|
Back to the Cyberculture Archive
TEXTUALITY IN CYBERSPACE:
MUDS AND WRITTEN EXPERIENCE
BY JEFFREY R. YOUNG
OPENING SCREEN
Philosophers and postmodernist critics discuss the way humans
communicate, engineers and computer systems designers create ever-
integrable networking capabilities and work to improve human-
computer interfaces, but at the crossroads, people are playing
games. While the philosophers and engineers sleep, the MUDers are
at their computers, hour after hour, playing in the cyberspace. In
Multiple-User Dungeons/Dimensions (MUDs), text-based virtual
realities accessible via Internet, thousands of people share fantasy
space, or "live" electronically. They walk and talk, build and
destroy, hug and have sex while sitting at isolated computer
terminals scattered throughout the world.
Their activities, if considered out of the context of the
computer network, are certainly not unusual. In a sense, the kinds
of socialization taking place on MUDs represent the simplest and
most mundane of human interactions. What is interesting about MUD
life, and what MUDers seem sometimes to forget, is that these
"events" take place without their physical counterparts. Outsiders
are quick to point out that nothing "happens" on these computer
games, and look upon this growing subculture with a derision and
sense of deviance. These addicted computer users, some of whom
profess to play for tens of hours a day, may not agree. These
textual environments, as innovative applications of computing and
networking technologies, provide new and powerful ways for humans to
express themselves.
THE ARGUMENT
MUDS offer new and HIGHLY COMPELLING LANGUAGE EXPERIENCES. In
both LANGUAGE STRUCTURE and SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS, MUD allows people
to express themselves and explore identity in a simple (text only),
user-controlled environment.
The medium's primary mode of dialog -- two-way typing in real
time -- takes advantage of the newest means of communication:
computer networks. WRITING 'CONVERSATIONS' is thus a new concept,
one which hovers between resembling speech and resembling writing,
but which in its mixing of forms gains entirely new resonances and
characteristics. Since writing is expected to take longer than
speech to produce and can be drafted and honed in isolation before
being sent out over the MUD, input is usually better structured and
more topically focused than spoken exchanges. However, like speech,
the sense of 'breath,' or distinct presence in time, and the freedom
to move freely in the text base forces words into smaller spaces
(TEXT BITS) than in traditional written works on paper. The device
that transmits the communication of MUDs, the COMPUTER SCREEN,
further blurs distinctions between writing and speech. On the
screen, written words are both concrete and fleeting, making words
more malleable than in bound books, but more solid than speech. NEW
VISUAL CUES mix with language characters to compensate for seeing
the objects described in these on-line discussions, furthering a
sense of presence and engagement.
In the virtual text world of MUD, the reader is in control.
They control WHAT THEY SEE OF THE VIRTUAL WORLD and WHAT THE VIRTUAL
WORLD SEES OF THEM through the use of MUD's OBJECT ORIENTED
PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT. The framework that allows PERFORMATIVE
LANGUAGE control constantly reminds readers of their authoritative
stance and critical distance from their own speech and experience.
As a result the text gains a unique BLEND OF TRANSPARENCY AND
OPACITY, as players constantly shift stance from immersion in the
imaginative space to evaluation and control over the textual
objects.
So what KINDS OF EXCHANGES happen in this new medium? Because
of the both distanced and direct nature of MUD interaction, players
are more socially confident than in face-to-face situations: MORE
INPUT IS OFFERED, input IS MORE FREELY OPINIONATED, and there is
LESS PRESSURE FOR PARTICIPANTS TO CONFORM TO NORMS.
The surprising trend that people are more friendly, emotional,
and expressive in this decentered medium highlights deep
inadequacies and disintegration in present real-world societies.
The promise of Computer Socializing is that, should MUD become more
widespread, it could become an important SUPPLEMENT TO REAL LIFE.
If this new communication medium, one that merges literary and oral
strengths, is in fact closer to human thought, and represents a MORE
GENUINE FORM OF EXPRESSION, perhaps cyberspace will be the choice
location to meet and develop relationships with real-world others.
And perhaps our real world will gradually be shaped by tendencies of
the Net, just as telephone and television technologies have
influenced our view of ourselves and our surroundings.
BIRTH OF MUD
MUDing began as a computer form of the popular fantasy board
game "Dungeons and Dragons" (D&D) in which wizards and warlocks used
equations and dicey probabilities to fight each other or team up
against imagined creatures. The source code for MUD1, an object-
oriented computer program written in C for Unix that mixed the
fantasy world of D&D with the text environments of popular computer
word games such as Infocom's "Zork," was first written by Richard
Bartle and Roy Trubishaw in 1979-80, and is considered the first
Multiple User Dungeon (Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about MUDs,
"What is a MUD?"). As MUDs developed, system operators gradually
realized that the computer opened dimensions the board game never
imagined. Instead of just fighting imaginary monsters, players
could use the computer-networked environment to communicate with one
another in a shared space. TinyMUD Original, developed in 1989, was
the first MUD to drop the adventure gaming aspect altogether to
concentrate solely on social interaction between characters (FAQ,
"What Different kinds of MUDs are there?"). As of late 1992, there
are 207 operable MUDs, many of which are social, rather than "combat
oriented" (Cartwright, 24). Each MUD system can accommodate
hundreds of active users at once, and may have thousands of
characters stored in the database. If every registered user on
LambdaMOO were to log on at once, for instance, there would be 7993
players wandering around in the MUDworld, though the average active
population of Lambda is about 200 (From "help wizzes" file on
LambdaMOO (accessible by typing 'help wizzes').
Though there are many books on the Internet and the hype-laden
Information Superhighway, few authors take these games seriously.
When MUDs are mentioned, they are often referred to as a deviant
form of network use, where users 'eat up disk server space and tie
up wires for hours on end goofing around.' As one MUDer notes in a
help file, "Most schools (universities are where most MUDs
originate) classify MUD as a game, and games as non-essentials.
Therefore, if your school decides to shut off all games, or disallow
you to telnet out to play MUDs, you're stuck" (FAQ, "I paid money
for my account! MUDing is a right, isn't it?"). But a closer look
at these "games" reveals that much more is going on here. More than
any other service on Internet, MUDs draw people in, spurring an
involvement that often becomes an addiction. It is not unusual for
serious MUDers to spend "as many as 120 hours a week engaged in such
on-line activities." (Cartwright, 24). Because so many people do
get hooked into these worlds -- tying up data lines as they live in
the cyberspace -- many schools are forced to outlaw MUDs altogether.
As a professor at New Mexico State University e-mails, "Our computer
center pretty much bans them except deep in the night, since they
claim too much of our unix resources" (e-mail from Stephen
Bernhardt, 4/26/94). However, there must be some attraction that
keeps thousands of users logged-into MUDs, choosing on-line life
over excursions in the real world.
COMPELLING SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
One explanation for the addictive quality of MUDs is that the
people using them are somehow socially inept, and find a community
of kindred spirits in cyberspace. This notion coincides with a
stigma that has long been attributed to computer hackers or hobbyist
in general, as evidenced by the existence of books like The Invasion
of the Computer which gives a profile of computer users as
maladjusted, shy, quiet, and generally lacking the social skills
necessary to succeed in 'real world' human interaction. This narrow
view of computer usage is easily disputed, however. For the most
part, it is true that MUDers are generally computer hobbyists, but
this is because these are the only people with the technological
resources to use these text environments. MUDs require a fair
amount of computer hardware, in addition to network capability and
Internet access, which at present the average home computer owner
may not have. This by no means indicates that only self-proclaimed
computer nerds would find MUDs compelling, however. In research and
other general applications (such as pilot programs for classroom
settings) that have used MUD environments, subjects found that, as
they learned the basics, they often chose to log into the system
even after the 'regular hours' of the experiment (Britton, 12).
"Sociologist Barry Wellman made a similar kind of observation after
noticing how 'shocked' some of the non-participants in the 'on-line
party' were at the amount of joking and personal exchanges among
those who did take part" (Hiltz, 114).
"It's not the shock of recognition," a Wired magazine reporter
wrote after experiencing MUD, "it's the shock of communication. The
organic sensation that you're connected to people evaporates from
the printed page" (Quittner, 93) but is alive on MUD. This novel
form of communication appeals to a basic desire to connect directly
with others. There is no other medium that allows so many people to
interact remotely in a common 'space.' But if merely interaction
was the goal, why would people choose this mode of personal
gathering over face-to-face encounters? The answer lies in looking
at how this new interaction is structured -- its MEDIUM (the
computer), FORM OF LANGUAGE, and CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK -- to see why
networking on MUDs forms a new type of community: one which allows
people to negotiate a strong sense of self and individuality while
participating in public space.
PART I: A NEW TYPE OF LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE
THE LINGUISTIC 'FEEL' OF MUDING
There is something magical about entering the main area of
FurryMUCK and watching the screen fill with descriptions of strange
characters joking and frolicking around you. This mystc is
amplified by the realization that what you say and describe yourself
doing will be seen and commented on by this motley bunch of
critters. The ability to interact with others over the computer
breaks preconceptions about what it means to communicate with
someone. Both the language structure facilitated by MUDs and the
computer language that allows messages to be passed over the network
cause a distinct 'feel' of MUD interaction.
Simply looking at the interactivity of MUD doesn't address the
lure of these environments. After all, we interact face-to-face
with others all day long in the real world. There is something else
exciting about exchanges on MUDs that is harder to put a finger on.
Watching another character, you notice that it describes itself
singing a certain song, and you think to ask if they've heard of an
obscure band you like. You type out a question and hit the return
key. Your question goes out to everyone in the room, and you wait,
watching actions of other characters in the meantime. You watch a
minute pass, and a reply comes back on your screen: the other
player loves that band too. You ask another question about music,
and the online 'conversation' begins.
Perhaps the only experience that closely resembles this
language event in real life is passing notes during class in grade
school. You write a note on a scrap of paper, and stealthily pass
it to Lucy, anxiously watching as she writes out a note in reply.
The message is passed back to you and you read it with excitement,
ready to send another note. Asking the same question of Lucy
orally, outside of class, never seems the same as scrawling out the
words as fragments on a physical object and visually handing the
meaningful note back and forth.
WRITING 'CONVERSATIONS'
MUDs allow writing to take on a function traditionally thought
to be the unique domain of speaking: two-way instantaneous
communication. The metaphoric terminology of MUD refers to
characters 'speaking' to one another, but what users are really
doing is writing. This distinction would not be lost on Walter Ong
or other scholars who traced the change in human expression from
pre-literate societies to those that have developed writing systems.
Ong showed that the way thought is structured by people in cultures
without literacy is different than in those that have adopted
writing systems (Ong). When writing, the same people use different
syntaxes and word choices than they do when speaking the same idea.
Thus, not surprisingly, the written "speech" on MUDs is different
than oral speech in face-to-face encounters. This was confirmed in
a recent study of computer conferencing done at MIT:
Among experienced users, the "written equivalent" of the
language content tends to be somewhat better organized
and more fully thought out than comparable statements
recorded from a face-to-face conversation. This is
because the participant has a chance to take as long as
desired to think about a response or comment, to
reorganize and rework it until it presents the idea as
fully and succinctly as possible. . . . on average the
written channel will tend to have a somewhat richer and
better-organized content than spoken conversations, in
terms of topic-related information (Hiltz, 82-3).
Just like when writing notes in class, the time between messages is
longer than in face-to-face oral communication. Whereas in face-to-
face questions, long pauses make participants uneasy and are one of
the most severe "faultables" of spoken interaction (Goffman, 225),
written notes are expected to take longer to produce. The result is
indeed a different looking/sounding content of communication, an
insteresting mixture of what in speech would be stilted language,
mixed with a few typical typos.
The conversational aspect of MUDing is so strong that many
'newbies' transfer 'inappropriate' conventions from face-to-face
communication to the textual world. In some instances, forgetting
that responses in MUDs are written, not spoken, results in
inefficient use of the text world. Take the scenario from this help
file on LambdaMOO, for instance:
When paging, just page the question. You don't need to
start with "Can I ask you a question?" (Answer: you can
and you just *did* --- this is an example of a real-life
courtesy that actually becomes counterproductive when
translated to the MOO; if one sees an actual question, it
is possible to deal with it relatively quickly, whereas
if the page is merely a "mind if I interrupt?", time is
lost waiting for the actual question to appear)
(LambdaMOO help file).
It seems that MUDs present a confusion of expectation in language
experience. As users translate their conceptions from real life to
the virtual text world, they often 'forget where they are' so to
speak. Though the interactivity of MUDs causes the partial illusion
of face-to-face, spoken dialog, MUDers are quick to condition each
other to keep the written aspect of the computer conferencing
closest in mind. Just as literate cultures look condescendingly at
primary-oral cultures as being 'wrong' in their thinking, MUDers who
forget they are writing, not speaking, when online are brought back
in-line.
In the content-density and mannerisms of MUD conversations,
players are clearly a community of writers, not speakers. Though
their interactions resembles face-to-face communication more than
writing ever has, MUDers carefully maintain the distinction of
literacy. Though they 'act' together communally on the MUD, they
are also clearly writers in isolation, carefully forming phrases
before sending them out over the net into the public conversational
space.
HYPERTEXT AND THE NEW MEDIUM OF THE SCREEN
In many ways, MUDs like FurryMUCK and LambdaMOO operate as
books do, especially since they are completely textual. The first
MUDs were simply on-screen books that led users through a narrative,
with the occasional opportunity to fight one-on-one with other
players. Traditionally, the only experience requiring the reading
of text for so long at one sitting is found in bound books. For
this reason, MUDers often carry over concepts from reading and
writing physical texts into MUD space. But the assumptions
associated with the reading of physical books, like the assumptions
for face-to-face communication, do not transfer perfectly into
screen-based, or hypertexts. In fact, as New Mexico State
University professor Steven Bernhardt, one of the pioneering
researchers of hypertext, notes: "Thinking, working, and composing
in the new medium of hypertext has a grammar all its own, a grammar
with a steep learning curve and challenging new conceptual
structures" (Bernhardt, in press), adding that, "We are in a state
of rapid evolution, with heavy borrowing on the history of text on
paper, applied sometimes appropriately and sometimes inappropriately
to the new medium" (Bernhardt, College Comp., 151). In the medium
of the screen, text is both physical (letters on the screen) as it
is in books, and fleeting and ethereal like speech, again causing a
strange middle-ground between and written and oral sensibilities,
and new freedoms and constraints on language.
WINDOWS INTO TEXT
The page of a book is fixed -- paper size sets the amount of
type possible on a page. On the screen, however, the monitor's
glass is simply a window into a boundless cyberspace. Instead of
page-turning in a linear body of book-text, the screen can scroll in
any direction. Not only can this window be moved more freely over
the text, but multiple pages can be layered on the same screen. On
MUDs, for instance, a user can have one 'window' open with a
connection to LambdaMOO, and a separate opening connected to
FurryMUCK at the same time. The user can be participating in two
separate 'texts' simultaneously, organizing the 'windows' so that
both are visible side-by-side on the screen at once. In hypertext,
there is no single order or configuration for large bodies, or
databases, of language.
In fact, the metaphors referring to reading 'through' text in
a book are inappropriate to reading the computer screen. In a book,
there is nowhere to go but "forward," turning to the "next" page of
text, but in hypertexts, readers can move in many directions, and
there is no 'one' right way to go.
LINKING PASSAGES
Screen text is not fixed ink on a physical page, but data
units in a random-access storage allowing them to be recalled in any
order. This requires an added burden on the text: not only must
information be presented, but it must include directional markers,
or links, that let readers know how to get to it. "It is like
writing in a third dimension, with layered objects in graphic space"
(Bernhardt, 151). In MUDs, users can build onto the text world --
creating buildings, rooms, and objects. Using the [@create]
command, creators must not only write the descriptions others will
see when entering their room, but also code the [@link] commands
that allow users to enter and leave the room with the standard
directional functions ([N], [S], etc.) (Furry Builders Guide).
Without these links, a room is a page no one can turn to.
In hypertexts, information is not necessarily cumulative,
since the author cannot assume the reader came into a certain part
of text from a set path. In MUDs, many players can use the
[@teleport] command to pop into any room from anywhere. Unlike in a
physical book (in which, admittedly, anyone can flip immediately to
any page), hypertexts are supposed to accommodate such leaping,
which the computer makes easy and natural. As Bernhardt identifies,
screen text is "Situationally Embedded: The text does not stand
alone, but is bound up within the context of a situation"
(Bernhardt, 152). This embedding makes itself clear not just in
the operational structure (the OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING language)
of MUDs, but also manifests itself in the content of hypertext.
Passages must not only be linked to other pages, but they must
explain how they are linked so the reader can judge which path to
choose. The most obvious example of this is in the spatial
connection of rooms in MUDs:
West of the Gardens
The western most part of the yard. Compared to the
gardens closer to the house, the grounds here seem
neglected. A kennel is to the southeast. A striped
white & blue awning appears to the south. To the west,
over a low fence and through a thin grove of trees, lies
a large meadow. A battered tool shed sits to the north
and to the east is the main house and grounds. a bubble
is sitting in here. Crickets chirp to the twinkling of
the stars as the smell of wood smoke and roses permeates
the damp night air.
You see Chapel and ArVee here.
Descriptions such as this provide a visual map to facilitate
navigation from text passage to text passage in the MUD.
TEXT BITES
Because readers of hypertext are constantly navigating through
sections of text, writing is forced into small 'bits' of highly-
topical information. Instead of each page-full of text having its
set place in the whole, hypertexts (like this one) collect isolated
fragments. "The text is composed and presented in self-contained
chunks, fragments, blocks" (Bernhardt, 159). Though MUD
communication is written, therefore producing MORE WELL-THOUGHT-OUT
REMARKS, these remarks must be confined to tight spaces. Of course
there is nothing stopping MUDers from writing long treatisies, but
the structure of this textual world favors smaller 'text bites' that
can be read quickly -- just as television favors video and 'sound
bites' -- so the reader can learn what they need and move on. As
studies show, (written) comments on computer-conferencing systems
are more focused than similar responses in face-to-face
interactions. This is likely due not only to the fact that
responses are written instead of spoken, but also that the
hypertext's non-linear structure pressures participants to stick to
the topic and not wander off into irrelevant rambling. In MUDs,
this means that utterances are in some ways not as rich as their
spoken counterparts. This deficiency seems made up for, however, by
the 'user-friendly' ease of access of hypertext.
CONTROL OF VIEW
Since most sections of text on MUDs are condensed and clearly
labeled (by LINKS), users gain greater control over what information
they consume and what they do not. In a real life cocktail party,
for instance, a person has little choice over who they listen to --
a certain voice might stand out, or a social convention might
require the person to politely listen to certain others. In the
"online part"y of MUD, users have much greater control over which
rooms they enter and whose language they read. The clearly labeled
chunks of text can be quickly scanned and accessed on demand. In
LambdaMOO, players may even choose to screen out certain types of
text (usually that of a specific player) using the [@gag] command.
This allows each person to edit the social situation for maximum
comfort. Such capabilities give readers a feeling of control over
language, making them not just readers, but navigators of a text
base that is rigidly encapsulized and categorized.
MULTIVOCAL TEXTS
Because MUDers can, and are expected to jump around inside the
hypertextual narrative world, there is much less pressure to present
a single coherent voice in a given text. In fact, hypertext
encourages and rewards providing a wide range of materials for the
reader to explore. In conventional books,
Paper collaborators may have different intellectual
perspectives and writing styles, and the challenge of
collaboration is to bring the separate voices into
harmony in a seamless, linear text. (Anson 85). A
hypertext, on the other hand, can be a text with seams.
Collaborators with multiple perspectives can contribute
to the heteroglossia without 'continuity of tone, style,
and voice'. (Bolter 16) (Bernhardt, in press).
In fact, there is no reason not to include completely unrelated
works in the same database. "Because the electronic text is not a
physical artifact, there is no reason to give it the same conceptual
unity as the printed book, no reason not to include disparate
materials in one electronic network" (Bolter, 7). The new tendency
of hypertext is not toward an editor or publisher pruning down, or
compiling works to provide only pertinent information, but to let
the readers decide what is pertinent, giving full access to all the
information available. The MUDs (and hypertexts in general) that
are the most successful are those that promise the greatest number
of players, the most information stored in the database, and the
largest chorus of voices available to be sampled by users.
WRITTEN OBJECT
Not only is the metaphorical space of hypertext visual, but
the screen interaction provides 'visual speech.' While typing
conversations, MUDers watch their words and the responses of others'
form in front of them. Unlike oral conversation in which words are
fleeting, existing only for an instant, in MUDs, the utterances of
others appear on screen and remain. The words themselves become
objects, which the player can react to and handle at their leisure.
Like in a word processor, words can be cut and pasted on MUDs. Only
now, instead of moving their own text, users are free to cut others'
responses and paste them back. An online conversation resembles
tossing a ball back and forth, or more specifically, like passing a
written note on a slip of paper back and forth rapidly and
repeatedly, making the text a physical object in cyberspace.
Hypertext is both fixed and malleable. As players type out
remarks, they are free to edit and rewrite until they are ready to
send the lines out. Once the message is sent, however, it is
'bound' that way and appears on other users' screens. Staring at
the words as objects on the screen, MUDers are often more aware of
minor language errors than in oral speech. Players often reflect
on, and post corrections to, minor text errors they have made:
Green_Guest notes that his vowels are beginning to
disappear on him....
Cyan_Guest says, "and=an by the wa"y
Jenine says, "yet another double term sentence"
(LambdaMOO).
In speech, since it must be created instantly and disappears an
instant later, people tend to forgive many 'slips of the tongue'
(Goffman, 222). MUDers have a harder time ignoring the visual
presence of errors. This not only lessens the TRANSPARENCY of the
language environment, but also reminds participants that they are in
a DISTINCTLY WRITTEN WORLD, in which stricter rules of accuracy are
in effect.
VISUAL CUES
Many channels of communication available in face-to-face
encounters are missing in MUDs -- primarily visual information such
as, facial expression, eye contact, and body movement (Hiltz, 89).
To make up for these missing signals, MUDers use the visual field of
the computer screen (taking advantage of the WRITTEN OBJECT) to
produce new kinds of cues. "What may seem an inadequate set of cues
in computerized conferencing for novice users may later be overcome
by participants learning how to substitute for missing kinds of
cues" (Hiltz, 89).
If players want to show their character is thinking something,
they represent their words symbolically, using a set of bubbles
similar to those seen in comic strips.:
. o O ( MMm. Guest sex/ )
. o O ( yes )
If players want their characters to emphasize a point, or create an
[@item] that carries a message about themselves, they might produce
a symbolic 'cardboard sign':
Jorry holds up a sign that says _______
| ahhh |
-------
Or if players want to give a small picture of what their area looks
like, they can arrange standard text characters in the physical
space of the screen so that they resemble the object itself.
These visual cues increase the reader's engagement in the fictional
world, by taking advantage of the physical arrangement of text.
Words become mixed with glyphic symbols adding a level of richness
to the interaction that aural speech cannot attain.
OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING AND THE POWER OF THE READER
There is a new language operating in MUDs in addition to
simply written (as opposed to spoken) English. Players must use the
MUD's computer environment, or programming language, to pass their
words along to other players. To the disembodied player's
character, the commands of this programming language make up the
equivalent of a physical body in cyberspace. Its purpose is to move
the character from place to place, inflect and direct voice, and add
gesture and expression.
This is done through a simple and highly-intuitive programming
style known as Object Oriented Programming (OOP). All of the 13
existing MUD operating systems are OO-based. The commands of MUD
correspond, where possible, to their physical counterparts in the
real world. The command for "sa"ying something, for example, is
simply the word "sa"y and an open quotation mark, or abbreviated as
simply a quotation mark placed before the text to be "said." (To
say "hi there" simply type: ["hi there]. The computer then prints:
[you say, "hi there"] on the screen for all to see.) To make a
gesture to accompany speech, a player simply types [pose: smiles],
and [player smiles] appears. Spatial movement inside the virtual
world works in the same manner. To walk north, users simply type
"go north," or "n" for short. Not only the commands, but everything
handled by the computer language is treated metaphorically,
employing the same terminology used in real life.
Most objects correspond to entities in the real world
(animals, cars, buildings etc.) or sometimes to easily
recognized abstractions like a contract or an aeroplane
journey. This immediately offers the attraction that
problems may be solved using the vocabulary of the
problem domain i.e. we can translate our understanding of
the real world directly into software models and maintain
the semantic connections between them with reasonable
ease (Worthington, 53).
The characters and WORDS ARE VIRTUAL OBJECTS, and the commands
provide links between them. "When a meaningful message is received
by an object, the appropriate method is invoked and the object
either enters a new state or reports its state to the client"
(Worthington, 54).
The computer does not discriminate. All related objects are
treated equally by the machine. "All items on the MUCK, whether
they be players, rooms, exits/actions, things, or programs, are
assigned a number. Any number refers to a specific item (whatever
type it may be) in the database. Each item in the database is
stored in much the same way regardless of type" (FAQ, glossary).
Since there is no human author choosing exactly which information
gets presented and in what order, hypertexts take no part in the
marginalization of certain VOICES or information. Consider the
debate currently surrounding the literary cannon, for instance.
This problem of 'which works to include' is virtually a non-issue in
hypertextual terms, since the ideal is a database of all materials
that the reader could navigate through on their own.
PERFORMATIVE WORLD
In OO worlds, all language is what Derrida termed
performative: its utterance "produces or transforms a situation, it
effects" (Derrida, 9). Whatever a player says happens, does happen.
In verbal exchanges, on the other hand, performatives are rare, most
frequently found in ritual or ceremony, such as pronouncement of
marriage or christening of a ship. In text, performatives are
standard practice. Consider a novel, for instance. Nothing happens
except what the author tells the reader is happening -- all of which
is accepted (in the world of the novel) as occurrence. OOP takes
the performative power of text one step further, allowing the
player/reader (not simply the author) to "utter" performative
statements. "The computer is a self-contained world in which the
whole process of semiosis can take place. Say that the writer
creates the following structure in the electronic writing space of
the machine. Not only the words in each topic, but the topics
themselves and the link that connects them are part of the process
of signification" (Bolter, 197). This continual authority of
language elevates it to a more confident footing. Once again, it is
clearly the reader who is in control of hypertext. It represents
another blurring of the boundary between oral exchange and written
exchange in MUD environments.
CONTROL OF SELF
MUD players are in complete control over how they are looked
upon in the textual world. By using the [@describe] command, MUDers
literally define themselves. There is no set format or guideline
for what should be included in these descriptions. While most stick
to physical traits (of a fictional self), players use the
descriptions to say things about character that physical appearance
would fail to relay. When other characters encounter them and type
[look], they will see the description that the player has written.
In real life, there are all kinds of unintended visual and
aural cues accompanying encounters which may or may not reflect
accurately on character. Prejudices of the real world may impede an
intellectual woman to be taken seriously by some men, for instance.
In the MUD, such a person can set their gender to male and converse
for a while. Or they could leave gender undefined or neuter.
Because self-authored text is the only information representing MUD
personae (even name is chosen by players), players have full control
of the self they present to the virtual world.
SELF AS OBJECT: THE DECENTERING GRAMMAR OF MUDS
In a MUD, users create a virtual self, or character, to act
for them in the MUD world. The self, like everything else in MUD's
OOP environment, becomes an object, one completely at the user's
control. As in a novel, the MUDer looks into a narrative world from
the outside. Unlike a novel, however, players are like Olympian
gods, moving their character pieces as detached observers, while at
the same time keeping an emotional connection to their self-
fashioned mortals.
Because players invent a characterization of self and role-
play in cyberspace, they gain a physical and emotional detachment.
Instead of feeling along in the MUDworld, players think how their
character would react to situations. One FurryMUCK character showed
her dual loyalty when this author's MUD character, Marshdarter,
asked for some help with the commands.
Leticia whispers, "ah.. In Character, Leticia is NOT a
nice person.. my Player (the person sitting at the
computer) IS a nice person, and will help you, as long as
you whisper.." to you.
Marshdarter looked at Leticia, curious to see who this "NOT nice
person" was:
Mistress Leticia is black, a deep, shiny black all over
her skin.
Her eyes are black, TOTALLY black, no whites or irises
showing
at all, her teeth and tongue startling flashes of color
when she opens her mouth or smiles. She looks human,
except for her eyes, her color, and her long, thin
fingers (and are there more than 5 fingers there? - it's
hard to tell, but you think so.) Her hair is snowy white
and silken-soft, hanging to her shoulders and blown by
any tiny breeze at all.
She wears a long gown of deepest black silk, deeply 'vd
between
her breasts, with a white silken netting (or webbing?)
keeping
her decent. the gown rests on her shoulders by thin
straps,
and gathered at her waist is a belt of scarlet silk,
showing
off her generous curves. Around her neck is a white silk
choker.
The choker has a black, hourglass-shaped stone set in the
front,
(Or IS it black? colors seem to swirl deep within the
stone, drawing your eyes, tempting you to `gaze' into
it's depths..
Carrying:
clrtemp
"I am mysself, in character ," she typed, "- Leticia, an
anthropomorphic black widow sspider.." (FurryMUCK). Of course, how
close the character is to a player's 'true self' of themselves is up
to them. MUD is an ideal place to explore facets of personality or
explore otherness. Some characters have one personality trait that
they emphasize in all their interactions. This male author found
that more players answered his questions when he described himself
as a curious female than as a curious male.
Even the grammar required for expression in MUD is distancing.
Since the [pose:] command simply lets others know your character is
posing a certain way, pose texts need to be written in third person.
This author learned this by trial and error:
pose: spin around three times and raise arms to the furry
sky
Marshdarter spin around three times and raise arms to the
furry sky
S'A'Alis yips, "Ta da!"
pose: exudes thanks from every follicle
Marshdarter exudes thanks from every follicle
(FurryMUCK).
No action can be properly expressed without this linguistic reminder
that not the player, but the character -- the altered or displaced
self -- is acting in the cyberspace.
TRANSPARENCY/ NON-TRANSPARENCY OF HYPERTEXT
MUDs constantly remind you of the computer-driven environment.
The computer language that is required to navigate through the text
world and the ability to author as well as read, keeps players at a
critical distance as they experience the virtual world.
When characters are writing their own experiences, language
gains a strange exchange between transparency and opacity. Players
are both drawn in by others' written expression, and must step back
and compose their own textual response, paying strict attentions to
syntax and format:
It compels us to reconsider the relationship between the
text and the world to which the text refers. In the
world of print, the ideal was to make a text transparent,
so that the reader looked through the text to the world
beyond. This was the goal of realistic painting as well
as the traditional novel . . . In a digital rhetoric,
transparency is not the only virtue. The reader can be
made to focus on the verbal patterns, on the text as a
texture of elements. The text can be transparent or
opaque, and it can oscillate between transparency and
opacity, between asking the reader to look through the
text to the "world beyond" and asking him or her to look
at the text itself as a formal structure (Bolter, 167).
Even once players become ultra-familiar with the language of MUD (so
that it becomes second-nature) the computer environment will not
allow full transparency. Intermittent system maintenance on the
home server or the network at large causes delays and interruptions
that effect every character on the MUD. These events, such as the
lag, or the time between when the command is entered and when it is
executed, can be so severe that players comment upon the lag like
people complain about the weather. 'The lag is so bad today'
characters often rant. This event reminds all players that they are
not walking around in a fantasy world, but sitting in a room typing
at a computer. Even regular system maintenance like updating the
database can cause disturbances that characters (and players) cannot
ignore:
## Game will pause to save changed objects in two
minutes. ##
## Saving changed objects ##
## Save complete. ##
Bill_T_Cat thinks the save was a religious experience!
Snow bounces out of the save!
In a way, players don't want to fully enter this fictional
world. One major benefit of MUD is that it is a fictional place
populated by real people. If the same delays existed in a computer
game where the player acted against the machine, few would bother
playing. On MUDs, players put up with system delays and other
setbacks to keep their connection with others out there on the Net.
PART II: SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MUD
In concert with these LINGUISTIC IMPLICATIONS and constraints
of MUDs are the social interactions that take place in cyberspace.
How are these addicted and casual MUD players using this distinct
new medium? The kinds of speech footings and assumptions of this
new medium of communication make interactions in the new social
space more open and direct.
On MUDs, the DECENTERING, ANONYMOUS quality of the fantasy
forum allows more people to loosen up so that MORE PEOPLE
PARTICIPATE and PARTICIPANTS GIVE MORE OPINIONATED RESPONSES than in
face-to-face interactions. Whereas in real life encounters, people
constantly use language to negotiate a safe and proper distance
(Goffman, 128), in MUDs, the physical distance is set and the common
computer environment acts as the normalizing force. This distancing
provided by the computer allows people to drop many polite
formalities of speech, and 'get to the point.' In a book compiled
by a 'Netizen' and published over Internet, one user commented upon
this directness common on MUDs:
I'm in awe of the power and energy linking thousands into
a virtual intellectual coffee-house, where strangers can
connect without the formalities of face to face rituals
(hello, how are you today. . .) to allow a direct-
connected style of communication that seems to transcend
the 'how's the weather' kind of conversation to just let
us connect without the bullshit (Net book, ch.
7_Netizen).
Also, since the niceties of speech are in many ways foregone in
MUDs, and because of the MULTIVOCAL TENDENCY OF HYPERTEXT, there is
LESS PRESSURE FOR PLAYERS TO CONFORM TO NORMS. In fact, new and
interesting points of view are rewarded. Entering the Park on
FurryMUCK or the entrance hall of LambdaMOO, characters say quick
(and often creative) hellos, and jump right into 'conversations' on
topics ranging from religion and politics to how to use the network
itself. Since language (and its VISUAL OBJECT) is the only
interaction available in these online parties, participants are
forced to use MORE SKILLFUL, CREATIVE, or TOPICALLY INTERESTING
language in order to engage others. For the most part, MUDers meet
the challenges of the textual environment, creating ONLINE
COMMUNITIES that can become part of their real life identity and
enrich their lives. The new medium allows them to explore
themselves and their actions objectively and re-envision their sense
of self and community.
WHAT TO EXPECT IN MUD
With the promise of more direct and open discourse, MUDs can
begin to sound utopian, but the limitations imposed by the text-only
environment can present a serious obstacle to 'entering' this brave
new world. Consider the following dialog involving a skeptical MUD
'newbie':
Purple_Guest says, "I've been on here for 3 hours and
haven't had an experience yet!"
skyguy tickles SuzieB for several minutes.
Veal_Guest points its meister at Purple_Guest.
Brown_Guest says, "i know what you mean purple...."
Sasquatch teleports in.
SuzieB [to Purple_Guest]: What sort of experience were
you expecting?
jeco [to Purple_Guest]: you're not trying hard enough.
skyguy smiles at SuzieB.
Veal_Guest pulls the trigger on its meister.
The meister glows in happy rainbow colors, then
Purple_Guest is showered with little daisies. Warm
feelings of love and peace fill the air (LambdaMOO).
To enjoy this textual world requires an active imagination. Many
new MUDers enter with high expectations and are sometimes
disappointed. Because MUDs are interactive, they require users to
put something in, in order to get something back. In this case,
players must use their words to attract others to 'converse' with
them:
Cyan_Guest [to Jorry]: Well, some of my best experiences
here have happened by accident. Generally, it helps to
seek out characters who you find interesting, characters
who have an active imagination and make an honest attempt
to say things that are fun to read (LambdaMOO).
Once players become comfortable with the commands and basic
mood of a specific MUD they usually begin to encounter and converse
with the same characters time after time, and gradually develop
online relationships. In fact, due to the DIRECT NATURE OF LANGUAGE
in MUDs, relationships generally develop more quickly here than in
real life. Characters are often 'very affectionate' with each other
verbally, and greetings like this one on Furry are not unusual:
Lenore hugs Tiggster! He slowly wraps his arms around
his true love, staring for a moment into her eyes, and
you see that she seems to melt in his arms....They
embrace for what seems like hours, hardly moving, like
statues in love! (FurryMUCK).
At the far end of this emotional spectrum is NETSEX, which is one of
the few aspects of MUDs that have been picked up by major media.
(Unfortunately, since the only press MUDs get concerns NetSex and
presents these worlds as 'dens of iniquity,' some players clearly
come looking for cheap thrills, usually to be disappointed that
players want to have a relationship instead!)
In addition to participating in dialog, players can build onto
the world of MUDs, creating rooms, objects and embellishing their
character's description using the OBJECT ORIENTED LANGUAGE of these
worlds.
Leticia murmurs, "people do more than jusst talk here..
they alsso build thingss and program.."
People spend hours building public spaces for others to enjoy, such
as amusement parks, short games and riddles, or teleportation and
travel devices. The reward is the ability to watch others enjoy
your creation, and the feeling of belonging as an active participant
in the online community. Just as in real life, other players
appreciate and reward the hard-work and support of others.
MUDers are using the medium of cyberspace to create new
communities to SUPPLEMENT THEIR REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. Some online
relationships develop into real life meetings, and ideas are
exchanged and developed in the unrestrained imaginative environment.
LIBERATING ENVIRONMENT
'Speaking' from a distance, with the ability to CONTROL MANY
ASPECTS OF ONE'S PRESENTATION OF SELF, MUDers who might be reluctant
to contribute to real world discussions seem to open up in
cyberspace. As Hiltz notes in his recent study of computer
conferencing versus face-to-face group discussions, "more opinions
tend to be asked for and offered" (Hiltz, 125). Most of the minute
inadequacies that might cause someone not to put in their 'two cents
worth' (such as fears that looks, gender, or other physical quality
will weaken the validity of their remarks) are overcome on MUDs,
where physical presence is not transmitted.
Cyan_Guest [to Jorry]: It's different than real life in
the respect that it doesn't matter what your MOO-friends
look like physically. Here, interaction is mental rather
than physical. Whereas dirty hair and an ugly mole could
be quite disruptive to a real life conversation, here it
doesn't factor into things at all (LambdaMOO).
Also, MUDs manage participation more broadly and evenly than
spoken group meetings. In a face-to-face group, there is usually
one or a few people who dominate discussion.
Bales found that in face-to-face discussion there usually
emerges a 'top man' who sends and receives
disproportionate number of messages and who addresses
considerably more remarks to the group as a whole than he
addresses to specific individuals (Bales et al., 1951,
p.465) (Hiltz, 107).
But in MUD, many users can enter their responses simultaneously,
with less loss of information. In person, even two people talking
at once is hard to follow, where in MUD, ten or more players may
send short responses at the same time, and all can be read by other
players (separately) at their own pace. Of course, even in computer
conferencing there is a point of overload or 'spam' -- where the
screen is so cluttered with continual input that the general train
of conversation is impossible to follow. Because MUDs accommodate
more participants at a time, however, the sense that one person
'should' dominate disappears, and there is more equal participation
among users.
MORE OPINIONS OFFERED
In computer conferencing environments like MUDs, users
generally make less guarded remarks. "There is less explicit
agreement or disagreement with the opinions and suggestions of
others" (Hiltz, 125). Again the trend is slightly functional:
because MUDers are reading the responses, they can digest a broader
range of ideas in a short space of time. In spoken conversations,
changing to new views quickly makes discussion hard to follow,
whereas on MUDs, such switches are the norm and keep players witing
to see what surprising thing will be typed next. But there is also
a social freedom on MUDs, the freedom from the eyes of those who
might judge you based on looks as well as speech-content.
SatNam [to Jorry]: Well, on the MOO, you can be more
like yourself, because there is no one watching you. I
think people fall in love more on the moo because they
can be themselves.
Along with open airing of opinions, MUDers are generally more
affectionate and friendly online than they are in real life. "In
the face-to-face condition, there is usually a brief period when the
participants exchange names, but no extensive socializing among
strangers who were brought together for this single group meeting.
In the CC condition, however, we observed very overt attempts to be
personal and friendl"y (Hiltz, 112).
There is a sense in computer network environments that the
ideas will truly speak for themselves. This sense makes players
much more comfortable and bold in their remarks.
NON-CONFORMITY
When reading a book, readers must follow the path of the
author, and when in daily social interactions, those same readers
tend to conform to narrow bounds of speech and actions. "One of the
most important of the potentially dysfunctional aspects of face-to-
face group problem solving is the tremendous pressure on
participants to conform" (Hiltz, 106). In the hypertextual world of
MUD, where players control the imaginative space, those same players
also flaunt their differences. Visitors to cyberspace describe how
surprised they are at the diversity of voices in MUDs.
"Another memorable aspect of online conviviality was
learning just how wide is the spectrum of human
experience. In our schools and media we are led to
believe that the range of human behavior is relatively
narrow; true deviance is the purview of criminals and
crazy people. No. Online, I discovered that the range
is virtually a universe wide" (Jacobson, 331).
MUDs BETTER ACCOMMODATE A WIDE RANGE OF VOICES than conventional
books and media. On MUD, there is no cultural norm. Since
characters can 'be' whatever they can imagine and describe, everyone
is a minority of one. The focus of the textual environment is to
fashion a distinctive self and rehearse it in cyberspace.
TOO EXPRESSIVE, PUBLIC SPACE OF IMAGINATIONS
In most areas of the MUD, cyberspace is a public space. Like
any public space, speech and actions affect others. Though the
writing of MUD is produced at isolated computer terminals, the text
goes out over data wires or phone lines to become part of a widely-
read interactive web. As fictional environments, MUDs resemble
traditional fantasy texts, in which readers explore a new world in
their imagination, a world where anything is possible. An attitude
of anything-goes is potentially dangerous in the public imaginative
space of MUDs, however. System operators post reminders that just
as in real life, actions on the computer network may have
consequences:
You shouldn't do anything that you wouldn't do in real
life, even if the world is a fantasy world. The
important thing to remember is that it's the fantasy
world of possibly hundreds of people, and not just yours
in particular. There's a human being on the other side
of each and every wire! ...People who treat others badly
gradually build up bad reputations and eventually receive
the NO FUN Stamp of Disapproval (FurryMUCK help file).
MUDers have been known to go too far in their expressiveness.
Because it is not really you 'doing' the online actions (but your
fictional persona) and because there are no victims in (physical)
sight, players sometimes perform actions that are hurtful or
offensive to other characters. As an online help manual points out
in an etiquette section: "Avoid 'power-playing' and 'violence.'
Even though you may not think you are doing anyone any actual harm,
many people get annoyed by it, and such activities may make you
unpopular . . . wandering into the Park and spraying bullets at
everyone there is strongly discouraged" (FurryMUCK Beginner's
Guide).
Tumbl_weed [to Jorry]: you also have to be careful if
you have a smartass personality. Sometimes things don't
turn out the way you say them and someone gets
insulted...
SatNam says, "Yeah, some people forget that the people
are real, and insult a lot of people."
NETSEX AND PHYSICAL VS. EMOTIONAL DISTANCE
Perhaps most curious to outsiders (and greatest cause of
criticism of these new cybercommunities) is the phenomena of MUDsex:
high-speed two-way erotica typing, which sometimes involves
masturbation. Those hoping to do some info-highway rubbernecking on
MUD will certainly be disappointed -- believe it or not, players on
MUDs are, for the most part, discreet in their online heavy petting.
MUDs provide private areas where characters can close the door and
turn off the virtual lights, and it is in the virtual back rooms and
bedrooms that NetSex occurs. What do couples get out of this highly
emotional activity when it's filtered through cyberspace?
The easiest comparison to NetSex is phone sex, but this
comparison may be unfortunate. If a player were hooked into MUDs
just for NetSex, then this link would be appropriate, but most
people who take the time to learn the MUD programming languages and
design their character are interested in more than a one-night
stand. Picking up the phone and dialing a sex line invests no
commitment, whereas the hours of learning required just to be fluent
enough in the MUD system to have NetSex (much less find someone to
have it with) makes the event more significant. As communities that
are often looking for a self-respecting communal identity, MUDs try
to resist being characterized as online whorehouses. Marshdarter
(author's character) mentioned a recent Wired magazine article about
MUDs (which focused heavily on NetSex) to one character and met a
disgruntled reply:
Leticia murmurs, "THAT article again. :("
Leticia murmurs, "THAT article, if you noticed, had two
descriptionss, and about a paragraph (rather biased)
about Furry.. the rest about LambdaMOO, but they decided
to portray Furry ass a den of iniquity.."
People on MUDs don't walk up and proposition you with NetSex.
The event generally occurs between characters who have first
'talked' and interacted over a period of time. Once NetSex is
considered in relation to real life sex, it is interesting to note
the implications of online intercourse.
Participants in NetSex maintain a strict physical and
emotional distance while still enjoying what can be a fulfilling
exchange between two people. With all the fears our society
associates with casual sex (pregnancy, disease, etc.), NetSex
provides a safe opportunity for sexual play. In fact it is possible
that MUDs provide an outlet for those who are shy in real life to be
more aggressive sexually. Just as MORE OPINIONS ARE OFFERED on the
Net than in real life, some MUDers are more open in their
affections. So much so that the amount of sexual innuendo and
flirtation becomes notable to other players.
Diadalos says, "has there ever been two minutes on this
thing where there hasn't been the mention of sex... do
you guys conduct yourself like this in RL?"
The answer clearly is no. These players use the semi-anonymous
medium of MUDs to explore aspects of self and expression they would
not ordinarily venture in face-to-face exchanges.
FRAGMENTING READERSHIP
Ironically, with all these opportunities for the reader to
CONTROL THE ORDER and EXPLORE VARIOUS VOICES in hypertexts, readers
end up further away, rather than closer to these texts, and in some
ways each other. Since the infinite writing space cannot be fully
consumed, a computer-reader's mentality is geared toward extracting
the information specific to individual needs. This shifts focus of
writing from author-centered to reader-centered. People reading a
hypertext never have an overall shared experience. Players of MUDs,
unlike readers of a bound book, each have unique experiences.
The structure of community suggested by hypertexts is not one
valorizing and providing common, shared experiences, but celebrating
individuality and expressing very separate identities in a common
medium. No longer is the author lord of the text kingdom. In
hypertexts, readers are free and encouraged to read only what
interests them. Instead of appointing the author as a
representative to explore 'databases' of available information and
report back, readers now represent themselves in these vast
databases, compiling their own personal and unique books.
BEYOND MUD: THE NETWORK'S INFLUENCE
It is often said that we live in a media-dominated society.
Currently, 'media' is predominately television, but also bound
books, whose structural model is one of central authorship and
strict linear flow. These do not have to be the dominant media,
however, and this does not have to be the prevailing model. MUD
represents a technology that is available now, that challenges
preconceptions of media and social form. MUDers, some of whom have
already crossed over into this medium, are now filling their
previous television-watching and book-reading time hypertext-ing in
cyberspace. If the networking technology and knowledge were more
widely available, perhaps we would already see a mass movement to
join those addicted to the new language experience. "Among
experienced participants in computerized conferences there emerges a
strong urge to check in several times a day to receive any waiting
messages and to see what is happening in various conferences"
(Hiltz, 103). If such a movement began, soon people would find
their lives more closely resembling MUDs than television: rather
than modeling physical appearance on visions of supermodels gracing
tv and magazine advertisements, people would be searching the world-
wide web of cyberspace to find clothing and other items that are
distinctly their own; rather than joking about the latest celebrity
scandal, people would hone in on the latest jokes within their
circle of well-matched, online friends; perhaps at some point, "The
ideal of stability and cohesion (would) largely disappear. Few
(would) feel the need to assert such cohesion, since even the
smallest group of writers and readers can function happily in its
niche in the electronic network" (Bolter, 238).
A PURER FORM OF INTERACTION?
Writing has long been glorified as the purest form of
expression. As a tool for organizing thoughts and preserving
memory, writing revolutionized humanity's ability to solve and
understand problems. "The interdependence of the development of
writing and modern civilization is well documented" (Coulmas, 8).
So powerful is written language that we have come to think that the
mind itself operates in a linguistic fashion when encoding ideas:
Literacy has been long regarded as the stabilizing pillar
of culture and of intelligence. . . Because of its
connection with mental skills, literacy, in the sense of
alphabetic literacy, has meant the ability of the
individual to rise above particular circumstances and
enter a shared world of intelligibility. This shared
world of intellect is believed to disclose a superior
reality which encompasses and masters the commonsense and
mostly inarticulate grasp we have on things we deal with
intuitively (Heim, 23-4).
But ironically, writing is not as natural to man as spoken language.
"Writing is a cultural achievement rather than a universal property
and as such is much less important than speech to our self-
understanding" (Coulmas, 3). There is a living, organic quality of
speech -- spoken words are born, mature and die in the breath of a
moment. Derrida noted this characteristic of text when he wrote,
"What writing itself, in its nonphonetic moment, betrays, is life.
It menaces at once the breath, the spirit, and history as the
spirit's relationship with itself (Derrida, 25).
MUDs (and computer conferencing in general) provide a blend of
writing and speech that may represent a purer form of expression
than either achieve separately. The experience of MUD is more
highly cerebral than speech -- players analyze their actions closely
as well as constructing both the verbal content and computer
commands to send their messages -- and yet all this takes place in
(slightly slower) real time, where players 'speak' to one another
with written notes passed from computer to computer. "It's the
closest thing I can think of -- unpleasant as the thought might be
-- of plugging electrodes into my brain" one professional writer
says about hypertext writing (Hurwood, 105).
As this hypertext has suggested, the medium of Multiple User
Dungeons offers many benefits over both speech and writing. In
hypertext communication, "It becomes difficult to say where thinking
ends and writing begins, where the mind ends and the writing space
begins. With any technique of writing -- on stone or clay, papyrus
or paper, and particularly on the computer screen -- the writer
comes to regard the mind itself as a writing space" (Bolter, 11).
MUDs offer a writing space that is highly malleable, yet sometimes
concrete, where the inherent programming structure works as one of
the only stabilizing forces in a free realm of imagination and
expression.
WORKS CITED
Bernhardt, Stephen A. "The Shape of Text to Come: The Texture of
Print on Screens." College Composition and Communication, May
1993 (Vol. 44, No. 2) pg 151-175.
Bernhard, Stephen A. Unpublished article received via e-mail. Is
scheduled to appear in the winter issue of Technical Communications
Quarterly, a special issue on hypertext edited by Ann Scott.
Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the
History of Writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, 1991.
Cartwright, Glenn F. "Virtual or Real?: The Mind in Cyberspace."
The Futurist, March-April 1994.
Computer Writing Environments. ed. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M.
Glynn. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, 1989.
Coulmas, Florian. The Writing Systems of the World. Cambridge,
Mass.: Blackwell, 1989.
Derrida, Jacques. "Signature Event Context." Limited, Inc.
Evaniton: Northwestern University Press, 1988.
Frost, John. Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture. posted to
[alt.cyberspace] newsgroup on Internet, March 15, 1994.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. "FurryMUCK Beginner's Guide." Internet ftp
site: sncils.snc.edu.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. "FurryMUCK Builder's Guide." Internet ftp
site: sncils.snc.edu.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. On-line Help Files.
Goffman, Erving. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
hauben@columbia.edu. "The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net has
on People's Lives." Internet ftp site: wuarchie.wustl.edu.
Heim, Michael. Electronic Language: A Philosophical Study of Word
Processing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Turoff, Murray. "Social and Psychological
Processes in Computerized Conferencing." The Network Nation:
Human Communication via Computer. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1993.
Hurwood, Bernhardt J. Writing becomes Electronic. New York:
Cogndon & Weed, Inc., 1986.
Jacobson, Robert. "Sailing through Cyberspace: Counting the Stars
in Passing." Global Networks: Computers and Interntaional
Communication. Linda M. Harasim, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1993.
LambdaMOO Help Staff. On-line Help Files.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the
Word. New York: Methuen, 1982.
"MUD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) #1: Basic Information about
MUDs and MUDing," posted to [MUD.General] newsgroup on
Internet, March 16, 1994.
Quittner, Josh. "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers." Wired,
March 1994, pp. 92-97, 138.
Worthington, Bill and Robinson, Brian. "The Medium is Not the
Message: Mixed Mode Document Technology." Multimedia Information.
ed. Mary Feeney and Shirley Day. London: Bowker Saur, 1991.
Transcipts from MUD sessions: FurryMUCK various long-ins during the
period from March 17- May 1, 1994; LambdaMOO from April 15-
May 1, 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernhardt, Stephen A. "The Shape of Text to Come: The Texture of
Print on Screens." College Composition and Communication, May
1993 (Vol. 44, No. 2) pp 151-175.
Bernhard, Stephen A. Unpublished article received via e-mail. Is
scheduled to appear in the winter issue of Technical Communications
Quarterly, a special issue on hypertext edited by Ann Scott.
Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the
History of Writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, 1991.
Cartwright, Glenn F. "Virtual or Real?: The Mind in Cyberspace."
The Futurist, March-April 1994.
Coulmas, Florian. The Writing Systems of the World. Cambridge,
Mass.: Blackwell, 1989.
Computer Writing Environments. ed. Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M.
Glynn. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, 1989.
Derrida, Jacques. "Signature Event Context." Limited, Inc.
Evaniton: Northwestern University Press, 1988.
Fidler, Roger. "Newspapers in the Electronic Age." The People's
Right to Know: Media, Democracy, and the Information Highway.
Frederick Williams and John V. Pavlik, eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lwarence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1994.
Frost, John. Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture. posted to
[alt.cyberspace] newsgroup on Internet, March 15, 1994.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. "FurryMUCK Beginner's Guide." Internet ftp
site: sncils.snc.edu.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. "FurryMUCK Builder's Guide." Internet ftp
site: sncils.snc.edu.
FurryMUCK Help Staff. On-line Help Files.
Goffman, Erving. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
hauben@columbia.edu. "The Net and Netizens: The Impact the Net has
on People's Lives." Internet ftp site: wuarchie.wustl.edu.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Turoff, Murray. "Social and Psychological
Processes in Computerized Conferencing." The Network Nation:
Human Communication via Computer. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1993.
Heim, Michael. Electronic Language: A Philosophical Study of Word
Processing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Human-Computer Interaction.. ed. Jens Rasmussen and Henning B.
Andersen. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, 1991.
Hurwood, Bernhardt J. Writing becomes Electronic. New York:
Cogndon & Weed, Inc., 1986.
Hypertext: Concepts, Stystems and Applications. ed. N. Streitz, et
al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Jacobson, Robert. "Sailing through Cyberspace: Counting the Stars
in Passing." Global Networks: Computers and Interntaional
Communication. Linda M. Harasim, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1993.
LambdaMOO Help Staff. On-line Help Files.
Levy, Steven. Artificial Life: The Quest for a New Creation. New
York: Pantheon Books, 1992.
Moulthrop, Stuart. "You say you want a revolution: hypertext adn
the laws of media." Postmodern Culture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
"MUD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) #1: Basic Information about
MUDs and MUDing," posted to [MUD.General] newsgroup on
Internet, March 16, 1994.
Mulgan, G. J. Communication and Control: Networks and the New
Economies of Communication. Cabridge: Polity Press, 1991.
Quittner, Josh. "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers." Wired,
March 1994, pp. 92-97, 138.
Rheingold, Howard. "A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community."
Global Networks: Computers and Interntaional Communication.
Linda M. Harasim, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.
Ross, Andrew. "Hacking Away at the Counter-Culture."
Technoculture. ed. Constance Penley and Andrew Ross.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.
Seyer, Philip. Understanding Hypertext: Concepts and Applications.
Windcrest, 1991.
Shneiderman, Ben and Kearsley, Greg. Hypertext Hands-On! Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1989.
Wilson, Kevin G. Technologies of Control: The New Interactive
Media for the Home. Madison, Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1988.
Worthington, Bill and Robinson, Brian. "The Medium is Not the
Message: Mixed Mode Document Technology." Multimedia Information.
ed. Mary Feeney and Shirley Day. London: Bowker Saur, 1991.
Writing at Century's End: Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition.
ed. Lisa Gerrard. New York: Random House, 1987.
copyright 1994, Jeffrey R. Young
comments, reactions welcome:
jryoung@phoenix.princeton.edu
|
Seeking Interaction?
Email or Twitter DM are the preferred means of contacting me. For the vanilla types out there, I'll offer up this form, which should bring instantaneous contact. Please don't include a link in your message, otherwise you'll get flagged as a spammer and redirected to someplace unpleasant.
Skype (video)