Monthly Archives: September 2012

Week 3: Dear Esther Extras

Level 1: The Lighthouse

For anyone interested, I’ve posted a video of Dear Esther. It’s a bit different from the previous snippet in what it describes and how it handles the story, but it is nevertheless brilliant. If anything, I would suggest keeping it on in the background and simply listening if you have to. Dear Esther has probably the best video game soundtrack of all time, and I do not say this lightly by any means. If anyone’s interested in that, here’s a link to one of my favorite songs in the game. It’s rather lengthy, but if you’re a fan of this kind of somber, mysterious music using somewhat classical instruments, you will enjoy it.

Week 3: “Hate Speech”

When choosing a topic for my speech, it didn’t take me long to realize that I would be doing something of Christoper Hitchens’. A figure who’s had a massive impact on my life, and whose writing I still consider to be among the best of contemporary polemics, period. Never shying from a fight, and particularly, as in this case, a fight about freedom of speech. This particular speech was given in front of an audience at the Hart House at the University of Toronto in a debate format, the date of November 15th, 2006. The resolution: “Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate.” Hitchens was on the affirmative side, giving a twenty minute speech in defense of the freedom of speech considered hateful.

The reason, in large part, for this debate’s being had was a section of a Canadian law called the “Canadian Human Rights Act” in which a particular section (section 13 to be precise), granted the right of Canadian citizens to take others to court over “hate speech.” As I personally find to be a dire blow to one of the great pillars of western civilization, the section was passed and in fact upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court.

Before I offer a link to the speech proper, I have a slight warning to offer. The opinions expressed by Mr. Hitchens in this case are very direct and very straightforward toward the audience, or to anyone who may support such a resolution in principle. Furthermore, there are many comments towards the end of the speech that deal with religion, Islam in particular, its effects and actions with regard to free speech. Hitchens was personally involved in many of these affairs, being an international correspondent and journalist for many years. Some of his closest friends were on the receiving end of death threats of this kind, including most famously the author Salman Rushdie. As such, he pulls no punches in his criticisms, a tact I very much admire. Make no mistake, I wholly endorse the vast majority of the opinions expressed therein, and make no apology whatsoever for any of the speech, but if you find yourself curious about it, keep in mind what you are likely to hear. Thank you.

The Speech

Week 3: A Post-Mortem

Whew, well now that’s done. I’m not quite sure how to begin in the face of such a, or as it seems to me at least, utter failure of expectation on my part. No doubt my pronunciations in class and writings here have led some to expect quite a bit better than they actually got with my ill-prepared speech. But far be it from me to tout simple negativity without posing some constructive points to myself and others about what could perhaps have been done better.

The first and most glaring fault I noticed in my own speech was its lack of focus and preparation. To be honest there was not really much preparation beyond conceptualization when it came to deciding exactly what I would say. A strong idea of the point I was going to make, I believed, would be enough. However, had I chosen to pick some ancillary points to add more “meat” as it were to the speech, it would have had much more substance to it rather than a simple statement which it turned out to be. Furthermore, I ended up speaking quite a bit too fast and moving along my points too quickly without dwelling upon them as much as I was. As such, the greatest thing I could have done in preparation for the speech would have been to practice it and actually speak it out loud, tweaking it based upon the results of such an exercise. Hopefully I actually do that next time.

Week 3: Dear Esther – An Experiment in Minimalism

Dear Esther, the gulls do not land here anymore; I’ve noticed that this year, they seem to shun the place. Maybe it’s the depletion of the fishing stock driving them away. Perhaps it’s me. When he first landed here, Donnelly wrote that the herds were sickly and their shepherds the lowest of the miserable classes that populate these Hebridean islands. Three hundred years later, even they have departed.

The words presented to you at the beginning of Dear Esther vary with each time you hit the “New Game” button, but they are invariably well-written, and set the stage for an adventure truly literary in its scope and style.

Dear Esther is a unique game, independently developed by thechineseroom, a developer born out of a research project in the University of Portsmouth. Originally a Half-Life 2 mod released for free and funded by a grant from the University’s Arts and Humanities Department, it was subsequently redeveloped from 2009 to 2011 into a standalone release. It launched to surprising commercial success, and an understandable confusion by critics and gamers alike as to what exactly they were dealing with.

What we are discussing here is, indeed, not a normal game. The genre, as close as anyone can tell, is “experimental, first-person adventure.” Dear Esther has no combat, no enemies, no real interaction with the environment, you merely walk through the beautiful environments the game presents. The game aspect comes in the randomization of the dialogue segments, and the variation of the spoken narrations based upon where the player chooses to go. In this sense, Dear Esther is not a game raised to the level of art, but a piece of art told through the medium of a game.

In no other medium, I maintain, could such an experience be created. The visuals create an atmosphere breathtakingly beautiful and serene, calm and somber, but also strange and foreboding. The music of the game is one of its most noteworthy aspects, combining soft and harmonious piano and violin music with some strange background sounds, softly spoken words. The island that you inhabit in Dear Esther is very much alive, and full of a great history. Depending upon chance, you may get to hear in greater or lesser part about the game’s five characters: the narrator, Esther, Donnelly the cartographer, Paul, and Jakobson the shepherd. It is up to the player to discern the true nature of the tale and what it is meant to represent based upon the fragmented narrations, which are at times metaphorical and stylistic in nature rather than substantive. The very least that can be said about Dear Esther is that anyone who enjoys the analysis of and discovering the hidden meanings in literature will be highly entertained by it. Even someone who does not can play for the relaxing music, charming narrations, and impressive backgrounds. Though not quite a game in its most traditional sense, Esther is one of the most promising experiments in interactive media and art to date, and I would seriously suggest looking into it, whether you are a frequent game-player or not.

Next week’s entry: Grand Theft Auto IV – An Exploration of Culture

Week 2: Civic Engagement Changes

Based on some of the comments that I got in class, I can tell that my speech’s strong points lie in a solid organization and structure, so the essentials are present. However, though I know that my topic has a lot of potential to be interesting and engaging, it may benefit from the introduction of some variety and more focus on grabbing attention. What I plan to do for this is to write myself out some notes on possible interjections or asides that could add both some information and some possible entertainment value (but not too much). Further, there could be a little more strength in my transitions rather than just a preview of the next topic. I need to brainstorm a little more with regard to those.

As to how I plan to practice my speech, I will be at home for the weekend, so if I get the chance I can try and practice in front of a mirror, or to my family members to see how my speech was received. I might also try to arrange doing so with some friends who are also in Rhetoric and Civic Life courses of their own, because then I can get a more indicative sample for how what I’m saying will actually go over with an audience familiar to the subjects that I’m talking about.

Week 2: Portal – An Exercise in Creative Language

Portal is a first-person puzzle game developed by Valve Software in 2007, and was originally made available only as a part of Valve’s collection, The Orange Box. The game was given a very small budget and relegated to a small team within Valve, composed largely of some of the minds behind Narbacular Drop, Portal’s flash-based forerunner. While it was originally intended as a stocking-stuffer of sorts, a 2-3 hour side show to the main event (the continuation of Valve’s Half-Life series), Portal exploded in popularity, leading to massive critical praise and, eventually, a much better-funded sequel. You might ask: What explains such popularity? In short: Language.

The basic elements behind Portal are very simple. You have two portals: one blue, and one orange. You go in one portal and out the other. This single element spawns very interesting puzzles, involving momentum, moving objects, etc. The game’s story is very simple: you are an adolescent girl going through the “Aperture Science Computer-Aided Enrichment Center,” a series of puzzles designed to test your aptitude and intelligence. Throughout, you’ll be guided by a robotic voice who will instruct you and provide useful advice throughout. It is this voice which really steals the show, and takes the game from being good to being excellent.

While I’d love to transcribe the entire game for you all and let you discover it all at your own pace, that sounds an awful lot like plagiarism, so I’ll set it up for you. At first you may be inclined to trust the voice and let it guide you, but over time, word choices and other elements pile up, making you believe that something much more sinister than a mere aptitude test may be going on. Take, for example, the first thing you hear:

Hello and, again, welcome to the Aperture Science Computer-Aided Enrichment Center. We hope your brief detention in the Relaxation Vault has been a pleasant one.

Wait a minute, did she just say “detention”? What’s a “Relaxation Vault”? How exactly did I end up here? Most of these questions are never answered directly, but they lead to some lingering suspicions. A little later on in this same speech:

Before we start, however, keep in mind that although fun, and learning are the primary goals of all Enrichment Center activities, serious injuries may occur. For your own safety, and the safety of others, please refrain from… *garbled sound and static* and back.

Now you should probably at least be a little suspicious by now. Exactly what are you supposed to refrain from doing? Or is this deception another part of the test? But wait, there’s more.

Please proceed into the chamber lock after completing each test. First, however, note the incandescent particle field around the exit. This Aperture Science Material Emancipation Grill will vaporize any unauthorized equipment that passes through it…

In a later chamber:

You’re doing very well. Please be advised that a noticeable taste of blood is not a part of any test protocol, but is an unintended side effect of the Aperture Science Material Emancipation Grill, which may, in semi-rare cases, emancipate dental fillings, crowns, tooth enamel, and teeth.

Imagine if you were in the middle of some standard procedure at a doctor’s office, and the doctor just casually mentioned to you that this may cause all of your teeth to be vaporized instantly! This is part of the game’s excellent writing, its ability to toe the line between surreal humor and dark, implied horror. The mechanical, uncaring quality of the voice as it states these strange and disturbing facts contributes to the sense of being completely alone. It’s a mechanical simulacrum of what may be considered a soothing voice, or even a childish one given some of the strange sentence structure and repetitions involved in its speech. The frequent use of euphemisms and unnecessarily long phrases (ex. Aperture Science Computer-Aided Enrichment Center), contribute to the oppressive environment the game creates. You begin to wonder whether the large, wealthy corporation that runs the testing center and develops its technologies is at all concerned with your personal safety.

It’s this strong, though never explicitly stated, suspicion that grows throughout the game, building suspense and engaging the player in wondering what exactly all these hints are building to. While I won’t spoil the way the game ends, it’s certainly a sight to behold once it  hits its home stretch. Rest assured, if you pick up this game and play it, you’ll have an interesting and, at times, exciting experience, but if you choose to think more in-depth about it, you’ll be able to recognize it for what it is: a truly unique piece of art.

Next week’s entry: Dear Esther – An Experiment in Minimalism

Week 2: Option #3

As a participant in numerous arguments with friends, fellow students, and pretty much anybody else around (so long as they’re discussing an interesting topic), it would probably behoove me to have a handy definition for what an argument is. While there would appear to be a certain stigma behind the term in modern times (as noted in both of our textbooks), I tend to find them fun in general, so I don’t think the definition should express inherent fault. There’s also a distinction to be made between an argument as a conversation between multiple people, each expressing a differing view on a certain issue, and as a particular case made to convince someone.

As to argument’s relation with rhetoric and persuasion, the three are certainly very closely linked. Rhetoric, more or less, can be viewed as the science (or perhaps the art) behind argument. In turn, argument is a tool used in aid of persuasion. To be more concise: one employs rhetoric when attempting to find an argument to persuade someone. The terms are much better understood in relationship to one another, rather than as separately-defined entities.

Our Compose, Design, Advocate textbook defines argument as “a piece of communication that you hope will direct and shape an audience’s attentions in particular ways” (25). I much prefer the book’s definition, as it seems to encompass both the social situation of an argument, and the individual ideas presented within. Another important point to the definition the book uses, which I often find myself stressing in conversation, is that argument is a value-neutral term. Any piece of communication that intends to persuade is, in its own way, an argument. An argument in the sense that most understand it seems to involve belligerence, closed-mindedness, raised voices, and many other generally ill-advised social behaviors on the part of one or all of the participants. In general, though, I like arguments. Some of the most fun I’ve had with friends and just random people in conversation has come from batting ideas around, and if more people took advantage of the opportunity for an argument when it presented itself, more might share this view. One can only hope, anyway.

Week 2: Portal Extras

Since I feared my actual post was becoming a little too long, I thought I’d throw in some extra content here. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the way a first-person game works, or who is curious about what the elements I talked about actually sound like in the game, I’ve recorded the first fifteen minutes or so of the game and uploaded it here.

And as a little added bonus, here are some of my other favorite lines from Portal, that didn’t make it into the main post:

As part of an optional test protocol, we are pleased to present an amusing fact. The device is now more valuable than the organs and combined incomes of everyone in *subject hometown here*.

Unbelievable. You *subject name here* must be the pride of *subject hometown here*.

Test subjects exposed to high-yield Gamma-leaking portal technology are informed that they may be informed of applicable regulatory compliance issues. No further compliance information is required, and you are an excellent test subject.

We will stop enhancing the truth in 3… 2… 1… *static*

About the Blog

Hi, I’m Jeffrey Romano, and this is my RCL blog site! As you may know from reading some of the posts that are already up, I’m into a lot of things: gaming, writing, reading, film, politics, pretty much anything that’ll get a good discussion going. I strive to do the best I can to be a connoisseur of everything I’m into, really thinking about everything and trying my best to pick out the good stuff as best I can. Through this blog I hope to grow better as a writer and communicator, not only educating but also entertaining those that read. So whether you’re into video games, into art, are forced to be here because you’re in my blog group (hi Rachel, Gwen, and Seven!), or perhaps some combination of those things, you’ll hopefully find something you like here!

Week 1: WIP – Civic Engagement Speech

A Design Plan for my Civic Engagement Speech

Purpose: I plan to show my civic artifact (The Boston Massacre by Paul Revere) and break down the various rhetorical elements at play in the painting. I want the audience to understand the way that the following aspects play into it: Ethos (the perspective of the painting, as viewed from the side by an observer with a clear view of the whole situation), Pathos (the depictions of dying, bleeding colonists after being shot by the British), and Logos (the British are arranged in a firing line, being clearly ordered to fire by their commander, suggesting a military action). Further, I want the audience to understand how this and other relics can be viewed as civic in nature by the ideas that they themselves express. To do this I will have to first clearly define the idea of “civic” I am using and tie this directly into the artifact itself (this needs work).

Audience: My morning class, probably as one of the final speeches. Given this fact, I will have to be sufficiently engaging to stand out from the previous speeches and keep the audience’s interest after having viewed many other speeches that day. I may want to consider methods by which I can involve the audience more directly. One thing to note is that the audience’s education in these rhetorical elements are likely at least on par with my own, so I should briefly identify each element and perhaps have a small description, but nothing more.

Media: Oral speech, with one or two supporting images.

Ethos: I should try to come off as impartial for the audience, viewing a historical action from a purely scientific standpoint of rhetorical analysis rather than involving any particular value judgments.

Pathos: In order to keep the audience interested, I may want to grab interest by indicating various points on the civic engagement artifact during my speech, so as to give a more visually interesting presentation and keep the audience’s eyes moving.

Logos: The steps in logic and structure will be relatively simple, listing the rhetorical elements one-by-one, showing them on the graphic as I go, and then move on to the method in which the artifact is and should be considered civic in nature.