Interlude Docs

[Kathrine Selvage]

Youmay not have noticed, but when you're making GraphQL calls, you're actually calling a Function (not to be confused with a Javascript function) on the API side. Capital-F Functions are meant to be deployed to serverless providers like AWS Lambda. (We're using Netlify's nomenclature when we call them Functions.)

Did you know you can create your own Functions that do whatever you want? Normally we recommend that if you have custom behavior, even if it's unrelated to the database, you make it available as a GraphQL field so that your entire application has one, unified API interface. But rules were meant to be broken!

Why do we need apiUrl? Well, when you go to deploy, your serverless functions won't be in the same place as your app; they'll be somewhere else. Sending requests to the apiUrl let's your provider handle the hard work of figuring out where they actually are, and making sure that your app can actually access them.

Time for an interlude within an interlude, because that's how you'll always feel when it comes to CORS: you were doing something else, and then No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Now you're doing CORS.

If you don't know much about CORS, it's something you probably should know some about at some point. CORS stands for Cross Origin Resource Sharing; in a nutshell, by default, browsers aren't allowed to access resources outside their own domain. So, requests from localhost:8910 can only access resources at localhost:8910. Since all your serverless functions are at localhost:8911, doing something like

Again, because you're an elite hacker you definitely said "excuse me, actually this endpoint should respond to HEAD and OPTIONS methods as well." Okay fine, but this is meant to be a quick introduction, cut us some slack! Why don't you write a recipe for us and open a PR, smartypants??

The callback syntax may not be too bad for this simple example. But, if you find yourself dealing with Promises inside your handler, and you choose to go use callback syntax, you may want to lie down and rethink the life choices that brought you to this moment. If you still want to use callbacks you had better hope that time travel is invented by the time this code goes into production, so you can go back in time and prevent yourself from ruining your own life. You will, of course, fail because you already chose to use callbacks the first time so you must have been unsuccessful in stopping yourself when you went back.

We hope this gave you enough info to get started with custom Functions, and that you learned a little something about the futility of trying to change the past. Now go out and build something awesome!

One such approach to being appropriately prepared is thinking about structure before you go and shoot. Yes, this might change, depending on the direction your filming takes you, but being aware of the anatomy of the interactive documentary and all of its possibilities is going to be key to success.

With this in mind, lets look at some of the most popular structures used in interactive documentary, to see if they might be suitable for your project (thanks to Florent Maurin for his Narrative structures in interactive documentaries presentation which acted as guidance throughout this section):

About: Klynt is an editing & publishing application dedicated to interactive storytellers. It was designed originally for Honkytonk Films in-house productions to create an affordable and easy-to-use solution to explore new narrative formats on the Internet.

About: Founded by Israeli musician and self-proclaimed tech geek Yoni Bloch, Interlude was the realization of a vision to create a new type of interactive video that enables creators to express themselves in a new way.

It started when Yoni and his band wanted to create a unique music video that his audience would want to play over and over again. Inspired by video games and non-linear stories like Dungeons & Dragons that they had loved as kids, the band filmed the video with a similar structure in mind. When they discovered that no technology existed that would support their vision of online seamless interactive play, the co-founders set out to develop such technology themselves.

One of the things both of these pieces of software struggle with is gamification (adding game elements to your film) and at present neither offers any virtual reality options (although Klynt is rolling up a VR edition in the near future.

Getting your interactive documentary featured on a website with an already established fanbase is one surefire way to get your i-Doc some attention. Websites like Directors Notes and Short of the Week will happily showcase your interactive projects if you submit to them and i-docs.org (surely the most dedicated site for interactive docs) are also interested in seeing any pieces you send their way.

One of the first (if not the first) gamified interactive docs, Pirate Fishing asks its users to take on the role of an investigative reporter and explore the multimillion-dollar illegal fishing trade in Sierra Leone. A story that involves evidence-collection, fact checking and note taking this immersive experience is still widely discussed in the world of journalism for its innovation, alongside its insight into the journalistic profession.

I think Last Hijack Interactive, which won an Emmy Award in 2014, would be a good addition to the list. And perhaps also Refugee Republic, which presents everyday life in a refugee camp in Northern Iraq using drawings, photo, video and soundscapes. Refugee Republic reached a wide audience and was very well received internationally as well.

The timeline of the Taravangian interlude is somewhat puzzling. In this interlude, Taravangian discovers that one of the bridgemen is a radiant. He then instructs sleepers to do what they can to separate this man (Kaladin) from Dalinar so that Szeth can strike. Indeed, we learn that this is exactly what Graves was trying to do with the assassination plot.

However, the introduction to Graves is in a chapter before the interlude. So either the Taravangian interlude actually happened before that chapter, or Graves changed his mission objective to include Kaladin later.

Graves specifically says he was operating on his own initiative. I assumed that he got the message from Taravangian about the Diagram quotation, but that he'd already been plotting his plan beforehand. In particular Graves makes it pretty clear (at the end, where he's talking about the Diagram to Moash) that he thought Dalinar was supposed to take the throne. The original assassination attempt wasn't related to Kaladin at all. I don't think Graves is saying that he was trying to keep Kaladin away from Szeth; what he's saying is that he didn't think Kaladin would become Radiant if Szeth wasn't involved.

"One danger in deploying such a potent weapon will be the potential encouragement of those exploring the Nahel bond. Care must be taken to avoid placing these subjects in situations of powerful stress unless you accept the consequences of their potential Investiture."

The 'potent weapon' is almost certainly Szeth. When Graves says 'focused,' I don't think it means that's what his actions are focused on, but that they assumed without Szeth directly involved that there wasn't a possibility of Investure - the 'focus' is the focus on Szeth's actions rather than their own.

Graves doesn't do anything special to make sure Kaladin is separated from Dalinar. His assassination attempt certainly doesn't seem to be fake, and he tries the first attempt without any involvement of Kaladin at all. He honestly seems to think killing Elhokar will result in Dalinar allying with Taravangian.

Either that, or he simply is lying to the people he's recruited for his mission. No one's on board for throwing all of Alethkar into chaos. He can make them kill the king themselves, and once Szeth takes care of Dalinar, Alethkar falls into the same trap of Jah Keved.

This is certainly possible, but it feels strange to me that Graves would be so open about the Diagram but lie about that specific bit. It's possible he's doing some kind of long con on Moash and is trying to justify why Taravangian/other Diagrammies will talk about trying to off Dalinar, but in that case it seems like it would have been easier not to share anything about the Diagram with Moash. Given that there's a lot of debate over how to interpret the Diagram, what Graves says seems perfectly natural taken at face value.

There's 38 days between when Szeth attacks them the first time to the climax of the book. Graves meets with Kaladin 5 days after Szeth's attack. In those 38 days, Szeth travels from the Shattered Plains, to Urithiru (in I-10), to Vedenar, and then back to the Shattered Plains. Since in chapter 87, we're told that Urithiru is somewhere in the mountains in the center of Roshar, near Emul or Tu Bayla, Vedenar is more or less directly on the path from Urithiru to the Plains.

We really don't know how quickly he covers the distance with Windrunning, but I think it would take him a good bit longer than those 5 days to go all the way to Urithiru, and then go to Vedenar. It would also take far less time that the remaining 33 days for him to get back to the Shattered Plains in that case.

Graves probably modified his plans slightly after Taravangian's meeting with Szeth, but his meeting with Kaladin happened too early for your assumption that the Taravangian interlude is that far out of order.

REVIEWS 769 community (does 4I, I42). On the whole the volume reveals more about Benes than Masaryk, with Stefainik appearing as a background figure, although it was Stefanik, somewhat ironically, who advised the National Council not to use Tche'coslovaque in its title, as the Frenchfound it too difficult to pronounce (doc. 87, pp. I32-33). Despite the factthatthiscollection of documentsconfirmsratherthan alters much of what was previously known, it is of great value to scholars. By focusing solely on Masaryk and Benes, the editors clearly expose their personalities, foibles, strengthsand, most important, the fluctuatingwartime alliance between conservative 'master' and intense 'humble servant'. One remains convinced that Masaryk was a tireless foot soldier and Benes a bureaucraticwizard who temporarilygained the upper hand in the running of Czechoslovak affairsduring Masaryk'speaceful interlude in London, and from that point forth prompted Masaryk on key decisions (see particularly docs 114 and 236, 243). Yet one also ponders whether indeed this duo were suchlikelyand convincingrevolutionariesafterall,given thattheirconception of a Czechoslovak state remained fluid until the autumn of I9I8 (docs 248, 257). Nevertheless, the nature of their diverse experience during the Great War, as demonstratedby these documents, help the readerunderstandbetter the significance of their leap from obscurity to statesmanshipafter I9I8. A complementary second volume of Masaryk-Benescorrespondence covering the period of the FirstRepublic is being prepared. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies K. A. M. KOCOUREK University College London Frank,Tibor (ed.). Discussing Hitler:Advisers of U.S.Diplomacy in Central Europe I934-I94I. CentralEuropeanUniversityPress,Budapestand New York,2004. 394 pp. Illustrations.Notes. Appendix. Bibliography.Index. f38.oo. THEpublication of this collection of the privatepapersofJohn Montgomery, America'senvoy to Hungaryfrom I933 to I941, is a welcome contributionto the studyof inter-warHungarianhistory.The readershouldnot be distracted by the poor choice of title into believing that this is anything more, or indeed anything less, than a first-hand record of developments in Hungary, and concerning Hungary, in the last years of the inter-war period. It comes complete with a laudable introduction by the editor, a leading historian of Hungary's relationship with the Anglo-Saxon world, into the background, character and abilities of one of America's most remarkable diplomats. Montgomery had previouslypossessedno priorlinkswith, or obvious interest in, eitherHungaryorthe conduct of foreignpolicy andwaspostedto Budapest in 1933 solely because of his support for Roosevelt's in the I932 elections. Nevertheless, he acquired a lasting affection for his new posting, immersed himself in Hungarian social and political life and became an extremely wellplaced and well-connected observer of that country's gradual descent into WorldWar Two. His private recordsof I82 separateconversationsheld with a number of Hungary'sleading figures,allpublishedin chronologicalorderin 770 SEER, 83, 4, 2005 this book, therefore, immediately command the attention of any scholar of thisperiod in Hungarianhistory. The publication of these conversations does not, it should be noted, add anything of great substance to our existing knowledge of this area. They servedas sourcesof informationfor the reportswhich Montgomery sent back to Washington, and those who have trawledthrough the State Department's archiveswill alreadybe familiarwith the bulkof the informationcontained in these discussions. Nevertheless, even those with a good knowledge of Montgomery's officialreportswill derive some interestfrom being allowed to examine the raw material on which he based his assessmentsof Hungarian developments, while for those lackingeither the time or inclination to engage in archival research, the publication of these private papers provides an illuminatingglimpse into the murkyworld of Hungarian politics at a critical time in that nation'shistory. The firstimpressionof thisreaderis thatwhat Montgomery recordedin his copies of these conversationscan be best described as informed opinion, the perspectivesof variousleading individualson the leading questionsof the day and as these questions of the day ranged from electoral reform to a night at the opera the importance of the information Montgomery obtained is very much a mixed bag. Two broad factors, however, give these conversations a particularinterestfor scholars.First,Montgomery had a remarkablerange of contacts in Hungary's leading circles and was able to engage in discussion with the regent Horthy, the prime ministers Bardossy, Bethlen, Imredy, Kallay and Teleki and the foreign minister from 1933-37, Kalman Kanya. Secondly, the records of these conversations also have an unvarnished freshnessto them along with a sense of...

3a8082e126