Say What? Interactive Narrative and the Web

What is interactive narrative and in what ways does it relate to websites?

For me, there are certain connotations that are suggested by the term "interactive (or inter-active) narrative", and these include the closely associated terms of "action", "activity", "mutuality", "reciprocity", and "engagement." In our off-line world, engagement and reciprocity may occur between or among people and things. These things might include inanimate objects or mediums, among others. In the digital world, this changes slightly as we still consider engagement when it occurs between and among people (usually via a medium or a technology) and between and among people and machines or mediums, but we also consider interaction between machines. When we consider interactive narrative on websites, the term suggests an author or a voice engaging with some other assumed entity (I say "assumed" because as many blog sites attest, one does not need an active audience to interact with on the Internet - sometimes broadcasting one's voice is enough). This is the authorial perspective of which Meadows refers, and such perspectives or narratives can be provided by both authors of text and authors of visual design. 

Interactivity, to me, also suggests dual reciprocity. I give something that is at least somewhat meaningful to me (which may simply be my attention span), and then I get something back that is in direct response to my investment. Some might suggest that I can interact with an inanimate object such as a bookshelf (by putting a book on the shelf, dusting the shelf, rearranging its contents, or giving it a swift kick after stubbing my toe on it in the dark), but does that qualify as true narrative interactivity? Not in the way that we have come to think about online interactivity if only because the sole thing that my bookshelf gives back is a function of its sheer physicality - that is, its physical presence. Its solidity offers resistance to my movement, but this in itself does not qualify as true narrative interactivity. In such an instance, the situation exhibits a lack of what I think needs to occur for narrative interactivity to exist, and that is a meaningful exchange with whatever or whomever we are interacting with - a return on our investment, if you will. But as will be seen in what follows, there is often a disconnect in what we have come to perceive as interactive and what can actually be considered interactive.

If we take Meadows at face value and agree with him that even a book can be considered an interactive narrative, then we must consequently also believe that each and every website is inherently interactive narrative, as well. His view suggests that with such texts, interactivity comes from the investment on the part of the reader (through time, reputation, money, attention, etc.) that is given upon reading the book, and the return is the story, the immersion, the experience. The same can be said of even the most simple, the most boring websites. But again, this is not what we have come to think of when we consider "interactive" websites. Websites have become so immersive and engaging that when asked about interactivity we tend to think instead of Flash animations, ratings systems, games, social networking sites, blogs, online shopping, watching television and movies online, downloading music, and a host of other multimedia experiences. 

When I can, I prefer to avoid forced polarities and instead view gradations in the state of things. And this is how I prefer to view interactive narrative - as a continuum of sorts. I am quite certain that something very similar to what I will illustrate below has already been implied by authors other than me, but it remains helpful for me to visualize interactive narrative in the following way. I agree with Meadows in that interactive narrative includes at least two elements: a process of at least minimal engagement or investment on the part of an individual or group followed by a subsequent return or change on the part of the machine, technology, or media with which one interacts. Meadows, at a later point in Pause and Effect, refers to this as "reciprocal change," and I think he's on the mark with his assessment of the components of interactive narrative.

Narrative elements in websites span a continuum from asking for low to high engagement and deploying low to high return or change. I use the rubric below to illustrate this and also provide examples that I believe fall into each of these quadrants. This rubric describes the level of engagement or investment placed into the exchange by the reader and the subsequent level of return on investment or change provided by the technology or medium.

Low engagement/investment, low return/change: When I consider a category of interactivity that requires low engagement on the part of the reader and subsequently results in low return, I first think of websites that are seemingly nothing more than a text document placed online. These are a close cousin of books in that we invest something, but there is little in the dialogue between reader and author that allows the reader to change the course of the narrative or to make a contribution that impacts or modifies the narrative. While we might encounter hypertext links in such pages, there is little we can do other than choosing which path to follow. The content within these links is fully established.

High engagement/investment, low return/change: When we start to increase our engagement with websites, either by offering opinions, inputting data, or other engaging activities, we can experience a variety of returns. Examples of interactive elements that require us to input information or engage at a higher level but then provide an output that is not significantly impacted by our efforts might include such things as MapQuest or Google Maps (where the reader provides coordinates and the site generates content from a database), games like Solitaire and Bejeweled (which require quite a bit of time to complete but little strategy and the return is dependent in many ways on chance), reading and responding to blog content (which is written by others and is thus not open to editing by others), or Flash animations, such as this holiday card, that requires input and time from readers but responds in only one of a fixed number of ways.

Low engagement/investment, high return/change: In delineating these categories, this was the category that I found to be the hardest for which to find definitive examples. Examples of an arrangement where little investment is required of the reader and yet high return is yielded are perhaps not yet as highly evident as some of the other categories. I view this category as being driven by things such as automation, or cookies, or randomization which have the potential to lead to a more customized experience on the Web as a result of one's previously tracked and recorded web experiences (these would be fairly autonomous from the effort generated by the reader). A web crawler or web spider might be an example of such an automated function that would provide updated data to a site without asking for any effort by the reader. RSS feeds might be considered as part of this category, as possibly would a game such as Horde of Directors that requires nothing more from the gamer than the click of the mouse button. The faster he or she clicks, the faster the inevitable conclusion to the game is brought about. But this is just a change in timing not in narrative, so I'm not exactly sure how best to explain the ways in which this category manifests.

High engagement/investment, high return/change: The epitome of interactive narrative rests in this category where a high level of engagement is found, and thus the return on that investment is considerable. Examples of such a category could include games and online environments such as The Sims, Second Life, and just about any MMORPG. Ratings systems such as those used by Amazon and Netflix can also be considered part of this category because the more time the reader puts into refining his or her ratings system, the better or more accurately the system recommendations respond (theoretically, at least). In such an instance, the investment of the reader is directly related to the change or return produced.

As categories are necessarily exclusionary, I am sure there will be debate as to where I have placed certain types of interaction, and that's to be expected and even welcomed. I am certainly no expert on this.

Ultimately, I think viewers and readers want to feel like their time hasn't been wasted. They want to feel as if they've made a valuable contribution and clearly what constitutes a "valuable contribution" differs vastly among individuals and thus requires some serious audience analysis or inherent customization to the site itself. Sometimes audiences want to feel like they're part of a like-minded community. Sometimes they just want to be entertained or offered a diversion. Sometimes we want our technology to facilitate our social groupings or the transfer of opinions. As we grow more comfortable with interactivity, we are no longer okay with being passive consumers of media. And as website authors, there are numerous ways in which we can engage our readers.