EDUCATION & WRITING: Learning in the Face of Conflict

Even as I whine about the amount of knowledge I am attempting to absorb in warp-speed mode, there are some terrific benefits when questions arise from a conflict within the range of what is being studied.

Storytron,  IF, Hypertext are all geared towards a concept of reader input–acknowledging a natural phenomenon of reading and expanding it by concerted effort on the part of the original writer and by developing tools to take it even further.

Yet in a sudden spurt of creativity, I am writing and in that rewriting, I have purposely taken away one of three options left to the reader in order to enable story.  Why?  Do I believe that my viewpoint is the best (well duh, of course!)?  This is in direct conflict with what I am learning to project into my writing in the study of interactive writing.

But there’s another point of view that tells us that maybe it isn’t the number of paths that are offered, but rather that a choice is given at all.  This possibly comes under the theory of consumerism, and advertising, and current lifestyle.  We want control over our decisions–especially in view of bombardment of commercialism in every form of medium on a daily basis.  And yet, we also want it limited:  Shampoo doesn’t need to be formulated by shiney, tangle-free, dyed hair, curly, smelling of grapefruit or mangoes.  For oily hair, dry and normal was a decision that was easily made and offered satisfaction in that confidence.  I think perhaps that here is where our busy lives dictate that needless time and thought is demanded from us on some of the most cockamaimie choices.

User frustration is something that game developers take into account and is likely one of the purposes of beta version testing that is considered as important as technical glitches.  Writers, I am finding, even in straight text story must, if the reader is to experience satisfaction–or strong provoked reaction–must be as cautious with the paths laid out and offered as well.