home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale
/
Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso
/
Dr. Doyle
/
Hypertext and Writing
/
Textuality in Cyberspace
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-10-08
|
74KB
|
1,433 lines
TEXTUALITY IN CYBERSPACE: MUDS AND WRITTEN EXPERIENCE
by Jeffrey R. Young, jryoung@phoenix.princeton.edu
_________________________________________________________________
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 mystic 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:
+--------------------( Cymoryl's Carousel )-----------------+
| @___
|
| |__<
|
| @___ |
@___ |
| |__< _.-^-._
|__< |
| |__________...---~~~ ~~~---..._____| |
| [________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~______] |
| |~|~~~|~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~|~~~|~| |
| | | | | [ENTER] | |
| | |
| | | | | .-~~~-. |
| | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |
| |_|___|____|_|_____|_|____|____| | |
| [_[___[____[___\-----/_]____ ___]___]_] |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
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 International 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 International 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 t he 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.
_________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey R. Young, jryoung@phoenix.princeton.edu
