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

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]