Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
1. Both hyptertext and IF work by means of links between lexia chunks and only when pieced as a whole can one gain the entirety of the narrative. In terms of differences, the hypertext still maintains a distance from the reader/user in that he or she take a more passive role than IF, where first-person interaction is a requirement for input of instructions to produce output reactions from the system. Uncovering the story requires more effort on the reader/user because there is neither preconceived knowledge of the fantasy world the story is built in nor a history of the character you are “born” into. As in “For a Change”, nontrivial effort is really needed to uncover the metaphoric coding the language goes through. In fact, all IF demand some form of detective work to be done and thus it provides a high level of satisfaction when one can solve the riddles and puzzles but can in turn render one frustrated and irritated if the game is of a high difficulty. Also, it seems that IF has a higher level of interactivity than hyptertext fiction because you have to physically key in correct commands to advance the plot compared to clicking the mouse on the text, and also the risks involved are higher (you can die) so the ‘play’ component factors in stronger.
In considering the similarities, one could point out that there still is a narrative determined by the author, albeit split into fragments between kernels and satellites. The user undergoes engagement with the text via the computer medium to reorder the narrative and something is changed in this experience – perhaps the story is made much more subjective and personal, forcing the user to more physically re-enter and exit between the real world and the world within the narrative structure so transcoding occurs.
2. The Carl comics are essentially unfolded panel-by-panel in a linear manner dependent on the viewer’s choice of directing the narrative. In a sense there is a physical construction of pictures to form a whole picture of what happens to Carl and control is granted to the reader so he becomes an active participant in the narrative – a kind of authorship. However my problem is that it is rather non-ergodic because the type of effort required to traverse the text is trivial and the kernels are laid out already (Carl will die from drinking and driving). Whatever additional information is subsidiary to the final event and has to be linearly formed, so I do not consider it cybertext.
3. For the play to be defined as interactive in Crawford’s terms, it has to entail the 3-fold processes of listening, thinking and speaking between two actors. I would say it is a creative way of enlisting choice of the audience into the play structure, but it lacks in variety between choices. The 2 choices granted to the audience is limited in scope (at one point the princess always faints no matter what the choice is) and really if the audience returns for consequent shows to see other outcomes they would feel cheated as the outcomes are too similar to give the feeling of true choice. It is interactive because there is a cause-effect going on, but it is interactive on a low scale, reflecting that interactivity might not always be a good or viable thing across different genres.
In considering the similarities, one could point out that there still is a narrative determined by the author, albeit split into fragments between kernels and satellites. The user undergoes engagement with the text via the computer medium to reorder the narrative and something is changed in this experience – perhaps the story is made much more subjective and personal, forcing the user to more physically re-enter and exit between the real world and the world within the narrative structure so transcoding occurs.
2. The Carl comics are essentially unfolded panel-by-panel in a linear manner dependent on the viewer’s choice of directing the narrative. In a sense there is a physical construction of pictures to form a whole picture of what happens to Carl and control is granted to the reader so he becomes an active participant in the narrative – a kind of authorship. However my problem is that it is rather non-ergodic because the type of effort required to traverse the text is trivial and the kernels are laid out already (Carl will die from drinking and driving). Whatever additional information is subsidiary to the final event and has to be linearly formed, so I do not consider it cybertext.
3. For the play to be defined as interactive in Crawford’s terms, it has to entail the 3-fold processes of listening, thinking and speaking between two actors. I would say it is a creative way of enlisting choice of the audience into the play structure, but it lacks in variety between choices. The 2 choices granted to the audience is limited in scope (at one point the princess always faints no matter what the choice is) and really if the audience returns for consequent shows to see other outcomes they would feel cheated as the outcomes are too similar to give the feeling of true choice. It is interactive because there is a cause-effect going on, but it is interactive on a low scale, reflecting that interactivity might not always be a good or viable thing across different genres.
posted by aileen @ 12:25 AM
0 comments
