Comments for Literature and the Culture of Cyberspace http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com Fall, 2007 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:57:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Grades are posted! by Brandon http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/grades-are-posted/#comment-377 Brandon Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:57:01 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/grades-are-posted/#comment-377 Thank you! It was a fantastic class. Have a good break! Thank you! It was a fantastic class. Have a good break!

]]> Comment on Last Day of Class . . . by Brandon http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/last-day-of-class/#comment-367 Brandon Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:03:01 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/last-day-of-class/#comment-367 I believe I've talked about this previously, but there's a few different theories about time travel— you can change the past, you can't change the past, there's many branches, unused branches die, etc. The one that always appealed to me most was the inability to change the past. It follows a certain rigid logic that makes a lot of sense, whereas the others require a suspension of belief and indulgement of fantasy that makes it seem a bit far-fetched, even when considering the context (time travel). That said, all the different combinations of theories have been used at some point or another in various movies and I enjoy all of them immensely, despite being drawn to what I consider the more logical one. So when I'd seen the movie the first time I thought it was great; even really, really good. I don't know why, but it wasn't until I'd seen it a second time that I realized they hadn't just kind of cobbled together their own time travel theory. Apart from changing the fate of the ferry and Claire, everything that happened when Carlin went back in time had already happened. Since it was my second time around I noticed all sorts of little things, tiny attentions to detail that (of course I can't remember now) really made the whole thing seem more real. I believe I’ve talked about this previously, but there’s a few different theories about time travel— you can change the past, you can’t change the past, there’s many branches, unused branches die, etc. The one that always appealed to me most was the inability to change the past. It follows a certain rigid logic that makes a lot of sense, whereas the others require a suspension of belief and indulgement of fantasy that makes it seem a bit far-fetched, even when considering the context (time travel).

That said, all the different combinations of theories have been used at some point or another in various movies and I enjoy all of them immensely, despite being drawn to what I consider the more logical one. So when I’d seen the movie the first time I thought it was great; even really, really good. I don’t know why, but it wasn’t until I’d seen it a second time that I realized they hadn’t just kind of cobbled together their own time travel theory. Apart from changing the fate of the ferry and Claire, everything that happened when Carlin went back in time had already happened. Since it was my second time around I noticed all sorts of little things, tiny attentions to detail that (of course I can’t remember now) really made the whole thing seem more real.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by kimberly http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-346 kimberly Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:44:34 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-346 In the novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley considers that the human species will no longer be human. The human species may be rendered indeterminate; it will be questionable what it is and what it is not. Not only does Dr. Frankenstein take away the woman’s role of reproducing but, he plays the role of the mother, and ultimately he plays the role of God, and he plays the role of creator. So Dr. Frankenstein’s ability to animate dead material, or bring life into the world shows a shift to the abolition of religion and the traditional belief, which is that God created humans, this demonstrates a suspicion in why humans are put on earth. Machines are becoming biological and the biological are becoming machines; The monster was man-made, so he was a machine but named human, and Dr. Frankenstein acted like a machine. The notion that the biological are becoming machines is perceived in Dr. Frankenstein’s senses. “I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit. It was indeed a passing trance that only made me feel with renewed acuteness so soon as, the unnatural stimulus to operate.” Dr. Frankenstein feels soulless, non-human, or machine-like while pursuing the role as creator. However, Dr. Frankenstein describes that the soul lies within his pursuit, which will become life (the creation). Therefore, machines are becoming biological; the monster was put to live on earth named human by Dr. Frankenstein, the monster was not put on earth by biological or reproductive processes. So if something has a soul does that deem it human and if something does not McGuire 2 have a soul or feels soulless does that make it machine or non-human? Dr. Frankenstein sees the human as being extremely vulnerable; he sees it as being corrupt, degraded, decaying, and wasted. But when he brings the monster to life he plays the role of God using science and technology, which would suppose the monster a cyborg, a mixture between human and machine. So with Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, here a rendering of the human form is implied. The monster shows human characteristics: the monster has emotion, seeks love and affection, has the ability to learn, understands language and has the ability to think critically, and has a conscious. But the monster is man-made. The monster breaks boundaries of being considered human because he knows language, has the ability to think critically, and has a conscious. Shelley anticipates the abandonment on nature as the basis for existence with Dr. Frankenstein’s discovery of creating a human-being; he has learned the secret of life. Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with knowledge created a monster within himself; he disconnects himself from his family, friends, and society. He withdraws from the social while the monster desires the social (but does not succeed). Dr. Frankenstein shows characteristics of non-human nature by the danger shown through his intellectual pride. There needs to be a balance between moral and natural knowledge because the monster seeks moral philosophey while Dr. Frankenstein seeks natural philosophey; both the monster and Dr. Frankenstein seek something obsessively that it destroys them. They are both acting like monsters or non-human because of the power of knowledge and technology mcguire3 which Frankenstein and the monster grasp compulsively. To identify if one acts human-like or not, offers the question what is human and what is not; where are the boundaries. Since the monster is genderless, another alteration in the human form is perceived that questions the monster’s form, human or non-human. However, humans can be transgender or asexual so it is irrelevant in calling Dr. Frankenstein’s creation genderless if that would define a human (by reproductive organs and sexuality). However, at the time the monster was “born” transsexuals did not exist, so even if the monster was physically accepted by society, he would not be accepted as genderless. Due to the time in which the monster was created nothing would have saved him from being shunned from society. In the novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley considers that the human species will no longer be human. The human species may be rendered indeterminate; it will be questionable what it is and what it is not. Not only does Dr. Frankenstein take away the woman’s role of reproducing but, he plays the role of the mother, and ultimately he plays the role of God, and he plays the role of creator. So Dr. Frankenstein’s ability to animate dead material, or bring life into the world shows a shift to the abolition of religion and the traditional belief, which is that God created humans, this demonstrates a suspicion in why humans are put on earth. Machines are becoming biological and the biological are becoming machines; The monster was man-made, so he was a machine but named human, and Dr. Frankenstein acted like a machine.
The notion that the biological are becoming machines is perceived in Dr. Frankenstein’s senses. “I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit. It was indeed a passing trance that only made me feel with renewed acuteness so soon as, the unnatural stimulus to operate.” Dr. Frankenstein feels soulless, non-human, or machine-like while pursuing the role as creator. However, Dr. Frankenstein describes that the soul lies within his pursuit, which will become life (the creation). Therefore, machines are becoming biological; the monster was put to live on earth named human by Dr. Frankenstein, the monster was not put on earth by biological or reproductive processes. So if something has a soul does that deem it human and if something does not
McGuire 2
have a soul or feels soulless does that make it machine or non-human? Dr. Frankenstein sees the human as being extremely vulnerable; he sees it as being corrupt, degraded, decaying, and wasted. But when he brings the monster to life he plays the role of God using science and technology, which would suppose the monster a cyborg, a mixture between human and machine. So with Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, here a rendering of the human form is implied. The monster shows human characteristics: the monster has emotion, seeks love and affection, has the ability to learn, understands language and has the ability to think critically, and has a conscious. But the monster is man-made. The monster breaks boundaries of being considered human because he knows language, has the ability to think critically, and has a conscious. Shelley anticipates the abandonment on nature as the basis for existence with Dr. Frankenstein’s discovery of creating a human-being; he has learned the secret of life. Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with knowledge created a monster within himself; he disconnects himself from his family, friends, and society. He withdraws from the social while the monster desires the social (but does not succeed). Dr. Frankenstein shows characteristics of non-human nature by the danger shown through his intellectual pride. There needs to be a balance between moral and natural knowledge because the monster seeks moral philosophey while Dr. Frankenstein seeks natural philosophey; both the monster and Dr. Frankenstein seek something obsessively that it destroys them. They are both acting like monsters or non-human because of the power of knowledge and technology
mcguire3
which Frankenstein and the monster grasp compulsively. To identify if one acts human-like or not, offers the question what is human and what is not; where are the boundaries.
Since the monster is genderless, another alteration in the human form is perceived that questions the monster’s form, human or non-human. However, humans can be transgender or asexual so it is irrelevant in calling Dr. Frankenstein’s creation genderless if that would define a human (by reproductive organs and sexuality). However, at the time the monster was “born” transsexuals did not exist, so even if the monster was physically accepted by society, he would not be accepted as genderless. Due to the time in which the monster was created nothing would have saved him from being shunned from society.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by Thom Gaughan http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-345 Thom Gaughan Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:33:17 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-345 I totally agree that is just like the build your own story books from when we were little. I couldn’t think of what it all reminded me of until Christian said it on the blog. But I’m not a big gamer or really into this kind of stuff so it was a bit confusing for me. I saw her bird a lot and that just threw me completely off. I think it’s cool that you have a say in how everything goes but I’m not convinced that we really have a lot to do with her story. At first I thought it was just me and now that I see other people had the same thing happen I’m less impressed. I think the idea behind the virtual interaction is very cool but I guess I just don’t have enough interest to figure it all out? I totally agree that is just like the build your own story books from when we were little. I couldn’t think of what it all reminded me of until Christian said it on the blog. But I’m not a big gamer or really into this kind of stuff so it was a bit confusing for me. I saw her bird a lot and that just threw me completely off. I think it’s cool that you have a say in how everything goes but I’m not convinced that we really have a lot to do with her story. At first I thought it was just me and now that I see other people had the same thing happen I’m less impressed. I think the idea behind the virtual interaction is very cool but I guess I just don’t have enough interest to figure it all out?

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by Brandon http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-344 Brandon Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:31:18 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-344 The first thing I think is dangerous, very dangerous. When Jill mentioned that if she doesn't interact with Caroline in a few days Caroline bugs her, that really got me. People don't realize how easy it is to lose yourself in a story. How many times have you read a book and felt awful when a character died, or cried because of something happening to someone in the book? How many of you hit a massive low when Aeris died? How many went online to find out if there was a way to save her? Now imagine if you were part of the story. If I started the game and then decided to quit, and Caroline bugged me, I would honestly feel bad. Even though I know it's not real, and that it is just a game, it would affect me to one degree or another. If you think you're immune to that sort of emotional hook you (might have a heart of stone, or you) might just be a harder sell. Perhaps it takes a little longer for you. Ever had a stuffed animal (I know you have)? It probably took you a long time to get rid of it, and when you did you probably felt a little bad about it. My point is that this type of alternate reality game has never really been done before, and we both as creators and consumer should be very, very careful. The first thing I think is dangerous, very dangerous. When Jill mentioned that if she doesn’t interact with Caroline in a few days Caroline bugs her, that really got me. People don’t realize how easy it is to lose yourself in a story. How many times have you read a book and felt awful when a character died, or cried because of something happening to someone in the book? How many of you hit a massive low when Aeris died? How many went online to find out if there was a way to save her? Now imagine if you were part of the story. If I started the game and then decided to quit, and Caroline bugged me, I would honestly feel bad. Even though I know it’s not real, and that it is just a game, it would affect me to one degree or another. If you think you’re immune to that sort of emotional hook you (might have a heart of stone, or you) might just be a harder sell. Perhaps it takes a little longer for you. Ever had a stuffed animal (I know you have)? It probably took you a long time to get rid of it, and when you did you probably felt a little bad about it. My point is that this type of alternate reality game has never really been done before, and we both as creators and consumer should be very, very careful.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by hope http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-343 hope Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:23:41 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-343 Only I could manage to access the website and Caroline has gone out... While she was away, I explored a bit, but I must say that I would have to agree with some of my fellow classmates that the site is rather limited, and whilst the concept seems interesting, it doesn't allow for much interaction... though I did send her bridget jones diary to read... hmpf. 'a light read, ' the site tells me... I can see how this could be far more interesting if she would actually come back... watching the screen isn't very stimulating... The 'Our Diary' option lent to some entertainment, but really, a simulated interation with a character seems like it wouldn't partticuarly satisfying... And her messages or 'hassles' seem rather tame. I'm not knocking the idea of an interactive site, but as far as narratives go, I prefer those of a more hypertext bent. You never know where those will go... This seems so predictable. Only I could manage to access the website and Caroline has gone out… While she was away, I explored a bit, but I must say that I would have to agree with some of my fellow classmates that the site is rather limited, and whilst the concept seems interesting, it doesn’t allow for much interaction… though I did send her bridget jones diary to read… hmpf. ‘a light read, ‘ the site tells me…

I can see how this could be far more interesting if she would actually come back… watching the screen isn’t very stimulating…

The ‘Our Diary’ option lent to some entertainment, but really, a simulated interation with a character seems like it wouldn’t partticuarly satisfying…

And her messages or ‘hassles’ seem rather tame.

I’m not knocking the idea of an interactive site, but as far as narratives go, I prefer those of a more hypertext bent. You never know where those will go… This seems so predictable.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by Sean http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-342 Sean Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:05:42 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-342 I wasn't too floored by Online Caroline either. I like the idea of being able to interact with your narrative, but this website seems a bit dated. And the "plot" isn't too enticing either. I can't really relate to a 39-year old. Just browsing through the What Are You Like? section was enough to turn me off of it. It reminds me of those surveys people do on myspace. The Online Caroline thing seems like a very non-intimate experience, which is kind of contradictory, because it looks like that whole intention of it is to build a relationship with this virtual person. Instead it turns out to be a completely scripted experience. You get emails from "her" because you performed some action that was scripted to generate an email in response to that action. Maybe in the 90's, this would have been revolutionary, but it was hard for me to take Online Caroline seriously. If they want to make these kind of interactive narratives a huge thing, they're going to have to make it feel like the "reader"/interactor means something--make them feel special, like they're the only person in the world. Or something. As far as the console wars go, I'm a big fan of the Xbox 360. I actually traded my Wii for it. I might get chastised for that, but like Mindy said, the Wii is more of a novelty. And while it is really fun to get a group of people together and play Wii sports, the system wasn't satisfying in the "serious game" department. Sure there's Zelda, but that wasn't enough to keep me happy. Despite its motion-sensored capabilities, the Wii hasn't really pushed the envelope in terms of revolutionary gameplay. I got the 360 mainly for Elder Scrolls Oblivion, because the possibilities are limitless in that game. The game isn't over after you've completed the main storyline (and you don't even have to complete it either), which I absolutely love. Your completely customizable character can exist within this world as long as you choose. There are side-quests aplenty, different career paths to choose from (with their own respective quests), there's ruins to explore, etc. I don't know how many characters I've created, just to see all the possibilities I can pursue. And then there's the matter of Xbox Live always having downloadable content (extra quests, expansion packs, etc.), which grant a higher replay value. So you're getting a lot for what you spend. That's my opinion anyway. A game you might want to look at is Mass Effect if you want to see where that combination of narrative and video game is going. It was a truly interactive/cinematic experience. I'll admit that the game didn't deliver everything that the developers (Bioware) promised, but they're making a series out of it and I'm sure they'll deliver in the next installments. Just youtube some of the demonstration videos from previous E3 conventions. The series has a lot of potential. Oh, and about Sega...I think they had the chance to dominate. I mean the Dreamcast (which I still own and love) had online play (including a browser and email capabilities) before PS2 got around to implementing theirs. The Dreamcast had Shenmue which is another great example of how the narrative and game can be combined to bring you a truly cinematic experience. It also had Power Stone, which is still my favorite fighting game of all time. Oh well. Sorry, I'm totally geeking out. I wasn’t too floored by Online Caroline either. I like the idea of being able to interact with your narrative, but this website seems a bit dated. And the “plot” isn’t too enticing either. I can’t really relate to a 39-year old. Just browsing through the What Are You Like? section was enough to turn me off of it. It reminds me of those surveys people do on myspace. The Online Caroline thing seems like a very non-intimate experience, which is kind of contradictory, because it looks like that whole intention of it is to build a relationship with this virtual person. Instead it turns out to be a completely scripted experience. You get emails from “her” because you performed some action that was scripted to generate an email in response to that action. Maybe in the 90’s, this would have been revolutionary, but it was hard for me to take Online Caroline seriously. If they want to make these kind of interactive narratives a huge thing, they’re going to have to make it feel like the “reader”/interactor means something–make them feel special, like they’re the only person in the world. Or something.

As far as the console wars go, I’m a big fan of the Xbox 360. I actually traded my Wii for it. I might get chastised for that, but like Mindy said, the Wii is more of a novelty. And while it is really fun to get a group of people together and play Wii sports, the system wasn’t satisfying in the “serious game” department. Sure there’s Zelda, but that wasn’t enough to keep me happy. Despite its motion-sensored capabilities, the Wii hasn’t really pushed the envelope in terms of revolutionary gameplay.

I got the 360 mainly for Elder Scrolls Oblivion, because the possibilities are limitless in that game. The game isn’t over after you’ve completed the main storyline (and you don’t even have to complete it either), which I absolutely love. Your completely customizable character can exist within this world as long as you choose. There are side-quests aplenty, different career paths to choose from (with their own respective quests), there’s ruins to explore, etc. I don’t know how many characters I’ve created, just to see all the possibilities I can pursue. And then there’s the matter of Xbox Live always having downloadable content (extra quests, expansion packs, etc.), which grant a higher replay value. So you’re getting a lot for what you spend. That’s my opinion anyway.

A game you might want to look at is Mass Effect if you want to see where that combination of narrative and video game is going. It was a truly interactive/cinematic experience. I’ll admit that the game didn’t deliver everything that the developers (Bioware) promised, but they’re making a series out of it and I’m sure they’ll deliver in the next installments. Just youtube some of the demonstration videos from previous E3 conventions. The series has a lot of potential.

Oh, and about Sega…I think they had the chance to dominate. I mean the Dreamcast (which I still own and love) had online play (including a browser and email capabilities) before PS2 got around to implementing theirs. The Dreamcast had Shenmue which is another great example of how the narrative and game can be combined to bring you a truly cinematic experience. It also had Power Stone, which is still my favorite fighting game of all time. Oh well.

Sorry, I’m totally geeking out.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by Paul Morris http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-341 Paul Morris Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:43:12 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-341 I tried to browse around the Online Caroline site and while I felt mild intrigue, I was let down by the site’s simple design. Jill Walker talks about the site as if it is invading her life, when all it seems to do is spit out one of several predetermined responses, based on the small amount of interaction you have with the site. Conceptually, I feel that an interactive story simulation that changes based on your involvement could be quite immersive, though this one is not. I recall the short-lived Majestic, the espionage game/simulation that would actually involve phone calls and other types of actual privacy invasion. That to me is using the medium to offer a true simulation. It was also more than five years ago. Online Caroline seems outdated. I did have some problems with the site. Some links did not work, and I got a repeat screen when I filled out the about me page. By reading the responses, I see some people had problems as well. Even so, reading what Walker has said about it, I can assume it is an online serial, that is predetermined, that also interjects little snippets of you into it. I think that there is a future for this type of narrative, however flawed Online Caroline is. I’m sure that it has the potential to be ultra personal AND totally immersive. I think that as we become more of an electronic based society, online based narrative that makes YOU a character could be something very interesting. I tried to browse around the Online Caroline site and while I felt mild intrigue, I was let down by the site’s simple design. Jill Walker talks about the site as if it is invading her life, when all it seems to do is spit out one of several predetermined responses, based on the small amount of interaction you have with the site. Conceptually, I feel that an interactive story simulation that changes based on your involvement could be quite immersive, though this one is not. I recall the short-lived Majestic, the espionage game/simulation that would actually involve phone calls and other types of actual privacy invasion. That to me is using the medium to offer a true simulation. It was also more than five years ago. Online Caroline seems outdated.
I did have some problems with the site. Some links did not work, and I got a repeat screen when I filled out the about me page. By reading the responses, I see some people had problems as well. Even so, reading what Walker has said about it, I can assume it is an online serial, that is predetermined, that also interjects little snippets of you into it.
I think that there is a future for this type of narrative, however flawed Online Caroline is. I’m sure that it has the potential to be ultra personal AND totally immersive. I think that as we become more of an electronic based society, online based narrative that makes YOU a character could be something very interesting.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by April P. http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-340 April P. Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:40:29 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-340 I would have to agree with the assertions that online caroline is extremely limited as far as interactivity. However, I didn't find it as inflexible as some of the narratives we explored at the beginning of the semester, like the hypertexts and Pax. While you are unable to affect the "show" (that is, the slices of life seen through the webcam), the emails provide a strong source of communication and flexability. While they are scripted, and fake (though I'm not sure that's the right term to use) they can be called no more false than other interactions on the internet. Like we talked about in class last week, places such as second life, myspace, or dating sites are rife with false portrayal. Though caroline is not a fantasy role created by a single person, it is a creation of a new individual. Of a sort. I would have to agree with the assertions that online caroline is extremely limited as far as interactivity. However, I didn’t find it as inflexible as some of the narratives we explored at the beginning of the semester, like the hypertexts and Pax. While you are unable to affect the “show” (that is, the slices of life seen through the webcam), the emails provide a strong source of communication and flexability. While they are scripted, and fake (though I’m not sure that’s the right term to use) they can be called no more false than other interactions on the internet. Like we talked about in class last week, places such as second life, myspace, or dating sites are rife with false portrayal. Though caroline is not a fantasy role created by a single person, it is a creation of a new individual. Of a sort.

]]> Comment on Response Assignment # 11 by kimberly http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-339 kimberly Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:25:26 +0000 http://cyberliterature.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/response-assignment-11/#comment-339 Hey..I also agree with ben and brian...i'm not really into it. It kind of remingds me of a reality t.v. show of a couple's house but very slow mixed in between with playing paper dolls(apparently you can pick out her outfit). It also kinda of reminds me of the show, My So Called Life, the website has that 90's feel to it. It feels like she made up a second life because i can't take it that seriously. However in Jill Walker's "response" I found it interesting when she said, "Rather than sit still in a cinema or lock my eyes to a page in a book, I am trapped in constant motion." In interactive narratives, if online Caroline is considered one I would agree but there was not that much to the site that kept my attention. I also found it interesting when walker described the website as captivity and forced movement because it seems like the viewer wouldn't be in captivity but online caroline is. The viewer is free to do whatever one wants or whatever the site allows one to do. Hey..I also agree with ben and brian…i’m not really into it. It kind of remingds me of a reality t.v. show of a couple’s house but very slow mixed in between with playing paper dolls(apparently you can pick out her outfit). It also kinda of reminds me of the show, My So Called Life, the website has that 90’s feel to it. It feels like she made up a second life because i can’t take it that seriously. However in Jill Walker’s “response” I found it interesting when she said, “Rather than sit still in a cinema or lock my eyes to a page in a book, I am trapped in constant motion.” In interactive narratives, if online Caroline is considered one I would agree but there was not that much to the site that kept my attention. I also found it interesting when walker described the website as captivity and forced movement because it seems like the viewer wouldn’t be in captivity but online caroline is. The viewer is free to do whatever one wants or whatever the site allows one to do.

]]>