of the dozen alternate acronyms and synonymous terms) is to use the exact same procedures a journalist uses when preparing a story for publication. By using W5+H, a proposal writer can quickly assess the situation of a CFP and determine the most effective means of response. I agree with this approach to preparing argumentative writing.
1) By breaking a CFP into six simple statements using W5+H, what does the proposal writer gain?
Status and stasis questions, also taken from rhetorical preparation, seems to address many of the initial proposal writer's concerns. I appreciate the argument the writers use to explain the question of fact, since in my old jobs I've often found my bosses pressuring me to solve problems that didn't exist or were outside my area of control. By determining the presence of a problem, what the problem is, the severity of the problem, and how to address it, the stasis questions mimic the questions I used to use as a combat leader to assess a situation during a combat patrol. Admittedly, the conditions are less dangerous but no less severe. Mis-reading a situation in the business world can be devastating to the company, and can cost jobs.
2) What kinds of situations can stasis questions address? Are there other questions one should also ask based on the situation?
I also like that communication with the point of contact is emphasized. Too often I've colleagues put significant research and effort into proposals only to be defeated utterly because they simply did not speak with their secondary point of contact. Sometimes this means having to make modifications to their approach. In one case, this meant my brother was excused from his master's program.
3) How important is initial communication to the proposal writing process? Are there any drawbacks to communicating with the POC during the pre-writing process (social appearance and social conventions)?
I will also post my executive summary in this blog in the morning.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Intro
This blog is designed to aid and abet my progress through the Grant Writing course at Clemson University.
My initial plan is to develop my thesis proposal, incorporating techniques from this course. My desire is to conduct a rhetorical examination of machinima projects. I've completed a draft of my initial proposal for another course, but I hope to use this course as an opportunity to finalize the proposal for submission.
Oh, and the title of the blog refers to the time I was stuck in Kyrgyzstan for two weeks with absolutely nothing better to do than drink fruit smoothies and wait for a plane that didn't explode on take-off.
My initial plan is to develop my thesis proposal, incorporating techniques from this course. My desire is to conduct a rhetorical examination of machinima projects. I've completed a draft of my initial proposal for another course, but I hope to use this course as an opportunity to finalize the proposal for submission.
Oh, and the title of the blog refers to the time I was stuck in Kyrgyzstan for two weeks with absolutely nothing better to do than drink fruit smoothies and wait for a plane that didn't explode on take-off.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)