Week 5 Questions

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.

According to Montfort, interactive fiction (IF) is a work of fiction which requires the direct input by the reader to allow for the story to progress and in the passing, enable interaction between the reader and the IF. It is exemplified by text adventures and employs the use of puzzles to control the revelation of the narrative. Due to this nature, it is often simply assumed to be games. He listed the following characteristics for Ifs:

1. A text-accepting, text-generating computer program.
2. Potential narrative, where the narrative is only produced during the course of interaction.
3. A simulation of an environment.
4. Consist of a structure of rules within which an outcome is sought – the characteristic of games.

On the other hand, hypertext fiction is just the digitization form of the print form, except perhaps the different texts of the fiction are connected by the use of links, or lexia. It is in essence an extension from the print form – the book. Montfort writes that there is no way for the reader to interact with the hypertext fiction by typing or contributing text etc. Hypertext fiction is simple narrative, while IF is potential narrative.

In my opinion, I think that the difference is quite significant. They are definitely of two different natures. Regarding the question of “how these two forms relate to/differ from narrative”, hypertext is unarguably just narrative in digital form; however for IF, I think the question “Is a game is a narrative?” should be answered first, before this question can be addressed. I believe that IF is a game, as do a couple of experts (as suggested by Montfort) and even Montfort himself. Montfort stated that IFs are potential narratives. This statement can be extended to games as well. So are potential narrative true narratives? I feel that they are probably not. Narrative has the main priority of relating a story. IF is definitely not in the same league. No matter how you term it, potential narrative and narrative just do not have the same feel to it.
Hence, in answer to the question, yes, IF is distinctively different from hypertext fiction. The former’s status as a form of narrative is questionable, while the latter is unarguably a form of narrative.

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.

According to Aarseth, readers of cybertext struggle not merely for interpretative insight, but also for narrative control. Cybertext shifts the focus from the traditional threesome of author/sender, text/message, and reader/receiver to the cybernetic intercourse between the various participants in the textual machine. Readers are faced with the risk of rejection, in that the effort and energy demanded by the cybertext raises the level of interaction to that of intervention. Using these guidelines, I would conclude that McCloud’s “Carl” comic strip cannot really be considered cybertext. McCloud gave the readers a sense of control, but in essence, the various paths and endings have already been pre-decided. There really isn’t much control on the level of intervention, but rather just different interpretations. While there are a number of paths, they are not exactly multicursal, in that there are no critical choices.

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?

Crawford’s definition of interactivity involves listening, thinking and speaking. Paul Fournel’s
“The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” relies on the participation by the audience to progress the play. In essence, there are a few paths that the play can take. At each of the critical junctures, the audience will decide by voting (with a show of hands) the scenes they wish to see. With regards to the first question on whether it satisfies Crawford’s definition of interactivity, I think it does coincide pretty well. Unlike conventional plays with only listening and thinking on the part of the audience, in this particular play, the audience speaks to the actors as well to act out particular scenes. As for the actors, they have a further role of listening (to the audience and acting out the scenes as desired).

To answer the question on whether it can be considered an example of interactive media, we can simplify the matter by using analogies. I draw parallel this play to that of perhaps interactive fiction. In IF, the actors and audience act and react in similar fashion. The audience (user) voice out (types in) which path he wishes to take and the actors (simulation) acts out the scenes and then ask for further instruction. Can interactive fiction considered to be interactive media? In my opinion, I think IF is interactive media. It is a means of communicating ideas (story), which is the primary function of media, and it is interactive as mentioned by Montfort. As such, Fournel’s play can be considered as a interactive media as well. As we mentioned, there are interaction between the actors and the audience. Play can be considered a type of media as stories and ideas are exchanged. However, it is probably interaction on a low level. There is restricted number of pre-determined paths/scenes that audience can choose. As such, interactivity is restricted as well.