Jessica+Grimes+CAP

Murray, Janet. “Immersion.” //Hamlet on the Holodeck//. New York: Free Press, 1997. 97-125. Print.

- - -. “Eliza’s Daughters.” //Hamlet on the Holodeck//. New York: Free Press, 1997. 214-247. Print.


 * Critical Article Presentation (CAP) **

Jessica Grimes

Janet Murray’s “Immersion” and “Eliza’s Daughters,” published in //Hamlet on the Holodeck// in 1997, describe the evolution and expansion of the postmodern reader’s imagination realized in participatory narratives. To mitigate fears alleging computer-based narratives absorb the mind, Murray liberally laces her essay with comparisons to print and cinematic narratives in and out the canon, narratives known for immersing its readers in similar vicarious experiences. Early on, she claims computer-based narratives, such as MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon/Dimension), expand participatory reading experience more-so than print narratives. Such a distinction is not meant to disparage print narratives, merely an observation on how one medium innovates reader experience.
 * Overview **

In “Immersion,” Murray transforms the computer into an “enchanted object,” much like Aladdin's magical carpet. Where print narratives release the reader into its world, Murray notes there is still Coleridge’s “willing suspension of disbelief” though to some degree writing about narratives, criticism, tends to extend the belief; MUDs, on the other hand, invite the creation of belief where certain experiences “become real through use” (110-111). Though both mediums plunge the reader into (an)other world, readers mediate the illusion by “keeping the virtual world ‘real’ by keeping it not there”’ (100). Narrative conventions, such as the imaginary “fourth-wall convention” separating actors from audiences, balance immersive experiences (103). However, print narratives predetermine immersive experiences while computer-based narratives employ sensorimotor experiences to transport readers into virtual worlds (106). Such immersive experiences range in participatory involvement but still maintain the border between illusion and reality using the "visit metaphor," thes screen, and masks. Though largely positive, Murray does concede three quirks: participants may undermine the “consensual hallucination,” impose a fantasy outside the script, or stretch the boundary of imagination. As in traditional narratives where conventions control such divergences, Murray mentions computer-based narratives employ similar mechanics (commands) to limit digressions (122). For Murray, these drawbacks pale in comparison to the narratives’ potential for broadening the reader’s participation and imagination.

While “Immersion” celebrates reader participation in computer-based narratives, “Eliza’s Daughters” introduces Eliza’s descendants in a series of chatterbots known for mimicking human interaction. In fact, anthropomorphizing the computer seems to be the objective among computer scientists where success is measured by “distracting people away from the machinery” (219) by either achieving the “Eliza effect” (224) or passing the Turing test (218). Though Murray acknowledges the chatterbot’s limitations in embodying exaggerated stereotypes, engaging in stunted conversations, and/or confusing interactors with unclear scripts, she considers such limitations minor. For Murray, what computer scientists have achieved can be translated into writing “expressive narratives” as long as writers control characterization (222). In fact, Murray envisions “cognitive science formulas” creating E. M. Forster’s famous round characters with interiority, capable of evolving and surprising the reader (231). Of course, these “expressive narratives” privilege characters’ interiority over the plot (242).

If the reader accepts Murray's homogenous, universal reader whom she subsumes under the first person plural, then her argument is most compelling; however, certain assumptions lessen the effectiveness, for instance the degree to which participatory reading allegedly enhances the reader’s experience beyond. Sure, she narrows her argument to immersion but almost to the exclusion of interpretation or meaning. In fact, very little is mentioned about interpretation, an issue that seems essential when discussing the borderland between illusion and reality. Even when she discusses character-driven narratives, what she emphasizes is the character’s interior life almost to the exclusion of the overall plot. In fact, in “Eliza’s Daughters,” deemphasizing the plot seems to be the goal, and if it is the goal, then one has to ask whether “expressive narratives” are, in fact, narratives if they require a user to advance the plot. Also, she assumes readers want to converse with characters to enjoy the surprise of unpredictability or that readers want to share sensorimotor experiences with others when many readers would be loathe to trade their private immersions for a collective experience.
 * Commentary **

Furthermore, when discussing virtual physical contact, it seems odd she doesn’t address the implied counterargument raised in Aldous Huxley’s feelies credited for numbing the mind in //Brave New World//, which raises an even more important issue regarding another assumption about the postmodern reader “becoming part of a worldwide repertory company, available to assume roles in ever more complex participatory stories” (125). Such a point ignores the digital divide excluding a significant portion of the population without technological access.

At the end of “Immersion," her discussion of the borderland loses potency as she blurs the lines between identity and role-playing (119, 125). One wonders whether the fourth-line can be maintained when readers view their lives as a series of roles to play. Of course, if the point is to argue that reality and identity are constructs, then her point is well-taken, and indeed, she does discuss how these new technologies destabilize the Western ideology of Pope’s great chain of being (125). Still, such ideas shouldn't be treated inevitable but deserve further discussion.

Additionally, her cursory treatment of the technology’s limitations diverts readers from attending to important questions underlying this innovative technology. For instance, why do computer scientists want to create a machine that surpasses human intelligence or a machine that tricks humans into believing in its humanity? If one accepts the premise that being human in the posthuman, postmodern world means “animating the machine,” then her argument seems plausible, even inevitable (246).

1). How does the creative faculty Murray credits for maintaining belief enhance, deepen, or undermine analysis and/or interpretation in immersive narratives?
 * Discussion **

2). When discussing LARP (Live Action Role-Playing) games, Murray mentions character profiles with “memory packets,” which inform the player about his/her character’s background. What pedagogical significance might this offer instructors?

3). Murray ends “Eliza’s Daughters” by reflecting on what it means to be human: “we have slipped further and further from our once cushy niche in the great chain of being” and “In our time, part of the task of redefining what it means to be human lies in animating the machine” (246). Reaction? Thoughts?