Mayumi Blogger Template

Summary:

In “Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings,” Maya Socolvsky discusses the psychological and sociopolitical roles of online memorials. Socolvsky states that, “Death is narrated fully, and although the departed are mourned and missed, death itself is understood and mastered [on an Internet memorial]” (476). The author goes on to explain that web memorials actually cause a different type of loss because, “the elusiveness of death that usually resides in absences has been articulated” (476). The article uses virtualmemorials.com as an example to show how web memorials replace loss with an overload of content and an “excess of presence” (473). The latter half of the article discusses other purposes for web memorials, showing examples from three Columbine memorial websites, and concluding that memorial websites can also have an agenda; they bring the living and the deceased together in a space by using this agenda. Though the article gives little indication of whom the author is, the article was published in the journal jac, volume 24, issue 2. The UNC Charlotte website lists this work associated with a “Scolovsky, Maya, Ph.D.,” an assistant professor of English at the University, with several other publications. The author makes a claim that cyber memorials are inherently different from physical memorials and can fill very different roles.

Inquiry:

I disagree with the author that web memorials lack a “haunted space”; web memorials often have the capability of being transparent through use of multimedia, and could provide such a space through videos and images relating to the memorialized event. One example cited by the author is the “Field of Empty Chairs” memorial in Oklahoma City. This memorial could be well documented in image and video to help create the same void as being at the memorial. A site could go as far as getting video and pictures from places and angles normally inaccessible to the public to create an even richer “void” than is available by visiting the memorial. Based on the reading, I propose the following:

1. Are memorial websites (or memorials in general) justified in including a sociopolitical message? A religious message?


2. If the congenital nature of virtually unlimited space was removed from a website (ie the website could only have so many pages or so much content), similar to the space allowed on a physical memorials, would memorial websites and physical memorials still be different?


3. Though there is generally more content on memorial websites, is the added content really more valuable in preserving the memory of a single person?

Summary:

Foot, Warnick, and Schneider study the characteristics of online memorials, specifically those of the September 11 terrorist attacks, in the work, “Web-Based Memorializing After September 11: Toward a Conceptual Framework.” The authors attempt to both show the differences between “online” and “offline” memorials and create a set of characteristics with which online memorials can be compared. The authors cite works of Martini and Geser, saying, “Like Geser (1998), he [Martini] emphasizes the flexibility of expression in a web environment where authors can use multimedia [...] to provide virtual displays of remembrance and where expression is unconstrained by the limitations of traditional media” (78). The authors also derive through the analysis of eight memorial websites, four of which are by institutional authorship, and four of which are individuals’ websites, that the characterizing traits of web memorials include the following: object or focus of commemoration, individual or coproduction, univocal or multivocal, time of posting in relation to the event, dynamic qualities of the site, the intended audience, and the site’s relation to the victims (89-90). Toward the end of the paper, the authors attempt to generalize a differentiation between institutional sites and individuals sites; they claim that, “[...] differences [...] are not clear-cut” (92). This publication was printed in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which, according to the journal’s website, is a scholarly journal documenting communication mediated by computer-based network technologies. The authors, all being members of educational institutes, stake their professional reputation on the article. Though the authors do make a call to continue research in the area of classifying web memorials, the paper acts more as a thesis of characteristics by which memorial site classification can be conducted.

Inquiry:

Seeing as the authors cite so many sources and include so much concrete evidence in this work, it is very difficult to qualify the claim. I agree that the seven characteristics listed in the paper (“1) object/focus of commemoration; 2) coproduction; 3) voice; 4) immediacy; 5) fixity; 6) intended audience; and 7) relational positioning of victims,”) could constitute a comprehensive set of characteristics in comparing online memorials. Many of the traits listed can be applied to other forms of media; object/focus on commemoration is synonymous to topic and coproduction to authorship, voice is inherent in writing style, immediacy and fixity are applicable to other web publications, audience is applicable to many forms of writing, and relational position of victims closely relates to topic (79). I propose the following questions:

1. Is the above list of traits comprehensive enough to characterize memorial websites? Could different events be compared using these traits?


2. What other websites or types of media can be analyzed using these characteristics?


3. Is there a “clear-cut” distinction between memorial websites made by institutions and those mode by individuals?

Game Experience Summary:

I don’t usually play online games computer games so I tried “William and Sly” (http://www.kongregate.com/games/Kajenx/william-and-sly). The game was fun for a bit, but the task that Sly, the fox you play as, was asked to do by his friend William was just too easy. Sly had to collect some “fairyflies” to fix the teleport system around the map. The rainy forest is fun to explore and jump around for a bit, but then it became tiresome. It really couldn’t compare to more complex games on the computer or other gaming console.

Summary:

In Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a Waste of Time?, James Gee makes the compelling argument that video games are not a waste of time through the argument of “semiotic domains”. Gee initially points out how there are many types of literacy’s, and states that once one realizes the “multiplicity of literacy… we must think beyond print” and look at it being symbolic and representational (19). With the example of a six-year-old boy playing a game called Pikmin, Gee points out that there can be alternative ways to think about learning then just attaining content related to intellectual domains or academic disciplines. Content can be learned, however cannot necessarily be applied… when one learns a new semiotic domain in an active way, rather than passive, they experience the world in new ways, form new affiliations, and gain preparation for future learning (24). This active learning, however, needs the learner “to think about the domain at a ‘meta’ level as a complex system of interrelated parts”, which is critical learning (25).

Gee’s arguments seem intended to persuade those that think video games really are just a waste of time because his points state the contrary. With the Pikmin example, the six-year-old boy actively learns as he reads situations and produces movements to act accordingly to that situation. However, when he recognized changes in the environment and music and adjusted his strategy, he was thinking of the game as a system as a system in which he could use strategies that were unanticipated even by the game’s creators, which is critically learning. This type of active and critical learning allows those playing video games to acquire the benefits of experiencing the world in new ways, gaining the potential to collaborate with a new affinity group, develop resources for future learning and problem solving, and learn how semiotic domains engage and create certain relationships of society (38). Gee sums up his argument that in doing so, one realizes that there really is more to video games than just the content. The internal design of the game and the interactions with other players encourage and facilitate both active and critical learning, therefore video games cannot be looked at as merely a “waste of time”. Finally, Gee’s arguments can be summed up with his five learning principles: active/critical learning, design, semiotic, semiotic domains, and metalevel thinking about semiotic domains.

Inquiry:

Although I didn’t realize the “complexities” of my behaviors as I play video games, I have to agree with Gee’s points about how video games cannot be treated as a “waste of time”. While playing Call of Duty, I know many people strongly feel the violence and game play are unwarranted and any time spent playing is just unproductive. However, by applying Gee’s learning principles, one should realize that there really is more to it. The environment encourages one to not just know basic controls, but to understand the landscape; to understand the design of the game; to recognize the importance of working with others and finding ways to outsmart opponents; and allows for people to critically think of strategies either with other teammates or by themselves. I’m not arguing that this will necessarily help me in the real world, however I want to stress that there really is more to a game than just its content. Gee’s points did argue this and prompted a few questions:

1. In your experience with video games, even if from just today’s assignment, would you agree or disagree that video games are just “meaningless play”? (22)

2. Do you think that video games could ever “lead to critique, innovation, and good or valued thinking and acting in society? (38) How could it and why or why not?

3. What do you think of James Paul Gee’s five learning principles? Which do you most agree with?

4. What do you think of Gee’s thoughts on the word “literacy”? How do you think it could connect with other concepts of “new media” we’ve talked about in class?

Chip Morningstar and Randall Farmer highlight the idea of naïve natural planning when it comes to the design of multi-faceted computer programs in their composition entitled The Lessons of Lucasfilm’s Habitat. The Habitat project was “the first attempt to create a many player online virtual environment (664).” In its beginning stages computer programming and software reflected a single user interface. With this idea of multi-player the system would allow for a population of users in a single cyberspace. With such a large scale development there are bound to be mistakes and failures which is what Morningstar and Farmer attempt to explain, “our hope is that the next generation of builder of virtual worlds can benefit from our experiences and our mistakes.” They argue that for the success of a virtual world development there is a need to learn from the lessons of Habitat. Their main argument is that “a cyberspace is defined more by interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented (664).” It is not the technology itself that creates the virtual game but it is the connection of a many-participant environmental interaction and the communication channels between the medium. In doing this the authors ask future designers to consider Habitats faults like the carrying capacity, or bandwidth’s limitations, to focus upon interactions with objects or artifacts instead of how the screen is changing. Other noted potential keys of success would be avoiding at all costs a “central planning” where they do not focus on the large simultaneous reactions of those engaged. There is also a moral code that must be debated and sorted, including violence and gun usage. Moreover keeping reality consistent, “results will flourish when operations are smoother and there should be a greater harmony among the user community (674).” The future of such software is achievable through “coming to grips with the problems of world creation and management (676).”

From the parts I could comprehend I agree with the fact that for large populations of people to partake in a virtual reality like Habitat, there needs to be a series of regulated management. If the focus is to make the human interactions among gamers more life-like within the graphical environment, then there needs to be smooth transitions of artifacts and speedy graphic connections. I understand the object-oriented world model is what will make implementing cyberspace a realistic system. I think of the expansion of new media such as online poker games or the SIMS when listening to the construction of Habitat. Thousands of actors play simultaneously, with infinite amounts of games. The thought process is almost mind boggling to think about. With online poker, the screen background is set up to look like you are sitting at the poker table; its use is being object-oriented to create a real life gaming experience with an anonymous opponent. With this idea of creating computer-mediated, virtual environments I ask you to ponder these questions:

1. Do you agree with the authors statement that the “idea of cyberspace is necessarily a many-participant environment?”
2. If you were designing your own virtual reality world what do you think would make it most successful? What could potentially make it fail?
3. “Conflict is the essence of drama.” In the debate of including guns, violence, murder and repercussion in virtual gamming, do you believe these elements add or detract from the virtual environment? Would the game be more successful with or without them?
4. What is your definition/explanation of what it means to have an “object-oriented world”?

Sherry Turkle’s original publication of her book The Second Self was an influence to the new media scene. The excerpt entitled Video Games and Computer Holding Power went beyond the consequence and influence video games have on children and adults. She explores the nature of the game and the immersed connection a person has when heavily involved in the matrix of a particular playing field and beyond that its computer software. Generations are physically seeing the expansion of design and detail within the games. Those who were at the prime age when Space Invaders came out share the same conceptual simulation as children do now with Halo, however since technology has advanced to such a degree “it seems to threaten a new kind of generation gap that feels deeps and difficult to bridge (500).” As we examine the conceptual idea of a video game we must consider its computer-programmed basis. “The video games reflect the computer within-in their animated graphics, in the rhythm they impose, in the kind of strategic thinking that they require (502).” If we compare the Pinball machine to Pacman we see that the pinball game doesn’t act as a transparent medium by any means, “it rusts, its slanted on the floor, etc.” With the Pacman video game, the “real world” allows more of a freedom for imagination. “It is a space where the physical machine and the physical player do not exist. You become the player within the game, you are the mouth (502).” She argues, “At the heart of the culture is the idea of constructed “rule-governed worlds (507).” Within a game, for example Turkle uses Dungeons and Dragons to draw upon this idea that as a culture we strive for a basis of rules that invokes us into a neverending challenge to conform and attempt to beat them. Her audience is not to children, though the consumer age most associated with video games is the youth we see her use collective insight from David, the lawyer in his midthirties and Marty the 29-year-old economist (508). I feel that her audience is to users of this medium for whatever purpose of use whether it is used as a confidence booster in temporarily changing persona, a way of Zen from daily trifles, or a general way of relaxation or hobby.

I would have to agree with Turkle's insight into video games. Though I must admit I have not grown up playing them everyday nor do I really care for them, I have plenty of indirect experience in their usage. I would like to share a story with everyone that I feel pertains to this. I had a friend from Ohio, who waited aimlessly for the release of the original Halo video game. Upon receiving it he began to devote all his time into the game so much so that he quit attending school for a period of time, broke up with his girlfriend, and cut off contact to the outside world. This may seem a little extreme but I want to relate it back to this idea of “losing oneself in a simulated world.” Turkle's even states, “Involvement with simulated worlds affects relationships with the real one (508).” Video games are becoming full on activities. If you read a friends facebook, you might find them list video games under “hobbies/interests.” After all video games are an official part of our culture and especially our generation, who will go on to create more difficult abstract game tactics. With this idea of video game playing I ask you to consider the following questions:

1. In the future do you think game players will be the designers of their own games? Or will there continue to be this idea of the creator and the player?

2. Do you think the new transparent, graphically designed games place a positive or negative effect on youth today?

3. Turkle mentions the concept of a “perfect mirror.” What is your interpretation of this? Is it helpful or destructive to gamers?

4. Why are video games important to our culture and what will they provide or hinder in the future?

1. How do you see panopticism working—simply as an architectural layout, social structure, hypertext theory?  Or none at all?
2. Do you think the central authority in the panoptic theory is a precursor to the Big Brother “Watching Over You” figurehead?  Is tyranny in such a system inevitable?
3. Do you think the hypertext world will ever be fully democratically regulated?  Or will a higher, more       influential authority always govern it?

SUMMARY:

If you were to define the “real world” today, what major aspects would be included? For Robert Coover, he believes the real world is comprised of “video transmissions, cellular phones, fax machines…” (NMR 706). In “The End of Books” Coover highlights the possible future outcome of the end of books in relation to technological reliance and development, specifically in relation to hypertext. First published in a New York Times Book Review, this simple read that defines hypertext and the possible degeneration of print, was intended for mainly the public audience. It can be assumed, that this review in a major newspaper was also in response to an overall large reaction to the possibility of a hypertext invention. Coover states “…the print medium is a doomed and outdated technology…” (NMR 706). He, along with society in 1992, seems to be following the hypertext hype. First he defines hypertext as a system that provides multiple “lexias” or links (paths) between text segments. This idea proposes a medium in which the users could interact, change, alter, and supposedly learn on a much larger scale than normal print has provided. Coover, as a professor at the Brown University Hypertext Fiction Workshop, personally was able to work with simulators of this degree. His observations were as follows: hypertext is indeed exciting, and has potential in changing common fiction (NMR 707). Hypertext provides a means of texts to which authors, which would become everyone, could alter at their own desire. However, Coover comes to the conclusion that very much like its predecessors of print, hypertext “hardware and software seem to be fragile and short-lived” which is in response to the fast pace of technological development (NMR 708). He also questions on how navigation is possible through infinity and disagrees with the movement of hypertext, which neglects coherence and closure of text. In conclusion, Hoover believes that the change will occur, but questions its function ability.

INQUIRY:

I believe that Coover’s article in the NYTBR is a good example of supportive evidence of hypertext analysis pieces. After reading excerpts from the New Media Reader that are targeted at a more educated audience, the informality and simplicity of Coover’s text was initially shocking. However, I believe that this view is important: he provides the social outlook of the public in response to hypertext at that time. As seen by Coover’s conversational tone and definition of hypertext in laymen’s terms, the audience is defined. His personal experience with hypertext is also shocking: although he is a member of the public which is assumed to be interested in hypertext by his publication of this article, Coover concludes that hypertext is illogical. He believes that it’s hardware and framework will pass with time, and the constant “improvements” of technology will prohibit actual use of the hypertext. The idea of infinity also puzzles Coover, and he believes it ultimately leads to the downfall of literary merit in hypertext. Personally, such prediction seems to be illogical today. Do you believe that print will become “a medium that is a doomed and outdated technology, a mere curiosity of bygone days destined to soon be consigned forever to those dusty unattended museums we now call libraries” (NMR 706)? Do you think that hypertext is a reasonable solution to this possible problem? How does the idea of infinite “cyberspace” appeal to you and how do you think this will effect literary merit? How much of current print today is based off of it’s medium? Can this tie to McLuhan’s “Medium is the Message”?

SUMMARY:

In his analysis, Langdon Winner addresses the idea that social processes and positive social change naturally occur as a result of computer technology. Initially published in a University Press in a scientific magazine, it can be assumed that his intended audience is the scientific community; as well as general computer enthusiasts, which can include the common public, which is seen in his frequent addressing of this group throughout his discussion paper. Winner structures his analysis on a central theme of myths that influence media portrayals of positive outcomes in response to technological advances. “Mythinformation” questions the idea of computer development as a “revolution”. He contributes this initial explanation of the technological boom as being a result of not only “hasty” journalism but also the failure of both the prestigious scientific community and the public audience to first consider future outcomes before primary claims are made (NMR 589). Winner believes that ultimately, journalists and the public use the metaphor of revolution to only suggest a huge change in society, which is usually accompanied by good news (NMR 589). Winner argues against “computer romantic” ideals of “information=knowledge=power” (NMR 593); and uses this model to reveal computer enthusiasts’ political hopes as being simply “utopian”. He proposes, in his final paragraphs, the following points that should rather be considered on computer development: controlling privacy, conditions of human sociability, and new structures of political order (NMR 597).

INQUIRY:

I find Winner’s analysis of the computer “revolution” to be interesting, and accompanied by strong evidence. I was particularly interested in his arguments against the theory of information, and his questions as to why it is posed as so important in societal changes. His belief is that information itself in the context of computer enthusiasts’ is related to data manipulation to assist in large organizations within society (NMR 596). This urged model would support current social systems today in that if large corporations provide for the majority of financial aspects of society, their purpose for a proposed model for why information should be held to be important would be assistance in their personal financial growth. The population supporting computer development under the pretenses of increased “information” which directly results in supposed overall knowledge and power would ultimately sustain these large complex organizations. A current new media example would be the ability of cell phones to reach wireless Internet at any time and location. This added feature could be argued to increase “information” availability, which causes large cell phone companies to ultimately gain the benefits.

Do you believe that the “information=knowledge=power” is correct? If so, what do you define information to be? Do you agree with Winner’s belief that computer enthusiasts’ political predictions are simply utopian? If so, are they a result of intentional manipulation of the public or simple misinformation?