Beyond Hypertext

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 than Montfort would like to admit? Discuss.

Perhaps the first distinct difference would be the co-authorship in the narrative for interactive fiction but for hypertext, the user is really just a reader.

Another difference is that while the user explores the space and existents in narrative by interacting directly with system in interactive fiction, he does so in hypertext by just “hitting” the texts.

Both offer some extent of illusion of choice offered to the reader as to the sequence of discourse of the narrative, though interactive fiction more than the hypertext. For example, given 2 similar settings, say a castle in the narrative. If I were the user of the hypertext form, I would explore the castle in a rather pre-ordered sequence (though with some permutations) set by the author. Whereas if I were the user of the interactive fiction form, I would feel like I’m given the option of really choosing where to go. To quote from Montford, “..the sense of exploring a new world or space, independent of the events that transpire in that space and are narrated..” Of course there are exceptions, like the author could block you from accessing the tower of the castle first by a “>you cant enter here- yet” response. Which was why I used the words “illusion”.

I think that the medium of discourse is essentially the same- using (limited) texts.

Even more so, it seems to me that both hypertext and interactive fiction are really not much different. Compared with a book, yes. But with each other, the difference is somewhat more in the mind? I mean, all in all the user of both forms are given some choice in the sequence of discourse. But really, it is essentially merely exploring a finite space created by the author. You may feel like you are “really free” to explore the space in an interactive fiction but hey, it is still finite and set by the author, like in a hypertext narrative.

While it is probably true that the narrative in a piece of interactive fiction is co-authored, and hence may be dissimilar, unlike a pre-ordered flow and hence a set discourse in a hypertext narrative. But there lies an intersection btw the 2- users are offered some permutations in choosing where to hit next, and hence different endings. I’m not too good with words, but perhaps an analogy would help: I’m trying to say that in both hypertext and interactive fiction, the user is like a person going through life: he may be in different settings, will meet with different pple or objects, offered different choices, and hence different (or similar maybe) endings. Yeah.

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.

I don’t think “Carl” is really a cybertext. With respect to the structure of the comic strip, only a small part of it seems to fit that of a cybertext. However, since this is a comic strip afterall, there isn’t really much text involved and hence does not fit wholly into the definition of a cybertext.

Looking at the structure of “Carl”, the way it is put together does, according to Aarseth, “centers attention on the consumer, or user, of the text, as a more integrated figure…” The experience of the reader seemingly depends on how he chooses to flow from one frame to the next. Yet, “Carl” is loaded such that it reads more like a webbed chart. In the end, the user gets to experience all of the different possibilites, though sadly the end is still about the same- Carl crashed and died. Only difference is how long he took to die, haha. :P

Furthermore, there isn’t much an ‘inaccessibilty’ issue with “Carl”, I feel. According to Aarseth, the reader “may never know the exact results of your(his) choices; that is, exactly what you missed.” However, in “Carl”, I didn’t miss any inaccessible part of the comic. I don’t think there is any in the first place, nor do I feel like there are “secret paths” for me to explore. It is not what I consider as a tolopological structure of the textual machinery.

Aarseth wrote that “a text must consist of a material medium as well as a collection of words”. It is also hard to talk about the ‘text’ bit of cybertext with reference to “Carl” as there isn’t much text, save those in the speech balloons.

Hmm, and it certainly does not seem like there is some form of feedback loop in “Carl”. Unless one considers the readers sending in their input of what extensions of each scenario could lead to, to the author as one. But this departs from the true context of “Carl” the comic strip. So overall, to cut this short, I won’t consider it a cybertext.

Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel’s “The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” satisfy Crawford’s definition of interactivity

I can never escape Crawford, can’t I?

Let’s recap Crawford’s signature “Interaction: a cyclic process in which 2 actors alternately listen, think and speak.”

Hmm, looks like it is fitting to say that “The Tree Theatre” fit the big man’s definition of interactivity.
Why? For the most obvious reasons of course- the actors ‘speak’, the audience thinks, then ‘speaks’ by voting, and the the actors ‘speak back’ by acting out the favoured scenes.

But there are other considerations too.

First, I must say that the thinking process is a bit too minimized here. For instance, the actors don’t really think about the audience’s respond. They simply count the majority of votes, then act out what was pre-planned.

Second, even for the unique audience, the play is not really interactive for that particular audience whose votes always fall on the losing side (oh dear!) since the response by the other party, the actors, don’t correspond to the output of that particular member of the audience.

Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?

The interactive part is largely satisfied, going by my understanding of the big man’s definition.

Let me recap what was said about interactive media: “any means of (often technologically mediated) communication which enable mutual influence or exchange of ideas” and “implies a certain amount of choice or control on the part of the user.”

Well, “The Tree Theatre” would have been considered a good instance of interactive media if only it were somehow, I feel, technologically mediated.

…and I finished my work... *whee!* :D

Hypertext and non-linearity

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.

Hmm, hypertext has played a significant role in shaping the way we access and source information via the world wide web.The good thing is that we get a huge variety of information ready at the click of a ‘search’ button. (… the ‘search’ button itself is a form of hypertext right? =P) We are free to link and trace different bits of information which are sorta related. For instance, Wikipedia provides users with links to relevant articles- I see this as a form of er, ‘encouraging’ greater knowledge inquiry. Thus students like us (or I mean myself, rather, haha!) would rather hit the ‘search’ button rather than the library for extra information.

(Instead of just pulling the Dictionary from the shelf, I just go to http://dictionary.reference.com) :D

I guess I can also say that hypertext had enabled the linkage or grouping of somewhat-related online texts together, creating some form of order in this pool of textual diarrhea on the Internet!

The not-so-good thing is that we seem to be overwhelmed by the hyper hypertexting involved in the internet. As what my classmate had mentioned, the commercial world has weaved a lotta product ads into the hypertexts at seemingly non-related web pages. Even my email messages are sometimes linked to commercial pages! Oh well. Maybe cos of sponsorship...

Mm, I think hypertext in general has generated some order in the knowledge-flooded Internet via the linkage of related texts, but has also made information sourcing at times a “needle-in-a-haystack” hunt. (Especially when precise and vetted information is needed.)

Good nite (click =P).

Image/ Text Sequences

1. 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.

Basically, I think that while part of authorship is conferred to the reader, the author still anchors most of the narrative. This can be somehow likened to the author providing the skeletal framework structure from which the reader fills up the meat himself. How ‘juicy’ the meat is depends almost entirely from the reader!

Well… might be a bad thing for both author and reader as the latter might slowly lose interest in trying to fill up the skeletal structure, especially if he or she is one whose mind is waiting for an input narrative - a clear discourse of content. As such, this reader might find him or her interest waning in getting through ‘Slippery Traces’ for example due to the heavy inferencing involved.

Some readers might not be keen on taking up this authorship.

… but if the reader is one who fills the gap pro-actively, it’s possible he or she might eventually ‘go off the tangent’ and break out of the author’s skeletal framework. Too juicy.. :P
Can an author ever become a reader of his own work? Why not? If I were (haha, I wish!) to create something like the puzzle-like comic strips like McCloud had, and re-create my works based on requests/feedback/ideas from the active readers, then in this sense, I sorta become the reader, and the readers, authors! So this is like a volleying of ideas where reader and author takes the ball alternatively.

2. Choose a set of 5-10 images that you feel form a narrative. If they are not digital images, scan them into the computer (there’s a scanner available in the USP multimedia lab). Arrange them in a linear sequence on your blog. You may or may not want to include text captions with each image.Bring a physical copy of your images to class on Thursday. We’ll be using them as part of an in-class exercise.

(From left to right, top to bottom row)



1. setting of narrative
2. people involved (some)
3. anticipation-player
4. anticipation2-audience
5. climax (sorry - from big stadium to high school bball court!!!)
6. victory -ends :)

Before i get sued...
Image1 from: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~dgersh/rockets.htm
Image2,4&5 source hyperlinked on images
Image3 &6 from:http://www.wcsn.com/sport/index.jsp?id=34006

3. Write about the narrative that your group has chosen for project 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.

Description: Basically, our group has chosen to splash our favourite (Ahem!) childhood fairytales, poems, and singalongs into a game using hypertext and Macromedia Flash.

Re-configuration to an interactive (sorry, Crawford!) piece: The user starts off in the forest-cum-woods land, where he can choose where he wanna venture into e.g. the castle or the London bridge (oh no, our map is not geographically sound! ..afterall there's the Neverland.. Neither does it make much sense – ah but that’s the fun bit!) after he has his character.

Everytime he has to complete a small task or mission wherever he ventures to collect some object from a particular fairytale scenario. The game ends when he dies or after he has successfully completed his mission *Endings yet to be revealed to avoid preliminary disappointment*

Why choose this work?: The original input was suggested by Holly, and we all concurred cos fairytales and the like are something that most of us can click with, and hence it would be (hopefully lah) user-friendly to the player. Of course, this would allow us to warp some details in the classic fairytales for surprise effects :P

Prepare to discuss your group’s choice of work: Oh yes we are! – sorta. :P

Brainwave after class...

Better blog ‘em down before they escape my memory!

Okay, here goes..

1. 
   Somehow when we got on to the issue of “authorship”, I was thinking of Wikipedia. Yepps, I find it a somewhat more ‘interactive’ (boy, sure feels uncertain when I use this word nowadays- I can almost feel Crawford's laser glare beaming at me somewhere halfway across the globe.) encyclopedia, cos anyone is free to input and edit. Perhaps the dangerous part would be when the information input has errors, cos there prob isn’t any editor to verify the information is correct at any point of time.
2. 
   I’ve always thought of time as this grey or fourth dimension – cos it’s just something intangible that “pushes us along in life”. To me it’s something to be reckoned with, for it is unstoppable! It has never occurred to me that time can be “broken up” in comic strips. Playing with time. Cool.
3. 
   When I saw McCloud’s puzzle-like comic strip during lesson – my initial reaction was ‘WOW, cool!’ (hee hee, obviously I had yet to do my readings by then :P ah well.) But as this chap in class pointed out, “I get confused … so, what’s going on?” I can see where he was coming from (.. from the Arts faculty! ok, why do i get the feeling that i am dee only one amused BY MYSELF here???) I think he was looking for a meaning in the narrative. Perhaps when too many a linkages are presented to the user, the meaning gets split up and lost through so many nodes, leaving the user dissatisfied. So in the end, McCloud’s puzzle-like comic did puzzle us afterall.
4. 
   Perhaps when McCloud tried to squeeze in more node-like frames, he created more satellites than kernels, hence the little confusion from us.
5. 
   When Mr Mitchell showed us the postcard example, I was thinking to myself how such a narrative can be compromised with increased inference from the user, when he or she attempts to construct some meaning?
   
   Argh.. i cant think anymore. More brainjuice, please. Sleep screams at me.

Good nite =)