Wednesday, February 15, 2006


I think Douglas and Hargadon did a splendid job breaking down interactive media into the path of immersion, engagement, and flow. The authors use schemas and scripts to explain how digital stories are constructed. However, I don’t think the authors provided anything new. They did not bring anything new to the table. I know that interactivity is media where the user immerses, engages, and follows the narrative (potentially). People can and often do get pleasure out of it. They just wrote down what we already know. There main question is why.

One of their main points was how, “To date, most studies of reading and hypertext have focused almost entirely on readers’ physical and cognitive encounters with texts…not from the affective pleasures readers derive from their encounters.” Great. Thanks.

They go on to say that because of schemas and scripts in other media, readers can focus on other things instead of the minutiae of the text. Again, great, thank you. I guess my big question is this: why are the authors in this book so hell bent on using traditional terms to describe a revolutionary medium(s)? Furthermore, why are they so concerned about defining “texts” on interactive media? Douglas and Hargadon go to great lengths to compare many books to hypertexts. Why? There is so much more to the internet, gaming, and digital storytelling worlds. I think they should have focused less on pleasure and more on emotion.


Post a Comment

<< Home