RE: Exercise 5: Beyond hypertext
1. I think that hypertext is seemingly different from IF because in the former, the user just clicks from text to text (or lexia to lexia) to
uncover the narrative. The narrative, I would say, is designed by the author beforehand and there is only passive participation from the user (perhaps like type 1 aided creation?
author ->computer ->work); whereas in IF, the interactor is said to be involved in
generating the narrative. There is no pre-defined text for the user to choose from or input. Instead, the interactor has to experience through trial and error, what to input and what input can make a difference (at least to the experience, if not narrative). In this way, the narrative is formed as the interactor moves through the IF world (type 3 aided creation? author
->computer->reader ->computer->work).
However, the distinction between hypertext and IF in terms of its relation to narrative may not be as significant as Montfort hoped for because in both cases the story essentially remains fixed; only the discourse differs and in the case of IF, perhaps more possible discourses are available than a hypertext! In fact, I do not agree that the IF user gets to generate a narrative as he/she "plays". On the contrary, I think the interactor also merely uncovers the narrative, albeit in a more exciting and less intuitive manner. Hence, although I do agree with Montfort that the hypertext in many ways differ from IF, but I do not see the distinction between how the two forms relate to/differ from the narrative as significant.
2. To answer the question, we need to first clarify the million-dollar qn: what is cybertext?
I still don't understand what a cybertext is, but I shall ATTEMPT to clarify. Simply put, cybertext focuses on what is being read from - the text structure??, rather than what is being read - the content?? In some sense, a cybertext is a system that requires a
3-way interaction between the operator, verbal signs and medium in order to attach meanings to a text. And this interaction is moderated by the
cognitive involvement of the operator, which creates the experience part of the narrative - what Aarseth terms as "narrative control".
If that's the case, then it does seem that McCloud's "Carl" comic strip can be considered a cybertext. In particular, the comic strip's experience seem to lay upon interaction amongst the consumption of
verbal signs e.g. the shape of the panel frames and layout,
and the medium (how it, being a comic strip - medium-, signals meanings of time and motion);
the operator and the verbal signs (how you perceive the layout on p.105 of McCloud's article to be a narrative);
the operator and the medium (how you construct/link the various frames together e.g. left to right, up and down because it's a comic strip). But on hindsight, McCloud's comic strip may just be a mild form of cybertext because the reader somehow is still "powerless" and "impotent". He/she cannot be considered to be facing the risk of rejection since the amount of effort and energy demanded cognitively is cursory. I would say, the comic strip is still more an interpretative work, rather than a work that can be manipulated by the individual which is characteristic of a cybertext. Therefore, I don't consider McCloud's "Carl" comic strip as a good representation of a cybertext.
3. It certainly appears that Fournel's play satisfies Crawford's definition of interactivity (
listen, think, speak). Specifically, the audience is one of the "actors" too, who will listen to what has been acted out, given that think about which decision to take, and voicing out their opinions by voting - all of which affects the narrative. Besides, the "other" actors also go through the listen, think, speak processes because they act in response to what the audience votes for. Hence, I would think that Fournel's play is interactive. Yes it may be argued that the audience don't really think since they are merely given the chance to decide either scenes pre-determined by the author, and not how the scene should be acted out without these restrictions. And according to Crawford, all 3 processes (listen, think, speak) must be performed well; now if the thinking part can't be performed well, then the play by Fournel may not satisfy interactivity at all. Nonetheless, I think what Crawford meant by performing well in this context is to make wise decisions regarding which scene to view upon listening to what the actors have said. Hence, I still do think that the play is interactive in terms of Crawford's definition.
But to consider the play as an interactive MEDIA is another point of contention. First and foremost, it is not a technologically mediated means of communication - it's a play! Although there is mutual influence and certain degree of control on the part of the user, who's also the actor, to allude the play to an interactive media sounds counter-intuitive. It will mean that all text-adventure books, hypertext, cybertext, whatever text are examples of interactive media too! But are they? We can debate till the cows go home... Incidentally, I personally think that Fournel's play is more an interactive media than the likes of hypertext because of EMOTIONS that are being acted out. The play allows the vivid and overt display of emotions due to the script/text; whereas a hypertext can only state an emotion, but not arouse the feelings in the audience/reader as effectively as the former. We all agree that visuals are more powerful than words right? So it makes sense that a play can better
engage the audience to listen,
provoke more thinking and has more
power for the audience to be heard, as compared to a hypertext or text-adventure book. Thus, I would say Fournel's play is a better example of an interactive medium than the others, claimed to be interactive media.
|
RE: Exercise 4: Hypertext and non-linearity
There's definitely a great impact that hypertext has had on the world. Just click on the right-hand column of my blog and you'll see what I mean - the most significant impact is the WWW. It has made possible the selection and linking of individual texts from different locations and time based on individual choice. It also resulted in more than one way of perceiving things and assimilating a story. Seemingly, the degree of control to unfold the narrative has been transferred to us, the readers. As Landow and Delanu suggests, "hypertext breaks down our habitual way of understanding and experiencing tests.... by making visible and explicit mental processes that have always been part of the total experience of reading"; hence having instant access and choice to what happens next not only blurs the notion of who's the author, but also the experience of the narrative.
(kind of reminds me of what Legrady said in the previous reading)Hypertext also revolutionizes "old media" and adds a new layer of meaning to what was before a piece of linear narrative e.g. comics. "Old" comics are designed in static frames, but on WWW it now allows the user to jump from frame to frame at the click of the mouse! We can now form our own narrative that need not be sequential. Check this out -
Zot! Online:"Hearts and Minds". Basically hypertext is EVERYWHERE (at least on the WWW)! It has significantly changed our access to information, making it more convenient; and also affected how we form linkages between 2 or more independent texts, with the mental process becoming more explicit.
|
RE: Image/text sequences
1. When readers can select and organize the frames into a linear sequence, they engage in what Legrady calls "authorship"; the readers are no longer purely receivers of information as established by the author, but also encoders and decoders
simultaneously. That is to say, the role of the reader is to codify language
(determine the signifier - from "assembling of /.../ modular information elements"), which was used to be done by the author, as well as to decipher codes
(interpret what is signified - from "the sequential sum of viewed selections"), all happening during the viewing process. So that the readers themselves establish the narrative through their perceptual filters - they "write" their own story as the story unfolds.
Does that mean that the role of the author is diminished? Personally, I think that the role is instead enhanced! Take
Slippery Traces as an example, Legrady could have just thought of one storyline and let the readers perceive the narrative as such. Instead, he went through great lengths to set up the context for interactivity, classify each image, and determine the linkages between these classifications. Hence the role of the author is made more difficult since he/she has to come up with a network of fragmented elements that somehow has some "pre-defined relationships". I likened the role of an author as the person
laying the foundation and
setting the boundaries, so that readers can build their narrative on the foundation laid and within the boundaries placed. Rings a bell? Well, this reminds me of play!
Thus, I think that interactivity and play goes hand in hand and that the roles of the reader and author become
more involving and
interconnected - without the author to come up with the frames and set the rules for unfolding the narrative or without the reader to assemble and create a meaningful picture out of the selected frames, there can be no narrative transmission using this approach.
2.
I really can't upload the images... I've tried for almost 2 hours... Even when the blog says "successfully uploaded the image"... the image doesn't appear in my post... AGRRRR WHY?? Sorry I only managed to upload the first 2 pics...
YES after much fixing... I've finally uploaded all 6 images at 12.28am!! HURRAY!! Hope it's not too tiny...
3. After a gruelling 3 hour session (7-10pm) of discussion this evening, we've finally narrowed our choices to 2! We can't decide so pls vote! For the first idea, we will be using snapshots; we were thinking along the lines of having decision points where the user can choose which branch to follow and consequently change the endings, hence the narrative and experience of unfolding the narrative. The narrative that we've chosen was Run Lola Run - something that the whole class watched before so that they can better appreciate the mechanisms behind re-configuring the work from a linear to an interactive narrative. We all agree that this idea lacks creativity and is abit too simplistic, hence we could possibly mix snapshots from other movies or create unexpected endings for the narrative(s) of Run Lola Run. Other modifications can include unfolding the narrative through Manni, rather than Lola. That is to say, the user is Manni and the choices he/she makes as Manni will affect the narrative. For this idea, the degree of control is high because the user can change the kernels but the possibilities are limited and pre-determined by us!
For the second idea (Christie is totally mad about it!!), we were thinking of combining play (oh yes... Oscar-winning performance) and still images to make it an interactive piece of work. The narrative we're going to use is Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs, with a twist :) ; Is Snow White really such an angel while the Queen is the devil? Did Snow White really live happily ever after? YOU, the audience, decides! We intend to stage a courtroom scene where Snow White and the Queen will try to defend their case in front of the jury (the audience). The interactivity part comes in when the audience gets to participate not only by choosing who to win i.e. which narrative to believe, but also has a chance to choose which witness to re-examine again and judge the evidences (the still images) shown. All these choices and judgements will require the audience to "uncover" details and "fill in" missing portions of the evidences in order to unfold the narrative. This idea is definitely more fun to work with but requires more than just coming up with different possibilities; it requires us to connect our evidences, scripts of witnesses and co. and what the audience may respond together. We're afraid we can't execute it the way we wanted to 'coz of time constraints.
Given these 2 ideas, which should we go for? hmm...
|
RE: Finally, we get to narrative... (revised after today's lecture!)
1. To set the record straight, I somewhat agree with Manovich's idea that anything represented in a computer CAN BE MADE interactive, but I consider Crawford's definition of interactivity more useful; a medium is interactive when it is able to evolve immediately and over time in response to the user's inputs. Hence, I would consider games interactive, but not a novel or a movie.
According to Chatman, a narrative is a structure independent of the medium, hence its transposability. From what I gather, when a narrative is transposed from medium to medium, the discourse changes; but the story (what is being told) remains intact. By the same story, it doesn't refer to the exact same gestures, words, images used throughout all media; rather it refers to the events, situations and behaviours signified by them.
Does that mean the characters and settings of the story (existents) be the same between different media for it to qualify as being transposed? My guess is that it need not be the case, as long as the underlying story is the same. But then again, story is made up of events and existents isn't it? *blur*
I think one interesting example of an interactive narrative (game) being transposed to a non-interactive narrative (movie, book) is
Resident Evil.
Disclaimer: I am no movie or gaming buff, so whatever discussion about Resident Evil that ensues is courtesy of Wikipedia. The perculiar thing about Resident Evil is that the characters are different in the movie and game. The protagonist of the movie is Alice, an Umbrella trained soldier, whereas there is no mention of her in the game. Instead, the main characters of the game are from a special police task force, mainly Chris and Jill. However, the behaviours of the characters in the movie are somewhat similar to that in the game. Matt and Lisa from the movie were mostly likely modelled after Chris and Claire Redfield. Spence Parks was most liekly modelled after the character Albert Wasker from the games. Hence, one can argue that the structure of the narrative remains the same since what is signified from these characters still evoke the same thought-process - trying to escape from the zombies for example.
The way the story is being told has also changed from the game to the movie. In the former, the game follows a causual sequence in its transformation. For instance, it gives you an introduction to the game and its objectives, then you (the player) will have to fulfil the aims in order to reach the desired outcome(s) - depending on how many people you saved. In the latter, it made use of the protagnist Alice (who lost her memory) to recount important events, leaving us (the viewers) to link these events together and make sense of them.
Can I just double check that transformation of a narrative relates to the discourse? And am I right to say that a story is a collection of snapshots of say events, while discourse a selection of these snapshots ordered either sequentially or in flashback manner? Hmm... The second qn seems to be the case after today's lecture.
Given the above, I would say the structure of the narrative remains intact because the story essentially remains the same - a virus has been released, infecting many people into zombies; a group of people tries to survive this ordeal. That is, the structure is self-regulated.
I would not go into a debate of whether the game, being an interactive media, diminishes the self-regulating property of a narrative structure, 'coz that's gonna be covered in Q2. 2. I think the notion that Interactive media allows for choice and control on the part of the reader/user is misleading. In the case of gaming, this choice is not without boundaries; it is in fact choice or free play, if you like, within a rigid system. For example, you can't stop yourself from getting killed by zombies, given that you've made the wrong decision. You can only restart the game when you're told to do so. Hence this idea of control on the part of the user wouldn't pose a significant problem for self-regulation since interactive systems still work as a closed system - only certain possibilities can occur.
I guess the implication of self-regulation for designing an interactive narrative is that we should make sure all possible choices that the user decides upon should have an effect to the development of the story, over time, if not immediately. But I'm wondering... a different choice leads to a different outcome... does that make the story different and hence not self-regulating?
3. I'd like to use the Lexus MAGLEV interactive ad as an example. (OMG! I can't believe this... I lost a whole chunk of a paragraph when I republished the blog!! I'm too tired to recount my exact thoughts but basically I described what made this ad so unique; it makes use of the Minority Report narrative to lead users to construct an "aesthetic" mental field that the MAGLEV is a cool and speedy car; without having the users to have "real" contact with it. *sob* I hate technology!)
So what's so "peculiar" about such interactive media? I think that being an interactive ad, the focus is definitely on the product. But is that considered "unbestimmtheiten"? It seems too intuitive to be so. In actual fact, the Lexus MAGLEV ad did not explicitly describe the features and benefits of owning a MAGLEV, so describing the product shouldn't be considered "unbestimmt" in interactive ads. However on hindsight, the "peculiar nature" of these narrative interactive ad may be that the events, existents and discourse have to be expressive enough to allow users to interpret by themselves that "hey this car is really good!" (not just "ok this car exists" but what makes it so great aesthetically). Therefore, I speculate that these narrative interactive ads specialize in using a narrator (be it real or implied) in presenting the events to users, so as to lead them to interpret the events in the right direction, as wanted by the companies selling these products. This is exemplified by the short introduction before entering 2054, where the narrator puts into context what we were supposed to do. With regards to what was mentioned in today's lecture about narrative progression as narrowing of choices, I thought that this e.g. fit well because ultimately the only way to escape is by the Lexus MAGLEV - "becomes inevitable..."
Enough said. I hope I made sense. *K.O.*
|
Paranoia...
Yea I realised everyone has sort of given an introduction of themselves on their blogs, except moi! Sorry for the delay, but better late than never huh?
Anyway, I'm a final year bizader, majoring in marketing.
Myth #1 debunked: we marketers do more than lying; we manipulate! haha! Honestly, that's why I chose to become a marketer and not a financier (
myth #2 debunked: maths and formulae are fine with me because marketers deal with statistics too). I like the idea that marketers can manipulate a consumers' minds - yea, I'm a control freak!
A little bit more about myself... I just came back from SEP at the Stockholm School Of Economics. For those considering where to go, I say Stockholm. It's an amazing city juztaposed with cultural and city landscapes. Trivia: It has the highest museum density in the world! Boy, I've never visited so many museums in my life before (
myth #3 debunked: museums are not boring).
As for my knowledge in gaming, computer programming, etc, very unfortunately, it's close to nil. I don't even know what a pixel is. That's how ignorant I am. I don't even understand half of what you guys were mentioning in your blogs, all the games and stuff. If any consolation, at least I'm a fan of The Sims - used to play it till 4-5am. Crazy right? Repeating the same actions over and over again, yet I'm still a sucker for it!
Alright, that's it for my long intro... I'm going for lunchie!
|
Re: So what exactly is this "interactivity" thing, anyway?
Let's KISS*!
1. The Toyota website for the new 2007
Yaris is one e.g. I consider to be "new media"; specifically, the Yaris virtual test drive. Firstly, this form of media exists on the WWW, which naturally means it is
numerically represented. Interestingly, the site is a combination of media objects created from scratch on computers (e.g. the interactivity option) and that converted from analog media sources (e.g. the video clip). Secondly, the Yaris virtual test drive is able to be personalized according to the user's inputs because of its
modularity. That is, a user can choose what kind of tires they want their Yaris to have and which part of the world they want their Yaris to travel in because this new media is made up of independent units, which can be easily substituted using computer programming. This results in
variability - your Yaris can be created and customized on the fly. Thirdly, this site involves "low-level"
automation. It doesn't require cognitive interpretation on the part of the computer when we choose what tires we want because it works within simple algorithms i.e. the four types of tires are programmed already. This is contrary to "high-level automation as examplified by
A.L.I.C.E (have fun!) Finally, the Yaris virtual test drive (computer layer) reconceptualizes the idea of test driving (culture layer), by computerizing it; hence
transcoding a real test drive to a virtual test drive.
I think these principles re-define the boundaries for narrative and play within interactive media. In the past, the story told was the same; only the telling of the story differed e.g. movie, novel. However with the onslaught of interactivity, new media objects are now modular and digitized. They can be permutated and combined to give rise to various stories. For play, the boundaries have been pushed further, giving more room for user to choose or control the outcome that they want.
2. As mentioned by
Manovich, the idea of interactivity basically means computerization; whereas for
Crawford, the idea of interactivity must encompass two actors actively listening, thinking and speaking in an iterative process. Recently, I came across a TVC for a new drama serial,
Cinta Q, on Suria. It proclaims that Cinta Q is the first interactive drama; it allows the audience to decide the ending they want. Based on Manovich's view, this would have been truly interactive because computer programming is used such that different scenes are made independent and variations are possible based on the audience's input. However, this choice doesn't result in much thinking on the part of the producers; but rather a mix and match of already filmed scenes. Hence, based on Crawford's idea, Cinta Q is not strictly interactive. Furthermore, this "interactivity" is not iterative. Basically, audiences can only decide the outcome but not the means to the outcome.
3. I think that
Run Lola Run makes use of narrative, interactivity and play, albeit within the movie with Lola, rather than with the viewers. I think the whole movie was shot to emulate
game playing; Lola has to make decisions and complete her tasks within the time limit, the outcome is not pre-determined, and she gets a chance to "restart" should it be "game over". It also reflects
interactivity because the consequences differed depending on the choices Lola made. For example, in the last round, Lola decided to jump over the man with his leg sticking out and his dog, resulting in a different story being told altogether. Hence, the
narrative element changes with respect to play and interactivity. Significantly, the interactivity concept was also demonstrated with Lola learning from her mistakes and getting smarter with each round played (the dog e.g.).
The above relates to Manovich's concept of
transcoding (cultural layers being substituted by those derived from the computer layers) in the sense that the story and plot is no longer fixed; but incorporates computer programming (including game playing).
I hope I got the gist of the questions in my answers. Honestly speaking, these concepts are still abit abstract to me.*keep it short and simple
|
Now exclusively for Narrative and Play in Interactive Media
I'm gonna use my now-defunct personal blog as my blog for Narrative and Play in Interactive Media module. Why? 'Coz I'm simply too lazy to set up a blog all over again.*
* I took a horribly long time setting this one up. Have mercy on me.
|
