"This trajectory [of the term _interactive_] is typical of industrial terms appropriated by analysts of technoculture... and shows how commercial rhetoric is accepted uncritically by academics.... The word _interactive_ operates textually rather than analytically, as it connotes various vague ideas of computer screens, user freedom, and personalized media, while denoting nothing. [...] To declare a system interactive is to endorse it with magic power" (Aarseth, Cybertext, p. 48)
a lot of emphasis in the literature about the raw topology of hypertexts and their surface-level textual features, need to find writing on a possible taxonomy of how lexia bind to the semantics of narrative structure (sorta like how theta roles and verb frames in linguistics bind the semantics of the sentence to the syntax) (this is especially important in contemporary twine games where i feel like links/edges conflate movement through space, branching plots, asides and elaborations, etc)
this dovetails straight with a point I was trying to make earlier. If you are stuck on describing a system or technology instead of *what people do* and *how people interact* you are stuck describing a car's tires instead of an epic summer roadtrip.
This isn't just about marketing, it's about having the right perspective for decisionmaking.
I wrote a little poem exemplifying this: failure to focus on the person instead of the thing and its inventors.
@aparrish maybe he's just not a fan of Zork or any of Infocom's interactive fiction?
@aparrish wait, how do you cite toots again
@aparrish I love that title! I barely understood the words in your first post in this thread, but I think I got the gist of it related to the semantic meaning of hypertext. I need to study more linguistics. 😀
@aparrish I understand just enough to get that this is very interesting! But I don't know near enough to understand what's going on or what one might learn through this.
So much to learn, so little time!
@aparrish I'm... pretty sure I have a really clear idea of what "interactive" and "interactivity" are, which applies to everyday praxis in my work, so this is a very odd paragraph to me.
@bruno he does go on in the next few paragraphs to give his own definition for what "interactive" means, so I don't think he's necessarily arguing that the term is useless. but it's an interesting paragraph for me because I personally had never made the connection in my mind that "interactive" in this context could be seen as something appropriated from industry into academia, along the lines of terms like "augmented reality" and "cryptocurrency" etc
@bruno another part of Aarseth's point was that there was at some point a maybe mindless gold rush to make things "interactive" (like making things "VR" today). I think even now there's this residual sense that, when it comes to digital media, "interactive" things are better than "not-interactive" things (a personal source of tension for me, an artist who works primarily with batch-oriented offline techniques, who also teaches at a program called "Interactive Telecommuncations Program")
@aparrish yeah, I can see that.
@aparrish Aarseth pwns us all
@aparrish I keep citing this paragraph whenever I need to write about interactivity.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!