In Marie-Laure Ryan’s essay, “Multivariant Narrative,” she discusses the ways in which “digital media” and “digital texts” effect the concept of narrative.  The two specific shifts that stood out for me were the “reactive and interactive nature” and the “peformatial aspect.”  She writes that “[c]omputer code is based on conditional statements (if…then) that execute different instructions” (Ryan).  She also distinguishes between reactive and interactive: “I call a system reactive when it responds to changes in the environment or to non-intentional user action;  it is interactive when the input originates in a deliberate user action” (Ryan).   Ryan continues to explain “performatial”: “its written inscription is meant to be executed…”  I think these concepts allow some interesting impacts to narration and how we, as writers, us it.  Because the digital narrative is reactive and interactive, the role of the audience or reader is performatial.    The reader must perform in order to execute the narrative.  The path of the narrative depends on how the reader interacts with the text.  This allows for a host of narrative variations and experiences with the text.  However, I did find in my interaction with “Galatea,” that the interaction and performance (and Galatea’s reaction) were limited by the variations of code used within the programing of the digital text.  While the narrative is varied, it is not limitless.  She did not respond to questions or commands that she was not programmed to make or understand, thus “limiting” my narrative experience.  We see these “limitations” within static, traditional narratives but imagination allows us to conjecture in the spaces between the lines of the text and fill them in with our interpretations depending on our theoretical lens because the narration stands still.  I’m not sure how this would work when interacting with a digital text because traditional analysis requires stability and digital texts may be too varied for the stillness that current theoretical approaches require. This textual movement also greatly changes the role of reader.  Our own actions affect the outcome of the text. How does that impact our role as critic?  Can one maintain the distance critiquing a text requires while one is a participant in the narrative?  Honestly, it makes me feel disoriented, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

My interaction with Galatea was not pleasant.  She and I were both limited based on our trained executions.  Our conversation was brief and unfulfilling for both of us.  Her narrative was brief.  My interaction and reading of that narrative was too short to permit me to do a close reading or approach it with any of my tried and true theoretical tools.  However, maybe that’s the point.  Maybe it’s time to get some new tools, for theory to adjust to new modes of reading and interpretation.  Maybe it’s time to Feng Shui our critical closets and keep the classic pieces, but get rid of things that are outdated and no longer working for this medium or maybe we need to keep it all and just layer accordingly.  Either way, I’m not used to moving while reading and I’m a little sea-sick at the moment.  Perhaps, once I get my sea-legs and the appropriate glasses, I will be able to have a less limited experience with this new narrative technique.