A bunch of disarticulated thoughts and links
Discussions around WiFi are fascinating me, mostly because this "phenomena" has not reached Canada. We have a national mandate to give everyone broadband access first. And wireless access, although available, is still cost-prohibitive. I checked into 600 min/month wireless plans, and they're running between $100-$200 a month! Add that to my cable, land lines, DSL and cell phone bills every month, and I wouldn't be able to afford my other vices ;) And this just reminds me that (dislocated) wireless still requires (located) hubs - an odd tension arises between everywhere and somewhere.
A few weeks ago I linked to this handy database of internet researchers, and didn't even notice that I was included in the list ;) And speaking of lists, I loved Fabio Sergio's post about this Userati list. I was *shocked* to see my name on it, and likewise assume it has something to do with Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Merholz. Thanks guys, but I somehow feel as though this is undeserved recognition ;) I am but a lowly researcher who likes to think out loud...
Jill Walker recently posted on users - which, following Brenda Laurel, is a word/description I've never really liked. Laurel argues that "user" conjures an unequal power relationship and Jill says that's exactly the point: "Part of the pleasure of being a user is precisely submitting to the machine. Why are we drivers of cars but users of drugs and computers? Computers are often presented as a substance that is easily abused." Hmm. Good points. I like to route around these types of distinctions by saying that we're not dealing with "computers" or "users" but rather the "computer/human". And there, Jill, in a nut-shell, is the notion of a non-human actor: no objects OR subjects, just collectives of humans and non-humans, reciprocally constituted and hybrid.
Via nosenseofplace: "A North East writer has been given a grant of £2,000 to use sheep to create random poems, which also utilise the deepest workings of the universe. The money has been provided by Northern Arts for Valerie Laws to create a new form of random literature. Each of the animals has a word from a poem written on their backs and as they wander about the words take a new poetic form each time they come to rest." I love it!
And last, but not least, Torill Mortensen graciously links to a dissenting position on her claim that "it's not logical to demand from games that they should tell stories." Let's get past criteria of "logic" and "demands" and just explore *how* a game might act in narrative fashion. Can we not explain interaction in terms of discourse, which also conjures narrative or story-telling? Maybe *games* don't necessarily tell stories, but in playing them, do we not create narratives? What do you think, Torill?
A few weeks ago I linked to this handy database of internet researchers, and didn't even notice that I was included in the list ;) And speaking of lists, I loved Fabio Sergio's post about this Userati list. I was *shocked* to see my name on it, and likewise assume it has something to do with Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Merholz. Thanks guys, but I somehow feel as though this is undeserved recognition ;) I am but a lowly researcher who likes to think out loud...
Jill Walker recently posted on users - which, following Brenda Laurel, is a word/description I've never really liked. Laurel argues that "user" conjures an unequal power relationship and Jill says that's exactly the point: "Part of the pleasure of being a user is precisely submitting to the machine. Why are we drivers of cars but users of drugs and computers? Computers are often presented as a substance that is easily abused." Hmm. Good points. I like to route around these types of distinctions by saying that we're not dealing with "computers" or "users" but rather the "computer/human". And there, Jill, in a nut-shell, is the notion of a non-human actor: no objects OR subjects, just collectives of humans and non-humans, reciprocally constituted and hybrid.
Via nosenseofplace: "A North East writer has been given a grant of £2,000 to use sheep to create random poems, which also utilise the deepest workings of the universe. The money has been provided by Northern Arts for Valerie Laws to create a new form of random literature. Each of the animals has a word from a poem written on their backs and as they wander about the words take a new poetic form each time they come to rest." I love it!
And last, but not least, Torill Mortensen graciously links to a dissenting position on her claim that "it's not logical to demand from games that they should tell stories." Let's get past criteria of "logic" and "demands" and just explore *how* a game might act in narrative fashion. Can we not explain interaction in terms of discourse, which also conjures narrative or story-telling? Maybe *games* don't necessarily tell stories, but in playing them, do we not create narratives? What do you think, Torill?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home