Bring Back Grimmy

Follow me from my new blog.

Finally I am temporarily done with my writing (until my next conference), so I decided to read all the stuff that I have been keeping in the back burner for awhile. To celebrate this joyous occasion, I started Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams. So far he doesn’t seem to be saying anything that I don’t know already, but interesting read anyway. I had also read Don Tapscott Growing up Digital three years ago and some of the things he says in that book, especially on Net Generation, is also mentioned here on the early chapters of the book. For some reason, when I first read Growing up Digital, what he was saying about the Net Generation did not bother me as much as it did when I was reading Wikinomics last night. Here’s why:

Growing up Digital, while in some respects is correct in its arguments, set false expectations for me in dealing with my students at Indiana University. Not every day does a graduate student gets to teach her dissertation topic and I was fortunate enough to be given this chance. In Fall 2007, I thought a 100-level seminar called Narratives in the Age of Media Convergence. Set aside all my difficulties in getting the university give me technical support (mind you, IU is among the top ten most-wired universities according to Newsweek), I was a bit surprised to see that my incoming freshmen lacked the media literacy that Tapscott’s book promised me. It was a shock to me as much as it was to them. I kept a blog from the inception of the class to its completion here. To encourage online collaboration I created a class wiki, prepared forums, started a collaborative story project, assigned a blogging assignment as their daily journal, and we read Patchwork Girl as an example of hypertext. The students were in a state of shock the first day, which to my surprise, recovered really quickly. Although all of them had a laptop, most didn’t use it for anything other then to check e-mails. I had instant questions: How are we going to use the Wiki? What do I write in a blog? I have nothing interesting to say. My favorites: How are we going to get graded for the blogs? What if someone deletes all the changes/additions I made in the collaborative story project?”

Is Indiana University an exception to the rule? I think not. I remember Howard Rheingold coming to IU to talk about smart mobs last year and when he was asked about media access and the digital divide, he responded that media access wasn’t the financial ability to buy these technologies anymore, it is being fluent in the literacy of these media. All my students had laptops, some had MACs, a luxury that I didn’t even permit myself, but most had absolutely no idea what to do with it. Which begs the question: where are these kids who grew up digital?

I started to migrate my blog from Typepad to WordPress. I already see that the interface for WordPress is much more intuitive. I’ll keep the other one with a redirect to this one for awhile.

Edward Castonova’s Synthetic Worlds Initiative at Indiana University convened the second Ludium Conference
this past weekend in Bloomington. Ludium is a conference designed as a game. What was the game this time around? Hammering
out a well-considered platform to guide virtual world policy. Here is the result: A Declaration of Virtual World Policy. Looking at it, I realize that Second Life is far far away from it. Enjoy…

Read the rest of this entry »

OK, here is a note that I came across in someone else’s wall in Facebook, so take action accordingly:

Apparently Facebook has started SELLING user information (surprise,
surprise!) to third parties. They call it the "Facebook Development
Platform."

To restrict use of your information, do the following:
- Click "Privacy" on top right.
- Under the "Facebook Platform" section click "Edit Settings".
-
Scroll down to the bottom and UNCHECK ALL of the items under facebook
platform, dont worry this wont affect your friends from seeing any of
this.

Most creepy is the inclusion of photographs! (Do your friends a favor and repost this as your own note.)

Read the rest of this entry »

I really enjoy coming the MIT conferences housed by the Comparative Studies Program at MIT because it is less institutionalized, less formal, less crowded (though the number of participants are increasing each time). In addition, it brings together a variety of people from academia, big names and graduate students alike, in addition to artists, and business man. This means that media producers and consumers, and those who take a critical approach towards media are all under one roof for three days. In other words, you really get a taste of everything to do with media, and, as such, it presents a less “stiff” and more “vibrant” environment than, say, NCA, ICA, or the like.

Now having said that, I noticed some interesting things about the conference this time, and perhaps about my approach towards new media and technologies. Not sure if it is because I matured in my research within the last three years or MIT conferences started to develop in a different direction than they were initially intended. I must admit that I can’t take the entire credit for the following observations, but rather, these conclusions were arrived at collectively as a result of our collective intelligence. As I talked to people, attended sessions, listened to plenaries I jotted down interesting ideas that came along the way. This method, I must add, is very appropriate to the spirit of the conference in which convergence, transmedial narratives, collective intelligence, grassroot production were extensively discussed in all shapes and forms.

As I came out of the last plenary that summarized the entire conference and aimed to discuss what we have learned and accomplished and where we are to go from here, I realized that the critical approach that marked one of the last sessions and the plenary was mostly lacking throughout the conference. Or at least mostly lacking in the sessions that I attended (but they all provided useful insights into the subject matter at hand). And I am not the only one who observed this; there are several others who noticed our naive intoxication with Web 2.0 technologies, YouTube, Second Life, user empowerment, and the like. This is almost reminiscent of the Web 1.0 hype that yanked the carpet under of our feet… It is shiny, it is new, why talk about the dark side and spoil a good buzz? The last sessions I attended addressed exactly that.

As we were discussing what the theme of our next conference should be Thomas Pettitt, a scholar of late-medieval and early modern literature and theatre, suggested that we should name the conference theme “What went wrong?” because surely we are unable to use what the have learned in print era (and ages prior to that) to shed critical light on what we are experiencing in the era media convergence. He had kicked off the conference with a neat little diagram where he used a set of parenthesis (which he wittily called the Gutenberg parenthesis) to designate the print age and discussed whether this age is really clearly separated from other eras or not. David Thornburn, who had kicked off the conference by claiming that we still have a lot to learn from Don Quixote (which I must admit, a novel dear to my heart) argued in the closing plenary that even if print age were a parenthesis, it was a glorious parenthesis that should not be forgotten and we should use it gain a deeper insight to new technologies.

So, why wait two more years to discuss what went wrong? Why not discuss what is wrong now? Are we able to reflect on Web 2.0 technologies with a critical eye, or we downright intoxicated with the seeming empowerment? In other words, did we end up perpetuating the very same beast we were trying to kill. Again, I wish I were able to take full credit for all these observations, but it was indeed the collective intelligence at work. And I am not sure if everyone reached these conclusions, as other people went to different sessions, and talked to different people, had different conversations.

One of the critism was voiced by Siva Vaidhyanathan. His comments unveiled our intoxication with Web 2.0 technologies that we use on a daily basis and talked about throughout the conference. Among other things, he challenged the notion of Web 2.0 being free. Are these “free” Web 2.0 technologies, such as Flickr, Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, MySpace, Blogger really free? In other words, what are we really giving up to use these so-called free services? Well, we are giving up our content for starters. We produce bunch of stuff for corporations who are using our labor. Moreover, we freely gave up information about ourselves. Where we work, what we like, who we date, what we teach, what kind of music we listen to are all public property now. It’s all well and good until FBI comes knocking on Google’s door with a subpoena asking them to release all this information. I willingly surrendered all this information to major corporations by using their “free” services and therefore I am at their mercy. David Thornburn astutely observed that when we buy a computer, we are in reality signing our souls up to big corporations. I for one, having bought this brand new laptop last December, already prostituted myself to Microsoft. For all intents and purposes, Microsoft owns me, so does a lot of other corporations. Thornburn observed that when creativity is handed down by major corporations, they get to decide on the nature of creativity, meaning, they decide on what I can produce, how I can produce it, or if I can produce it at all. And as users, we gladly accept this state of servitude. It is not a matter of deciding to be free, but a matter of choosing your master.

I guess free doesn’t really mean free when you upload your information and content to other people’s servers. In other words, your world, your imagination isn’t really my world, my imagination; it is the world that Linden Lab permits me to imagine. Terms of Service stands above us like the Damocles’ sword waiting to come down. We, as Second Life residents, are quickly becoming aware of that. Project Open Letter submitted to Linden Lab is but a minor attempt to negotiate these terms.

The second plenary: Collaboration and Collective Intelligence, Mimi Ito, Cory Andrejka, and Trebor Scholz:

• One argument made in this panel regarding the addictive nature of Web 2.0 technologies: Sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Second Life are rather difficult to leave for users because they uploaded so much content to these sites and formulated a network of friends. This argument was made by all of the presenters. I, however, would like to make Second Life an exception. While it is easy to learn and use Facebook and MySpace and therefore get acquainted with the technology fairly quickly and form social networks within a short amount of time, Second Life has an outstandingly steep learning curve and therefore alienates its users very quickly. I know a lot new users who never make it through the first month because they don’t know what they are supposed to do in there or how to do it. This means that there are a lot of accounts that don’t get used much.

Culture 2.0: Mary Madden, Travers Scott, David Silver, Chuck Tyron

Interesting ideas came up in the Culture 2.0 session moderated by David Silver. The several panelists observed that the term Web 2.0 was merely a marketing gimmick to sell the idea of Web 2.0 itself. It is merely designed to enhance the consumption of the idea of Web 2.0.

Silver observed the hypocritical approach taken by the US Military in their use of Web 2.0 technologies. His argument was that the military shows an unusual eagerness to use Web 2.0 technologies to recruit people. For instance, they have promotional videos online but the comments are turned off. Well, the conversation that the comments elicit put the 2.0 into Web 2.0. Or the military opens up a MySpace page, but as soon as people try to be added as their friends, they change the page’s outlook to reflect an African-American girl from UK. It seems, as Silver noted, the military is missing the point of what it means to use Web 2.0 technologies. He also noted that this tension came from using an organic, fluid technology to perpetuate a top-to-bottom approach.

Another good idea that emerged from this panel is a serious critique of the definition of Web 2.0. Let’s face it, when we, as scholars, talk about the use of Web 2.0, we implicitly resign to the fact that we are mainly talking about Northern American and European users. As it is near impossible to get an account in Asian or even maybe in Middle Eastern sites or, even if we access it, most of us don’t even understand the language. We generalize what we see in Western sites and assume that the Eastern half is using the Web 2.0 technologies the same way as we do. In other words, as Kimberly Kristen noted, we are effectively erasing the other. The way North Korea or China use Web 2.0 technologies do not even enter the discourse at all.

Another criticism leveled by Silver that we are all guilty of is that we as American bloggers are egocentric in that all we do is talk about ourselves and not others. And I think all of us are guilty of this sin, including myself.

Read the rest of this entry »

So realizing that my task is to get spatiality into my argument ASAP (or justify its existence in my argument, which apparently I have to do), I turned back to couple of books I purchased after having talked to a colleague of mine about my desperate situation. The discussion took place several months ago. I had purchased the books he mentioned shortly after, Digital Ground and Where the Action Is, but put them in the back burner because I was too interested in reading the Jenkins books I got and was too busy to do anything for awhile. Also the books looked (and is) more about HCI more than anything else, so I figured that they may not directly relate to my topic, so why waste time? Anyway, in desperation, I remembered these and skimmed over Digital Ground. Half didn’t relate to my topic, some went over my head, but what was understandable and useful opened up interesting avenues for my chapter. So I started writing immediately yesterday. But everything now needs rearranging, but I am hopeful about getting the theoretical framework now, which is more than I can ask at this point.

I understand my chair’s insistence on incorporating  spatiality. When I read stuff on narrative, this angle seems highly neglected and this should get me somewhere. And with a topic like Second Life, it seems I can’t go too wrong once the framework is set… Damn it’s been hell of a road…

Read the rest of this entry »

I just received the last work of M.D. Coverley’s work, Egypt: The Book of Going Forth by Day. I first read about this work in Kate Hayles’s My Mother Was a Computer and it sounded quite interesting. So I went to Coverley’s Portal to see if the work was there. Sure enough, she had already put it on her site, but the only thing she says in her Web site is to contact her for a personalized copy of it.

I remember when I first contacted her about a question on Califia (I was presenting about Califia at MIT), she had mentioned that she was working on a new text. She also asked me if I would like to be in the work, I said sure, to be a character in a fiction sounds exciting enough… But I never followed up on it. But when I read that this work was out and she was preparing personalized copies, I e-mailed her and asked her if I could get one copy. She said she would send one as soon as she can.

And it arrived yesterday. How exciting, to have my own copy of the Book of Dead! But more importantly, when I opened the envelope, i realized that it was a burnt copy of the text, not some "mass published" cd or book that you purchase online. She wrote the name of the work and the copy number on the cd with her hand writing. It is the first edition! Wow. Just by that first touch I knew it was the electronic version of the artist’s book… As I started reading it in my computer, I realized that it was an artist’s book… Needless to say, I was even more excited to have this handmade cd prepared just for me.

I think I will include this text in my second chapter…

Read the rest of this entry »

I am embarrassed to say that it took me a year to get my introduction in place. At first, I wanted to write on spatial narratives in print and digital media. I wrote my proposal accordingly, I thought I knew where I was going. But when I began to write the introduction chapter,  I  was  consistently asked  "So, what is your argument?" "I see it, why can’t you?" was my knee jerk reaction. A year full of rewrites and time spent…
The problem was that I wanted to talk about too much. Here are the following topics that were dear to my heart:

• Media convergence (a book that I bought at MIT at a conference got me into it. The book was edited by Henry Jenkins).
• How orality effect both print and new media (media convergence extended).
• The idea of what it means to be "new," surely "new media" wasn’t all that new.
• As the natural continuation of the second topic, I wanted to emphasize continuity between print and new media, showing that stuff we perceive to be new in new media, was in fact not all that new, and that print displayed some of that too. Although these tendencies were marginalized in print.
• Role of the reader/user/player.
• Definitely wanted to talk about interactivity as it relates to the user.
• Ergodic literature
• Linearity/non linearity
• Arguing for the presence of narrative in videogames,albeit in a different form. The idea being that all these people who refuse the existence of narrative in videogames are operating under a very narrow definition of narrative (Jenkins makes that point clearly).
• And there was a nice little book that i picked up when I was in Seattle at a graduate conference where Katherine Hayles was the key note speaker: Writing Machines, by Katherine Hayles. Quite an interesting, fun book, I thought, gotta make something of it. Actually, when I was at another conference (International Narrative Conference at Louisville), the presenter said the same thing when I asked him about this work. Fun read, but… To tell you the truth, materiality was only marginal in terms of my argument at first.

As you can see from this list, I was at a deadend for months trying to unify all these topics under one roof. To top it all, I wanted to structure my dissertation chronologically. So I’d be talking at first about how print anticipated new media, and then new media texts, and finally how new media influenced the way we write print. Makes sense? Well it didn’t work out for me.
For months on end, I kept writing and deleting. The project turned out to be a postmodern story, where the writing actually erased itself to the point that nothing got written.
What can i say, it was depressing…

Then one day, as i am telling about my dilemma to my friend at the library for the nth time, the idea hit me in the head with the force of a two-by-four. Kind of like how Kate Hayles describes her realization of the different ways in which literary games might be played (Writing Machines)… I asked myself "Why don’t I restructure the whole damn thing and skip the chronological approach? Maybe that’s what is getting me stuck."

Read the rest of this entry »