Author: scashma1

Afternoon, A Blog (#3)

I find Afternoon a compelling text because it is like Hegirascope in that the reader makes choices as to how the story progresses, but there is a lot more variety to the choices and paths available.  It is also intriguing that there is a narrative (or several) that can be followed for multiple frames, whereas in Hegirascope the narrative is largely fragmented.  The same can be said of how characters are handled within this text, as there are definite characters with defined attitudes and personalities, some of which we can only learn about by choosing correct paths. 

This is somewhat closer to those interactive fictions like the Baron and Fate than Hegirascope, in that the choices are much more vast and they have to be done in a certain order for anything to truly happen.  What is also interesting is that there is a sense of urgency to the choices provided, also unlike Hegirascope where you basically just chose a phrase that interested you and hoped it brought you to something more or at least equally interesting.  In Afternoon, you are given a piece of narrative, and chances are you want to make the right decision to steer that narrative in the direction you want to see it unfold.

It was very interesting for me to see certain characters develop in ways that I did not expect.  At first when introduced to the characters Nausicaa, Lolly, Wert, and Peter I had assumed that Lolly was Nausicaa’s psychiatrist and that they had become friends, and that Wert was married to Nausicaa.  Now, either another character was introduced and I missed it, or Lolly is in fact a prostitute being used by the other three characters.  I’m not exactly sure, just as i’m not sure about the relationship between Peter and Nausicaa, though I think they’re dating.  There were also other characters, one named Andrew and another I forgot who were named and then I didn’t learn anything more about them because the story ended for me (and apologized for doing so, strangely enough.)

Which war? Frame splitting and such.

Which war?  This was the main question I had, unless of course you count all of the “WTF?” moments on my first time through the text.  The credits say “Olia Lialina, 1996” and I’m not too good with dates but if she’s American I guess this could be the Gulf War or perhaps Kuwait? 

After the first few clicks I started realizing that the frames were either splitting; branching in to new paths, or advancing those paths forward a step.  It’s interesting because in a way you’re controlling the story of how this reunion goes.  The most compelling instance for me was the middle-bottom frame that appears to be about someone cheating on the other in the relationship, and it sort of becomes a Choose Your Own Adventure.  You can either say, “NO NEVER,” or “he was my neighbour,” and the path advances from there to:  “don’t kill” or “forgive” which are both pretty powerful sentiments.

I think this takes a little bit more interpretation than Hegirascope because of the fact that there is less interaction: you have fewer choices and you can exhaust them all in one sitting with MBCBFTW, whereas in Hegirascope it would take much much longer.  Also, whereas Hegirascope gives you these events that are potentially several paragraphs of text, MBCBFTW is much more simplistic with black and white images and short phrases at most.  All in all the experience is much more finite with requires much more reflection than interaction.

Blog #1 Evocative and Representational Meaning in Jabber

With Jabber, the representational meaning is obvious; this is an engine that signifies the malleability of the English language by using physics to form random letters into strings of nonsense (and less often, real) words that could potentially (read: phonically) see regular use as a member of the language.  This word engine speaks to the random and often quizzical nature of our language, as well as exhibiting a type of chemistry, where certain fragments can connect to form a plausible string, while others will disintegrate after a few moments.

What Jabber says evocatively, however, is less concrete.  It seems to raise questions about how our language is added to or amended, as when literary characters become adjectives or ideas based on their written personae.  Jabber also seems to play on the evolution of language itself, as with slang or colloquialisms we begin to hear and read more and more words that don’t exactly make any sense within their context; how can 30 inch rims be “ballin'” or new sneakers be “fresh” or “dope”.  While Jabber affirms this sort of nonsensical usage by providing an engine through which strange words can be formed and documented, it also hinders its own evolution by the creator imposed algorithms that make certain strings of letters impossible to form.

While some form of regulations is necessary, so that all of the letters don’t simply clash together and form some ultimate nonsensical language pangaea, to truly push the evolution of language you need to relax some of the phonetic and pronunciational guidelines.  While this might be analogous to expecting a bear to grow wings, i’m of the opinion that the English language has always been about nonsense rules and complexity, so why not throw in a few more. 

“X” before “D” and “Z” after “K”, let the Jabber engine lead the way.