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.
sung by lalala @ 8:31 PM
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!
