Re: Misc

[Bob <mantic@brightok.net>]

>> ""Interaction takes place between storyteller and audience, not between story and audience. It's that simple -- yet, as you can see, it is the source of endless confusion.""

> "I agree.  I've never disagreed with that."

> audience <-> storyteller <-> story

> "The audience interacts with the storyteller, and the storyteller in turn interacts with the story.

> "Thus, the audience INDIRECTLY interacts with the story, CHANGES the story..."




	I also don't understand the importance of the distinction in terms of
implementation.

	For, it would be very difficult to pin down where exactly static data
ends and process begins when dealing with Object Oriented actors that
are in effect a persistent process that must be interrupted (interacted
with) in order to change states. The border between data and process can
be defined in great detail on whatever level and mark a different
boundary by every definition. But this is just bogging down in details
for the sake of bogging down in details so far as I can see.




	That aside, I'll try to offer a constructive bit this time on the
theoretical level:

	Defining "story" as process, rather than object (where I most certainly
agree), it's place is surely not off in the background behind the teller
in this conversation. Story, and conversation, is a shared experience.

	Writing fiction I learned how much more effective a vague description
can be. It is my common practice, learned from the classics, to 'tag' a
character with usually two prominent, often contrasting, features. These
are useful for quick and identifiable descriptives, of course. But they
also leave a great deal of the characters' form in the hands of the
audience.

	Working as a cartoonist made this shared reality even harder to
achieve. I am an artist first, though, so I tackled the imagery with
similar strategies. Scott McCloud <http://www.scottmccloud.com/> is
getting pretty famous now for pointing out the appeal of abstraction in
cartoons, following this same reasoning.

	It was my progression along that line of careers that set me following
the thread of interactive fiction. The comic-book, or Graphic Novel if
the terminology helps, was an evolution in form for both art and
fiction, whether you take it seriously or not. And my gut has been
telling me that interactive or computer-aided fiction is going to be the
next such leap forward.

	That gut feeling set me adapting to the tools of this medium some years
back, after decades mastering a pen and brush. I don't want to attract
premature attention to my current efforts, but I'll say this: we should
meet somewhere in the middle.


						Cheers,
						--Bob



P.S.

	So far as rival communities and conflicting views go, 'Interactive
Fiction' can encompass as many definitions as people want to throw at
it. The only ones that matter are the ones that lead to growth -- so I
figure you've got a better claim on the territory than most, Chris. ;)