Category: Group B

In her book Narrative as Virtual Reality 2, Marie-Laure Ryan examines interactive storytelling and the different forms it can take. Ryan examines the various types of interactive storytelling as well as the different interactive structures found in different stories. I found her discussion regarding these different structures to be particularly interesting because it reminded me of the interactive structures I encountered while playing various mobile games when I was younger. I remember encountering “The Vector”, which Ryan defines as a linear structure but can include side branches that may or may not be completed by the user (165-166). “The Flowchart” also stuck out to me because of Ryan’s explanation that the user’s choices within the story can affect the ending, such as whether or not the user is able to gain a certain ability (171-172).

It is interesting to compare digital storytelling to printed literature. Digital storytelling allows for much more flexibility and interactivity that printed literature cannot. However, Ryan explains that many people play computer and video games for the action and entertainment, as well as the “thrill of beating the game” as many games reuse the same basic storyline (181). It is easy to get lost in the action of a computer and video game and not pay much attention to the storyline. On the other hand, printed literature puts the focus on the story and allows for more complex storytelling. While digital storytelling offers interactivity and levels of customization for the user, there is beauty in the detailed storytelling provided by printed literature.

I’ve never been someone to reread books or re-watch movies. The main reason is because if I try to reread a book I will almost always remember the ending before I finish the first chapter which spoils the whole book for me. However, when I picked up my first choose your own adventure book (CYOA) as a child, I read it multiple times. I spent much more time on a single CYOA book than on a traditional book. I loved that instead of having to go out and choose another book, you can reread the same one over and over and never really know what ending you’re going to get. Another reason I was driven too reread CYOA books was the idea that there were multiple endings and that maybe I could find the BEST ending. It became a game for me to see how long I could last or if I could complete all the quests and come out on top. In the article “Standard Patterns in Choice-Based Games” from These Heterogeneous Tasks, the author Sam Kabo Ashwell describes various patterns that can be found in CYOA books including one called the gauntlet. The gauntlet proves that my childhood goal of correctly navigating to the best ending could’ve been reachable. The gauntlet is a pattern that has one clear thread but many side branches that can lead to abrupt death. The clear thread, if followed correctly, will lead the reader to the finale. However, this is not the only pattern that CYOA books can take. Ashwell describes patterns like open map, sorting hat, loop and grow, and time cave. While some of these also have one “best” ending, many have multiple viable endings or many different paths to the same happy ever after. I loved choose your own adventure books because in a way they are competitive, addicting and consuming. These qualities ensured that I didn’t put my CYOA book down even during dinner as a child.

As someone who used to spend hours hunched over a computer navigating the world of Sims4 and the various intricacies that accompany all choices from the construction of the house to socialization between people, I never took the time to ponder the behind-the-scenes steps required to create the game.

Maurie-Laure Ryan’s book Narrative as Virtual Reality 2 examines the forms of interactivity and the resulting organizational nuances and levels. Her commentary exists in contiguity with Sam Kabo Ashwell’s piece “Standard Patterns in Choice-Based Games,” which analyzes the structures specifically of Choose Your Own Adventure games. Reading both pieces led me to wonder the sequential development of CYOA games alongside other forms of electronic media. As we discussed in class, the years during which CYOA were most popular and most widely produced spanned from the early 1980s up until the late 1990s. The depth of some of these games’ options, as Ashwell outlines, limit their mainstream use, but still remain as integral parts to the development of both CYOA games and other forms of electronic literature.

The chapter of Ryan’s book examines ergodism and its bounds as they compress, expand, and  relate to interactivity. What stood out to me was, amidst all of the structures, the levels of interactivity. Ryan, as she declares, “propose[s] to peel this onion” that is narrative text (Ryan 176). With this perspective, Ryan allows the reader to unpack the complexity of the games we have taken for granted all this time. Ultimately, Ryan and Ashwell force their audiences to consider the relationship between form and product. What does an author lose and gain with each decision regarding the form of her piece? Do these forms lend themselves to future development and innovation? If so, to whom does that responsibility fall, the author or the player? Moving forward in this class, I look forward to the chance to discuss the relationship between the people on both ends of the production and reception of electronic media and its CYOA counterparts. 

In “The Many Forms of Interactivity,” Ryan dissects the phenomena of ‘interactivity,’ suggesting that the term is not so straightforward as it may first appear. In her discussion of the varying types of interactivity–the variety of which could constitute several blog posts–Ryan states that “the purpose of interactivity is to probe the field of the possible for its own sake” (163). This quote summarizes my current feelings towards the field of online narration: overwhelmed with the vast possibilities. However, I am also excited by the results of comparing this new digital field with the field of tactile literature, of which I am familiar. A close look at a few of Ryan’s forms of interactivity reveals new meaning between these forms of literature. 

Within her discussion of ‘Interactive Structures,’ Ryan touches on ‘The Vector,’ which is the most similar to narrative in that it is linear and causal. Ryan proposes that “there is still something magic about summoning new information to the screen as a result of physical action–magic because it takes hidden, mysterious code to mediate between the gesture of the hand and its visible effect” (165). This quote reminded me of our discussion in class about whether we participate in online games for the narrative storyline or to feed our fascination with the technological structure of the game. I also wonder if we have this same thought-process in regards to printed literature? While I’ve often wondered how online stories are formed, I can’t recall a time that I’ve questioned the process of writing a novel. I think this distinction between reading for plot versus experience also feeds into Ryan’s discussion of the levels of interactivity; she divulges that game players often differ from traditional readers in that they do not play for the narrative story but rather for the aesthetics of the game’s competition (181). 

Ultimately, I am intrigued by the malleability of online narration that printed literature does not always afford. How would the experience of reading change if novels took on ‘The Network’ format in which multiple nodes allow us to bypass chronological narration (i.e. meet again with a character who had died in a previous story node (167))? Similarly, how would ‘The Vector,’ category’s ability to incorporate audio and additional documents enhance our relationship with print? Is it the responsibility of print literature to ‘keep up’ with the advances of the digital age or can the traditional ways prevail? Perhaps throughout the course of this class we will find that such a dichotomy need not exist.