& Thankyou Rohit Chopra for the interview.

There’s a lot more I wanted to be able to say about the relationship between usability and narrative pleasure, but the editors here very sensibly restricted my word count! But essentially, I agree with you, and have said as much elsewhere – various theorists and researchers (Kendall, Murray, Calvi, eg) have talked about the need to make interactivity ‘meaningful’, i.e. make it drive the story. I think that’s right, because most readers will, whatever academics or artists prefer, switch off if the story doesn’t begin to appear. After a few clicks on hyper-words or images, most readers/users will expect a coherent narrative to begin to emerge.

Expectations are crucially important. My empirical study showed that, and I’ve written about that for Roberto Simanowski on ‘Dichtung Digital’ – that piece should be online soonish. My argument here would be that writers can learn to ‘manage’ expecation by using their violations of web design, narrative structure, etc., carefully. We have to remember of course, that for hyper-fiction’s future, the readers are going to be people very much used to clicking and watching and listening to stories, all in one place, their laptop (or maybe their iPhone) – they won’t be people who come at literature solely from books. Thus hyper-novelists will need to think about appealing to readers whose expectations derive from multi-media as well as books (which is probably what you meant…).

Beta-testing the interface is important, especailly as each new hyper-novel designs its own, unique style. It seems that not many wriers in the field do that, although I know that Robert Kendall has written about this process, and I believe Judy Malloy did revise elements of the interace for ‘LOveOne’. It’s interesting stuff, and is definitely an area where interactive/hyper/digital fiction (there really are so many terms being used out there that none fully does the job yet) can make ‘progress’.
cheers
Jim Pope…

This work of AK Ramanujan is an output of Western Academy, in the Western ‘critical’ tradition’.

Regarding the adoption of this output as a somewhat authoritative material to be studied by Indians, i.e. people of the same culture which has been the object of the study- the inherent ironies aside – one does at least have to have a grasp of the difference involved in the culture for which this material was written, and the culture where it is sought to be introduced.

That means, basically, that one should be very careful before saying ” Here’s material which describes an aspect of your, or the lives of of your neighbouring people. And oh by the way, this is not them telling you about themselves, but a Western Scholar telling other Westerners about you/your neighbors.”

I read the paper to fulfill my own scholarly appetites, and appreciate it for what it is, keeping in mind the limitations I just sketched out above. I flatter myself that I’m upto the task of reading without undue prejudice matter not originally meant for a person of my kind of cultural background. This is for two reasons.

The first is because I’ve been, like many other Indians who were educated in English medium missionary style schools, acculturated to reading stuff meant for Westerners from a very early age. The second is that I’ve, at least to my satisfaction, made attempts over the past few years, to understand the structure of knowledge production in the world, which is primarily based on Western thought and categories.

But I would speculate that papers of this sort, when read by young people & others, who do not have both these above inputs in place, will work explicitly or implicitly, in ways big & small, as a vehicle to supplant the cultural values that they have already imbibed in their personal non-academic lives. The reason is that old cliché about the subject matter, i.e. that the Ramayana informs the thought & behaviour, and gives models & archetypes of behavior for major parts of Southern & Eastern Asia.

One could argue “So what’s wrong in questioning existing values? If they can’t stand the test of today’s society, perhaps they should be supplanted for the good of society.” On the face of it, this seems a reasonable argument. There is one thing that seems to be forgotten though, and this is a pre-supposition that the intelligentsia in India seems to appear blind to, in these discussions. This presupposition is that of ‘fair’ competition between the existing value system, and the value system being promoted by the educational system.

Without going too deep into specifics, one can simply state that there is a lot of authority invested in what the Educational system terms a knowledge, and what the outside culture values as cultural knowledge. The Educational system, in it’s choice of subjects & curricula, is basically in the unrivalled position of setting the agenda for what dominates the thinking of future citizens.

The implicit values held by traditions, society, etc come a distant second in this ‘battle for mind-share’ of citizens. Students have been, and are increasingly being funneled into treating the Educational/Academic system as the monopoly provider of knowledge regarding pretty much all spheres of life.

It is in this context that one would analyze the suitability of this ‘…hundred Ramayanas..” Essay for a University syllabus. The students have questionable preparation to be able to see that this is ‘objective knowledge’ only to those to whom it is entirely fresh, and from a culture different from their own. The students will not be given an opportunity, or the tools, within the education system to assess this scholarship versus their traditional notions about the Ramayana’s place in their thought & life.

So the onus is on the Educational authorities to show why a critical presentation on there being ‘no authoritative and governing’ interpretation of the Ramayana should be given as authoritative knowledge to students, many of whom have been cultured into giving the Valmiki, Tulsi, Kamban, etc version the status of a Divine text, an Itihaasa if you will.

The author, A K Ramanujan, himself strongly held that ‘context matters’ especially when it comes to Indic & other societies. Wonder what he would say about this context free “re-appropriation” of his essays.

The bigest fault of Hindus is that they are tolrant and it is biggest gift to Humanity that they comment on Hinduism. I like and well come the comments and criticism, but do not distort the origional text of Holy Hindu litrature. As for as the article “Three Hundred Ramayanas; Five thoughts and Three Thoughts on Translation” is concerned it is all distorted and with no authentic data. I have writter few lines with few pages from the origional text of Adhyatama Ramayana quoted in the article iitself, there is nothing which is quoted in the article. Few Details are available at
anilbali49.sulekha.com

I am not against expressions of views, but the use of proper language and truthful data should form its pillars. In the ocean of literary wisdom logical comments, quotes, criticism and example are like traveling on a boat and enjoying splendorous scenic sights, where as the researches are like diving in its infinite depth to collect precious pearls. Here we do not find the spirit of discussion expected by any litrary writers.

The article may impress the persons who are unaware of Ram or Ramayana, but fact is there is nothing in the article as variation of Ramayana any where. It is good if without distoration the comments are passed.

For instance Hanumana in ladies dress mentioned in said article: It is known to every one and in any temple of Hanuman that Hanuman was stopped by gate keeper when he wanted to meet Shri Ram. After few mininute Mata Sita came and she was not stopped. Hanuman asked why she is not stopped, the gate keeper told : Because she is having SANDOOR on her fore head so she is the wife of Ram. Hanuman went and rubbed the SANDOOR on his entire body and came back. In the mean time Shri Ram came to know about it and from that date Hanuman if worshiped with SANDOOR OF LADIES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Some comments on Babri and Godra:

World must know what is Hinduism if they mention Babri or Godra. Every one is aware of Mahabharata and Ramayana. Its war and distruction of entire kingdom with their entire faimily. In both the cases only one man was the central man, it was Arjun and Ram. Both were persons of principles. The cause was Drupdi and Sita i.e. only one woman in both cases.

Let us not repeat or supress the fible voice of justice, and let not Humanity cry for justice against humilations by so called intellectual, by deforming culture and presenting in distorted way.

Let the entire Humanity should be guided by the goods of all the cultures of the world and brutality be condemen and discarded.

With best regards

Anil Bali

Thanks for that – I agree that Roberts Kendall’s work on Connection Muse isn’t referenced often enough, and I don’t do him justice in these two articles for Interjunction. His very insightful and practical ideas have certainly informed my own studies, teaching and creative work.

Can you tell me if Michael Joyce reported on his ‘beta-testing of Storyspace/afternoon? If so, where might I find that report? I’d very much like to read that.
best wishes

Many writers don’t call is “beta testing”, but almost every hypertext writer I know does this. Joyce, of course, famously beta-tested _afternoon_ in the course of beta testing Storyspace. Deena Larsen offered workshops in beta testing (and used the term). So did Kendall, whose role as a pioneering instructor in this field has been too-seldom recognized.

But lots of writers prefer to think of this in terms of workshopping and criticquing. This is, after all, what they often do with their conventional prose. Many notable hypertext writers hail from programs that foreground workshops: those that spring to mind include Joyce (Iowa), Jackson, Arnold (Brown), Cramer (Columbia), Greco (Brown, MIT, Columbia), Holeton (SFSU), McDaid (Clarion).

There’s a lot more I wanted to be able to say about the relationship between usability and narrative pleasure, but the editors here very sensibly restricted my word count! But essentially, I agree with you, and have said as much elsewhere – various theorists and researchers (Kendall, Murray, Calvi, eg) have talked about the need to make interactivity ‘meaningful’, i.e. make it drive the story. I think that’s right, because most readers will, whatever academics or artists prefer, switch off if the story doesn’t begin to appear. After a few clicks on hyper-words or images, most readers/users will expect a coherent narrative to begin to emerge.

Expectations are crucially important. My empirical study showed that, and I’ve written about that for Roberto Simanowski on ‘Dichtung Digital’ – that piece should be online soonish. My argument here would be that writers can learn to ‘manage’ expecation by using their violations of web design, narrative structure, etc., carefully. We have to remember of course, that for hyper-fiction’s future, the readers are going to be people very much used to clicking and watching and listening to stories, all in one place, their laptop (or maybe their iPhone) – they won’t be people who come at literature solely from books. Thus hyper-novelists will need to think about appealing to readers whose expectations derive from multi-media as well as books (which is probably what you meant…).

Beta-testing the interface is important, especailly as each new hyper-novel designs its own, unique style. It seems that not many wriers in the field do that, although I know that Robert Kendall has written about this process, and I believe Judy Malloy did revise elements of the interace for ‘LOveOne’. It’s interesting stuff, and is definitely an area where interactive/hyper/digital fiction (there really are so many terms being used out there that none fully does the job yet) can make ‘progress’.
cheers
Jim Pope