The primary author of this paper, Stanley R. Page, worked for Novell Incorporated at the time of writing. Not much was to be found concerning Mr. Page’s current status, however the Novell website is up to date and provides some insight into the author’s background. From their homepage: “Novell supports thousands of organizations around the globe, delivering software that makes the workplace more productive, secure and manageable.” The paper falls in line with this mission statement in that its objective was to find out what and how users change in their word processors. Based on a study of 101 volunteers, the research team tracked on discs what changes users made to the software (WordPerfect 6.0a), responses to a questionnaire, and macro usage files. Put simply, their findings were that, “92% of the participants in this study did some form of customization of the software. The maximum number of changes made by a participant was 54. The mean was 9.1. Eighty-six percent made changes to their general preferences settings. Sixty-three percent made use of custom functionality in macros. Seventy-seven percent customized the software interface to add or change access to their functionality.” Though the piece may be somewhat out of date, in the past eighteen years, not much has changed in word processing outside of cloud storage and a few nifty tricks and features. These numbers are most likely different today, however they are more than likely still representative of general trends in word processor usage.
The researchers’ audience for this study were originally those in attendance at the 1996 Conference of Human Factors in Computing, a conference that is still held today. As the name implies, the conference focuses on how humans and our ever-present computers interact with one another, with an attendance base from across the computing spectrum. The bias or slant present in the paper is minimal. Though the authors are all involved in computing technology themselves, the paper remains easy to comprehend for those less versed in such vernacular. The team set out to find out something they did not know, and were not out to prove anything, they write several times that the fact that 92% of users customize their processors to be surprising.
One of the main reasons this remains such an interesting and relevant study is that within it is contained a sampling of the word processor user demographics. The researchers state that of those sampled, “57.4% having ten or more years of computer experience . . . 50.5% falling between the ages of 40 and 54 . . . 55.4% female and 44.6% male.” In addition the study provides a comprehensive analysis of what users changed and theorizes on why the changes were made. Two of the key reasons cited for the desire to customize the word processor were that the user realized certain patterns or habits they had and wanted to facilitate these changes more, or that the user wanted to retrofit some new piece of software into an older version of the program. These two user desires are key in developing White Space further in that once the user’s wants are more deeply understood, the product may react accordingly. That said, it is important that White Space should do more than just provide users with what they know they want, to stay ahead of competition it is important to try new things, test ideas that have no assured demand, and create inventions that give the user something they didn’t even know they wanted. Apple is a perfect example of this practice. When the iPhone was launched in 2007, there were few if any metrics to depict how a smartphone would sell, but Apple took a chance, and now its product is one of the most widely used devices on the market.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “This Was the First Word Processor Ever Used By a Novelist. It Weighed 200 Pounds and Had to Be Brought in Though the Window.” Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
The author of this piece, Matthew Kirschenbaum, is the author of an upcoming work entitled Track Changes for the Harvard University Press, a book that chronicles much of the history of the word processor.Kirschenbaum also teaches English at the University of Maryland and on occasion Skypes with first year writing seminars.As an author and historian, Kirschenbaum has done extensive research on the word processor and has interviewed dozens of authors, programmers, and scholars of writing and the pedagogical nature of technology.The article is primarily focused with revealing to the reader who the first individual was to use a word processor in writing a novel, citing Len Deighton as the author, with his assistant, Ms. Ellenor Handley as the one to do most of the actual typing.Though the machine they used to create his WWII era novel Bomber (written in the late 60s and published in 1970)looked nothing like the word processors used today, IBM’s Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter (MTST) was able to interpret keystrokes and store them on a magnetic tape and then print the document at 150 words per minute at the users request.Bomber benefited significantly from this technology due to its complex nature and Deighton’s non-linear writing style.Written for Slate Magazine’s website, Kirschenbaum’s audience is a relatively broad, but technologically literate community with readers similar to that of Wired or New York Magazine.
The slant present then, is one of someone who is well versed in these matters writing for an audience who is likewise aware of certain trends in that area.Kirschenbaum himself has also stated that the title of first-author-to-publish-using-a-word-processor can vary dramatically depending on a wide array of criteria.The critical weakness of the article is this grey area of categorization.How do you define word processor?Who actually wrote it, the author, or the typist? What if there was some unknown publisher in a less transparent nation that did it first?However in coming down on one book, Deighton’s Bomber is as good as any.As is apparent from his Kirschenbaum has done the best anyone ma do in this pursuit, including interviewing both Deighton and Handley for the piece.The article supports our project in that it points to the importance of the word processor.That someone would care enough to write a book researching the history of the technology shows its importance, in addition, though discovering Deighton’s use of MTST is not as relevant as George R.R. Martin revealing his use of WordStar, the article remains interesting, after all, everyone uses word processors now.As for its use within the body of this paper, the article serves as a good starting point for the origin of the word processor gaining importance and momentum as big-name authors began to use it.
Roy Pea is one of the foremost scholars in implementing technology in education, he received his D.Phil. (PhD) in developmental psychology form Oxford University in 1978, and is currently a professor of Learning Sciences at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education.Learning and teaching through technology is what he does, and he does it well.In what begins with an excellent quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein, “It is only the attempt to write down your ideas that enables them to develop,” his piece (written in conjunction with New York University Laboratory for Advanced Research in Educational Technology) focuses on how new writing technologies, specifically the word processor, benefit teaching and learning alike.Pea points out at the time of publication (1987) writing technologies did not necessarily change what people wrote, only how they wrote it.He then proposes, after outlining historical precedents, that with the wild growth of computing could come an increase in “Cognitive writing technologies,” technologies that would help put computing to the best use.Pea is clearly writing for a well read audience, but one that is still learning about this area, and due to its publication in the American Educational Research Association Review, it is safe to assume that he is also writing for his peers.At the time, writing technologies were relatively new for everyone, and Pea keeps the diction from becoming too erudite.As long as the reader knows what “cognitive” means, they will be able to get by.
The slant here comes from the fact that Pea is himself an educator writing for educators.He claims early on that “[word processors] neither offer qualitative advances over previous tools in helping mature writers express or refine their thoughts, nor help novices develop better writing skills,” a point that even then could be argued in a variety of ways.That being said, the whole purpose of the essay is to excite those possibilities and prompt educators and programmers alike to begin changing that statement.Acceptance of the current state of affairs coupled with the drive to change them is a great strength of this piece, the weakness being the fact that it was written over 25 years ago.It’s age does not, however, discredit it it entirely.This piece will be of great use in showcasing how word processing technology has changed, and how White Space will continue to refine it. In a sense, this source is useful as both a support and a counter to our current thesis and in that way solidifies our argument even more.
Lev Manovich, expert in new media theory, once wrote that “new media technology acts as the most perfect realization of the utopia of an ideal society composed of unique individuals” (Manovich).White Space aims to extend that idea to the word processor.Over the years since its origin in the 1960s there have been innumerable features that have come and gone from word processing, many of which have been lost over time due to either non-use, user preference, or simply because of new technology.With White Space, the user can bring them all back, or keep them all gone.In recent years there has been a trend towards spartan, disconnected devices that allow for keys to make letters appear on a screen and nothing else, White Space will afford the user the ability to turn their own computer into such a device as well.Through an initial setup that requires the user to select or deselect a number of features, anything from spell-check to condition-based internet connection, White Space will be fully programmable in an extremely user friendly and intuitive manner.
Not only will users be able to essentially custom design a word processor of their own, but they will be able to save any number of these presets for use on a range of documents or projects; document specific presets and configurations will also be available for those that would rather not set up their own.To bring this image to life, the software may appear in a variety of different manners, again depending on user preference; anything from a spare white screen with black text or white text on a black screen, to text editor formatting, to a traditional wordesque look, White Space aims to accommodate any and all users of word processors, even the notoriously stubborn George R.R. Martin. Numerous fonts will also be available, and downloading new ones from the internet will be made as simple as possible by integrating online databases of fonts into the system’s user interface. With the ability to redesign the way the toolbars and features work and look, White Space will be able to serve as a way to recreate word processors of the past while at the same time allowing for new user-generated creations to take hold.In regards to internet connectivity, one of White Space’s unique features is the ability for the user to allow the program to control the computer’s online access.For writers who wish to remain distraction-free but need to write on their computers, White Space will have the ability to restrict internet access unless certain conditions are met.These conditions may range from needing to reach a specific word or page count to password protection (theoretically generated by someone else, a friend perhaps).
The WordStar startup page. With White Space, users would be able to essentially recreate any past word processor in image and functionality.
As Matthew Kirschenbaum explains in the opening paragraph of his upcoming workTrack Changes, a book dedicated to the word processor,there are already a number of word processors on the market, however I believe that White Space’s elegant design and ability to cater to both casual and deep users will make it popular among a very wide range of demographics.Not only will users be able to to have their word processor look and act the way they want it to, but White Space will play nicely with other existing software including cloud-based systems.This means that anyone who currently uses Pages, for example, will be able to easily convert all of their documents intoWhite Space documents, and anyone who has White Space as their default word processor will be able to automatically open any document sent to them, no matter the format.In this way White Space is universal in both user interface and in the realm of document sharing.
If an ad campaign for white space were to be launched it would revolve around the overall simplicity of the software while at the same time conveying to consumers the wide range of customizable features.The title at the top of the first page would be more or less what the add consisted of, with the right side a black background with white text.The letters themselves, however, would be made up of interconnecting designs and formatting icons, speaking to the underlaying complexity of the program.Other ads might also feature the two-tone layout, however rather than the patterns existing within the letters, the white half would be filled with black designs and symbols around the text while the black side simply displayed the white text, or vice versa.The initial word, “wi t e” also allows for intentional misinterpretation in that it may be read as both “white”, speaking towards the programs default layout and overall simplicity, or “write” an equally descriptive word. On this note, great efforts would be made to have a strong online presence in both ads and in google searches.I understand the risk involved with having a name that may be easily misread, and therefore searches for “white space”, “write space”, and “wite spce” would lead to the website. Thinking past the initial launch, the program would be kept in order as bugs are discovered via online patches and updates. A user help line, or online chatroom connecting users with those who understand the software deeply would allow for streamlined and efficient trouble-shooting. Lastly, in addition to these updates, new suites of features or crafty user-generated preset combinations would become available as they came to the surface.
At the same time the PC, Mac, and Linux versions of the program go live, there will be an accompanying app on both iOS and Android dubbed White Space Mobile. Download codes would be included for any who purchased the parent program, and others would be able to buy the mobile version on its own.The app will also support the same simple programmability as the the parent version, but with features catering towards hand-held devices.The key aspect of this mobile version will be the option to have an extremely fast start-up, putting the user directly into a new document, enabling them to get ideas down as quickly as possible, no matter the situation.Ideally, iPhone users will be able to affix Word Space Mobile to the lock screen along side or replacing the camera function, thereby getting them into a document with one swipe without ever even entering the home screen, though if the user has a passcode on their phone they would remain locked out of the rest of their documents until they input their device’s code for safety purposes.The app will likewise have the ability to disconnect the device entirely from the grid, blocking phone calls, alarms, text messages, or any number of other distractions one might encounter, all at the user’s discretion.
White Space Mobile is a perfect example of the idea at the core of what White Space does: it facilitates writing in as many ways as possible.By removing any friction a normal word processor might create during the writing process the product allows the user to focus on creating alone.This principle is reflected in the design of both products, as each of them aim to get as many words on the page as possible in a shortest, most natural amount of time.
Though White Space would undoubtedly be an online download, available via a website, there would naturally be physical and environmental impacts of its creation. As Jussi Parikka writes in his article entitled “The Geology of Media”, it is a “fallacy that media is increasingly immaterial, wireless, and smoothly clouded by data services” and in regard to this need for sustainability-focused software products, any discs, packaging, or transportation of materials would have an inherent effect on the environment. In balancing this impact, White Space would be developed using as much renewable energy as possible, and any internal waste created would be disposed of in an environmentally sound way. When searching for a company to mass produce physical copies, (if needed) I would endeavor to find the most earth-friendly and ethical company possible.
In summation, White Space is simply something I have always wanted. I myself am easily distracted and appreciate the simplicity some word processors present, but buying a machine simply to run a word processor is extremely inconvenient as well as cost prohibitive, and many other word processors either lack features I want or have features I don’t and can’t turn off. After asking around I know I am not the only one who is dissatisfied. Being able to force oneself to write, regardless of the quality of the writing is always important in getting started; once the ball is rolling, writing only becomes easier, and that’s what White Space will do, make writing and sharing easier than ever.
W r k s C i t d :
Hayles, Katherine. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2012. Print.
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001. Print.
Parikka, Jussi. “The Geology of Media.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2014.
First of all, I’d like to thank you for coming in to speak with us in class, discussing a reading with the actual author is something that always excites me.
My first question pertains to the transitional period you mention in graduating from middle school and dodging the typewriter era. How do you think the switch from mechanical and electric typewriters to personal computers changed education? With computers being new to all involved, students and faculty alike, what advantages or disadvantages would such machines afford?
With that above mentioned change well in the past, do you believe that any such shift in technology will occur again? You also mention the paradoxical humanizing quality of technology, and how knowing what writers’ virtual desktops look like, and as displayed by George R. R. Martin, what word processor they use. Do you feel new technologies will continue to trend in a more humanizing, personal, direction? or will technology reach a certain ceiling in such qualities?
Finally, I’m curious to know what other of the “many, many thousands of possible word processing stories” are out there, or at least, what other areas of new media and technology such stories might discuss?
The first five sections of Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake feel like watching someone fill a canvas from two sides. At first there is nothing but white space, just someone called Snowman and the woods around him, later a young boy named Jimmy with dysfunctional parents. As the novel progresses, however, the reader is exposed to more and more of the art, the gap between the two ends lessening, almost warranting a re-reading of the initial chapters. This play with time is likewise reflected in the plot itself as it takes place in the future in a world removed from our own, but with vestiges of what humanity once was.
Snowman’s character serves as the link between the current state of the world and what it was before “Crakers” and “the children of Oryx” began to roam the Earth. As a child, the accounts of Snowman’s youth describe what humanity had become before it seemingly disappeared. Divided into two domains, the compounds, towns sealed off from the outside world, isolated and self sufficient, and the “pleeblands” where there are comparatively few laws, and which are often referred to as a place were lesser, more savage people dwell. The compounds all revolve around corporations, one grows specialized pigs to harvest organs, another grants newer, younger skin to the aging. All of them revolve around money, and though it’s easy to say that our current society is no different in its money-lust, there are no artists in these high security domains. Jimmy is one of the few who “isn’t a numbers person”. Through discussions between Jimmy’s parents it seems that at first such developments were for the betterment of man, for “making life better for people – not just people with money”(57). But as with art, it seems, so went morals.
Later in the section Jimmy befriends Crake, and Atwood goes into a detailed account of their online antics, describing a number of games and websites the two would frequent. Named are sites for everything imaginable and all are, for the most part, quite elicit. Among the most disturbing are Shortcircuit.com, Brainfrizz.com and Deathrowlive.com, three websites that feature executions, be they via electric chair or lethal injection. In this depiction of our future such activities are fun-to-watch events for the masses, no censors, lots of production. It reminds me of France during its revolutions, with crowds and crowds coming to watch the guillotine in action, or the United States during the early battles of the Civil War as happy citizens would lunch on a hill overlooking the battle and cheer as men blasted away at one another. In the novel, men on the verge of being executed would “ham it up” adding extra drama to the experience. Why not? Why not let one’s death be memorable?
Indeed for others on “nitee-nite.com”, death was an achievement. The website, one Crake is particularly drawn to, features assisted suicide videos with even more glitz and glamour to extoll the greatness of whoever is being euthanized. The site fosters a culture that would not be too surprising in the not so distant future.
These sites may sound barbaric and distasteful, but when compared with society’s current means of such operations I find it hard to call it much worse. Yes, a culture of assisted-suicide would be dangerous and unhealthy, but making executions more tangible to the general public is neither dangerous nor unhealthy. Is it better to simply carry executions out unknown to the general public? How much privacy does the individual being executed warrant? Is the death penalty just? Though these may be questions in our time, in Atwood’s feature they become non-issues, and violence reigns.
1.) In the case of The Hollow it would be easy for a reader to miss mot of the plot should they not cut open the book.If someone where to not discover this aspect of the work but finished feeling satisfied, could they be considered wrong?On page 90 it is mentioned how many readers like to set the mood when they open a book, are some moods better than others?Is there a right way to experience a book?
2.) MaKey MaKey offers very interesting addition to print media in its ability to deepen or enhance the reading experience.However, some of these additions, though optional in their usage can be seen as distracting.Do you view such augments distracting from the original text? or simply as a way of enhancing the experience?
3.) On page 94 Samuel and McGan are quoted as saying “the interpretive question is not ‘what does the poem mean?’ but ‘how do we release or expose the poem’s possibilities of meaning?’”Do you believe that any one work can have a single meaning?
When someone says the words “video game”, what comes to mind?For many, images of kids in basements playing violent first person shooters or of friends online hacking away at goblins come to the forefront and indeed these types of experiences are common in games and greatly shape the way they are perceived by the general public.It seems that whenever there is a horrific act of violence, someone finds a way to blame video games.Not only are such claims largely erroneous, but they detract from more concerning issues in society such as depression and various other mental health issues that much more commonly lead individuals to infamy.Further still, it is believed that a vast majority of gamers are young men when in actuality the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has found that women make up approximately 48% of the gaming population and that the average age of a gamer is thirty-one.If even the average gaming demographic is not well known, how then can complex psychological dilemmas that surround the medium be understood?Society has yet to progress enough to see games as they exist today: as an art and a form of media comparable to film, television, and literature.As a result of this misconception, along with conflicting and misleading studies, video games are believed to increase violence in those who play when the correlation between the two is minimal at best.
Footage of Doom gameplay featuring the game’s head designer and one of gaming’s first celebrities, John Romero. In 1999 Doom was famously blamed for being part of what spurred Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to murder their classmates in the Columbine Massacre, though claims the two had created levels resembling the school for “practice” were later proved to be false.
An important way to dissect the nature of how violence in games affects the player is to study how the player interacts with a game and the thoughts they ascribe to the experience.When someone sits down to play a game the goal is often to become immersed in a world more interesting and fantastic than our own.Just because of this fact, however, does not mean that the in-game actions and morals of the player speak of the player’s nature.When I decide to choose an evil action over a righteous one it is nearly always the case that I am looking to find out how the game reacts to that choice, other times it’s simply to fit the character of the game’s protagonist.Just because I’m a moral person playing as Darth Vader doesn’t mean he’s suddenly a nice guy.The very fact that a game is in a world other than our own removes it from the everyday, “…the deliberately outrageous nature of violent games, though disturbing, makes them easily discernible from real life and suggests that the interactivity could potentially make such games less harmful”(Cooper).Cheryl Olson, co-founder of the Center for Mental Health and Media writes, “young people know [the ridiculous nature of video games]: as one 13-year-old said during a study I conducted at Harvard, ‘With video games, you know it’s fake.’
Taking a step back, it helps to look at overall trends in the nation.From the 1980s to the present, games have exploded in popularity, with some well established franchises and developers making up to one billion dollars in a single day of sales, and the overall market earning far more than Hollywood (Lynch; Sherry 2).With the increase in the popularity of games, many would be led to believe that real-world violence should follow suit, however that is not the case.As Jonathan Freedman, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, asks in his work Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression, “If violence in the media causes aggression, how can real-life violence and crime be dropping?”(Freedman 8).
This graph shows the rapid growth of the video game market in billions of dollars between the years 1996 and 2008. Source: Entertainment Software Association.The graph shows a general downward trend in homicides involving a firearm from 1993-2011. Source: U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Some argue that without violent games crime rates would drop even faster, but then why not eliminate violent forms of media altogether? After all, wouldn’t it be for the betterment of mankind?That line of thinking, though logical in some respects, is not only unreasonable culturally but narrow-minded as well.Looking outside the United States we find many other countries with similar gaming cultures and far fewer shootings.Japan, when corrected for the population difference, has a similar market for video games compared to the U.S. (Tassi).When compared with the amount of firearm related homicides, however, the U.S. has around eighty-five times the amount of Japan (Planty 1; Tassi). What Japan does have are significantly stricter gun laws (gunpolicy.org).
What then can be made of the claims that vast amounts of research have concluded that violent media does in fact lead to violent behaviors?Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) claim that over 3,500 research studies have examined this correlation and of that number only eighteen found no connection between violent media and violent behavior.The numbers sound quite intimidating, but in actuality there have been nowhere near that many studies. “If an organization of economists asserted that there were economic problems in 150 states . . . no one would bother asking for their statistics, since if they were so sloppy as to think there were that many states, who could possibly trust the rest of their statement?”(Freedman 9)As seen with many such research organizations it seems as if people want to believe that violent video games and other forms of media make people violent, but with current findings, that correlation is simply not true.
An add for Playstation that speaks to the other-worldly nature of the medium.
In 2011 the Supreme Court backed up this assertion.A law in California was struck down that was to make the sale of mature video games to children illegal.In his majority opinion Justice Antonin Scalia stated that, “Like books, plays and movies, video games communicate ideas . . . [there is] no tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence . . . Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed”(Savage).Rather than banning the sale of explicit games, many suggest a more simple method of keeping violent games from kids: parental oversight.The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rates every game that is released on a scale from Early Childhood to Adult Only (though most games fall between “E for Everyone” and “M for Mature”).These ratings are clearly labeled on every game and the ESA has found that 88% of parents of gamers find these ratings helpful when choosing games for their kids.In the same manner that parents control what their children see on TV, they may monitor what kinds of games are played.As a kid growing up with games I remember the constant struggle to get more and more mature games, the problem in my case, however, was not that I wanted to play such games for their violence, but rather I was drawn to their stories and to the technology that brought them to life.Just as many of the most realized and well-produced television shows, Game of Thrones, The Wire, Breaking Bad, tackle mature themes, the best games are often the most violent.But my parents understood this correlation and did a fine job finding great games that fell outside that trend.As more and more people like myself, individuals who have grown up with or around video games, become parents, there will be a similarly greater understanding of video game content.
The real problem with video games and their relation to real world violence is the dearth of conclusive information available. Though there have been many studies on the subject, their conclusions are often conflicting (Sherry 1).“We know virtually nothing, for instance, about how youths who are already prone to violent behavior, such as those exposed to violence at home and in their neighborhoods, use these games. Do they play them differently from the way other children do?”(Olson)Such questions show that the amount of variables included in conductingresearch make it very difficult to come to a reliable conclusion.It is only from personal experience, from growing up alongside friends who had troubled homes that I can even begin to unravel this Gordian knot.The handful of kids that I knew who grew up in dangerous neighborhoods or had access to violent games from a young age are well-adapted, productive members of society.Two of these friends played games like Resident Evil and Grand Theft Auto from the time they were six, but now one is pursuing a business degree and the other a degree in computer science.Though I have not conducted any formal tests these friends are some of the most happy-go-lucky people I know, but the question remains: how can we possibly know if those who cite video games as inspiration for violent acts were not already predisposed towards such actions and would have committed them regardless ofweather or not they were exposed to violent media?
Though a majority of games feature violence in some form, there are many that convey an impactful experience void of bloodshed.
Despite the fact that the general statistics lean towards discounting any kind of correlation between violent media and actual acts of violence, until more conclusive studies are completed it can not be said for sure which side is right.There have in fact been isolated events in which perpetrators of violent crimes have cited games in their inspiration (Leung).Indeed, it is easy to understand where claims denouncing violent games come from as many games feature grotesque violence, it seems natural then that this violence should have a severe impact on behavior.Certain studies support this theory:
A lab experiment showed that individuals low in violent video game exposure [VVE] behave more aggressively after playing a violent video game than after a nonviolent game, but that those high in VVE display relatively high levels of aggression regardless of game content . . . repeated exposure to video game violence increases aggressive behavior in part via changes in cognitive and personality factors associated with desensitization. (Bartholow)
This back and forth of who is right or wrong makes it very difficult to discern the truth, especially as new studies are completed daily, but think of your friends.When gamers are compared with non-gamers is there much difference in temperament?And even if there is, how is one to know if violent media leads to violent behavior or if those who are predisposed to violent actions are simply drawn to violent games?Such are the questions that leave research unclear and make it difficult to come to a conclusion.From years of playing games, from the hyper-violent to the educational, I find myself to not only be a more understanding and well rounded individual, but someone capable of appreciating the many facets of game design.Many friends I have made in the industry not only play games but instruments as well.Many code, but more love to read, and though many games do portray graphic acts of violence, the men and women behind the games are passionate individuals, driven by an artistic fire, not a violent one.By looking at the concrete information that is available, the best conclusion that can logically be made is that though video games may be startling in their violence, there is ultimately no reliably proven connection between them and any large scale impact on society’s aggression.
Works Cited:
Cooper, Roanna, and Marc Zimmerman, Ph.D. “Do Video Games Influence Violent Behavior?” Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center. Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center, 24 Aug. 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Freedman, Jonathan L. Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2002. Print.
“Game Player Data.” The Entertainment Software Association. The Entertainment Software Association, 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Leung, Rebecca. “Can A Video Game Lead To Murder?” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 17 June 2005. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
Lynch, Kevin. “Confirmed: Grand Theft Auto 5 Breaks 6 Sales World Records.” Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Olson, Cheryl K. “It’s Perverse, but It’s Also Pretend.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 June 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Planty, Michael, Ph.D., and Jennifer Truman, Ph.D. Firearm Violence 1993-2011. Rep. no. NCJ 241730. United States Department of Justice, May 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Savage, David G. “Supreme Court Strikes down California Video Game Law.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 28 June 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Sherry, John L. “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis.” Human Communication Research, Perdue University 27.3 (2001): 409-31. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~kwanminl/courses/comm631/readings/Sherry%282001%29_Effects%20of%20Violent%20Video%20Games%20on%20Aggression_HCR.pdf>.
Tassi, Paul. “The Numbers Behind Video Games and Gun Deaths in America.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Book Traces was simultaneously one of the nerdiest and most interesting events I have participated in since moving to New York, and that says a lot coming from a kid studying game design. The goal of Book Traces is to save valuable bits of history from being interred in deep storage or burned in a heap. These bits of history are scrawled in books, in the margins, on cover pages, or anywhere else there is blank space. Libraries that have too many books, however are beginning to get rid of many nineteenth century works as there are many copies of them, and most are already available online. What aren’t available online are all the notes, love letters, and tributes that fill certain editions. Book Traces is establishing something of an army of “seekers” those of us who will dedicate a few hours to paging through volumes looking for marginalia in order to save some of these snapshots of the past.
Students sprawled in front of Columbia’s main library. Book Traces was held across the lawn at Columbia’s Butler library
What I find particularly interesting in the project is how insightful it is into how readers react to certain works. One perfect example of this in action was that when we arrived in the stacks where we were to search, the librarians instructed us to focus our attention on poetry as most of the finds came from those sections. This shows, relatively unsurprisingly, that poetry had an especially profound impact on readers during the 1800s as many of such readers were moved enough by the verses to write on the page in their hands. It then came as no surprise to me that the lone piece of marginalia I was able to discover in the hour I spent searching was in a book of poems by Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford.
Though the book in question was printed in 1921, the date of the writing is debatable, and due to the annotation’s academic nature Andrew Stauffer, the project’s founder suggested that it might be the doing of a past professor at the university. Still, the book is an interesting addition none the less.
Moving forward I feel that scanning these books is the best possible way to save them for the future. Not only would creating digital copies preserve the content, but the process would, and indeed already has, make them easy to share and teach from, showing just how important it is to preserve these old texts. Were it up to me I would like for all these books, or at least the more notable ones, to be gathered in one collection, perhaps even into a museum exhibition.
Leaving the event I felt inspired. Inspired not only to pay closer attention to the words others have written, but to engage more with the material I’m reading. I’ve always been a proponent of the physical book, but I usually hesitate to mark them up. I now understand how valuable it could be not only to my future self should I return to that work, but to those who may page through it long after I’m gone. Some of the ways these individuals interacted with their books is remarkable. Far from just simply underlining key passages, many readers composed their own poems alongside printed ones, other added lines where they saw fit. Some other past readers kept their novels or poetry collections as a sort of journal, pouring out very intimate aspects of their lives. And while I may not take my interactive reading to such a level, I will certainly reconsider how I read and interact with books.
Kevin Kelly’s discussion of the Unabomber is startling for many reasons. Not only does Kelly agree with the infamous Ted Kaczynski, but after reading the pieces that Kelly puts forth it’s hard to disagree with some of his arguments. One piece in particular startled me with its clarity and left me stunned that I hadn’t thought of it sooner, that is, we are utterly dependent on technology. In retrospect it seems silly that it should have struck me the way it did, but I’m living proof of the arguments validity. Technology has become such a prominent factor in life that we forget it’s even there. The more the technium grows the more impossible it becomes to stop or slow it and the less control we have organically over our lives. Over time it has become impossible to live without, “The more people who participate, the more essential [a technology] becomes.”(209) Take smartphones for example. While there are still stalwarts who resist society’s infatuation with these devices, it is increasingly difficult to find someone who has owned a smartphone for a significant amount of time and then regressed to something simpler. As Kelly puts it, “…transference is not inevitable, but it does happen.”(197) The same can be seen in nearly all aspects of life, from the way we eat to the way we communicate, a life without computerized technology seems almost impossible to imagine. The Unabomber echoes this point in his manifesto:
When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it. (204)
I find it very difficult to disagree with this point. Technology has spread so rapidly that it even effects the very earth we live on. Recent studies have released harrowing figures showing the prevalence of sound and light pollution, increased atmospheric pollution and decreasing sovereign land. All these reports simply point to one thing: we need to do more to protect the future. It is obvious that technology will never slow its pace, but that may still work in our favor: “There will always be ways to increase energy and material efficiency, to better mimic biological processes, or to ease the pressure on ecosystems.”(195) All we have to do is keep our planet in mind as our technological powers rise.
In a similar vein, Kelly brings up a point that I constantly vacillate on, namely, are humans part of nature. Traditionally, nature is defined as “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities”(“nature”). The Unabomber lands firmly on the side of humans existing outside of nature, “When I got [to his favorite outdoor location] I found they had put a road right through the middle of it…You can’t imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge.”(204) But can’t we humans exist as a part of nature? What sets us apart? How is an ant hill any different from a mobile home? Kelly makes the compelling argument that while species became extinct before humans arrived, now that we’re here extinction has rapidly increased, “We have historical evidence for the extinction of of about 2,000 species in the last 2,000 years, or one per year, four times the natural rate.”(195) While I agree that we should be doing all we can to prevent species from going extinct, is it really that surprising that they are? All we are is a sophisticated breed that is exceptionally good at taking advantage of its surroundings.
Can the technium then be considered natural? That answer depends on if humanity itself is natural. If the technium is not natural, then there is no possible way that we are as it comes, or at least came, from us, but in this age the technium seems to be more and more its own organism. As Kelly went to great lengths to prove in previous sections, the technium evolves alongside humanity and is now beginning to shape its creators. This leads one to wonder what might occur should humanity step back from the controls and let technology run its course. How long would it sustain itself?
The question I pose is simple: Are humans a part of nature? If not, what sets us apart?
Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking, 2010. Print.
Defining “new media” should be simple. New means not old, and media means a form of mass communication. Simple. But when put alongside one another, things change, the synergy between the two words, and the context they live in in our modern age, create an entirely new meaning. New media consists of the objects, be they analog or digital by origin, that are composed of some form of digital code, are conveyed, stored and manipulated by computers, and communicate ideas or emotions in some fashion be it visual or text based. To break down this definition, objects refers to an item, be it a single image or an entire production of images, that exists within the definition of new media, including analog forms of media such as books or paintings that have been digitized(Manovich 14). This definition stretches to digital films and modern television programming that is operated and stored on computers in one fashion or another, so that while we may consider going to the movies and older form of media, it can in fact retain its position under this definition (Lister 9). This then raises the question of what it means to be “new”. When will computers stop being new, especially when they have after all been around for decades, and computational machines have existed since the nineteenth century(Manovich 22)? The distinction here lies in the manner in which the the media s experienced and part of this deals with the individual taking in a form of media: “…we have seen a shift from ‘audience’ to ‘users’ and from ‘consumers’ to ‘producers”(Lister 10) While it is true that it was before possible to interact with older forms of media, the important distinction is between “‘open’ and ‘closed’” interactivity, open being manipulation that allows for greater nuance, while closed restricts a user to certain criteria of involvement(Manovich 56).
