Joe's+CAP

[]
 * "Interactive Fiction"** by Nick Montfort

Critical Article Presentation

Joe Nelis


 * Overview**

Montfort makes it abundantly clear that he wants to break away from essential associations with "story" and "games." He asserts that interactive fiction (IF) is its own genre in the world of electronic literature and new media, with its own defining characteristics. In order to properly break from narratology and ludology, Montfort addresses the two key elements of "story" and "game" in relation to how they are insufficient descriptors of IF. He claims that story in IF is the "result of sessions of interaction", using an example of a user interacting with his/her surroundings to pick up a bird in //Adventure//. In his discussion of the concept of "game", Montfort introduces some ideas of what makes a game a game, such as having "an explicit rule system" and "a definite result or outcome" (Zimmerman) or bestowing upon the player/user some form of "symbolic rewards" (Aarseth). While Montfort appears to find value in these conditions, he prefers to view games as contests. Therefore, IF cannot be considered a game because it is not a contest; however, IF can incorporate game elements to "convey the extent of a work", which is a role that is neither essential to the existence of IF and not particularly helpful in the interpretation of IF.

Montfort continues from this point along a progression of points designed to lead to a better idea of what IF actually is. He uses the idea of the "storygame" to solidify his assertion that story and game are not sufficient lenses through which one can interpret IF. He juxtaposes IF with //Dungeons & Dragons//, an experience that cannot be without blending story and game (and performance); having established IF as being independent of "story" and "game," Montfort eliminates the association with the hybrid category. His next significant point is the relationship between IF and the idea of a "world". He asserts that all IF simulates a "world model" which includes an understanding of "natural-language" provides a contextual framework to which the elements of the IF adhere. Riddles presented in the form of puzzles or problems, logical or language-driven, are informed by the constructed context of this world.

Like Aarseth's depiction of cybertext, Montfort's definition of IF places IF in the position of a text/machine through which the reader/user interacts. In order for a work to fulfill this role, Montfort states that IF must be "a 'world' combined with a parser and instructions for generating text based on events in the world". This textual relationship with the reader/user is similar in function to a riddle in that it creates a "provocative system of thought" that the reader/user can explore and interpret. Reaching a conclusion of the IF shows a similar understanding to solving a riddle. However, the riddle of the IF and the riddles contained therein are colored or skewed by the context of the world of the IF, creating a sense of defamiliarization. Invoking Victor Shklovsky's concept of "literariness", Montfort suggests that IF connects with literary study in the sense that it destabilizes the reader/user's experience of objects and forms in order to "increase the difficulty and length of perception".


 * Commentary**

I appreciated Montfort's reference to Shklovsky because it serves as a reminder for why electronic literature is worth at least some consideration in literary analysis: they twist our preconceived notions of literariness, opening our critical perceptions to more possibilities. That said, for someone who is trying to move critical analysis of IF away from the imperial grasp of literary study, Montfort seems to be quite attached to discussing IF in terms of literature/print text. His biggest point, the importance of the world of IFs, brings us back to discussions of novels (particularly in sci-fi/fantasy). On the one hand, this makes sense because narratology does seem to be the most often cited field of study trying to co-opt new media. On the other hand, Montfort does little to nothing in this essay to show how literary study of new media/e-lit/IF is detrimental. He depicts the literary academy as the Galactic Empire routing the Rebel Alliance on the ice planet Hoth (without invoking the legal wrath of George Lucas), but uses some of their own strategies to bolster his arguments, such as his reference to Shklovsky and his contextual history of the riddle. The fact that he barely addresses ludology does not help his case.

It seems that Montfort neglects to acknowledge how the literary world has treated film studies. Even an introductory film studies course shows you that there is much more to take into account when analyzing a film than just the narrative (and, as we've previously mentioned, there are still film studies departments). This brings up a red flag in Montfort's argument: he relies on literary aspects of IF so much that he ignores a number of the other facets of IF that can contribute to a reader/user's experience. Janet Murray's response response to this essay asserts that Montfort's approach favored text, thus ignoring the possibilities of visual manipulation of elements (with the exception of the coal from //Zork//). It seems to me that a visual interactivity combined with linguistic interactivity would create more possibilities for artists/writers working in IF. Furthermore, Montfort says absolutely nothing about sound. These omissions of the visual and sonic elements of IF stunt his analysis. With all of the focus on the text and language at work in the IF world, I cannot help but wonder: what does Montfort mean by "natural-language"? Is this a coding term that I am not familiar with? Does he mean that the language with which the reader/user would be familiar? He does not explain this term, an oversight that could reveal an anglo-centric linguistic bias.


 * For Discussion**

1) As Murray establishes in her response, Montfort's approach leaves a lot to be desired in terms of visual interaction with IF. How would such visual aspects fit into his essential elements of IF? What about sounds?

2) Montfort closes his essay by stating that we should be looking to "architecture, artificial intelligence, and poetry" to better understand IF. He establishes the link with poetry through his discussion of riddles, but how can analysis of AIs help us? What connections can we draw between Eliza, Alice, and Montfort's essay?

4) Montfort asserts that games are contests. This may be true in some of the genres he references (MMORPGs, First-Person Shooters), but how does this fit with other genres of games? What is the contest in a single-player game with no scoring matrix or leaderboards? Furthermore, if half of the scholarship in //Game Studies// focuses on narrative, as Montfort says, then why does the stigma against literary study of games persist?