into the world Rotating Header Image

SURVEY – Role Playing Games: Creating Character; Creating Gender

Role-playing lets us live a fantasy—to be who we aren’t. Through our imaginations and gameplay, we create our characters. Interactions with other players and other characters help to shape our characters’ personalities, until we know how they feel, how they speak, and how they move.

Role-players who are interested in describing their own experiences in different game formats are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Heather Osborne, a graduate student in the School of English at the University of Liverpool. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between people’s gender and sexuality and the creation of their RPG characters’ gender and sexuality. The study focuses on narrative RPGs (threaded tagging) and MMORPGs (Massive Multi-Player Online Role Playing Games).

If you are:

o over 18
o fluent in written English
o a role-player with at least three months of consistent participation in either a narrative RPG or an MMORPG

then you are invited to take the survey.

For more information:

Link to Participant Information Sheet and Survey

Principle Investigator: Mr. Andy Sawyer – asawyer@liv.ac.uk
Student Investigator: Ms Heather Osborne – hkosborn@liv.ac.uk

Ethics Approval

The road towards ethics approval has been a long and winding one! I think, however, most of all it has been a valuable one. My undergraduate degree in sociology offered me the theoretical background I needed (and indeed, small assignments in which we had to do a mock ethics application as part of those courses). Coming into the University of Liverpool, I had no idea that I would need to apply for ethics approval, let alone what the requirements would be once I decided I did.

Several factors brought me to the decision to write my dissertation on the topic of internet communities and role-playing games. Continue reading →

I will tell you a secret

About me and constructive criticism.

On the one hand, I love it. I love to know that people have engaged with my work; that they’re not letting me rest on my laurels; that they and I share a worldview and an understanding that striving to improve is a positive thing. I love it when I can see that my critter’s right, and they’ve made a point that washes over me like the rising dawn. Epiphanies! Yes, if I did that, it would be better! Whether editing with a light hand, or taking in larger, overarching changes that I can apply wholly to a later work, the right criticism at the right time can feel like it’s sharpening my vision and broadening my horizons, both at once. I will always ask for concrit on my fiction. I will always be grateful when I receive it. I will always be sad when someone whose opinion I trust isn’t willing, for whatever reason, to trust me enough to know that I’ll take their comments well.

But on the other hand, concrit can be intensely, painfully difficult to receive. Continue reading →

ZaratHOUSEtra – The Flawed Character?

This is the fifth in a series of five posts. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).

Thank you to everyone who has expressed interest in the project and who have followed the posts. The original French versions can be found at Bernadette Dahan-Delelis’ blog, http://zarathousetra.net.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Download the PDF version – Please right-click save as.
Download the complete series of five articles in PDF form – Please right-click save-as.


ZaratHOUSEtra

Advertisement for House, MD in which Hugh Laurie is encircled by snakes.

As The Philosopher Nietzsche Once Said

by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis

bdahandelelis@hotmail.fr

translation by Heather Osborne

heather.k.osborne@gmail.com

http://heatherosborne.speculative-fiction.ca

The Flawed Character?

     So learn to laugh beyond yourselves.
     Lift up your hearts, ye good dancers, high!
     Higher! And do not forget the good laughter.

     Thus Spake Zarathustra, Fourth Part: The Higher Man.

The Superman must be joyous. Because he is beyond man, even his joy must be greater: “Learn to laugh beyond yourselves!”1 In all of Thus Spake Zarathustra, we find recurring references to laughter, to singing, and to dance. They are among the fundamental characteristics of the Superman. Conversely, House is anything but a character who is happy to be alive. The adjective that is most often used to describe him is “miserable.” Suffering from chronic pain in his leg, he can never dance. Neither does he sing. He hums only when, by chance, he is content. He laughs rarely, and even more rarely “laughs beyond himself.” Does the comparison between House and the Nietzschean Superman no longer apply on a point as fundamental as this? As House would say, “It doesn’t fit.”

Continue reading →

ZaratHOUSEtra – The Death of God and the Advent of the Superman

This is the fourth in a series of five posts. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

The French versions of the articles have now been posted at http://zarathousetra.net.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Download the PDF version – Please right-click save-as.


ZaratHOUSEtra

Advertisement for House, MD in which Hugh Laurie is encircled by snakes.

As The Philosopher Nietzsche Once Said

by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis

bdahandelelis@hotmail.fr

translation by Heather Osborne

heather.k.osborne@gmail.com

http://heatherosborne.speculative-fiction.ca

The Death of God and the Advent of the Superman

     God hath died: now do we desire—the Superman to live.
     Thus Spake Zarathustra: Part Four: The Higher Man

House, like Zarathustra, has no doubt: God is dead. For House, this signifies that no disease is caused by divine will and that no solution will come from prayers or miracles. This idea is developed throughout the series, but it is particularly evident in the nineteenth episode of season two, “House vs. God.”

Continue reading →

ZaratHOUSEtra – The Functioning of the Solitary

This is the third in a series of five posts. (Part 1, Part 2).

The original French versions of the articles will be found at http://zarathousetra.net.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Download PDF version – Please right-click save-as.


ZaratHOUSEtra

Advertisement for House, MD in which Hugh Laurie is encircled by snakes.

As The Philosopher Nietzsche Once Said

by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis

bdahandelelis@hotmail.fr

translation by Heather Osborne

heather.k.osborne@gmail.com

http://heatherosborne.speculative-fiction.ca

The Functioning of the Solitary

     There are many divers ways and modes of surpassing: see thou thereto!
     Thus Spake Zarathustra, Third Part: Old and New Tables

Given that there are no ready-made recipes for man to surpass himself, each individual must use his own ways to attain that level. For House, it is essentially in the practice of his art that we can detect his methods: on one hand, through his relationships with everyone who surrounds him in the hospital, and on the other, his ways of working and thinking.

Continue reading →

ZaratHOUSEtra – Solitary Spaces: House’s Office, Greg’s Apartment

This is the second in a series of five posts. (Part 1).

This is the second of five articles by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis, translated and posted with her permission. The original French versions of the articles can be found at http://zarathousetra.net.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Download the .PDF version – Please right-click save-as.


ZaratHOUSEtra

Advertisement for House, MD in which Hugh Laurie is encircled by snakes.

As The Philosopher Nietzsche Once Said

by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis

bdahandelelis@hotmail.fr

translation by Heather Osborne

heather.k.osborne@gmail.com

http://heatherosborne.speculative-fiction.ca

Solitary Spaces: House’s Office, Greg’s Apartment

     Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way to thyself!
     Thus Spake Zarathustra, First Part: The Way Of The Creating One.

     Like I always say, there’s no “I” in “team.”
     There is a “me”, though, if you jumble it up.

     House, “DNR”, Season 1, Episode 9

Whether we consider the character of House as a doctor or as an individual, what most often strikes the spectator is his resolutely solitary nature. Before addressing how such a character functions, an analysis of the spaces in which he evolved can clarify the manner in which he has “become what he is,”1 at once in his work and in his home.

Continue reading →

ZaratHOUSEtra – The “Wild Wisdom” of Dr. House

This is the first in a series of five posts.

This past summer, I received a wonderful opportunity. A mutual friend introduced me to Bernadette Dahan-Delelis, who had written five scholarly articles on the connection between House and Nietzschean philosophy as it is developed in Thus Spake Zarathustra, and she was looking for a translator. The articles sounded fascinating, so I volunteered.

Translation is fascinating work, at once exacting and creative. Working with Bernadette has been a great pleasure. Not all translators have the advantage of being able to communicate with the original author to double-check nuances of meaning. Our correspondence has been amazingly helpful. If, however, any awkwardness remains in the English version of these articles, then it is entirely my fault. The original French versions of the articles can be found at http://zarathousetra.net.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.

Download PDF version – Please right-click save-as.


ZaratHOUSEtra

Advertisement for House, MD in which Hugh Laurie is encircled by snakes.

As The Philosopher Nietzsche Once Said

by Bernadette Dahan-Delelis

bdahandelelis@hotmail.fr

translation by Heather Osborne

heather.k.osborne@gmail.com

http://heatherosborne.speculative-fiction.ca

Introduction

Many things have been written about the character of Dr. House, and numerous analogies have been made in particular between him and Sherlock Holmes. David Shore himself did not hide the fact that he modelled his character on that of Conan Doyle, by ‘transposing’ him into the world of medicine.

Continue reading →

Bad Habits

One of my most inhibiting habits is my tendency, however irrational, to believe that opening important emails will cause them to spew vitriol into my eyes, thus blinding me to any possible positive comments the email might contain.

Yes. Think on that. With the original meaning of vitriol, if you please.

There was a point in my life when I was nearly phobic about the prospect of calling people for whatever purpose, important or not. I shook. I had palpitations. I’d do anything to avoid picking up the phone. Never mind that I was constantly assured, by myself and others, that nothing bad could happen to me over the phone. I’m not sure what I was afraid of, in retrospect. That the person on the other end might be mean to me? That they might tell me I’d called the wrong number and–gasp!–would have to redirect me? Or–most intimidating of all–that they might answer no to my questions?

For the most part, I have learned how to cope with my anxiety when calling people. I am quite able to ring up perfect strangers and ask them for all sorts of things. One of my tactics is to deliberately use a “phone manner”. It’s a slightly different voice tone, a very professional mindset (with a lot of honourifics and “thank you kindly”s thrown in), and it is in a sense my shield against whatever perceived threats my hindbrain insists exist inside the telephone wire. Another tactic is to act quickly. I prepare by writing down possible responses I will have to make and questions that I will have to ask, and then I spur my courage to the sticking point and dial before I can back down.

With email, however, neither of these tactics works. The same fears are present: what if the emailer is asking too much of me? Disagreeing with me? Patting me on the head and asking whatever made me think I had the ability to launch myself into such an ambitious project? Furthermore, the lure of procrastination is stronger. No one knows when someone reads her email, so if one doesn’t get a response quickly, one can easily dismiss it as a simple matter of timing. (Nevermind the fact that I can’t live with an unrefreshed inbox.) I can’t shield myself using my not-me manner, and bracing myself becomes less about the “rip it off” school of bandaid removal and more about the “perhaps if I leave it alone the bandaid will eventually meld with my skin and I won’t have to remove it at all” school.

Now, I have gmail, and one of its many endearing features is that it offers a snippet of the email text right there in my inbox! You’d think that seeing the snippet, “Sounds good, I only have one question,” should not lead to me assuming that the one question in question is “Are you out of your ever-lovin’ mind?” And yet I am constantly making such assumptions! Procrastination is the only viable technique under such circumstances.

As you may imagine, I am writing this post while my inbox mocks me with not one, but two, important emails regarding a project that I myself conceived and pitched, on my own initiative, to quite positive response. The people the emails are from have been quite supportive, and I can only imagine that they’ll continue to be supportive, but, well…before I opened their emails, I thought I’d just pause to write this post.

Hey, wouldn’t you know it? They’re positive!

What bad professional habits do you have that make no sense but that inevitably trap you in their insidious grip?

Baby’s First Master’s Essay

Two novels that best exemplify the arbitrary nature of the science fictional label are Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Sheri S. Tepper’s The Gate To Women’s Country. Published contemporaneously in the late 1980s, both novels arise out of the second wave feminist politics of the 1970s. Each centers around themes of women’s power and influence in society and how their power is linked to their fertility. Each implicitly condemns patriarchal privilege by depicting how both men and women are harmed and restricted by extremism in defining gender roles. Most tellingly, each is equally deserving of the science fictional labels “near-future” and “post-apocalyptic”. Yet The Gate To Women’s Country was published as science fiction as a matter of course, whereas The Handmaid’s Tale was published as literary fiction. At what point, therefore, might we say that The Handmaid’s Tale ‘becomes’ science fiction, given its striking similarity to The Gate To Women’s Country? What plot elements, details of characterization, or aspects of setting mark the difference between the two? Or, alternatively, is there an explanation beyond the texts that gives them their distinct classifications? I argue that the label ’science fiction’ implies a continuum, upon which these two novels are adjacent but not identical. However, marketing strategies and the authors’ own publishing histories also plays a part in the creation of the science fictional label, if not the science fictional content of a particular work.

This is the introduction to my first assessed essay for my Master’s course. The module is Genre Definitions. So far we’ve mainly agreed with Paul Kincaid ["On the Origins of Genre", Extrapolation. Kent: Winter 2003.Vol. 44, Iss. 4; 409-420] that “The label ’science fiction’ suggests a hybrid form, not quite ordinary fiction, not quite science, yet partaking of both.” Which…is great, but doesn’t actually get you anywhere. Kincaid’s argument is that there are many overlapping areas that can or might occur in a work designated as science fiction; that, in fact, science fiction is the center of a great big Venn diagram. He cites Darko Suvin’s concept of cognitive estrangement, Brian Adiss’ insistence on the Gothic in order that Shelley’s Frankenstein might be included as an ür-text, and Damon Knight’s homily that science fiction is “what we mean when we point to it”. Still no dice as to saying why Tepper’s Gate should be SF while Atwood’s Tale isn’t. So I argued that it was all the publisher’s fault!

However, I think it was a weak essay. I spent too long detailing the novels’ plots (they really are strikingly similar) and not enough time on the politics of publishing (if that indeed was going to be my primary argument). The problem was I had no secondary sources to back up my publishing argument. I think I’d have more if I’d focused more on Atwood and Tepper as individual authors. The problem there being that Atwood has scads of scholarly articles written about her and Tepper has very few.

Still, in 1500 words (I took the liberty of writing 1800), it’s very difficult to get down to brass tacks, as they say. I’m beginning to think I could really write something telling about these two if I was given the proper scope. So this is one idea for my dissertation: to compare and contrast Tepper’s and Atwood’s careers and oeuvres, with the goal of proving that their feminist themes link them far more than their treatment of the fantastic separates them. Indeed, that it doesn’t separate them at all–because Atwood is far more fantastic than even her PR plebes would have you believe.

I think I’ll spend December on those thoughts, after I’ve failed at Nanowrimo.