A while ago, in an apartment with friends in Melbourne. The weather much too rainy. Our souls much too battered. But, happy nonetheless to be together again and to be ‘away’.
These weekends – which don’t happen often enough (but also perhaps happen just exactly when they’re needed) – often turn into talk-fests of the best kind. Guaranteed at least one of us is at some kind of crossroads or needing to shake something up or release something.
I don’t recall exactly but I suspect one of these conversations led to the questions – But, is there a competing or opposite theory to Occam’s Razor? Do I really have to accept that this simplest of explanations for something must necessarily be true?
And lo and behold, Hickam’s Dictum.*
Really interesting, persuasive article tracing the trajectory of Cooper-as-the-audience throughout the series so far.
1990s Cooper was an active force in his own story. He helped us navigate his surroundings, and see them with humor and wonder. He claimed, perhaps wrongly, but still convincingly, that there was order somewhere in the chaos. It’s natural for us to want to return to a mode where he can actively participate in his own story, where he’s helping solve its mysteries, instead of acting as its biggest conundrum. But even with his humanity lost and his agency gone, he still represents us onscreen. Even when he’s free-floating through a haze of glass boxes and stop-motion nightmares, we’re still with him. We’re still all Agent Cooper, navigating the mystery, and waiting to see where this is all going.
Source: Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks is the audience: once delighted, now disintegrating | The Verge
As grand an idea as it once seemed, the delivery of a truly meaningful impact from our choices still mostly feels like an unrealized dream.
Source: Tina Amini, Video game stories still don’t belong to you, Mashable.
This article caught my eye. I’m sure it had a tag-line along the lines of ‘your choices in games don’t matter’ when I saw it; I was incensed, certain I was going to read this article and disagree with its argument on the basis that it had misunderstood / overlooked that the story you tell in a game is not only about the narrative action that unfolds within the gameworld but also the impact of your choices on your broader experience which, in turn, may twist or shape how you then interpret the action of the game.
Turns out the article, in some ways, reaches a similar conclusion. It’s an interesting read (though I skipped much of it towards the end because I wanted to avoid the Prey spoilers – just in case).
Keen to try this out but just realised, following move, am a bit more isolated in terms of other writing friends than I used to be. I took you for granted co-located writing buddies … I’m sorry….
On the other hand, maybe this is motivation to organise a day or weekend of writing events to make new writing friends…
“Story Shuffle: A Collaborative Writing Exercise
Participants in this exercise will use index cards to generate short prose fragments. Once collected together and shuffled, the fragments form a single work of collaborative fiction which, though no doubt peculiar in structure and varied in tone, will present surprising and exciting arrangements of setting, character, points of view, and plot.”
Source: Writing Resources | Jedediah Berry
‘A writing and reading adventure in participatory fiction. Will you read and write the story with us?’
via Introducing Story Unbound — Story Unbound — Medium.
This is an interesting idea that I bookmarked a little while ago. The short story is that it’s a collaborative writing experiment using the Medium writing/publishing platform. It’s not something that I have the time or motivation to get involved with myself but I was intrigued to see how/where it was going.
Checking back in on it today I see there are a number of stories/beginnings that have been ‘unbound’ and put out there for others to ‘stitch’ into/onto.
Something I think is really neat is the way that ‘story maps’ are being created using Coggle. For example, a story map of ‘The Tests’ (as it stands today):
I’ve enjoyed Season Two of True Detective. I may be in the minority…. Articles like this (Wired) and this (Digital Spy) outline some of the mixed audience and critic reactions to the season.
One of the big criticisms has been that the ‘who’s who’ and ‘what’s what’ of the show has been difficult to follow. (A quick search for “True Detective Season Two explanation” will generate quite a few hits.)
However, as I was reading the criticism and reflecting on some of the season’s imagery I started to wonder if that confusion is exactly the point.