Blog Post Week of 6/15 – Toni

In Bogost’s article I do not get a firsthand sense of whether he agrees or disagrees, neither in the beginning nor at the end.  In fact, I don’t see much of a point of view of his at all. He even ends with a question that comes across as an incomplete sentence. I suppose he could be quite a rhetorical genius in this regard, as I did not feel he was arguing, persuading or had any agenda whatsoever, other than displaying information effectively.  And by effective, I mean, easily palatable and interesting for most any reader.  He is telling just what is needed from the personal experiences of Webb and how her questions formed and took her research up stream, to technical jargon that is supported by confident quotations. However, he is neither agreeing nor disagreeing nor agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. Or I cannot find places that allude to this in the piece.  He gives us a lot of good information, and I was given what I needed to follow along and continue to gain curiosity by what Webb and other’s like Bobb were arguing, both of whom were very clear on their points-of-view, in helping us to understand (lack of) diversity in tech; Bogost doesn’t even seem undecided.  It seems he does agree with both, he agrees with the problem and he also agrees with how they both disagree. However, even when he’s speaking of his own association with holding faculty positions at Georgia Tech’s Constellations Center for Equity in Computing, he gives the goals of the center and lists activities.  He states they have merit, but also mentions their impact might be a drop in the bucket.  Again, in this passive way there isn’t directly persuasive or argumentative rhetoric. While we read in TSIS this week, that it helps the reader organize around the reading if they know your argument from the start, I am basing this largely on that.  I will say, I did not need his argument to remain fascinated with the information, the examples he chose, and the quality of the writing is simple to follow, but I don’t see HIS argument in this; I hear him supporting other peoples’ arguments at the same time. I am not discounting this, and it reminds me of in Chapter 4 in TSIS, where they are referencing new students not feeling they can be a part of the conversation because they don’t know enough to argue.  While I don’t think Bogost has much of an “argument” and therefore I am not sure where to go with the question of the rhetoric shifts of his argument, but he is part of the conversation.  He’s broadening the conversation by researching, speaking with and illuminating those whom have very strong arguments for what they know, and passing it on in palatable way to the rest of us.