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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.