Week 5, beyond hypertext

1. Montfort argues that interactive fiction is distinctively different from hypertext fiction, stating:

"There is… nothing in the nature of the lexia or the link, those fundamental elements of hypertext, that allows the reader to type and contribute text or provides the computer with the means to parse or understand natural language. […] Hypertext fiction also does not maintain an intermediate, programmatic representation of the narrative world, as interactive fiction does."

In terms of understanding how these two forms relate to/differ from narrative, is this distinction significant? Or are they more closely related that Montfort would like to admit? Discuss.

while i was reading Montfort's paper, i was actually very confused, as he makes the distinction between 'interactive fiction' and 'hypertext fiction'. only after i have read his eloration through the example of For a Change, I managed to get what he means by an interactive fiction: one that requires the input from the users, most likely in the format of commands, to unfold an narrative. Essentially i don't feel Montfort's claim is established and it is highly argurable that he's a bit 'dogmatic' over the issue of IF and HF(hehe maybe it's just my personal prejudice). but anyway let me relate IF and HF to narrative first, and to me the distinction is very insignificant.

 

When describing interactive fiction, Montfort introduced the term 'potential narrative'. to him, a narrative is something linear, a 'told' story. That's why he put the word 'potential' before narrative, because in the case of interactive fiction, the story is 'untold', or at least, told but not complete. It would include a prologue, sort of the beginning of a story, with a setting, or environment for the user to explore. So, in an IF, all exsistents are pre-set, and something else pre-set is the rules of exploration, or the commands. meanwhile the computer would also commit some of its memory (RAM while playing and hard-disk after the user saves the session). this pseudo input-memory-out process completes the requirement for 'interactivity'. however in terms of narrative, most of the 'characters' are minimised to 'non-playing characters' while the only 'playing character' becomes the user. the user creates the narrative from the potential, within the boundary of the programme. That's probably also why interactive fiction itself can never be considered at a form of literature.

There is… nothing in the nature of the lexia or the link, those fundamental elements of hypertext, that allows the reader to type and contribute text or provides the computer with the means to parse or understand natural language. I would not agree on this point, and it is here that i found the dogmatism. Montfort is essentially arguing that the distinction between IF and HF lies in the difference that IF requires user to type in understandable 'natural language' to construct the narrative, while hyperlinks would probably need severy clicks from the mouse. but essentially they are the same function: making a choice. the difference is in the form. nontheless, the user constructs his own narrative through typing in commands in the same way as he clicks his mouse. it maybe argued that IF looks more 'free' and 'liberal' and the command line is pre-set to be empty and the user may type in anything as a choice, as compared to hypertext that everything is on the screen and thus the number of choices is limited. however, if we go deep into the 'diegetic, extradiegetic and hypodiegetic commands as introduced by Montfort, we may just realised that IF is offering the same false sense of choice as the hypertext: the choices are limited by the number of commands or key words, in the same way hypertext builders decide on how may links they are going to build. IF is more linguistic, when for HF, the language part is built-in through the thinking and exploration process of the user.

Hypertext fiction also does not maintain an intermediate, programmatic representation of the narrative world, as interactive fiction does. I would agree upon this point to a certain extent, that IF has a more 'contrived' programme, or plot, while the 'programmatic representation' of hypertexts seem more casual. As in, in an IF, which is similar to an RPG game, the flow of events is fixed, through some riddles or puzzle, e.g., the PC could not proceed unless he obtains certain tools or spoken to certain NPC. Hypertexts, on the other hand, could be more random. IF would require a goal for the user to achieve, which may not be necessary for hypertext. nonetheless, through the empoyment of 'locks', hypertexts may also exhibit the more systematic form of 'programmatic representation. thus, to summarise, although there seems to be some minor distinctions between hypertexts and interactive fiction, they are apparently cousins, if not brothers belonging to a much bigger family, and in most cases, they are much closer than Montfort has imagined.

2. Espen Aarseth defines cybertext as a perspective on textuality, which considers a work as a textual machine, and sees the reader as having to make a non-trivial effort to traverse the text. Discuss whether Scott McCloud's "Carl" comic strip can be considered a cybertext.

Aarseth's definition fo cybertext involves a triangular stability involing the  operator, the mediu and teh verbal. It has jumped out the etymological conflicts with the prefix-cyber, and thus extends the notion of cybertext to many other forms of media which carries the spirit, characteristic and mechaism of cybertext.

 

the 'Caul' comic strip looks like a multicursal labyrinth upon my first glance. whether it could be considered as a cybertext is rather subjective, as the notion of 'non-trivial' may have different standards to different people. To some extent, the comic strip may be considered as a primitive form of cybertext, as the readers need to think and make decisions along the way as they explore the web of frames. however, the decision make are rather trivial. in the first place there aren't much choices to make, and to add on to that, not much logic or thinking is required to make the decisions: it's just a matter of feeling.

3. Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel's "The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play" satisfy Crawford's definition of interactivity? Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?

If i am crawford and i'm asked to give a scoreon interactivity on Fournel's work, i would give 50/100. the reasoning is actually a bit dogmatic.

Crawford's definition of interactivity has two fundamental components: it is the listen-think(memory)-talk process, and the other being that the process must be two-way and forms a 'cyclic' process. Fournel's "the tree theatre: a combinatory play' would satisfy part of crawford's definition. The audience would look and listen to the scence, think about it, and respond to it through some voting process, and the piece of play would be 'respond', as in oriented in the way the audience would prefer.

However, on difficult part to fulfil is the 'memory' component. in this case, the 'memory' is pre-determined through carefully planned script writing, and it could not be change, as least during the play. the relationship between crawford's model in interactivity is two-way: thinking would relate something to the memory, and the memory would be a reference to the thinking process. nevertheless after the thinking part the memory itself would be changed. Fournel's model has only a 'static' memory. the problem of a 'static' memory, together with the problem of choice and voting, would give a pseudo-sense of interactivity, which would be discussed later.

if we look at crawford's interactivity from another perspective, we would observe that the outcome of the response would be very different by different people, because they have different thinking habits and past experience( i.e. memory). however, in the case of 'the three theatre', the introduction of 'choice' reduces the number of possible scenarios from happening. the audience, in this case, are 'guided', and the voting would also imply that some minority responses would be ingnored. Thus, the interactivity as designed here is sheared so as to acommondate the reality of theatre performance. nontheless, the involvement of the audience would definitetly put it under the realm of interactive media, and the question would instead be the degree of interactivity, as put by crawford.
 

Week 4, Hypertexts

1. In "Hypertext, Hypermedia and Literary Studies: The State of the Art", Landow and Delany suggest that “hypertext can be expected to have important institutional as well as intellectual effects, for it is at the same time a form of electronic text, a radically new information technology, a mode of publication, and a resource for collaborative work… Hypertext historicizes many of our most commonplace assumptions, forcing them to descend from the ethereality of abstraction and appear as corollary to a particular technology and historical era. We can be sure that a new era of computerized textuality has begun; but what it will be like we are just beginning to imagine."
   
   This passage was written in 1991, at a time when hypertext systems were available in somewhat limited forms such as Hypercard and Intermedia, use of the Internet was largely confined to academic institutions, and the term “World Wide Web” had only just been coined. Now, 15 years later, comment and reflect upon the impact hypertext has had on the world.

Computerisation has been changing, and is changing the world --- what it looks like, how it functions and et cetera. However, the power of computerisation is multiplied and amplified by the linking of computers into a network, a.k.a the Internet, and hyperlinks and hypertexts are the major components for the 'surfing' of internet to occur. and, unlike conventional methods of information exploration and gathering, hypertexts are changing the mindsets of people --- what and how they perceive the word, and how they react to their perceptions and observatios.

to comment and reflect upon the impact hypertext has had on the world is really a big topic. So let me start with the reading for this work first. In hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies, landow and delany examines the impact of hypertext on literary studies, or more generally, interlectuality and academia. they started off by arguing that the 'mental model of hypertext' buries deep in the academic tradition of referencing and cross-referencing. however on the other hand it breaks down the linear structure of traditional academia as extensive and reader-friendly hyperlinks continuously shifts the centre of the context. Hypertexts 'shifts the boundaries' between the producers of the text and the readers. (yes i avoided saying 'authors' because) the authors, in the context of hypertext, loses the 'authority' in them: they may start off with a beginning, but the readers may construct their own endings, or, the readers may have different paths, or experiences, before getting back to the same conclusion.

Let's go back to the reality of the world from academia. blogs and civilian journalism are offering altenrative perspectives on what is happening around us as well as around the world, and they are merely a few clicks away through the hyperlinks, compared to the hustel of flipping through newspaper and magazine articles. and essentially you and equal with the 'authors' of the blogs --- the common denominator of 'netizen' levels all other differences in wealth, power, race, and etc, thanks to the 'virtuality' and anonymity (all except IP address) internet gives to us. meanwhile, when we take a broader look of communitie on the internet, we see latent collaborations everywhere, from pure replication to editing to upgrading and et cetera. one example would be the open source softwares receiving contributions from professional or amateur programmers from all over the world.

it seems that i've wandered off quite far away. time to get back to hypertexts. landow and delany argue that collaboration invokes the dialectic thinking in human society: the sociable façon and the selfish side. Intellectual properties and copyrights well penetrates into hypertexting, although the violation of such on internet is still difficult to be traced an punished. (nonetheless we are working towards that)

one of the most important impact that the hypertexts have on the world, is how it changes the way people think and perceive things. in the past, bounded the the print media, and later, television, most people are passive receivers of information. in addition, referencing and cross referencing takes too much time and physical trouble. the so called academia, thus, is distant and how in the ivory tower where accessed to relevant resources are more ready. in the world now, hypertexts perovides the convenience of referencing and cross-referencing. in the past, the equilibrium of information source and the readers' acceptance is tilted towards the former. Nowadays, hypertextx reverses the order of the assymmetry.

As the result of the assymmetry, we are perhaps facing the problem of 'information overflow': there is just too much information gathered through browsing in hypertexts are ppl are confused about what to believe and how to structurise what they have found out. because of the de-centering implications of hypertexts, on one hand, people have enough individulism and uniqueness to play around; on the other hand, they find it difficult to make their work stand-out among the others, or in the other words, they need more intuition and thought to 'etheralise' what they find out from the hypertexts.

Week 3, comics are interesting

In his paper "Modular Structure and Image/Text Sequences: Comics and Interactive Media", George Legrady states: "Meaning in the interactive work is a result of the sequential selection of components that the viewer assembles in the viewing process. The viewer can then be considered as someone who actively constructs the narrative through the assembling of fragmented or modular information elements. The sequential sum of viewed selections becomes the narrative." This approach to interactivity is reflected in his work Slippery Traces.

Discuss how this approach to constructing a narrative changes the roles of the reader and the author in the process of narrative transmission.

ok, to start off, we need to look at the 'before and after' effects when we talk about changes.

it sounds a bit cliché to me. In old narratives, authors are generally given the 'authority', as suggested by the name 'author'. Be it films, books, symphonies and etc, the author did the job of choice and selection, as well as sequencing and making sure that it begins with a beginning and ends with an ending. He has to ensure that kernel is kernel, and satellites are satellites. The readers, on the other hand, are quite obedient. they may not be satisfied with how narratives is going on. they may not want to see their heroes or heroines fall into the traps and hardships; however, the author has decided the plot, and all what the reader could do is to follow the linear narrative towards the end, and at most complain to his/her friend about the unneccesary trouble the heroes/heroines have gone through. well, but relating to personal experiences, this is the interesting and fun part of such 'non-interactive' narrative transmission. you try to put yourself in another's shoes as you follow the plot. it would be, actually, very dull if the plot is kind of 'flat'.

then we talk about legrady's approach to construct his narrative transmission. Firstly, there is the 'blurring', or breakdown of the distinction between the author and the reader. the author, in this case, would still do the choice and selection job, and a little bit (well actually it's quite A LOT) of sequencing, but putting all those links and hyperlinks. The readers would do most of the sequencing job, and construct 'their own narratives'. the reason that i used the inverted commas is that, if we think twice, the narratives are not entirely the readers' own. yes, they make their choices and go through their own paths, however, the linkages between the nodes are pre-set by the author. Does the reader really gets what he wants? i guess that the answer is a partial yes or partial no. what the reader really get, after 'constructing' his own narrative, is always a mediated version from the author of the work. or to put in other words, in the 'old narratives', the author rigidly fixed the events, existents and settings, while in 'interactive narratives' as suggested by Legrady, the author provides choices for events, existents and setting, but subtlely confines the way the reader reconstruct the narratives, through pre-set computer programming, i.e., the limit for the reader's 'play'.

we may view from the other perspective of 'transcoding'. it appears to me that the author in Legrady's cases, are becoming the collectors and moderators of some kind of database, the computer media is the interface while the readers become the users of the data base, who would search and construct their 'narratives' thanks to the benefits of digitalisation, modularity, variability and automation. so maybe we can view it as an example of how the cultural layer of computerisation gives its impact on the metamorphosis of narratives.

Picture narrative
just couldn't upload all my photos here. so pls visit the link below
http://sg.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/zhouxiang_85/slideshow?.dir=/180bscd&.src=ph

Write about the narrative that your group has chosen for project 1. Why have you chosen this work? How might you approach the task of re-configuring it as an interactive piece? Be prepared to discuss your group’s choice of work in class on Thursday.

Well we haven't really decided. two options now. one is to run lola run. we would do the snapshots of the movies and rearrange them into some other sequences in which the readers may make decisions at branching points. captions may also be added so that the same picture may have different meanings in the plots. and maybe, from nani's point of view for the narrative. the other idea is the snow white story. kind of play. the setting is like in a trial. the snow white and the queen would defend for themselves while there would be witnesses as well. the gist is to present the narrative from different perspectives, and in the end, allow the audience to choose who should be punished.

so basically thanks to modularity and digital representation we are able to do such kind of projects. we try to get the involvment of the audience, letting them to make the decisions, thus achieving kind of interactivity. the branching of pictures provides opportunities for the readers to construct their own narratives and have different endings, different from the fixed plots in old media