[I mailed this days ago, but for some reason it apparently never made it to
the list... Trying again.]
Here are some assorted tidbits that didn't fit in the last msg:
1. Conflict. In lit class, they tell us that there are three basic forms
of conflict in fiction: person vs. nature, person vs. person/society,
person vs. self. Something to keep in mind as we think about the kinds of
stories we might want to tell in this new medium.
2. 3D. A lot of the things that interest me about nonlinear/interactive
storytelling apply equally well to hypertext (e.g.) as to VRML. And
there've been some superb pieces that use very simple graphics (if any;
InfoCom did without graphics entirely). What *does* 3D/VRML add? It *can*
add a lot: visual cues, a sense of place, sound (vitally important),
motion, etc. A richer interactive experience. But I think it behooves us
to do the VRML parts of the story *well*, because otherwise we may as well
tell our stories in text.
3. Single author vs. team. I still think the best approach is guided
integration of a team -- many authors, but one of them has final say, as
exemplified of course by IrishSpace. (And VRML Dream too? I don't know
enough about how Bernie and Stephen ran things to know if it followed the
same model.) The synergy of multiple authors can be amazing (particularly
if you choose your collaborators carefully, or get lucky); but the clash of
styles can be problematic if you're not careful and/or don't have anyone
who gets to make final decisions.
4. Usual Suspects. Titles can't be copyrighted, so you're all right on
that front. Still, it's often best to refrain from using a well-known
title anyway. It would be legal to create a computer game called _Gone With
the Wind_, but it would make everyone think of the movie (or perhaps the
novel). If you don't want people making that association, you'd be better
off picking a different title.
5. Len suggested that a politician's tone changes while lying. The
problem is that if you never hear them telling the truth, you don't have
anything to compare to...
6. Anthropomorphizing. I was up in Portland this past weekend and saw a
show called _Frogs, Lizards, Orbs, and Slinkies_, a Mummenschanz-like
mime/comedy/dance thing. Lots of fun; it tours, so if y'all get a chance
to see it (and have any interest in this kind of thing), do so. Especially
fun for kids. Anyway, spent first half of show being pleasantly surprised
at how much information/character/story you can express without words;
spent second half being even more surprised that you don't even need
humanoid *bodies*. The "slinkies" (six-foot ribbed cloth cylinder with a
human inside and a solid white circle on each end, behaves like a
Slinky(TM)) very clearly expressed emotion despite lack of body, face, and
voice. Like John Lasseter says, one of the most important things is to
pick some part of a non-humanoid character that will be its face... Humans
are good at anthropomorphizing given minimal cues.
7. Anyone read the amazing Brenda Laurel's book _Computers as Theatre_? I
suspect it's relevant to our concerns, but I didn't get to read enough of
it to be sure. I'll add it to the bibliography that I keep intending to
put together on a Web page for this list, sigh.
8. Kahuna wrote, re life: "You may even question whether the goal you
began to seek is worth seeking at all." Worth noting that this can be an
important element of a sequential story as well (he said, trying to avoid
overloading the term "linear"). See David Siegel's "Nine-act structure"
theory about film structure (http://www.dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html) --
the important point in it is the idea of the protagonist undergoing a
reversal at a certain point late in the story, discovering that the goal
they thought they were seeking is the wrong goal after all...
Okay, enough.
--jed
