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.

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 chair
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