Argax Project:: Dissertation: A Rough Draft Node

Node Status: COMPLETE

Conclusion: A New Poetics of Interactive Narrative

The intent here has not been to return to Aristotle, but to clarify the existing poetics model based on its evolution through four authors. To do this, it is important to return to Aristotle's distinction between the object, medium, and manner. A story (or any creative work) is always embodied in some particular medium. Renaming Laurel's bottom three levels, I have clarified the different aspects inherent to all such media. I have added setting to the world of the story, as action does not progress in terms of character alone, especially in an interactive drama. I have also resurrected manner--that is, the presentation of the story--within the model.

Applying Mateas's definition of user action and agency at different levels, this new model can apply to other forms of interactive narrative besides dramas. The model also mirrors many existing interactive drama system architectures much more closely than the previous poetics model, thereby connecting theory to design. Finally, this model has evolved striking similarities to a standard model of narratology. While providing the new poetics a strong credibility, it also allows for the application of traditional narratology to interactive narratives.

==>

ToDo

Critiques: Authors don't work in formal cause way. (Ans: Author are the efficient cause?)
Final cause might be intended experience
Mentioned throughout, implied in model: user (reader, viewer, audience) at one end and the author at the other. Explicitly add these? No, not at this point.
What's at stake here with the model? Why the previous changes, and why is it important to "correct" it?
Authors were trying to add new ideas or correct previous flaws, but failed to do so cleanly. We need to correct these to have a clean, useful model that can provide useful working definitions and actually inform design.