Ryman says “In cyberspace, people become places”.
I checked in my Oxford Dictionary of English (2003), to see how ‘place’ is defined. It said,
Place: 1. a particular position, point, or an area in space; a location, 2. a portion of space designated or available for or being used by someone, 3. a position in a sequence or series, typically one ordered on the basis of merit.
So if it is true that "In cyberspace, people become places” as Ryman said, people must be defined as the above.
Actually, I agree with Ryman’s opinion. In the narrative, “253”, all the passengers have their own notion in mind, and was sitting, not being able to move. Of course they can stand up, talk, dance, and get off the train. However, because passengers cannot move from a certain place while the train is moving, it made it easier to imgaine the people as place. In 253’s case, I think it can be coined as the 2nd explanation in the Oxford Dictionary. Each passenger have their own individual appearance, inside infromation, notion, and nobody can interrupt their space. It is ‘being used by’ the characters.
I thought about the blog we are now using. The reader of the blog can have a sense of godlike feeling, maybe. Think like this:
The blog we have=seats in the train
The design of the blog=appearance of the passengers
The posts that we do every week=the notion of the passengers
Isn’t is a bit similar? And the readers can have a godlike feeling, because they can just see through the blog without getting in contact with the author. Readers can jump around blogs, start from which ever day the reader wants to start from, and never know the ending (because blogs don’t have a specific ending unless the writer is posting novels).
So, I think it’s safe to regard people as places in cyberspace. But at the same time, being ‘place’ seems to me as being digitalized, and only one aspect of the human is being showed to the out side. That is a bit sad ><
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Saturday, 8 September 2007
The Fighting Fantasy Book
I think it was was my first time to try the Fighting Fantasy books. Although there were annoying parts, overall, it was interesting.
The annoying parts, are when the book forces us to go back to a certain scene even if we had not chosen that page in advance. Probably this is done in order to maintain the narrative of the book, but I felt like that we were being controlled.
When these Fighting Fantasy books were to be transformed to a computer game, I think the most difference would be the difficulty of the player not being able to go back to the previous scene.
When our group was playing the Fighting Fantasy book, there was a part where we need to pick one choice out of four. Ming Zhi (who was flipping the pages) put her finger in one page, and after taking a look at every choice, we decided to go to the most best looking one. I guess this is cheating, but in the format like these books, there is a high chance for the players doing these kind of things. However, in computer format, by manipulating the system, it is still possible to setup and prevent the readers from checking all the choices.
However, there are some players who tries to make a way in computer games too.
My brother (sorry, this is the 2nd time he comes up in this blog), when playing a game, he always saves the game in advance, and then goes out and fights with someone, or gamble with his money. If he loses, he simply turns off the computer, and then tries again from the previous scene where he has no damage or loss. In this way, he can try until he gets a clue how to beat up the bad guy. This procedure is a bit similar to flipping back a page in the Fighting Fantasy book.
But by setting up the program, game designers still have a chance to stop the player from 'cheating'. Some may say that this is restricting, but second thought, we don’t have a chance to go back in real life, so why not in games too?
The annoying parts, are when the book forces us to go back to a certain scene even if we had not chosen that page in advance. Probably this is done in order to maintain the narrative of the book, but I felt like that we were being controlled.
When these Fighting Fantasy books were to be transformed to a computer game, I think the most difference would be the difficulty of the player not being able to go back to the previous scene.
When our group was playing the Fighting Fantasy book, there was a part where we need to pick one choice out of four. Ming Zhi (who was flipping the pages) put her finger in one page, and after taking a look at every choice, we decided to go to the most best looking one. I guess this is cheating, but in the format like these books, there is a high chance for the players doing these kind of things. However, in computer format, by manipulating the system, it is still possible to setup and prevent the readers from checking all the choices.
However, there are some players who tries to make a way in computer games too.
My brother (sorry, this is the 2nd time he comes up in this blog), when playing a game, he always saves the game in advance, and then goes out and fights with someone, or gamble with his money. If he loses, he simply turns off the computer, and then tries again from the previous scene where he has no damage or loss. In this way, he can try until he gets a clue how to beat up the bad guy. This procedure is a bit similar to flipping back a page in the Fighting Fantasy book.
But by setting up the program, game designers still have a chance to stop the player from 'cheating'. Some may say that this is restricting, but second thought, we don’t have a chance to go back in real life, so why not in games too?
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Ergodic Literature
According to Espen, nonlinear means ‘narratives that lacked or subverted a straightforward story line’. Considering this explanation, it can be said that Memento is a cybertext. As we saw, the movie was not definitely nonlinear, with the scenes going back and forth, consisting by the incidents happened in the past and future.
However, it is also difficult to assert that Memento is truly a cybertext. That is because the audience of the movie can never make choices. Even if we want to advice Leonard not to kill the man, or not to meet Natalie, or something else, that’s impossible. The audiences have to sit and just let the movie go. In this sense, the nature of cybertext is not seen in Memento. The audience should be safe and impotent.
But, is the audience of Memento really safe?
Because after we saw the movie, everyone looked puzzled, or, was trying to find out the consequence somehow (Maybe that’s because we’re USP students?). The audience of Memento cannot make a choice in reality, but they can, in their head. We keep on thinking - what if Leonard had made a different choice? Will his destiny change?
This is the same in ergodic literature. The reader/player can make choices, however, they also have to suffer of not choosing the other question.
What is different from other movies, and Memento then? Any movie can give the audience an impatient feeling towards the characters not choosing A rather than B. The most different thing about Memento is because of the way the story is told, and thus makes the audiences get confused and make them get into a ‘labyrinth’.
Cybertext can be enjoyed many times by choosing a different answer every time you play. This cannot be experienced in ‘normal movies’, but as I said in my first blog, Memento should – and can – be watched again. Every time we see the movie, we are sure to get a different feeling (I haven’t tried yet though).
It would be clear for me if I conclude that Memento is a cybertext, but still I have this question fuzzing in my mind – can it be defined as interactive, even if we can't choose the choices in the movie??
However, it is also difficult to assert that Memento is truly a cybertext. That is because the audience of the movie can never make choices. Even if we want to advice Leonard not to kill the man, or not to meet Natalie, or something else, that’s impossible. The audiences have to sit and just let the movie go. In this sense, the nature of cybertext is not seen in Memento. The audience should be safe and impotent.
But, is the audience of Memento really safe?
Because after we saw the movie, everyone looked puzzled, or, was trying to find out the consequence somehow (Maybe that’s because we’re USP students?). The audience of Memento cannot make a choice in reality, but they can, in their head. We keep on thinking - what if Leonard had made a different choice? Will his destiny change?
This is the same in ergodic literature. The reader/player can make choices, however, they also have to suffer of not choosing the other question.
What is different from other movies, and Memento then? Any movie can give the audience an impatient feeling towards the characters not choosing A rather than B. The most different thing about Memento is because of the way the story is told, and thus makes the audiences get confused and make them get into a ‘labyrinth’.
Cybertext can be enjoyed many times by choosing a different answer every time you play. This cannot be experienced in ‘normal movies’, but as I said in my first blog, Memento should – and can – be watched again. Every time we see the movie, we are sure to get a different feeling (I haven’t tried yet though).
It would be clear for me if I conclude that Memento is a cybertext, but still I have this question fuzzing in my mind – can it be defined as interactive, even if we can't choose the choices in the movie??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)