tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post4026994749961032993..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: UntitledAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-49542879318940746452014-02-14T22:49:18.965-05:002014-02-14T22:49:18.965-05:00While you could have a clearer statement of your a...While you could have a clearer statement of your argument in the first paragraph, the statement of your area of interest is actually beautiful and concise.<br /><br />Re: the 2nd paragraph. Clearly identity is relevant in both works - but you don't do much to bring the two works *together* here. Over the following paragraphs, you make it quite clear what you see the connection between Zork and Neuromancer to be. By playing Zork (and maybe other video games?) we're doing what Case is doing, becoming what Case is becoming. It's a coherent, interesting, and mostly well explained line of argument. So when you write "Technology is embedded in one’s identity and profession in both video games and Neuromancer, so when it fails or falters a character’s identity can be lost," I'm very curious about whether you see Zork as being at least a minor, initial step toward us doing the same thing. In other words, do you see Zork as a step toward our (possibly false or foolish) transcendence?<br /><br />You do a very good job integrating your discussion of death into the body of the essay. But I need to harass you a little here. How do you feel about the fumbling movement toward a technological transcendence which you argue we are engaging in? What does it mean to live in a post-Zork world, where the transformations imagined in Neuromancer are less and less absurd? You are doing a good job explaining and relating what happens in Neuromancer to what happens in Zork - but what does it mean? What do you do with it? You bring up the literal dream that "You can be eternal." - but what are your thoughts on the subject?<br /><br />I like your closing sentence. It summarizes everything that you've done (connect the game to the book in a convincing and complex way, with a focus on death & identity which is neither too broad or too narrow) and it also shows what you resist doing: letting us understand what is at stake for you. In other words - how does this essay signify? How do you want us to respond to the relationship between the two works which you have elucidated?<br /><br />Overall: This is compact, well-written, well-research, and well-argued. It is successful within the borders you have set for it, which is why if you were to revise again I would be most interested in an expansion of the borders, to help us understand where we go next. To put it briefly, but in a way which is itself opinionated: now that you've exposed the post-humanism explicit in Neuromancer and implicit in Zork, how should we respond to or deal with that post-humanism?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com