#eng200

It is often said that too much video gaming can be harmful to the players. Writing in Point of View, M. Lee and Laura Finley state, “The violent content of many contemporary video games makes their popularity even more disturbing. It is commonplace for games to allow players to behead, bludgeon and strangle others, purposefully crash into them with cars and tear each other apart.” Lee and Finley is saying that, video games are very violent and questions how such violent content can be so popular in mainstream America. In Lee and Finley’s view, “No video game, no matter how innocuous, can compare with the positive benefits of literature, art, sport, or social interaction and the unhappy truth is that all too often, long hours of play logged in front of a video screen become a substitute for engaging in any of these other, more meaningful human pursuits.” In other words, Lee and Finley are saying that while all video games don’t promote irresponsible behavior, even the not so violent games still don’t do anything positive for the players. Basically, Lee and Finley believes video games have no benefit whatsoever to the people playing them and will always contribute to negative things in the world.  

           Although I agree with Lee and Finley up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that video games don’t offer anything positive to the world the way literature, sports, and social interaction do. On one hand, Lee and Finley are right to say some video games promote negative behaviors simply because they have some scientific research to back it up. On the other hand, it is still true that that video games do have positive effects as mentioned in the article by Bavelier and Richardson. Bavelier and Richardson plan to develop games that will benefit the brain, a task I’m sure Lee and Finley would think is impossible. Lee and Finley overlook what I consider an important point about social interaction, literature, and video games. Some of my favorite memories involve my friends and me getting online and playing video games together. Moreover, some of the best stories I’ve ever been told was through a well told video game story. Indeed it is highly likely that all social interaction isn’t positive online, but it isn’t in real life situations either. This discussion of video games matter because it’s a highly debated topic in today’s world.

           Essentially, what I am trying to argue is that video games aren’t nearly as bad for the world as Lee and Finley suggest, but I suppose they make a few decent points. First of all, the article seems to be written strictly for people who hate video games. There is no attempt to look at it from the other side, which is that video games have been proven to benefit people when they are not played excessively. For example, Sony, the creator of the PlayStation, claims that there online network serves more than 110 million gamers, that’s quite a large community to interact with. Looking at it from a social interaction standpoint, I feel as if anyone could make some friends while gaming. Equally, the stories told in some video games are Oscar worthy. The Last of Us, a video game set in the United States after a ‘zombie’ outbreak, tells what I consider one of the most humane stories I’ve ever experienced. The irony is that this is a very violent video game, but all I felt was compassion by the time I completed it. My conclusion, then, is that all people who feel strongly about this topic must go into with an open mind, and stop making conclusions about the topic without ever experiencing a truly great game.

           The standard way of thinking about video games is that they are meant to be pleasurable and not necessarily meant for learning. Writing in the Nature journal, Daphne Bavelier and Richard J. Davidson states, “Because gaming is clearly here to stay, some scientists are asking how to channel people’s love of screen time towards positive effects on the brain and behavior by designing video games specifically intended to train particular aspects of behavior and brain function.” In making this comment, Bavelier and Richardson believe that since video games are a part of modern cultures, developers should create video games that are beneficial to the brain and influence positive thinking. According to Bavelier and Richardson, “Third, experts must develop a path for academics to bring potentially therapeutic games to market, similar to the translational process that takes drugs from the lab to the clinic. No such path exists for games, but some academics are trying.” In other words, Bavelier and Richardson is saying, that even if brain games are ever developed, it will take some work to actually commercialize them and make them a part of the mainstream market. Bavelier and Richardson’s overall point is, since video games aren’t going anywhere, we have to create something not only enjoyable, but also something that will improve our brain function.  

Task #2

I’m of two minds about Bavelier and Richardson’s claim that a new breed of video games should be developed to enhance the players’ brains. On one hand, Bavelier and Richardson is right to say new video games should be made to enhance brain function. On the other hand, I think there are some games that already exist that improve our brains. Bavelier and Richardson overlooks what I consider an important point about video games that already exist that can make us smarter humans such as the strategy based games like the Civilization franchise, tactical shooters like Battlefield, and puzzle games like Portal. The games mentioned require the analysis of situations, the use of hand-eye coordination, and the use of creativity in order to succeed at them. Indeed it is highly likely that people don’t purchase these games with the intentions of becoming smarter because of it. However, it is simply not true that some games don’t already exist that fit the description of what Bavelier and Richardson ultimately want. I think it is fair to say that the authors desire it on a broader platform, which is possible to achieve in my opinion. This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have long assumed that video games are bad for us and have no benefit to society.

It is often said that too much video gaming can be harmful to the players. Writing in Point of View, M. Lee and Laura Finley state, “The violent content of many contemporary video games makes their popularity even more disturbing. It is commonplace for games to allow players to behead, bludgeon and strangle others, purposefully crash into them with cars and tear each other apart.” Lee and Finley is saying that, video games are very violent and questions how such violent content can be so popular in mainstream America. In Lee and Finley’s view, “No video game, no matter how innocuous, can compare with the positive benefits of literature, art, sport, or social interaction and the unhappy truth is that all too often, long hours of play logged in front of a video screen become a substitute for engaging in any of these other, more meaningful human pursuits.” In other words, Lee and Finley are saying that while all video games don’t promote irresponsible behavior, even the not so violent games still don’t do anything positive for the players. Basically, Lee and Finley believes video games have no benefit whatsoever to the people playing them and will always contribute to negative things in the world.  

           Although I agree with Lee and Finley up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that video games don’t offer anything positive to the world the way literature, sports, and social interaction do. On one hand, Lee and Finley are right to say some video games promote negative behaviors simply because they have some scientific research to back it up. On the other hand, it is still true that that video games do have positive effects as mentioned in the article by Bavelier and Richardson. Bavelier and Richardson plan to develop games that will benefit the brain, a task I’m sure Lee and Finley would think is impossible. Lee and Finley overlook what I consider an important point about social interaction, literature, and video games. Some of my favorite memories involve my friends and me getting online and playing video games together. Moreover, some of the best stories I’ve ever been told was through a well told video game story. Indeed it is highly likely that all social interaction isn’t positive online, but it isn’t in real life situations either. This discussion of video games matter because it’s a highly debated topic in today’s world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/fashion/a-not-so-young-audience-for-young-adult-books.html?_r=1

Conventional wisdom has it that reading any book can be enjoyed by anyone regardless of age, genre, or interests. Writing in the New York Times, Meg Wolitzer states, “At the time, I was finishing my own Y.A. book and was curious to join the conversation, but what mostly drew me there was what drew me to write Y.A. in the first place: the desire for a particular feeling.” Wolitzer is insisting that people read books for special feelings, and Y.A. books can do just that for adults and younger people. In X’s view, “And as for the Y.A. war? When you’re deep in a good book, you won’t even hear the drumbeats.” In other words, Wolitzer is saying, this Y.A. war shouldn’t matter to you at all, just enjoy the books you chose to read. When making these comments, Wolitzer believes, that the Y.A. war is just outside noise and it shouldn’t determine what you read. The essence of X’s argument is reading is reading, and you should never let anyone else decide what you should be reading.

In discussions of problems in the literary world today, one controversial issue has been about whether adults should read Y.A. books. On the one hand, Ruth Graham argues that adults should not be reading Y.A. because they simply weren’t written for them and the adult section has plenty to offer. On the other hand, Wolitzer opposes Graham’s views by claiming readers should just enjoy whatever book satisfies their senses and needs. My own view is closely aligned with Wolitzer’s, I believe you read whatever your heart and brain desire. Indeed it is highly likely that the majority of adult literature is written at a higher quality, with more mature stories. However, it is simply not true that an older reader isn’t allowed to enjoy a Y.A. book because they fall out of the demographic that Y.A. targets. This argument matters because some adults may be facing criticism from their peers due to the enjoyment they get out of a Y.A. book.

http://99u.com/videos/51509/kelly-sue-deconnick-how-to-make-people-uncomfortable-and-still-make-a-living

I’m of two minds about X’s claim that ________________. On one hand, X is right to say _______________. On the other hand, it is still true that _______________. X overlooks what I consider an important point about ________________. Indeed it is highly likely that ______________. However, it is simply not true that ________________. X matters/ is important because _________________.

           Conventional wisdom has it that most people would typically steer clear of situations that place them in uncomfortable positions. Speaking at a 99U Conference, comic book author Kelly Sue DeConnick says, “When I am doing my best work, I am leading with my heart, I am open, I am vulnerable, I am writing what is to me a capital ‘T’ truth.” DeConnick is insisting that as a writer, when she truly puts herself out of her comfort zone, she produces her best work. In DeConnick’s view, “Though togetherness itself is uncomfortable, people are much more willing to be uncomfortable together.” In other words, DeConnick is saying, that throwing yourself into uncomfortable circumstances with other people who are also uncomfortable, will make it easier to bare. When making these comments, DeConnick believes, that people need to be exposed to uncomfortable situations while reading in order for them to experience something new.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/06/against_ya_adults_should_be_embarrassed_to_read_children_s_books.html

           I think X is mistaken because she overlooks ________________. X argues _____________. My own view, however, is that ___________________. Although I grant that ______________, I still maintain that __________________. These conclusions have significant implications for ________________ as well as for ___________________.

           Common sense seem to dictate that reading is beneficial to us and should be encouraged regardless of the material. I’ve always believed that a person can enjoy any type of book as long as the reader is connected with what is happening in the book and develops a rapport with the characters. Writing in Slate, Ruth Graham states, “These are the books, like The Fault in Our Stars, that are about real teens doing real things, and that rise and fall not only on the strength of their stories but, theoretically, on the quality of their writing. These are the books that could plausibly be said to be replacing literary fiction in the lives of their adult readers. And that’s a shame.” Graham insists that an older adult should never indulge in a book written for young adults. In Graham’s view, “There’s room for pleasure, escapism, juicy plots, and satisfying endings on the shelves of the serious reader.” Graham believes, that there are better books in the grown adult section, and readers today are missing out on quality readings outside of the YA section. The essence of Graham’s argument is that YA books can be pleasurable, but shouldn’t be the adult reader’s first choice of literature by any means because they simply aren’t meant for an adult.

https://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk/transcript?language=en  The first article by John McWhorter. 

http://ezproxy.marshall.edu:2117/pov/detail/detail?sid=328fb3cb-1dad-4112-a211-41ab9375332d%40sessionmgr103&vid=0&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#AN=84783555&db=pwh The second article by Daniel Casaldy and Linda Rice Collins. 

           When it comes to the topic of the devices that are now at our disposal, most of us will readily agree that these devices have simplified our lives. Where this agreement usually ends, is on the question of are these devices actually making us better human beings? Whereas some are convinced that, they couldn’t live without technology, others maintain that a more old-fashioned lifestyle is a better choice.

           Common sense seems to dictate that writing a formal paper and texting a friend would be basically the same type of language usage. I’ve always believed that there isn’t much of a difference between the ‘slang’ I would use in a texting situation and the words I would write for an assignment.  John McWhorter, speaking at a TED talk event, acknowledges that texting is a type of dialect, but it is not a form of writing at all. According to McWhorter, “What texting is, despite the fact that it involves the brute mechanics of something that we call writing, is fingered speech. That's what texting is. Now we can write the way we talk.” Basically, McWhorter is saying that we would relate writing and texting together as the same type of thing, but according to him, that is not the case. The essence of McWhorter’s argument is that texting and speech spoken to another person are more similar than writing is. Ultimately, what is at stake here is a generation of texters who have two different dialects. This is not to say being bidialectal is a bad thing, it is actually a good thing that we are expanding our catalogue.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/i-had-a-nice-time-with-you-tonight-on-the-app/?_r=1

           Conventional wisdom has it that _________________. Writing in the journal, X says, ____________________. X is insisting that _______________. In X’s view, _____________. In other words, X is saying, __________________. When making these comments, X believes, ___________.

            Conventional wisdom has it that in order to spend time with your significant other, you must physically be in the same room as the other person. Writing for the New York Times, Jenna Wortham says, “Last Sunday, I spent a lazy afternoon with my boyfriend. We chatted while I made brunch, discussed the books we were reading, laughed at some cat pictures and then settled down with dinner, before bidding each other good night. We did all of this despite living more than 3,000 miles apart, thanks to smartphone applications and services that helped to collapse time and space.” Wortham is insisting that she had a lovely day with her boyfriend through the use of her mobile device’s applications empowering them to see each other despite the long distance apart. In Wortham’s view, “Anyone who spends much time online and on a smartphone knows that it’s no substitute for the real thing — it’s just an appetizer that can delight and satisfy until the main course arrives. But that satisfaction is real.” In other words, Wortham is saying the use of applications in order to see someone will never top the satisfaction of a face to face meeting, but can be a nice substitute when you are away from the person you want to see. When making these comments, Wortham believes that the use of applications should not be so quickly dismissed just because it isn’t as pleasant as the real thing, because it’s better than no contact at all.