tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post412362364959788896..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Final Project rough draftAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-25683330977610532009-04-17T23:08:00.000-04:002009-04-17T23:08:00.000-04:001st paragraph - these words are Z's first words, b...1st paragraph - these words are Z's first words, but we do have the introduction before that. Whether we consider this the beginning of the book, then, is actually an interesting and important question, but it's not completely obvious.<br /><br />I like your focus on skepticism, although that does mean that you're acknowledging implicitly the problem of multiple beginnings...<br /><br />"This is not a book about a drug-addicted man obsessively piecing together a dismantled narrative, nor is it about the horrors of a mysterious house. House of Leaves consistently tackles the theme of perception, and intentionally (and repeatedly) draws the reader back to this idea. House of Leaves is deliberately designed to be a piece of interactive fiction, as every single component of this book is meticulously placed for a specific purpose." I actually like this paragraph, but I need to shred it nonetheless. Is it really an either/or situation? Can't the book be about a drug-addled man *and* a mysterious house *and* the nature of perception? Why does the dominion of skepticism shut down the horror story? Similarly - I find your claim that it is interactive fiction, *in which everything is designed to serve a purpose*, somewhat contradictory. If everything serves a clear purpose, is there really any rome for reader choice? Your raising great issues, but not being skeptical or analytical enough of your own thoughts...<br /><br />I think your discussion of the various aspects of the books interactivity is pretty good, although perhaps it sticks a little too close to things we talked about in class. But then you turn around to focus on the book's interest in authenticity, and I need to ask: what is the relationship between interactivity and authenticity? Your whole paper would make more sense if I understood exactly how you're trying to link the two. I'm pretty sure you are, but it isn't quite clicking for me yet...Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com