You are here
Using Inform7 to Make Procedural Arguments
Primary tabs
Screen shot of Inform7 interface by Matt King
My students had been studying communities of their choice all semester. For the last unit, I asked them to contribute their perspective on their communities in two ways: first, in a more traditional editorial-length argument, and then through an interactive, procedural text using Inform7. This software is commonly used for interactive fiction. It allows the author to set up different rooms/spaces with various people and objects. The author in turn defines the parameters and rules through which a "reader" can engage with these people and objects. Following Ian Bogost's understanding of procedural rhetoric, creating a system like this allows students to make arguments about their communities through the rules of the system.
Invention, delivery, procedural authorship
Inform7 is the main software, and you can download various versions of it here. (The DWRL has Inform in the applications folder.) This is the main software for creating the interactive text. You might also want students to have access to interpreters, software that can read Inform files and allow people to "play" a text but not change the code. Zoom worked well for me.
You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.
This assignment will include three components: an editorial style argument about your community, the code for an Inform7 procedural argument, and a reflection/comparison section. Your purpose in the first part (2-2.5 pages) is to advocate for a position that you take toward your community. Your argument can take a number of forms, but it should take into account the knowledge and understanding you have gained from studying this community all semester long. The third section of your paper (2-4 pages) will allow you to reflect on your procedural argument and compare the similarities and differences between the two approaches to argumentation. You are welcome to draw on your research and incorporate outside texts in any way that helps you advance your argument.
Specifics
Part One
You should conceive of this section of the paper as an editorial for The Daily Texan. (If you would rather have a different publication in mind as you consider your argument and your audience, perhaps one that you feel is more appropriate for your community, you should identify a specific alternative and inform me before submitting your peer review draft of Paper 3.) There are no specific requirements in terms of arrangement, style, rhetorical appeals, or incorporating sources, but you should draw substantially on the understanding of your community that you have been developing throughout the semester. In other words, this isn’t an opportunity for you to simply share your opinion about the community; rather, it is an opportunity to address some aspect of the conversation around your community and to contribute a perspective that members of the community will find relevant, thoughtful, and well supported. We will discuss different approaches to argumentation and persuasion in class, and you should chose an approach appropriate for your given audience. This section should be 2-2.5 pages.
Part Two
Your work in Inform7 will result in code that can be played as an interactive text. In your paper, after you complete Part One, move to the next page and paste the code for your procedural argument. Your interactive text should be inspired by your community in some way. You might incorporate people, places, social practices, or objects relevant to your community; you might use the text as an opportunity to comment on the community positively or negatively; you might use the text as a means for revealing some aspect of the community’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. There is not a specific length requirement for Part Two, but the code should work and it should be playable.
Part Three
This 2-4 page section should address four prompts: 1) Explain how your procedural argument draws on your community. What did you use as inspiration? 2) Explain how you engage Bogost’s notion of procedurality and how your project embodies a procedural rhetoric. 3) Explain how you incorporated feedback that you received during the testing phase. 4) Compare the similarities and differences between your arguments in Parts One and Two and between the two approaches to argumentation generally.
I introduced students to the notion of procedural rhetoric through Ian Bogost's article "The Rhetoric of Video Games." The next challenge was to introduce them to the software, and here's where things can get tricky. Inform7 can be a difficult and frustrating environment to work in, since you have to follow it's particular coding language. While this language will be familiar to students (it's in English and involves basic sentence patterns; for example, to create a room, the code would be "DWRL Lab is a room"), Inform can be very particular about some things, especially verbs. So, the challenge is figuring out what exact code you have to use to get the result you want. Some students picked this up quickly, but some did not. To help students prepare, I set up a help page with links to resources, videos, manuals (both the Writing with Inform and The Recipe Book manuals), and examples. While I generally encouraged students to figure out the software on their own, I tried to help them trouble-shoot any specific challenges they faced, and I helped them share what they were doing and even the code they created as much as possible.
You can find the full assignment on my instructor site.
This assignment will include three components: an editorial style argument about your community, the code for an Inform7 procedural argument, and a reflection/comparison section. Your purpose in the first part (2-2.5 pages) is to advocate for a position that you take toward your community. Your argument can take a number of forms, but it should take into account the knowledge and understanding you have gained from studying this community all semester long. The third section of your paper (2-4 pages) will allow you to reflect on your procedural argument and compare the similarities and differences between the two approaches to argumentation. You are welcome to draw on your research and incorporate outside texts in any way that helps you advance your argument.
Specifics
Part One
You should conceive of this section of the paper as an editorial for The Daily Texan. (If you would rather have a different publication in mind as you consider your argument and your audience, perhaps one that you feel is more appropriate for your community, you should identify a specific alternative and inform me before submitting your peer review draft of Paper 3.) There are no specific requirements in terms of arrangement, style, rhetorical appeals, or incorporating sources, but you should draw substantially on the understanding of your community that you have been developing throughout the semester. In other words, this isn’t an opportunity for you to simply share your opinion about the community; rather, it is an opportunity to address some aspect of the conversation around your community and to contribute a perspective that members of the community will find relevant, thoughtful, and well supported. We will discuss different approaches to argumentation and persuasion in class, and you should chose an approach appropriate for your given audience. This section should be 2-2.5 pages.
Part Two
Your work in Inform7 will result in code that can be played as an interactive text. In your paper, after you complete Part One, move to the next page and paste the code for your procedural argument. Your interactive text should be inspired by your community in some way. You might incorporate people, places, social practices, or objects relevant to your community; you might use the text as an opportunity to comment on the community positively or negatively; you might use the text as a means for revealing some aspect of the community’s attitudes, values, and beliefs. There is not a specific length requirement for Part Two, but the code should work and it should be playable.
Part Three
This 2-4 page section should address four prompts: 1) Explain how your procedural argument draws on your community. What did you use as inspiration? 2) Explain how you engage Bogost’s notion of procedurality and how your project embodies a procedural rhetoric. 3) Explain how you incorporated feedback that you received during the testing phase. 4) Compare the similarities and differences between your arguments in Parts One and Two and between the two approaches to argumentation generally.
Grading
You will submit three versions of this paper: a peer review draft, 3.1, and 3.2. The peer review draft is mandatory, but it will not be graded. The next two submissions will be graded according to the following criteria. (As you read the criteria, keep the following in mind: “argument” will refer to Part One, and “reflection” will refer to Part Three. For Part Two, you will receive credit for making a good faith effort, although an exceedingly limited or extensive effort can lower or raise your grade.)
“C” paper:
Fulfills the assignment, though there may be some flaws or limitations in terms of general conception, persuasiveness, or thoroughness of your argument and reflection. Is written in a mostly clear and readable style, though the style may have minor flaws (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) that do not significantly impede readability.
“B” paper:
Fulfills the assignment well, with few flaws or limitations. Presents an insightful and persuasive argument and a thorough reflection. Is written in a clear, effective, and appropriate style, with few to no errors.
“A” paper:
Fulfills the assignment with distinction. Presents a detailed, nuanced, and sophisticated argument and reflection. Is written in a style that is vivid, voiced, and distinctive, with few to no errors.
“D” paper:
Makes a good-faith effort but falls short of the assignment. Lacks a clear or adequately developed argument or reflection. Style is significantly flawed (in terms of grammatical correctness, clarity, or appropriateness) in ways that impede readability. Fails to meet the length requirement; or is not properly formatted.
“F” paper:
Fails to address the assignment, or, severely violates basic norms of civility or decency.
This assignment was modeled on a similar assignment designed by Jim Brown. You can find his original assignment description on his website.
For twentieth-century rhetorician Kenneth Burke, the act of persuasion was bound up with identification, that is, with our capacity to identify with one another's attitudes and orientations toward the world and to negotiate this sharing through symbols. Our processes of and possibilities for identification are made available and constrained to some extent by the various communities that shape and inform our attitudes and orientations. From this perspective, our understanding of the available means of persuasion in any given situation can benefit from careful attention to the communities invested in it. The attitudes and orientations circulating in particular communities call forth certain modes of argument and lines of reasoning, and our awareness of these possible channels of identification better prepares us to engage and respond to specific contexts and audiences. This class aims to introduce students to rhetoric as an art of civic discourse by attending to various communities that help constitute the public sphere.
-
- Log in to post comments
Licensing
All materials posted to this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. We invite you to use and remix these materials, but please give credit where credit is due. In addition, we encourage you to comment on your experiments with and adaptations of these plans so that others may benefit from your experiences.