I liked the thought of Melbourne establishing itself as a creative capital, i mean, for someone who has been all up the east coast cities, as well as Adelaide, its easy to see the difference between there and here. It makes me happy that i have lived here my whole life and have grown up in this creative environment. I remember reading a tumblr post from someone (i cant rememeber who, sorry!) who exchanged here from America; and she was so surprised to see all the graffiti and tattoos being displayed freely. She said that tattoos were normally hidden where she was from, but here, most people show them openly and so many people have them. I was then able to appreciate living in a place where there is more artistic and creative freedom, and less judgement about the way people choose to express themselves. Actually a friend of mine from Art last year focused on intense concepts and much of her art was very confronting, featuring nudity and suicidal imagery. But it was so encouraged by everyone and she was praised for being so exploratory and personal. I love communities like that, which is probably why art camp was one of the best times of my life.

I was a little confused in the lecture when we began to discuss how finite the internet is, and i will probably ask about this in my tutorial, but initially we were told the internet is infinite, and it can continue to expand indefinitely because it has no shelf space, but then we were told to get rid of the idea that the internet is virtual, as it produces carbon emissions, relies on nonrenewable resources, and requires enormous amounts of electricity and warehouses to store data. So, the concept of the internet seems infinite, but, like anything, it cant keep growing forever, unless we find a new way to source it.

I thought the idea of what mainstream is today was interesting, that the idea of what is mainstream could be dissipating because of thing like the internet, where unpopular bands can have shelf space forever. Also that mainstream music like one direction tries to appeal to the listener by using really broad language and descriptions so the listener feels like the song is about them. On Saturday night i was talking to my brother about this actually, because we were reflecting on bands we like and used to like; mentioning that we used to like linkin park back in the day. I then added, ‘because their lyrics are so broad and applicable to anyone.’ for example, “everything you say to meee, brings me one step closer to the edge, and I’m about to break!'”i mean anyone who has ever been annoyed or mad at somebody else can pretend this song is about them easily. So it was fun that the lecture connected to that conversation i had had a few days earlier.

One of the main things I have been reflecting on since the unlecture this week, is whether video games are a form of hypertext narrative. Well it’s obvious that they are not, but I would certainly disagree with something proposed in the lecture; that “at the heart of all games, they are like a game of pinball.” You attempt to hit the buttons and do the right things, if you do it well you win, if you don’t, you lose, and that is why they are different to hypertext. I would certainly not put myself in the ‘gamer’ category, however, being close with my older brother, video games have always been around to catch my interest, and i can conclude that while they are all classified as ‘video games,’ many who are familiar with them know that they differ in more ways than just the cover art.

The motivations and narratives of each game are different. There are games where you either win or lose; multiplayer games, many platformers, where you are trying to get to the end for completion reasons, to achieve that 100% next to your file name.  However, many games have taken an entirely different route.  Many that i am exposed to feature prominent story lines and character development, and although you may do slightly different things along the way, you still go on a journey to arrive at the end of the story, like a book. And for that reason too, not to ‘win’ the game.

Nobody completes and experiences the heartbreaking endings of ‘The Walking Dead (game)‘ and ‘The Last Of Us‘ feeling as though they had won the game. Likewise, nobody loses in these games either, even if you make a bad decision, you keep going from where you left off. Even World of Warcraft can be classified as this type of game, when you die, you do not ‘lose,’ you walk around as a spirit, find your body and keep going. When you get to your highest level, you may have taken slightly different paths, but you have generally been to the same places and completed the same quests as most people who share your class/ race. In Divine Divinity, the world is so impressively complex and climactic, yet realistic and mature that i would definitely relate it closer to the experience of an amazing novel, rather than a game of pinball.

I certainly agree that video games are not similar to hypertext narrative, but to simplify them to the level of pinball or a board game is just as inaccurate. There is a difference between ‘winning’ a game and ‘completing’ a game, in the same way one would complete a novel. With the best games of today, it is not about doing a good job, to get the most points, or to win, but to experience the narrative. Just like in stories, you don’t win anything at the end of ‘The Last of Us,’ you are just faced with the ending to the story, which explains why the endings can even lead people to tears, and have profound effects on them, as well as the huge subcultures that form around the experience of the game. To conclude, a more accurate description of video games would be somewhat similar to those ‘choose your own adventure’ stories everyone read as a kid, where you arrive at more or less the same ending as everyone else, but far more adult and complex.

*casual 2 week hiatus….*

So, I’ve been thinking about hypertext recently…

Hypertext storytelling is FAR more expansive than just ‘choose your own adventure’ style books. While authors do have a large amount of control over that people think when they read/ consume what they are presented, this becomes more complicated with the idea of telling stories through hypertext, as no specific narrative, structure, causality and ending mean that interpretation of what people make of it. You interpret the story based on how you have created it.

Although this idea is rather mind-blowing, and at first hypertext fiction sounded exciting, i don’t think its something i would really enjoy. A story which is different each time you read it, as well as for each person that reads it is cool, but reading has so much more worth than just giving you an experience, it creates shared experiences (with minor interpretive differences) which you can discuss and learn from. You can learn from them because you are learning from what the author is presenting, but if fiction was included into the hypertext structure, I just don’t see how that could work. If I’m choosing where I am going next, I can learn things and explore things but I wont get a sense of what the author was trying to get across and where the story was going to take me, I would have to take myself there, which seems far less fun.

Honestly, the way I am picturing it now, is like browsing a wiki made up of fiction and false events/ knowledge, with no specific structure. So what is there to keep me reading/ draw me in?

I enjoyed this weeks lecture, although the lead up was a little odd. It may be because my tute only had 3 people, but although my question was answered, I felt in the tute I was awkwardly forced to make up a question that I really didn’t need answered. I eventually came up with a question, but I honestly didn’t have anything to ask at this point, which means when it was answered I was just kind of like, “…cool.” I just wonder if the other questions on the list that weren’t answered were ones that people really wanted discussed. I feel like perhaps maybe I cheated them out of getting their question answered… But since attending the lecture, I will say that I enjoyed the discussion that came from my question, and it seemed like other members of the cohort were interested too, so that’s good.

My question was the one about whether the things we publish online are validated only after someone else reads/ consumes/ acknowledges them. I already was aware that publishing my work online is an important aspect for me, a way of reflecting and organising my thoughts, like a journal, OR a visual diary! One of my first posts on this blog (well it was my second one to be exact) was about how the ‘Ocean of ideas’ thing reminded me of the importance of keeping a visual diary. Turns out I was correct, keeping this blog is just like how it was keeping a visual diary, but no so much visual as written. It’s nice when things make a loop like that, when they come back, something that happens frequently when you organise your thoughts like this.

I had a cool epiphany when I realised that my blog doesn’t really exist, the page isn’t there waiting for me, it just appears when someone seeks out its content. Trippy. Also the idea that every time we hyperlink out to something else (which I have done a fair bit), we are building the web that is the internet. We are making connections.

Additionally, the idea of writing for an imagined audience. I never really thought about it like that, but i do keep this blog in my style; the way i write, the flowers under the header, all that, so I guess my readership would be people who think like me, or like my style. So yeah, the blog isn’t just constructed randomly, I make sure it is something I can be proud of, and hopefully that style of what I think is good, also appeals to other people.

Overall, although when I posed the question I was like ‘I have to make up a question before I leave class so this will do,’ the discussion that sprouted from it was really enjoyable. Each academic had something interesting to say and add, as well as the students; I liked the comparison of our blogs to trees that fall when nobody is around, or TV shows that nobody watches, and discussing whether they have value because of that existence. I equally enjoyed the panel’s explanation and discussion of this thought, the difference between what something is, and what it means; another epiphany inducing statement.

So I guess what I took from the events preceding this lecture, as well at the lecture itself, is that it is worth reflecting and discussing, because that is how you generate new ideas.