tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post3529560806290734254..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Formal Blog #6: Option #2Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-27580937596448134152008-02-21T15:22:00.000-05:002008-02-21T15:22:00.000-05:00Ha! That's what I get for misnumbering last week ...Ha! That's what I get for misnumbering last week - you're doing last week's assignment for this week. Oh, well. That's what I get.<BR/><BR/>Here's one funny thing about this entry. You offer a careful and interesting definition of interactivity, but I'm not sure you use it. "Acting or capable of acting on each other." To me, though, your focus is exclusively on _our_ choices: we act on the narrative. You don't talk about it the other way around: if two things are acting on each other, presumably the narrative is acting on us while we act on it?<BR/><BR/>That being said, your discussion was fine - it just doesn't pursue the weirdest and, to me, most appealing aspect of your definition.<BR/><BR/>The thing I actually liked best here (other than your neglected definition) was the argument you started to make about the uses to which interactive narratives can be put. If you bring it up with no examples, though, it's also not convincing.<BR/><BR/>What pedagogical impact, for instance, did these narratives have on you?Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com