Message-ID: <3A5C801B.5FF8E730@csi.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:30:35 -0500
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
Organization: No Conspiracy Here...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr,ru,es,it,ga,de,ja,gd,eu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: HOW MUCH DETAIL?
References: <92n2ed$gs1$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <slrn94umq6.gu.cerutti@localhost.localdomain> <Xns901DB3792wd0gcpmillcommcom@63.208.208.89> <slrn956ant.7c.cerutti@fiad06.norwich.edu> <93fi9a$9gp$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Trace: 10 Jan 2001 10:30:03 EST, 208.34.37.104
Lines: 56
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.44!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!news.voicenet.com!nntp.upenn.edu!news.myxa.com!uunet!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:82073

Tina wrote:

> In article <slrn956ant.7c.cerutti@fiad06.norwich.edu>,
> Neil Cerutti <cerutti@together.net> wrote:
> >Paul E. Bell posted:
> >>I would much rather have a dining room with a table and chairs
> >>mentioned, even if they have nothing to do with the story, and
> >>cannot be manipulated.
> >Why? Including a table and chair to make a dull room seem like a
> >dining room is a waste of everyones time. Including a scenery
> >object to make the room description more interesting is another
> >story. In some cases, the table and chairs simply needs to be
> >there, and in that case, a perfunctory implementation is all I
> >would expect.
>
> Because "this is a dining room" is a boring description. Mentioning it
> has a table and chairs makes it more a dining room. I hesitate to use
> the word 'mimesis' in this case[1], but I think it may apply to some
> extent: I do not walk around life and say "This is a dining room." I
> walk around in life and say "Hmm, table, chairs, hutch with dishes, must
> be a dining room." [A]

[...]

Warning:  Official "new kid on the block" (no, I'm not a member of a lousy
has-been music group) about to point out either something excessively
obvious or annoyingly contentious.  Or neither.

I prefer everything mentioned to have a description (though I can easily
accept not being able to interact with the object, having now looked at
it).  The reason?  It gives me something to do if/while I'm trying to figure
out what to do next.  I have found that--no matter how highly recommended a
game may come--if I can't figure out what my next step should be, and I
don't have a "substitute action" ready for me (i.e., looking at scenery or
wandering the map), then I typically exit the game and move onto something
new.

Plus, descriptions of objects are often a nice place to drop subtle hints
(as mentioned in the thread referring to special "thieving verbs").

Also, like Tina, I'm rather attached to the idea that, for example "houses
have kitchens."  It doesn't mean I have to be able to walk around, put
silverware in the blender, and remove the elbow trap from the sink's
plumbing, but I would prefer that the author at least acknowledge the fact
that a kitchen exists--a non-exit that tells me that I have better things to
do is usually sufficient.  But, if I'm allowed in, I want to see that stove,
the table, the sink, and so on--again, even if I'm just told to leave it
alone.  Call it "mimesis," call it "suspension of disbelief," or whatever.

Exception to the previous paragraph:  Bathrooms.  As a pretty standard
convention of television, films, and literature, nobody needs to ever see a
bathroom if the author doesn't think it's important.

Of course, mileage may vary some on city streets.


