I’m reading Bolter and Joyce’s 1987 paper describing Storyspace and arguing for the possibility of electronic literature and hypertext fiction, situating this in relation to interactive fiction and to dadaism, Borges and other twentieth century experimental literature. Interestingly Bolter and Joyce use “interactive fiction” both to refer to the textual games that are called interactive fiction today and as a general word for electronic literature. They draw attention to the gamelike qualities of electronic literature (“All electronic literature takes the form of a game, a contest between author and reader.”, p 49) and to other characteristics of electronic literature, like its temporality and the relationship between reader and text:

Electronic writers therefore need conventions, genres, traditions by which their medium can be governed. They must find new ways to maintain a tension between the reader and the text. The source of that tension will surely be the participation of the reader in making the text. In eIectronic fiction, the struggle between author and reader to appropriate the writing space can become visible, as the reader admits or tries to avoid admitting particular elements into his particular reading of the text.

This particular bit particularly appeals to me because of my fascination with the relationship between the reader and the text (PDF).


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “bolter and joyce on interactive fiction

  1. Jose Angel

    I suppose you could say that bit about the interaction between writer and reader about all literature, not just web literature. But some genres make especially visible elements which are present in others, and thus they attune our antennae to elements which went unnoticed before.

  2. Jill

    Jim, my interest is in how much electronic literature requires the reader to *perform* in various ways as well as interpret as a reader always must do. Espen Aarseth describes this well – all readers interpret, and readers of cybertexts also have to (to varying degrees) configure, contribute and so on. Don’t have hte book here so I don’t have the exact words.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.