Message-ID: <3D08938B.7080807@csi.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:43:55 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: IF to PS2
References: <ffd6058.0206110706.7f2b1e9c@posting.google.com> <ae5p18$3chn4$1@hades.csu.net> <ae5sfb$207$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <ae6kfb$3cjdh$1@hades.csu.net> <ae7ct3$rd4$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <3D07C5D3.6070004@csi.com> <ae8iq1$jaq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1023971839 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (13 Jun 2002 08:37:19 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 62
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:104972

Kitten wrote:

>The word is context. The expectations taken into an Infocom (or other) game
>are one thing. This forum has to bear the burden of a wide range of
>communications, ranging through serious discussion, anguished dissent,
>sternly didactic exposition, waspish put-down and antic humour (inter alia).
>There is, going in, *absolutely no way* a reader can form a prima facie
>opinion about how anyone else expects his words to be interpreted. That goes
>for all of usenet. And is why smileys, acronyms (<vbg> etc) and netiquette
>in general evolved. Regrettably, and pace yourself, there *is* no irony to
>my statement in this or any other usenet forum.
>

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree.

With the Infocom example (which was only an example--consider also the
range of topics and tones that James Joyce, Douglas Adams, J.R.R.
Tolkein, or Lewis Carroll could mix), the average person of the day
didn't have context when they bought Zork I.  Assuming they dove right
into the game, they've got no indications of an "antic atmosphere,"
unless you happen to find white houses in the woods extremely funny, I
guess.  Assuming they read the entire package, there are references to
Poe in the "Take their words," and there are a few silly bits in the GUE
History information, but nothing that would be out of line for an
elementary school textbook.  Oh, and occasional "funny name," but
nothing really outstanding.  There's also the sample transcript, but
it's "not from any of the ZORK adventures," so isn't necessarily
indicative of the game.

Now, am I saying that there isn't a common problem among Internet users
regarding tone-laden communication?  Of course not.  Misinterpretations
happen all the time.

What I am saying is that your "absolutely no way" understanding of the
problem is naive at best.  It's only true if the author doesn't give any
(useful) thought to what he writes.  I think that just about anyone (I
suppose I'm making the assumption of "fluent in English," but I don't
see a major problem with that on this group) can "read" what kind of
mood Andrew Plotkin, Emily Short, Magnus Olsson, and Dennis Jerz (quite
a few others, too, but these come immediately to mind) are in when
writing most any given post.  Note that their posts are almost
invariably "punctuationally (or metanotationally, if you prefer)
conservative."

It's not *impossible* to insert signs of intent in text; they're just
different signs.  Choice of diction and grammatical constructs are the
biggies.

In this group, especially, we should be encouraging that sort of writing
(rather than the reverse, which is what you propose), because that's a
big part of what makes good IF, and it only becomes easy if you practice it.

Note that the relation to IF is the only reason I'm continuing the
discussion.  I find it interesting that every time the subject of "tone"
comes up, it relates to the PC's interaction with NPCs, rather than the
narrator's tone of voice (Panks's recent notes being a notable
exception, even if still rather limited in scope).

[...]

>

