Non-programmer taking the plunge... Advice?
JSH...@aol.com
Inform Designer's Manual. I am a non-programmer and am currently
writing games in Adrift.
Does anyone know if this version of the manual includes a beginner's
tutorial?
Any suggestions about learning this language? Other than spending all
my free time over the next year studying?
There's probably no shortcut, in which case I'll simply have to put in
the study hours!
But, any advice to a newbie non-programmer learning Inform?
Yikes...!!!
Sara
Kevin Forchione
news:1144198050....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
DON'T PANIC.
Seriously, work through the manual. It' doesn't include the IBG (beginner's
guide), but you can get that from the ifarchive. Just take things slow and
leisurely and remember that questions are what this newsgroup is meant for.
Oh, and welcome aboard.
--Kevin
David Fisher
There is some good stuff out there ... take a look at:
Doe's page - full of pointers to useful stuff, as well as her "Inform
Primer":
http://members.aol.com/doepage/infotips.htm
Roger Firth's amazingly helpful Inform FAQ:
http://www.firthworks.com/roger/informfaq/index.html
The "House" inform tutorial on IFWiki:
http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/House_1_Inform_Tutorial
Have fun ...
David Fisher
Bert Byfield
> the Inform Designer's Manual. I am a non-programmer and am
> currently writing games in Adrift.
That's the primary book.
> Does anyone know if this version of the manual includes a
> beginner's tutorial?
It's very friendly, but officially you should also buy or read
online the *Inform Beginner's Manual* which is also very useful.
> Any suggestions about learning this language? Other than spending
> all my free time over the next year studying?
Unfortunately that is your fate. Don't even think about glulx for a
while.
> There's probably no shortcut, in which case I'll simply have to
> put in the study hours!
Yep. But the IBG will be helpful.
> But, any advice to a newbie non-programmer learning Inform?
> Yikes...!!! Sara
Be patient. Keep trying changes and see what happens. Problems that
look mysterious and awful usually are no such thing, but turn out to
be a comma where a semicolon was needed, and so on. Read error
messages carefully, and look for syntax errors *around* the line
number the compiler gives you, if the line number given seems not to
contain the error.
Bert Byfield
> Roger Firth's amazingly helpful Inform FAQ:
> http://www.firthworks.com/roger/informfaq/index.html
I would put firthworks as number three, right after DM4 and IBG. But
all references are useful. Google finds them if you plug in something
unique enough.
Uli Kusterer
> Be patient. Keep trying changes and see what happens. Problems that
> look mysterious and awful usually are no such thing, but turn out to be
> a comma where a semicolon was needed, and so on. Read error messages
> carefully, and look for syntax errors *around* the line number the
> compiler gives you, if the line number given seems not to contain the
> error.
That just reminded me of my No. 1 revelation when writing IF: Remember
it just has to *read* like the world was there, you don't have to model
the world correctly for that to be the case. IF players are basically
blind and poking at your game with a stick, and all they have to go on
are your words.
But I suppose you already found out about that doing Adrift games.
Cheers,
-- Uli
http://www.zathras.de
Mark J. Tilford
Read the Beginner's Guide carefully, and type in the examples as they
come.
Skim chapters I-IV of the DM. Ignore chapters V-VII. Read chapter VIII.
(Chapter VIII is about game design and is language neutral; you'll benefit
from reading it even if go back to ADRIFT. Appendix B (IIRC) of the TADS
manual is similar; ignore the TADS-related parts.) Don't worry about
understanding everything; this is just so you know what's available, and
know where to look. Look at the examples, and think about how to do them,
but don't worry if you don't see how to do them; many are difficult.
Download the source code to the example games (Advent, Adventureland,
Balances, Toyshop, Museum, Ruins), and a few other games; print them off,
and skim them.
Look through the contrib directory. This is loaded with useful utilities.
Since you were asking about conversation systems the other day, look at
gtalk.h and gtalk.inf.
--
------------------------
Mark Jeffrey Tilford
til...@ugcs.caltech.edu
there...@yahoo.com
So am I. Seems to me the DM4 is written for people with some
programming background. I think it's an absolutely terrible place to
*start* if you're new to Inform, and especially new to programming at
all. It will eventually be necessary (and the non-programming chapters
are a good read), but I urge you to start with the IBG:
http://www.inform-fiction.org/manual/about_ibg.html
(Buy, or download for free)
I found the IBG explained *how to do things* crystal-clear, whereas the
DM4 can be quite appalling in that regard. For example:
1. "Inform regards its source code as a list of things to look at."
Do you find that sort of thing helpful? When he's not explaining how
to code in hexidecimal notation (whatever that is), Nelson is guilty of
maddeningly vague explanations.
2. Endless quotations, comparisons and analogies to obscura, such as
Philip Glass operas, Genesis albums, poetry, history, etc. These
comparisons and analogies fail to illuminate, and seem a self-conscious
attempt on Nelson's part to show off his superior breeding and good
taste. If only he'd put that energy into clarifying his explanations!
You'll be much better prepared to handle the DM4 if you spend a good
long time on the IBG first. You can go a long way with it, once you
start to understand! It's not out of the question that you might learn
enough to write your own small pieces.
The other resources people have pointed you to are good as well. The
DM4, however necessary, is dense and irritating. Put it off, is what
I'm saying. It's good that you have it, but don't rely on it just yet.
JSH...@aol.com
encouragement!
Just don't hate me too much when I come back to the forum saying that
I'm stuck on page 6 of the IBG!!!!
Sara :-)
Neil Cerutti
>>I am a non-programmer . . . .
>
> So am I. Seems to me the DM4 is written for people with some
> programming background. I think it's an absolutely terrible
> place to *start* if you're new to Inform, and especially new to
> programming at all. It will eventually be necessary (and the
> non-programming chapters are a good read), but I urge you to
> start with the IBG:
The Inform Designers Manual was intentionally written in the
style of Knuth's TeX manual. Numerous quotations, asides, and
complicated explanations side-by-side with the basics. But
everything is clearly marked. On your first read-through, ignore
all the stuff marked with (I think) triangles. In addition, the
exercises are not tutorial in nature. Most of them are designed
to show specific features and pecularities of Inform. A beginner
should probably not try to solve them himself or herself.
Graham Nelson necessarily needed to go into detail about things,
since some people will need that stuff now, and everyone will
need it eventually. But you don't have to read it and understand
it all at once. Stick to the basics at first.
> http://www.inform-fiction.org/manual/about_ibg.html
> (Buy, or download for free)
>
> I found the IBG explained *how to do things* crystal-clear,
> whereas the DM4 can be quite appalling in that regard. For
> example:
>
> 1. "Inform regards its source code as a list of things to look
> at."
>
> Do you find that sort of thing helpful? When he's not
> explaining how to code in hexidecimal notation (whatever that
> is), Nelson is guilty of maddeningly vague explanations.
That really doesn't seem vague at all, to me. It is somewhat
vacuous, though.
> The other resources people have pointed you to are good as
> well. The DM4, however necessary, is dense and irritating.
> Put it off, is what I'm saying. It's good that you have it,
> but don't rely on it just yet.
The DM4 is not a tutorial, for the most part. You should regard
it as a list of things to look at. ;-)
--
Neil Cerutti
there...@yahoo.com
Neil Cerutti wrote:
> The Inform Designers Manual was intentionally written in the
> style of Knuth's TeX manual. Numerous quotations, asides, and
> complicated explanations side-by-side with the basics.
I've noticed a lot of academic types will wrap themselves up in their
education as a sort of shield. Frequent references and quotations keep
other people out, except for those in the know. I don't know Graham
Nelson, but it sure feels like that's what he's doing in the DM4. As
if he doesn't want "just anybody" learning how to code up
hack-the-troll games. Count the General Index entries which have
nothing to do with Inform.
> The DM4 is not a tutorial, for the most part. You should regard
> it as a list of things to look at. ;-)
Heh! Point taken. What would you recommend for someone who has worked
through the IBG, but feels the need for further hand-holding? I
thought Firth did such a first-rate job, I wish there was a Book Two of
the Guide.
there...@yahoo.com
Sara wrote:
> Just don't hate me too much when I come back to the forum saying that
> I'm stuck on page 6 of the IBG!!!!
If Heidi dies when you put the nest on the branch, I can assure you,
you'll figure out what went wrong yourself. :)
Andrew Plotkin
>
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
> > The Inform Designers Manual was intentionally written in the
> > style of Knuth's TeX manual. Numerous quotations, asides, and
> > complicated explanations side-by-side with the basics.
>
> I've noticed a lot of academic types will wrap themselves up in their
> education as a sort of shield. Frequent references and quotations keep
> other people out, except for those in the know. I don't know Graham
> Nelson, but it sure feels like that's what he's doing in the DM4. As
> if he doesn't want "just anybody" learning how to code up
> hack-the-troll games.
Yeah, he's limiting it to the elite subset of people who make Star
Trek jokes.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
Neil Cerutti
>
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
>> The Inform Designers Manual was intentionally written in the
>> style of Knuth's TeX manual. Numerous quotations, asides, and
>> complicated explanations side-by-side with the basics.
>
> I've noticed a lot of academic types will wrap themselves up in
> their education as a sort of shield. Frequent references and
> quotations keep other people out, except for those in the know.
> I don't know Graham Nelson, but it sure feels like that's what
> he's doing in the DM4. As if he doesn't want "just anybody"
> learning how to code up hack-the-troll games. Count the
> General Index entries which have nothing to do with Inform.
I admit I sometimes feel ignorant when I play his games or read
the Inform Designer's Manual. But I think it's entirely *my*
problem, not his. I think he writes the sort of manuals and games
it pleases him to write. Why would he intentionally antogonize
people?
>> The DM4 is not a tutorial, for the most part. You should
>> regard it as a list of things to look at. ;-)
>
> Heh! Point taken. What would you recommend for someone who
> has worked through the IBG, but feels the need for further
> hand-holding? I thought Firth did such a first-rate job, I
> wish there was a Book Two of the Guide.
Seriously, read the Inform Designer's Manual. But not from
cover-to-cover, like a novel. Use the manual as a reference book.
Study the chapters that interest or confuse you at the moment.
The style it's written in lends itself to totally immersing
yourself in a subject.
Write little games. Copy working code out of books. The
mechanical process of typing working code into an editor, and
then compiling it and running it, really helps speed up the
learning process. For a non-programmer, typing, compiling, and
debugging can be big hurdles.
--
Neil Cerutti
Strangely, in slow motion replay, the ball seemed to hang in the
air for even longer. --David Acfield
Adam Thornton
>> it as a list of things to look at. ;-)
>
>Heh! Point taken. What would you recommend for someone who has worked
>through the IBG, but feels the need for further hand-holding? I
>thought Firth did such a first-rate job, I wish there was a Book Two of
>the Guide.
I have an answer for this. An actual, non-snarky, good-advice answer:
Write a damn game already.
You don't need any further hand-holding. You may feel that you do, but
you are wrong. You now know enough to start implementing your game. At
some point you will get to a bit where you say, "Oh. I want to do <X>
and I don't know how."
*That's* the point when you whip out the DM4 and start looking for the
example that is sort of similar to what you want to do.
The other thing you should do, in conjunction with "write a damn game
already," is to grab the source code for Inform games you like, if it's
been published. Maybe in one of those sources you will
find something you can adapt to whatever it is you want to do, and even
if not you can learn a great deal about the language by looking at
the way it's employed to do other, interesting, things.
Adam
Kevin Forchione
news:e1425a$1r0$3...@fileserver.fsf.net...
> In article <1144350074....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> I have an answer for this. An actual, non-snarky, good-advice answer:
>
> Write a damn game already.
>
> You don't need any further hand-holding. You may feel that you do, but
> you are wrong. You now know enough to start implementing your game. At
> some point you will get to a bit where you say, "Oh. I want to do <X>
> and I don't know how."
>
> *That's* the point when you whip out the DM4 and start looking for the
> example that is sort of similar to what you want to do.
>
> The other thing you should do, in conjunction with "write a damn game
> already," is to grab the source code for Inform games you like, if it's
> been published. Maybe in one of those sources you will
> find something you can adapt to whatever it is you want to do, and even
> if not you can learn a great deal about the language by looking at
> the way it's employed to do other, interesting, things.
And of course, implement a solution, any solution, whether it's the most
elegant and efficient or not. Once you've gotten your head around the scope
of the problem you can improve on it next game.
--Kevin
Bert Byfield
>> their education as a sort of shield. Frequent references and
>> quotations keep other people out, except for those in the know.
>> I don't know Graham Nelson, but it sure feels like that's what
>> he's doing in the DM4. As if he doesn't want "just anybody"
>> learning how to code up hack-the-troll games.
I started INFORM because I was so impressed with DM4. This medium
(Interactive Fiction) is for wordy people, and the style is perfect
for them. Just look at the carryings-on at ifMUD. Anyone who is
uncomfortable with education and erudition and word play in general
is probably better off learning to maintain carburetors as an
avocation.
> Yeah, he's limiting it to the elite subset of people who make Star
> Trek jokes. --Z
Doesn't everyone? ;-)
steve....@gmail.com
> I started INFORM because I was so impressed with DM4. This medium
> (Interactive Fiction) is for wordy people, and the style is perfect
> for them. Just look at the carryings-on at ifMUD. Anyone who is
> uncomfortable with education and erudition and word play in general
> is probably better off learning to maintain carburetors as an
> avocation.
The problem is bad leadership. While it's sad when a Bert Byfield
writes and acts like an elitest moron, it's miserable when a principle
contributor to the development of IF does so.
Pleasure-in-pretension is holding back the genre today, as
pleasure-in-sarcasm and not-taking-it-seriously held back the genre in
the 1980s.
These risks seem almost inevitable for the genre. Pleasure in sarcasm
was motivated by the guilty sense that we're not doing good work
because being an artist is hard, so we'll act like we're not trying
(lazy teenager is sarcastic when it comes to work, right?).
Pleasure in pretension is motivated by the same thing, and although
sure, the genre naturally attracts people proud of theselves for being
smartypants, that doesn't explain it quite. Pleasure in pretension is
also a guilty one. What "erudition" for the mere sake of showing off?
It's not erudition any more; it's a camouflage.
Hopefully these crutches will fall (and reliques become relics) when
when people *can* actually write something that resembles art, or at
least when the way to this promised land comes into view. In the
meanwhile, it would be nice if the perpetrators became minimally
conscious of how transparent all this is.
Greg Boettcher
> Pleasure-in-pretension is holding back the genre today
It takes a lot of nerve to say that just because you don't like
something, it's holding back the genre. Others do like it.
Greg
there...@yahoo.com
writing "a damn game", but messing around with "a thing" of my own,
just a set of rooms to put ideas in.
(At the same time, I have to recommend to anyone else in the post-IBG
stage to look at "An Inform Developer's Guide" available at
http://www.onyxring.com/. Seems very straightforward so far.)
Neil wrote:
>The mechanical process of typing working code into an editor, and
>then compiling it and running it, really helps speed up the
>learning process.
Funny thing, but yes, I've noticed.
Kevin Forchione
news:1144424867.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that it *defines* the genre, the way
that sarcasm defined it in the '80s?
Personally I think the slant toward erudition and pretention will run its
course, just as the Age of Sarcasm did, though what will replace it remains
a mystery to me.
I believe that the emergance of IF as an avocation, moving forward beyond
its commercial demise, *required* this particular slant in order to entice
and draw upon its core audience, which continues to be college-directed
individuals (i.e. college students, professors, alumni, wannabes, and
perpetuals).
Mavericks lurk on the fringe, but on the whole the field belongs to those
erudite and locquacious individuals who can raise the brow above the level
of the commonplace: Think Fraiser, think Seinfeld.
Gentlemen, and ladies, lets do be proud of our achievements.
--Kevin
steve....@gmail.com
> > It takes a lot of nerve to say that just because you don't like
> > something, it's holding back the genre.
I'm probably particularly motivated to complain about it because I
dislike it, but my objection is not predicated on my personal taste --
at least, I don't think so.
> > Others do like it.
Ok, others do like pretention, no contest. Maybe they can't tell the
difference; maybe they're pretentious wankers too; maybe, just maybe,
there's nothing wrong at all, and they just like, like maybe pretention
is a spot of fun or something. (I'm having trouble imagining this, as
you can tell. But maybe so. If you say so, that's enough for me.)
> Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that it *defines* the genre, the way
> that sarcasm defined it in the '80s?
Pretention seems to characterize some of the works which at least
consider themselves fashionable.
I certainly wouldn't argue that you can't employ these tropes
effectively. I'd probably appreciate Graham's pretentions if he were
self-conscious about it. (Although I didn't like the Legend series
terribly much either; still, I don't find anything really wrong with
it.)
Mike Roberts actually does something very similar to these DM
quotations another poster was complaining about. Most if not all of the
TADS-2 manual chapters have these irrelevant quotations in them, for
decoration and amusement (there's even a relic or two of this in the
adv3 comments). In this case, I thought it was fun and entertaining.
What's the difference? Very simply, Mike, by contrast, doesn't come off
as pretentious. Mike will use a word like "supernumeraries" where it's
called for. Graham will use a word like "reliques" for the mere sake of
archaism. People like unmotivated archaism just because it sounds,
what, smart? Ok, fine, I'm sure they do, more power to them, whatever.
Maybe I'm talking about something very ephemeral to most people, and if
you haven't already picked up on this huge yet subtle difference, maybe
I can't make it any clearer.
> I believe that the emergance of IF as an avocation, moving forward beyond
> its commercial demise, *required* this particular slant in order to entice
> and draw upon its core audience, which continues to be college-directed
> individuals (i.e. college students, professors, alumni, wannabes, and
> perpetuals).
Pretention is indeed something you find more in college, like you find
more zits in high-schools. It it almost anathema to wit and
intelligence (which you also find in college).
> Mavericks lurk on the fringe, but on the whole the field belongs to those
> erudite and locquacious individuals who can raise the brow above the level
> of the commonplace: Think Fraiser, think Seinfeld.
Think Frasier, think Seinfeld, but minus humor.
As far as holding back the genre, well, yeah maybe that's too strong. A
leader's pretention certainly has a bad influence on some writers (and
poseurs), but those who are unduly influenced are probably not the
trailblazers anyway. But it is holding back the leader himself, so I
guess that counts as holding back the genre also.
You know what I'd like to see out of Graham? A prospect he seems unable
to face: an *honest* failure. (Or, better yet, an honest success -- you
can't have the latter without risking the former.) And leave the
pretentions in the reliquary where they belong. But I'd bet my favorite
hankie that his next big show is shaping up to be another mark on the
smartypants board, and the genre will not have progressed an inch. (Not
that it has to, but it just seems to me a wasted opportunity.)
Andrew Plotkin
> "Greg Boettcher" <WRITET...@gregboettcher.com> wrote in message
> news:1144424867.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > steve....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Pleasure-in-pretension is holding back the genre today
> >
> > It takes a lot of nerve to say that just because you don't like
> > something, it's holding back the genre. Others do like it.
>
> Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that it *defines* the genre, the way
> that sarcasm defined it in the '80s?
I think "pretension"[*] defined the genre for a brief period in the
late 90s. But only a brief period; now it's one trend in the mix.
[* If you have to use that word. It could mean either the *attempt to
do something better*, or a *failed* attempt to do better. I hope
nobody is asserting that all such attempts are failures.]
You could say it's still a dominant trend, but only if you clump
together several things:
- the desire to incorporate the "literary genre" (non-SF, non-fantasy)
into IF
- the desire to incorporate good writing (characterization, moving
stories)
- the desire to write serious (non-humorous) IF
- the desire to write serious (not "fun") IF
You can pin recent games into and out of those categories; I don't
think you can say they're all the same trend. (_Dreamhold_ is not
humorous, but it's definitely fantasy. Etc.)
As for Graham's DM4, I don't know where you folks are coming from. I
think his mix of literary, pop-culture, historical, and geek-joke
references is the opposite of pretentious; it's playful. It's all over
the place. If you don't habitually read John Donne (I certainly don't)
then what better way to get a clue about him than to hang out with
someone who is enthusiastic and likes quoting?
(And the same goes for Doctor Who scripts, for those of you who
tripped over Chapter 14 as opposed to Chapter 5.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't shipped you to Syria for interrogation, it's
Andrew Plotkin
> Mike will use a word like "supernumeraries" where it's
> called for. Graham will use a word like "reliques" for the mere sake of
> archaism.
On a game which chiefly concerns whacking D&D monsters with a pointy
stick, and starts out mentioning your aspiration to "...an awesomely
tedious monograph on the correct usage of the 'untangle rigging'
spell." Have you considered hiring a sense of irony?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't shipped you to Syria for interrogation, it's
Adam Thornton
Kevin Forchione <ke...@lysseus.com> wrote:
>Personally I think the slant toward erudition and pretention will run its
>course, just as the Age of Sarcasm did, though what will replace it remains
>a mystery to me.
I sure hope it's pr0n. I'd be all set then.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Kevin Forchione
news:e16b81$f0$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I think that's a good summing up. I don't believe that as a trend this has
has any negative effect on the progress and development of Interactive
Fiction. As a community I would say that our successes far outweigh the
failures. No, to me, it's been a necessary trend, necessary because we are a
very small and very specialist community. We have the apple share of the
market in a PC world. I won't expand the analogy, especially in light of
current developments. As I've said, I would be sad to see the Age of
Pretention draw to a close.
We should be proud of our pretenses, they've not been false ones.
> As for Graham's DM4, I don't know where you folks are coming from. I
> think his mix of literary, pop-culture, historical, and geek-joke
> references is the opposite of pretentious; it's playful. It's all over
> the place. If you don't habitually read John Donne (I certainly don't)
> then what better way to get a clue about him than to hang out with
> someone who is enthusiastic and likes quoting?
>
> (And the same goes for Doctor Who scripts, for those of you who
> tripped over Chapter 14 as opposed to Chapter 5.)
Oh I thoroughly enjoy the style and tone of DM4. It's as much an artistic
creation as any game. I hope that Graham continues to maintain the standard
with DM5. And as has been pointed out, the current TADS manual does similar.
--Kevin
Kevin Forchione
I'm just worried it'll be the IF equivalent of RAP.... the music, not the
library.
--Kevin
steve....@gmail.com
> Have you considered hiring a sense of irony?
I have indeed sir, and in fact I would like to announce a breakout game
on the very subject:
steve....@gmail.com
> I would be sad to see the Age of Pretention draw to a close.
Obviously we mean totally different things by the word "pretention"
> > As for Graham's DM4, I don't know where you folks are coming from. I
> > think his mix of literary, pop-culture, historical, and geek-joke
> > references is the opposite of pretentious; it's playful.
Honestly, I found DM4 abysmal; I mean horrible.
A fan of the book recently explained how you have to read it out of
order -- actually worse than that: how you have to scan one section,
read another, go back to the first, and so on, if you want to use this
as a manual. (Also: why the hell am I modeling shuffling cards? Is that
clever? Further, the language is a train wreck, as far as I understand
it, which, I admit, isn't much; I quit 'round the third wreck.)
IBG is transcendentally better. It is ethical, as opposed to
self-important.
Adam Thornton
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have indeed sir, and in fact I would like to announce a breakout game
>on the very subject:
Breakout in TADS 3? Why, it really *IS* as flexible as Inform!
Adam
Timofei Shatrov
everyone with this message:
It's ironic that when you put your intellect into the machine nothing
happens!
--
|WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING|,----- Timofei Shatrov aka Grue---------.
|(except for ending slavery, ||mail: grue at mail.ru ================ |
| fascism and communism) ||============= http://grue3.tripod.com |
|...and Saddam's dictatorship |`----------------------------------[4*72]
steve....@gmail.com
Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2006 14:00:40 -0700, steve....@gmail.com tried to confuse
> everyone with this message:
>
> >Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >> Have you considered hiring a sense of irony?
> >
> >I have indeed sir, and in fact I would like to announce a breakout game
> >on the very subject:
> >
> >http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~breslin/relique_irony.t3
> >
>
> It's ironic that when you put your intellect into the machine nothing
> happens!
Thank you, sir. You have redeemed my evening. (Adam helped, though,
with his "ITYM 'reliques'" comment.)
Richard Bos
> Bert Byfield wrote:
> > I started INFORM because I was so impressed with DM4. This medium
> > (Interactive Fiction) is for wordy people, and the style is perfect
> > for them. Just look at the carryings-on at ifMUD. Anyone who is
> > uncomfortable with education and erudition and word play in general
> > is probably better off learning to maintain carburetors as an
> > avocation.
>
> The problem is bad leadership. While it's sad when a Bert Byfield
> writes and acts like an elitest
Gorgeous.
Richard
Daryl McCullough
>
>Bert Byfield wrote:
>> I started INFORM because I was so impressed with DM4. This medium
>> (Interactive Fiction) is for wordy people, and the style is perfect
>> for them. Just look at the carryings-on at ifMUD. Anyone who is
>> uncomfortable with education and erudition and word play in general
>> is probably better off learning to maintain carburetors as an
>> avocation.
>
>The problem is bad leadership. While it's sad when a Bert Byfield
>writes and acts like an elitest moron, it's miserable when a principle
>contributor to the development of IF does so.
Well, I'd like to put in another testimonial: I would never
have become involved in IF at all (not that I'm super-involved
now, but I do follow the discussions and have learned to program
IF) if it were not for the fun of reading Graham Nelson's
contributions (and others whom I'm sure you would also consider
pretentious). Nelson's writing is *fun*. Maybe not for you,
but it is for me.
>Pleasure in pretension is motivated by the same thing, and although
>sure, the genre naturally attracts people proud of theselves for being
>smartypants, that doesn't explain it quite. Pleasure in pretension is
>also a guilty one. What "erudition" for the mere sake of showing off?
>It's not erudition any more; it's a camouflage.
What's an example of "erudition for the sake of showing off"? Do
you *really* consider spelling relic as "relique" to be an example?
*How* is that an example? In what sense is spelling something in
an unusual way (unusual for America, I'm not sure about Great Britain)
"showing off"?
In my opinion, what is holding back IF is people whining about what
is holding back IF. That, and gratuitious self-referential posts
such as this one.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Daryl McCullough
>Ok, others do like pretention, no contest. Maybe they can't tell the
>difference; maybe they're pretentious wankers too; maybe, just maybe,
>there's nothing wrong at all, and they just like, like maybe pretention
>is a spot of fun or something. (I'm having trouble imagining this, as
>you can tell. But maybe so. If you say so, that's enough for me.)
I think that I don't know what you mean by pretention or pretentious.
Could you define it?
>Mike Roberts actually does something very similar to these DM
>quotations another poster was complaining about. Most if not all of the
>TADS-2 manual chapters have these irrelevant quotations in them, for
>decoration and amusement (there's even a relic or two of this in the
>adv3 comments). In this case, I thought it was fun and entertaining.
>
>What's the difference?
Mike Roberts is American, while Graham Nelson is English?
>Very simply, Mike, by contrast, doesn't come off
>as pretentious. Mike will use a word like "supernumeraries" where it's
>called for. Graham will use a word like "reliques" for the mere sake of
>archaism. People like unmotivated archaism just because it sounds,
>what, smart?
Sounds smart, as in "If I spell this 'relique' instead of 'relic'
everybody will think I'm smart?" Is that what you mean?
>Maybe I'm talking about something very ephemeral to most people, and if
>you haven't already picked up on this huge yet subtle difference, maybe
>I can't make it any clearer.
Maybe not. "Pretentious" just doesn't mean much unless you
can say what he's pretending.
I think he's just pretending to be English. He's probably
from New Jersey.
Daryl McCullough
>
>Kevin Forchione wrote, quoting Plotkin:
>> I would be sad to see the Age of Pretention draw to a close.
>
>Obviously we mean totally different things by the word "pretention"
Well, then, for the sake of communication, could you say what
you mean by pretention?
>> > As for Graham's DM4, I don't know where you folks are coming from. I
>> > think his mix of literary, pop-culture, historical, and geek-joke
>> > references is the opposite of pretentious; it's playful.
>
>Honestly, I found DM4 abysmal; I mean horrible.
I'm sorry you had that experience, but many people had the
opposite experience. I thought it was a lot of fun.
>IBG is transcendentally better. It is ethical, as opposed to
>self-important.
What does ethics have to do with it? What does the adverb
"transcendentally" mean in this case? Is that just another
way to say "much"?
ChicagoDave
> Honestly, I found DM4 abysmal; I mean horrible.
>
It's shiny and about Interactive Fiction. How on earth could possibly
not love it?
Imagine the level of effort involved in creating it.
Then imagine someone doing it for one of two reasons:
- Graham wrote the DM4 because he wanted inflate his own ego.
- Graham wrote the DM4 because he loves Interactive Fiction.
Since Graham is a professor at Oxford and has other accomplishments, I
can only imagine there enumerable other ways to inflate his own ego.
Therefore the only conclusion is that when Graham wrote the DM4, he was
doing it for fun.
Also it's shiny and about IF.
Case dismissed.
David C.
steve....@gmail.com
> [C]ould you say what you mean by pretention?
Really just the simple dictionary definition, nothing fancy.
"expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth,
or stature <pretentious language>"
> >Honestly, I found DM4 abysmal; I mean horrible.
>
> I'm sorry you had that experience, but many people had the
> opposite experience. I thought it was a lot of fun.
Honestly, I hope you had a blast, and the more enjoyment people get out
of life the better. So good. The intellectual circle jerk just ain't to
my simple tastes.
> >IBG is transcendentally better. It is ethical, as opposed to
> >self-important.
>
> What does ethics have to do with it? What does the adverb
> "transcendentally" mean in this case?
Ethics has a lot to do with expository writing and tutorial, the way I
look at it. If I become a teacher because I want to be celebrated, I
have betrayed my prospective students. If my interest is something
other than getting the point across as frankly and honestly as
possible, I have breached a sacred implicit contract. Now, I'll
certainly allow that what I'm calling pretention, you could look at as
a spot of fun, for the sake of amusement (which certainly has a place
in education also) -- and if you look at it this way, DM4 is perfectly
okay ethically. That's just totally not my reading. (Think of the
puzzles masquerading as exercises; the unnecessary elaborate
explanations -- think of what therealdjc was complaining about
upthread. Or not. Maybe I should congratulate you for enjoying
something I cannot, and stop raining on your parade.)
So, ok, I think I have detected a larger pattern in Graham's writing. A
magnanimous and humble posting about the community and respecting
difference, followed by a snarky dismissal when his logic is
questioned. This gets me thinking... was that magnanimousness a show?
Then I hear what therealdjc says about DM4, and I think again about
what fun I was having with the inflated diction of the recent reliques
title. (To answer your other question, yes: unmotivated archiasm is a
archetypical sign of pretentiousness.) And the more I think about it,
the less I like; I grow increasingly annoyed (naturally hate
pretentiousness I guess). Now, suddenly I'm thinking (and alas,
writing) that this guy's attitude is really counter-productive. But
whatever. YMMV.
Cornelson writes:
> Then imagine someone doing it for one of two reasons:
> - Graham wrote the DM4 because he wanted inflate his own ego.
> - Graham wrote the DM4 because he loves Interactive Fiction.
Oh, well if for some reason I am compelled to choose only one... I
guess you're right. Sorry about the mixup. But if I am allowed to
submit that egoism may have played a part in the framing, I --
> Case dismissed.
Daryl McCullough
>
>Daryl McCullough wrote (several times over):
>> [C]ould you say what you mean by pretention?
>
>Really just the simple dictionary definition, nothing fancy.
>"expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth,
>or stature <pretentious language>"
I didn't find any of that in Graham's manual.
>> >Honestly, I found DM4 abysmal; I mean horrible.
>>
>> I'm sorry you had that experience, but many people had the
>> opposite experience. I thought it was a lot of fun.
>
>Honestly, I hope you had a blast, and the more enjoyment people get out
>of life the better. So good. The intellectual circle jerk just ain't to
>my simple tastes.
I don't know what you mean by "intellectual circle jerk"
or why you think that Graham's manual is an example.
>> >IBG is transcendentally better. It is ethical, as opposed to
>> >self-important.
>>
>> What does ethics have to do with it? What does the adverb
>> "transcendentally" mean in this case?
>
>Ethics has a lot to do with expository writing and tutorial, the way I
>look at it. If I become a teacher because I want to be celebrated, I
>have betrayed my prospective students. If my interest is something
>other than getting the point across as frankly and honestly as
>possible, I have breached a sacred implicit contract.
I think that Graham's purpose in writing the manual was to
teach and to entertain and to encourage more people to become
IF authors. What is unethical about it?
>Now, I'll certainly allow that what I'm calling pretention, you could
>look at as a spot of fun, for the sake of amusement (which certainly
>has a place in education also) -- and if you look at it this way,
>DM4 is perfectly okay ethically. That's just totally not my reading.
>(Think of the puzzles masquerading as exercises;
I don't see why puzzles are a bad thing. They can be entertaining.
And if you don't figure it out, you can look at the answer. How
are they unethical?
>the unnecessary elaborate explanation
How in the world is that unethical? You can complain that it
was long-winded without questioning the *ethics* of it.
>To answer your other question, yes: unmotivated archiasm is a
>archetypical sign of pretentiousness.) And the more I think about it,
>the less I like; I grow increasingly annoyed (naturally hate
>pretentiousness I guess).
I still don't know why you are calling it pretentious.
>Cornelson writes:
>
>> Then imagine someone doing it for one of two reasons:
>> - Graham wrote the DM4 because he wanted inflate his own ego.
>> - Graham wrote the DM4 because he loves Interactive Fiction.
>
>Oh, well if for some reason I am compelled to choose only one... I
>guess you're right. Sorry about the mixup. But if I am allowed to
>submit that egoism may have played a part in the framing, I --
Well, as I have said before, the interactive fiction community
is a *tiny* world. It's a strange choice if your goal is fame
and celebrity.
My feeling is that the Designer Manual was a labor of love. It
didn't make Graham famous, it didn't make him wealthy. Was his
ego involved? Well, I'm sure it was, to a certain extent. He was
trying to win the respect of his peers. But is there anything
reprehensible about that?
steve....@gmail.com
> I didn't find [anything pretentious] in Graham's manual.
That's cool.
> I think that Graham's purpose in writing the manual was to
> teach and to entertain and to encourage more people to become
> IF authors. What is unethical about it?
There's certainly nothing unethical about any of that.
> Was his
> ego involved? Well, I'm sure it was, to a certain extent. He was
> trying to win the respect of his peers. But is there anything
> reprehensible about that?
Nope.
So, you will ask: Then what's the problem? And I will reply: I have
done my best to explain, and I have failed you. I apologize. I think
you're just entirely innocent of the whole business, and that's just
great. Bless you.
Adam Thornton
<steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bless you.
I prefer to say "Gesundheit."
Adam
Greg Boettcher
> Daryl McCullough wrote (several times over):
> > [C]ould you say what you mean by pretention?
>
> Really just the simple dictionary definition, nothing fancy.
> "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth,
> or stature"
Steve, let's think about at your newsgroup posts for a second. You've
said that just because someone writes in a way that is not to your
taste, they are a "pretentious git," a "wanker," and are,
metaphorically, engaging in even more obscene acts.
Don't you think these statements express an attitude of self-importance
that is affected, unwarranted, and exaggerated? If so, then you fit
your own definition of pretentiousness. In that case, you are also
hypocritical.
You previously described your harsh remarks as "polemical" and said you
hoped somebody might enjoy them. While I think it's unlikely that such
a person exists, I do at least understand what you mean when you say
that.
You also seemed to dislike the idea of being compared to Jacek Pudlo.
This, too, I definitely understand.
But I can't understand how you can have both of these attitudes at the
same time. If you truly want to act a jerk, then you should be honest
about it and embrace the idea fully. If manage to embrace this idea,
then you will indeed resemble Jacek Pudlo, and when people compare you
to him, you'll be able to feel a glow of pride at having accomplished
your goals.
If you're not able to feel that glow of pride, though, then you should
be honest about it, and admit that being a jerk just isn't in line with
your personal goals. In that case, it probably makes sense to stop
acting like a jerk.
For me, that would include ceasing to call people "wankers" and
"pretentious gits" just because they don't share your taste.
My reputation in the newsgroups probably isn't spotless, but I hope my
past record also shows that I'm trying harder than you not to be a
jerk.
Anyway, this is the last time I'll reply to you about a subject like
this. In the past, I have respected you enough to try to appeal to your
conscience. I won't do so again.
Greg
P.S. Thanks for your help with the extensions I released back in
February. Sorry I didn't initially credit you properly in
crudeliquid.t. I simply forgot to do so, that's all. However, I just
released Version 2, which does acknowledge your help.
steve....@gmail.com
> Don't you think these statements express an attitude of self-importance
> that is affected, unwarranted, and exaggerated? If so, then you fit
> your own definition of pretentiousness. In that case, you are also
> hypocritical.
Yes, I take my objections too seriously. I suppose it's not quite the
same thing as pretention, but I agree with your general criticism that
I sometimes go overboard when offended.
> P.S. Thanks for your help with the extensions I released back in
> February.
It was a real pleasure; thanks for a very enjoyable collaboration.
Quintin Stone
> Don't you think these statements express an attitude of self-importance
> that is affected, unwarranted, and exaggerated? If so, then you fit your
> own definition of pretentiousness. In that case, you are also
> hypocritical.
Well said, Greg.
==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
st...@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
John W. Kennedy
> Since Graham is a professor at Oxford and has other accomplishments, I
> can only imagine there enumerable other ways to inflate his own ego.
I do not /think/ he is a Professor, which, at Oxford, is roughly
equivalent to "Department Head" in the US. But he is a Fellow, which is
roughly equivalent to a Professor in the US.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
markm
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> But he is a Fellow, which is roughly equivalent to a Professor in the US.
And, if the stories are true, he is in fact a jolly good Fellow at
that.
markm
James Cunningham
No, no, no. He's *far* too busy writing immorally pretentious
programming manuals to be jolly.
Best,
James
Eric Eve
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5da3g.35$ux6...@fe10.lga...
> I do not /think/ he is a Professor, which, at Oxford, is roughly
> equivalent to "Department Head" in the US. But he is a Fellow,
> which is roughly equivalent to a Professor in the US.
This is getting horribly off-topic, but strictly speaking what you
say isn't quite correct. The complication at Oxford, which is like
virtually no other institution of Higher Education in the known
Universe (with the possible exception of Cambridge), is that the
same invidual may be both have a college appointment and a
university appointment. The three grades of university appointment
are Lecturer, Reader and Professor, with Professor being the most
senior (but not necessarily departmental head, since any one
department may have many professors, and its chair doesn't have to
be one of them); all three grades would probably be called
'professor' in an American context. 'Fellow', on the other hand,
refers to one's status as a member of a college (roughly speaking,
though depending on the type of fellowship), being a Fellow of a
College means that one is on that college's Governing Body.
Therefore the same person might well be both a University Professor
(or Reader or Lecturer) and the Fellow of a College.
That said, your substantial point is correct: so far as I know
Graham doesn't have the title 'professor', but is probably of an
academic grade that would have that title in a U.S. institution.
-- Eric
(Fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford, but without any
University title)
steve....@gmail.com
> This is getting horribly off-topic[.]
Not necessarily. If the charge is "Graham writes like a pretentious
wanker," and the retort is "He's a Professor at Oxford!" -- I would say
this is, on the contrary, rather on-topic.
I mean, where do people imagine that "pretentious wanker" was invented?
Leeds? Philly?
JSH...@aol.com
non-programming newcomer to Inform...
Respectfully,
Sara :-)