Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review: Counterfeit Monkey
377 views
Skip to first unread message
Jacek Pudlo
Feb 10, 2014, 2:59:28 AM2/10/14
to
Playing Emily Short's Counterfeit Monkey is like making love to a two hundred kilogram woman; once she gets on top, your goose is cooked. This is a game that will suck you in and spit you out. There are mounds-upon-mounds of puzzles, all very clever, very addictive, very abstract and very much alike. They heave and merge like porridge. At the end they all congeal, and no one is the wiser for it. An interactive fabula that's a machine rather than a story is indeed a limited pleasure. As much as we may admire the skill of its intricate assembly, and enjoy exploring the perfectly contained combinatorial explosion that lies at the heart of its puzzle scheme, there's something about it that makes us weary. Perhaps it's the feeling that the writer knew all even before she got started, that for her the writing wasn't a labour of discovery so much as an act of consolidation of prefabricated ideas and devices, an IKEA-type assembly job rather than a personal creative process.
Remember how older versions of Microsoft Word used to auto-correct "rabbi" to "rabbit"? ("Who was the rabbit who officiated your wedding ceremony?" I once emailed a cousin.) Well, that's pretty much the gist of Monkey's puzzle scheme. There are t-inserters, b-removers (turning a man named Brock into... yes, you guessed it, a rock), de-pluralising guns, de-capitalising catapults (turning Poles into poles) and tons of other fun gizmos. Okay, I made the last one up, but it wouldn't be out of place in this whimsically childish puzzle fest where anything can materialise out of thin air except an actual story, characters, themes, ideas, or any of the things an educated adult would look for in a work of fiction. Speaking of childishness, Monkey is heavily influenced by Ellen Raskin's The Mysterious Disappearance of Leon (I Mean Noel) (1974) and Mark Dunn's Ella Minnow Pea (2001), both children's novels, both using wordplay and anagrams to show kids that reading can be fun. Ms Short's indebtedness doesn't end here. The little there is in terms of story bears striking similarities to Mr Dunn's novel. None of this is mentioned in the credits, but I'm sure that's an honest oversight and will be addressed in the next release.
Will there be more where this came from? Seeing how it's easier for Ms Short to stifle a fart than refrain from releasing a game, I think yes. She's the Danielle Steel of interactive fiction, the difference being that while there's a healthy cynicism to Ms Steel's prolificacy (who can blame her for wanting to make money?) Ms Short's copious production has almost a stain of madness to it. Picture a thirty-eight-year-old woman delving into children's literature to find inspiration for her next interactive magnum rebus, the making of which will take many thousands of hours, only to release it for free. It's not like the itch she's scratching has any literary merit. This is pure, unadulterated entertainment, and people who make it usually charge you for it.
But a more interesting question is this. Why are we getting this in the form of fiction? Even while we're typing directions, greedily looking for new tools to truncate or lengthen words with, we're never convinced that it needs to be a work of fiction. It has everything one might expect from a Rubik's cube or a crossword, and nothing that would satisfy our imagination. It is intelligence without purpose, excitement without love; it certainly has a pulsating brain, but with no intimation of humanity. This is not a matter of misplaced reverence, of superciliously proposing that fiction is inherently superior to crosswords. It is rather a matter of honesty. If you call yourself a fiction writer, then write fiction, and leave the crosswords to the cruciverbalists.
So what, you may feel. Quite a few games are not much more than puzzles thrown together with little in the way of a coherent plot, well-drawn characters, let alone a meaningful theme. Effectively, they're crosswords that have broken free from the shackles of narrative purpose. As such, they may have their merits. Viewed as a crossword, Monkey keeps its end up pretty well. It's no less diverting than other games of its kind, and it's certainly one of the largest and most complex. It isn't, however, emotionally engaging. With characters that are nothing more than ciphers, how could it be anything but an emotionless diversion? After all, there's a reason why people keep their crosswords in the loo.
This is not to say that this kind of game doesn't have its proponents. Interactive fiction players, they argue, are zombies. They've grown up in a world of videogames and YouTube clips, the reasoning goes, and can't be expected to attend to a narrative. It's unrealistic to expect them to immerse in literature. What they need is a remorseless succession of abstract puzzles, however purposeless, to fill the gaps between IFMUDding, texting, chatting, tweeting, FaceBooking and Instagramming.
This is the kind of patronising view of the interactive fiction player that's given us Monkey, but the sadness goes beyond the particular case and pertains to the question of how a non-commercial art form could become a sausage factory. How could a literary medium with no pecuniary prospects succumb to the vulgar industries that masquerade in art's name? Why are interactive fabulists selling out when no one's buying? It involves a deeply entrenched culture of cronyism and mediocrity that, in the omnipresence of self-publishing and in the absence of an authoritative body of reviewing, fosters interactive fiction that is fit for the loo. Yet it is only when players are demanding and writers are willing to deliver that interactive fiction will be honoured.
Having read the reviews, I can conclude that not a single one opens the door to a discussion of why a work of interactive fiction should be devoid of fiction, have no story to speak of, and abuse its medium for entertainment value rather than as an inquiry into the human condition. Not one asks the question of whether people who imagine their view of this type of interactive fiction to be tolerant and sympathetic (even hip and fashion-forward) are not in fact being patronising and demeaning.
How to communicate what they have seen without killing it in the telling is a torment to a good many writers, even those who, like Ms Short, see nothing much. This is not to say that Ms Short is a clinical idiot - were she, she would not have written Counterfeit Monkey - but true insight begins just where her intelligence ends. Hers is an intellect without sympathy, a condition more fatal than idiocy; a little frigid culture may be raised on it, a dead language, some crosswords, but no art, not even bad art.
Remember how older versions of Microsoft Word used to auto-correct "rabbi" to "rabbit"? ("Who was the rabbit who officiated your wedding ceremony?" I once emailed a cousin.) Well, that's pretty much the gist of Monkey's puzzle scheme. There are t-inserters, b-removers (turning a man named Brock into... yes, you guessed it, a rock), de-pluralising guns, de-capitalising catapults (turning Poles into poles) and tons of other fun gizmos. Okay, I made the last one up, but it wouldn't be out of place in this whimsically childish puzzle fest where anything can materialise out of thin air except an actual story, characters, themes, ideas, or any of the things an educated adult would look for in a work of fiction. Speaking of childishness, Monkey is heavily influenced by Ellen Raskin's The Mysterious Disappearance of Leon (I Mean Noel) (1974) and Mark Dunn's Ella Minnow Pea (2001), both children's novels, both using wordplay and anagrams to show kids that reading can be fun. Ms Short's indebtedness doesn't end here. The little there is in terms of story bears striking similarities to Mr Dunn's novel. None of this is mentioned in the credits, but I'm sure that's an honest oversight and will be addressed in the next release.
Will there be more where this came from? Seeing how it's easier for Ms Short to stifle a fart than refrain from releasing a game, I think yes. She's the Danielle Steel of interactive fiction, the difference being that while there's a healthy cynicism to Ms Steel's prolificacy (who can blame her for wanting to make money?) Ms Short's copious production has almost a stain of madness to it. Picture a thirty-eight-year-old woman delving into children's literature to find inspiration for her next interactive magnum rebus, the making of which will take many thousands of hours, only to release it for free. It's not like the itch she's scratching has any literary merit. This is pure, unadulterated entertainment, and people who make it usually charge you for it.
But a more interesting question is this. Why are we getting this in the form of fiction? Even while we're typing directions, greedily looking for new tools to truncate or lengthen words with, we're never convinced that it needs to be a work of fiction. It has everything one might expect from a Rubik's cube or a crossword, and nothing that would satisfy our imagination. It is intelligence without purpose, excitement without love; it certainly has a pulsating brain, but with no intimation of humanity. This is not a matter of misplaced reverence, of superciliously proposing that fiction is inherently superior to crosswords. It is rather a matter of honesty. If you call yourself a fiction writer, then write fiction, and leave the crosswords to the cruciverbalists.
So what, you may feel. Quite a few games are not much more than puzzles thrown together with little in the way of a coherent plot, well-drawn characters, let alone a meaningful theme. Effectively, they're crosswords that have broken free from the shackles of narrative purpose. As such, they may have their merits. Viewed as a crossword, Monkey keeps its end up pretty well. It's no less diverting than other games of its kind, and it's certainly one of the largest and most complex. It isn't, however, emotionally engaging. With characters that are nothing more than ciphers, how could it be anything but an emotionless diversion? After all, there's a reason why people keep their crosswords in the loo.
This is not to say that this kind of game doesn't have its proponents. Interactive fiction players, they argue, are zombies. They've grown up in a world of videogames and YouTube clips, the reasoning goes, and can't be expected to attend to a narrative. It's unrealistic to expect them to immerse in literature. What they need is a remorseless succession of abstract puzzles, however purposeless, to fill the gaps between IFMUDding, texting, chatting, tweeting, FaceBooking and Instagramming.
This is the kind of patronising view of the interactive fiction player that's given us Monkey, but the sadness goes beyond the particular case and pertains to the question of how a non-commercial art form could become a sausage factory. How could a literary medium with no pecuniary prospects succumb to the vulgar industries that masquerade in art's name? Why are interactive fabulists selling out when no one's buying? It involves a deeply entrenched culture of cronyism and mediocrity that, in the omnipresence of self-publishing and in the absence of an authoritative body of reviewing, fosters interactive fiction that is fit for the loo. Yet it is only when players are demanding and writers are willing to deliver that interactive fiction will be honoured.
Having read the reviews, I can conclude that not a single one opens the door to a discussion of why a work of interactive fiction should be devoid of fiction, have no story to speak of, and abuse its medium for entertainment value rather than as an inquiry into the human condition. Not one asks the question of whether people who imagine their view of this type of interactive fiction to be tolerant and sympathetic (even hip and fashion-forward) are not in fact being patronising and demeaning.
How to communicate what they have seen without killing it in the telling is a torment to a good many writers, even those who, like Ms Short, see nothing much. This is not to say that Ms Short is a clinical idiot - were she, she would not have written Counterfeit Monkey - but true insight begins just where her intelligence ends. Hers is an intellect without sympathy, a condition more fatal than idiocy; a little frigid culture may be raised on it, a dead language, some crosswords, but no art, not even bad art.
rmal...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2014, 3:00:06 PM2/10/14
to
So you take one of her only puzzlefeasts, no doubt influenced by her forays into casual gaming sites, and uses that as an excuse for plain namecalling?
Short has been synonymous with well-crafted narrative prowess in IF for well over a decade. If you want to honestly talk about her fiction in an IF context then why not address Savoir-Faire, City of Secrets, Bee, First Draft of the Revolution and other works? Trying to squeeze Tolstoy out of Tetris won't do any good.
CM is pretty good as far as puzzle-only games go, right next to Suveh Nux or The Magic Toyshop...
Short has been synonymous with well-crafted narrative prowess in IF for well over a decade. If you want to honestly talk about her fiction in an IF context then why not address Savoir-Faire, City of Secrets, Bee, First Draft of the Revolution and other works? Trying to squeeze Tolstoy out of Tetris won't do any good.
CM is pretty good as far as puzzle-only games go, right next to Suveh Nux or The Magic Toyshop...
John W Kennedy
Feb 10, 2014, 8:01:56 PM2/10/14
to
since about the time Inform 7 first came out.
--
John W Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Pete Chown
Feb 11, 2014, 5:22:00 AM2/11/14
to
Your trolling has backfired this time! I didn't know about Counterfeit
Monkey, and I like puzzle games, so I will be playing it soon.
Congratulations on getting another player for one of Emily Short's
games. :-)
Pete
On 10/02/14 07:59, Jacek Pudlo wrote:
> [words]
Monkey, and I like puzzle games, so I will be playing it soon.
Congratulations on getting another player for one of Emily Short's
games. :-)
Pete
On 10/02/14 07:59, Jacek Pudlo wrote:
> [words]
401...@comhem.se
Feb 12, 2014, 3:28:40 PM2/12/14
to
Am 11.02.14 11:22, schrieb Pete Chown:
> Your trolling has backfired this time! I didn't know about Counterfeit
>
> Monkey, and I like puzzle games, so I will be playing it soon.
>
> Congratulations on getting another player for one of Emily Short's
>
> games. :-)
And how exactly will this put a feather in her cap? Much like flatulence, interactive fiction is a medium where free self-publishing is the norm. It's free at both ends. How many people play Monkey has no relevance. The only thing that matters is Monkey's literary strength. It has none, because it amounts to entertainment, not literature, not even literature in a modest aspirant form.
>
> Monkey, and I like puzzle games, so I will be playing it soon.
>
> Congratulations on getting another player for one of Emily Short's
>
> games. :-)
John W Kennedy
Feb 12, 2014, 11:03:43 PM2/12/14
to
I wonder whether Poland (or maybe Sweden) has laws about on-line stalking.
401...@comhem.se
Feb 13, 2014, 4:18:10 AM2/13/14
to
Either you write fiction because you have something to say, or because you want to make money. If you're lucky, you can combine the two, but there's no third option, at least not a sane one.
She's been doing this since 1999, when she released Metamorphoses, her first elaborate puzzle fest devoid of narrative substance. The community's response has been one of patronising indulgence. There are two reasons why I think this is the wrong response. First, whatever compulsive disorder she suffers from, it's probably unwise to encourage it. Second, games like Monkey are marginalising an already marginal medium.
She's been doing this since 1999, when she released Metamorphoses, her first elaborate puzzle fest devoid of narrative substance. The community's response has been one of patronising indulgence. There are two reasons why I think this is the wrong response. First, whatever compulsive disorder she suffers from, it's probably unwise to encourage it. Second, games like Monkey are marginalising an already marginal medium.
Peter Pears
Feb 13, 2014, 6:26:32 AM2/13/14
to
Guys, if no one had replied in the first place, this thread would still be a ghost. Please don't feed the troll.
Pete Chown
Feb 13, 2014, 6:34:28 AM2/13/14
to
Jacek Pudlo wrote:
> And how exactly will this put a feather in her cap?
I'm not talking about putting a feather in her cap, I'm talking about
> And how exactly will this put a feather in her cap?
you not achieving your objectives. No one believes that you are doing
this because of concern for literature; you are just a troll. In this
case, rather than upsetting people, you got a new player for one of the
works you were flaming.
Pete
Ricardo Malafaia
Feb 13, 2014, 12:09:16 PM2/13/14
to
Em quinta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2014 09h26min32s UTC-2, Peter Pears escreveu:
> Guys, if no one had replied in the first place, this thread would still be a ghost. Please don't feed the troll.
why are you feeding it then, Peter? :p
> Guys, if no one had replied in the first place, this thread would still be a ghost. Please don't feed the troll.
Peter Pears
Feb 13, 2014, 8:36:52 PM2/13/14
to
> why are you feeding it then, Peter? :p
Because people like who, who are dumb enough to reply like that in the first place, still haven't got the point.
Peter Pears
Feb 13, 2014, 8:37:21 PM2/13/14
to
*like you
Ricardo Malafaia
Feb 14, 2014, 11:00:42 PM2/14/14
to
Em quinta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2014 22h36min52s UTC-3, Peter Pears escreveu:
> > why are you feeding it then, Peter? :p
>
>
>
> Because people like who, who are dumb enough to reply like that in the first place, still haven't got the point.
that's quite uncorteous
> > why are you feeding it then, Peter? :p
>
>
>
> Because people like who, who are dumb enough to reply like that in the first place, still haven't got the point.
Peter Pears
Feb 15, 2014, 6:11:00 AM2/15/14
to
> > Because people like who, who are dumb enough to reply like that in the first place, still haven't got the point.
>
>
>
> that's quite uncorteous
It's on par with your reply.
>
>
>
> that's quite uncorteous
401...@comhem.se
Feb 16, 2014, 11:19:48 AM2/16/14
to
Gregory Ewing
Feb 18, 2014, 4:55:47 AM2/18/14
to
Oh, yes, it is! It means something unrelated to or not
resembling the products of Cort Guitars, a guitar
manufacturing company based in South Korea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cort_Guitars
--
Greg
resembling the products of Cort Guitars, a guitar
manufacturing company based in South Korea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cort_Guitars
--
Greg
Peter Pears
Feb 18, 2014, 6:19:49 AM2/18/14
to
In that case, I'm certainly very uncorteous! Every hour of every day! I was born uncorteous, and unless I have a horrific disfiguring accident, that's how I'll remain!
rpresser
Feb 18, 2014, 10:00:30 AM2/18/14
to
It appears with this spelling many, many times in Google Books.
For example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=g74dAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22uncorteous%22&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q=%22uncorteous%22&f=false
For example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=g74dAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22uncorteous%22&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q=%22uncorteous%22&f=false
Ricardo Malafaia
Feb 18, 2014, 2:42:10 PM2/18/14
to
Em terça-feira, 18 de fevereiro de 2014 08h19min49s UTC-3, Peter Pears escreveu:
> In that case, I'm certainly very uncorteous! Every hour of every day! I was born uncorteous, and unless I have a horrific disfiguring accident, that's how I'll remain!
hmm, you seem well-behaved enough over at intfiction :p
> In that case, I'm certainly very uncorteous! Every hour of every day! I was born uncorteous, and unless I have a horrific disfiguring accident, that's how I'll remain!
and I typoed
Gene Wirchenko
Feb 18, 2014, 5:13:05 PM2/18/14
to
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:34:28 +0000, Pete Chown <pe...@chown.org.uk>
wrote:
Jacek Pudlo as Emily Short's sockpuppet?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Andrew Plotkin
Feb 18, 2014, 5:34:30 PM2/18/14
to
No.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Gene Wirchenko
Mar 10, 2014, 1:15:29 AM3/10/14
to
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Jacek Pudlo as Emily Short's sockpuppet?
>
>No.
I should have written "pawn" instead.
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Jacek Pudlo as Emily Short's sockpuppet?
>
>No.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
0 new messages