Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:52
From: John D.
Even though we only had a short time to work with the medium, I was surprised at the consistent structures which emerged (at least in my perception). There seemed to be two basic approaches:
1) The "reverent" approach, in which variations of an existing narrative are offered to the reader (what Eric referred to as the "choose your own adventure" perspective);
2) The satire/parody/counternarrative approach, in which an existing narrative is read from a different point of view (e.g., Donald Barthelme's SNOW WHITE, or Angela Carter's stories), subjecting it to ideological critique.
I guess what I'm wondering is whether story schema/narrative structures are so thoroughly embedded in our thinking/writing that it's difficult to exploit the possibilities beyond. Of course, the product was also conditioned by the constraints of a "fairy tale," but I was still surprised at the familiarity of the patterns which emerged.
John D.
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:27
From: Krissi
... do you actually need to be IN FRONT OF THE SCREEN to reap the benefits of the medium/frame of mind? I know that when I was working in StorySpace, our group creation was different because we felt the euphoria of creating lots of boxes. This changed our frame of mind and our "linearity" (?).
If our groups do NOT work in front of the screen a majority of the time, will this be constructive or exploratory.
I am not trying to say that people must have StorySpace to think in non-linear ways, but I just have a feeling distinctions between these kinds of experiences have to be made.
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:42
From: John D.
Now that I've started writing (sort of) part of a hypertext, I'm finally beginning to realize the effect it will have on the finished product. In particular, two areas appear to come into play:
1) The relevance factor: Normally, I would footnote or omit something which is peripheral to the main narrative thread. Now I find myself including (at least potentially) more and more, simply linking it through additional writing spaces. I'm not sure if this information is subordinate/secondary in the same way that it would be in a print text. There's less hierarchy at work.
2) The formality/superficiality factor: This is part ofthe problem created by #1. As more information is included, the need for documentation grows. But is it pedantic to cite increasing amounts of dates, terms, and biographical information (preferably by making this information available through links)? I feel like I'm covering a larger area, but with less depth, staying strictly on the surface.
To put it another way, it feels very wierd to be writing this way. I haven't developed a feel yet for the conventions, if in fact there are any.
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:49:55 -0500
From: Rebecca P.
Subject: Re: hypertext format/conventions
My initial attempts at writing for our hypertext projects has left me with the lingering fear that I am simply introducing ideas. I am concerned about making the information in one particular box too long, so I try to split it up. However, when I begin writing for another box I end up starting with a whole other idea. Consequently, it seems that none of the initial ideas are ever really wrestled with to their full potential.
I must confess to wanting to include information just because - in my emerging hypertextual brain - I have a notion that it may be 'clickable'. The whole 'link' thang encourages play, but I'm feeling like an intellectual cheat. If I can keep them clickin' maybe they'll never guess that I haven't a clue what I'm writing about... he he he...
Am I 'normal' doctor?????