betajames

As updated on Twitter not too long ago, I have an increasing issue with sports commentators describing specific in-game events by way of relating them to specific in-game events in other sports. The most recent example happened earlier tonight during the Olympic ice hockey game between Canada and Russia. There were multiple references to a goal-scoring play as a "slam dunk." While watching a college basketball game a couple weeks ago, I endured a commentator's description of Michigan State point guard Kalin Lucas as a "quarterback." 

In my mind, such references constitute not only a failure of creativity but also a lack of understanding the true nature of a particular sport. It shouldn't be that difficult to describe in-game actions on their own terms and to do so within that sport's established discourse. Sure, all sports have a certain degree of familiarity and/or similarity among them, but that's not enough of a reason to describe a point guard as a quarterback or to simplify a scoring play in hockey as a slam dunk. Such descriptions cheapen what makes each sport unique and promote misunderstanding among novice viewers as to what happened on the court, field or rink.

Of course, these instances probably aren't as common as I worry that they are. At least Rod and Mario of Fox Sports Detroit have enough decency and intelligence to never refer to a homerun by Miguel Cabrera as a "slapshot."

In May 2009, I answered a rather unique CFP, one focusing on the relationship between post/apocalyptic belief systems and technology. Entitled Network Apocalypse: Visions of the End in an Age of Internet Media, the edited book collection endeavors to provide a variety of perspectives on how online communicative technologies influence ideas about humanity's imminent demise. Given my own interests in post-apocalyptic tales and videogames, I proposed to combine the two. The initial proposal to the editor of Network Apocalypse is available here. Once approved by the editor, I shared significant sections of my chapter draft here, here, here, here, here and here. I submitted the completed draft on November 1 and, just last week, received some detailed suggestions regarding revision. In the interest of keeping this particular writing process public to a certain degree, I'd like to share and reflect a bit on those suggestions.

5. Format
The inclusion of a 75-word abstract, a 20-word formulaic biographical statement and citations congruent with the Chicago Manual of Style are required. I expected such requests. The first two kinds of writing are standard; the editors of The Computer Culture Reader asked for similar pieces. Furthermore, the initial draft of my chapter is in MLA citation format, but I've no qualms about using Chicago. 

4. Foreshadowing
Some of the most important parts of my Network Apocalypse chapter are nowhere to be found in the introduction, namely observations concerning the influence of mods on the Fallout 3 experience. I realize this is something I probably could/should have taken care of prior to the submission deadline. While attributing it to carelessness is a possibility, it has more to do with my approach to writing. I don't think I'm alone in approaching it as an opportunity for learning. In other words, I don't often know what I want to say until after I've written it. For me, this particular act of communication has always had a strong writing-to-learn element. Only when I see my first words on the page or screen am I better able to understand. The cohesion and structure of my chapter will only benefit from revising to reveal greater foreshadowing.

3. Fascination
I've a confession to make: In explaining the importance and relevance of videogames, I often still invoke literature. I do this less and less as I develop a better vocabulary to address what videogames really are and just how divergent the medium is in comparison to other forms of entertainment and intrigue, but I slip sometimes. This chapter of mine features such a slippage in that I discuss the surging appeal and interest in post-apocalyptic themes in literature before videogames. I appreciate, though, that the editor sees the value in having the "literary stuff" as background support for videogames and not the other way around. This is also important to the overall argument I make, given the immersive, interactive elements of one medium over the other.

2. Further research
It's impossible to be definitive, so I was not surprised that the editor had some suggestions for further research. I also don't dread this part of the revision process as it will strengthen my current chapter but also my research overall. Curious as I am about the intersections and parallels among composition, literacy, technology and videogames, even this present work on the post-apocalyptic genre and thought processes has some connections. 

1. Fleshing Out
What should come out of the revision process is a clearer sense of the writer's argument, one bolstered by better explanation of the individual elements comprising the argument itself. This does relate to the organization and presentation of a particular perspective, but it has to do with clarity and emphasis, too. In other words, I must be stronger in my claims about the influence of online elements in a decidedly offline videogame experience.

Now, an argument could be made that this is merely an exercise in procrastination, that I'm putting off the actual revisions by writing about them here instead, but writing about writing is an important part of my process. It's an opportunity to re-gestate ideas already put forth, one that I take whenever I'm able and have the time.