While I appreciate the good intent, I'm not sure how one might credit layoffs with the creation of Malhavoc Press. Neither Sue nor I were laid off, nor was our first major freelancer (Bruce Cordell). I suppose later on we used the talents of Sean Reynolds and Skip Williams, but we'd been around for a while at that point. I suppose you could say that some of the layoffs were indicative of the kinds of large changes that occurred at WotC which convinced me it was no longer a place I wanted to work at.Since my thoughts are less diplomatic, I'll just hold on to them. If we meet at a con, buy me a drink and you might be able to coax a rant out of me.
Not that I have any illusions about what would have happened had I stayed. I've no doubt that I would have been laid off. From a larger perspective than just yesterday, it's become clear that WotC's become a company that not only doesn't value experience, it avoids it. (And looks at least somewhat disdainfully, rather than fondly, upon its own past.) You have to stretch your definition of "old guard" to even apply to anyone there anymore. (This is likely a bottom line issue, since the longer you stay, the more you get paid.) When I was there, I worked among people like Skip Williams and Jeff Grubb--with that kind of perspective at hand, I was always the new guy. Which was fine by me. I had much to learn and always appreciated the perspective they could provide. Now, most of the people working on D&D weren't even there when I was there. That's how much turnover and change there's been. There's a real danger of losing continuity with these kinds of layoffs. Dangers involving making old mistakes and not remembering what was learned in old lessons.
It's a foolish and shortsighted management that lets people like Jonathan, Julia, and Dave go. Foolish. And a cold-hearted one that does it at Christmas. But this is not new outrage, it's old, tired outrage. This is the company that laid off Skip, and Jeff, and Sean, and other people of extraordinary talent and experience. It's par for the recent course.
Before I end this bitter ramble, let me just add that it's hard not to laugh at the shocking and perhaps pitiable ineptitude of a company that makes role playing games that would lay off Jonathan Tweet, very likely the best rpg designer, well, period.
I wish all of them the best, and have not a shred of doubt that they'll all go on to do bigger and better things.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Regarding the WotC Layoffs
Rather than express my own anger towards a company that would summarily dismiss established vital talent like Julia Martin, Jonathan Tweet, and Dave Noonan, among others, I'm going to quote Monte Cook's ENWorld post today instead (in response to a post by Kevin Culp):
Monday, December 1, 2008
Where I See Tabletop Gaming Headed
The tabletop roleplaying game industry is dying.
Or so I've heard....
I started hearing this in the summer of 2003 when Wizards of the Coast released D&D edition 3.5. Immediately the sales of all of the companies publishing under the OGL dropped down to unforeseen low levels. In truth, I had been in the industry for a full three years at that time and though I was insulated from the bloodshed because I worked for Wizards of the Coast at the time, I could see the bloodbath as it was occurring. Prior to 2003, the companies that were doing rather well publishing under the OGL included Bastion Press, Mystic Eye Games, Atlas Games, Fantasy Flight Games, and Alderac Entertainment Group, among others. What do all of those companies have in common? They all either no longer exist or they are no longer publishing material that is compatible with D&D.
Coincidentally, at the same time 3.5 was launching, there was another little game that was also in its infancy: World of Warcraft. Maybe you've heard of it. I know, you're thinking that I'm going to blame the decline of D&D on MMOs, as is the typical interpretation of things these days. I mean WoW is making gazillions of dollars, so surely they're stealing all the D&D customers away, right?
Not so fast. By the time WoW was released, the MMO had existed for the better part of a decade. There was Ultima Online, and Everquest, and Asheron's Call, among others. Everquest had even been particularly successful. Yes, World of Warcraft is certainly an unprecedented success, but when I put my head down in the trenches to actually talk to people at the conventions and the local game stores, and the messageboards, what I heard wasn't that online gaming was stealing them away from tabletop gaming. Instead, what I heard was that 3.5 came out way too soon on the heels of 3.0. Many people were still playing 3.0 and refused to give WotC the money for the upgrade. Now personally, I'm in the camp that really likes 3.5 and did consider it a better value than 3.0, but as long as people were able to kill make believe monsters and take their make believe treasure, they didn't particularly need an upgraded set of the very same rules.
So the last five years have been pretty lean. We've seen a bunch of companies go out of business, we've seen fewer products released, we've seen fewer gaming companies start to replace the ones that go down, and we've seen a new edition of D&D released, and from the reports I've heard, fail to impress a good percentage of the audience. The D&D brand is certainly weaker now than it has been since probably the late '90s, but I'm not actually interested in talking about the past; I'm more interested in speculating about the future.
I used to bemoan the fact that when you went up to people and talked about an RPG other than D&D, people would either give you a blank stare and ask what the hell you were talking about, or people would make the same face they make after taking something foul into their mouth, like sour milk, and automatically associate it with a lack of quality. And the truth is that when the D20 products first started hitting the helves, there was a bit of hit and miss. Some products were absolutely stellar, while others were marred by bad editing, bad layout, and bad game mechanics. There is one adventure module on my shelf that I keep as a monument to bird turds because they managed to do everything wrong on the list. But again, I'm allowing myself to be dragged into the past when the point is that what I feel we're really seeing is a widening of the RPG base. In other words, there have been enough excellent third party products over the last several years that people have finally gained confidence in it.
Now the fact of the matter is that most products bearing the d20 logo did die a death. However, when publishers stopped making d20 compatible material, they started making new games that were based on the d20 system and published under the Open Gaming License. The Babylon 5 RPG, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Castles and Crusades... Oh crap, I'm talking about the past again. Well screw it, you can't get to the future without first covering where you've been. So when WotC decided that it was time to release a new version of the game, there were a lot of players who were still playing a version of 3rd edition and weren't ready for it to go yet. Then there were those who were sick of this "evolved" version of D&D and just wanted to play the game like it was originally published, and then there were those who wanted some uniquely customized version of the game to fit their idea of a cool setting, or a specific feel. For instance, some people wanted a game that was dark and gritty instead of high fantasy, others wanted magic to be handled differently. The beauty of the OGL was that they could get what they wanted, it would still be D&D because it was based on the same original mechanics.
What's more is that a lot of these games have extremely high production values. Some, like Green Ronin, mainly produce black and white books, but those black and white books are done extremely well. Then you have others that are publishing their games in full color, again, with production values that rival or surpass WotCs'. An example of that is Paizo Publishing, which was originally created to continue producing Dragon and Dungeon magazines after WotC decided to give them the axe, but has since positioned themselves as the AMD to WotCs Intel. Their Pathfinder products are full color, their production values, writing, art, and cartography are as good or better than WotCs' in every area, and they're continuing forward with the Pathfinder RPG, which is the next evolution of the D&D 3.5 system. And there are other games that are also taking the D20 system and running with it, such as Modern20 and True20. Spycraft 2.o is another full color book that is essentially based on Modern, but makes signifficant changes to the game. Then there are the retro-clones, which are picking up steam, and new or revived systems that are gaining gaining ground, such as Savage Worlds, Cortex, Traveler, Runequest. Heck, even Star Frontiers is seeing an online revival and currently has "digitally remastered" versions of the original core books posted online as well as a new online periodical called the Frontiersman.
The wonderful thing is that people all over the place are actually playing these games!
In my mind, this isn't a rejection of D&D 4th edition as much as it is the fact that people have finally realized that they have options! Lots of them!
On top of that, the expansion of the PDF market and the rise of printing on demand through companies like Lulu.com means that there are a lot more companies in the business, a lot more games being made, and getting your stuff out to your customers isn't nearly as hard as it once was. In other words, the new configuration of the print industry is adding to the choices people have.
Personally, I've always been comfortable with the basic D&D and Advanced D&D schism. While WotC is offering 4th edition, which tries unsuccessfully to be all things to all people, I'm finding that Castles and Crusades functions well as the new "Basic" and Pathfinder functions as the new "Advanced." I can play Pathfinder with my 35 year-old gaming buddies who have come to like this level of complexity in their RPGs while I can bust out the C&C and play with my wife and daughter.
So what I'm getting at is that while D&D maintains a player base that many companies would die for (even while it is undoubtedly disappointing the bean counters at Hasbro), the rest of the players are going to the other publishers who have long struggled in the shadow of D&D. Many people say that the golden age of gaming was back in the '80s, others say that it was just after the advent of the OGL, when suddenly everyone could make a game compatible with the best known roleplaying game in the world. I say the golden age of gaming is right here, right now.
I say this because your choices as a gamer are nearly unlimited. People like me, who used to dream of being a published game designer, can make that dream comne true, assuming that you happen to be competent at writing and game design and have some good ideas. You can do it by either hitching your cart to an existing publisher or, if you have the technical know-how and the connections to get the art done - do it yourself.
The future of tabletop gaming is no longer in the hands of those who have had it in the past, but rather, it's now in the hands of the community that supports it, both through choice and through small time publishers. This is an industry where the little guy is getting noticed and after a while, isn't so little anymore.
This is the golden age of roleplaying. Game on!
Or so I've heard....
I started hearing this in the summer of 2003 when Wizards of the Coast released D&D edition 3.5. Immediately the sales of all of the companies publishing under the OGL dropped down to unforeseen low levels. In truth, I had been in the industry for a full three years at that time and though I was insulated from the bloodshed because I worked for Wizards of the Coast at the time, I could see the bloodbath as it was occurring. Prior to 2003, the companies that were doing rather well publishing under the OGL included Bastion Press, Mystic Eye Games, Atlas Games, Fantasy Flight Games, and Alderac Entertainment Group, among others. What do all of those companies have in common? They all either no longer exist or they are no longer publishing material that is compatible with D&D.
Coincidentally, at the same time 3.5 was launching, there was another little game that was also in its infancy: World of Warcraft. Maybe you've heard of it. I know, you're thinking that I'm going to blame the decline of D&D on MMOs, as is the typical interpretation of things these days. I mean WoW is making gazillions of dollars, so surely they're stealing all the D&D customers away, right?
Not so fast. By the time WoW was released, the MMO had existed for the better part of a decade. There was Ultima Online, and Everquest, and Asheron's Call, among others. Everquest had even been particularly successful. Yes, World of Warcraft is certainly an unprecedented success, but when I put my head down in the trenches to actually talk to people at the conventions and the local game stores, and the messageboards, what I heard wasn't that online gaming was stealing them away from tabletop gaming. Instead, what I heard was that 3.5 came out way too soon on the heels of 3.0. Many people were still playing 3.0 and refused to give WotC the money for the upgrade. Now personally, I'm in the camp that really likes 3.5 and did consider it a better value than 3.0, but as long as people were able to kill make believe monsters and take their make believe treasure, they didn't particularly need an upgraded set of the very same rules.
So the last five years have been pretty lean. We've seen a bunch of companies go out of business, we've seen fewer products released, we've seen fewer gaming companies start to replace the ones that go down, and we've seen a new edition of D&D released, and from the reports I've heard, fail to impress a good percentage of the audience. The D&D brand is certainly weaker now than it has been since probably the late '90s, but I'm not actually interested in talking about the past; I'm more interested in speculating about the future.
I used to bemoan the fact that when you went up to people and talked about an RPG other than D&D, people would either give you a blank stare and ask what the hell you were talking about, or people would make the same face they make after taking something foul into their mouth, like sour milk, and automatically associate it with a lack of quality. And the truth is that when the D20 products first started hitting the helves, there was a bit of hit and miss. Some products were absolutely stellar, while others were marred by bad editing, bad layout, and bad game mechanics. There is one adventure module on my shelf that I keep as a monument to bird turds because they managed to do everything wrong on the list. But again, I'm allowing myself to be dragged into the past when the point is that what I feel we're really seeing is a widening of the RPG base. In other words, there have been enough excellent third party products over the last several years that people have finally gained confidence in it.
Now the fact of the matter is that most products bearing the d20 logo did die a death. However, when publishers stopped making d20 compatible material, they started making new games that were based on the d20 system and published under the Open Gaming License. The Babylon 5 RPG, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Castles and Crusades... Oh crap, I'm talking about the past again. Well screw it, you can't get to the future without first covering where you've been. So when WotC decided that it was time to release a new version of the game, there were a lot of players who were still playing a version of 3rd edition and weren't ready for it to go yet. Then there were those who were sick of this "evolved" version of D&D and just wanted to play the game like it was originally published, and then there were those who wanted some uniquely customized version of the game to fit their idea of a cool setting, or a specific feel. For instance, some people wanted a game that was dark and gritty instead of high fantasy, others wanted magic to be handled differently. The beauty of the OGL was that they could get what they wanted, it would still be D&D because it was based on the same original mechanics.
What's more is that a lot of these games have extremely high production values. Some, like Green Ronin, mainly produce black and white books, but those black and white books are done extremely well. Then you have others that are publishing their games in full color, again, with production values that rival or surpass WotCs'. An example of that is Paizo Publishing, which was originally created to continue producing Dragon and Dungeon magazines after WotC decided to give them the axe, but has since positioned themselves as the AMD to WotCs Intel. Their Pathfinder products are full color, their production values, writing, art, and cartography are as good or better than WotCs' in every area, and they're continuing forward with the Pathfinder RPG, which is the next evolution of the D&D 3.5 system. And there are other games that are also taking the D20 system and running with it, such as Modern20 and True20. Spycraft 2.o is another full color book that is essentially based on Modern, but makes signifficant changes to the game. Then there are the retro-clones, which are picking up steam, and new or revived systems that are gaining gaining ground, such as Savage Worlds, Cortex, Traveler, Runequest. Heck, even Star Frontiers is seeing an online revival and currently has "digitally remastered" versions of the original core books posted online as well as a new online periodical called the Frontiersman.
The wonderful thing is that people all over the place are actually playing these games!
In my mind, this isn't a rejection of D&D 4th edition as much as it is the fact that people have finally realized that they have options! Lots of them!
On top of that, the expansion of the PDF market and the rise of printing on demand through companies like Lulu.com means that there are a lot more companies in the business, a lot more games being made, and getting your stuff out to your customers isn't nearly as hard as it once was. In other words, the new configuration of the print industry is adding to the choices people have.
Personally, I've always been comfortable with the basic D&D and Advanced D&D schism. While WotC is offering 4th edition, which tries unsuccessfully to be all things to all people, I'm finding that Castles and Crusades functions well as the new "Basic" and Pathfinder functions as the new "Advanced." I can play Pathfinder with my 35 year-old gaming buddies who have come to like this level of complexity in their RPGs while I can bust out the C&C and play with my wife and daughter.
So what I'm getting at is that while D&D maintains a player base that many companies would die for (even while it is undoubtedly disappointing the bean counters at Hasbro), the rest of the players are going to the other publishers who have long struggled in the shadow of D&D. Many people say that the golden age of gaming was back in the '80s, others say that it was just after the advent of the OGL, when suddenly everyone could make a game compatible with the best known roleplaying game in the world. I say the golden age of gaming is right here, right now.
I say this because your choices as a gamer are nearly unlimited. People like me, who used to dream of being a published game designer, can make that dream comne true, assuming that you happen to be competent at writing and game design and have some good ideas. You can do it by either hitching your cart to an existing publisher or, if you have the technical know-how and the connections to get the art done - do it yourself.
The future of tabletop gaming is no longer in the hands of those who have had it in the past, but rather, it's now in the hands of the community that supports it, both through choice and through small time publishers. This is an industry where the little guy is getting noticed and after a while, isn't so little anymore.
This is the golden age of roleplaying. Game on!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Blog #8 part 2
Reflection on paper 2
I think that this paper is superior to earlier drafts because, unlike assignment #1, it was completely overhauls from the original paper. Initially this paper took up the argument from the article that we need to continue funding for the space program where it should have stuck more closely to the assignment, which was to analyze the argument being made in the article.
So to that end, I cut about 80% of the content from the first couple drafts and essentially started over. The paper is now focused on what the original article says while drawing in related support material from other sources. It was a lot more work, but it's worth it since I strayed so far from the original assignment with the first one.
A nice side-effect here is that since the rough draft of assignment #2 relates directly to the long paper I get to write, it provides me with another source, besides the Rogerian argument, that I can mine for that paper.
I think that this paper is superior to earlier drafts because, unlike assignment #1, it was completely overhauls from the original paper. Initially this paper took up the argument from the article that we need to continue funding for the space program where it should have stuck more closely to the assignment, which was to analyze the argument being made in the article.
So to that end, I cut about 80% of the content from the first couple drafts and essentially started over. The paper is now focused on what the original article says while drawing in related support material from other sources. It was a lot more work, but it's worth it since I strayed so far from the original assignment with the first one.
A nice side-effect here is that since the rough draft of assignment #2 relates directly to the long paper I get to write, it provides me with another source, besides the Rogerian argument, that I can mine for that paper.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Toulman Analysis “Saving Hubble”
"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars." – Professor Stephen Hawking
The September 2008 issue of Discover magazine discusses the next planned flight of the space shuttle; their mission, to fix the Hubble space telescope for the last time. At the time the article was printed, this launch was scheduled to take place in October; however, due to additional electronic failures with the Hubble telescope, the mission has been postponed until sometime early next year (Dunn). The focus of the Discover article discusses NASA’s plans to replace the aging shuttle fleet with a new space vehicle, but it makes a semi-successful claim that NASA’s future is dependent upon the success of failure of this next mission due to potential budget cuts and the tragedies of the past.
The article’s columnist, Corey S. Powell, appears to support professor Hawking’s belief that humanity must venture into the stars if we want to survive as a species. Although he does not state this directly in the article, he does make a pathetic appeal when he addresses the warrant many people have that space travel is important.
The article efficiently covers the range of issues currently facing the space agency in the first half of the article, including the fact that this will be the last mission to fix the Hubble, and that the shuttle program is set to be retired in 2010. In the last half of the argument, he says the following:
Powell’s argument is immediately backed with Obama’s statement, set aside from the text within parentheses, but he fails to elaborate on this position. He could have strengthened his argument by stating that Obama has already proposed delaying the new space vehicle by five years, which would leave the US without a space vehicle for a total of nine years (Dunn). The article does report that the current plans are to rely on Russia to transport our astronauts to the International Space Station once the shuttle is retired, but given the recently strained relations between our countries, there is a chance that this arrangement may end prematurely, which would be an undesirable situation.
Currently our relations with Russia are strained. While there is no indication that the United States will be entering into a war, or even renewing the Cold War, there is an uncertainty about our joint cooperation and diplomatic relations. In August of this year, Condoleezza Rice stated, “Moscow it is playing a dangerous game with the United States and its allies, who will stand by Georgia and ensure its recovery from a weeklong Russian invasion.” She also said, “The alliance would act to punish Russia for its actions and deny its strategic objectives by ensuring that Georgia’s insfrastructure and economy are rebuilt and that its government is fully supported by the West.” (Associated Press). This is the sort of terse rhetoric that makes clear the disapproval of the United States towards Russia’s actions, and it clearly puts in jeopardy any arrangements we have with them at this time.
Powell’s appeal to logos is flawed when he states that the Hubble is doomed if the mission fails because he does not take two issues into account: First,the Hubble is already doomed. Even though the mission will be to repair the space telescope, this will be the last time this happens. It is only a matter of time before it fails again and is abandoned. Second, he also doesn’t take into account the fact that the previous shuttle tragedies occurred at different stages during the mission. The Challenger was destroyed as it was launching into space, while the Columbia was destroyed upon re-entry. This means that it is entirely possible for the Atlantis to successfully launch into space, repair the Hubble, but be destroyed upon re-entry. If this happens then the Hubble will not be doomed’ at least not until it fails again, but the mission itself will still be a failure.
Powell also fails to make any sort of connection between a failed shuttle mission and a loss of funding for NASA. He does not present any evidence suggesting that either of the candidates or policy makers would withdraw their support of NASA if the next shuttle mission fails and leads to the deaths of more astronauts. He does point out the fact that the shuttle program has met with fatal accidents on 1.6 percent of its flights (Powell), which skirts a commonly held warrant that the space program is too dangerous and costly, both in terms of dollars and human lives. However, given the fact that the shuttle has already been deemed too dangerous and the current plan is to go back to a safer capsule design, it could be argued that the powers in control of the nation’s purse strings would simply write off a final mission disaster as a sad side-effect of a flawed design, and then move forward with a more tried and proven design. There is also a question of whether NASA could be in danger by raising the unstated question of whether the American public would be willing to continue a program that has met with the relatively high rate of failure under the shuttle program.
The article highlights the current state of NASA and discusses the very real possibility that the space agency might face serious funding cuts in the near future. Although it references a statement made by the Democratic Presidential candidate, it could have been more clear about what exactly was said. The article does successfully articulate that NASA is in a crucial transitional state, and with it the future or manned space exploration might be in jeopardy.
Powell, Corey. "Saving Hubble." Discover September 2008: 26 - 33.
Dunn, Marcia. "NASA delays Hubble mission until next year." MSNBC.com 29, Sep, 2008 25 Oct 2008
"Rice says Russia playing dangerous game." Associated Press 18, Aug, 2008 7 Nov 2008
"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars." – Professor Stephen Hawking
The September 2008 issue of Discover magazine discusses the next planned flight of the space shuttle; their mission, to fix the Hubble space telescope for the last time. At the time the article was printed, this launch was scheduled to take place in October; however, due to additional electronic failures with the Hubble telescope, the mission has been postponed until sometime early next year (Dunn). The focus of the Discover article discusses NASA’s plans to replace the aging shuttle fleet with a new space vehicle, but it makes a semi-successful claim that NASA’s future is dependent upon the success of failure of this next mission due to potential budget cuts and the tragedies of the past.
The article’s columnist, Corey S. Powell, appears to support professor Hawking’s belief that humanity must venture into the stars if we want to survive as a species. Although he does not state this directly in the article, he does make a pathetic appeal when he addresses the warrant many people have that space travel is important.
The article efficiently covers the range of issues currently facing the space agency in the first half of the article, including the fact that this will be the last mission to fix the Hubble, and that the shuttle program is set to be retired in 2010. In the last half of the argument, he says the following:
NASA’s future depends heavily on this month’s Atlantis mission. If the shuttle flight goes awry, Hubble is doomed, and the already-precarious support for Ares and Orion [the new rocket and space module] might evaporate. (Last fall, Sen. Barack Obama suggested delaying NASA’s next human space adventure to focus funds on more practical problems). (Powell)
Powell’s argument is immediately backed with Obama’s statement, set aside from the text within parentheses, but he fails to elaborate on this position. He could have strengthened his argument by stating that Obama has already proposed delaying the new space vehicle by five years, which would leave the US without a space vehicle for a total of nine years (Dunn). The article does report that the current plans are to rely on Russia to transport our astronauts to the International Space Station once the shuttle is retired, but given the recently strained relations between our countries, there is a chance that this arrangement may end prematurely, which would be an undesirable situation.
Currently our relations with Russia are strained. While there is no indication that the United States will be entering into a war, or even renewing the Cold War, there is an uncertainty about our joint cooperation and diplomatic relations. In August of this year, Condoleezza Rice stated, “Moscow it is playing a dangerous game with the United States and its allies, who will stand by Georgia and ensure its recovery from a weeklong Russian invasion.” She also said, “The alliance would act to punish Russia for its actions and deny its strategic objectives by ensuring that Georgia’s insfrastructure and economy are rebuilt and that its government is fully supported by the West.” (Associated Press). This is the sort of terse rhetoric that makes clear the disapproval of the United States towards Russia’s actions, and it clearly puts in jeopardy any arrangements we have with them at this time.
Powell’s appeal to logos is flawed when he states that the Hubble is doomed if the mission fails because he does not take two issues into account: First,the Hubble is already doomed. Even though the mission will be to repair the space telescope, this will be the last time this happens. It is only a matter of time before it fails again and is abandoned. Second, he also doesn’t take into account the fact that the previous shuttle tragedies occurred at different stages during the mission. The Challenger was destroyed as it was launching into space, while the Columbia was destroyed upon re-entry. This means that it is entirely possible for the Atlantis to successfully launch into space, repair the Hubble, but be destroyed upon re-entry. If this happens then the Hubble will not be doomed’ at least not until it fails again, but the mission itself will still be a failure.
Powell also fails to make any sort of connection between a failed shuttle mission and a loss of funding for NASA. He does not present any evidence suggesting that either of the candidates or policy makers would withdraw their support of NASA if the next shuttle mission fails and leads to the deaths of more astronauts. He does point out the fact that the shuttle program has met with fatal accidents on 1.6 percent of its flights (Powell), which skirts a commonly held warrant that the space program is too dangerous and costly, both in terms of dollars and human lives. However, given the fact that the shuttle has already been deemed too dangerous and the current plan is to go back to a safer capsule design, it could be argued that the powers in control of the nation’s purse strings would simply write off a final mission disaster as a sad side-effect of a flawed design, and then move forward with a more tried and proven design. There is also a question of whether NASA could be in danger by raising the unstated question of whether the American public would be willing to continue a program that has met with the relatively high rate of failure under the shuttle program.
The article highlights the current state of NASA and discusses the very real possibility that the space agency might face serious funding cuts in the near future. Although it references a statement made by the Democratic Presidential candidate, it could have been more clear about what exactly was said. The article does successfully articulate that NASA is in a crucial transitional state, and with it the future or manned space exploration might be in jeopardy.
Powell, Corey. "Saving Hubble." Discover September 2008: 26 - 33.
Dunn, Marcia. "NASA delays Hubble mission until next year." MSNBC.com 29, Sep, 2008 25 Oct 2008
"Rice says Russia playing dangerous game." Associated Press 18, Aug, 2008 7 Nov 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Blog #9
Blog #9
1. What is contrastive rhetoric? (150 words)
Contrastive rhetoric is a new way of looking at bi-lingual education that takes into account the fact that people for whom English is a second language may have means of communicating that don't translate perfectly to the way the English language is constructed. The idea behind it is to facilitate reading and writing in English. In addition to bi-lingual students, it also applies to people who don't participate in dominant U.S. culture, and opens the doors of composition for them as well. Five questions are key to anyone attempting to discuss a given topic:
1. What may be discussed?
2. Who has the authority to speak/write; OR Who has the authority to write to whom under what circumstances?
3. What form(s) may the writing take?
4. What is evidence?
5. What arrangement of evidence is likely to appeal (be convincing to) readers?
While these are all questions that are easy for a native language speaker who is part of the dominant culture, they are not as self-evident to the non-native speaker/newcomer to the culture.
2. Why is the Alexie article an example of contrastive rhetoric? (150 words)
I think that the Alexie article was an example of contrastive rhetoric because it provides and answer for the five questions above, and ultimately, the people making the decisions were not the people who belonged to the Native American ethnic group. To answer the questions quickly:
1. Culture said that what may be discussed is that nature of what it means to be a Native American. In their idealized form, as defined by Hollywood, they were noble savages - warriors who used monosyllabic speech, or people close to nature who climbed mountains or waded into streams.
2. Those with the authority to speak were the people defining the idealized Native American - Hollywood actors and producers, who were normally working from stereotypes rather than any real understanding of the culture.
3. The writing might take the form of a movie script, or a TV show, or a trashy romance novel. The Native American was there for entertainment, not for the education of cultural understanding.
4. Evidence is the depiction of Native Americans, such as Tonto, who Sherman Alexi hates.
5. The arrangement of the evidence is that they are ideally suited to the role of sidekick.
Of course that's a load of BS, but it makes me wonder how far we've come really. One of my favorite movies is Brotherhood of the Wolf, which features a Native American character. Even through the character dies a heroic and meaningful death, he is still portrayed as the noble savage warrior who essentially fills the role of the sidekick. On the other hand, there's a European character who also fills the role of sidekick, and the relationship between the protagonist and the Native American seems to be one of genuine friendship as opposed to "helper." I think the portrayal in that movie is a little more complicated than Tonto, and I would love to know what Alexi would say about it. My guess is that his analysis wouldn't be entirely positive or entirely negative.
1. What is contrastive rhetoric? (150 words)
Contrastive rhetoric is a new way of looking at bi-lingual education that takes into account the fact that people for whom English is a second language may have means of communicating that don't translate perfectly to the way the English language is constructed. The idea behind it is to facilitate reading and writing in English. In addition to bi-lingual students, it also applies to people who don't participate in dominant U.S. culture, and opens the doors of composition for them as well. Five questions are key to anyone attempting to discuss a given topic:
1. What may be discussed?
2. Who has the authority to speak/write; OR Who has the authority to write to whom under what circumstances?
3. What form(s) may the writing take?
4. What is evidence?
5. What arrangement of evidence is likely to appeal (be convincing to) readers?
While these are all questions that are easy for a native language speaker who is part of the dominant culture, they are not as self-evident to the non-native speaker/newcomer to the culture.
2. Why is the Alexie article an example of contrastive rhetoric? (150 words)
I think that the Alexie article was an example of contrastive rhetoric because it provides and answer for the five questions above, and ultimately, the people making the decisions were not the people who belonged to the Native American ethnic group. To answer the questions quickly:
1. Culture said that what may be discussed is that nature of what it means to be a Native American. In their idealized form, as defined by Hollywood, they were noble savages - warriors who used monosyllabic speech, or people close to nature who climbed mountains or waded into streams.
2. Those with the authority to speak were the people defining the idealized Native American - Hollywood actors and producers, who were normally working from stereotypes rather than any real understanding of the culture.
3. The writing might take the form of a movie script, or a TV show, or a trashy romance novel. The Native American was there for entertainment, not for the education of cultural understanding.
4. Evidence is the depiction of Native Americans, such as Tonto, who Sherman Alexi hates.
5. The arrangement of the evidence is that they are ideally suited to the role of sidekick.
Of course that's a load of BS, but it makes me wonder how far we've come really. One of my favorite movies is Brotherhood of the Wolf, which features a Native American character. Even through the character dies a heroic and meaningful death, he is still portrayed as the noble savage warrior who essentially fills the role of the sidekick. On the other hand, there's a European character who also fills the role of sidekick, and the relationship between the protagonist and the Native American seems to be one of genuine friendship as opposed to "helper." I think the portrayal in that movie is a little more complicated than Tonto, and I would love to know what Alexi would say about it. My guess is that his analysis wouldn't be entirely positive or entirely negative.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)