The Use of Second-Person
Jeff Nyman
issue I keep bringing up, somewhat peripherally, is the idea of second-
person narration which, to me, is one of the odder aspects of text-
based interactive fiction.
I'd like to go over why I say that and I'd like to solicit any and all
opinions if people have time.
= = = = =
The idea of interaction+story is what Emily and I had been chatting
about. Now, to me, the level of interaction allowed by an author, in
one sense, means that the author has to create a protagonist that the
reader/player can identify with and see as distinct.
Logic creates believable motivation. Understandable motivation creates
symphathetic emotion. Bam. You have a protagonist that a player/reader
can care about. Understanding a character is how we identify with
them; not by being told we *are* them, but by showing us how they have
some similar feelings to ourselves and how they show those feelings by
what they do or how they react.
However, when you say that the reader *is* the protagonist (second-
person), you can't really do that. In fact, to me second-person is
more mimesis-breaking than first- or third-person because I'm
constantly reminded that "you" (meaning "I") feel a certain way or see
a certain thing or won't do a certain thing. Well, maybe that's not
true. Maybe that protagonist is nothing like me. Yeah, actually, *I*
would do that, but clearly my *protagonist* won't. Okay, so I'm in
dialogue with my protagonist. *That* to me is the key point of the
interaction that text-based IF allows.
Instead of just vicariously stepping into the shoes of a protagonist
and reading about their adventures, you get to more actively
participate in helping them through those adventures. However, as in
all good stories, conflict arises: the protagonist may have some
tension with what you want to do. After all, they're not you. You're
not them. So you can't expect everything to go just as you say. You
have to explore the world with your protagonist; find not only the
boundaries of your world, but the boundaries of your protagonist and
what they can do, what they can't do, and what you might have to coax
them to do (against their better wishes).
(It's sort of like "The Sixth Sense" for me. Cole knew what the
situation with Malcolm was. Malcolm couldn't see it. Cole knew he had
to direct Malcolm to the truth but he had to do so in a way that was
consonant with how Malcolm thought and behaved, otherwise Malcolm
would just never get there. Likewise, Malcolm had to do something
similar for Cole. They were both each other's protagonist in a story
that was being told and both, ultimately, had the same end goal. It's
a masterful bit of storytelling, if you ask me.)
My belief is that the use of second-person has held up the development
of works of text-based IF because of a failure to recognize that the
"player-character" is just another character. To that end, character
development doesn't get considered because, after all, you can't
change the real player; they can't necessarily evolve in their
thinking (or, at least, you as an author have no way of knowing if
they did so). But you *can* evolve the protagonist, and take the
player along for the ride as they come to interact with the
protagonist and learn how to get the protagonist to do what *the
player wants* and what the *protagonist needs to do* in order to get
through the adventure, to reach the final goal. Likewise, the
protagonist can help the player along by telling them what does and
doesn't work; what will and will not be attempted; etc.
*That* sort of dialogue, to me, increases tension. Further, *that*
sort of dual relationship is where text-based IF can be powerful
medium for telling stories because you take the inherent interaction
of a reader of a story and you ramp it up by allowing the reader to
more thoroughly participate in the actions and reactions of the
protagonist.
= = = = =
So, with that bit out of the way, I'd like to solicit opinions and
thoughts.
(1) Do you feel second-person is more effective than first- or third-
in text-based IF?
(2) If the answer to (1) above was "yes", why is that?
(3) Do you feel that first- or third- person is *not* effective in
text-based IF?
(4) If the answer to (3) above was "yes", why is that?
What I'm really trying to find out is what interaction possibilities
people feel second-person affords that other viewpoints do not. (Or,
perhaps, what interaction possibilities do people feel that first- and
third- person remove, making second-person the more viable choice.)
- Jeff
alex....@gmail.com
I've played third-person IF. Frankly, it felt more distancing to me,
as if the main character was just a puppet on a string instead of a
role that I'm playing. It made it much more difficult for me to
connect with the in-game avatar. I don't mind a game telling me what
the PC thinks and feels, because the character isn't me, it's a role
that I'm playing.
Jeff Nyman
On Jun 13, 8:49 am, alex.be...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've played third-person IF. Frankly, it felt more distancing to me,
Okay. Now, do you feel this was because of the way the story was told
or do you feel this was an inherent aspect of the third-person
narration? (In other words, I'm trying to determine if you just hit a
poorly written game that would have been poor regardless of narration
or if this is something you've noticed in multiple third-person IF
games that you've played.)
> It made it much more difficult for me to
> connect with the in-game avatar.
What kind of connection did you feel was lacking? For example, compare
it to a second-person text-based IF game you played. What connection
did you feel you *were* getting with the second-person that you
weren't with the third-person? Do you think something could have been
done to enable that connection with third-person?
> I don't mind a game telling me what
> the PC thinks and feels, because the character isn't me, it's a role
> that I'm playing.
So, in these third-person games you played, was the game not telling
you what the player-character thought and felt? Could that have been
why it was distancing, rather than the fact that it was third-person
narration?
Your comment, however, is interesting to me and it may be the area
that I'm having my own conceptual trouble with. I don't mind when a
game tells me what a player-character is feeling; I don't like it when
a game tells me what *I'm* feeling. The game doesn't know. Neither
does the author. And when the author assumes they do know, for me the
mood is shattered. (I want to be *shown* why I should be scared on
behalf of the protagonist; not told that I am scared.) That's where
the conflation of the player-character and the player to me somehow
rings hollow. To me, that's more distancing because it calls out the
distance every time.
So that's interesting: we both come to one conclusion (distancing) but
for different reasons based on the point-of-view of the narration.
- Jeff
Jim Aikin
person is the best of the less-than-perfect options. If you go to either
1st or 3rd person, the effect is that the player is sitting outside the
game world and directing a puppet. This inhibits the player's
identification with the character. It creates a sort of mechanical feeling.
2nd person puts the player, at least tenuously, within the game world.
I would respectfully suggest that your problem with games telling you
how you feel is at least partially a personal issue. I don't find this
type of input intrusive at all, because I have no trouble understanding
that the "you" being discussed isn't _me_, it's the character I'm playing.
I may or may not agree with the author that that's how the character
would be feeling at that moment, but that's a very different issue.
--Jim Aikin
travel2light
> that I'm having my own conceptual trouble with. I don't mind when a
> game tells me what a player-character is feeling; I don't like it when
> a game tells me what *I'm* feeling. The game doesn't know. Neither
> does the author.
I agree with this. I don't think a game should be telling the he or
she should feel. But I think it is okay in a second person game if the
game itself reveals how the protagonist is feeling in subtle ways. For
example through the use of the surroundings, or what a npc says to
him, or through a memory etc. In these situations the player can get
an idea about the personality and history of the protagonist without
having to feel the same way. Also, maybe the player can more easily
slip into a feeling of empathy with the character. e.g. "You find
yourself back in your office. How many times have you sat behind that
very desk feeling as if as if life is passing you by?" To me this is
like what you are saying about developing a relationship with the
protagonist. I know the protagonist is not me, but I feel like I have
been put into his shoes. To me this strengthens the feeling of
identification and empathy with the character.
What I find more difficult is when I am told I can't do something
because the character doesn't want to for varies reasons. e.g. ">get
the china cup" and the response is "Mrs. Jenkins would not appreciate
you interfering with her prized china collection!". This can be quite
annoying, because I personally might not care that much about Mrs.
Jenkins possessions (depending on the circumstances of course). But in
these kinds of situations I tend to put it more down to the boundaries
of the game. It does feel like a chastisement -- and I do feel like I
am braver than the protagonist. But I realise I just have to be
patient and use the situation as a way to better understand him.
Michael
Jeff Nyman
On Jun 13, 10:57 am, Jim Aikin <midigur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> There may be no ideal answer to this dilemma. Personally, I feel 2nd
> person is the best of the less-than-perfect options. If you go to either
> 1st or 3rd person, the effect is that the player is sitting outside the
> game world and directing a puppet.
Okay, I guess I get that. But you always are outside the game world,
directing a puppet. So I don't think that feeling comes about only "if
you go to either 1st or 3rd person." I see your point, I just don't
see how it distinguishes between any point-of-view narration.
> This inhibits the player's
> identification with the character.
But there is no character. (Or is there?) The character is "you": the
player. That's what I don't really get. When people say they can
"identify with the character" what they mean is they can identify
with ... what? Themselves? That's what second-person is asking them to
do.
> 2nd person puts the player, at least tenuously, within the game world.
Okay, and this I can understand. What I can't understand though is why
the feeling is that first- or third-person can't do this as well. It
works for every other media that I can think of (including just about
every other game format beyond text-based IF). So if this viewpoint is
what people feel, and it does seem to be, I'm curious why text-based
IF stands alone. Is it solely because it's a textual game realm?
> I would respectfully suggest that your problem with games telling you
> how you feel is at least partially a personal issue. I don't find this
> type of input intrusive at all, because I have no trouble understanding
> that the "you" being discussed isn't _me_, it's the character I'm playing.
Understood. I'm not trying to suggest that I literally can't separate
myself from the protagonist. I'm more talking about the writing style
as it is presented. I feel the "player character" is really nothing
except 'me' as a surrogate and that then puts all the emphasis on the
puzzles because ... what's really going to develop? The player
character is me and since the author didn't know me, they can't
possibly have tried to utilize emotional or even intellectual
attachment so that I actually care about the situation the player (me)
finds myself in.
So I just go through the motions: pick up everything I can (because it
might be useful), roam around, try a few standard ask/tell/show
commands for any NPC that wanders my way, etc.
You might very well be right: the personal issue may be that I've come
to a point where I appreciate writing (and storytelling) in such a way
that I really can't enjoy text-based IF. And I don't say that in some
sense where I'm right and others are wrong. I just mean it for what it
is: maybe it's just not my cup of tea, as it were.
> I may or may not agree with the author that that's how the character
> would be feeling at that moment, but that's a very different issue.
Right -- and that, to me, is part of the fun of fiction. When you try
to place yourself in the role of the protagonist, you think: "Okay, if
I was in that situation, with their background, what would I do?" Now
in text-based IF that's exactly what you can do! Except that current
text-based IF usually has you as the protagonist and then has to make
up reasons why you won't do something; or it has to simply tell you
how you feel, rather than showing you as a direct result of action/
reaction. Or consider protagonists that have backgrounds that prevent
them from solving their problems easily. That's the whole basis of
fiction writing: creating protagonists that grow into the situation. I
could see this being useful in text-based IF because you, as the
player, have to understand what it is about the protagonist that they
need to do in order to be able to solve this game, while the
protagonist themselves are (possibly) unaware. So your job, as player,
is not just to solve puzzles but to come to some deeper understanding
of how the player character can interact with this world in order to
make his/her way through it.
Everything seems to focus on the NPCs while, to me, one of the most
interesting characters could be the protagonist.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
practical examples, perhaps.
On Jun 13, 11:14 am, travel2light <everything2li...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> she should feel. But I think it is okay in a second person game if the
> game itself reveals how the protagonist is feeling in subtle ways.
Right, and I agree. I'm just not how subtle you can be with second-
person because you're not asking the player to accept that the
protagonist feels this way; you're saying the player feels this way.
Or, at least, you're asking them to accept it, usually without any
understanding of why, except that you are told it.
Now, I know: the player, as a smart human being, knows they are not
*actually* the player character and knows that they don't *actually*
feel that way. I get that.
But, what I'm talking about is how the story is told, which is what
you suggest when you say:
> example through the use of the surroundings, or what a npc says to
> him, or through a memory etc. In these situations the player can get
> an idea about the personality and history of the protagonist without
> having to feel the same way.
Agreed. However, I guess for me when the protagonist is referred to in
the second-person, it's more distancing to me because I'm supposed to
think of the protagonist as a separate person to understand even
though, really, in the game world they are me. They are just an
extension of my actions, rather than as an actual being that I try to
influence with my actions. No real thought is required to get "into
the head" of this protagonist or to understand where they are coming
from.
I don't think that's an inherent problem with second-person
necessarily because I agree that better writing could draw you in,
regardless of the point-of-view. That said, I think the reliance on a
second-person point-of-view tends to make many authors give very
little consideration to the protagonist of the story. Player = Player-
Character rather than Player-Character = Blake (a guy who fears
settling down to anything because he always thinks the next best thing
is over the horizon; this leads him to make impulsive decisions but
also arbitrary ones). With that, now if Blake refuses to do something
in the game world, I can at least understand that it's a result of who
he is and what makes him tick. Can that be done with second-person?
Perhaps. I haven't really seen it but maybe I'm not getting it or not
looking at the right works.
> slip into a feeling of empathy with the character. e.g. "You find
> yourself back in your office. How many times have you sat behind that
> very desk feeling as if as if life is passing you by?" To me this is
> like what you are saying about developing a relationship with the
> protagonist.
Okay, now if I say this:
First person: "I found myself back in my office. I can't tell you how
many times I've sat behind that very desk, feeling as if life was
passing me by. You ever get that? Where you feel you have to run full
speed just to keep up? Well, that's how I felt in that office."
Third person: "Blake found himself back in the office. He often found
himself here, sitting behind this very desk, with the sinking feeling
that life was passing him by. If he sat here too long, he'd literally
have to forced to take any sort of action at all."
For me, I can start getting more into a relationship with the
protagonist in those two cases than with the second-person.
Clearly I'm in the minority, perhaps because of what you say here:
> I know the protagonist is not me, but I feel like I have
> been put into his shoes. To me this strengthens the feeling of
> identification and empathy with the character.
It's interesting because every writer in my class felt the same way I
felt (and, mind, this was without prodding on my part). To wit, they
all felt that they couldn't identify with the character and emphatize
with them mainly because the motivations of the character (the
protagonist) were just conflated with that of the player, who wanted
to solve a game. There was no deeper motivation. There was no
emotional background as to why the protagonist would act one way (or
refuse to act another way). Thus you couldn't invest the character
with meaning (or, at best, it was superficial meaning).
Now, again, I don't think that's inherent in the use of second-person;
but I think the almost sole usage of second-person is what has
constrained authors from thinking of the player-character as a more
well-rounded character, one that might require just as much exploring
as the game world.
> What I find more difficult is when I am told I can't do something
> because the character doesn't want to for varies reasons. e.g. ">get
> the china cup" and the response is "Mrs. Jenkins would not appreciate
> you interfering with her prized china collection!". This can be quite
> annoying, because I personally might not care that much about Mrs.
> Jenkins possessions (depending on the circumstances of course). But in
> these kinds of situations I tend to put it more down to the boundaries
> of the game.
And, for me, I put it down to the boundaries of how the author
*thought* about telling the story. In other words, if I'm thinking of
"boundaries of the game" then the game has exposed its implementation
model to me quite overtly. That, to me, is more mimesis breaking, than
just about anything else, when it involves things like narrative and
story structure (as opposed to things like saving a game and restoring
a game).
For example, let's use what you just said. Say the protagonist is a
guy who really wants to be liked my Mrs. Jenkins but, beyond that,
needs information from her. So:
> GET THE CHINA CUP
I knew if I did that, Mrs. Jenkins wouldn't appreciate it. She valued
her prized china collection more than just about anything. If I was
going to get what I needed, I needed to make sure not to do anything
to upset her. (First person)
or ...
> GET THE CHINA CUP
Blake knew that if he did that, Mrs. Jenkins wouldn't appreciate it.
She valued her prized china collection more than just about anything.
Blake realized that if he was going to get what he needed, he needed
to make sure not to do anything to upset her. (Third person)
I could do that in second-person, of course:
> GET THE CHINA CUP
You know if you do that, Mrs. Jenkins won't appreciate it. She values
her prized china collection more than just about anything. If you're
going to get what you need, you need to make sure not to do anything
to upset her.
I guess, for me, I just feel more connection with the "I" in first-
person (if the story gradually indicates who this person is) or with
"Blake" in third-person. Because in those cases, it doesn't matter
what *I* feel per se. I know what I wanted the character to do, and
they chose not to do it. So now I have to figure out what I know about
this character in order to determine how best to get them to do what I
believe they need to do. I'm working with the protagonist but, in one
sense, I'm also in some cases working against them. That, I think,
adds a bit more complexity to the game.
- Jeff
Valzi
suited to interesting character and even story development than is
second person. However, I have yet to see third person implemented in
IF in any way that does not feel intensely awkward and off-putting,
perhaps simply because the structure of interaction with the game
requires the player to give textual commands to the protagonist.
-Michael
Jeff Nyman
Okay, I can see that. So let's try an example.
(First Person)
> GO NORTH
You've gotta be kidding me? There's no way I'm going in there. Didn't
you just see that thing that ran in there? Maybe there's another way.
(Third Person)
> GO NORTH
Henry paused. He couldn't imagine a worse idea than going in there,
given that thing he just saw run in there. Maybe he could find another
way in.
(Second Person)
> GO NORTH
You pause. You don't want to go in there because of what you just saw
run in there. You could try to find another way in.
To me, I can start relating to the first- and third-person examples a
lot more than the second-person. To me, the second-person definitely
makes it sound like I'm playing a game ... and, granted, I am. But, in
my mind, with text-based IF, I'm also reading and participating in a
story.
Caveat: There is a danger here that I'm caricaturing the second-person
viewpoint and I'm trying not to do that. So if it seems I'm being
unfair with the examples, let me know.
- Jeff
Stephen Bond
Jeff Nyman wrote:
> However, when you say that the reader *is* the protagonist (second-
> person), you can't really do that.
But you don't necessarily say "the reader *is* the protagonist" in
second-person prose. Even though Varicella tells me that I am
the Palace Minister of the title, this clearly isn't true. Primo
Varicella is invested with so many of his own distinctive opinions,
and the game with so much his own distinctive attitude, that he is
quite obviously not me, but a separate character I am interacting
with during the game.
A similar case holds for many other second-person IF works. In fact,
it's almost the norm in current games to assume that the player and
PC are different entities. (The "Best PC" award has been running
since, what, 1997?) Any game that assumes the opposite is
probably being deliberately old-school.
> Okay, so I'm in
> dialogue with my protagonist. *That* to me is the key point of the
> interaction that text-based IF allows.
Yeah, a lot of writers have discovered this already....
> Instead of just vicariously stepping into the shoes of a protagonist
> and reading about their adventures, you get to more actively
> participate in helping them through those adventures. However, as in
> all good stories, conflict arises: the protagonist may have some
> tension with what you want to do. After all, they're not you. You're
> not them. So you can't expect everything to go just as you say. You
> have to explore the world with your protagonist; find not only the
> boundaries of your world, but the boundaries of your protagonist and
> what they can do, what they can't do, and what you might have to coax
> them to do (against their better wishes).
Yeah, it's been done. Some works (e.g. Spider and Web) are more
explicit
about this kind of interaction, but it's present to some extent in
virtually every IF work in which the PC and player are separate
entities.
I wouldn't be surprised if most writers either consciously try to
bring
about the effect you've described, or end up doing it anyway as a
consequence of having a characterised PC.
> My belief is that the use of second-person has held up the development
> of works of text-based IF because of a failure to recognize that the
> "player-character" is just another character.
I occasionally see claims that "X has held up the development of IF",
and they annoy me because
- They're usually not backed up with any evidence
- If you think X is holding up the development of IF, why don't you
do something about it?
- More often than not, the best writers already realised X was a bad
idea a long time ago and abandoned it.
I don't object to your making these observations -- maybe not
everyone is aware of them, and they might lead to an interesting
discussion -- but presenting them as a major personal discovery
that the community has "failed to recognise", when that is
patently not the case, is rather tiresome.
> So, with that bit out of the way, I'd like to solicit opinions and
> thoughts.
>
> (1) Do you feel second-person is more effective than first- or third-
> in text-based IF?
It depends on the writing.
> (3) Do you feel that first- or third- person is *not* effective in
> text-based IF?
It depends on the writing.
It's certainly easier to do a more strongly-characterised PC in
first-person, especially if you want to give the PC strong emotions
right from the off without having to evoke them in the player. It's
not impossible in second-person though. I've seen good examples
of both.
I've yet to see third-person IF that convinced me. But I wouldn't
prescriptively rule it out, and I don't think anyone could.
Stephen.
Lem Signwriter
> So, with that bit out of the way, I'd like to solicit opinions and
> thoughts.
>
> (1) Do you feel second-person is more effective than first- or third-
> in text-based IF?
I'd nearly go so far as to say that this question, and the following
ones, are useless.
I'll grant you that much IF uses second person because that's what the
authors see everyone else using; I have difficulty ascribing such a
sheeplike attitude to Emily Short, say, or Zarf, people who evidently do
*think* about what they're doing.
A narrative in second person demands a somewhat different skillset of
the player than first or third. Second person demands a roleplayer on
the other side of the keyboard, a method actor; someone *very*
comfortable with static fiction, either as a reader or writer, may have
more difficulty identifying with the PC than a novice or an experienced
IF-er, because more is being demanded of them.
First person asks you to identify *with* the protagonist. Second asks
you to identify yourself *as* the protagonist. This is not a function
that audience members find themselves carrying out while experiencing
any mainstream medium.
(This brings to mind the fact that Second Person - the book - has many
essays devoted to "tabletop roleplaying" - Dungeons & Dragons and the
like. Which are not a mainstream form of entertainment, either; am I the
only one wondering if this (grokking second-person media) is a
minority-personality-type thing?)
As an author of IF, choice of POV is technique. There are structural and
stylistic considerations; there are different motivations for picking
one or another; but really, it's no more a question of "interaction
possibilities" than the choice of first or third person when writing a
novel.
Jeff Nyman
> I occasionally see claims that "X has held up the development of IF",
> and they annoy me because
> - They're usually not backed up with any evidence
A valid point. Part of what I'm trying to do here is gather the
evidence. Part of that evidence is what people think and how they
perceive text-based IF is most effectively done. I've played many text-
based IF games. I've read many books. I've seen many films. I've
played many non-text-based IF games. So big deal, right? I'm just like
everyone else in that sense. But what I haven't seen (and still have
not) is why text-based IF seems to predicate itself upon a convention
(second-person) that virtually no other medium (related, whether
peripherally or not) does.
I'm not saying second-person is wrong, per se, but it's a curious
thing to me.
When I started playing around by converting some scenes from text-
based games to first- and third-person, the possibilities seemed
richer to me. When I converted scenes from other games (non-text-based
IF) to second-person, the effect seemed as artificial as converting a
chapter from a novel to second person seemed.
> I don't object to your making these observations -- maybe not
> everyone is aware of them, and they might lead to an interesting
> discussion -- but presenting them as a major personal discovery
> that the community has "failed to recognise", when that is
> patently not the case, is rather tiresome.
I get the point here. But I don't see something as "patently not the
case" in perhaps the same way you do. I'm also not saying the
community has "failed to recognize" this necessarily; I don't know.
That's part of what I'm asking for. That said, I do have my beliefs
and, you're right, I don't have a ton of evidence necessarily, except
what I've come to observe. I don't treat those observations as gospel,
however, hence me bringing up topics like this, so I can learn what
others think and figure out where perhaps I'm not looking at things in
the way that others are.
That said, you are correct in that my wording above does indicate
exactly what you said. I said this: "My belief is that the use of
second-person has held up the development of works of text-based IF
because of a failure to recognize that the "player-character" is just
another character." What I should have perhaps said is:
My belief is that the use of second-person has led to works of text-
based IF that do not treat the 'player-character' as just another
character, and thus don't develop that character with internal
motivations or as characters that I feel I can relate to and watch
develop as part of the enfolding story.
Whether that's a largely irrelevant point or not is what I'm trying to
determine. Here is sort of how my thinking started to evolve: since
text-based IF is largely alone in its reliance on second-person and
since it's a format that survives solely via a relatively small
worldwide community and since, as others have indicated numerous
times, it's hard to get people interested in text-based IF if they
aren't already, .... well, that's when I started looking at why that
might be. Is it solely because people prefer graphics? Personally, I
don't think so. Is it solely because text-based IF isn't promoted in
any way? Perhaps. I don't know. Or is it, possibly, because of the
kind of games that people have seen and come to associate with text-
based IF (at least as a general rule)?
If that latter is the case (for the sake of argument), why might that
be? What have people been presented with that might explain the lack
of popularity or interest? Well, speaking only for me, the answer is
I'm presented with a medium that looks a lot like a book (meaning,
mostly or solely text) that has a character meeting other characters
and doing things. So some expectation is set up there. The major
difference is I can interact with the game more than I can with a
book. But I can interact with a graphical adventure as well. So it's
not just the interaction for me; it's the way the story is presented
to me via that interaction. And a lot of that presentation concerns
the point-of-view. And thus here I am and that's largely the reason
for this thread.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
wrote:
> I'd nearly go so far as to say that this question, and the following
> ones, are useless.
They may be. But you don't say why they're useless so I can't respond.
> A narrative in second person demands a somewhat different skillset of
> the player than first or third. Second person demands a roleplayer on
> the other side of the keyboard, a method actor; someone *very*
> comfortable with static fiction, either as a reader or writer, may have
> more difficulty identifying with the PC than a novice or an experienced
> IF-er, because more is being demanded of them.
If I understand you correctly, I would actually argue that *less* is
being demanded of them, mainly for the reasons I've already stated.
There's no challenge (at least that I've seen) to "understanding" a
second-person character. I don't have to really care about their
motivations at all, nor do I have to consider them, as a person, in
terms of how I think about actions and reactions. To me, it's much
more demanding when I do have to consider those things; when I have to
build up a picture of who this person is, then see if I can model what
would most likely work, not just based on some game mechanics, but on
a conflation of what I think might work and what my player character,
given his/her personality and other foibles, might think. I have to
not only understand the game world, but the likely way that my
protagonist is going to react to this game world and what I can
reasonably get them to accompish.
Granted, nothing at all says that text-based IF should do this or must
do this.
And your point (regarding comfort with static fiction) may be quite
valid in that of my two classes (admittedly a small subset), the
writers in the group didn't like second-person; the non-writer-
programmers didn't really care one way or the other. (However, I will
say that my specific game programmers - and unfortunately I didn't
have that many in the class - didn't like second person, but they were
used to writing graphical-based adventures that don't rely on second
person.)
> (This brings to mind the fact that Second Person - the book - has many
> essays devoted to "tabletop roleplaying" - Dungeons & Dragons and the
> like. Which are not a mainstream form of entertainment, either; am I the
> only one wondering if this (grokking second-person media) is a
> minority-personality-type thing?)
That's part of what I'm trying to determine. As I've stated in a few
threads, text-based IF is largely (not completely) alone in terms of
media that relies almost solely on the second person. That, to me, is
at least an interesting thing.
- Jeff
Lem Signwriter
> On Jun 13, 1:00 pm, Lem Signwriter <signwri...@lem.signwriter.name>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd nearly go so far as to say that this question, and the following
>> ones, are useless.
>
> They may be. But you don't say why they're useless so I can't respond.
My apologies - I edited the whole thing three times before posting, and
never quite got it right.
Useless in exactly the sense that asking whether it's better to write a
novel in first or third person is useless. The only meaningful answer
begins "Well, it depends what novel you're trying to write...."
>> A narrative in second person demands a somewhat different skillset of
>> the player than first or third. Second person demands a roleplayer on
>> the other side of the keyboard, a method actor; someone *very*
>> comfortable with static fiction, either as a reader or writer, may have
>> more difficulty identifying with the PC than a novice or an experienced
>> IF-er, because more is being demanded of them.
>
> If I understand you correctly, I would actually argue that *less* is
> being demanded of them, mainly for the reasons I've already stated.
> There's no challenge (at least that I've seen) to "understanding" a
> second-person character.
I think you missed my point, badly expressed as it may have been. To
engage with a first person narrative, you do not need to take on a role.
Third person, ditto. To engage with a second person narrative, you have
to, hence my reference to method acting - if you, the player,
can't/won't, you're not going to get much out of it.
When you say less is being demanded of the player, I think you're
talking about less in terms of reading-for-meaning; I'm saying that to
engage with a work in second person, *in addition to* exercising ones'
reading-for-meaning and other reading skills, one must *also* take on a
role. Be an actor, in effect, as well as a reader.
"Player" is not really a good word for talking about the interactors of
interactive fiction; but I avoid the word "reader" deliberately. Reading
is a *subset* of the things you have to do.
> I don't have to really care about their
> motivations at all, nor do I have to consider them, as a person, in
> terms of how I think about actions and reactions. To me, it's much
> more demanding when I do have to consider those things when I have to
> build up a picture of who this person is, then see if I can model what
> would most likely work, not just based on some game mechanics, but on
> a conflation of what I think might work and what my player character,
> given his/her personality and other foibles, might think. I have to
> not only understand the game world, but the likely way that my
> protagonist is going to react to this game world and what I can
> reasonably get them to accompish.
>
> Granted, nothing at all says that text-based IF should do this or must
> do this.
And, pardon me, nothing there says (to me) that IF - in second person -
can't do that.
If you're saying that most IF doesn't support reading much beyond
surface meaning - that sounds more like a reader-expectation problem
than an IF one. The writing in most IF parallels that in mass-market
genre fiction. No, there is no depth. No, it's not literature. No,
that's not because there's something intrinsically wrong with it.
No, that's not the way it *has* to be, there's room for Serious Lit IF
as well. But be honest - when there are so few people interested in
either producing or consuming the IF equivalent of paperback trash, the
number of people interested in actually producing or consuming Serious
Lit IF has got to be pretty damn small.
I'd suggest that's why you're having trouble finding any.
> And your point (regarding comfort with static fiction) may be quite
> valid in that of my two classes (admittedly a small subset), the
> writers in the group didn't like second-person; the non-writer-
> programmers didn't really care one way or the other. (However, I will
> say that my specific game programmers - and unfortunately I didn't
> have that many in the class - didn't like second person, but they were
> used to writing graphical-based adventures that don't rely on second
> person.)
>
>> (This brings to mind the fact that Second Person - the book - has many
>> essays devoted to "tabletop roleplaying" - Dungeons & Dragons and the
>> like. Which are not a mainstream form of entertainment, either; am I the
>> only one wondering if this (grokking second-person media) is a
>> minority-personality-type thing?)
>
> That's part of what I'm trying to determine. As I've stated in a few
> threads, text-based IF is largely (not completely) alone in terms of
> media that relies almost solely on the second person. That, to me, is
> at least an interesting thing.
To my mind, it's one of the few media that can actually support
second-person narratives as anything other than stylistic experiments
chiefly of interest to art critics - but yes, it's an interesting thing.
Jim Aikin
>
>> This inhibits the player's
>> identification with the character.
>
> But there is no character. (Or is there?) The character is "you": the
> player. That's what I don't really get. When people say they can
> "identify with the character" what they mean is they can identify
> with ... what? Themselves? That's what second-person is asking them to
> do.
No, this is not how I view it at all. My most recent release (now in
further development) has a player character who is clearly a 14-year-old
girl from New York. And my upcoming IntroComp gameling has a player
character who is ... well, he's not a robot, exactly, but calling him a
robot doesn't distort the situation too badly.
Neither of these characters is "you," but they both have a range of
emotional responses, which are described as "your" responses. In neither
case would I expect the player to necessarily subscribe to or feel the
emotions as his or her own.
The key concept here, I think, is empathy. As in, "Walk a mile in my
shoes." Normal human beings have the ability to empathize with others --
to imagine (briefly and shallowly or in gut-wrenching, insomnia-inducing
detail) what others are thinking and feeling.
When the PC is a real character, as opposed to an anonymous
cave-crawler, the player is invited to have some empathy with the PC. I
guess I don't see what's complicated about that. They're just pronouns,
after all.
--JA
Lem Signwriter
> Neither of these characters is "you," but they both have a range of
> emotional responses, which are described as "your" responses. In neither
> case would I expect the player to necessarily subscribe to or feel the
> emotions as his or her own.
>
> The key concept here, I think, is empathy. As in, "Walk a mile in my
> shoes." Normal human beings have the ability to empathize with others --
> to imagine (briefly and shallowly or in gut-wrenching, insomnia-inducing
> detail) what others are thinking and feeling.
>
> When the PC is a real character, as opposed to an anonymous
> cave-crawler, the player is invited to have some empathy with the PC. I
> guess I don't see what's complicated about that. They're just pronouns,
> after all.
I think the problem is that familiarity with static fiction trains one
in the assumption that if the text wants you to empathise closely with
the protagonist, *that's what first person is for*.
I don't want to start caricaturing this as "second person is just like
first person but with weird pronouns that put me off, so we don't need
it", but this *is* coming across to me very strongly as a perceptual issue.
Jeff Nyman
wrote:
> My apologies - I edited the whole thing three times before posting, and
> never quite got it right.
No apologies necessary. You may be quite right. I just wasn't sure how
to respond.
> I think you missed my point, badly expressed as it may have been. To
> engage with a first person narrative, you do not need to take on a role.
> Third person, ditto.
Okay, this I can see. I agree. So, let me ask you this. In the *non*-
text-based IF games that don't use second-person (for example,
"Longest Journey" or "Dreamfall" or whatever you've played that you
like), what do you see the player as doing, compared to that of a game
using second-person?
I ask this because while you may not "take on a role", per se, I do
see you as having to engage with the character. To the extent that you
can do so, you are sort of taking on their role, I suppose. You are
taking on the role of someone that the game presents to you. Now,
granted, someone could say that you are not in fact doing so, but it
seems to me a bit of a case where you could argue either way.
So, again, the question here is: for those third-person or first-
person games (where, as you feel, you're not taking on a role): what
are you doing?
> When you say less is being demanded of the player, I think you're
> talking about less in terms of reading-for-meaning; I'm saying that to
> engage with a work in second person, *in addition to* exercising ones'
> reading-for-meaning and other reading skills, one must *also* take on a
> role. Be an actor, in effect, as well as a reader.
Okay, yeah, I can see it. I still think it's a very limited form of
"being an actor," but I definitely see where you are going with this.
> And, pardon me, nothing there says (to me) that IF - in second person -
> can't do that.
I agree and in a couple of posts I did indicate that some of the
problems I perceived were not something that was due solely to (or
inherent in) second-person. I just have yet to see something that (to
me) really brings me into the story, which I do get from other games
and, of course, books and film. This isn't to say that I don't find
text-based IF games with stories. But, to me, the story has always
seemed largely incidental, as I hope from one puzzle point to the
next.
> If you're saying that most IF doesn't support reading much beyond
> surface meaning - that sounds more like a reader-expectation problem
> than an IF one. The writing in most IF parallels that in mass-market
> genre fiction. No, there is no depth. No, it's not literature.
I would agree (perhaps) about the literature, but that doesn't equate
to lack of depth for me. There is quite a bit of "mass-market genre
fiction" that, depending upon your viewpoint, can have quite a bit of
depth. But, essentially, yes, what I was investigating was whether or
not one of the reasons text-based IF really isn't all that popular is
because of its (on the whole) apparent lack of what many other media
(including other game formats) use in terms of telling a story.
- Jeff
Raksab
I'm comfortable with second person. It's conventional, it makes
sense, it works. I don't know how a newcomer to IF would react to it,
though.
First person also works well, and in some cases it works even better
than second-person ... it can bend the "fourth wall" in interesting
ways. But to pull it off, the story has to make sense and be really
involving.
Third-person doesn't really take me into the story well at all. I'm
down with third person in a static fiction book, but if I'm playing a
game that involves me as a major character, third person is
uncomfortable and dissonant.
Jeff Nyman
> Neither of these characters is "you," but they both have a range of
> emotional responses, which are described as "your" responses. In neither
> case would I expect the player to necessarily subscribe to or feel the
> emotions as his or her own.
Right -- just as in a novel you don't think you are actually the
protagonist nor in a film do you think you are the lead character. But
the style of language certainly sets expectations about how the player
(reader) views and thinks about the lead character (protagonist,
player-character). The notion of how much you can realistically
describe in an intelligent fashion, such as with flashbacks,
reflection, introspection, and even, to an extent, dialogue, with
second-person seems very limited to me. This is probably why close to
zero novels, short stories, and screenplays are written in this
fashion.
So maybe the issue for me is that no text-based IF I've seen really
allows me to suspend my disbelief enough to forget that I keep getting
told what "you" feel. It's not that I have trouble rememebering it's
not me. (I hope that much is obvious.) Rather, it's just that the very
nature of second-person -- *at least as I've seen it implemented* --
doesn't seem to encourage a writing style where you can effectively do
many of the things that other storytelling media (including other game
formats) do.
Maybe that's just me. (Clearly, in this community, it is.)
> The key concept here, I think, is empathy. As in, "Walk a mile in my
> shoes." Normal human beings have the ability to empathize with others --
> to imagine (briefly and shallowly or in gut-wrenching, insomnia-inducing
> detail) what others are thinking and feeling.
I agree. And I agree that second-person can be made to do this.
However, I think it's often more cumbersome for it to handle this,
which is, as I've stated, probably why most authors (of book and non-
text games) don't utilize second-person. I suppose we could argue
they're all wrong for doing so. Or we could argue that text-based IF
is just too different from those other things. I haven't seen anything
that really seems compelling.
The argument many seem to be going for is that second-person is more
natural for the storytelling medium, at least with text-based IF. I'm
trying to see upon what basis that claim is made.
I could more see the contention that the level of interactivity
doesn't allow, as easily, for third- and first-person. But then,
again, why is text-based IF one of the only forms of game format (that
I'm aware of) that does this?
> When the PC is a real character, as opposed to an anonymous
> cave-crawler, the player is invited to have some empathy with the PC. I
> guess I don't see what's complicated about that. They're just pronouns,
> after all.
Well, I agree, up to point. Just lacking anonymity is not enough for
empathy in any form of fiction. To me, it's *how* the protagonist
(player character) is "made (to seem) real." So maybe I'm not looking
at the right examples of games.
Can you point me to a game where the player-character was complex
enough that you could truly empathize? What I mean is a game where
their motivations were supported by a backstory that indicated why
they held the emotions they did and thus why that dictated what they
would and would not allow to happen? My thinking is that you can't
empathize if you don't understand; you can't understand if there isn't
a background logic to why someone acts as they do. (You may not agree
with how they act; you may feel you would do differently; but at least
you can understand why they do what they do and how it's consistent
with who they are.)
I personally have yet to see too many games of the text-based variety
where I could empathize with the lead character in a way that I can
with other forms of storytelling, including, as I've said, other game
formats. (One I can say that did work for me is the lead character in
"A Crimson Spring" because I could get behind his desire for revenge.
The other was the lead character in "Rameses", not because I'm that
way -- but because I know people who are *exactly* that way.)
- Jeff
travel2light
>
> First person: "I found myself back in my office. I can't tell you how
> many times I've sat behind that very desk, feeling as if life was
> passing me by. You ever get that? Where you feel you have to run full
> speed just to keep up? Well, that's how I felt in that office."
>
> Third person: "Blake found himself back in the office. He often found
> himself here, sitting behind this very desk, with the sinking feeling
> that life was passing him by. If he sat here too long, he'd literally
> have to forced to take any sort of action at all."
>
The interesting possibility with the first and third person examples,
as I see it, is what happens next. I think the first and third person
viewpoint may help the author to think more of terms of narration. For
example:
<example>
Third person: "Blake walked into the office and sat down behind his
old desk. He often found himself sitting here, with the sinking
feeling that life was passing him by. If he sat here too long he'd
literally have to force himself to take any sort of action at all."
> stand up
"Moving over to the large shuttered window he pulled a chord to open
the blinds. It was a glorious spring day and he could see his silver
BMW in the parking area. This is when the thought struck him, "Why am
I putting up with this anymore? There is my car -- the open road is
waiting. I've needed a holiday for a long time and only now do I
realise it? So what am I waiting for!"
</example>
Sorry about the poor writing (I'm pretty new to this) but I think this
gets across my idea. This moves away from the traditional "person in a
restricted environment" model for creating IF. For example with the
usual 2nd person it would be something like:
<example>
> stand up
done.
> look through window.
You can see your BMW car outside. It is a beautiful day and the
thought occurs to you how nice it would be to drive off in that
beautiful machine to some far off country and forget about all of your
troubles. After all it's been a long time since you even considered
the possibility of going on a holiday.
</example>
Thinking about it though, the 3rd person example switches to present
tense when he was expressing his thoughts, so it could be that it
would be better to stick to the present tense from the start. It's not
a huge change to the actual text -- but it gives more of a sense of
things currently happening:
<example>
Third person: "Blake walks into the office and sits down behind his
old desk. He often finds himself sitting here, with the sinking
feeling that life is passing him by. If he sits here too long he'll
literally have to force himself to take any sort of action at all."
> stand up
"Moving over to the large shuttered window he pulls a chord to open
the blinds. It is a glorious spring day and he can see his silver BMW
in the parking area. This is when the thought strikes him "why I'm I
putting up with this anymore? There is my car -- the open road is
waiting. I've needed a holiday for a long time and only now do I
realise it? So what am I waiting for!"
</example>
Another possibility is to use a more trivial style where the character
is being described as something completely isolated -- and without
attempting to get inside his head at all. Maybe this would work with a
very comic and not very serious type game; or more of a traditional
action or puzzle based type of game:
<example>
Blake is sitting at his desk with his head in his hands whilest
annoyingly rotating his chair one way and then the other.
what now>
</example>
Michael
Jeff Nyman
> Third-person doesn't really take me into the story well at all. I'm
> down with third person in a static fiction book, but if I'm playing a
> game that involves me as a major character, third person is
> uncomfortable and dissonant.
Okay, thanks for the response. You say "but if I'm playing a game that
involves me *as a major character*" emphasis added. What if the game
doesn't ask you to *be* the major character but just *play* the major
character?
For example, do you find graphical adventures uncomfortable and
dissonant (which often have you playing the major character but being
referred to in the third person)?
The assumption here that everyone is going on is that because you are
controlling the actions of a character, you must *be* that character.
However, watching a film doesn't mean you have to *be* the lead actor.
Reading a book doesn't mean you have to *be* the protagonist. And
playing some other game formats doesn't require you to *be* the lead
character.
So I'm curious if this conflation of "being" and "playing" (which is
what others were telling me I was doing too much of) is in fact what
the issue is. To wit, people said they felt I was clearly taking the
"you" too seriously; it's not "you" -- it's the other guy. You're just
playing him. But what you say here ("involves me as a major
character") does in fact more seem to match what people think (if not
what they say).
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
> The interesting possibility with the first and third person examples,
> as I see it, is what happens next. I think the first and third person
> viewpoint may help the author to think more of terms of narration. For
> example:
Largely, that's my underlying contention. You can do more with
storytelling possibilities with third-person and first-person largely
because how you narrate the story can change, such as with asides,
reflections, introspections, flashbacks, internal monologue, etc. Does
that mean you can't do those things with second-person? Of course not.
You clearly can. But, equally clearly, it does have limitations, which
probably explains its relatively small amount of usage just about
everywhere.
Part of all my looking into this stuff was a direct result of the
talks we had on this newsgroup regarding simulationism and narration.
I came to the provisional conclusion that a lot of the theory that was
put out there really seemed to be speaking to just a few simple
aspects of how text-based IF is currently produced (at least as a
standard) and the one key thing was point-of-view.
Granted, the argument could be made that second-person can handle this
kind of narration. That may be. I haven't really seen it. The argument
could be made that this kind of narration isn't fun for players of
text-based IF. That could be, but I don't know if anyone knows that
for sure.
- Jeff
Emily Short
> On Jun 13, 3:23 pm, Jim Aikin <midigur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Neither of these characters is "you," but they both have a range of
> > emotional responses, which are described as "your" responses. In neither
> > case would I expect the player to necessarily subscribe to or feel the
> > emotions as his or her own.
>
> Right -- just as in a novel you don't think you are actually the
> protagonist nor in a film do you think you are the lead character. But
> the style of language certainly sets expectations about how the player
> (reader) views and thinks about the lead character (protagonist,
> player-character). The notion of how much you can realistically
> describe in an intelligent fashion, such as with flashbacks,
> reflection, introspection, and even, to an extent, dialogue, with
> second-person seems very limited to me.
Ah hm. Your second-person examples have read as a bit stilted to me,
which I'm willing to grant is not intentional, but which suggests that
you haven't internalized the techniques involved. Most good second-
person IF I've tried doesn't quite come out and say "you feel X. You
feel Y." Instead, it projects that information through the description
of objects and actions; it treats the protagonist's worldview as
though it (the worldview content) were *part of the world* instead of
part of the protagonist. I'd rewrite your 'you don't want to go that
way' message something more like this:
"You get only as far as putting your hand on the door knob. Somewhere
in there that *thing* is still scuttling around: all those legs, and
the peat-brown carapace, and the not-having-any-head."
Reflections -- opinions about people and things, memories about past
events, on-the-moment feelings -- can all be woven into descriptions.
As for flashbacks, there's no reason not to do them and make them
interactive flashbacks. It's not incredibly common, but I've seen it
more than once. (All Hope Abandon comes to mind, but is not the only
one.) Similarly dream sequences and character day-dreams, where those
things are useful.
Internal monologue -- well, as I think I suggested elsewhere, it's
possible to do some of this too, either passively (by having the PC's
thoughts interleaved with the action text) or actively (with THINK or
REMEMBER commands that allow the player to explore the PC's feelings
explicitly).
It would get rather hammy to have a character describing an internal
struggle at length in second person; games like "On Optimism" that
tend in this direction are fairly hard to take. But honestly I think
that is not so much due to the second person usage, and more to do
with the fact that long, abstract, struggling-with-self internal
monologues are *usually* awkward and cornball, no matter in what
person.
There are different ways to make this work, depending on medium.
Here's a sweeping statement I just thought up and which may be
completely wrong:
The handling emotive and subjective content differs more from medium
to medium than the handling of objective realities.
But consider: the conventions of plays, musicals, and opera make it
reasonable for the character to be expressing all these thoughts aloud
for the audience to hear, and monologues at intense moments not
infrequently take a stylized, poetic or lyrical form, where the music
or the sheer beauty of the language goes some way to expressing the
emotive power compactly. Movies do montages and voice-overs and
strange games with color balance and focal length. In novels,
characters often think concretely about memories and situations that
are affecting them, or betray their mood to the reader through their
actions or dialogue with other characters. IF can handle this kind of
internal revelation too, but it needs to do it interactively and play
to its own strengths. You *can* do a moment of indecision in IF well
enough: give the player a simple timed puzzle/choice, and interject
thoughts of increasing stress every turn until it's over. Another
common technique, though it needs careful handling, is to show
indecision by rejecting the player's first attempt to resolve a
situation, and requiring him either to repeat the action or try
something else. The parser stands in for the PC's inner voice, just as
it does in Rameses. There are other tricks and methods, but none of
the effective ones consist of presenting the player with a big wodge
of text wherein the player character thinks about himself. Big wodges
of text are usually a bad sign in IF, and it's all the more boring if
it's a big wodge of text in which no dialogue is exchanged and no
action occurs.
The larger point is, in the second person IF, the PC's thoughts and
feelings are expressed in everything he looks at, everything he tries
to do, every action reply; and more explicit explorations of feelings
can be done interactively, if one is careful. Obviously this isn't
working well enough for you to feel the same way about IF as you do
about other story-based art forms, or you're not playing the right IF,
or something. This is worth digging into further.
But I'm pretty sure the problem isn't simply that second person has no
equivalents for the storytelling techniques you listed.
Jeff Nyman
news:1181774357....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Ah hm. Your second-person examples have read as a bit stilted to me,
> which I'm willing to grant is not intentional, but which suggests that
> you haven't internalized the techniques involved.
Definitely not intentional but I appreciate the comment. As far as not
internalizing, you are no doubt correct. That said, I'm hoping to come to
some conclusions before I do internalize too much. Once you internalize, you
(sometimes) stop questioning and just accept. I'm not saying people here are
doing that; I'm just saying I treat my relative "stranger value" as an
asset --- for now.
> Here's a sweeping statement I just thought up and which may be
> completely wrong:
>
> The handling emotive and subjective content differs more from medium
> to medium than the handling of objective realities.
I don't know: it sounds pretty accurate to me. Now, like you said, if
certain information is "project[ed] ... through the description of objects
and actions" then the objective reality (the world) and the emotive and
subjective content is being, in some sense, treated together, at least with
second-person text-based IF. So do you feel that text-based IF does bring
the two closer together than other media, at least in terms of how both
aspects are handled?
> The parser stands in for the PC's inner voice, just as
> it does in Rameses.
Whereas, see, I think of myself, as the player of the game, standing in for
the player-character's inner voice or for a character's inner voice.
Thinking of the parser forces the implementation model on the user. Granted,
you can't truly escape the implementation model; I know that. But, in
usability circles exposing your implementation model when you don't have to
is considered a bad thing. I believe the same is true when the techniques
writers of static fiction use show through above the content of their story.
I believe the same is true when game authors use the underlying
implementation of the game engine (even if only peripherally).
> There are other tricks and methods, but none of
> the effective ones consist of presenting the player with a big wodge
> of text wherein the player character thinks about himself. Big wodges
> of text are usually a bad sign in IF, and it's all the more boring if
> it's a big wodge of text in which no dialogue is exchanged and no
> action occurs.
I agree. So the player character can't just sit there and think about
themselves. So the game has to show the player character's emotional base
and motivation by the actions they take. Now, the actions they take depend
on the player. That seems to be a dilemma. Yet I would maintain that's where
one of the true challenges for a text-based IF medium lies.
You have to provide the background for a putative protagonist that the
player can come to learn about, not in some text dump, but in the constant
series of actions that the protagonist does and does not take in response to
player actions. It's not just a dialogue between the player character and an
NPC; it's a dialogue between the player and the protagonist (and by
extension, the author). In fact, text-based IF, due to the nature of its
interaction model, allows this latter kind of dialogue much moreso than
static fiction, at least in my opinion.
> The larger point is, in the second person IF, the PC's thoughts and
> feelings are expressed in everything he looks at, everything he tries
> to do, every action reply; and more explicit explorations of feelings
> can be done interactively, if one is careful.
If you get a chance, can you recommend some specific games where you feel
what you say here is done well (regardless of point-of-view used in the
game)?
> Obviously this isn't
> working well enough for you to feel the same way about IF as you do
> about other story-based art forms, or you're not playing the right IF,
> or something. This is worth digging into further.
I agree and I appreciate that you see it this way. I'm fully cognizant that
perhaps text-based IF just isn't for me or, as you indicated earlier, I'm
not internalizing the techniques that make it effective because I'm trying
to make it too much like other related but different media.
> But I'm pretty sure the problem isn't simply that second person has no
> equivalents for the storytelling techniques you listed.
In truth, I agree. What I was more wondering (at least ultimately) was
whether or not the use of second-person tends, on average, not to encourage
the type of storytelling techniques I've been bringing up. If it does (or at
least doesn't discourage them), it does leave me wondering why second person
is so limited in terms of those arenas in which it is applied. (Lem brought
up "Dungeons and Dragons" and, of course, we're all talking about text-based
IF here.)
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
news:f4pk50$hsk$1...@aioe.org...
> I don't want to start caricaturing this as "second person is just like
> first person but with weird pronouns that put me off, so we don't need
> it", but this *is* coming across to me very strongly as a perceptual
> issue.
I think you're correct regarding the perceptual nature of what I'm bringing
up.
What really drove it home for me, like I said before, was that when I
presented the concept to writers (of various pedigrees) they all, to a one,
had a problem with the second person viewpoint. That doesn't mean anything
other than that it started me looking closer at it but, truth be told, I've
had vague feelings about not liking the second person well before these
classes.
Then, when I got a group of programmers, those that were specifically game
programmers (and there weren't that many, admittedly) also didn't like the
second person. (The non-game programmers didn't really care as much one way
or the other, although first person was found to "flow" better -- vague and
subjective as that is.) This just further reinforced in me that while the
second-person concept may seem "natural" to those steeped in text-based IF,
it's not (necessarily) seen that way to others.
I also was doing an informal setting with parents and children and there
again, the second person was not found to be all that amenable, particularly
in the idea of the "let's tell a story together" concept.
What may (or may not) be interesting: the parent/children group preferred
third person. The writers and game programmers preferred first person.
The one commonality to all these people is that they really had no great
exposure to text-based IF. Some had heard of it; some had played various
example of it in the past. None of them had ever used a system like Inform
or TADS or Hugo and none of them had played any of the more "modern"
text-based IF.
- Jeff
Raksab
Well ... for graphical computer games, it depends on the game.
I played the "Myst" series and spent the whole time thinking and
acting as if I was actually "there." Myst (and similar games) goes
out of its way to promote this mindset, and for me, the virtual visit
to another world is what makes it enjoyable. It's designed as a first-
person perspective, and the other characters in the game address the
player in second perspective ("Hey you, whoever you are, bring me the
pages...") When I run into a locked door, I think of it as the
equivalent of a text game's admonition "You can't go that way." The
game is talking to *me*, not to some person I'm controlling.
Were the game to tell me "*I* can't go that way," the PC would seem
more like a puppet I'm controlling, rather than it being me in there.
Like, when I reach out to pick up something, my hand doesn't tell me
"I'm not taking that, it's too hot to touch." I just feel it. I'm
the one having the sensation of getting burned, not my hand. I'm the
one who thinks "It's too hot to touch." If that makes any sense. In
a text game, the narrator informing me it's too hot to touch is the
omnipotent storyteller, not the character.
I've also played "RPG" type games where the character I'm controlling
is visible from a distance, like Zelda or Mario. In those cases, it's
easy to tell I'm not the lead character, the character is just a
figure I'm directing. I enjoy those games too, but in those cases the
experience is more passive. I do the actions and then watch the
ensuing story, but it feels more like I'm outside the thing. That
doesn't feel strange to me, it's just a different kind of game.
Since I can see the characters from outside, it's easy to maintain the
"fourth wall" between me and them. That's what watching most movies
is like, too. I know I'm not the one events are happening to. It's
exciting to watch Jack Sparrow battle with Davy Jones, but I know I'm
not either person, I'm just watching (and rooting for my favorite
characters).
I guess it's a stylistic question. I can imagine a game in which the
player could type WAVE SWORD and get a response "Link waves his sword
around, looking foolish." But then I'm still participating in the
game as a character, sort of ... I just have a different role.
Namely, I play God.
hmmm ... writing a game like that would be very interesting ... but I
lack the skillz to hack a parser to turn it into third-person. Best I
could probably do is lay a veneer over the traditional second-person
parser by changing default responses.
I think that for a game, third-person present tense is not so
intuitive. When I play a third-person game, I get a sense much like
watching a movie: in the back of my mind is the knowledge that I'm
just retelling a story that already happened. Third-person past tense
is what it feels like. But since IF is usually present tense, this
gets confusing.
anyways ... that's my unorganized thoughts on the matter...
Kathleen
> Largely, that's my underlying contention. You can do more with
> storytelling possibilities with third-person and first-person largely
> because how you narrate the story can change,
Elaborate?
> such as with asides, reflections, introspections, flashbacks, internal
> monologue, etc.
Hasn't this all been done before in IF?
> Does that mean you can't do those things with second-person? Of course not.
> You clearly can. But, equally clearly, it does have limitations, which
> probably explains its relatively small amount of usage just about
> everywhere.
For those of us who squeaked by English - can you expand upon the
limitations? The only one I can think of at the moment is that the
author is telling the reader what they are thinking, "You frown at the
thought." But why is that any worse than the first person, "I frown at
the thought." That leaves me wondering why I'm reading about this
mysterious "I". If I am me, why do I need to read what I'm doing?
"You" seems more natural to me, if only because such a thing might
actually come up in conversion ("How do I get there?" "You walk down
to the corner, turn left, and stop at the big oak tree.") or, for
those with short term memory issues, "How did I get here?" "You
climbed three flights of stairs and..."
Third person leaves me cold. Perhaps it works in novels because, at
least for what I read, they are written in the past. This matches up
with my expectations of story telling - telling what happened. Movies
seem to me to be 3rd person present tense, even when showing
flashbacks. Voiceovers can be past, present, or even future, but for
the audience, isn't the action itself always in the present?
> Granted, the argument could be made that second-person can handle this
> kind of narration. That may be. I haven't really seen it. The argument
> could be made that this kind of narration isn't fun for players of
> text-based IF. That could be, but I don't know if anyone knows that
> for sure.
What is it you are looking for that you aren't finding?
Perhaps 2nd seems strange because there are few places where it's
needed. People tell stories in first and third because they are
telling their own stories or relating the stories of others. There are
few reasons I can think to tell a *story* in 2nd in Real Life (perhaps
if your roommate had a few too many and wanted to know why there is a
live cow on the dorm roof...) But then it would be in the past.
Movies and novels don't need 2nd because the audience rarely gets a
chance to alter or direct them. Of course, movie directors probably
spend a lot of time in 2nd person present (or future)... which brings
us back to IF.
Kathleen (then again, what do I know. I program for a living.)
Jim Aikin
> I also was doing an informal setting with parents and children and there
> again, the second person was not found to be all that amenable, particularly
> in the idea of the "let's tell a story together" concept.
I like this, but I wonder how old the children were. "Let's tell a story
together" seems like something you'd do with a kid or kids under the age
of 8.
Apropos of this discussion, I was just wandering around the library
tonight, and a little voice said "Tom Robbins." So I went over to the
Tom Robbins shelf, pulled out "Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas," which was
the only title I hadn't read ... and darned if it isn't told in 2nd
person present tense.
If you're looking for a perspective on how this voice feels in
conventional fiction, I guess this would be a good place to start.
--JA
Brian Slesinsky
current IF because it's all conversation:
---
Help! Can anyone help me? Is anyone there?
> Hello.
Oh good! Someone responds at last. There's an angry monkey trying to
break down my door. What can I do?
> Do you have any bananas?
No, but I do have some apples. Will that do?
---
You're clearly not in the same room and all your information comes to
you as dialog, and this focuses more attention on the parser than it
can really stand; this is a classic Turing test that the computer's
going to fail pretty quickly. In second or third person, you're
talking to the computer narrator, so typing commands seems more
acceptable. Flaws in NPC characters can be hidden by limiting your
access to them. It's like in the old days in the movies, where so
much has to happen offstage or brief glimpses due to technical
limitations and the expense of special effects. Room descriptions and
simple objects are easy; characters and interactive dialog take a lot
more work.
Jeff Nyman
news:f4qb8c$315$1...@aioe.org...
> Apropos of this discussion, I was just wandering around the library
> tonight, and a little voice said "Tom Robbins." So I went over to the Tom
> Robbins shelf, pulled out "Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas," which was the
> only title I hadn't read ... and darned if it isn't told in 2nd person
> present tense.
Yeah, I know of that one. There are a few examples of second-person, at
least more than people might think. Three that I specifically recommend (to
see the usage in very different genres) would be Lorrie Moore's "Amahl and
the Night Visitors", Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Haunted Mind", and Iain
Banks' "A Song of Stone."
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
news:1181787838.0...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 13, 2:36 pm, Jeff Nyman <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Largely, that's my underlying contention. You can do more with
>> storytelling possibilities with third-person and first-person largely
>> because how you narrate the story can change,
>
> Elaborate?
Narrator orientation is the simplest way to describe it. It's how a narrator
relates to the story and to the person reading/playing the story.
I guess what it comes down to for me is that text-based IF is closer to
other forms of written media, like novels and short stories, that I see it
having the opportunity to take all the good things about how such media are
put to form (such as varying levels of narration) but also adding in the
major extra of greater interaction.
I see text-based IF, when predicated upon second-person, relying more on
objective narration, which can limit the storytelling possibilities because
... well, because of what objective narration is. An objective narrator
tends to act solely as an observer, as opposed to a fleshed-out opinionated
participant (character) in the story.
A limited third-person narrator, as an example, can be used to show two NPCs
in conversation. The narration style could give the player one of those
NPCS's words and actions alone (just observing), yet allow the player to get
"into the head" of the other NPC, so as to relate thoughts as well as words
and actions. This, to me, could provide a much deeper experience in terms of
considering how and why NPCs act and think as they do and how you might use
that to your advantage in the game.
First-person narration, of course, draws the reader's attention to the
narrator as a character. The reader has the sense of being spoken to by a
person who is telling of his own experiences. The nice thing here is that
such a narrator can be one who already personally knows the characters
involved, and who has opinions about the events and people in the story,
which can add deeper levels to a story as you, the player, have to not only
figure out the game world, but figure out what your protagonist knows about
it.
You, as the player in second-person, can be told that you know these people
and that you like or dislike them. That can work if the game presents that
information through various actions that you take. But what about the things
that drive *you* as the player; that drive your character. For example, your
player-character was scared to death by mice at one point in his/her life.
Something with the game comes up and involves mice. Now, you, as the player,
can have the player character try to do something with the mice. Both
second-person and, say, first-person can deal with that situation, based on
the past experience with mice, but the one forces you to try to internalize
the emotions more whereas the other asks you simply to accept them and
understand why the protagonist has them and why that may change how they
respond to your actions.
In other words, the voice of the player (you) is sort of like an inner voice
of the protagonist. You're telling them what to do. You might be their logic
and their conscience at the same time. But you are the unconscious or
subconscious part. The protagonist (the player character) is the conscious
part and they may "reject" or "go against" their unconscious. But, in doing
so, they'll (hopefully) explain why and allow you, as their subconscious, to
figure out another way for them to do what you need them to do.
I believe that's a powerful aspect of storytelling that text-based IF is
relatively unique in allowing. I also don't see that type of storytelling
being as effective in second-person because, as we've talked about here,
there's a difference between requiring someone to internalize and requiring
someone to have empathy.
> "You" seems more natural to me, if only because such a thing might
> actually come up in conversion ("How do I get there?" "You walk down
> to the corner, turn left, and stop at the big oak tree.") or, for
> those with short term memory issues, "How did I get here?" "You
> climbed three flights of stairs and..."
Okay .... this isn't bad, actually, at least as a conceptual understanding
of why. I kind at least see this as the basis of why people might like
second-person, particularly in a medium that you more direct.
I guess then where it comes down to it is what I have somewhat indicated. I
see text-based IF straddling the line between pure game and a work of
fiction. It's the latter that I believe is often given the short end of the
stick when there is consideration of how to write text-based IF.
> What is it you are looking for that you aren't finding?
Emotional connection with characters. A way to care about the character such
that I actually get something out of the game other than just solving a
bunch of puzzles (most of which don't do anything for character
development). A way to learn more about the author based on their work. A
way to understand a viewpoint about the world (or a situation) that I might
previously have lacked or not been exposed to.
- Jeff
Kathleen
however...
On Jun 14, 3:34 am, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is it you are looking for that you aren't finding?
>
> Emotional connection with characters. A way to care about the character such
> that I actually get something out of the game other than just solving a
> bunch of puzzles (most of which don't do anything for character
> development). A way to learn more about the author based on their work. A
> way to understand a viewpoint about the world (or a situation) that I might
> previously have lacked or not been exposed to.
All worthy (and difficult) things to do, but there is IF that at
leasts attempts those things out there - have you tried them? What did
you think? Obviously they must have failed for you, but why did they
fail?
Kathleen
Valzi
based on nothing more than habit and expectation, so I am going to
concede that the awkwardness is not natural, but personal.
I agree with Emily that the second person structure definitely has
valuable uses. The third, first, and second person person can each
actually produce the same results, generally speaking, of
communicating about the player character by way of descriptions which
show opinion and perspective, _however_ the second person seems to
force the emphasis, if the work is to be good. This creates an
interestingly different sort of frame in which to tell _or_ experience
a story in.
Admittedly, this can be a bit of a writing exercise, much like
programming within size limits, writing music within a set theme and
only an hour to write it in, et cetera. Arguably, this might be more
beneficial for the creator and his/her thought processes than for the
audience it was supposedly created for. However, I would instead argue
that it creates something enjoyable of a sort that might not exist
otherwise.
Because of this, I think that the use of second person in IF has great
value. However, there are similarly unique aspects which are
emphasized by the other two kinds of person. Since IF is largely
second person, the benefits of these are generally missing from IF as
a creative form, and the use of them in quality works of IF would be,
I believe, a worthwhile goal.
We are missing out, but not because second person storytelling is
second-rate. We are missing out because it is not innately better than
first or third person.
Jeff Nyman
> All worthy (and difficult) things to do, but there is IF that at
> leasts attempts those things out there - have you tried them? What did
> you think? Obviously they must have failed for you, but why did they
> fail?
Well, part of what I'm hoping to get out of this is that people are
going to be so sure I'm wrong, or at least misguided, that they're
going to point out numerous works that I should have tried, but
probably haven't. (Games I did like that I felt went a bit towards
what I like are "A Crimson Spring", "Babel", and "Rameses." Others
that I did like, to some extent: "Anchorhead" and "Slouching Towards
Bedlam.")
What I'm hoping is that people can suggest things that they feel
clearly disprove what I've been saying here. I'll be happy to play
those if I haven't. (Or replay them again if I have.)
- Jeff
Kathleen
> in conversation. The narration style could give the player one of those
> NPCS's words and actions alone (just observing), yet allow the player to get
> "into the head" of the other NPC, so as to relate thoughts as well as words
> and actions. This, to me, could provide a much deeper experience in terms of
> considering how and why NPCs act and think as they do and how you might use
> that to your advantage in the game.
> GIVE REPORT TO PAT
You place the report on the table, smoothing the cover with your hand
and aligning the lower edge with the table before sliding it across
the table. "Done."
Pat scowls, snatching the it off the table and quickly thumbing
through the pages. "Damn," he thinks, "she did it." And as his visions
of finally besting you go up in flames, he slowly hands over the
contract.
... ?
Kathleen
travel2light
> You, as the player in second-person, can be told that you know these people
> and that you like or dislike them. That can work if the game presents that
> information through various actions that you take. But what about the things
> that drive *you* as the player; that drive your character. For example, your
> player-character was scared to death by mice at one point in his/her life.
> Something with the game comes up and involves mice. Now, you, as the player,
> can have the player character try to do something with the mice. Both
> second-person and, say, first-person can deal with that situation, based on
> the past experience with mice, but the one forces you to try to internalize
> the emotions more whereas the other asks you simply to accept them and
> understand why the protagonist has them and why that may change how they
> respond to your actions.
I think I get what you're saying here. It's like in second person I am
being told 'you don't like mice' which can then create a conflict in
me because personally I might quite like them. So then I have to
detach myself and consciously realise that it is the player-character
who doesn't like them. Which is fine. But there are more processes
going on inside me -- that is to say I am having to make a conscious
disconnection from the player-character for that part of the game. And
then later on when the character is sailing along a river with awesome
cliffs all around him, something truly wonderful and inspiring -- then
I go back to wanting to be the character and imagining myself in that
situation. Then I get told how proud I am of my father for having used
slaves to dig a wonderful city beneath the mountains, and how I plan
to take up his work -- then I say "but not me!" So it switches
backwards and forwards. But with 3rd person fiction I don't have to
feel affronted. Another aspect of this dilemma is with regards to the
creative process of the author when writing in second person -- that
is he may find it more difficult to tell the player something
unappealing, immoral, bad or whatever about the player character for
fear that this will be an affront to his or her ego and therefore lose
the sympathy of the player. But the ironic thing is that this dilemma
and tension of doing precisely that, could actually be a strength of
second person narrative -- because it could create more conflict in
the player. That is to say she is literally _forced_ to think about
the situation and personality of the protagonist due to the problem of
his own issues and judgments of what she is being told. And on a more
profound level it also brings the player into a deeper connection and
dialogue with the author, e.g. how do I feel about this character the
author has created? What message is the author trying to convey to me?
And am I learning something about myself through this process? On a
more negative note it can lead to a somewhat preaching style of
narration. It's like I am being told to make a characters personality
become part of my own personality. This can work well as an
educational tool -- even as a way to confront the player -- to
challenge his assumptions. But it can also feel like I am being
manipulated -- like the author is presenting me with a situation and
telling me to feel a certain way about it. So there is a character
that is being revealed to me as the game progresses. I'm either
agreeing with his expected course of action or not. And I'm having to
either align or distance myself from his motive -- but either way it
doesn't matter -- I know I am not the character so for the duration of
the game I can enjoy the experience of being another person -- someone
who may be very different from me. So, from this perspective, second
person narration can be seen as a strength or a weakness. It can be
used to create a stronger sense of challenge and confrontation -- but
it can also be used to manipulate. As a form of propaganda it would
probably be highly effective. But all of this can also be achieved
through the other forms -- but the player has fewer processes to go
through in dealing with them. But he still has to align and assist
this character, and understand him. So I think that any of the forms
can be used effectively -- but the second person form could be the
most challenging to the player.
Michael
Jeff Nyman
news:1181861958.0...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> me because personally I might quite like them. So then I have to
> detach myself and consciously realise that it is the player-character
> who doesn't like them. Which is fine. But there are more processes
> going on inside me -- that is to say I am having to make a conscious
> disconnection from the player-character for that part of the game.
This is definitely an element of what I'm saying. There is a constant
disconnection that always is brought up when someone tells you that "you"
*must* feel something when you clearly don't. Granted, there is the notion
of suspending disbelief. But that works only when there isn't a credibility
gap and when you're not constantly being reminded that you are having to
suspend disbelief.
> the sympathy of the player. But the ironic thing is that this dilemma
> and tension of doing precisely that, could actually be a strength of
> second person narrative -- because it could create more conflict in
> the player.
That may be. I haven't seen it but, then as you say ....
> That is to say she is literally _forced_ to think about
> the situation and personality of the protagonist due to the problem of
> his own issues and judgments of what she is being told.
Except that with the second-person the notion of what is a personality (at
least to me) gets a bit fragmented because of the disconnection you mention.
On the other hand, though, I do see what you're saying. You're talking about
conflict. So ... hmmm. Yeah, maybe this does make a bit of sense as I think
on it here as I type.
> And on a more
> profound level it also brings the player into a deeper connection and
> dialogue with the author, e.g. how do I feel about this character the
> author has created? What message is the author trying to convey to me?
I think you could argue that. But if this form of narration was truly good
at doing this, I think it would be used more widely. That said,
counterarguing with my own self, perhaps this is where text-based IF offers
something different than other media such that second-person does work.
I thank you for this because this kind of insight is at least what makes
sense to me. I need to think through what you're saying more here since I'm
clearly replying off-the-cuff, but I thank you for your response as it has
helped me put second-person in a context.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
I've received.
Okay, here's what I presume most of us already know: characters (even those
in a game) are not just some POV "camera". A character doesn't just look at
something and tell us what they see; their own feelings (should) color and
shape their perceptions. That's what *makes them a character in the first
place.* It's what puts some context around the story.
Beyond that, POV tells you who is telling the story and -- sometimes more
importantly -- how they're telling it. (For example, are they coloring it
with fatalism or pessimism? Why? What if the player is succeeding in all
their actions? Why would the player character still color descriptions with
pessimism.) All stories have to be told by someone. But how they tell the
story can change as they grow as a character and as they encounter new
situations. But for that telling to change (in tone or content), it has to
make sense in relation to what's happened to the character *and* to their
personality.
I'm still not convinced that second-person does this well; but I'm looking
for examples that will show me I'm mistaken.
Somewhat related, but more on the narrative topic and on the idea of
narrative orientation, here's an example (and it's contrived; but all
examples are). I have a protagonist. If they eat a chunk of meat, it's
poisoned, and they die. If the player UNDOes that action, I want a bit of
narrative that can turn that usage of the implementation model (the game
engine) into part of the game itself. Here's an example in three
points-of-view:
= = = Second Person (present tense) = = =
> EAT THE MEAT
"You wolf down the chunk of meat all at once, that's how hungry you are. No
sooner than the meat hits bottom, you feel a sickening sensation in your
stomach. You fall against the table, desperately grabbing onto it, trying to
stay on your feet. The table -- or, rather, that rickety leg you had been
meaning to fix -- conspires against you; it and you topple to the floor.
Your bowels explosively release; a nice side effect of the poison. Death
with diginity is apparently out of the question.
...
Here you are three hours later. You have forgotten all about death with
dignity. For the love of God, you think, just let it end."
> UNDO
"You don't know what it is, but you have this thought that if you eat that
meat, you might end up getting killed. You have no reason to know this.
You've just got a suspicion about this meat. You'll later come to understand
where that suspicion came from."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = First Person (past tense) = = =
> EAT THE MEAT
"I wolfed down the chunk of meat all at once; that's how hungry I was. No
sooner had the meat hit bottom, I felt a sickening sensation in my stomach.
I fell against the table, desperately grabbing onto it, trying to stay on my
feet. The table -- or, rather, that rickety leg that I'd been meaning to
fix -- conspired against me; it and I toppled to the floor. I have to be
honest, I was, at this point, contemplating death with dignity but that went
out the window as I experienced what could charitably be called explosive
defecation. Just a little extra treat from the poison.
...
Here I am three hours later. Forget death with dignity. For the love of God,
just let it end."
> UNDO
"I realized that if I ate that meat, I probably would have ended up getting
killed. Of course, I didn't know that right then, of course. It was just a
suspicion I had. But later ---- later I found out just how close I had
come."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = Third Person (present tense) = = =
> EAT THE MEAT
"Blake wolfs down the chunk of meat all at once, that's how hungry he is.
But now he feels a sickening sensation in his stomach. He falls against the
table, desperately grabbing onto it, trying to stay on his feet. The
table -- or, rather, that rickety leg that he'd had been meaning to fix --
conspires against him; it and Blake topple to the floor. Blake's bowels
explosively release; a nice side effect of the poison, he realizes. Blake
comes to understand that death with diginity is apparently out of the
question.
...
Three hours later, Blake is still on the floor; all thoughts of dignity gone
from his mind. For the love of God, Blake thinks to himself, just let it
end."
> UNDO
"Blake doesn't know what it is, but he has this thought that if he eats that
meat, he might end up getting killed. He does'nt have any reason to know
this. He just has a suspicion about this meat. Later on that suspicion would
be confirmed."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Forgetting for a moment critiques of my grammar (since that's not the
point), what do people think? Does any one of those stand out more than
another?
I think, overall, the death description is relatively okay between all
three. Now, of course, this does lead into: Okay, how is the player going to
"later" find out about the meat? As an author, that would be my job. To make
that consistent. Some action must take place where the protagonist does find
out that the meat is poisoned. It's here where I find second-person examples
can falter; when you want to introduce either a character aside (spoken by
the player-character-as-narrator) or a story aside (spoken by the
limited-third-person-narrator).
Of course, use of UNDO is not necessary here, I just do it by way of example
to show narrative possibilities. Even without the UNDO, I feel like I can
get into the character of Blake or the "I" (who is just Blake, in first
person) more than I can the "you" in second person. In both cases the
characters feelings, or specific personality, can color and shape their
perceptions and thus descriptions. I'm not sure that same thing can be
achieved with second-person because at some point you have to introduce
those personality aspects and feelings in second-person. That's what I find
lacking, particularly when you then want to use those asides as a
fundamental part of the game, such as explaining or indicating why the
character is acting (or not acting) in a certain way.
Now, as another example of how I think first-person (as one example) can
sound better, I've taken the beginning text from "When In Rome, Part 1" and
translated it from the second-person to first-person. It's not a one for one
translation. What I'm trying to show here is that the difference in how I
would have written the first person is a direct result of the narrative
possibilities (and the converstional style) I see possible with different
viewpoints. In no way whatsoever should this be taken as a critique of "When
In Rome." This is used for no other reason than it's well-known and, I
think, a really clever opening.
= = = = = Modified "When In Rome" Opening = = = = =
'Excuse me. You -- in the fedora.' It was a female voice. Coming from behind
me. 'Excuse me, but is it really too difficult to keep your dog leashed?'
In fact, it was very difficult for me to do so, especially considering I
didn't own a dog. I said as much to the voice as I turned back toward it.
The source of the aggravation was about ten feet back on the path: hair
somewhere between brown and honey, a Marilyn-esque figure, and one of those
tipped-up noses that makes women look like they're thoroughly annoyed with
the world at all times. And, believe me, I've been with enough to know.
There was also a short, apparently green, animal zipping around near the
bottom of her skirt. 'I don't think that's a dog,' I said, trying to get a
closer look at whatever the hell it was.
'Well, whatever you call this ... thing ... it *obviously* shouldn't be
unleashed.' The girl was clearly perturbed and apparently my earlier
admonition of not owning a dog hadn't sunk in.
'Yeah, well, like I said, it isn't mine. I don't own a dog. And if I did,
believe me, it wouldn't look like that.' At my tone, the girl looked down at
the ... whatever it was ... again. In the fading twilight of Central Park,
it was hard to see clearly, but I was pretty certain that it didn't belong
to the genus *canis*.";
'You think it might be an escaped monkey?' That's what I asked. It seems
stupid in hindsight, but I couldn't think of what else it could be.
'I don't know!' the woman exclaimed, her tone conveying that she felt only
an idiot would be asking her to speculate on the nature of this creature at
this particular moment in time. Before she could say anything else, there
was the unmistakable ripping sound of stitches coming free. I'd be lying if
I didn't say that I briefly wondered what she would do if the animal managed
to tear her skirt off.
'Oh, will you let go!' the woman yelled and attempted to swat the creature
with her handbag. There was a flash of green arms and the creature was off
and running for the shelter of the nearest bridge. 'It took my bag!' she
exclaimed, turning and blinking at me. 'Your pet took my bag!'
I opened my mouth to deny involvement but she didn't want to hear it;
instead she stripped off her shoes and went running after the thing. I
watched her disappear into the darkness of the underpass. I hate to say it,
but I considered just going home. Alas, the perverse side in me won out; I
didn't want this woman thinking that the stupid animal was my pet.
With chivalry taking a backseat to stubborness, I raced off after the woman.
= = = = = = = = = =
Could I have written that same type of thinking in second-person? Clearly,
yes. It's just that when I do, I find it comes off a bit artificial. And
that's even the case in a passage like this, where you really don't have to
explore the character via how they present themselves to you. I've found it
gets trickier, the more you use narrative to enlighten the player.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
>> GIVE REPORT TO PAT
> You place the report on the table, smoothing the cover with your hand
> and aligning the lower edge with the table before sliding it across
> the table. "Done."
>
> Pat scowls, snatching the it off the table and quickly thumbing
> through the pages. "Damn," he thinks, "she did it." And as his visions
> of finally besting you go up in flames, he slowly hands over the
> contract.
Cool. Now here's how I, personally, tend to write something like that in
first-person and third person:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
First Person (past tense)
> GIVE REPORT TO PAT
I placed the report on the table, deliberately smoothing the cover with my
hand. Because I couldn't resist, I aligned the lower edge with the table
before sliding it across. As per my usual, minimal level of communication
with Pat, I simply said: "Done."
Pat, predictably enough, scowled at me. (Gee, he's never done *that*
before.) He snatched the report off the table and started quickly thumbing
through the pages. I could just hear what he was thinking. "Damn, she
actually did it." Oh, he wasn't going to say it to me. But he sure as hell
was thinking it. And I can tell you his visions of finally besting me went
right up in flames. How do I know? Because he didn't fire back with his
usual snide comments. He just slowly handed over the contract.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Third Person (present tense)
> GIVE REPORT TO PAT
Kathleen places the report on the table, deliberately smoothing the cover
with her hand. Because she can't resist, she aligns the lower edge with the
table before sliding it across to Pat. Kathleen's normal conversations with
Pat are small. This one was no exception. She simply says: "Done."
Pat, predictably enough, Kathleen thinks, scowls at her. He snatches the
report off the table and starts quickly thumbing through the pages. Kathleen
has no trouble at all imagining what he was thinking. It was as clear as if
he was saying it. Pat was thinking: "Damn, she actually did it." Kathleen
knew he wouldn't say that or anything close to it. Kathleen realizes that
Pat's visions of finally besting her just went right up in flames. Pat, not
saying a word, slowly hands over the contract.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Clearly it's a matter of style, as others have indicated, but I just feel
that more possibilities are open to this scene and to the characterization
that led to this scene in other viewpoints. That's not to say it can't be
done in second-person. As you've just shown, it clearly can. I just
presented my alternatives to give some concrete examples of how I tend to
see scenes in text-based IF.
- Jeff
Brian Slesinsky
> This is definitely an element of what I'm saying. There is a constant
> disconnection that always is brought up when someone tells you that "you"
> *must* feel something when you clearly don't. Granted, there is the notion
> of suspending disbelief. But that works only when there isn't a credibility
> gap and when you're not constantly being reminded that you are having to
> suspend disbelief.
The way I think of it is that in second person, the player is the
starring actor in your play. Some roles are easy to play, as when
you're playing a sympathetic character who reacts the same way you
would. If you're playing an unsympathetic character, the role will be
more of a challenge (and maybe less fun). Sometimes you might just
disagree with the writer of your lines: "What is this awful dialog
you're putting in my mouth. Who am I supposed to be?"
As a writer, you need to provide enough guidance that the actor will
know what to do in your play while leaving some scope for variation.
I wonder whether being explicit about providing stage directions to
the player would make this clearer?
Also, I expect that roles that actors find fun to play also make good
main characters in IF.
greg
> Everything seems to focus on the NPCs while, to me, one of the most
> interesting characters could be the protagonist.
Just a random thought -- everyone seems to be assuming that
the protagonist has to be the PC. Is that necessarily true?
Could one of the NPCs be the protagonist? Does there have
to be only one protagonist?
--
Greg
greg
> Caveat: There is a danger here that I'm caricaturing the second-person
> viewpoint and I'm trying not to do that. So if it seems I'm being
> unfair with the examples, let me know.
When I'm writing IF, I make a conscious effort to avoid
using the word "you" if I possibly can, because I find
constant repetition of it to be grating. So I would
write the examples you've given so far something like
> GET THE CHINA CUP
That mightn't be such a good idea. Mrs Jenkins is not
likely to be forthcoming with information to someone
who's just stolen her best china.
> GO NORTH
Not a very smart move, considering what just ran in
there. There might be a better way.
I would also try to avoid telling the PC how they feel,
even indirectly -- rather, I would just set the situation
up and leave them to feel whatever comes naturally from
it.
So I think that second person *can* be done a lot better
than it's typically done.
Although -- if you never use the word "you", is it really
second person? Or would it be better termed "neutral
person" or something?
--
Greg
greg
> But what I haven't seen (and still have
> not) is why text-based IF seems to predicate itself upon a convention
> (second-person) that virtually no other medium (related, whether
> peripherally or not) does.
Because no other medium puts the reader or viewer in
the position of taking an active role in the unfolding
of the story.
Given that unique feature of IF as compared to books,
films, plays, etc., it's not surprising that a unique
style of writing has arisen in conjunction with it.
> "My belief is that the use of
> second-person has held up the development of works of text-based IF
> because of a failure to recognize that the "player-character" is just
> another character."
But the PC *isn't* just another character, because he's
taking orders from the player. Even if the PC has strong
ideas about what he will and won't do, the player still
needs to have some control over him, otherwise it's not
IF, it's just F.
So if you want to give the PC his own character, you have
a bit of a problem. He's not the player, because he has a
distinct personality. But if he's not the player, why is
he taking orders from the player?
Use of second person is one way that people have developed
to address this problem. Have the player pretend to be the
PC, and talk to him "in character" as though he were the
PC.
Using first or third person may well make it easier to
write text that evokes a PC with a vivid personality.
But it tends to bring the why-is-the-PC-taking-orders-
from-the-player problem into sharper focus. Which may
be one reason why it's not used more often.
--
Greg
greg
> But, to me, the story has always
> seemed largely incidental, as I hope from one puzzle point to the
> next.
That's undoubtedly true of a large amount of the IF
in existence. But I don't think that has much to do
with first/second/third person, but with the fact
that telling an engaging story with IF, in a way that
makes use of the interactivity, is pretty difficult
all round.
In other words, having all IF authors switch to
using first or third person isn't going to suddenly
give us a flood of astoundingly evocative works
of puzzleless IF.
--
Greg
greg
> Help! Can anyone help me? Is anyone there?
>
> >Hello.
>
> Oh good! Someone responds at last. There's an angry monkey trying to
> break down my door. What can I do?
>
> >Do you have any bananas?
>
> No, but I do have some apples. Will that do?
There's a really interesting idea in there somewhere!
The player could be on the end of a help line, getting
calls from people in bizarre situations. He suggests
things for them to do, and gets to hear about the
strange and hilarious results.
It would also be an opportunity to explore the idea
of the player asking questions as well as giving commands.
Hacking the parser to accommodate this could be an
interesting challenge...
--
Greg
greg
> The argument many seem to be going for is that second-person is more
> natural for the storytelling medium, at least with text-based IF.
I don't think anyone's claiming that second person is
better for *storytelling*. Rather, it's an obvious
choice given the mechanics of the medium -- the player
is acting out the role of someone in the story.
> why is text-based IF one of the only forms of game format (that
> I'm aware of) that does this?
I don't see how it makes sense to even talk about
first/second/third person in relation to anything
*other* than text -- they're inherently textual
concepts.
The terms "first person" and "third person" are
used in relation to 3d action games, but they mean
something completely different -- they're about
the position of the camera in the 3d scene.
So, I'm curious -- what kind of non-textual games
do you have in mind that could be described as
first-person or third-person in the grammatical
sense?
--
Greg
Jeff Nyman
news:5df3m1F...@mid.individual.net...
> So, I'm curious -- what kind of non-textual games
> do you have in mind that could be described as
> first-person or third-person in the grammatical
> sense?
Games like "The Longest Journey" and "Dreamfall" are two of the most popular
recent examples. The character, April Ryan, whom you play (at least in the
first game), is referred to as April by everyone when they talk to
"you/her." That's third-person. April is being addressed but, to the player,
this is in the third person. When April writes in her diaries to tell the
player what's going on or what her feelings are, she does this in the first
person.
The "Broken Sword" series or the "Gabriel Knight" series are other examples.
The "Monkey Island" series is a good example as well.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
> Jeff Nyman wrote:
>> But what I haven't seen (and still have
>> not) is why text-based IF seems to predicate itself upon a convention
>> (second-person) that virtually no other medium (related, whether
>> peripherally or not) does.
>
> Because no other medium puts the reader or viewer in
> the position of taking an active role in the unfolding
> of the story.
Well, that's not strictly true. It's more accurate to say that certain media
are more interactive than others. You do take an active role in a story even
when you simply try to understand it by reading it or viewing it. Yes, the
level of control you have in text-based IF is different from a level, but
it's about equal with a graphical adventure game.
> Given that unique feature of IF as compared to books,
> films, plays, etc., it's not surprising that a unique
> style of writing has arisen in conjunction with it.
That's an assumption. It's not one I've seen people actually argue for yet,
at least in a way that's convincing. I've seen it stated pretty much just as
you stated it, but that's about it.
> But the PC *isn't* just another character, because he's
> taking orders from the player.
Or I could argue: the PC is another character -- it's just one that happens
to take orders from the player (and some of those orders won't be followed).
That very viewpoint -- that the PC isn't a character -- is *exactly* what I
suspect most people think when they don't give the PC any character at all.
> So if you want to give the PC his own character, you have
> a bit of a problem. He's not the player, because he has a
> distinct personality. But if he's not the player, why is
> he taking orders from the player?
Because it's a game. That part people can suspend. How do we know that?
Because people do it in just every other type of game. (When I play "Half
Life 2", I'm not worried that Gordon Freeman is definitely his own character
and yet I can control him.) And I've already talked about ways that you can
incorporate that idea. For example, the player is the subconcious or
unconscious aspect directing the player character, trying to get them to do
the things that need to be done. Or you don't have to explain it all. No
graphical adventure games out there try to justify why you, as the player,
are allowed to control the player character, any more than a book would
justify why you, as the reader, get to peek into so many characters' lives.
> Using first or third person may well make it easier to
> write text that evokes a PC with a vivid personality.
> But it tends to bring the why-is-the-PC-taking-orders-
> from-the-player problem into sharper focus. Which may
> be one reason why it's not used more often.
A valid point and an interesting one to consider.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
> In other words, having all IF authors switch to
> using first or third person isn't going to suddenly
> give us a flood of astoundingly evocative works
> of puzzleless IF.
True. Keep in mind, though, this is never a claim I made. In other words, I
never said: I think everyone should switch because then games will be
better. I've also never advocated "puzzleless IF", either in this context of
the second-person discussion or any other discussion.
What I have said is that I wonder if the sole use of second person (as you
yourself said in an earlier post, it leads to the PC being thought of as
*not* being a character) inhibits forms of storytelling that would allow a
wider breadth and depth of the stories that are told via text-based IF that
may actually make the medium appealing to wider groups of people, who have
responded to various other media that have similar, but differing levels of
interaction.
Point of view, in any medium, constrains how a story is told. Everyone knows
that. That doesn't mean one is bad, the other is good. But it does mean it
pays to consider how point of view is used and what types of stories are
told via it. To me, when you come into text-based IF, you're immediately
presented with everything second-person. If you don't think about it, it's
easy to just go with that flow. Pretty soon it just becomes an operating
assumption that this is the way you really should go rather than
investigating other possibilities.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
and conceptually challenged, stubborn individual like myself, I found this:
http://members.westnet.com.au/emmas/2p/thesis/0a.htm
It's interesting. Some of it was enough to give me a slight nose bleed but,
still, I found some interesting nuggets there. I also found this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_2_37/ai_108267994
Again, it's a bit dry but it does have some interesting points to make, I
think.
- Jeff
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> Could I have written that same type of thinking in second-person? Clearly,
> yes. It's just that when I do, I find it comes off a bit artificial. And
> that's even the case in a passage like this, where you really don't have to
> explore the character via how they present themselves to you. I've found it
> gets trickier, the more you use narrative to enlighten the player.
Jeff:
I think the issue for you is that you're probably more of a fiction
writer than a game writer. I can tell by your examples that you're
used to writing in some form but probably not used to writing games
specifically. For example, your re-do of "When in Rome" is really
good. It flows very well, it gets you into this character that you're
going to be playing, it establishes a bit of characterization while
always focusing on the action, etc. I was actually more impressed than
I thought I'd be between just a shift in viewpoint. What you should
probably do is see if you can keep up that style of narration for the
whole game. In other words, rewrite everything in the game that way.
Maybe the author would be willing to 'donate' the game to your cause
if it's not something you plan to release except as a sort of example
for the community. I think it would be good to see you take a game
that we all know of and change it like you're describing. Then let's
play it. Let's see where it works in one form and not the other.
As far as your examples of the character eating the bad meat, they all
sound pretty good to me. I'm a writer myself so I see the
possibilities with the first and third person versions more but I also
don't see the second person in that example necessarily being too
awkward.
As a teacher, I also recommend this exercise specifically for you.
Write a transcript with this scenario: the protagonist in the game has
to save his companion from certain death. She's trapped in room whose
ceiling is slowly moving down. The action the player has to take is
simple: move a lever that's in a recess in the wall. That'll open the
door. The companion runs out. The day is saved. However, the recess is
filled with bugs. Bugs that the character the player is controlling is
terrified of because of a past encounter with bugs. Let's say there is
an alternate solution to helping the companion. Let's also say the
player can eventually force the protagonist to do what's needed with
the bugs. Try to write an example in first person, third person, and
second person (as a game, not as just static text) that shows this
scenario playing out, with the attendant feelings we as players might
need to associate with this character.
My $.02 for what it's worth. I'm also interested in the details of the
class you taught. Please drop me a line at lisa_r...@yahoo.com.
>From there I'll give you my university e-mail.
Thanks, Lisa.
Jerome West
pick, in the context of the current discussion. Gordon Freeman never
speaks throughout the game. Neither do we see him through anyone
else's eyes, we are always looking out from inside his head. He never
carries out any action that the player doesn't initiate (leaving aside
the fact that the game's plot is entirely on-rails anyway).
Does this approach allow players to more easily slip into the role of
Gordon Freeman, 'becoming' him for the course of the game? And why
does Gordon Freeman seem such an interesting, believable character,
when he has been designed almost as a 'blank slate'?
Jerome West
Adam Thornton
greg <gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Just a random thought -- everyone seems to be assuming that
>the protagonist has to be the PC. Is that necessarily true?
No. I can't remember the game, quite, but "Sidekick Boy" comes to mind
for some reason.
>Could one of the NPCs be the protagonist?
Sure, sort of. See "Sidekick Boy," although, well, hunh. I think "The
Tick" (at least, the live-action TV show, which is what I mean) really
uses Arthur as its protagonist, despite the fact that he's the sidekick.
>Does there have
>to be only one protagonist?
No, not at all. I've got some plans for this one.
Adam
Jeff Nyman
> Half Life 2 (or indeed the original) is an interesting example to
> pick, in the context of the current discussion. Gordon Freeman never
> speaks throughout the game. Neither do we see him through anyone
> else's eyes, we are always looking out from inside his head. He never
> carries out any action that the player doesn't initiate (leaving aside
> the fact that the game's plot is entirely on-rails anyway).
Right. That's part of why I used "Half Life" because the 'character'
of Gordon Freeman comes up often on the game design fora.
> Does this approach allow players to more easily slip into the role of
> Gordon Freeman, 'becoming' him for the course of the game? And why
> does Gordon Freeman seem such an interesting, believable character,
> when he has been designed almost as a 'blank slate'?
One of the biggest complaints most players of "Half Life" have is that
Gordon is not fleshed out at all. But, as Valve, has argued: that's
sort of the point. Gordon Freeman is meant to be nothing more than a
vehicle for other characters, such as the G-Man or Alyx or even Dr.
Breen. Not to many people, at least on the fora I participate in, feel
that Gordon is an interesting, believable character. (In what sense is
he "believable?" In what sense is he "interesting?") What they tend to
believe is that he encounters interesting situations that encourage
the player to move on because they want to figure out "what's really
going on."
"Half Life" is action-driven, not character-driven, although Valve is
changing that slowly, as we see with the way they're modeling
characters now. But, again, notice that most of this happens around
Gordon Freeman, as opposed to involving him as more than a plot device
to get to the next point. (As you said, the plot is on rails. It's
very linear.)
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
>
> I think the issue for you is that you're probably more of a fiction
> writer than a game writer. I can tell by your examples that you're
> used to writing in some form but probably not used to writing games
> specifically.
Maybe. But I'm still a bit surprised that for all that people are
convinced that second-person is viable, the argumentation doesn't
amount to much and is often contradictory. Here, in basic form, is
what I got from various people's responses:
* The PC isn't really a character, so doing too much characterization
is useless.
* The PC isn't really a character, but you should still characterize
them as if they were.
* The PC is a character, but you can't equate that character to you.
You have to read
them as a character that is simply referred to as you.
* The PC is a character, and you should equate that character with you
because that's how
you become a participant and that's how you are able to become part
of the story.
What I think is important to keep in mind is that it's called
interaction *fiction*. Fiction is our way into experiences that we'll
never (most likely) have. Fiction is also our way into people we'll
never (most likely) know or even meet; and sometimes people we'd never
want to meet. The word "fiction" sets up expectations, just as the
word "game" does.
I can more easily see the format called "text adventures" than
"interactive fiction", at least based on how people seem to think
about it. I liken it to how a lot of people equate Testing with
Quality Assurance, when the latter is a much larger scope of
activities and concepts than the former. The same thing with "text
adventure game" and "interactive fiction", in my opinion. People have
appropriated a name without appropriating the concepts that go with
it.
In fiction, we mainly remember characters. Consider this list (in no
particular order, mixed with both characters from games, movies, and
books as they came to me):
Don Quixote, George Stobbart, Leopold Bloom, Bilbo Baggins, Holden
Caufield
Jason Bourne, April Ryan, Scarlett O'Hara, John McClane, Harry Potter
Zoe Castillo, Arthur Dent, Anakin Skywalker, Gabriel Knight, Tony
Soprano
"Dirty Harry" (i.e., Harry Callahan), Guybrush Threepwood, Ellen
Ripley
We particularly remember those characters that had an impact on us.
When such characters have had an impact on us, usually you can't just
be told about their experiences and feelings; you, as the reader, have
to experience them as well. I think it would be interesting when
someone could say, "I really enjoyed the character Elizabeth Jacobson"
and be referring to a work of text-based interactive fiction.
John Gardner said something that I think is telling and accurate: "No
fiction can have real interest if the central character is not an
agent struggling for his or her own goals but a victim, subject to the
whim of others."
"Subject to the whim of others" -- such as a player of a game,
perhaps. Gardner wasn't talking about games, of course, but he was
talking about fiction. (Remember: we're talking about interactive
*fiction*.) People who read fiction are interested in people; they're
interested in characters. What drives them? What do they want? Why do
they want it? Now for text-based IF you can add to this (in terms of
the *interaction*): Why should I care enough to help them get to their
goals? How do I go about helping them get to their goals?
So ... when all is said and done ... I don't know. I don't think it's
just my lack of experience or experience in one field in lieu of
experience in another. In a community that seems to place a lot of
emphasis on second-person, I've personally found most attempts, with a
few exceptions, to defend it or even just explain it rather
lackluster. That doesn't mean people are wrong, of course, since I
don't think there is a categorical "wrong" or "right" here. All I mean
is that I find it odd that something that is taken so much as an
ingrained thing (and something that may have been settled long ago,
according to some) is not really capable of being explained all that
well, at least to convince someone who actively questions the concept.
I was also told that I probably wasn't looking at this correctly
becasue I hadn't played the right works of text-based IF. That very
well could be. However, no one gave me examples of text-based IF in
the second-person that they believe did effectively do what I've been
describing.
> What you should
> probably do is see if you can keep up that style of narration for the
> whole game. In other words, rewrite everything in the game that way.
For what it's worth, I have done something similar to this with TADS 3
games ("Square Circle" and "Return to Ditch Day", which are the only
two sizable and useful examples available from which to try.) I
haven't done this as much with Inform or any other system, mainly
because TADS 3 has, in my opinion, a better ability to use point of
view and tense effectively.
> As a teacher, I also recommend this exercise specifically for you.
> ....
> Please drop me a line at lisa_rein...@yahoo.com.
Okay, I'll give this a shot. I'll e-mail you with what I come up with.
- Jeff
greg
> "greg" <gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:5desp0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>the position of taking an active role in the unfolding
>>of the story.
>
> when you simply try to understand it by reading it or viewing it.
Sorry, but I think that's blatantly venturing into
humpty-dumpty land. When we talk about "interactive"
fiction, that's *not* what we have in mind.
> That very viewpoint -- that the PC isn't a character -- is *exactly* what I
> suspect most people think when they don't give the PC any character at all.
It seems to me that not giving the PC a character is
a perfectly legitimate choice, depending on the kind
of work one is trying to create.
You're thinking of IF as a kind of story. But it didn't
start out that way -- it started out as a kind of *game*.
The original Adventure provided a simulated world, and
the game was to explore that world. It wasn't trying
to tell a story at all.
Given what it was, addressing the player in the second
person made perfectly good sense, since the whole idea
was for the player to pretend to be there in person.
In Zork, there were some hints of a back story to the
world, but it was still essentially an exploration
game. Works since then have increasingly incorporated
storytelling elements.
Some have extended this to giving the PC a character
role in the story, some haven't. I don't think one choice
or the other is better -- they're just different. Keep
in mind that the PC isn't the only avenue for character
development -- you can have NPCs and give them as much
character as you want.
If you feel that first or third person is a more
appropriate choice for the kind of work you want to
create, then by all means use it. I'm sure that many
people will be interested to see how it turns out.
--
Greg
greg
> the argumentation doesn't
> amount to much and is often contradictory.
>
> is useless.
>
> * The PC isn't really a character, but you should still characterize
> them as if they were.
>
> * The PC is a character, but you can't equate that character to you.
> You have to read them as a character that is simply referred to as you.
>
> * The PC is a character, and you should equate that character with you
> because that's how you become a participant and that's how you are able
> to become part of the story.
If you try to see a single work in all these ways
simultaneously, then they are contradictory. But I
don't think that's what's being argued -- rather,
different works take different approaches to
presenting the PC to the player.
* You can choose not to characterize the PC at all, and
ask the player to pretend he's there in person. Addressing
him in the second person is then a logical choice.
* You can characterize the PC, and ask the player to play
a role and pretend that he is that person, in that situation.
Second person is then still a logical choice. It can be
challenging to phrase the text to bring out the PC's
character without it sounding awkward, although not
impossible.
* You can present the PC as a separate person from the
player, that the player watches and controls from afar.
First or third person is then more appropriate. This
approach makes it easier to bring across writing
techniques from static fiction.
> What I think is important to keep in mind is that it's called
> interaction *fiction*.
You also need to keep in mind that "interactive fiction"
is a term invented in an attempt to describe a new
medium that has arisen, not a prescription for what the
medium or its works should be like. It's called "fiction"
to reflect the fact that it incorporates elements of
storytelling. It doesn't necessarily follow that it has
to use the same techniques that other media use to tell
stories or portray characters.
> In fiction, we mainly remember characters.
I'm not so sure about that. It might be true for the
kind of fiction that appeals to you, but when I think
back over the most memorable novels I've read, what
stands out in my mind is the vivid *settings* --
invented worlds, technologies, cultures, etc. -- rather
than particular characters. I'm thinking of things like
Dune, Lord of the Rings, Clive Barkers's Imajica,
Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn. Character no doubt
plays a part in these, but what I *remember* is the
overall feel of the whole package.
Sometimes I do find characters memorable, but it's
usually hard to separate them from their settings.
For instance, I find it difficult to imagine many of
Terry Pratchett's characters existing anywhere other
than the Discworld.
> John Gardner said something that I think is telling and accurate: "No
> fiction can have real interest if the central character is not an
> agent struggling for his or her own goals but a victim, subject to the
> whim of others."
>
> "Subject to the whim of others" -- such as a player of a game,
> perhaps.
That doesn't follow. The player of a game is never
entirely subject to the whims of others -- otherwise
there would be nothing meaningful for the player to do,
and it would be a very uninteresting game.
I don't see why a player, controlling an avatar in the
game, cannot *be* the central character, an "agent
struggling for his or her own goals" -- the goal being
to fulfill whatever objectives have been set up for
the game.
> People who read fiction are interested in people; they're
> interested in characters.
Again, I don't think that's accurate, or at least it's
not complete. When I'm considering whether to read a novel,
watch a movie, etc., I'm not thinking "What interesting
characters will I find?" Rather, I'm thinking "What
interesting and creative *ideas* will I find?" Some of
those ideas may involve characters and their actions,
but characters *alone* aren't enough to make me enjoy
a work.
> I've personally found most attempts, with a
> few exceptions, to defend [2nd person] or even just explain it rather
> lackluster.
I think most uses of it probably *are* due to habit --
it's become the convention, and it gets used unless
someone makes a conscious effort to do otherwise.
I also think most people acknowledge that it has
some problems, and it takes some skill and ingenuity
to use it really well.
However, I also think that many people are unconvinced
that the alternatives are clearly better overall.
If they were, they might have been used more often.
Perhaps what we need is for someone to go away and
create some more works using first or third person, so
we can see how well it works out.
--
Greg
greg
playing Max Payne, where the story is told via
cut scenes in the form of a graphic novel, with
narration by the main character in first-person
past tense.
However, the use of first person is confined
entirely to the cut scenes -- it's not part of the
main gameplay as it would be in textual IF.
(The main gameplay being entirely graphical, there's
no concept of grammatical person involved there.)
So I'm not sure how relevant it really is.
--
Greg
Jeff Nyman
>> You do take an active role in a story even when you simply try to
>> understand it by reading it or viewing it.
>
> Sorry, but I think that's blatantly venturing into
> humpty-dumpty land. When we talk about "interactive"
> fiction, that's *not* what we have in mind.
Who is "we"? People do interact with any story. That's a fact. You interact
with a novel by reading it. A film by viewing it. A game by playing it. The
level of interaction is what varies and makes each medium unique in terms of
how it can tell a story. We ask people to understand characters and
sometimes "read between the lines." That's asking your reader/viewer to take
an active role. Any game writing course, film writing course, or novel
writing course will tell you exactly the same thing.
>> That very viewpoint -- that the PC isn't a character -- is *exactly* what
>> I suspect most people think when they don't give the PC any character at
>> all.
>
> It seems to me that not giving the PC a character is
> a perfectly legitimate choice, depending on the kind
> of work one is trying to create.
So then it's not really a player "character", is it? Yes, a pedantic point,
perhaps. But words have meaning. That's why we use them. In this case, are
we saying the PC is a "character the player controls" or a representation of
the "character of the player"?
If you saw the other conversation regarding "Half Life," however, it is true
that you can have something that is barely a character at all: Gordon
Freeman. Even there, he is a character. We know his age; where he works;
some of his friends; etc. None of that really matters for the game, of
course. But it's hard to have no character at all because character is
defined by actions and how people react to actions.
Where text-based IF has a good strength (and where I think second person can
be just as effective as any other pointof view) is that it can allow the
character of the PC to develop based on what the player does (the actions
taken). It's not a view that I've seen anyone espouse, which is surprising
becasue, as I said, I think that's a good argument for second person.
> You're thinking of IF as a kind of story. But it didn't
> start out that way -- it started out as a kind of *game*.
"IF" didn't start as anything. Text adventures started out as games. And
they, largely, failed as a type of game, at least ultimately. I'm wondering
if that's at least partly because it didn't evolve to its strengths. Text
adventures evolved into this idea of "interactive fiction."
> The original Adventure provided a simulated world, and
> the game was to explore that world. It wasn't trying
> to tell a story at all.
And, yet, it still did. Albeit, it was paper-thin. But it's hard for a story
to not exist; humans are natural storytellers and pattern seekers and we
impart story even when there is largely a lack of one.
> Given what it was, addressing the player in the second
> person made perfectly good sense, since the whole idea
> was for the player to pretend to be there in person.
Right. As I said in another post, it's a great "text adventure." I wouldn't
call it "interactive fiction." And, even so, you're assuming second person
was chosen because it made perfect sense. It might have just been chosen --
because. Or because other games were doing it; or because Dungeons and
Dragons did something similar, or whatever.
> Some have extended this to giving the PC a character
> role in the story, some haven't. I don't think one choice
> or the other is better -- they're just different. Keep
> in mind that the PC isn't the only avenue for character
> development -- you can have NPCs and give them as much
> character as you want.
I agree. And the viewpoint in which the story is told will often dictate how
that character is presented. Character is from somebody's viewpoint; that
somebody can be omniscient, or limited, or subjective, etc.
I know this can be done in second person, where you have well established
characters, where motivations and behaviors are something to be understood
rather than just seen as a game element. I just haven't really seen it done
to any great extent, but I'm waiting for the examples that will show me what
I've been missing.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
> But I
> don't think that's what's being argued -- rather,
> different works take different approaches to
> presenting the PC to the player.
That may be. But to me they (the resulting PC) all seem alike, at least in
second person.
Can you point out some specific games that you feel do take very different
approaches to presenting the PC to the player? I would truly be interested
in trying them. I may have already but I've been trying to get people to
suggest games in various posts and I've yet to see people give the examples
they found the most compelling.
> You also need to keep in mind that "interactive fiction"
> is a term invented in an attempt to describe a new
> medium that has arisen, not a prescription for what the
> medium or its works should be like.
What's the "new medium" that has arisen? Not "text adventure", I presume
since that had come about before the use of the term "interactive fiction."
Also, why invent a new term if it does not distinguish "what the meidum or
its works should be like." That's often why terms are invented: they
categorize a segment of works based on how those works can be distinguished
from other works. It's largely the concept behind genre as well.
> It's called "fiction"
> to reflect the fact that it incorporates elements of
> storytelling. It doesn't necessarily follow that it has
> to use the same techniques that other media use to tell
> stories or portray characters.
That's true. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it shouldn't attempt to
use some of the strengths of those other media. Clearly that hasn't been the
case to any great degree, particularly given the emphasis people have been
showing to me, of *not* thinking in terms of other media.
>> In fiction, we mainly remember characters.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It might be true for the
> kind of fiction that appeals to you, but when I think
> back over the most memorable novels I've read, what
> stands out in my mind is the vivid *settings* --
Yes, but if those stories had zero characterization, chances are you
wouldn't remember them as well. Settings are just areas in which characters
explore. Settings are brought to life by how characters describe them or
interact with them. Just about all readers I talk with can name characters
that they remember very vividly. You are correct that many other people will
refer to the storyline or the setting, but when you get down to what appeals
to them, a large part of that dealt with characterization.
So maybe saying "remember characters" is perhaps too strong for some. But I
don't see how someone, for example, could read "Imajica" and not remember
the character of Gentle. Or how about "Weaveworld"? It's almost impossible
for me to think of that novel and *not* think of Immacolata or Shadwell and
their chase with Cal Mooney. Or how about "The Great and Secret Show" --
Kissoon, Randolph Jaffe, Howard Katz. All of these books had very strange
and surreal ideas (as most Clive Barker works do) but what drove the ideas
was characters. They showed us why the ideas mattered and how the ideas
could effect people.
You also mention "Lord of the Rings." The settings are just a place where
characters like Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Golum, and others journey as they
confront the ultimate evil. Yes, the settings are fantastic. (Who can forget
Mordor or Rivendell?) But the settings would be just photographs if there
were not characters roaming through them, letting us see those places with
*their* eyes, and coloring those settings with *their* perceptions.
> That doesn't follow. The player of a game is never
> entirely subject to the whims of others -- otherwise
> there would be nothing meaningful for the player to do,
> and it would be a very uninteresting game.
Well, the point was the *PC* -- not the player -- is entirely subject to the
whim of the player of a game. The quote was referring to a central
character. I was going for a bit of association there.
>> People who read fiction are interested in people; they're
>> interested in characters.
>
> Again, I don't think that's accurate, or at least it's
> not complete. When I'm considering whether to read a novel,
> watch a movie, etc., I'm not thinking "What interesting
> characters will I find?" Rather, I'm thinking "What
> interesting and creative *ideas* will I find?"
Right, but in most cases, if those ideas are not shown with interesting
characters, the story is found to be lacking. An idea isn't a story. It can
be the vehicle for one. For example, "The Matrix" dealt with virtual reality
and the notion of choice and free will. Fine. Those are ideas and I can read
about them in a book. I don't need to seem them in the context of a story.
The reason "The Matrix" worked (for some) is because it put the ideas in the
context of a story with characters that had to deal with the issues. The
ideas alone would have been a documentary. With characters, they became a
story.
"The Night's Dawn" trilogy, which you brought up before, is about the dead
coming back to invade the living. That's an idea. However, that's the same
idea of "Night of the Living Dead." What Hamilton did was give the dead a
"posession-like" characteristic (so a dash of "The Exorcist") and put it in
space, in a future where humanity is spread out and where our technology can
actually be used as a portal for the dead. So the idea was put in the
context of a story. Then various people, like the nefarious Quinn Dexter,
were used as characters to flesh out the story and act out the ideas. But
you can't possibly not remember Joshua Calvert or Alkad Mzu, right? Or what
about Laton? (One of the cooler characters in the book if you ask me.) How
about Ione Saldana or Syrinx?
I'm betting that without characters, you would have had a hard time reading
of just the ideas. That's the case even in movies. "I, Robot" was about a
guy hunting a robot who killed. Okay, there's some ideas. Robots. Laws.
Breaking the laws. But Will Smith managed to give a convincing
performance -- a character -- that let us explore those ideas in terms of
what they meant. (We saw, for example, why he hated robots. That was a great
scene, in my opinion.) In "While You Were Sleeping", the idea was that of
loneliness and opportunity. Lucy Moderatz (played very well by Sandra
Bullock) allowed us to see how people deal with those ideas and what lengths
some may go to.
> Some of
> those ideas may involve characters and their actions,
> but characters *alone* aren't enough to make me enjoy
> a work.
Well, of course not. I don't think anyone ever said they would be. I could
write a game or have a book with fifty characters in it. But they have to do
something. They have to interact with something. They have to change and
grow. Without that, you don't have a story. How you present the ideas and
the interactions and the change and the growth is ultimately due to
point-of-view. After all, somebody is telling the story. That somebody will
color the perceptions of what is told. How believable that coloring is,
based on the whole context of the work, is usually what people equate with
"satisfaction" or "enjoyment" of a given story.
- Jeff
Emily Short
> Now, as another example of how I think first-person (as one example) can
> sound better, I've taken the beginning text from "When In Rome, Part 1" and
> translated it from the second-person to first-person. It's not a one for one
> translation.
<snip prolonged example>
This didn't work for me, because to my mind it takes a lot of things
that are implicit in the original version and hits the reader over the
head with them. (Mostly. There are one or two bits I would not have
put into the mouth of this character.) I realize my reaction may be
partly due to having written the original, but I think I would not
prefer the rewritten version in any case.
I bring this up not to bash the example, but because I think the
aesthetic preference may be part of the reason we're having a hard
time communicating. I prefer writing, even in the first/third persons
in static fiction, to be a bit more restrained about the way it
presents character emotions, and to demonstrate that information
through actions and memories rather than through statements. All three
of the meat examples feel overwritten to me, e.g., and many of the
samples of characterization-centric writing that you've presented
actively turn me off, because they seem to me to describe someone
melodramatic and self-absorbed. Moreover, the internal monologue
portions tend to be vague and general rather than specific and
evocative. This is a preference that extends to my reading of
conventional fiction: Turgenev is my favorite Russian novelist because
of his economy of characterization, because we are able to understand
and sympathize with the passions of his characters without having to
bathe in them.
So we may simply be approaching the situation with different ideas of
what good characterization looks like; what I consider poignant,
concise, and nuanced, you may consider flat and under-involving.
With that caveat, here are some IF pieces whose protagonists I
remember clearly as particular characters:
-- Sting of the Wasp
-- Varicella
-- Narcolepsy
-- 1981
-- Rameses (as you've mentioned)
-- Fallacy of Dawn
-- Necrotic Drift
-- Muse
-- Blue Chairs
-- Christminster
-- Masquerade
-- Plundered Hearts
-- Dinner with Andre
-- Being Andrew Plotkin (several protagonists rotating)
-- Fine Tuned
-- Delusions
-- Tale of the Kissing Bandit
-- Amissville (what I played of it before the bugs and grammar drove
me away)
Some of these games are better than others; a few are outright bad.
That's not really the point of this exercise, though.
When I try to extract why I felt I knew these characters, the answer
doesn't include anything that the author directly told me about a
character's feelings. I cannot remember a single passage from even one
of these games in which the author said "And then I/you/he felt
X." (That's not to say such passages don't exist; it's just that that
apparently doesn't make much of an impression.)
Instead I think of the vivid dialogue in Robb Sherwin's works; the
snarky and highly colored perspective of Adam Cadre's characters; and
(very often) the ways in which the player is *restricted* from acting
by some characteristic attitudes of the player character. (Rameses,
Christminster, Masquerade, Plundered Hearts all come to mind here.) I
didn't put the protagonist of Elysium Enigma on this list because when
I think of that game I think more about its major NPC, but he, too,
takes his strongest moments of characterization from the times when he
won't do something: he comes across as chivalrous but a bit of an
innocent.
Another thing that heightens identification and sympathy (for me) is
being put in intense, stressful situations as the character: scenes
where the character is trapped and about to be caught, etc. Even
without a lot of other characterization, I remember feeling strong
sympathy for the protagonists of Anchorhead and Spider and Web for
just that reason; I can also think of quite a few cases in the games I
mentioned. An alternative to physical danger is a moment in which I
learn something that deeply affects the character emotionally,
especially late in the game when I've had a chance to get to identify
with him or her. (Delusions and Necrotic Drift come to mind here.)
Third thing: having to solve puzzles in an in-character way. My
favorite scene from Plundered Hearts is that in which our heroine
outwits the major villain: her solution to the problem is spunky,
clever, and wholly character-appropriate. Dinner with Andre works
similarly, especially during the first half of the game.
Fourth: the reactions of NPCs; they way they reflect the player
character and inform the PC's role. I think here of Michael in
Anchorhead, the sidekick in Fine Tuned, the collection of bizarre
friends in most of Robb Sherwin's work. They aren't just well drawn in
their own right; these characters actively tell us something about who
and what the PC is.
I don't remember for certain in which person most of these games were
written. I know Robb prefers first person as a rule, but I'd have to
go check on most of the others.
There does seem to be a disproportionate amount of comedy and romance
(or in some case comedic romance) among the games I've mentioned,
relative to the representation of those genres in IF as a whole. It's
easy to understand why romances might require their authors to think
more about characterization; the comedy thing is a little more
surprising to me.
Emily Short
> "Emily Short" <emsh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181774357....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ah hm. Your second-person examples have read as a bit stilted to me,
> > which I'm willing to grant is not intentional, but which suggests that
> > you haven't internalized the techniques involved.
>
> Definitely not intentional but I appreciate the comment. As far as not
> internalizing, you are no doubt correct. That said, I'm hoping to come to
> some conclusions before I do internalize too much. Once you internalize, you
> (sometimes) stop questioning and just accept. I'm not saying people here are
> doing that; I'm just saying I treat my relative "stranger value" as an
> asset --- for now.
Sure -- but if that's the case, then it seems more useful to critique
examples from people who have been working with these tools for a
while.
> I don't know: it sounds pretty accurate to me. Now, like you said, if
> certain information is "project[ed] ... through the description of objects
> and actions" then the objective reality (the world) and the emotive and
> subjective content is being, in some sense, treated together, at least with
> second-person text-based IF. So do you feel that text-based IF does bring
> the two closer together than other media, at least in terms of how both
> aspects are handled?
Eh er hm. Sometimes?
That is not a very helpful answer, but I can think of very subjective
novels. In this context, I often think of Heart of Darkness, where
Conrad goes out of his way to obscure what is going on -- describing
physical objects as though they were strange when he could just say by
name what they are -- in order to heighten the subjective sense of
being in strange territory and alienation from what one is seeing.
> > The parser stands in for the PC's inner voice, just as
> > it does in Rameses.
>
> Whereas, see, I think of myself, as the player of the game, standing in for
> the player-character's inner voice or for a character's inner voice.
> Thinking of the parser forces the implementation model on the user.
I'm not saying that the user needs to think about the parser, as such;
just that (in authoring terms) one can use parser responses to
accomplish output with a certain effect in the game.
Jeff Nyman
"Emily Short" <ems...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1182020264.9...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I bring this up not to bash the example, but because I think the
> aesthetic preference may be part of the reason we're having a hard
> time communicating. I prefer writing, even in the first/third persons
> in static fiction, to be a bit more restrained about the way it
> presents character emotions, and to demonstrate that information
> through actions and memories rather than through statements.
In this (demonstrate through action) I definitely agree. Action tends to be
better at showing this. That said, with text-based IF I suppose I can see
one of the challenges being is that you don't know what actions the player
is going to take. So you don't know when your bit of revelatory material is
most going to fit in context. Of course, you could linearize the plot but
that, to me, seems like it would close too many doors to a strength of
text-based IF, which is exploration. Or you could write the action so that
various scenes could play out and still deliver the same information.
And maybe that's why, as you say next:
> of the meat examples feel overwritten to me, e.g., and many of the
> samples of characterization-centric writing that you've presented
> actively turn me off, because they seem to me to describe someone
> melodramatic and self-absorbed.
So maybe what I'm doing is compensating for the lack of being able to drive
the story (because the player drives it) by making sure that certain points
get out there that I feel I *need* the player to understand. In that, I'm
perhaps not letting those points come naturally out of what happens.
Hmmm. Interesting.
> Moreover, the internal monologue
> portions tend to be vague and general rather than specific and
> evocative.
Yeah, in those examples, that's true. Of course, these were pretty minimal
examples but, on the other hand, I get your point. The thing is that
internal monologue in people *is* often vague and generalized. Feelings and
thoughts are not often specific and evocative. So if I used such monologue,
I would tend to make it like a person thinks but I would use it sparingly
because, in reality, I think internal monologue should be used as little as
possible. It leads to some weak characterization in some cases (which is
where I can see first-person getting into issues in text-based IF) and is
better framed by action on the character's part.
> So we may simply be approaching the situation with different ideas of
> what good characterization looks like; what I consider poignant,
> concise, and nuanced, you may consider flat and under-involving.
Perhaps .... but I do see your points, though, relative to what I wrote. I
think part of it (maybe a large part of it) is that I'm trying to get too
much out there to the player. (Granted, and to be fair to myself, I was
giving very limited examples here that I could expand on in an actual game.)
Instead of letting it evolve as part of the game itself (the action), it was
dumped to the player.
> With that caveat, here are some IF pieces whose protagonists I
> remember clearly as particular characters:
[game list snipped]
Of those, I've played "Rameses", "Christminster", "Plundered Hearts", and
"Delusions." The rest I will check out. Thanks for that list.
> Instead I think of the vivid dialogue in Robb Sherwin's works; the
> snarky and highly colored perspective of Adam Cadre's characters; and
> (very often) the ways in which the player is *restricted* from acting
> by some characteristic attitudes of the player character. (Rameses,
> Christminster, Masquerade, Plundered Hearts all come to mind here.)
Okay, that makes sense. Now, interestingly, and to this point, I found the
restriction part believable in "Rameses" whereas in "Plundered Hearts" I
found it less believable. By "believable" I just mean that in "Rameses" the
action seemed to fit -- both emotionally and intellectually; I didn't even
question it. With "Plundered Hearts" I understood the reason for rejection
(so it worked intellectually) but it just felt like more of a game mechanic
or a way to make a puzzle (so it didn't work for me emotionally). However, I
should probably replay the game again as it has been awhile.
But I see the idea of restriction being largely key because it's how you can
differentiate the player character as an entity onto themself. It's a way
for the player to not only explore the boundaries of the world but the
boundaries of the player character that they have to deal with.
Well, this gives me some homework to do. I appreciate your comments. I think
you've probably hit on some of what I was doing with the examples that might
be causing my conceptual issues.
- Jeff
Emily Short
> Jeff Nyman wrote:
> > the argumentation doesn't
> > amount to much and is often contradictory.
>
> > * The PC isn't really a character, so doing too much characterization
> > is useless.
>
> > * The PC isn't really a character, but you should still characterize
> > them as if they were.
>
> > * The PC is a character, but you can't equate that character to you.
> > You have to read them as a character that is simply referred to as you.
>
> > * The PC is a character, and you should equate that character with you
> > because that's how you become a participant and that's how you are able
> > to become part of the story.
>
> If you try to see a single work in all these ways
> simultaneously, then they are contradictory. But I
> don't think that's what's being argued -- rather,
> different works take different approaches to
> presenting the PC to the player.
I'd agree with that analysis, though would add: there are also a few
games that attempt to adjust the PC's characterization to the author's
preference, either by asking direct questions or by measuring the
player's behavior in some subtler way; I seldom find this very
effective, though. (I did think Bolivia By Night did interesting
things by asking the player for a gender and nationality, but this is
because your choices affect how the NPCs treat you, not so much the
internal narrative of the main character. As far as I could tell,
anyway.)
> > What I think is important to keep in mind is that it's called
> > interaction *fiction*.
>
> You also need to keep in mind that "interactive fiction"
> is a term invented in an attempt to describe a new
> medium that has arisen, not a prescription for what the
> medium or its works should be like.
Wasn't it actually invented as a marketing slogan by Infocom?
> > People who read fiction are interested in people; they're
> > interested in characters.
>
> Again, I don't think that's accurate, or at least it's
> not complete. When I'm considering whether to read a novel,
> watch a movie, etc., I'm not thinking "What interesting
> characters will I find?" Rather, I'm thinking "What
> interesting and creative *ideas* will I find?" Some of
> those ideas may involve characters and their actions,
> but characters *alone* aren't enough to make me enjoy
> a work.
Yes, I think the "characters are all" line is unconvincing too; it
strikes me as literary-criticism-via-amateur-writing-workshop. What
would we do with Borges? Calvino? With the passages of Moby Dick about
whaling, or Les Miserables about the sewers of Paris? Koyanisqaatsi?
Or (to a lesser extent) things like Bonfire of the Vanities or White
Noise or many of Stoppard's plays, where there are certainly
characters but the real subject of the work is a broad social movement
or an intellectual question?
Of course, now someone will challenge me to name some IF that is
equally powerful in exploring difficult ideas, or laying out a
setting, or exploring the human condition through symbolic vocabulary,
or treating a whole social movement. Setting would be easiest to
answer, I think -- setting is easier than most things in IF, and
arguably easier in some respects than it is in conventional fiction.
I'd have to think about the others; but I think we could just as
plausibly be having a conversation about why there's relatively little
IF about (say) social problems or abstract intellectual questions, and
what aspects of the medium might be inhibiting authors from writing
such things, if in fact they are inhibited.
The answer to all these questions might well be: more examples don't
exist because not enough people have yet tried.
Jeff Nyman
>
>> > People who read fiction are interested in people; they're
>> > interested in characters.
>>
>> Again, I don't think that's accurate, or at least it's
>> not complete.
>
Me too. But keep in mind, I never said characters are all. I said people who
read *fiction* tend to be interested in them and tend to remember them,
even if only vaguely. Readers might not sit there and say "I'm interested in
characters" but, ultimately, they're interested in a story (that takes place
in a certain setting and that may expound on certain ideas). And, thus,
ultimately they're interested in the characters put in those settings and
dealing with those ideas.
If a reader isn't interested in characters and they just want setting, they
might read a travelogue or a picture book. If people are just intersted in
ideas solely as ideas, they might read a physics book or a philosophy book
or whatever else deals with the idea qua idea. When people come to fiction,
of course they look at setting and idea --- but those are both put in the
context of character.
In other media, that applies as well. I doubt too many people want to see
movies that just talk about an idea. I doubt too many people want to see
movies that just show settings. (Obviously there are some movies that do
just these things; but the vast majority deal with characters. The thing
with movies is that people more tend to associate the character with the
actor. So you hear "Denzel Washington was so good in that" rather than
saying that the character was a well-written character. The same goes for
books, but in a slightly different way.)
> would we do with Borges? Calvino? With the passages of Moby Dick about
> whaling, or Les Miserables about the sewers of Paris? Koyanisqaatsi?
> Or (to a lesser extent) things like Bonfire of the Vanities or White
> Noise or many of Stoppard's plays, where there are certainly
> characters but the real subject of the work is a broad social movement
> or an intellectual question?
Yes, but the broad social movement or intellectual question is played out
with characters. ("The Time Machine" was also a form of social commentary,
but it worked because the commentary was brought forth from the viewpoint of
characters.) Would the same people who read those books also read a
non-fiction treatise on the social movement or the intellectual question?
They very well may. But they'd be approaching it differently than if they
were specifically reading fiction that dealt with those subjects. People who
read fiction specifically tend to be interested in how ideas can be related
to people; we try to relate to characters that are dealing with things (like
a social movement or an intellectual idea). If we can relate to those
characters, we can perhaps come to some understanding of the ideas we're
reading about.
I don't think the character is "all" in some sense, but the character is
often what makes it possible for people to explore the ideas and the
settings. Character is what allows an author to present a setting or idea
from different viewpoints. So while a reader may be interested in the idea
of cloning, if you read a fiction book that deals with it (as opposed to a
science book), you (if you're like most readers) probably want characters
that deal in some way with cloning. So character interweaves with idea. Do
we more remember the idea in that case? No, because we already knew the
idea. That's why we read that book in the first place! What we often
remember is how good (in our opinion) the book explored the idea and that's
often directly due to the characters in the book and how *they* were used to
explore the idea.
- Jeff
Emily Short
> Me too. But keep in mind, I never said characters are all. I said people who
> read *fiction* tend to be interested in them and tend to remember them,
> even if only vaguely. Readers might not sit there and say "I'm interested in
> characters" but, ultimately, they're interested in a story (that takes place
> in a certain setting and that may expound on certain ideas). And, thus,
> ultimately they're interested in the characters put in those settings and
> dealing with those ideas.
Weeelll, okay. But it seems to me that you are now using the less-
strong definition of character ("some figure who has a role in a
story") rather than the more-strong definition that started this
challenge in the first place ("a figure whose thoughts, feelings, and
personality become well known to the reader/player/viewer over the
course of a work, and whose internal processes are of central
importance to that work's meaning").
There are plenty of works whose characters are essentially
placeholders: Borges' "Funes the Memorious" is not a developed person,
but a thought-experiment used to discuss the mind's ability to
categorize and generalize. Many of the characters in classic science
fiction are markers in thought-experiments about scientific and
technological possibility, and the ethical questions that might arise
from those possibilities. And even not-so-classic SF: I'm hard put to
name a single character in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books, though
they're well-populated with people. To reach back further: Orestes and
Electra, as handled by Aeschylus, are of little importance as
individuals; the mythic situation in which they find themselves is
what matters. Scriptural stories also often have this quality, of
focus on events rather than feelings and motivations, or else they
encapsulate motives in a very simple and universal way ("so-and-so was
jealous", "so-and-so's heart was hardened"). Now you could argue that
this is because these are examples of bad fiction (or, depending on
your beliefs, non-fiction in the case of a given scripture), but I
don't think I buy the quality argument; and certainly you wouldn't get
far claiming that these works had failed to capture the imagination of
readers.
So I'd agree with you so far as to say that a story generally involves
the behavior of active agents, and that postulating a specific
situation can illuminate a setting, question, or idea in ways that are
more accessible or more challenging than a nonfictional treatise; but
that does not always mean that *characterization* is central.
> So while a reader may be interested in the idea
> of cloning, if you read a fiction book that deals with it (as opposed to a
> science book), you (if you're like most readers) probably want characters
> that deal in some way with cloning.
Sure, but again, this is the weak definition rather than the strong
one, and, what's more, I think you're now conflating character with
plot. Plenty of IF works have stories about characters doing something
that somehow has something to do with an idea, concept, theme, or
question. Maybe not the really old-school adventure games -- I'm
unable to claim much of a plot or theme for Zork -- but a goodly
proportion of modern IF.
greg
> It's
> easy to understand why romances might require their authors to think
> more about characterization; the comedy thing is a little more
> surprising to me.
Should that really be surprising? Seems to me that comedy
largely arises from the things people do and the way they
react to things.
I'm having trouble imagining comedy that doesn't involve
characters of some sort (which could include animals,
intelligent robots, etc.)
--
Greg
Emily Short
But we're specifically talking about having a well-defined *player
character* here; one can just as easily have a sort of everyman PC who
struggles against comically unfair situations and/or observes the
wacky hijinx of NPCs. One of my favorite IF comedies is "Gourmet", but
the main character I remember from that is the indefatigable evil
lobster. And come to that, "Nord & Bert" is a comedy which is not
really about characterization at all. So I'm not sure this is
necessarily a given.
Jerome West
> Not to many people, at least on the fora I participate in, feel that
> Gordon is an interesting, believable character. (In what sense is
> he "believable?" In what sense is he "interesting?")
He's interesting and believable, to me at least, because he is me. For
the brief time I'm immersed in the game, I am Gordon Freeman, and that
illusion is never shattered by a badly acted or poorly scripted voice-
over, saying things I'd never say.
This way of presenting a protagonist is only really possible, as far
as I can see, through the fact that games have interactivity. A film
would have a hard time presenting the main character in that manner.
Similarly, IF gives us the opportunity to perform the same trick,
whereas I can't see how a book would pull it off (although I could be
wrong, and I'd love to hear some counterexamples!)
My ideal work of IF (or any other game, for that matter) would give
the main character total freedom of action. The player simply is the
character. The game world, and the NPCs within it, react the player's
actions (no matter how outlandish) in a believable way. Whenever a
game tells me something like "you really don't fancy jumping from
here, it looks like a long way down", the illusion of interactivity is
shattered.
I fully realise that it isn't practical to write games with complete
freedom of action. I also understand that not everyone would even view
this as an ideal to aim for (in fact I'm probably in the minority
here). I just thought I'd throw out a different point of view.
Jeff Nyman
> On Jun 16, 4:06 pm, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Weeelll, okay. But it seems to me that you are now using the less-
> strong definition of character ("some figure who has a role in a
> story") rather than the more-strong definition that started this
> challenge in the first place ("a figure whose thoughts, feelings, and
> personality become well known to the reader/player/viewer over the
> course of a work, and whose internal processes are of central
> importance to that work's meaning").
Right -- but that's kind of the point. Sometimes you don't remember the
details of the character and yet you remember the setting and ideas (Greg's
point) more vividly *because of those characters* (my point). Readers are
different, and they remember fiction in various ways. But, as it often seems
to be the case, those movies or stories with more vivid characters that
drive the theme do allow for greater memory of the work.
For example, people may not remember Billy Pilgrim as a character, per se,
from "Slaughterhouse-Five" such that they could quote his name or even much
about him; but they may remember great details about how anti-war the book
was and how war can affect people horribly. Why? Well, in the book Billy is
so affected that he starts to hallucinate about time travel and aliens. You
needed the character to really drive the theme home.
So "less-than-strong strong definition of character" -- related to "some
figure who has a role in a story" -- fits Billy perfectly. The "more-strong
definition" -- "a figure whose thoughts, feelings, and personality become
well known to the reader/player/viewer over the course of a work, and whose
internal processes are of central importance to that work's meaning" -- also
fits Billy perfectly.
That's the point. It's rarely an either-or, at least in my experience.
Taking a more familiar example, consider the character of Chief Brody from
"Jaws." Would many people remember his exact name? Would they remember how
he was new to the town and a big-city boy? Would they remember how he was
overly confident (until he encountered water + shark)? Would they remember
how he had to fight against the political games of the Mayor? Perhaps not,
at least in all those details. (Although some people, myeslf included,
would.) But the point is that when people think of "Jaws" (besides thinking
of people getting munched), it's not hard to automatically think of the
character who fought the shark, ultimately leading to the questionable scene
of "that guy" blowing up a compressed air tank in the shark's mouth. My
point there is people might just remember the action, but it was an action
taken by a character.
> There are plenty of works whose characters are essentially
> placeholders: Borges' "Funes the Memorious" is not a developed person,
> but a thought-experiment used to discuss the mind's ability to
> categorize and generalize.
Whereas here I would disagree, perhaps showing that how we consider
"developed person" can differ, based on how much the author gives you to
allow you to fill in details. Funes is clearly presented as someone who
can't deal with generalities or of abstract association. I've met numerous
people like that, so I could relate to dealing with such a character. Funes
built his world-view up of massive amounts of details due to his lack of
ability. Was he the most developed character in fiction? Clearly not. But he
was developed. Again, I don't think it's an either-or.
But -- here's also the point: let's say Borges didn't use characters at all,
but just used a treatise format to talk about the lack of ability to
generalize and how this might affect things (like sleep, for example, for
which insomnia was something Borges dealt with). Would the theme have been
as memorable? Probably not. Even though Funes was not perhaps as developed,
you did remember him. It was the theme (lack of generalizing ability) put in
the context of a character who could showcase an aspect of that theme.
> And even not-so-classic SF: I'm hard put to
> name a single character in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books, though
> they're well-populated with people.
But do you remember what the characters did on Mars, even if you don't
remember their names? Do you remember any scenes that happened with
characters? Or do you just remember facts about Mars that you could have
read in an astronomy book? "Remembering characters" doesn't automatically
equate to remembering their names and what color their eyes were. It can be
remembering the actions they took in context of the story, whether that be
building a new world on Mars, running from dinosaurs in a theme park, or
whatever else.
I don't remember the names of many characters from every Robert Ludlum book
I read, but if I'm given a title I can remember specific things that
happened in it, in terms of action the characters took. I don't remember
every character in Dean Koontz's works but I can often remember how well I
liked the story based on how I felt the characters acted. Since I'm
currently writing a zombie novel, an example comes immediately to mind: I
read "Dead City" by Joe McKinney and "Down the Road" by Bowie Ibarra. In
neither case do I remember the character's exact names. But I remember some
details about them and I remember how realistic they seemed to respond to
the rising of the dead. I know which book I would read again, based on that,
and which I would not. (If you're curious: I thought "Dead City" was far
superior.)
> To reach back further: Orestes and
> Electra, as handled by Aeschylus, are of little importance as
> individuals; the mythic situation in which they find themselves is
> what matters.
Right --- but I would contend that the mythic situation only "matters"
because of the characters that are in that situation. At least, that's what
I believe. "Star Wars" is really just mythic situations as well, but it's a
lot different than reading "The Power of Myth" as one example. The
characters are what give life to the myth and allow it to play out so that
people can resonate with the ideas that are being conveyed. The same
applies, I think, to movies like "The Matrix." Yes, the effects are nifty
but the ideas of the movie is really just a lot of re-hashed philosophy
(brains-in-vats, true choice, pre-determinism, virtual reality). These are
topics many people might not have really wanted to read about. But in the
context of characters, they took on a life that got people talking. (I
suppose you could argue there were some mythic themes in these movies as
well -- at least in the first two.)
> Scriptural stories also often have this quality, of
> focus on events rather than feelings and motivations, or else they
> encapsulate motives in a very simple and universal way ("so-and-so was
> jealous", "so-and-so's heart was hardened").
Being one who has taught "Bible as Narrative", I can tell you that in my
experience people do very much tend to remember the characters, though.
Abraham and Isaac. Noah. Lot. Moses and Aaron. David and Solomon. The events
are often hard to separate from the characters and I would say that such
stories don't focus on the events. They focus on how people (characters)
responded to the events.
In fact, it's largely impossible in the case of a lot of scripture, to
separate the event from the character that exemplifies the event. It's hard
to separate the "speaking to the gentiles" (event) from Paul who led the
charge. (Often in opposition to James, who didn't feel speaking to the
gentiles was all that important.) The events of the betrayal of Yeshua by
specific characters: Judas (allegedly, anyway, unless you go for some of the
"Gospel of Judas" stuff) and the spurning of Yeshua (event) by Simon Peter
are examples of events not being separable from characters. The subtle
condemnation of not allowing others to join the "religion of Israel" is
shown no better than in a character: Ruth. The notion of conquest by those
who are deemed righteous is shown no better than in a character: Joshua.
As in most writing that I think is good, events tie in with feelings and
motivations. They make it clear why you should care about the event.
Constrasting books like Job and Ecclesiastes is a good example of how people
respond to books that have clearly defined characters and those that are
more "treatise" and thus not as popular. A good example that really
straddles the line in interesting ways would be the Song of Songs (or Song
of Solomon, or Canticles, based on your preference). This is all about
character. Yet there is massive discussion about who the characters even
are. Sometimes you can't even tell who is speaking with certainty. The theme
is love. But if the theme (and the events of the story) weren't recounted
with characters, I doubt it would be as popular of a book as it is. (Note
even the events are a bit vague: is it a wedding, as some contend? Is it a
woman in a harem, as others contend, pining for another lover, and getting
away for a rendezvous?)
> Now you could argue that
> this is because these are examples of bad fiction (or, depending on
> your beliefs, non-fiction in the case of a given scripture), but I
> don't think I buy the quality argument; and certainly you wouldn't get
> far claiming that these works had failed to capture the imagination of
> readers.
Agreed -- but as I showed above, I don't believe the capturing of
imagination came about because of the situations and events. It came about,
in part, because characters that at the time of reading could be related to,
even if in peripheral fashion. Yes, you needed the events; you needed the
situation. But the resonation with people is what made the difference.
> So I'd agree with you so far as to say that a story generally involves
> the behavior of active agents, and that postulating a specific
> situation can illuminate a setting, question, or idea in ways that are
> more accessible or more challenging than a nonfictional treatise; but
> that does not always mean that *characterization* is central.
Fair enough. That's probably just an area where we disagree.
Characterization is the process of conveying information about characters in
fiction; sometimes that information may take a back set to other elements in
the story, at least at certain points, but without that characterization
people would not have been reading a story and, in many cases, I believe,
would not have gotten much out of it.
A great example (I think) is nanotechnology. Lots of people interested. Now
if you just want to learn about nanotechnology, you might read "The Engines
of Creation" or something like that. No characters to worry about because
it's not a fiction piece. But let's say you like your ideas as part of
fiction, so that you can see characters responding. One example of a book
that did this very well (based on the majority of reader opinion, anyway) is
Michael Crichton's "Prey" because it focused on the characters dealing with
the technology. A book hailed as pretty bad in this regard is "Nano" by John
Robert Marlow because the book was clearly just a vehicle for talking about
nanotechnology, but in the guise of a fiction setting. People remember the
characters of "Prey", they remember some vague talk about nanotechnology in
"Nano" -- talk that they could have gotten from non-fiction books.
Another good example, perhaps, are the discussions that take place about a
book like "The Da Vinci Code." Clearly the focus here is the ideas. But why
did this book -- and the ideas it promoted -- take off when numerous other
books had shown these same ideas, with much more accurate detail, for years
and years? ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "Messianic Legacy", "Rex Deus", "Web
of Gold", "The Templar Revelation", etc., etc). It's because now people
could relate the events and the ideas to specific characters running around.
It put the ideas into context. Maybe people wouldn't exactly remember all
details about Robert Langdon but they do remember the basic characterization
of this guy who could decode symbols and who learned of these allegeldy
"shattering secrets" about paintings and secret societies.
> Sure, but again, this is the weak definition rather than the strong
> one, and, what's more, I think you're now conflating character with
> plot.
Well, it goes back to that old diddy everyone trots out, right. "The king
died, and then the Queen died." Great -- you have story. But: "The King
died, and then the queen died of grief." Ah, now you've got plot. Both
involve characters. The plot is the causal relationship between events.
Events linked by causation. But what's operative in the events? Characters.
The focus isn't on grief (an idea; concept). The focus is on a character
(the Queen) experiencing grief.
With the cloning example, what I was saying is that if readers are reading a
fiction book that involves cloning, that may be because they have some
interested in the idea of cloning itself. Great. But they're reading a
fiction book -- rather than a science book -- because, ultimately, it will
involve characters exploring these ideas of cloning. The characters may take
differing viewpoints on it, for example. (Robin Cook's novels are filled
with characters who take differing viewpoints on things like cloning all the
way to HMO's.) The characters may have to deal with the ramifications of
cloning. The plot may be about a cloning experiment gone awry. How the
characters deal with the situation, based on the viewpoints they give and
the actions they take, is the characterization seen as a function of the
plot. Or you can say the plot is a function of the characterization. It's
another thing that I don't think is an either-or because readers respond
differently.
I think "conflating character with plot" can be more or less vague.
Conflicts can be created, those conflicts can create a certain amount of
drama or narrative tension, those in turn can reveal character (by
action/reaction), and how all of this is causally connected is plot. I don't
subscribe to the school of thought that says "Character is Plot" or "Plot is
Character" but I'm not sure how my cloning example would seem to conflate
the two, at least in a way that makes them indistinguishable.
- Jeff
Adam Thornton
greg <gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Should that really be surprising? Seems to me that comedy
>largely arises from the things people do and the way they
>react to things.
OK, I have to blow my Overgeneralization Whistle here.
You can substitute "tragedy," "technological progress," or "the entirety
of human history" for "comedy" here with no loss of truth.
Adam
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 15, 10:34 pm, greg <g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think the "characters are all" line is unconvincing too; it
> strikes me as literary-criticism-via-amateur-writing-workshop. What
> would we do with Borges? Calvino? With the passages of Moby Dick about
> whaling, or Les Miserables about the sewers of Paris? Koyanisqaatsi?
> Or (to a lesser extent) things like Bonfire of the Vanities or White
> Noise or many of Stoppard's plays, where there are certainly
> characters but the real subject of the work is a broad social movement
> or an intellectual question?
Coming at this from a slightly different perspective, I'm not sure
what you mean by 'what should we do with' these examples. There may be
nothing to do. None of these examples of works are necessarily what
you would want someone to think about in terms of relating the craft
of writing in general to interactive fiction. I don't think
interactive fiction truly caters to literary types and I don't think
it should. Very few of these examples are useful for making a solid
point. It would be akin to me always using James Joyce and John Updike
in my classes. It's a slanted viewpoint, at best, or a horribly non-
interesting one for most readers or students, at worst.
Regarding the idea of 'literary-criticism-via-amateur-writing-
workshop', you should read the book Characters Make Your Story.
Characters do make your story. If the people come alive, what they do
becomes story. The characters engage us first and are remembered most.
Unless the author hasn't done their job or unless you have a very dull
reader who doesn't look past the surface ideas.
The point I would make is that audiences have changed. You can't look
at how things worked so much in the past, or even with a current
limited subset of literary technique, and equate that entirely with
the present. The notion of what people want from stories has changed
quite significantly; what people used to greatly enjoy has become
something that people now either grudgingly tolerate or abandon
altogether. Further, what people look for in characterization in more
literary works isn't what they look for in more popular works.
In looking at these discussions, I would agree that second person
isn't the problem. I think the problem, if there is one, is that
interactive fiction is geared solely for a very limited audience
because that audience has never reached very well beyond its own self.
There's been very little 'peer review' of interactive fiction because
it's mainly kept to itself. It doesn't foster much self-adjustment the
way novelists, playwrights or scriptwriters are forced to do with
their trade. That may be why the most vocal proponents of interactive
fiction are the ones that tend to refer to Borges and Melville, all
the way not relating to people who not only may not have read those
works but have no desire to. Interactive fiction is self-contained and
I believe a greater point that could be brought forth from the ideas
on point or view is questioning why interactive fiction doesn't appeal
to more people.
Emily Short
> "Emily Short" <emsh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> "developed person" can differ, based on how much the author gives you to
> allow you to fill in details. Funes is clearly presented as someone who
> can't deal with generalities or of abstract association. I've met numerous
> people like that, so I could relate to dealing with such a character. Funes
> built his world-view up of massive amounts of details due to his lack of
> ability. Was he the most developed character in fiction? Clearly not. But he
> was developed. Again, I don't think it's an either-or.
I'm not arguing that characters in the weaker sense are unimportant.
On the contrary, I'm saying is that, if you accept that a character
can still be effective when the author gives the reader/player no
access to his thoughts and motivations, your earlier arguments break
down: internal monologue and the other techniques you listed are *not*
required to make characters memorable and resonant; they may be
useful, but they are not the only way.
In that case, whatever it is you find IF characters to be missing is
missing for some other reason than simply because these techniques are
not used. (Though I think I have also shown that sometimes they are
used. But even if we accepted you were right about that, your argument
also breaks down at this other point.)
What you say here seems to be agreeing with me on the antecedents,
even if you don't accept the consequent.
> Being one who has taught "Bible as Narrative", I can tell you that in my
> experience people do very much tend to remember the characters, though.
I didn't say they didn't: just that the connection is not formed on
the basis of lots of characterization (in the sense of having their
motives explained, flashbacks of their childhoods given, personality
traits laid out).
Emily Short
> Interactive fiction is self-contained and
> I believe a greater point that could be brought forth from the ideas
> on point or view is questioning why interactive fiction doesn't appeal
> to more people.
This is (by Jeff's own report) where he started from; it's a question
that has been asked here many times, with a wide range of answers.
Some typical ones include:
-- IF requires reading; audiences now are too stupid and like
graphics.
-- IF requires typing, and people hate typing. We should design a new
kind of interface that is mouse-driven and/or graphical.
-- IF is not promoted well enough. We should work harder on getting
the word out.
-- It's too hard to sort good IF from bad, since they're all released
at an amateur level, and so prospective players run into the bad items
and are turned off. We should have more/better/different reviewing
systems or recommendation websites.
-- IF is not tested well enough, so even in good games one encounters
bugs, and that turns people off. We should have better testing tools
or make some new kind of QA effort.
-- IF requires too much technical savvy to install and play. We should
make IF playable online/bundle IF into standalone packages.
-- IF doesn't involve engaging characters, and that's what people care
about. IF should become more like novels.
-- IF has lost touch with its gaming roots, and that's what people
care about. IF should become more like Infocom games of old.
-- IF is too hard. It should move away from having challenging puzzles
and present a more casual-game-like experience.
-- IF is too highbrow and pretentious. IF should become easier to read
and more popularized.
-- IF is too infantile and doesn't take on important themes. IF
authors should be more willing to incorporate adult topics such as
sexuality, politics, and religion. IF should become more serious.
-- IF is too narrow and doesn't approach the range of things that real
art can do, because of its relationship to cave crawls of old. IF
should become less enmeshed in geographical constructs and more
focused on plot events; it should attempt to talk about different
kinds of things that are interesting to different people.
...etc., with variations that go on and on. It's not that no one's
interested in the question; it's that we don't agree on what the
answer is, and mere speculation doesn't get us very far. Someone would
have to test these various hypotheses by writing the kind of thing
they imagine IF needs to be and then making a vigorous attempt to draw
new audiences into it. There have been some attempts to do this;
people have written new interpreters to make things easier, built more
attractive websites, advertised in various small-scale ways, written
games of various kinds, even started commercial IF companies to try to
bring their particular idea of good IF to the general public. This is
all hard work, and on several fronts the verdict is not in yet.
I am a little baffled by the assertion that IF *should not* appeal to
literary types (why the heck not, if it can be made to do things they
find interesting?), but I'm not saying that currently-popular
characterization techniques have no value, or that no one should try
to write IF with the broad popular appeal of a Dan Brown novel. I'm
interested in characterization techniques in IF myself, which is why
I've spent so much time discussing specifics with Jeff. I also think
that it's possible to write engaging stories that don't rely on those
techniques.
I do get a bit itchy, though, when people embrace these writing-
workshop guidelines as though they were absolute laws for the
production of literature. I've read plenty of writing books on plot
and characterization and viewpoint and etc. I've found some of them
very useful. There's craft to learn there. But it is just that --
craft, a collection of techniques that can be put in service of some
artistic goal or other. It doesn't control what the artistic goals
ought to be.
Jeff Nyman
> I'm not arguing that characters in the weaker sense are unimportant.
> On the contrary, I'm saying is that, if you accept that a character
> can still be effective when the author gives the reader/player no
> access to his thoughts and motivations, your earlier arguments break
> down:
Or, rather, that the character can be remembered weakly. My point in this
side-topic (and I probably didn't make it well) is that people remember
characters, but how well they remember them really depends, and that's the
case whether or not the characters are "weak" or "strong." The notion here
wasn't whether the characters were "weak" or "strong" because, to me, it's
not an either-or. "Not giving access to thoughts and motivations" does not,
a priori, mean weak characterization necessarily. To me, the most effective
characters have roots in human behavior and I can see that via action
without ever getting too much into emotion. The notion here was how people
tend to remember stories and I was contending that they remember them
because of characters and how those characters interacted with ideas and
settings.
In terms of text-based IF, I might have misled somewhere here because the
argument was not based on this:
> internal monologue and the other techniques you listed are *not*
> required to make characters memorable and resonant; they may be
> useful, but they are not the only way.
I agree that those aspects can be sufficient, but they're not necessary.
What I have said, relative to this whole thread, is that I wonder if the
sole use of second person has inhibited forms of storytelling that would
allow a wider breadth and depth of the stories that are told. The reason I
then gave is because of how you can (or cannot) characterize a second-person
character, as you would first- or third-person, since it conflates the
player character (the protagonist) with the player. Now, *that* necessarily
may speak to certain techniques (such as internal monologue) being more or
less effective, but that was about the extent of my argument.
Overall, the above was my contention that I was trying to see how people
responded to. I'll be the first to admit that my viewpoint is slowly
changing here.
Another contention I had was that "a failure to recognize that the
'player-character' is just another character" may be why people haven't
tended to use techniques as much like internal motivations such that people
could relate to the characters and watch the player character develop as
part of the story. The PC pretty much just is, right from the start, at
least in most cases that I'm looking at. I often don't find much usage of
the player learning about the game just as much as learning about the player
character. I was wondering if this "not treating the PC as another
character" was because of the conflation of "you" with the PC, but now I've
come to believe that this isn't the case.
So ... (and you're probably going to breathe a sigh of relief here) ... I do
see that I was approaching things from an angle that wasn't taking into
account various factors. I also may have been trying to nail a little too
much down that made text-based IF be "just another story with a bit more
interaction" rather than "a form or interaction that tells a story" (If that
distinction even makes sense. It sounds good in my head.)
- Jeff
Emily Short
apparently swallowed it whole. So here is the condensed version:
On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, "Jeff Nyman" <jeffny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this (demonstrate through action) I definitely agree. Action tends to be
> better at showing this. That said, with text-based IF I suppose I can see
> one of the challenges being is that you don't know what actions the player
> is going to take.
The thing is, though, you do know.
Okay, with some restrictions. You can't know about nonsense commands
the player might enter: PICK NOSE or SING ARIA FROM MARRIAGE OF FIGARO
probably aren't going to be covered. But usually players do that sort
of thing when they're bored; by that point, you've already lost them.
Otherwise, though, much of the craft of IF boils down (in some way or
other) to controlling what the player encounters in the course of the
game, and in what order. There's obligatory material, pieces of
information he has to see in order to solve puzzles, or actions he has
to perform. There's optional material, actions he could take that
aren't critical to play but which would flesh out the character a bit:
I think of TWIRL MOUSTACHE in Tale of the Kissing Bandit, or WANK in
Rameses. But it's all structurally under the author's control. Even a
branching narrative need not relinquish this control, because the
author designs the choices each to have its own resonance, its own
place in the story.
There are lots of particular issues that arise, but I think they are
often possible to implement or design around: one can keep track of
what the player knows so far and change descriptions accordingly; set
events to trigger under multiple sets of circumstances, so that the
player will stumble onto a scene one way or another even if the game
is not linear; keep close track of the narrative context and make the
action descriptions adapt themselves to reflect the player's mood
better... lots of techniques exist to produce something that is both
genuinely interactive and more closely tied to the PC's mental/
emotional experience.
> > Moreover, the internal monologue
> > portions tend to be vague and general rather than specific and
> > evocative.
>
> Yeah, in those examples, that's true. Of course, these were pretty minimal
> examples but, on the other hand, I get your point. The thing is that
> internal monologue in people *is* often vague and generalized. Feelings and
> thoughts are not often specific and evocative.
Hm. Well, I suppose, but the experience of having certain feelings can
be quite particular. I think often of a passage from Donna Tartt's
_The Secret History_:
"By that time, by some purely subconscious means, I had developed a
successful mental block about the murder and everything pertaining to
it. I talked about it in select company but seldom thought of it when
alone.
"What I did experience when alone was a sort of general neurotic
horror, a common attack of nerves and self-loathing magnified to the
power of ten. Every cruel or fatuous thing I'd ever said came back to
me with amplified clarity, no matter how I talked to myself or jerked
my head to shake the thoughts away; old insults and guilts and
embarrassments stretching clear back to childhood--the crippled boy
I'd made fun of, the Easter chick I'd squeezed to death--paraded
before me one by one, in vivid and mordant splendor.
"I tried to work on Greek but it wasn't much good. I would look up a
word in the lexicon only to forget it when I turned to write it down;
my noun cases, my verb forms, had left me utterly."
Now some of this ("successful mental block", "general neurotic
horror", "every cruel or fatuous thing") is analytical, described by
the narrator long after the fact. But several of the observations are
vivid and particular to the experience of troubled conscience and
unprocessed guilt. And many of these are things that you could (with
some modifications for medium) replicate in IF: strings of anecdotal
memories forced on the player, or normal actions described as being
more difficult, or instinctual physical gestures described for him. I
like to avoid imposing conscious actions on the player in most
circumstances, but unconscious ones are, I think, fine: we don't
usually choose to cry, or flinch, or feel cold, or have trouble
breathing, or clench our teeth, or any of the other physiological
responses to strong feeling. So being told by the game that my
character is doing these things would (I think) not bother me so much.
Jeff Nyman
> nothing to do. None of these examples of works are necessarily what
> you would want someone to think about in terms of relating the craft
> of writing in general to interactive fiction. I don't think
> interactive fiction truly caters to literary types and I don't think
> it should.
I question those last assertions, but only because I'm not sure on what
they're based. Would literary types find much in current text-based
interaction fiction that matches their definition of "literary"? Is that
what you mean? Is so, perhaps they would not but, on the other hand, that
doesn't necessarily speak to the *nature* of text-based IF.
> Very few of these examples are useful for making a solid
> point. It would be akin to me always using James Joyce and John Updike
> in my classes. It's a slanted viewpoint, at best, or a horribly non-
> interesting one for most readers or students, at worst.
> If the people come alive, what they do
> becomes story. The characters engage us first and are remembered most.
> Unless the author hasn't done their job or unless you have a very dull
> reader who doesn't look past the surface ideas.
Hmmmmm. I guess I sort of see the point here, but I'm not sure, and I think
I disagree. (How's that for a qualified statement?) What I disgree with is
the two quote parts above taken together.
For example, consider Jorge Luis Borges. Hiis lack of biography for
characters does show how personal beliefs can infuse writing. Borges is a
monist and he's on record for his belief in the illusory nature of any
individual personality (which is in turn forced on us by our allegedly
limited notion of how time works). But consider that even with this
viewpoint, his characterization is often still meaningful. How can you read
"The Other Death" and not see that the focus is on character? I would say
the same applies to the work of Italo Calvino in "Invisible Cities." The
focus seems to be on geographical locations but the key is how these are
described by Marco Polo to Kublai Khan.
So those seem very relevant to me to consider character.
As far as, say, scenes of whaling in Moby Dick, they don't necessarily need
explanation. Many people find those passages to be very, very boring and
thus, you could argue that Herman Melville simply didn't write them or
incorporate them all that well. So the lesson for me there is simply to not
have massive digressions from plot. When you ask people what they remember
about the book "Moby Dick", usually in my experience it's the climactic
three-day chase and then the lifestyle of the whalemen. Not too many people
I've encountered say, "I remember this {x} fact about whaling ships" any
more than they read Stephen King's books and say they remember, first and
foremost, the exact geography of Maine.
Anyway, the point that I think Emily was making is: how do you look at those
works that do clearly take some elements of character and relegate them to
the back seat, if not the trunk? You can't just dismiss these works and say
they're old or not popular.
My general understanding is that when you impose too much philosophy (or
ideas) on your characters in a work of fiction, the characters start looking
very black-and-white. *Those* are the works I would be wary of: where the
sole focus is ideas or theme. This style was popular for awhile (and still
is in some quarters, I suppose). Now it's a bit out of vogue. I think you
can see this very much in "The Grapes of Wrath", for example. The people in
the novel are, to me, never really turned into real people that I can care
about. So, yeah, I get a lot about Bolshevism, at least in concept, but none
of it all that entertaining. You still had characters that were developed
(like the Joads). I think the goal is to make your reader think about the
ideas, not just read about them. Otherwise it seems like propaganda.
Or what about Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? It's clearly a book with an
agenda just as much as Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" which, for me, puts the
ideas above the characters and makes the stories largely forgettable. A more
modern example is one I quoted before: "Nano" by John Robert Marlow.
So-called fiction books by Whitley Strieber are other agenda-like works that
I just can't get into. A book that straddled the line for me was "The
Didymus Contingency" by Jeremy Robinson.
I think this is why students may be so bored when they have to read this
stuff in school. We call certain books "classics" but forget that classics
don't always resonate any more. (One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes: "A
classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to
read.") Is this what you meant by "very few of these examples are useful for
making a solid point"? If so, I really think it depends on the examples.
Writers who handled this idea-focus very well without getting preachy or
shrill, in my opinion: William Golding ("Lord of the Flies"), Anthony
Burgess ("A Clockwork Orange"), Joseph Heller ("Catch-22"), George Orwell
("Animal Farm"), Greg Bear ("Darwin's Radio"), Robert Saywer ("Calculating
God"), Harry Turtledove ("Guns of the South").
I'm trying to mix in a few past and present writers here. The point is that
in books that place the authors' preordained ideas into the forefront, plot
and characterization will tend to be subservient. I would argue that is
largely the case with "The Da Vinci Code," for example. Yet, I would also
argue that it would not be near as popular as it was if there wasn't at
least the characterization there was. But in both cases, I can see the works
being instructive, just for different reasons, as in with "Moby Dick": some
parts work well, maybe other parts not so well.
- Jeff
My_two_cents
that could be brought forth from the ideas on point or view is
questioning why interactive fiction doesn't appeal to more people."
I asked myself this question last year, and for me the answer is this:
modern day stories express their ideas primarily through character
interaction; this is what the marketplace demands. I-F can't deliver
high volumes of character interaction scenes because the open-ended
nature of a freeform parser makes it too labor intensive to create
them. I-F authors deal tend to deal with the problem by keeping the
npcs offstage as much as possible, implementing shallow npcs that act
more like librarians and gatekeepers than dynamic characters, or
compensating for the lack of character interaction by utilizing some
of the techniques that have been discussed in this thread. You
occasionally see a work like Galatea or Shadows on the Mirror which
focuses solely on character interaction, but these are one act plays
with two actors; you can only stuff so much drama in such a limited
space. These efforts aren't entirely uneffective, but I don't think it
can really compare to the rich character development and the complex
relationships that you see in literature, cinema, and theatre.
Couple the lack of character interaction with the frustrations
involved with the parser -- the typing errors, the misunderstood
commands, the unproductive responses, the whole play-well-or-don't-
progress aspect, the suspicious similarity that typing commands in a
parser has with iterative programming -- and you get a medium that for
most people requires too much effort for too little reward.
Is it possible to use the I-F form to create character-driven works
that rival what you see in the traditional storytelling forms? Not
without doing far more work than what the average person is willing to
do. It really is a complex problem, and I can understand why people
aren't building bigger and better Galateas, or populating their
stories with less chatty versions of her. I think it's possible to
create an interactive work that meets the characterization standards
set by the rest of the fiction marketplace, but it's my guess that in
order to create character interaction scenes quickly and easily, it
would require a form that used higher-level choices and narrative
blocks that are bigger than the one sentence to one paragraph range
that's preferred by this community.
Is this form capable of evolving from the I-F community? Probably not.
I think for most members of this community, the essence of I-F is the
interactivity. If you can't make a new choice every few moments or if
visible constraints are placed on your choices, then it stops being I-
F. So when given a choice between preserving the interactivity or
increasing character interaction, most I-F authors accept there are
limits to what they can do with character and plan their works
accordingly. I also get the impression that most readers of I-F are
perfectly happy with stories that focus on setting, objects, and
ideas. So long as the output text is interesting, it's okay to be
typing commands like "X statue" or "Put jewel in diadem" instead of
"Steal Marsha's boyfriend" or "Tell Daisy she looks fat".
Are you going to find people willing to discuss the possibilities of a
new interactive literary form in this forum? I tried last year, and I
felt like a proponent of alternative energy attending a board meeting
of high-ranking executives from Standard Oil; your mileage may vary.
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> people have written new interpreters to make things easier, built more
> attractive websites, advertised in various small-scale ways, written
> games of various kinds, even started commercial IF companies to try to
> bring their particular idea of good IF to the general public. This is
> all hard work, and on several fronts the verdict is not in yet.
That's all great to hear, but in all of this the one thing that's
remained the same is the type of writing. If an author keeps going to
a different publisher with a crappy book, it's going to be a crappy
book regardless of who publishes it. Marketing a movie that's bad
really doesn't matter if the movie is bad because people will find
that out.
I think the wider point that should be taken away from all this isn't
so much the viewpoint of character (although I agree it's an important
component) but rather that the style of writing itself is what the
problem mainly is. Jeff focused here on second-person viewpoints.
There's some merit to that but I don't think it's the sole problem
because people writing bad in second-person will tend to do so in
first-person and third-person as well. I teach hundreds of students
each year and I can tell you that people who don't follow basic
techniques of engaging their readers will have problems regardless of
what techniques they use.
> I am a little baffled by the assertion that IF *should not* appeal to
> literary types (why the heck not, if it can be made to do things they
> find interesting?)
Because 'literary types' aren't even in popular demand in current
fiction circles. So you would be taking one unpopular format
(interactive fiction) and imbuing it with another unpopular format
(literary fiction). I don't see much point to that. Maybe if you can
prove the use of interactive fiction to a crowd that currently reads
popular, commercial fiction then maybe you can start to appeal to a
more literary group.
> characterization techniques have no value, or that no one should try
> to write IF with the broad popular appeal of a Dan Brown novel. I'm
> interested in characterization techniques in IF myself, which is why
> I've spent so much time discussing specifics with Jeff. I also think
> that it's possible to write engaging stories that don't rely on those
> techniques.
You think it's possible to write engaging stories that don't rely on
characterization? If that's true, you have a very different notion of
what it means to engage readers than most people do. I think one of
Jeff's points (and a valid one) is that you do need characterization
of some type to engage readers. It's why readers read. I know everyone
was talking about ideas and that's fine. Ideas can be a major driving
force of fiction; but they're not the main driving force. They never
have been and that's the case even in literary fiction.
> I do get a bit itchy, though, when people embrace these writing-
> workshop guidelines as though they were absolute laws for the
> production of literature.
People aren't necessarily talking about "literature." That's the
disconnect I think you have. You treat everything as literature (at
least by all your references and how you seem to think). People
embrace "writing-workshop guidelines" (which is a slightly snobbish
phrase, whether you meant it that way or not) because those guidelines
are found to work with the vast majority of readers and that's been
the case for well over two decades now.
> and characterization and viewpoint and etc. I've found some of them
> very useful. There's craft to learn there. But it is just that --
> craft, a collection of techniques that can be put in service of some
> artistic goal or other. It doesn't control what the artistic goals
> ought to be.
There is no "ought to be." Art is in the eye of the beholder. What
techniques do allow you to do is place your work in a context that
readers will respond to. It's a way to get the most readers to respond
to your work as possible. That seems relevant to something like
interactive fiction where you really don't have a wide appeal.
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> I question those last assertions, but only because I'm not sure on what
> they're based. Would literary types find much in current text-based
> interaction fiction that matches their definition of "literary"? Is that
> what you mean? Is so, perhaps they would not but, on the other hand, that
> doesn't necessarily speak to the *nature* of text-based IF.
I agree that it doesn't speak to the 'nature' of interactive fiction
necessarily any more than it speaks to the writing craft in general. I
just meant that so-called literary fiction isn't on the rise and
hasn't been for many years. People's tastes have changed. Maybe
they'll change back. But until they do, I would focus on those aspects
that people do respond to.
> For example, consider Jorge Luis Borges. Hiis lack of biography for
> characters does show how personal beliefs can infuse writing. Borges is a
> monist and he's on record for his belief in the illusory nature of any
> individual personality (which is in turn forced on us by our allegedly
> limited notion of how time works). But consider that even with this
> viewpoint, his characterization is often still meaningful. How can you read
> "The Other Death" and not see that the focus is on character? I would say
> the same applies to the work of Italo Calvino in "Invisible Cities." The
> focus seems to be on geographical locations but the key is how these are
> described by Marco Polo to Kublai Khan.
I would agree with all of this completely. You've made my point even
as I think I was making your point. Characterization of any sort is
what engages readers. Those examples you point out are perfect
examples where characterization is subsumed a bit by the ideas but the
ideas have their force and their focus because of the elements of
characterization that are present. This is the case in all good
writing, whether that be literary in nature or popular in nature.
> Anyway, the point that I think Emily was making is: how do you look at those
> works that do clearly take some elements of character and relegate them to
> the back seat, if not the trunk? You can't just dismiss these works and say
> they're old or not popular.
I don't disagree. The operative phrase there is 'some elements of
character.' Emily was originally seeming to argue that
characterization was either absent or that the ideas had primacy over
characterization. I'm saying that is not the case and it's not the
case at all with most literary fiction. With popular, commercial
fiction the idea is that events happen and characters respond and you
may have some growth of the character. With literary fiction,
character was everything. Events happened because of the characters.
My wider point was that quoting all these literary works from the past
and acting as if they didn't focus on characterization, but rather on
settings or ideas or whatever else, is false.
Kathleen
> people writing bad in second-person will tend to do so in
> first-person and third-person as well.
Perhaps the problem is that it is very easy to program and it's very
easy to write, but it's very hard to either program or write *well*.
Since IF requires some of both, it's very easy to end up with a lot of
bad IF. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me that switching
from 2nd to 1st or 3rd is going to change folks writing or programming
skill set.
"Writing IF for Dummies" anyone?
Kathleen
Jeff Nyman
news:1182513684....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> With popular, commercial
> fiction the idea is that events happen and characters respond and you
> may have some growth of the character. With literary fiction,
> character was everything. Events happened because of the characters.
> My wider point was that quoting all these literary works from the past
> and acting as if they didn't focus on characterization, but rather on
> settings or ideas or whatever else, is false.
Maybe a good example of changing patterns or changing tastes are even found
in the "mystery" (various types of detective) stories. It used to be that
the detective character didn't really evolve all that much as a character.
They just went through their detecting paces and figured out stuff. Mystery
writing in the last decade or so has shifted to characters that are not only
flawed (like real people) and that grow and change as a result of their
cases. (Michael Connelly is probably one of the better examples of this, but
it's pretty prevalent across the board.
I'm not saying that detective novels from the past were necessarily
"literary" but, on the other hand, you can sort of see the growth of
characterization in that venue. I suppose you could argue something similar
has happened with the notion of "space opera" (which is now referred to as
"new space opera"). There was always some emphasis on character, of course,
but I think the later incarnation of this genre (or is it a sub-genre?)
really have you delving into these people and what makes them tick.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
news:1182513131.3...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> problem mainly is. Jeff focused here on second-person viewpoints.
> There's some merit to that but I don't think it's the sole problem
Yeah, I've come to somewhat agree. Actually, I never thought it was the sole
problem. But I do see it as one form of limitation. And, again, I say that
because just about every other medium eschews the use of second-person.
However, that being said, while text-based IF does have some similarities to
those media, the way a story necessarily has to be told in text-based IF
(given the user interaction) probably makes my argument a bit weaker than I
originally thought.
I do believe that things like unreliable narrator come off a bit odd in
second-person. I think means of getting into the protagonist's (not the
player's) head can be more or less awkward with second-person. (Although
I've come across examples that do a pretty good job, in my opinion.) The
key, I think, is that people who are used to text-based IF are going to see
this use of second-person as natural. And, to them, it is. However, it's at
the very least possible that printed fiction readers (a vast potential
audience) might be turned off by this because (1) they're not as used to it,
and (2) it doesn't work that well and isn't popular in printed fiction.
There's this assumption that you "must" draw the player into the game
(hence, second-person) because text-based IF is a game. Okay, that's a valid
viewpoint. However, I think it's at least valid to consider that maybe the
"game" aspect not be focused on as much. (After all, game theory allows lots
of things to be considered games.) Maybe a focus change would start to give
text-based IF more appeal. Text-based IF, as a game, is probably not going
to appeal to many strict gamers, at least those who didn't grow up with it.
Many of us who did played it at a time when graphical games weren't all that
hot anyway. That's no longer the case. Games have evolved. Text-based IF
has, in some ways, but I don't think it's evolved in the most core way: by
redefining its focus. It can't compete in the strict game sphere. That's
been obvious for years. But maybe it can compete in the fiction sphere. Or
maybe it can define a sphere that is story+game, with a bit more emphasis on
story than game.
That's where a lot of my thoughts were leading. This second-person thread
was just one aspect of my thinking. The "Explaining Inform 7" thread was
another aspect.
> Jeff's points (and a valid one) is that you do need characterization
> of some type to engage readers. It's why readers read.
Yes, this I do believe and believe firmly. I do also believe, however, that
peoples' need to be engaged and the ways in which they find that possible
have evolved. I don't think there's a cutoff between some time when things
were "literary" and then when they weren't. A lot of what we consider
"literary" is simply due to the reflection you use when looking at it with
the passage of time.
I've got to be honest with you, I'm not always thrilled with the distinction
between "literary" and "popular" because it does automatically make the
assumption that "literary fiction" can't be popular, at least by a vague
implication. Further, I think that "popular fiction" can be literary in its
own right.
> readers will respond to. It's a way to get the most readers to respond
> to your work as possible. That seems relevant to something like
> interactive fiction where you really don't have a wide appeal.
That was part of my contention, to a certain extent. People (as we know)
respond to printed fiction very well. It's a huge industry. Text-based IF,
while being a game, has a lot in common with that medium, in terms of
telling a story and allowing the reader to engage in a story. A lot of
people don't respond to text-based IF. The easy answer is simply that people
want graphics and only graphics. If you're appealing to a young gamer-only
group, well, maybe there's some merit to that.
However, there's a vast, vast, vast group of people out there that still
read short stories and novels. It seems those people could be appealed to.
But, in those cases, I think you're going to appeal to that vast crowd by
looking at what they like, rather than trying to look at them as solely
gamers. Further, there are a vast amount of writers out there that often
enjoy seeing a new way to practice their craft. But, again, you're going to
more appeal to them by looking at what they like to do (and what they like
to provide to their readers) rather than trying to make them solely game
writers. Since Inform 7 was claiming to be, at least in part, geared to
writers intrigued by computing (implying a different way of writing), that
would seem to imply that it's also geared to readers intrigued by a
different way of reading.
Anyway, I've mostly come to the conclusion that this was more of a throwaway
line than an actual goal for Inform 7. I'm not saying that as some sort of
mid-section jab; I'm just saying that perhaps I read a bit too much into
this and imparting more to Inform 7 than others did. That's my bad, not
theirs.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
of thing often. Usually it's nothing to worry about, unless it persists. So,
I had said:
> Games have evolved. Text-based IF has, in some ways, but I don't think
> it's evolved in the most core way: by redefining its focus. It can't
> compete
> in the strict game sphere. That's been obvious for years. But maybe it can
> compete in the fiction sphere. Or maybe it can define a sphere that is
> story+game, with a bit more emphasis on story than game.
Well, just this very morning I just came across something from Les Edgerton
(in his book "Hooked") that's directly relevant to what I said above. He's
referring to how things have changed in writing novels and how they work
differently now for readers than they did in the past. Here's a passage:
= = = = = = =
"The most profound changes have taken place in a relatively short period.
Mostly during the age of television and movies and modern communication
(computers, telephones, etc.) and the resultant shifts in the way we
perceive information and entertainment. Our world is shrinking. Our
collective attention span shrinks with it as the universe speeds up,
bombarding us with more and more information. And more and more
entertainment options.
Books have to change or get lost in the mix.
The truth is, many books *are* getting lost in the mix, and this is
largely due to the fact that there are still writers churning out a product
written in a style and a structure my son Mike would most likely describe as
being 'So five minutes ago.'"
= = = = = = =
This might be something that a singer like Hilary Duff would describe as
being "so yesterday." (Okay, I admit it: I like her songs. Sue me.)
I think what Les says here is true of text-based IF and is what I meant by
it not evolving, at least to a certain extent. (Evolution is something that
has degrees; it's not all or nothing.) While Les sees *many* books getting
lost in the mix, I see almost *all* of text-based IF (with some notable
exceptions) getting lost in the entertainment mix. The exceptions are
perhaps games like "1893", "Future Boy!", and the Malinche titles. (TextFyre
will eventually be another case study.) The problem is that I really don't
know too much about the demographics of any of those games, in terms of what
they ended up catering to so I'm not even sure how well they serve as
examples of what's possible.
The notion of how stories are told via books has changed mainly due to
changing reader tastes but a large part of that was the emergence of film
and television. That much is obvious. The notion of how interaction is
handled (and thus how stories are told) via games has changed mainly due to
the advent of what became possible with audio and video technologies. That
much, too, is obvious.
But think about it: text-based IF has stayed largely the same. Yeah, it can
do some audio and minimal video but as a game format it pretty much is what
it is. Where it can differentiate is in the type of stories it can tell
based on how it allows the reader (player) to interact with the story. Yet,
that, too, has largely (but certainly not completely) stayed pretty much as
it is, at least to people "on the outside looking in." Talk about new
interpreters is really nothing more than "lipstick on a pig" for people who
really don't care about the content of what the interpreter is showing them.
All the marketing in the world isn't going to matter if you are marketing a
product people don't want or don't see why they should like.
The emphasis is really two-fold: games "vs." stories. (Note the quotes,
please.)
So my overall question: which one of those emphases does text-based IF want
to focus on? Which area can text-based IF most reliably compete within,
given all the entertainment options available? The main point I've been
trying to get to is that the landscape has changed: that applies to games,
television/movies, printed fiction. Smart media evolve to match the
landscape (unless they have the power to remold the landscape). "Evolving to
match the landscape" doesn't necessarily mean changing your medium (books
are still books, after all, and games are still games) but it can mean
changing how you use the medium so that it caters to its particular
strengths and appeals to as wide an audience as possible. Sometimes you have
to choose what related audience you want to bring in. Does text-based IF
want to focus on game players? Or readers? Or a bit of both? But if it's a
bit of both, which aspect is going to have to dominate to retain the
audience that is most likely to be receptive?
Personally, I think these are the kinds of questions that a text-based IF
community needs to be focusing on rather than wondering whether a flashier
interpreter will do the trick or whether getting some interviews in
mainstream computing magazines will somehow turn the tide.
- Jeff
Emily Short
> so much the viewpoint of character (although I agree it's an important
> component) but rather that the style of writing itself is what the
> problem mainly is.
Okay, I understand that you believe that the style of writing is the
principal reason IF isn't more popular. You may well be right, for all
I know.
I disagree that that is a *conclusion* we can draw from anything
that's been said in this thread. I also disagree that it's so patently
obvious an assertion that everyone is going to agree with you on the
face of it -- which is why I gave the list of other ideas about why IF
hasn't taken off, some of which are logically incompatible with yours.
There's a segment of the IF community that would rather see the medium
move more in the direction of commercial gaming rather than in the
direction of conventional fiction; that implies pursuing a different
set of changes, many of them to do with design, interface, and quality
assurance.
And there are some people who would say that IF -- being neither quite
static fiction nor quite a typical game medium -- cannot find its most
appealing form simply by emulating what is best about static fiction
*or* what is best about commercial games; that we should try to make
it the best possible version of itself, and then find a way to attract
an audience who will appreciate what is good about it on its own
terms.
> > I am a little baffled by the assertion that IF *should not* appeal to
> > literary types (why the heck not, if it can be made to do things they
> > find interesting?)
>
> Because 'literary types' aren't even in popular demand in current
> fiction circles. So you would be taking one unpopular format
> (interactive fiction) and imbuing it with another unpopular format
> (literary fiction). I don't see much point to that. Maybe if you can
> prove the use of interactive fiction to a crowd that currently reads
> popular, commercial fiction then maybe you can start to appeal to a
> more literary group.
If you meant 'IF authors would be wise not to bother trying to appeal
to a literary audience if their primary goal is to expand playership',
fine. That makes sense. Your original statement was about what IF
"should" do, which seemed to be a statement about the proper function
of the medium.
> > characterization techniques have no value, or that no one should try
> > to write IF with the broad popular appeal of a Dan Brown novel. I'm
> > interested in characterization techniques in IF myself, which is why
> > I've spent so much time discussing specifics with Jeff. I also think
> > that it's possible to write engaging stories that don't rely on those
> > techniques.
>
> You think it's possible to write engaging stories that don't rely on
> characterization?
It's probably my fault for not being clear enough at a couple of
steps, but you're now arguing against a position I don't quite hold.
The original contention as I understood it was that IF needs certain
kinds of characterization techniques (mostly focused on portraying a
character's knowledge and emotional state from an internal
perspective) in order to succeed in storytelling. My response is that
a) it has more of these available than are necessarily used in the
average work but also that b) those techniques are not the only route
to telling a story in an effective and engaging way, even if
characters are involved. At some level, yes, almost every story is
about agents that take actions; but that doesn't mean that their
characters -- their thoughts, their motives, their feelings, beliefs,
and principles -- are the *main topic* of the work.
> > I do get a bit itchy, though, when people embrace these writing-
> > workshop guidelines as though they were absolute laws for the
> > production of literature.
>
> People aren't necessarily talking about "literature." That's the
> disconnect I think you have. You treat everything as literature (at
> least by all your references and how you seem to think). People
> embrace "writing-workshop guidelines" (which is a slightly snobbish
> phrase, whether you meant it that way or not)
It was intentionally pejorative, but for reasons that were laid out
explicitly in the rest of the paragraph. Is that sentiment snobby?
It's clear you're reading me so, but no, I don't intend to be.
It's true that I treat most written fictional products as literature.
I don't think of that as snobbery, though: it seems to me, on the
contrary, that it is a more egalitarian and more productive attitude
than rigorously dividing Popular from Literary. Seeing all this
material as literature allows the possibility of finding literary
virtues in J. K. Rowling or P. D. James, or conversely of enjoying
Tolstoy in some of the same ways that one enjoys a popular
contemporary novel. And I don't think there's any sensible line that
can be drawn there anyway, honestly.
Anyway: I find a moderated version of your statement convincing --
that we could do more with some of the story-telling techniques of
popular fiction -- and I would be delighted to play any IF of this
kind that you come up with. But I also think that writing style is not
necessarily the sole issue, or more important than certain other
issues. Nothing you've said here convinces me otherwise.
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> If you meant 'IF authors would be wise not to bother trying to appeal
> to a literary audience if their primary goal is to expand playership',
> fine. That makes sense. Your original statement was about what IF
> "should" do, which seemed to be a statement about the proper function
> of the medium.
I do believe what I said is what interactive fiction should do. I
could be wrong. But I don't see anyone else really coming up with
anything workable. I read your list of ideas and from what I've
gathered, some of that stuff has been tried over the course of many
years. Are there notable successes? What was learned from those
successes? What clearly didn't work? What markets were reached? What
markets were missed? Was there a noticeable rise in completed works of
interactive fiction after any of those things was implemented?
> characters are involved. At some level, yes, almost every story is
> about agents that take actions; but that doesn't mean that their
> characters -- their thoughts, their motives, their feelings, beliefs,
> and principles -- are the *main topic* of the work.
I was a publisher at Baen Books and then HarperCollins. I can tell
you: novels are about people. They're about the human condition.
They're about how different people manifest behaviors and thoughts
that speak to the human condition. When you say the "main topic," I
don't even know what that is. Are you referring to the theme or the
premise or something else entirely?
How people respond to events is the 'main topic' of works. That means
their thoughts, motives, feelings, beliefs and just about everything
else. Jeff brought up a moderately good example regarding detective
fiction, although its such a fragmented genre that it's hard to be
certain of too much with it. I would say that this applies to horror
fiction and suspense fiction. Characters play the center role even
when the 'main topic' might be ghosts or various supernatural events.
Even so-called 'techno-thrillers' have a large focus on the characters
dealing with the situations.
You would have to point out to me what novels you've read where the
characters ultimately weren't the 'main topic' of the work.
> It's true that I treat most written fictional products as literature.
By this logic comments about "writing-workshop guidelines" really make
no sense to me. If most written fictional products are literature,
many of those were produced by people learning from those "writing-
workshop guidelines" you dismissed.
> I don't think of that as snobbery, though: it seems to me, on the
> contrary, that it is a more egalitarian and more productive attitude
> than rigorously dividing Popular from Literary. Seeing all this
People often forget that literary tends to mean that which can't
easily be classed into a genre. That's how it pretty much works
nowadays. Commerical ("popular") fiction is called that because that's
what it is: it's popular. It sells. It just so happens that the
reading public's taste these days is based on genres. That's why
bookstores tend to break everything up by genre, where even about
fifteen years ago that practice wasn't as widespread as it was.
Fifteen years ago we still had the concept of "category fiction."
> kind that you come up with. But I also think that writing style is not
> necessarily the sole issue, or more important than certain other
> issues. Nothing you've said here convinces me otherwise.
So what issues do you think are important?
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> I've got to be honest with you, I'm not always thrilled with the distinction
> between "literary" and "popular" because it does automatically make the
> assumption that "literary fiction" can't be popular, at least by a vague
> implication. Further, I think that "popular fiction" can be literary in its
> own right.
That may be, Jeff, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint. But
if you look at BookScan, and that's just one example, you'll clearly
see what's considered "literary" and how that has declined. You'll see
why "commercial fiction" and "popular fiction" are used as terms that
are useful and that do tell you something about what people like.
That's why it's called popular. It's something that just about all of
the major publishers use as indicators of what's going on out there
and what people are buying. I would argue that this does have an
impact on what people do consider "literary" and in that sense alone,
I would agree with you: literary, as a concept, changes with changing
fashions. A large part of this, however, is that literary tends to be
that which is hard to classify under a given genre. You can ask any
bookstore owner about how certain sections have shrank over the years
and how genre-based sections have sprung up.
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> Personally, I think these are the kinds of questions that a text-based IF
> community needs to be focusing on rather than wondering whether a flashier
> interpreter will do the trick or whether getting some interviews in
> mainstream computing magazines will somehow turn the tide.
I very much agree. I encourage you to keep focusing your efforts on
this area. Speaking as a teacher, I would greatly enjoy including
interactive fiction into curricula. This has been something I've
thought about for a good couple of years now.
Stephen Bond
> I don't think interactive fiction truly caters to literary types
> prove the use of interactive fiction to a crowd that currently
> said is what interactive fiction should do. I could be wrong.
> But I don't see anyone else really coming up with anything
> workable.
I dunno, how about:
* a work of IF should delight, provoke and entertain
* a work of IF should make some reader feel less alone in the world
* a work of IF should be a piece of artistic self-expression
* a work of IF should improve on reality
Sentimental cliches all, no doubt, but I still prefer them to "IF
should pander to the Dan Brown crowd."
> I read your list of ideas and from what I've
> gathered, some of that stuff has been tried over the course of many
> years. Are there notable successes? What was learned from those
> successes? What clearly didn't work? What markets were reached? What
> markets were missed? Was there a noticeable rise in completed works of
> interactive fiction after any of those things was implemented?
Since you're relating success to "markets being reached", I suspect
this
discussion will go nowhere, but I just want to point out that people
have
different concepts of what success entails. Also, writing is not
about
reaching a market. Marketing is about reaching a market.
> > It's true that I treat most written fictional products as literature.
>
> By this logic comments about "writing-workshop guidelines" really make
> no sense to me. If most written fictional products are literature,
> many of those were produced by people learning from those "writing-
> workshop guidelines" you dismissed.
True, but I'll make the wild guess here that none of the literature
I like was written by people following writing workshop guidelines.
> > I don't think of that as snobbery, though: it seems to me, on the
> > contrary, that it is a more egalitarian and more productive attitude
> > than rigorously dividing Popular from Literary. Seeing all this
>
> People often forget that literary tends to mean that which can't
> easily be classed into a genre. That's how it pretty much works
> nowadays.
That might be how it works in bookselling lingo, though
why you'd expect the rest of us to use or accept this
peculiar sense of the word I'm not sure.
> It just so happens that the
> reading public's taste these days is based on genres. That's why
> bookstores tend to break everything up by genre, where even about
> fifteen years ago that practice wasn't as widespread as it was.
> Fifteen years ago we still had the concept of "category fiction."
Dividing everything up into ghettoised genres certainly makes it
easier for publishers and bookstores to market and sell their wares.
It further helps them when consumers fall into line by identifying
themselves with different genres. Clearly a lot of effort has been
expended in the last fifteen years to bring about such a situation.
I'm not sure what it has got to do with art, though.
Stephen.
Jeff Nyman
news:1182649217.3...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> People often forget that literary tends to mean that which can't
> easily be classed into a genre. That's how it pretty much works
> nowadays. Commerical ("popular") fiction is called that because that's
> what it is: it's popular. It sells. It just so happens that the
> reading public's taste these days is based on genres. That's why
> bookstores tend to break everything up by genre, where even about
> fifteen years ago that practice wasn't as widespread as it was.
> Fifteen years ago we still had the concept of "category fiction."
I'll just go on my normal bandwagon and say: people tend to treat everything
as an either-or.
I get that in publishing circles, so-called "literary" may not sell as well,
giving rise to the notion of "commercial" which does sell well, thus making
it "popular."
But ...
You can have books that combine the literary craft of the so-called classics
with the entertaining storytelling of books considered more popular. That's
something I think text-based IF could, perhaps, be in a position to achieve
to some extent. At least it's one area of possible development or one area
of discussion. It also allows a broad range of expression with the medium.
Then you let the "marketplace" decide which works it would most readily
accept. Let's say a bunch of people come up with so-called "literary"
text-based IF and it bombs as bad as most "literary" works on bookshelves
today. Fine. A self-correcting market process would lead to less people
doing those works: *if* their goal was to sell to or otherwise reach that
broad audience.
As far as the terms "literary" and "literature," I'm hesitant to go too much
on this side topic because all the sudden everyone's arguing about what
"art" means and what has "artistic merit." So:
Literature:
Wiki: "The term 'literature' has different meanings depending on who is
using it and in what context."
Dictionary: "Writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas
of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential
features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays."
In other cases, I hear the term "literature" used to refer to so-called
"artistic writings" that are said to be worthy of being remembered. Well,
what's worthy of being remembered is an interesting subject in itself.
However, being remembered is one thing; being read is another. People may
"remember" Shakespeare, Joyce, Faulkner, and Dostoyevsky as names and may
remember the general outline of the stories. Do they actaully *read* the
stories? Or is a lot of literature stuff that many people just put on their
bookshelves (like the Bible) but don't actually take down and read? (Note
here: if enough people buy Shakespeare to grace their bookshelves, then he's
"popular" -- even if he's not read. That's probably why the Bible is always
on the bestseller lists even though most people I meet clearly haven't read
even a portion of it.)
The problem I see with arguing about literature is that in the broadest
sense, literature can include *any* type of writings on *any* subject. That
makes it a very broad and very subjective element when you start talking
about its "quality" or its "merit" or even its "popularity."
However, I think you can also classify literature more operationally by
saying that a certain group of literature refers to a set of written works
of a language, period, or culture. That's how I look at it because what's
considered literature, qua literature, changes with time. The list is
constantly being added to. Further, as cultural mores change and reading
styles change and even writing styles change, we get a slightly modified
version of what literature means. In that sense alone I can see how the
notion of genre can sort of get subsumed under the wider context of
"literature."
Personally, I choose not to get hung up on this stuff too much because then
instead of any fruitful discussion you just get people arguing at each other
about what's *truly* literature.
- Jeff
Jeff Nyman
news:1182678053.4...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I dunno, how about:
> * a work of IF should delight, provoke and entertain
> * a work of IF should make some reader feel less alone in the world
> * a work of IF should be a piece of artistic self-expression
> * a work of IF should improve on reality
This is good list, perhaps. But how do you actually do all that? That's part
of what I'm hoping people discuss more. What sorts of techniques can be used
to achieve the above? Are certain techniques more efficacious than others?
If so, how do we come to that conclusion?
With the exception of the artistic self-expression, everything you state is
somewhat vague to me. How do you delight and entertain? Novelists and
filmmakers and playwrights don't just say they "delight and entertain." They
say how they're going to do that by what sorts of techniques.
Make people feel less alone? That sounds fine. But how? Doesn't that mean
you have to have them relate to someone or get to know someone. That's often
how we feel less alone. So that means characters of some sort. That means
various techniques.
Improve on reality? What does that mean? Since everyone keeps bringing up
this notion of "writing-workshop guidelines," I'd probably argue that this
sounds like something that would be said in a writing-workshops. "Class,
remember your fiction should make a better reality." I've seen that in a few
of the "writing a novel" books I've read. (I actually prefer the idea stated
like this: "Class, your fiction has the potential to allow people to
experience a different reality. Whether they see it as an improved one is up
to them.") Anyway, those are interesting sentiments. But how? How does a
work of fiction "improve" reality? (And for whom? Doesn't it matter whose
reality you're trying to improve?)
> Sentimental cliches all, no doubt, but I still prefer them to "IF
> should pander to the Dan Brown crowd."
Since I brought up "Da Vinci Code" a few times (which, I should note, is a
book I actually didn't like), I need to ask: what is the "Dan Brown crowd?"
It's easy to throw off phrases (like "writing-workshop guidelines") without
defining them and then expect someone to respond to them. If by "Dan Brown
crowd" you mean the vast reading public of, say, Europe and the United
States, then I don't know that I would call that pandering necessarily. If I
wanted to reach people (to make them feel less alone or improve their
reality, for example), I would just think it's smart, not pandering, to try
to reach them.
For all you or I know, maybe Dan Brown's various works did "improve [some
people's] reality" or "make them feel less alone." His works clearly
"delight and entertain" many people and there's no doubt that his works
"provoke." So, by the criteria you gave above, I'm having trouble relating
this to the idea of "pandering" to a "Dan Brown crowd."
> discussion will go nowhere, but I just want to point out that people
> have
> different concepts of what success entails. Also, writing is not
> about
> reaching a market. Marketing is about reaching a market.
I would disagree with that last part a bit. Writing *is* about reaching a
market. Marketing is one means by which you do so. I may not be a publisher
like Lisa, but I do know (from my own rejection slips) that how people often
decide what works are what doesn't is based on what the market accepts. In
fact, from what I've seen, the marketing of books rarely works unless you
have a well-recognized author already.
I would agree with that first part. People have different concepts of what
success means. That's something that I think is interesting relative to
text-based IF because I often wonder what most people here consider success.
Is it just to enter your game in a yearly comp? Is it just to have your game
put up on Baf's Guide and the IF Archive so someone may happen to chance
upon it at some point and may actually play it? None of those are bad, of
course. But I also wonder if the community, at least in large part, would
like to see a little more?
I know if I write something and spend a lot of time on it, I want to make
sure I can reach the largest possible audience that I can. For me,
personally, it's hard to see spending a whole lot of time learning something
just to put it to use in a relatively small community where it's most likely
fate (unless it's in a comp) is to languish on a server somewhere. But
that's me. That's not everyone.
So part of what I'm looking at here is exactly what you hit on: what kind of
"success" do people want with their work? Clearly, as Emily mentioned, a lot
of work has gone into different interpreters to cater to different crowds,
setting up businesses, marketing text-based IF in various ways. Since that's
the case, there's at least some aspect of the whole thing that people want
to get out there to a wider market. (Note: I'm not necessarily saying this
is a selling proposition; maybe text-based IF will only work when its free.
I'm agnostic on what the most effective business model would or could be.)
> True, but I'll make the wild guess here that none of the literature
> I like was written by people following writing workshop guidelines.
Actually, this is interesting to me. I've often wondered about this.
Everyone keeps tossing out this vague, bordering-on-useless phrase
"writing-workshop guidelines." But I wonder: does anyone really think *none*
of the authors who wrote various literature from, say, 1900 to 1950 used any
sort of guidelines? Does anyone think *none* of them may have swapped notes
on techniques or learned techniques from others? Sometimes the "workshop"
isn't something you go to; it's the wider venue of published works.
Even so, I'm not sure why there's been this focus on these "writing-workshop
guidelines" (and, Stephen, I know you didn't start that aspect of the
discussion) simply because even if authors in the past didn't use such
workshop ideas .... so what? Authors in the past tended not to use "jump
cut" scene transitions either. Authors now do it all the time. So I guess
I'm just not sure where this side of the debate is really going, unless
someone can show that these "guidelines" are ineffective or effective.
I would consider what I think is a relevant fact: since many popular authors
have been part of groups like the Horror Writers Association, the Mystery
Writers of America, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers or America, and
various other groups, and since those groups do tend to promote "writing
workshops," maybe there's something to this concept. At least if your goal
is to have your work read (so that perhaps it can make someone feel less
alone or improve their reality or even just appreciate your artistic
expression).
> themselves with different genres. Clearly a lot of effort has been
> expended in the last fifteen years to bring about such a situation.
> I'm not sure what it has got to do with art, though.
Sometimes I wonder this, too. My only provisional thought is that it could
change what people consider art. Or it could change how art is viewed. Art
evolves. I guess that's the key point for me. Literature from the past is
not the only thing that's art. So when discussions start turning towards
aesthetic principles (such as what is "truly" art or what is "truly"
literature), it almost seems a foregone conclusion that the discussion is
going to dead-end.
- Jeff
lisa_r...@yahoo.com
> Since you're relating success to "markets being reached", I suspect
> this
> discussion will go nowhere, but I just want to point out that people
> have
> different concepts of what success entails. Also, writing is not
> about
> reaching a market. Marketing is about reaching a market.
I agree with both yourself and Jeff. Achieving sales is probably the
biggest challenge a publisher has next to tapping a good talent. It
requires a balanced mix of the right products, competitive pricing,
and a certain amount of aggressive advertising. In the book world,
it's not marketing; it's usually just advertising. However, you can't
really be too aggressive with advertising most authors and that's
simply because it doesn't work. People don't really respond to that
when it comes to novels, whereas they most certainly do with movies.
How many true marketing campaigns do you really see for new books?
When Tom Clancy or Michael Crichton or Stephen King or Mary Higgins
Clark write a book, how many marketing campaigns do you see out there?
Many people don't see these marketing campaigns because they don't
exist, at least not all that much. What you do see is some
advertising, perhaps. The same can't be said for non-fiction which
often does have very aggressive marketing campaigns, such as for
political books, or hot-topic issues that are promoted on news
networks like CNN or MSNBC, and what you might call marketed
advertising on stations like BookTV, usually aired by CSPAN.
Advertising and markerting are not the same thing. Where I said I
agree with both of you is that while they may not be the same thing,
advertising is really just a part of marketing overall. But the
advertising doesn't necessarily reach the market. The writing reaches
the market and it's the biggest sink-or-swim time for a new author.
Once the author gets established, then publishing houses will tend to
look at more marketing venues. (By that time it's usually not needed,
though, if the author's popular enough, especially now with how sites
like Amazon or Barnes & Noble advertise books.)
Incidentally, the lack of 'literature' being sold isn't because of
lack of advertising or any sort of marketing campaign. It's based on
the fact that people's tastes have, in the main, changed. Of course
there are many people who like literature. The problem is that they
are a relatively small minority of the purchasing public. The market
gets what the market demands. If the market starts to demand a return
to literature, then things will change again. None of that will happen
with marketing, however. It will happen due to other media that
influence yet other media.
> That might be how it works in bookselling lingo, though
> why you'd expect the rest of us to use or accept this
> peculiar sense of the word I'm not sure.
Because 'bookselling' is a large part of what literature and popular
fiction focuses on. People who write usually want to sell what they
write. It's not just 'bookselling lingo' though. Think about most of
what you would call literature. What genre would you place it in? Or
do you find that most of it crosses genres?
> Dividing everything up into ghettoised genres certainly makes it
> easier for publishers and bookstores to market and sell their wares.
It also makes it easier for people to find what they want. You may
disagree but the much larger book-reading public does agree. If you
look at the sales figures for various authors that went through the
period where booksellers restructured their stores to accomodate
different tastes, you would see just how much this made an impact on
people and their buying habits. You would also see the gradual
emergence of people crossing genres when normally they might not have
done so. All the sudden, people start to browse that "mystery" section
whereas before they might have just focused on "suspense."
> It further helps them when consumers fall into line by identifying
> themselves with different genres. Clearly a lot of effort has been
> expended in the last fifteen years to bring about such a situation.
> I'm not sure what it has got to do with art, though.
It actually hasn't been a lot of effort at all. It's what the market
has changed to naturally. No one set out to make one genre or another
popular. No one set out to quash literature in some sense. It's the
changing tastes of people as a whole. That's what drives the market.
No marketing was involved. It was the gradual infusion of new media
that changed how other media were perceived. I'm not sure what group
"brought about such a situation" except the reading public who also
maintains that situation.
Stephen Bond
> This is good list, perhaps. But how do you actually do all that? That's part
> of what I'm hoping people discuss more. What sorts of techniques can be used
> to achieve the above? Are certain techniques more efficacious than others?
> If so, how do we come to that conclusion?
I think the best way to go about that is to look at existing works
and analyse how they succeed or fail on the various axes (which are
all highly subjective). In other words, I think it's better
to go about it descriptively rather than prescriptively.
Reducing writing to a series of how-to rules takes all the life
out of it, produces writing by numbers. I'm of the opinion that
the best artists work on instinct, intuition, inspiration. They have
lots of technique, sure, but it isn't always explicitly codified,
and in any case the technique is so deeply absorbed that it's part
of the artists' nature, rather than a set of rules they consciously
employ.
I suppose the question is: how best to absorb this technique?
I think this is better done by doing rather than talking.
In art, identifying what you like, and then trying to imitate it,
is a surer way to improve your craft than abstracting some general
rules, learning them off and then trying to apply them.
My point in the above list, incidentally, was not to describe the
things IF "should" do, but to point out that good IF might have
goals, often highly subjective goals, beyond maximising its
reading audience.
> Since I brought up "Da Vinci Code" a few times (which, I should note, is a
> book I actually didn't like), I need to ask: what is the "Dan Brown crowd?"
Specifically, the crowd of people who like Dan Brown books. More
generally, the kind of people who are happy to read about
lazily-written stock characters taking part in derivative genre
plots. More generally still, the lowest common denominator.
> For all you or I know, maybe Dan Brown's various works did "improve [some
> people's] reality" or "make them feel less alone." His works clearly
> "delight and entertain" many people and there's no doubt that his works
> "provoke." So, by the criteria you gave above, I'm having trouble relating
> this to the idea of "pandering" to a "Dan Brown crowd."
It's a question of emphasis. How is an artist to decide what causes
delight? what entertains? It's a subjective call -- essentially it's
up to the artist himself. If he wants to delight, the best he can do
is write what delights him. If the artist instead thinks only of what
delights the vast majority of the reading population, he stops being
an artist and becomes a hack.
> I would disagree with that last part a bit. Writing *is* about reaching a
> market.
No. Writing is about putting words and sentences next to each other
in
pleasing ways. Perhaps "the business of writing" is about reaching a
market, but that isn't same thing.
> I would agree with that first part. People have different concepts of what
> success means. That's something that I think is interesting relative to
> text-based IF because I often wonder what most people here consider success.
I think I've been successful when I've written something I'm proud of,
and
especially successful when someone else tells me that they like it
too.
But curiously, I don't feel ten times as successful when ten times as
many
people tell me that.
If I were a professional writer, I'd no doubt have other ideas of what
constituted "success". But I'm not.
> Is it just to enter your game in a yearly comp? Is it just to have your game
> put up on Baf's Guide and the IF Archive so someone may happen to chance
> upon it at some point and may actually play it? None of those are bad, of
> course. But I also wonder if the community, at least in large part, would
> like to see a little more?
Well, perhaps some members of the IF community think of success
in terms of sales figures, readership, etc. I don't think these are
necessarily greater goals.
> Actually, this is interesting to me. I've often wondered about this.
> Everyone keeps tossing out this vague, bordering-on-useless phrase
> "writing-workshop guidelines." But I wonder: does anyone really think *none*
> of the authors who wrote various literature from, say, 1900 to 1950 used any
> sort of guidelines?
I would only claim that none of the *writers I like* used
*writing-workshop guidelines*, i.e. the sort of guidelines you get
in a writing workshop, by which I mean the kind of school that
teaches
you how to throw plots together in twelve easy steps, that distils
the art of prose down into a few simplistic rules, that gives
how-to-get-published tips for genre fiction, magazine articles,
and the like. In fact, some of my favourite writers were
sarcastically
dismissive of such workshops:
"Certainly these schools, in so far as I have any acquaintance with
them, offer nothing of value to the beginner of genuine talent. They
seem to be run, in the main, by persons as completely devoid of
esthetic
sense as so many street railway curve-greasers. Their text-books are
masses of unmitigated rubbish. But no doubt that rubbish seems
impressive enough to [aspiring writers], for it is both very vague
and very cocksure -- an almost irresistible combination."
(H.L Mencken, "Authorship as a Trade", 1926.)
(I don't entirely endores the above-quoted opinions, by the
way, but they do amuse me.)
> So I guess
> I'm just not sure where this side of the debate is really going, unless
> someone can show that these "guidelines" are ineffective or effective.
One example (and I know this because people who own the DVD told me)
is the ending of Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Two Towers.
The character of Faramir was modified into a ambitious and vaguely
sinister guy who tries to take the Ring -- all because Screenwriting
101 dictates that every story arc must have a dramatic climax. The
hacks
who wrote the screenplay followed this guideline in the least
imaginative way,
wrecking the Faramir/Boromir contrast (one of the few memorable bits
of
characterisation in the book), and giving us yet another scene of
someone
being corrupted by the ring's evil influence, for people who hadn't
quite
grasped that the ring was evil in the previous six hours. In Tolkien,
some
people were able to resist the ring, or at least knew enough about
themselves not to want to be exposed to it. The book has a humane
streak -- not all humans are weak and venal, slaves to our base
desires.
Some are able to act with noble restraint in the face of such
temptation.
Jackson and his screenwriters, on the other hand, have a much more
lazily cynical and less subtle view, which at least in part is because
they
followed screenwriting guidelines to the letter.
> Sometimes I wonder this, too. My only provisional thought is that it could
> change what people consider art. Or it could change how art is viewed. Art
> evolves. .
Yes. But we don't have to agree that it's evolving in a good way.
(Apologies for any formatting problems in this and my
previous post. I hate the new Google Groups.)
Stephen.
Jeff Nyman
> I think the best way to go about that is to look at existing works
> and analyse how they succeed or fail on the various axes (which are
> all highly subjective). In other words, I think it's better
> to go about it descriptively rather than prescriptively.
> Reducing writing to a series of how-to rules takes all the life
> out of it, produces writing by numbers. I'm of the opinion that
> the best artists work on instinct, intuition, inspiration. They have
> lots of technique, sure, but it isn't always explicitly codified,
> and in any case the technique is so deeply absorbed that it's part
> of the artists' nature, rather than a set of rules they consciously
> employ.
>
> I suppose the question is: how best to absorb this technique?
> I think this is better done by doing rather than talking.
> In art, identifying what you like, and then trying to imitate it,
> is a surer way to improve your craft than abstracting some general
> rules, learning them off and then trying to apply them.
I really like all of the above. I think that's very well said. I could add
nothing to it.
> Specifically, the crowd of people who like Dan Brown books. More
> generally, the kind of people who are happy to read about
> lazily-written stock characters taking part in derivative genre
> plots. More generally still, the lowest common denominator.
Yeah, I guess I see your point but I can't really agree with this. To me,
it's too easy to dismiss what a lot of people like. I've read literature
that I feel had stock characters as well, to be quite honest. I still
enjoyed it. But I thought the characters were often pretty paper-thin in
some cases. I've also seen that with "popular" works. Derivative plots? See,
same thing for me. I've seen literature that is very derivative. I've seen
"popular" that is very derivative. Ultimately, I think everything is very
derivative because the stories speak to aspects of the nature of people and
how people respond in various situations. Some people would argue that
almost everything is derivative, in one way or another, of mythology. Others
would argue that everything is derivative of a combination of Shakespeare
and the Bible.
I guess for me what people like is solely up to them and I don't like to
castigate it to much just because I happen to not like it. Having said that,
since I mentioned I didn't like "Da Vinci Code" the reason I didn't is
because the author promoted a lot of it as fact when that's stretching the
truth. As a piece of fiction, it works well for a lot of people. And it does
cover some interesting aspects of history. For me, I had read quite a bit
about da Vinci's works and about the Rennes-le-Chateau "mystery" and the
Priory of Sion and all that stuff. So, for me, Dan Brown's book simply
didn't offer anything all that new. So I felt the book was too much of a
vehicle for just relating bits of research with a thin smattering of
characters. (Somewhere else in this thread I mentioned I had the same
problem with the book "Nano" by John Robert Marlow, which was clearly using
plot and characters as a thin veneer for a dire warning about our use of
nanotechnology.) An example of a book that I think did do Dan Brown's idea
well is "Kingdom Come" by Jim Hougan. There I didn't feel the characters
were subsumed by the ideas.
> It's a question of emphasis. How is an artist to decide what causes
> delight? what entertains? It's a subjective call -- essentially it's
> up to the artist himself. If he wants to delight, the best he can do
> is write what delights him. If the artist instead thinks only of what
> delights the vast majority of the reading population, he stops being
> an artist and becomes a hack.
See, here's another thing that's too categorical for me. I'm not saying
"you're wrong," mind. I'm just saying that for me, I break it down like
this:
If an artist solely wants to determine what they themselves consider art,
what other people say probably doesn't matter. To that artist, they're not
seeking outside confirmation or appreciation. So, since that's the case,
what they consider art is, ipso facto, art. It doesn't matter what other
people think because the artist isn't asking them to look, read, or buy.
If an artist wants to convey himself to other people in some way, then that
artist is, to some extent, seeking confirmation or appreciation. That may be
via sales of a book or whatever. The point is they're seeking other people
to validate their idea of what is art. If other people disagree, the artist
can still think what they produced is art but they'd at least have to agree
that not too many other people do.
Like you said, it's a question of emphasis. That I agree with. But if your
emphasis is on reaching an audience, having an impact on them, then what
*they* consider art does matter to a certain extent. That, to me, doesn't
make someone a hack. It just makes their emphasis different. Part of the
problem is that "art" is a vague word in that it relies on aesthetic
principles. It's also the amount of skill that someone believes is brought
to bear in conducting some activity (such as dancing, putting colors on a
canvas, writing a novel, chiseling rock into a certain form, molding sand
into a certain form, etc, etc).
Talking about art reminds me of how people talk about quality in my field.
People talk about quality as if it were this objective thing that everyone
will know once they see it. The fact is, they don't. People differ on what
is and what is not quality. What you tend to go for is the aggregate. You
can't please everyone but you can often please a lot of people who share a
relatively similar vision as you regarding what is quality. I think the same
applies to art. People who appreciate what you produce are more likely to
call it art.
>> I would disagree with that last part a bit. Writing *is* about reaching a
>> market.
>
> No. Writing is about putting words and sentences next to each other
> in
> pleasing ways. Perhaps "the business of writing" is about reaching a
> market, but that isn't same thing.
Well, okay -- good point. In our previous context, we were talking about
people whose writing reaches a wide audience. To that extent, the author has
to consider what audience that is and they write to that audience (that
market). Robert Ludlum, Robin Cook, Brian Keene, Elizabeth George, Harry
Turtledove and many others write to reach a given market. They may have
other goals as well, such as artistic expression and whatnot, but they stick
with their genres because that's the market that they appeal to.
This said, I admit I was being a bit too general in my speech, so your point
is well taken.
> Well, perhaps some members of the IF community think of success
> in terms of sales figures, readership, etc. I don't think these are
> necessarily greater goals.
I would agree. I definitely wouldn't say they are "greater" goals because I
don't see how you can attach a value to them, except in relation to what an
individual attaches. That means they're also not "lesser" goals. The
question for me is what do the majority of people who want to write
text-based IF hope to get out of it. That's going to differ, of course, from
person to person, but on the other hand, perhaps there are enough people who
want similar things. What I'm trying to look at is simply: are their goals
that are more or less common among a relatively large swath of those
currently practicing writing text-based IF?
> I would only claim that none of the *writers I like* used
> *writing-workshop guidelines*, i.e. the sort of guidelines you get
> in a writing workshop, by which I mean the kind of school that
> teaches
> you how to throw plots together in twelve easy steps, that distils
> the art of prose down into a few simplistic rules, that gives
> how-to-get-published tips for genre fiction, magazine articles,
> and the like.
Okay, that I can see. The problem is that I'm not a fan of too many
generalist statements. Lumping all "writing workshops" together in this way
is not something I'm prepared to do, particularly since I've been involved
in some where the kind of "simplistic" emphases you bring up above were
*not* the working charter of the group.
> Jackson and his screenwriters, on the other hand, have a much more
> lazily cynical and less subtle view, which at least in part is because
> they
> followed screenwriting guidelines to the letter.
Yes, I agree this was a major divergence from the books and not a welcome
one. Of course, the end of "Return of the King" had its own problems as well
and, to me, they were pretty severe. I'm not sure I would call it "lazily
cynical" but I agree about the subtle aspect. One thing they do teach you
(in writing workshops, incidentally) is: trust the reader (or viewer). Don't
assume your reader is stupid and won't get it. People can pick up on
subtleties, particularly if you write well. So all this shows to me is that
people implement different guidelines in different ways. It doesn't
necessarily tell me that guidelines are bad. Also, we don't have the
opposite situation to compare to. Meaning, we don't have a film version that
*does* follow the book exactly so we can't say which would have been more
successful. Yes, readers of the books may not have liked it. But the movie
was catering to a much larger audience than just readers of the books.
>> Sometimes I wonder this, too. My only provisional thought is that it
>> could
>> change what people consider art. Or it could change how art is viewed.
>> Art
>> evolves. .
>
> Yes. But we don't have to agree that it's evolving in a good way.
Definitely. In fact, that's probably in the nature of art itself, no? Not
only does it evolve but the extent to which it is doing so and whether
that's a good thing or a bad thing is part of what allows people to
determine what *they* consider art.
- Jeff
Emily Short
lisa_rein...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:20 pm, Emily Short <emsh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > If you meant 'IF authors would be wise not to bother trying to appeal
> > to a literary audience if their primary goal is to expand playership',
> > fine. That makes sense. Your original statement was about what IF
> > "should" do, which seemed to be a statement about the proper function
> > of the medium.
>
> I do believe what I said is what interactive fiction should do. I
> could be wrong. But I don't see anyone else really coming up with
> anything workable.
Whoa, okay. Workable in what sense? It sounds to me as though you're
framing everything in this discussion in terms of audience reach;
whereas I think there are already workable IF pieces, in the sense
that they attempt interesting things artistically and succeed at
them.
I agree with Stephen on this one: "reach as many people as possible"
is not the only possible goal. There's also "reach as many people as
possible of the kind who will appreciate the particular kind of
experience I'm interested in creating". That varies from project to
project. I've written a couple of IF pieces for specific individuals;
they were never published to the rest of the world, but within the
parameters of what I wanted to do, they were entirely successful.
That's obviously an extreme case, and most of the time I'm not writing
for one person; and some of the time I'm trying to write what might be
accessible beyond the current IF community, and that affects the
design. But market size by itself is not a measure of success.
> > characters are involved. At some level, yes, almost every story is
> > about agents that take actions; but that doesn't mean that their
> > characters -- their thoughts, their motives, their feelings, beliefs,
> > and principles -- are the *main topic* of the work.
>
> I was a publisher at Baen Books and then HarperCollins.
I'm not questioning your credentials as a judge of what static fiction
can be sold to a broad market. I *am* questioning whether "can this be
sold to a broad market of readers?" is the central criterion when it
comes to IF.
> I can tell
> you: novels are about people. They're about the human condition.
> They're about how different people manifest behaviors and thoughts
> that speak to the human condition. When you say the "main topic," I
> don't even know what that is. Are you referring to the theme or the
> premise or something else entirely?
I'm referring to the theme. I mentioned Robinson's Mars books before.
The story is about the colonization of Mars; there are many individual
characters involved, but they have one-note personalities, and they're
about as interesting as individual ants in an anthill. The memorable
things about the book are on a larger scale: social movements,
technological possibilities, and political issues that shape the
development of a new colony. It's not that the premise "a group of
people sets out to colonize Mars" couldn't be character-centric --
there have been other character-oriented books about the same premise
-- but that that's not so much what Robinson is interested in. The
focus is on a system, process, or idea that is certainly relevant to
the human condition but is not primarily expressed in terms of the
particular feelings of particular deeply-described individuals.
Something similar could be said about older genres of SF, or a lot of
late-80s cyberpunk, or the stories published in Analog even up until
more recently; about some world-building-focused forms of fantasy;
about conventionally-written children's fairy tales, which tend to
treat their characters in the same underdeveloped way as stories from
scripture. As pointed out elsewhere, it's also true about older
detective fiction and some thrillers and horror.
I grant you that some of these things have recently gone somewhat out
of vogue, but I don't think that proves anything about what can or
should be done with literature in general. I think it tells us only
what readers are currently looking for in the market, and where
conventional expectations are. These may change in five years or ten
or twenty; and besides, they are conventional expectations *about the
book market*. People have different conventional expectations about
categories of movies, plays, television shows, and music. IF is also a
different medium.
> > It's true that I treat most written fictional products as literature.
>
> By this logic comments about "writing-workshop guidelines" really make
> no sense to me. If most written fictional products are literature,
> many of those were produced by people learning from those "writing-
> workshop guidelines" you dismissed.
I didn't say such guidelines have nothing to teach; I said I don't
think they're absolute laws, definitional of what quality looks like.
For instance: I have seen people say things like, "This writing is bad
because it is telling me this rather than showing it to me, which
violates the show-don't-tell rule." To my mind that gives a particular
technique guideline priority over the artistic purpose of using that
technique; it gets the whole problem the wrong way around.
I do think it is reasonable for someone to say, "This didn't interest
me, and I think the reason is that it's relying too heavily on
exposition rather than action or dialogue." But when you're using the
presence or absence of technical criteria as the primary measure of
quality, you lose track of the more interesting questions, "what is
the author trying to achieve? is his goal worth attempting? does he
succeed?"
Similarly, I think it's easy for people to fall into the habit of
using such guidelines in too formulaic a way when creating their own
work; and occasionally the guidelines are even set out as though they
were a simple recipe for success-in-writing. I've dipped into a couple
of books on how to write romance novels, and they are often
startlingly specific about which sorts of scenes should happen when in
a book. I realize that the romance genre has many many sub-genres
defined by setting, length, and quantity of sexual content, and that
the people who buy these books are often looking for something very
specific; I also suspect that having a plot framework pre-designed to
that degree is likely to cramp expression.
So no, I don't think all writing guidelines are valueless, but I think
some are potentially constraining and that all of them need to be
viewed as means to support what the work is doing as a whole.
> > I don't think of that as snobbery, though: it seems to me, on the
> > contrary, that it is a more egalitarian and more productive attitude
> > than rigorously dividing Popular from Literary. Seeing all this
>
> People often forget that literary tends to mean that which can't
> easily be classed into a genre.
Okay, but that didn't appear to be how you were using the term,
especially in remarks about (e.g.) how characterization in literary
novels differs from characterization in popular novels.
> > kind that you come up with. But I also think that writing style is not
> > necessarily the sole issue, or more important than certain other
> > issues. Nothing you've said here convinces me otherwise.
>
> So what issues do you think are important?
What does interactivity do for storytelling? What can we do in an
interactive medium that we could never do on paper? What are the
strengths? What are the pitfalls?
In my experience of IF, the times I've been most engaged as a player
have come from a really effective use of interactivity at a moment
that already mattered to me for story reasons. I have a question, and
the closer I come to finding out the answer, the more frightened I am
of the outcome -- but I keep going (Anchorhead). I realize that the
situation calls for a hard decision or a painful action, and I have to
make it happen myself (Slouching Towards Bedlam, Fate). I'm locked
into a battle of wills with another character and I have to outwit him
(Elysium Enigma, Gourmet, Spider and Web, Varicella). I'm trying to
break my character out of the grip of his inner demons, but I can't
get him to follow my instructions (Rameses, Shrapnel).
Techniques of good storytelling matter to building up a situation I
care about, but there's also something else going on here. The
interactive element makes these moments much more challenging than
they would be if written out on paper.
If we make IF where the interaction and the narrative work together
and enhance one another, then we will have found the real strength of
the medium; we'll have something of inherent value, and we can look at
the question of how to attract more players of the kind who will
appreciate that value.
Emily Short
> Make people feel less alone? That sounds fine. But how? Doesn't that mean
> you have to have them relate to someone or get to know someone. That's often
> how we feel less alone. So that means characters of some sort. That means
> various techniques.
Occasionally I read a book or play a game where I don't relate to the
characters, but I do relate to the narrator or author in a way which
makes me feel less alone (or, as I usually think of it, makes me feel
that I've identified a sympathetic fellow being).
Sometimes that's because of shared cultural references ("Curses" comes
to mind); sometimes it's because of the delight in the ideas (Gilbert
Strang's introductory Calculus textbook; some of Hofstadter's books)
or beautiful use of language (Annie Dillard, especially An American
Childhood) or the wit and personality of the authorial voice (Julian
Barnes, Stephen Fry, Julian Fellowes).
Emily Short
> "Stephen Bond" <stephenb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
> > Specifically, the crowd of people who like Dan Brown books. More
> > generally, the kind of people who are happy to read about
> > lazily-written stock characters taking part in derivative genre
> > plots. More generally still, the lowest common denominator.
>
> Yeah, I guess I see your point but I can't really agree with this. To me,
> it's too easy to dismiss what a lot of people like. I've read literature
> that I feel had stock characters as well, to be quite honest. I still
> enjoyed it. But I thought the characters were often pretty paper-thin in
> some cases. I've also seen that with "popular" works. Derivative plots? See,
> same thing for me. I've seen literature that is very derivative. I've seen
> "popular" that is very derivative.
Sure.
One criterion of mine is whether or not the author seems to have some
particular inspiration or spark of an idea that he's really interested
in; the work can be good even if many aspects are derivative, as long
as there's something in it that the author was passionately interested
in getting across. (That still doesn't mean I'll like it. Ayn Rand is
passionately interested in communicating Objectivism, but I don't
enjoy spending a whole book being hit over the head with an idea I
find so pernicious.)
I also tend to dislike things that feel lazy. Laziness can take the
form of sloppy plotting, flat characterization, or flabby prose, but
the presence of any of these doesn't necessarily indicate laziness in
itself, so this is a hugely subjective call. I find Rowling's prose
frequently weak, especially during action scenes and moments of
stress, but I don't get the impression that this is because she
doesn't care, and the other positive aspects of her storytelling are
sufficient for me to keep reading. By contrast, what little I've read
of Dan Brown did strike me as lazy.
Jim Aikin
> "Stephen Bond" <steph...@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:1182678053.4...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I dunno, how about:
>> * a work of IF should delight, provoke and entertain
>> * a work of IF should make some reader feel less alone in the world
>> * a work of IF should be a piece of artistic self-expression
>> * a work of IF should improve on reality
>
> This is good list, perhaps. But how do you actually do all that? That's part
> of what I'm hoping people discuss more. What sorts of techniques can be used
> to achieve the above? Are certain techniques more efficacious than others?
> If so, how do we come to that conclusion?
This discussion is fascinating, but ultimately I'm not sure it tells me
anything that, as an author, I can use.
The techniques one uses are well understood and yet, at the same time,
entirely mysterious. You can read Shakespeare and see the techniques he
used -- they're all right there on the page -- but that doesn't mean
you'll be able to do anything that approaches his level of inspiration.
This reminds me of an old Zen story. The apprentice comes to the
painting master and says, "O master, I wish to paint a flawless
painting. Please tell me how to do it." The master smiles and says, "Oh,
that's easy. First you become flawless, and then you just paint naturally."
All it requires is all of your effort, all the time. If you want to
become a great writer, sure, you study techniques, and then you sit down
and write every day and put your very best effort into it. And if you do
all that, you may still produce crap. Because in the end it's not about
techniques, it's about the totality of your being at the moment of creation.
I spend a lot of time in the world of digital music technology, and I'm
keenly aware that there are lots of musicians who have been bamboozled
into thinking that the key to producing great music is to buy the right
product. (In other words, to have access to a certain set of
techniques.) So they buy the latest, greatest gear, and their tracks are
still dull. I'm tempted to say it's because their souls are dull, but
I'm not sure I want to be quite that clinical. The reason why one artist
succeeds in producing brilliant work while another fails are ... well,
we can point to lots of factors, but in the end, if we have any humility
at all, we'll have to confess that we just don't know.
Do the very best you can at all times. When you read or play works by
others, pay close attention. Experience the world widely.
While working on my first novel, I had a 3x5 card pinned on the wall
above the typewriter. (Yeah, typewriter. Long time ago.) It said:
1) Tell a good story.
2) Put the reader in the scene.
I don't think I could improve on that, but I might add one more
principle that I've learned in recent years by composing lots of music
in a home studio:
3) There are no rules for how to play with the toys.
--JA
travel2light
>
> I spend a lot of time in the world of digital music technology, and I'm
> keenly aware that there are lots of musicians who have been bamboozled
> into thinking that the key to producing great music is to buy the right
> product. (In other words, to have access to a certain set of
> techniques.) So they buy the latest, greatest gear, and their tracks are
> still dull. I'm tempted to say it's because their souls are dull, but
> I'm not sure I want to be quite that clinical. The reason why one artist
> succeeds in producing brilliant work while another fails are ... well,
> we can point to lots of factors, but in the end, if we have any humility
> at all, we'll have to confess that we just don't know.
What you say reminds me of that wonderful scene in the movie Dead
Poets Society when the boy called Todd who lacks a lot of confidence
is confronted by his English teacher (Robin Williams) to put aside his
feelings of shame, embarrasment and lack of self confidence -- and
just allow his feelings to express themselves without self censorship.
Keating looks around. No one volunteers. Keating grins.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Look at Mr. Anderson. In such agony.
Step up, lad, and let's put you out of
your misery.
All eyes are on Todd. He is dying inside. He stands and
walks slowly to the front of the class like a condemned man
on
his way to his execution.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Todd, have you prepared your poem?
Todd shakes his head no.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Mr. Anderson believes that everything he
has inside of him is worthless and
embarrassing. Correct, Todd? Isn't that
your fear?
Todd nods jerkedly yes.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Then today you will see that what is
inside of you is worth a great deal.
Keating strides to the blackboard. Rapidly, he writes:
"I SOUND MY BARBARIC YAWP? OVER THE ROOFTOPSOF THE WORLD.--
Walt Whitman
KEATING (CONT'D)
A yawp, for those who don't know, is a
loud cry or yell. Todd, I would like you
to give us a demonstration of a barbaric
yawp.
TODD
(barely audible)
A yawp?
KEATING
A barbaric yawp.
Keating pauses, then suddenly moves fiercely at Todd.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Good god, boy! Yell!
TODD
(frightened)
Yawp!
KEATING (CONT'D)
Again! Louder!
TODD
YAWP!
KEATING
LOUDER!
TODD
AHHHHHH!
KEATING
All right! Very good! There's a
barbarian in there after all!
Keating claps. The class claps too. Todd, red-faced, swells
a bit.
KEATING (CONT'D)
Todd, there's a picture of Whitman over
the door. What does he remind you Of?
Quickly, Anderson, don't think about it.
TODD
A madman.
KEATING
A madman. Perhaps he was. What kind of
madman? Don't think! Answer.
TODD
A crazy madman.
KEATING
Use your imagination! First thing that
pops to your mind, even if it's
gibberish!
TODD
A... A sweaty-toothed madman.
KEATING
Now there's the poet speaking! Close
your eyes and think of the picture.
Describe what you see. NOW!
TODD
I... I close my eyes. His image floats
beside me.
KEATING
(prompting)
A sweaty-toothed madman
TODD
A sweaty-toothed madman with a stare
that pounds my brain.
KEATING
Excellent! Have him act. Give it
rhythm!
TODD
His hands reach out and choke me All the
time he mumbles slowly. Truth... Truth is
like a blanket that always leaves your
feet cold.
This brings chuckles from the class. This angers Todd.
KEATING
To hell with them, most about the
blanket!
Todd opens his eyes and addresses the class in defiant
cadence.
TODD
Stretch it, pull it, it will never cover
any of us. Kick at it, beat at it, it
will never be enough-
KEATING
Don't stop!
TODD
(struggling, but getting it
out)
From the moment we enter crying to the
moment we leave dying, It will cover
just your head as you wail and cry and
scream!
Todd stands still for a long time. Both he and the students
have felt the magic or what has just taken place. Neil
starts
applauding. Others join in. Todd swells and, for the first
time, there is a hint of confidence in him. The applause
stops. Keating walks to Todd.
KEATING
Don't forget this.
We won't.
Quoted from http://scifiscripts.name2host.com/msol/dead_poets_final.txt