Task 5 – The Championship Twine

You can download and play my Championship Twine here:

Championship Twine.html (This one does not have the music/ sound effects due to the file size restrictions on the blog)

In Bolter’s third chapter of Writing Space, he mentions a familiar practice: “Teachers of writing often encourage their students to sketch out topics and connect them through lines of association, an activity they have sometimes called “prewriting” (Bolter, 2001). 

Funny enough, in my own creation of the Twine game’s story, I did not formulate elements that were mapped out previously; instead, I sort of generated the narrative as I went. With that said, effectively the entirety of the game itself is reflective of what can be characterized as ‘pre-writing’. In the same manner a pre-writing activity asks the author to create a type of organized progression of ideas to follow when producing the final product, so too does the twine game follow a noded design pattern that weaves together a narrative. Alternatively, the hypertext structure undoubtedly challenges the reader’s sense of traditional narrative and diminishes the conventional linearity of storytelling (Miall & Dobson, 2001). Personally, for the first time in a long time, I can clearly recognize how this type of educational tech tool could be explicitly implemented into my practice, especially when teaching language arts. 

Consequently, I decided to write a ‘story’ on a topic that I am extremely passionate about. As a coach of young men, I understand that in sports and game situations there are hundreds of decisions that need to be made. I thought that would be a fun narrative adventure, however, incidentally, I recognized towards the end of the narratives creation that much of the embedded terminology would be difficult to follow for someone who doesn’t commonly follow this particular sport. I considered changing the narrative completely, however, Miall & Dobson’s words echoed:

“…attention was directed towards the machinery of the hypertext and its functions rather than to the experience offered by the story. We can see that as a result these readers largely failed to engage with the literary qualities of the text.” (Miall & Dobson, 2001).

Ultimately, it seems that players of the game are more concerned with the aspects of ‘winning’ or getting to the end than they are about the literary elements in the narrative structure.

Definitively, I felt that I wanted to go above and beyond the standard derivatives of a Twine game offered to users who consider themselves beginners. I wanted colours, sound effects, music, and potentially images. To do this, I had to learn a bit of basic coding, which at first glance, was incredibly daunting. I used the following video to understand the meaning of CSS and HTML ‘language’ and took in upon myself to learn a few fundamentals that I ended up using in my Twine game. Prior to this game’s creation, I knew the basic conceptual framework of coding but never put anything into practice. After learning and applying those skills to this game, I can’t help but this of Kamin’s words: “Even someone using text processing through the mediation of clerical help senses that something is happening to us, something more than a mere increase in the ability to edit writing conveniently and efficiently” (Kamin, 1984). Now, I understand that Twine isn’t necessarily a text processing tool, but I certainly feel like my ability to edit ‘writing’ (in the computational coding sense) has increased, and I’ve adopted a new outlook on the effectiveness, utility, and significance of that type of ‘writing’.

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chapter 3

Kamin, J. (1984). The think tank book. Berkeley: SYBEX.

Miall, D & Dobson, T. (2001) “Reading hypertext and the experience of literature.” Texas Digital Library.

Degrees of Literacy: Evolution of Writing’s Contractual Beginnings to the Hypertext

I’m always wary when a chapter claims to base much of its analysis in a domain conventionally perceived as an extension of “Marxist or neo-Marxist examinations” and then attempts to veil the terminology with different nomenclature. The red flag, for me, occurs when these examinations are coupled with mentions of French postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida.  

I think Jacques Derrida was an exceptionally brilliant thinker and there are many things he put forth that I agree with. For example, one of Derrida’s central claims was that of deconstruction; the idea that there are a near infinite number of ways to interpret an event or a text. I believe this to be technically true, however, when you begin to couple this type of thinking with the aforementioned neo-Marxist viewpoints, we begin to run into a potentially dangerous paradigm depending on how far you push this ideology. Further, despite the agreement that there may be a near infinite number of ways to interpret an event or text, there remains only an incredibly small percentage of those interpretations that can be considered tenable by any reasonable standard. 

Having studied Walter Ong in years past, it was refreshing to review his distinction between primary and secondary orality and contrast it with the theories of Havelock who insists it’s essentially impossible for a literate mind to conceptualize what primary orality would even look like. I can’t help but wonder if any members of primary orality would be able to function in or comprehend the secondary or even tertiary evolutions (I would consider this the digital age we currently find ourselves in) of language we are experiencing today. Regardless, all these thinkers share the same central tenant – that writing is a technology invented by human beings and that technology has evolved over time. But why? And what relationship does it have in shaping our cultural makeup?

Gnanadesikan’s article was the most impactful to me when dealing with this concept – Outside of its readability, it formulated the most convincing argument: despite the Platonic arguments of a binary relationship between speech and text, writing has a foundation in memory. Writing has a contractual beginning; one that was invented out of necessity to track, record, and mark information. This information has its roots in both economic and psychological purposes: Early forms of writing reflect records of information pertaining to taxes, trade agreements, but also extends to the grand narratives and mythologies of societies. Weaving together the Haas article, this is essentially what the West was built upon: the importance of having the spoken word written, as if that made it unbreakable. That word exists solely in the ether until it is written down and made physical. 

Ong’s line of thought supports this – Before material information was present, all one could do was ‘recall’. He also claims that writing was invented in urban centres, thereby lending to the theory that writing is a central cornerstone in the flourishing of any civilization. Perhaps one of the most fascinating ideas developed by Ong is his characterization of new media:

“A new media never wipes out the old, it always reinforces it, but it changes it, so that it no longer does what it used to do the same way. You must know the new medium or you can’t use the old…“

When it comes to our newest form of media (digital media) I am compelled to think about all the changes it has brought and the changes that it has brought about. I stand by a previous claim about one of the more undervalued and revolutionary changes brought about by our new digital media: the hypertext. The hypertext has created fundamental changes when it comes to the storage, retrieval, and obtaining of information within digital realms. It transcends the existing barriers of physical texts and has transformed the internet itself into something like a disentangled book. At the most superficial level, the layering of digital information through the transcribing of data nodes has, by and large, increased the speed with which digital text users can access information. I wonder what other deep cultural changes this may have produced…

 

Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2011).“The First IT Revolution.” In The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons (pp. 1-10).

Haas, C. (2013). “The Technology Question.” In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy Routledge. (pp. 3-23).

Ong, Walter, J. Taylor & Francis eBooks – CRKN, & CRKN MiL Collection. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Chapter 1 .New York; London: Routledge.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet