tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post243257442082951001..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Zork and Neuromancer: RevisionAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-70966278262075695252014-02-14T21:42:19.781-05:002014-02-14T21:42:19.781-05:00The introduction rambles too much. I think I unde...The introduction rambles too much. I think I understand some of the connections you're trying to make, but the last sentence of your intro says it all: "Overall, by playing the game “Zork” you can start to understand the novel “Neuromancer” in many ways." You still haven't told us what you'll actually be focusing on here - rather than telling us how Zork changes Neuromancer, you say that it changes it in many ways. More focus is almost always a good thing.<br /><br />The 2nd paragraph serves no purpose.<br /><br />The 3rd paragraph seems purposeless, but it really isn't. "It’s almost how the structure of the game is being used. Each time you give an answer you will eventually receive a response on if you can continue or not." I'm not sure I really get what you're saying, but I know there's something here. You're interested in puzzles, or resistance, or barriers (you might have your own preferred term) in the novel and the game. I think I like the idea, but then I'm not entirely sure I even get it - this needed to be developed much more specifically.<br /><br />"These are the reasons on how I can see Neuromancer being concerned in a world of which life has become rather like a video game." -- Arguably, a reworded version of this should have started your introduction. You have productive, interesting ideas at this point, but you don't yet have a specific argument. This kind of a material is a good *source* for a finished argument. <br /><br />The paragraphs beginning "Both Zork and Neuromancer" and "Zork on the other hand" are not productive. You are not even coming close to making an argument here. You are doing a comparison, but by comparing every aspect of the two that you can think of, you aren't actually doing anything to advance an argument. You need more focus & depth - you don't need to have such broad coverage.<br /><br />The next couple paragraphs don't make a whole lot of sense to me.<br /><br />Then we have the conclusion, where you return to the most interesting thing you've done - the idea that Neouromancer and Zork are both concerned with solving puzzles to get prizes. What you needed to do here, rather than get derailed in many, many different directions, was develop this idea.<br /><br />1) First, *prove* that Neouromancer in particular is structured in this way. (It's obvious that Zork is - Neouromancer is not so obvious).<br />2) Argue that when we realize that Neouramncer has a video-game-like structure, we can and should read it in a different way. How, in other words, does boiling Case down to a treasure-hunter change our reading?<br /><br />Fundamentally, you needed to focus much harder. You had the worthwhile idea, but you had trouble pursuing it. In the future, you need to force yourself to write in defense of one clear argument.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com