Whattya know it, I am not a poet. But I am a person who is troubled by a couple parts of Gee’s narrative. I am a person who tried poetry to express him/myself about this issue. In my extended, non-poetic argument, I wonder when considering how certain economic classes are better prepared for school because of familiarity with or situated literacy in academic language, I have got to wonder if there is more to it than just discursive literacy at play here. I mean what about the practice or the situatedness in sitting for long amounts of time like one would in a classroom environment. What about a situated literacy regarding how one is allowed to interact with an adult as we have previously read about? Maybe I am being a bit unfair. Gee is emphasizing verbal ability, but I do recall he does mention the importance of modes of communication, he does have a chapter called Simulations and Bodies, and he does have a good quote about the body, “Don’t just check bodies at the door like guns in the old West” (39). But, but, but, if practicing (not sure if this is the right verb) situated literacy is the way to go to promote or improve or generate literacy, I’ve got to know is it really possible to create this in a classroom in which all residents are captive? Gee’s examples where students are situatedly learning and manipulating portals, it seems as if choice is always part of the equation. Pokemon, Deus Ex, World of War Craft, and THE Jim Haendiges’ baseball cards are all choices. The learners are choosing—I think Gee notes this too—to learn. They can also choose not to learn or quit or try a different game. In other words, they are not captive. So I’ve got to ask, “Does being a captive in a school affect the practice of situated learning?” And “Does the physical layout of a school affect this practice?” And, lastly, does anyone feel that Gee gives a compelling answer for these young people when he asks, “Why school?”

When I called James Paul Gee on the phone last night (his number is on the Internet), why did Kenneth Burke answer?
Gee:
“I argue that throughout this book that learning is about identity and identification” (37).
“So something has to come even before good learning principles. What has to come before is motivation for extended argument” (60).
Burke:
“you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his” (not at school so source is http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html).
Rhetoric is “The use of words by human agents to form attitudes or induce actions in other human agents” (http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html)

Would a melding of these intellectual giants reveal anything for further study?
Examples:
I argue that throughout this book that rhetoric is about identity and identifcation
Learned=Rhetoric is learning
You learn a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his
Rhetoriced=Learning is rhetoric
Overall reflexive arc: R(hetoric)—M(otivation)—L(earning)—R.