Well, to get straight to the answer of the above question, Kevin Moberly argues that his article "advocates a critical, social-constructivist pedagogy that uses computer games to not only help students understand how reading and writing 'play out' in the academic discourse communities in which they are involved but to help them come to terms with how reading and writing 'plays out' in the larger discourses of consumer culture" (285). Wow, just reading that again makes me wonder how he manages to get all of that into a simple article ("Composition, Computer Games, and the Absence of Writing").
To be fair, I will have to read Moberly's article again to see if he actually succeeds in making this argument. There were several points with which I certainly agree. Moberly spends a great deal of time discussing the history of graphics and writing in computer games, beginning with the earliest where there were no graphics and the only interaction was to write your way through the game, so to speak, to the ever present graphic intense games and the use of VOIP (voice over internet provider) in most popular MMORPGs (massively multiuser online role playing games), which virtually eliminates the need to type anything anymore or image a scene. Moberly believes that "contemporary computer games do not simply deny the book. In privileging the cinematic, they deny the mode of production through which the book is produced" (289).
I also agree with the fact that all of these bells and whistles basically hide the fact that the game itself if WRITTEN (292). Programmers spend hours writing the code to make these games come together. I believe it is bit of an understatement when Moberly writes that "computer games . . . are highly grammatical structures" (291). The fact is, if I misplace a comma or forget a punctuation mark here, it's not a big deal (at least not to me), but if a programmer gets one mark incorrect, something will not run properly in the program, if it runs at all. I would call that some serious grammar work.
This is where you lose me for the night. The final points that Moberly make are the ones I would have to read a few more times to know whether or not I think his argument is sound. Section 4 gets into the whole idea of identity formation (which I do believe happens in games and virtual worlds) and popular culture consumerism, etc, etc, etc. I hope the reader will forgive me here, but it's been a long day of unpacking a uHaul and I'm too tired to think any further .
To be fair, I will have to read Moberly's article again to see if he actually succeeds in making this argument. There were several points with which I certainly agree. Moberly spends a great deal of time discussing the history of graphics and writing in computer games, beginning with the earliest where there were no graphics and the only interaction was to write your way through the game, so to speak, to the ever present graphic intense games and the use of VOIP (voice over internet provider) in most popular MMORPGs (massively multiuser online role playing games), which virtually eliminates the need to type anything anymore or image a scene. Moberly believes that "contemporary computer games do not simply deny the book. In privileging the cinematic, they deny the mode of production through which the book is produced" (289).
I also agree with the fact that all of these bells and whistles basically hide the fact that the game itself if WRITTEN (292). Programmers spend hours writing the code to make these games come together. I believe it is bit of an understatement when Moberly writes that "computer games . . . are highly grammatical structures" (291). The fact is, if I misplace a comma or forget a punctuation mark here, it's not a big deal (at least not to me), but if a programmer gets one mark incorrect, something will not run properly in the program, if it runs at all. I would call that some serious grammar work.
This is where you lose me for the night. The final points that Moberly make are the ones I would have to read a few more times to know whether or not I think his argument is sound. Section 4 gets into the whole idea of identity formation (which I do believe happens in games and virtual worlds) and popular culture consumerism, etc, etc, etc. I hope the reader will forgive me here, but it's been a long day of unpacking a uHaul and I'm too tired to think any further .
RSS Feed
