Thanks for dropping back in!
Genre labels are always like that – they never rely on the literal meaning. (“Science” and “fiction” are also broad terms, but it’s several generations too late to complain about that.)
Entirely fair. I don’t intend to worry much about the definition, since I’ve already used it a couple of different ways in this thread myself.
(I used to hang out with people from the Society for Interactive Literature, which, to add to the confusion, was focused on LARPs.)
welcome back!
I think there is an institutional assumption about artistic value baked into the term “literature” as it is used in America. Just to offer a ridiculous example, there is no Norton Anthology of Laundry Lists. Not that I care for the Academy’s assumptions in many cases, but to me these distinctions are more than personal preference. They tie back to funding, staffing, and decisions about curriculum. I also think there is some relevance regarding content preservation.
I am worried like concrete things, like, “what makes an interactive text canonical?” It is often said that Zork and ADVENT are canonical, but what do we mean? If they are canonical literature, is there a ZORK/ADVENT seminar taught in a graduate school somewhere? It’s been more than 40 years, shouldn’t we have seen ADVENT published in the Norton Anthology of American Literature by now? I think the answer is: 1) it doesn’t fit but also 2) institutions by and large don’t consider ADVENT literature. These are not “do you prefer chocolate or vanilla?”-type questions. There are long-term, concrete implications.
From an institutional perspective, the “literature” designation is only helpful if it leads to material being taught as literature.
I am worried about the knowledge and criticism–as well as the preserved content of game files, tools, source code, and documentation–currently maintained by the community. The people who were there at the time… well, we aren’t getting any younger. Should institutions preserve this knowledge? How/who?
This problem goes beyond technical specifications.
Yes, absolutely. That is the main source of the trouble.
There’s certainly a lot to think about; thanks for making this thread.
Did you guys just hijacked another survey and turn it into a war about the definition of literature? How about a separate thread? I’m certain that I don’t have to tell you how surveys work, right? Right?
Sorry. Still suffering PTSD from last time.
Hehehe, it does certainly seem like that, thou, I probably am as much to blame for it as anyone else for introducing the issue in my earlier reply…
Even then, this has helped give some perspective for my thesis which I do appreciate, even if not exactly in the way I was initially thinking.
And looking at the board now, I’m quite sure I won’t be getting anymore replies to the original post, so I really don’t mind if the conversation is moved elsewhere. It might even be more beneficial for it to move. Perhaps the points already introduced here could work as a start for the next thread, rather then starting from zero. Though perhaps a dedicated thread might lead to a worse war, as I’ve understood from some of the replies here.
Mayhaps before starting the next thread on the issue it would be good to think of a perspective or a goal for it (like “should we define IF as literature, if so, why?” or something) rather then just a “Post Your Own Definition” thread. Of course, that could also work as a poll, and then someone could count all definitions together so everyone could see what is the most popular one… but there’s a chance that it’ll also spiral in another direction completely.
Tangents sure are sca~ry… Perhaps, more jokingly, one could also start a thread on “What is the worst definition for literature you can think of”. Might lead to some unexpected discoveries, who knows…
But overall I’ve had fun reading through the thread, and thanks to everyone for participating in it!
Should the conversation move and this thread stop, may we meet again!
And for one last question trying to bring things back on track (or maybe as a conclusion):
Do you think interactive literature (as in IF stuff, not LARPing stuff) has a bright future ahead of it?
That’s easy – yes it does.
The IF that we talk about here crosses over back and forth to the indie game dev world. (Games from Inkle and Failbetter are led by people like Jon Ingold and Emily Short, using ideas that started here.) There’s new and exciting stuff happening every year. And then all of that bleeds into the big-ticket gaming world. There’s a huge amount of interest in ideas like procedural narrative, salience-based conversational topics, and storylet game design.
Yes! Younger people, even in high school, show up on the forum all the time having discovered IF and loving it. And I see innovative IF games in the App store that do well. All sorts of creative minds are pushing the boundaries and adapting IF for new technology and younger generations. And the old-school stuff still holds some sway, too-- look at the results of this year’s IFComp… parser games killed it this year!