Prime Time Replay:
Janet Murray
author of Hamlet on the Holodeck:
The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace
MsgId: *emedia(1)
Date: Mon Oct 20 20:12:45 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.204.49
Tonight E-Media welcomes Janet Murray, humanities professor and Senior Research Scientist in the Center for Educational Computing Initiatives at MIT, and author of "HAMLET ON THE HOLDECK: THE FUTURE OF NARRATIVE IN CYBERSPACE." Murray is a leader in the field of interactive design, and has taught a course in interactive fiction writing since 1992. In "HAMLET ON THE HOLODECK," she examines the potential of computer technology in creating new forms of storytelling, and argues that the shoot-'em-up simulation games, hypertext stories, and multi-user role playing environments today are the beginnings of a new form of literature.Good evening, everyone, and welcome to E-Media: The Future of Culture. I'm Dave Thomer, and our guest tonight is Dr. Janet Murray. Welcome, Janet. It's great to be talking to you.
MsgId: *emedia(3)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:02:35 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Great to be here, Dave. Thanks for having me as your cyber-guest.
MsgId: *emedia(4)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:03:26 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
I'd like to remind everyone that the chat room will be opened at about 9:25. At that point, your browsers will alow you to post your questions or comments to Janet. Remember to sign your name, as the chat software will identify you only as "guest."I'd like to talk a little bit about your background before discussing the book itself, and the issues you raise. How did you get from a degree in English to MIT and all your work in computers and technological research?
MsgId: *emedia(6)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:09:00 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Before I went to graduate school in English Lit I trained as a systems programmer with IBM. It was fun but not as compelling as literature. When my students showed me the internet in the early 1980s I became interested again.
MsgId: *emedia(7)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:10:34 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
I always find it interesting when people with backgrounds in the humanities start getting involved with technology . . . it starts raising a whole new set of questions beyond the pure technical problems. (I spent a lot of time studying computers as a philosophy major, for example, and sometimes I STILL try to figure out how that happened.)What was it about the Internet that got you interested? Where, exactly, do you see the potential for it to flourish as a new medium?
MsgId: *emedia(10)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:13:52 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
When I saw my students playing ZORK on the internet it became clear to me that this was a new medium for storytelling, and that the computer was like the movie camera, a technology that would let us shape stories in new ways.
MsgId: *emedia(11)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:13:56 EDT 1997
From: EllenDatlow At: 38.26.16.58
Dr. Murray, don't forget to press "pause" before typing.
MsgId: *emedia(12)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:17:10 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
I think I have the hang of it now! Obviously these are early days for the medium and a lot of it is primitive still. But that is part of the challenge. We have to figure out what kinds of structures will make it easier for us to have conversations like this, and what kinds of structures will make for more expressive storytelling.
MsgId: *emedia(13)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:17:30 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
You discuss a number of these new ways of shaping stories . . . hypertext brings up whole new methods of interpeting linearity, for example. I was also interested by the concept of multiform stories -- of being able to tell a story in a number of ways, some of them mutually exclusive, others which just show the story from different perspectives. Have we seen anything yet that truly takes advantage of the possibilities of cyberspace storytelling? If not, what should we be looking for?
MsgId: *emedia(14)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:19:56 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
There are a lot of attempts that are partially successful, and that indicate the possibilities. The Eastgate hypertext stories are intriguing in one way; the Homicide websodic (connected with the TV show) is intriguing in other ways.
MsgId: *emedia(15)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:22:18 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
I don't think I'm familiar with either of those . . . what makes them good examples?
MsgId: *emedia(16)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:25:38 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Eastgate publishes "serious hypertext" -- works that often savor the process of unravelling the linearity of the book. One of my favorite works of theirs is Stuart Moulthrop's "VICTORY GARDEN" which tells the story of a group of people during the gulf war, and lets the reader navigate through multiple people's intersecting experiences. The HOMICIDE website tells stories that parallel the stories told on the series. I like the way they try to make the interactor feel as if we are in the same physical space as the characters on the series. They use the motif of the whiteboard on that show, for example, which is where the detectives write down the names of the victims. The effect is to make you feel as if you are stepping right into the world of the series. In "HOH" (chapter 9) I talk about how TV and the Web are merging, and hypertext and serial fiction are also merging into a new kind of storytelling.
MsgId: *emedia(19)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:31:14 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
"THE VICTORY GARDEN," if I recall correctly, used an interesting device -- to describe a bomb detonating, it linked from a page of normally-displayed text to a page where the text itself appeared to be being flung outward from some sort of explosion.Do you think the digital medium has any more potential for this type of device, in the arrangement of the words on the "page" itseld, than ordinary books? If you were to try and use such a device, what do you think would be effective?
MsgId: *emedia(21)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:32:29 EDT 1997
From: EllenDatlow At: 38.26.16.58
The chat door is now open. If anyone has questions, please press "pause" before typing and sign your name at the end.
MsgId: *emedia(23)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:34:29 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
I am curious about one thing . . . do you think that the stories of cyberdrama haven't caught up with the technology's potential, or are there major technological hurdles left to overcome?
MsgId: *emedia(24)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:35:09 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Yes, that it an effective moment in "VICTORY GARDEN" (which I talk about in chapter 2). I think of it as the moment at which Brenda Laurel meets Ted Nelson -- in which those who see the computer as theater meet those who see the computer as a web. At its best, digital narrative can let us ENACT a moment -- not just in stories we role-play, but even in a literary hypertext like "VICTORY GARDEN" in which we just navigate. When we land on that shattered screenful of text, it is as if the bomb went off in real time.
MsgId: *emedia(25)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:36:45 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
Back when I was in high school, I used to participate in roleplaying games over FidoNet (a network of BBSes with Echoes much like Usenet newsgroups). It was always frustrating to me that it took DAYS for all of us to respond to one post by the gamemaster -- and if we contradicted each other, there'd be even more delays. In the end I gave up, frustrated . . . have things gotten any better?
MsgId: *emedia(26)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:38:00 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
These are still early days. One of the most exciting developments is the way computer scientists are turning into storytellers. They are creating characters animated by sophisticated programs, like the DOGZ and CATZ of the the PF Magic PETZ company. These critters can show spontaneous behavior and even learn new behaviors. They are also quite appealing to play with.
MsgId: *emedia(27)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:38:49 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
A lot of the old interactive fiction/text adventures (ala Zork) features a lot of puzzles. Why do you think is that? Won't you agree that interactive fiction will be much more popular if instead of puzzles, those text adventures features moral dillemas instead?
MsgId: *emedia(28)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:40:06 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Ask all the people playing Quake and Ultima On-Line over the net. According to this morning's NY Times 9000 people have played Ultima On-line simultaneously! That's quite a dungeons and dragons club!
MsgId: *emedia(29)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:42:32 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
My question about that, though, is how are you going to get the level of understanding necessary to create artificial characters that can respond to a moral dilemma, who could interpret new ideas that you present to them and react in a manner we as participants find satisfying?I know I'd be disappointed if I started trying to have a debate with a simulated character and it replied "I do not understand 'utilitarianism'" a la the text-based adventure games of old.
MsgId: *emedia(30)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:44:38 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
In answer to the guest question about moral dilemmas, yes indeed. In the section of "HOH" where I talk about the aesthetics of the medium I discuss the need for stories that let us experience narrative agency -- not just shooting and puzzle-solving, but more expressive gestures (like petting and feeding a virtual dog, for a start) and ways of affecting the imaginary world that are not just a matter of winning or losing, but that show us what we value. That will be an important part of the artistry of the new genre.I agree, Dave, that the more we demand of characters the more they can disappoint us. I think that will be part of the technique of the new art form. Movie characters and characters in novels are also very limited illusions. Painted characters are not really three dimensional. But the work of art is to fool us into believing.
MsgId: *emedia(33)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:48:01 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
Personally, when I play puzzle games, I don't really find myself engrossed in a narrative . . . all I care about is solving the puzzles. Or am I missing out on part of the experience?
MsgId: *emedia(34)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:50:06 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
How complicated a character can we make in the near future? The answer to that will come from computer scientists like Bruce Blumberg at MIT's Media Lab and Joe Bates of CMU's Oz Project. Joe Bates has just formed a new company, ZOESIS to make interactive characters. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with. The California company EXTEMPO, run by Stanford computer scientist Barbara Hayes-Roth will also be worth watching.
MsgId: *emedia(35)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:50:40 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
Debates are not necessary. Some moral dillemmas can be represented by choices we make. For example, supposed you're running for president. The masses wants zero taxes and strong military. You can't have both (even in simulation). What would you do? Revolution or Fall on Nation? There can be some artificial people protesting or some such.
MsgId: *emedia(36)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:51:57 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
I think the puzzle and the story can conflict. That is why the losing ending of MYST is more satisfyingly dramatic. The puzzle story I personally like the best is "THE LAST EXPRESS." But I like it because the story world is so richly elaborated.
MsgId: *emedia(37)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:54:18 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
Just to play devil's advocate to your point, guest (please sign your name -- I'd love to know who you are!), what good is participating in a moral dilemma if you can't really feel the outcomes? The people affected by your decisions -- and the people who try and help you make them -- would have to seem real for the decision to have any impact. We don't feel bad when we blast hundreds or thousands of little people-shaped sprites on a screen, because they don't feel real to us -- why would we feel bad about taxing those same sprites into oblivion?
MsgId: *emedia(40)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:55:07 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
The guest comment about moral dilemmas is very apt. The simulation games often have implicit moral dilemmas within them (more arms or more scientific progress?) and hidden moral or political assumptions. But playing them, people often find themselves responding morally in ways the games do not allow for. As these world become more writerly, more explicitly dramatic and imaginative, they may sharpen the moral drama.
MsgId: *emedia(41)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:57:19 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
Janet, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by more "writerly." What quality is that?
MsgId: *emedia(42)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:58:24 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
If you do not care, why play? Why not watch football? We're supposed to be interacting, not watching. (You did not say whether I should sign my real name or nickname) Ramstrong.
MsgId: *emedia(43)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:59:14 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
In answer to Dave's question about how real the dilemmas might feel, I think they would be as real as they are in any imaginative medium. It would be the job of the author to make us take questions of life and death seriously. One good example of this (that I talk about in "HOH") is the death of Floyd the Robot in the INFOCOM game PLANETFALL. Players experience Floyd's sacrifice very personally, even in the middle of a dungeon-style puzzle game.
MsgId: *emedia(44)
Date: Mon Oct 20 21:59:28 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
And shouting at TV screen won't help. :) Ramstrong.
MsgId: *emedia(45)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:01:06 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
When I say these worlds could become more "writerly," Dave, I mean less like a generic resource allocation puzzle, and more like a world of specific characters.
MsgId: *emedia(46)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:02:40 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
I guess what I'm trying to say is that engaging the brain by trying to solve a puzzle is one thing . . . engaging the entire person, by making him or her feel like part of a real environment that responds in a manner similar to what he/she is accustomed to from dealings with people in this reality, is a lot harder. We can simulate planes and space combat and all sorts of natural phenomena, based on computations and formulas . . . but we don't seem to have people down to a science yet. And I'm not completely sure we should want to.On the other hand, I understand the appeal -- I would love to take a moment to explore a reality that WASN'T the one I exist in 24 hours a day, just for the change in scenery and to see what still holds true about myself and people in general. I just hope it's not a pipe dream.
MsgId: *emedia(48)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:05:52 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
Making puzzles give food for the mind. Engaging the entire person (moral) gives food for the soul. Ramstrong.
MsgId: *emedia(49)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:06:32 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
I think it is interesting, Dave, that you use the expression, "have people down to a science." If we get it right in creating computer characters we won't have them down to a science, but down to an art. We won't be making scientific models of human personality. We will be creating the illusion of life. ELIZA did that very well 30 years ago. We need the right mixture of technique and insight, as in any other representational medium.I agree with Ramstrong. But remember, that a plot is a kind of a puzzle in any medium. We try to figure how it will turn out. The fact that computer stories are more gamelike now does not mean they can't be written in a more dramatic manner.
MsgId: *emedia(51)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:12:28 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
But wouldn't you need to do it scientifically? Eliza worked in a very limited sphere, and she didn't work on EVERYONE, nor was she intended to. Is it reasonable to expect that we can create an artificial character that will know how to respond to each of slightly different actions of each of millions of potential viewers/interactors? A scriptwriter can carefully construct his/her characters' action so they SEEM natural and spontaneous, because he/she only has to do it ONCE and can see the whole of the story before anyone views it. Interactive authors aren't going to have the luxury. If you try to constrain the stories only to things that make sense at the time, isn't someone eventually going to be frustrated when he/she has a very different idea of what makes sense?
MsgId: *emedia(52)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:15:16 EDT 1997
From: guest At: 198.69.25.103
Dave, do you mean people driving me crazy? That seems to happen all the time. Whoever said humans are logical? Ramstrong.
MsgId: *emedia(53)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:16:55 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
As I discuss in my book, the trick is in scripting the interactor. When you watch a John Wayne movie you don't expect him to bake bread or dance the tango. We understand characters in the context of story conventions, and we will understand our own roles as interactors within those same conventions. We have to elaborate a clear set of interactive gestures so we can act coherently in an automated world. MUDders do this kind of improvisation all the time, acting out scenes with strangers. It works when we know what kinds of things to expect of one another.
MsgId: *emedia(54)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:17:12 EDT 1997
From: DaveThomer At: 199.183.41.175
No, people aren't logical . . . but that doesn't mean that what they do can't be explained. I just want my artificial characters to have motives every bit as convincing as the "real" interactors.Unfortunately, that's all the time we have for tonight. I'd like to thank Janet Murray for being with us tonight. "HAMLET ON THE HOLODECK" is currently available in harcover from the Free Press. Best of luck to you in the future. I'd also like to thank the audience, particularly Ramstrong for his/her/its (oh, I do so love anonymity) contributions to the discussion tonight. Join us next week right here for E-Media, and in the meantime check out the rest of www.omnimag.com, including the complete schedule for this week's programs. If you have any feedback from tonight's show, send it to dthomer@ix.netcom.com. Good night!
MsgId: *emedia(56)
Date: Mon Oct 20 22:23:03 EDT 1997
From: jhmurray At: 18.162.0.120
Thanks for having me, Dave. I want to invite people to visit the web resource page for "HAMLET ON THE HOLODECK" at web.mit.edu/jhmurray/www/HOH.html which has links to many of the electronic artifacts described in the book and mentioned tonight.
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright © 1998 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.