tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post5625512244861612065..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Youtube & FacebookAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-38298033661843641702008-11-25T17:37:00.000-05:002008-11-25T17:37:00.000-05:00I'm not clear on what your overall purpose or inte...I'm not clear on what your overall purpose or intention is here. Clearly you are interested in interactivity on the internet, but I don't say any overall argument here beyond the level "interactivity exists on the internet." You do have more particular arguments which emerge, especially toward the end - e.g., "old people are stupid and young people are mean" (ok, I oversimplify, but the argument was pretty problematic to begin with), but how these particular arguments fit in to the paper as a whole isn't clear to me.<BR/><BR/>Let's take a more particular moment. You discuss the phenomenon of interactive videos on youtube, then claim "When the viewer, reader, etc. has a role in the story, they are likely to feel more engaged and interested in what is happening. It makes them feel vital to the plot, and without them the story would be different. In a way, the viewer, reader, etc. makes the story without literally making it." <BR/><BR/>Ok. This is definitely an argument, but you phrase it passively. You say nothing about how *you* are impacted as a reader. Do *you* find these interactive videos about the cat to be compelling and interesting material? If so, write about that. If not, don't claim that generic readers will be mesmerized when you aren't. Some of your subsequent claims - for instance, that Hollywood will be interactive - are interesting, but you don't detail them. If interactivity is so powerful, then why haven't CYOA books become more than a niche for kids? What makes youtube different, or what makes the future Hollywood different?<BR/><BR/>Because you don't clarify your main argument, and because you move rapidly from sub-argument to sub-argument, I am never clear on where your focus is, where your interests are, on what is really supposed to *matter* to a reader here?<BR/><BR/>I thought the facebook section had two problems.<BR/>1) It was less interesting - less argumentative - than the youtube section.<BR/>2) It has no relationship that I can see to the youtube section. It's almost as if you're writing two different papers.<BR/><BR/>Overall: You need to focus first, last, and always on what you're really trying to say. What do you want the reader to believe (other than what they already knew or believed) after reading this?Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com