Literature - You Decide!

"You are sitting at the computer. An article link appears on your coolest friend's FB wall."

"If you click it, scroll down and continue"

"If not, continue posting pictures of cats"

Thus would a Choose Your Own Adventure book might begin, if it were about people reading the articles of excellent writers on the internet. These books are interesting in several points, both grammatically (not interesting, I know, but bear with me) and literarily (which is a real word ... I'm pretty sure ... yep!).

There are three grammatical persons in English: first, second and third. Most forms of literature that I am familiar with use the third person (he, she, it, they). Personal accounts, diaries and similar works understandably use first person (I, me, we). With most literature having to do with people or their descriptions of other people, that leaves very little room for second person. For the most part, second person usage outside of instruction manuals seems awkward and presumptive: "You foolishly decided to trample the flower. Thousands of years from now, mutant plant-gerbils will run the plant. I hope you're happy." Well, not exactly like that, but something to that effect.

The point is this: we don't like being told what to do. We like making our own choices. Thus, real life and games allow us to control what happens (At least the latter does, anyway). Literature, on the other hand, is a recounting of things that other people did. First and third person predominate.

Enter the choose your own adventure books (CYOA), a form of interactive fiction, as the genre is also called. Researching this topic gave search results with several articles entitled "Choose Your Own X Adventure," with X being some descriptive adjective or noun. Regardless of the nature of the books themselves, they appear to be widely recognized (Or at least among a smattering of various article writers). After expanding the databases included in the search, I finally found some articles specifically addressing CYOA books.

One comment should be made: CYOA books aren't strictly literature. Yes, they have words, tell stories, and are sometimes artistically meritorious. However, they also rely on the action of the reader. Hence, the grouping under interactive fiction.

In my personal collection, I have a number of these books, mostly from the main Choose Your Own Adventure series, with one from the Time Machine series, Search for Dinosaurs. The latter series features historical settings that both entertain the reader and provide some tidbits of history, archaeology or astronomy. The former series features fictional stories concerning various adventures of the reader. A great deal of the ones I have are set in space or deal with the future and technology. (Also, many of the books have endings that result in your death. I guess that's to increase suspense and provide a result for failure or poor choices, but sometimes it gets annoying. Very few books have all-death-free endings.)

However, there is a natural barrier to the genre in the form of length limit: Edward Packard, the creator of the series, admits that "there is a built-in limitation in interactive fiction," and further discusses publisher requirements for "multi-book contracts whereby the packager agrees to deliver anywhere from 6 to 20 or even more books to be written by various authors, all of whom are required to follow a particular formula ... [to write] a certain number of pages." Despite these limitations, authors have successfully used the genre, and Packard goes on to discuss various examples. Digital books provide more leeway for the authors and provide a logical transition. I also posit that text-based games like Zork and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also provide an expansive outlet for the genre.

Another issue, at least one I've noticed, is the potential of a narrative-time loop. This possibility exists in book and game form. For instance, in Search for Dinosaurs, the reader may accidentally bump into a fellow time-traveler. One option eventually sends the reader back to the beginning of the quest. By following the same path, you can "meet" him again and again. Games can guard against this by adding other factors, like time limitation, scenarios, moving characters around, and ... "motivations" for keeping going (You are likely to be eaten by a grue.)

The biggest issue I see is characterization. As mentioned by Packard, the author is only given a limited amount of space in which to write the story. After character introductions and pages for endings, there isn't much room for characterization of either the reader-character or the other characters. Also, with the reader being the main character, authors must be wary of how they characterize him or her, or risking alienating the reader. For the most part, the reader-character is amiable, androgynous and interested in whatever the book's topic seems to be. In context of the CYOA, this is acceptable. The reader knows how she feels about herself, and brings her likes and dislikes into the story.

However, in the context of most other literature, the reader-character is flat. Because of the attempt to be apolitical, nonreligious, etc... to focus the reader on the story and interesting facts, the main character goes largely undeveloped and becomes uninteresting from blandness. For instance, whether you agree with Harry Potter, Snape, or James Potter's lifestyles is irrelevant: they all have certain views, they all do certain things and behave in certain ways. Whether we like them or not, they are there. Their strength as characters derives from their potential divisiveness. Before I go to far afield to talk about Snape vs James as the right match for Lily, I will conclude this thought by summary: Divisive characters are more memorable than agreeable or bland ones.

Are CYOA books, then, worth the trouble? Yes. Good entries in the series allow for gameplay, reading and sometimes the satiation of curiosity.

"You have reached the ending of the article. However, there are five vampires surrounding you, and your back is to a thousand-foot cliff. Additionally, a grue looks up at you from a foothold on the ledge. Have fun getting out of this one, hero."

The End

-------------

Works Cited:

Bischoff, David, Doug Henderson, and Alex Niño. Search for Dinosaurs. Toronto: Bantam, 1984. Print.
Packard, Edward B. "Interactive Fiction For Children: Boon Or Bane?." School Library Journal 34.(1987): 40-41. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 20 July 2013.

Event - The Eleven Days of Doctor

Hello all! I know like myself, you are all anticipating the climatic return of Doctor Who in what will no doubt be an epic movie experience. Hopefully, the 50th Anniversary Special will air on BBC America. Whenever that will be, I hope to be ready.

Ready for what, you ask? Good question. As a fan of various franchises, I have often dressed as characters of shows, movies, books, etc... for fun and profit. Doctor Who cosplay appeals to me because some of them are easy to manage with patience and a few trips to Goodwill. I've recently finished what I believe to be an excellent 11th Doctor outfit. So, for a few, I can improvise and pull a few "close enoughs." However, in some cases (i.e. 5th, 6th, 7th) I just can't.

That's where you come in, kind reader. I will need help in two ways: (1) costuming: finding parts for the costumes has been a slow and mostly fruitless process. Sure, I've got a full 11th and a passable 10th, but what about the others? What about fancy 3rd? Stylish and best-dressed 6th? Goofy 4th? Spats and question-mark umbrellas don't grow on tomato vines, you see. So, dear reader, if you see or have something that might fit into a doctor outfit, let me know. I don't usually ask around for stuff, but I think this is important enough to warrant some sad-faced, sincere pleading. You may know of sources or uses of other materials of which I wouldn't necessarily think of doing/applying. (Insert speech about networking and the power of friendship here).

Anyway, there's the other area of help (2) companions. One feature of the programme is the varied number of travelers that accompanied the Doctor. Some were witty. Some were annoying. Some were mechanical talking dogs. All were an essential component of the Doctor's life. Who of you longs for the glory of playing one of the Doctor's valiant companions? Who will answer the call and be the Boy or Girl Who Helped out their Friend in His Quest to Play the Doctor? Who will ignore all the unintended title puns these questions raise? Remember friends: a companion in the TARDIS gets the worm!

Wait, no, that's not right. The early companion doesn't take any wooden nickles! Nope. All's well that is thicker than water! Ahem. Earth idioms aside, please keep this in mind for the upcoming semester. This way, if you want to participate (please please please!) you can contact me and begin searching for costume pieces (For convenience. Unless it was your childhood dream to play a particular companion, I'd rather get as many depicted as possible. And at least one per Doctor. No big deal, really!) With some help, I think we can make this happen.

Brave heart, dear reader.
Xander

Gaming - Portal: Heroes, Villains and In-Between

[Please note: (1) this article will contain spoilers and (2) I have not yet played Half-Life, so I will not address the condition of the world outside the Aperture Laboratories facility.]

Portal is a popular puzzle game created by Valve. I've recently been able to get it, and its immediate sequel. The basic story is that of a trapped test subject in a AI-controlled test facility, attempting to escape. The puzzle game revolves around the use of the iconic portal gun. The story presented within the two games is interesting of itself. One key element is the primary antagonist/temporary ally, GLaDOS.

As with many other instances of science fiction, sentient (or seemingly sentient) computer AIs is a significant element within Portal. GLaDOS, turrets and the various personality cores are all robotic life-forms, of sorts. There's no arguing that GLaDOS and Wheatley, a personality core introduced in Portal 2, have more fleshed out personalities and motives than the rest of the artificial intelligences.

The driving force behind Portal's story line is the plot device of an out-of-control AI bent on some harmful goal. This is a common trope in science fiction, that of an artificial life-form or intelligence going beyond its programming or designs. One need only think of 2001: A Space Odyssey for the most iconic example: HAL 9000. Both are examples of technologically optimistic outlooks on the future of computational technology. As is obvious, AI has not yet advanced quite as far as HAL or GLaDOS.

A point must be made about GLaDOS: part-way through Portal 2, the player learn that she contains the personality of an assistant named Caroline. Thus, she is not strictly an AI because part of her intelligence came from an organic life-form. Most rampant AIs that I am familiar with are those that are strictly artificial, being AIs that somehow receive sentience, either by accident, design or outside forces. GLaDOS, then, is sentient by design, owing to her start as the human Caroline. Nevertheless, in the original Portal, GLaDOS occupies the role of primary antagonist, and nothing more. The sequel, through an interesting plot device, alters her role in the narrative. Through the introduction of another leading character, however, GLaDOS fills another role: unwilling sidekick.

Portal 2 adds a third primary character in the person (errm, robot) of Wheatley, another personality core. Whilst reading up, I found that his role is described as that of a "deuteragonist:" a character who is the second most important in the story. He or she can function as a foil to the protagonist. One source I found mentions that the deuteragonist may switch between aiding and opposing the protagonist. By this definition, both Wheatley and GLaDOS fulfill the role of deuteragonist: While GLaDOS initially opposes you and Wheatley aids your escape, GLaDOS fulfills the antagonist role, and Wheatley the aiding deuteragonist. After replacing GLaDOS with Wheatley as main core controlling the facility, GLaDOS will eventually become a sort of side-kick twinged deuteragonist, while Wheatley becomes a hostile deuteragonist.

Wheatley, unlike GLaDOS, remains a solid deuteragonist throughout the game. In the first half, as he aids your escape attempts, the player comes to appreciate him as a character and companion. When he becomes controlling core of the facility, GLaDOS' body has unforeseen affects on his personality: however, the bumbling idiot side of him still remains. Despite his increase in power and the addition of a malevolent streak, he is still a sympathetic character. In the Developer's Commentary, it is noted that his exile into space with the Space Core was seen as a fitting punishment: not too severe, but not a small slap on the wrist. GLaDOS is also a sympathetic character, but she held her grudge against Chell (the main character and sole remaining human test subject) of her own power, and not because of the corrupting influence of the power of the Aperture facility. True, she is more civil as a potato, this does not change her overall opinion of Chell being "a monster" or stop her from constantly barraging Chell with sarcastic insults. Wheatley, during his time in power, attempts this a few times but is shot down by the much skilled GLaDOS.

Portal and Portal 2 thus exhibit a tripartite structure with its main characters: Chell is the (silent) protagonist; GLaDOS, the antagonist; and Wheatley, the bumbling deuteragonist.

Acting - Repetition Makes Perfect

As most of you may know, churches around the nation participate in holding a most wonderful children's event: Vacation Bible School. It's a program that consists of skits, lessons, songs and other various activities aimed at attracting children in order to witness to them. One key part of that is the skit. Sometimes it features heavily, other times not at all. At my church, it occurs right before the children split into their age groups for the rest of the activities. Here, the skit plays an important role in the overall VBS and the message.

Originally, I was not going to participate, due to all necessary positions being filled. However, I was later brought on as a minor character - a court magician. (Oh, for clarification: our skit was Moses-leading-the-people-out-of-Egypt themed, so I was Pharaoh's magician.) As was usual with our VBS, it was largely improvised on the spot. Initially, I had mixed feelings. Erskine had an improv group with whom I had rehearsed, but never performed. However, there was a rough outline, and words were to be shown on a screen. Despite this, most of the other characters (notably Moses and Aaron) were completely ad-lib for most of their lines.

This brings up one issue with VBS skits: there is almost no time to familiarize to the character. Understandably, the actors are quite busy with jobs, children and other matters, so extensive rehearsal time is not manageable. Thus, improvised comedy is the best solution. The skit was split, in a manner of speaking, between the comic side of Pharaoh, his servant, magician, and a random Hebrew on one side, and the serious side of Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron on the other. Our comedic leads had strong personalities, so improvising humorous interactions seemed fairly easy for them. I was later informed that my character seemed to be played more straight, to  counter the over-the-top humor between Pharaoh and his servant.

On the other hand, familiarity with a character benefits not only improv, but also traditional scripted drama. While rehearsing for Arsenic and Old Lace, our director Mrs. DeVault had us come up with back-stories for our characters, no matter how minor they were (Actually important here, as their were about 14 characters in total). By having a background, we would know to react as the character if someone missed or slightly changed a line. It's also part of acting as a whole: for that short duration on stage, an actor immerses him or herself in the character.

While I had a good time being the magician for our VBS (even getting a brief appearance in a comic relief moment before the final, super-serious skit for the tenth plague) I didn't get the level of immersion that comes with traditional stage roles. These VBS skits occupy a strange place between improv and scripted theatre. One one hand, we can act however the character would, as long as the main point is brought across. Unlike improv, however, we cannot simply "reinvent" a character or completely change to re-liven a slowing skit. Pharaoh must be Pharaoh, Moses must be Moses.

One of my favorite aspects of being immersed in a show, or character, or series, is being able to imagine what a character would or would not do. Some improv skits, such as "blind date" rely on the audience's familiarity with a character and ask them to figure out his or her identity.

Long story short, repetition makes perfect, as the title says. Or, it at least makes performances complete. It's one thing to utilize your own crazy personality to create improvised comedy. It's another thing entirely to create a full character on the stage.