I think we have a nice discussion shaping up up over Josip Novakovich over at Spinning. I’m not quite sure what Mark is actually critiquing though. In these things it’s always nice to be able to judge the examples for oneself. Students who take lit courses, in this special context, need to see these kinds of arguments take shape.
Language as place
Here’s a question for Neha.
What language do you use to work through a problem? On the street, in the wood or store, into which language do you go to listen and reflect?
Design over time
Cogent analysis from Mark Bernstein on design work
The core idea that makes Agile sensible, though, is that good and complex design can be incrementally created through simple, local changes. That’s a new idea, a discovery of the last generation. When birds flock, they fly in complex patterns and formations — but it turns out the birds don’t need a complicated playbook, just some simple rules about following your neighbors. Cell differentiation, it turns out, leverages simple rules as well; there isn’t a big master plan for building a kitten or a kidney, just lots of local rules. People didn’t know this in 1960, just like people didn’t know about evolution in 1860. They know it now.
Causal chains
We should pay close attention to the notion of causal chains and consider learning from them. One thing leads to another; this causes that. And so forth.
In this context we have a conflict between public service and private sector identities. Some people think that government should be run like a for-profit concern. Others believe it should stay out of the business business and maintain a public service identity, expecting different things in return for it. One of the differences has to do with the old idea of need vs want. We don’t need Walmart, for example; Walmart could be something else, such as the local hardware store: in this country we need commerce. We also need vehicle inspections because we have trucks and steep roads and may need to get to work. Both sides of the coin are important and one couldn’t necessarily go on without the other: this is a question an identity conflict: how we think we go about accomplishing things. Of course, people who need jobs need a Walmart, but the job could be anything, such as the local hardware store. But with our democracy, we need services that allow people to make Walmarts or anything else. If one side is weakened, so will the other side.
When people say they need to find work they assume a spatial cushion that allows for such. A relatively safe and rigorous, intellectual society needs a balance between public and private identities. We will be feeling the targeted layoffs and diminishment of the public sector (which includes politicians) for years to come.
We don’t need digital televisions; we should not expect them. But we should expect the roads to be safe. In that way, we maintain in one way the intellectual environment that encourages thoughtful work .
Hybrid lits and other things
The two online and hybrid forays this semester are almost ready to go. Upload, test, fix, then start. It’s been somewhat of a challenge working on these courses. We’re working with a new version of WebCT, which isn’t bad really, and my energy level with the courses went from high in July to low in August, sort of the sprint then the slow, warmdown run to the finish line. (Sorry, dudes, the broken laptop has also slowed down letter writing.)
The hybrid literature will be an interesting set up. Online forums for weekly discussions and a brief in-class meeting to clarify things and to discuss issues that rise up online and in the readings.
I will play a little Post Mortem and read some Mastretta to regenerate some.
Code Views
After spending so much time in the Flash Actionscript code view, I’ve returned to Dreamweaver to work on course materials. There was a time when I had to work in both code and design view in Dreamweaver, squinting and struggling when one didn’t match the other. What a change now.
Design view is still open but my comfort factor is at a much higher level. I don’t know what it is, but being buried in Actionscript has made all the difference in helping to conceptualize from HTML and CSS. Everything seems to make more sense. I see this as one of those elements so critical to learning something new and complicated. You work through the strange and mysterious, grinding your teeth, struggling, uncomfortable, and then find that all that work comes in handy later in other, more familiar territory, a territory that’s no longer the same. It’s like going back to Milton after ten years and so much in between and finding a poem that’s totally new yet familiar, more eloquent and inspiring yet still so glowing with what had brought you to it in the first place.
I will show you fear in a fistful of functions.
Return of the King and time
Now that I have a film category (should have placed it long ago), here goes.
My daughter, K, and her friend, C, and I finally had the change to watch the “longer” version of P. Jackson’s LOTR last night. Took a while. But we left the final film wondering at some of the extended version inserts. Faramir and Eowyn have their time, but the nod came off a little strange. After all her looks and urgings for Aragorn, she and Faramir exchange glances and poof “sense of balance,” or, rather, love over some amount of time, judging by the change in light scene to scene. The event transition in the film seemed more than a day. Cut then to Pippin finding Merry in the gloom of battle. The experience of these two events had a disjointed feel, however. I couldn’t tell if this signaled flashback, parallel time, or progressive sequence. The danger of all this has to do with relieving tension. We’re supposed to feel glad in the balance between relationships: Aragorn gets his and Eowyn gets hers. Eowyn loses then gains something. Of all the three films, I felt that the Return of the King was the most dangerous to complete because it is, after all, the resolving film. Still liked it very much.
On tradition
Professor Drout at Wormtalk and Slugspeak writes this
Does this mean that the book is so bad that no one can stand to read it?
Is it so bad that people are embarrassed and don’t want to tell me?
The book he’s referring to can be found via this link. I must admit to wanting a copy myself. It sounds ambitious and with my early british lit course about to start, I’ve got the bug.
Food and interactive story
Today will be made from preparations for fajitas on the grill. Fresh pico de gallo and lots of grilled peppers and other vegetables. I don’t know what will happen and I look forward to the making and the eating. (I’ve learned over the years that if you don’t cook with hardwood then you shouldn’t cook outside at all. But that’s just me.)
Also, I recently finished Chris Crawford’s On Interactive Storytelling. I thought his ideas about this vein of thinking are pretty competent. His discussion of the code workings and mathematics were what I was most interested in. But as I was reading the book, my soft bias against interactive storytelling keep on rising up. I enjoy the code but I don’t buy the systems yet. (I also have a soft bias against things like community storytelling, but that’s another story.)
How do I get by falling back on this idea: we already have a system for interactive storytelling. It’s called life. The other thing that’s been taking time in my head are the references I keep reading to Facade as a “game” and to the associations of interactive storytelling to games. Here’s an example where game as model is woven into an idealistic description of interactive storytelling. It comes from Marie Laure-Ryan:
The user should participate and interact out of interest for the story, not for the sake of solving problems or beating opponents. In contrast to the standard game player, she will prefer a less efficient action over a more practical way to achieve a goal, when this action leads to more interesting narrative possibilities.
Okay. My response is: why even consider the phenomenon in the context of “game” to begin with? Maybe I need schooling on this, but what would “the standard game player” have to do with this in the first place?
indiscretion and Facade
Susan Gibb finds another disclosure, this time by Grace
GRACE
In college… I was in love with someone else.TRIP
What?!GRACE
An art major, named Vince.TRIP
An art major named Vince —GRACE
And…GRACE
And I slept with him.TRIP
Y — y — you what?AUDREY
Grace, don’t say any moreGRACE
The night before you proposed to me.GRACE
I jinxed our marriage, Trip.GRACE
I jinxed it. I’m sorry.GRACE
This is all my fault.
In this case, it would seem, Grace was in love with Vince and Trip when Trip proposed and thus feels that sleeping with Vince betrayed the other lover thus her use of the word jinx. She is troubled by guilt. We don’t know how many times Trip proposed, though. Grace doesn’t tell us that she accepted this particular proposition or if Vince ever proposed himself. She makes love with Vince the day before Trip proposes. But I wonder if Trip was ever aware of Vince now that Grace brings it up.