1] Different situation here, as reader and writer are near-synonymous. The writer creates the character (unless it's Fanfiction), but each reader then becomes writer, determining what they will do. (Maybe same as someone prior, maybe not, doesn't matter.) 2] I don't even know (or frankly care) if it's true in any case. So I'll just blame you (if anyone, as you're my source...If it's even true. Your wording makes it appear you're disagreeing with another statement, and I have neither time nor inclination nor interest in learning nor deciding what part of any is true or correct.)
Why give a reader a way to determine how story goes in an INTERACTIVE story? Hmmmm. Also, why give the reader absolute power to determine protagonists actions? Why give the reader the power to determine anything? Canon is a formality. Canon or not 2003 series never ceased to exist. Clone wars 2003 is still a good story that is consistent with Episode II. If you rewrite Star Wars as chyoa story Clone Wars 2003 and Clone wars 2008 could be branches of the same story with 2008 version continuing further and 2003 version stopping at some point. The same goes for all of the stories from various games, books, comics, etc. which never were too consistent with themselves.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between giving the reader the power to interact with a story and giving the reader full narrative power over the story.
With all of this, I'm split between calling it "genius" & simply saying I agree with it. Beyond that?! Should've quit while you were ahead.
Ultimately it's a difference of opinion. I don't think either of us is truly right from a factual sense. We just have a difference of opinion on how much power the reader should truly have over a story.
It's an important point to make to be sure. How much power you want the reader to have is an important decision to make. However, I don't think either side of the discussion is wrong. Just a different...perspective ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I for one think THAT is wrong. That is what makes it CHYOA versus Lit, and why (IMO) there are people on both (& it's fine) who are readers, but we need to differentiate between those who are solely readers and those who are also writers.
Yes, that's all correct, but the best choice of perspective in this scenario is third-person. There is no reason to use any other perspective. As we can see, second-person comes off as very clunky, because the author is forced to admit that the protagonist's actions don't influence the story - both answers are, absurdly, "Yes." Your arguments don't really acknowledge my point. Feel free to let your reader have as much control as you want, but you must ensure that your writing reflects this leve of control. I can't fathom why you would be so eager to use first- or second-person when you could simply use third-person. Yes, you don't need to bother that level of consideration... but then, you don't need to bother putting any effort into anything you do, ever. This advice applies only to those who wish to improve the quality of their stories.
The same as anything written in any of the stories, this is NOT fact. (Some fiction, some opinion, NOT fact. [QUOTING "insertnamehere:] There is no reason to use any other perspective. As we can see, second-person comes off as very clunky, because the author is forced to admit that the protagonist's actions don't influence the story - both answers are, absurdly, "Yes."[/QUOTE] No opinion about 2nd-person, but there is a reason to use it: Because one wants to. Why? Any # of reasons. Not going to list them, nor will I deny they exist. [Quoting Again]Your arguments don't really acknowledge my point.[/QUOTE] It's neither the job nor the requirement of anyone else to do that, if you even make/made one. [Quoting Again] We know what you can't fathom why you would be so eager to use first- or second-person when you could simply use third-person. Yes, you don't need to bother that level of consideration... but then, you don't need to bother putting any effort into anything you do, ever. This advice applies only to those who wish to improve the quality of their stories.[/QUOTE] It applies only to those people IN YOUR OPINION, and maybe not even then to others. Wherein we see the definition of self-contradiction. [Resume Quotes]Yes, you don't need to bother that level of consideration...[/QUOTE] Must be challenging themselves to top themselves by contradicting in 1 sentence. (Herein, wish I could post YouTube of "Yes, we have no bananas".) In truth, only to those who wish to have insert... like your stories more. If (as I might suppose) you prefer to appeal more to a wider audience, be a revolutionary & make your own decisions.
(I should clarify that this post is exclusively directed at Corunner.) Obviously what I say is my opinion; the fact that my opinion is, in fact, an opinion does not inherently make it wrong. I respect Hvast's stance on the basis that their priorities in writing a story differ from mine - as I've said multiple times prior, my argument depends on the belief that decision points are integral to a story, and if you disagree with me on that count you will naturally draw different conclusions. Feel free to ignore my points when you specifically respond to me; I can't force you to do anything. Similarly, you are indeed under no obligation to support your own arguments. As for the contradiction, I have no idea what you are getting at (and that's becoming a bit of a trend). Are you mocking my semantically ambiguous use of, "Yes, you don't?" Perhaps your entire position would change if I used a semicolon instead?
(I should clarify this post is directed at anyone who cares to read it. It's in response to insertname's that was apparently directed exclusively at me, but I don't expect them to understand or even read it, though I do suppose they'll respond angrily regardless.) 1] Never said I had an issue with anyone holding nor expressing opinions. We agree (shocked?) that being an opinion doesn't make it wrong. However, it is equally true & should equally go without saying that also doesn't make it right. 2] "If you disagree with me on that count you will naturally draw different conclusions." = Fair enough, but if you & another person agree on that count, you still may draw different conclusions. Point being? Or should I insert one here? 3] I don't need your permission to ignore anything, whether or not that thing actually/truly exists. Also, in debates such as we have here, one should be able to support their own statements, and I'm honestly curious if you are telling me to not feel obligated to do so in the hopes I will do so in turn, because you've realized an inability to do so. Lastly, I have no issue with nor claim over you're punctuation-choices/usage. You may notice (as I have) that other members & I quote each other's posts and respond without such personal questions or attacks, which could lead one to believe neither they nor I have the problem.
Corunner, you are being aggressive, pedantic, and frankly, quite rude. I have no idea what your emotional stake in this issue is (nor even your precise position), but I do not appreciate your hostile interjection of such bizarre and incomprehensible notions into an otherwise engaging and enlightening debate. I will not continue discussing this with you until you can demonstrate basic civility.
I am repeatedly being quite civil, or at least as much as I can be. (On a side-note. I DO apologize for Quoting issues, as PC has been down quite some time & local electronics store largely closed due to Coronavirus. However, I am being the thing you're requesting I be, while neither being any of the things you claim & simultaneously (largely) not even referencing issues with others' posts.
Ok. Let me try to approach this from a different angle. What reasons writers have to choose 1st or 2nd person in a traditional, linear story? _______________ Also, what will happen to me depends on 1) my actions and decisions 2) Actions and decisions of other people 3) Forces of nature. Why protagonists of interactive stories should have a very different situation when only their choice matters?
[/QUOTE] Heh. Reminds me that I still want to write a Ghostbusters Crossover Fanfic where GB2016 is directed by anybody OTHER than Paul Feig... And stars you know... women I actually would enjoy seeing onscreen for more than a ten second cameo... And has an actual plot other than girls rule boys drool... Because whoever wrote THAT timeline is an ass... Sorry Dan. BUt thankfully, you've already established multi-dimensional crossrips as canon... so therefore with a little bit of retooling, maybe file down that really bad character there a bit... And suddenly there's an interesting story! With a lot of cool sex scenes involving supernatural possession and women getting nailed by possessed people... saaaay, now It's PORN and interesting... And even has mind control, but in a way that WORKS and advances the plot. Mind control/Character control is another tool in the writer's toolbox. Some people just use a Hammer on EVERYTHING. which is their right, but after a while I hate looking at the resulting story when every single chapter has been hit with a hammer.
Good question. Second-person would be downright sinful in a normal linear story - there's a reason you've probably never seen it (well, maybe you have). It might be useful as a gimmick in a few fringe cases, but you'd practically have to design your entire story so that second-person makes sense. First-person is still less common than third-person, but it has plenty of uses. It's a little easier on the eyes and automatically makes the reader more sympathetic to the protagonist, which is why YA novels, for example, often utilise it. It is by far the best option if you need to present an extremely subjective scene that takes place in the mind, like a drug trip or a descent into madness. Finally, it's good in mystery novels and stories that deliberately keep the reader uninformed, because it's so much easier to let the reader be misled in the same manner as the protagonist. For instance, in third-person you'd need to write, "X character saw Y illusion;" in first-person, you could simply get away with, "Y illusion," because it's already implied to be described as X person sees it. If you find yourself frequently specifying that something only appears a certain way from a character's perspective, you want first-person. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. You can have things other than their choice matter, if you want. I simply consider third-person to be the optimal perspective in that situation.
Do you have the power to control the actions and decisions of other people, or forces of nature? Why should the protagonists of interactive stories be any different? If you're trying to tell a story, then the writer should determine the other character's actions and what forces of nature are at play. Otherwise, it's just a playground for the reader to play in and not very engaging as far as a story is concerned. Now, don't get me wrong there's a place for that, especially here where you can have whatever power fantasy-playground you want. However, it harkens back to the entire reason why this discussion started in the first place. I don't see the appeal of Mind Control stories when a large percentage of the stories on the site already gives the reader full narrative control. In a world full of thousands of stories where you can control everything, a story where you can control everything is not very interesting.
Protagonist doesn't decide what branching point will be chosen. Reader does. Yes, reminding the reader that he is not, in fact, a protagonist, works against what 2nd person POV tries to accomplish (total immersion) and it is a disadvantage. But having branching points that aren't protagonist's decisions give the advantage of additional flexibility and let the reader to experience more possible situations. It is a tradeoff. Let's say someone wants to write a story from the point of view of a bound, gagged and blindfolded woman who is used by some mysterious man. Protagonist's decisions here are quite limited. Doesn't it natural to have such story in 2nd person (allowing readers to live out their fantasy) but have branching points that are based on what the man does next?
This is actually a really good example. I'd use first-person here, mainly because the benefits of second-person are lost. Either way, you're right that third-person would be rather silly. However, this is a highly unusual case where the author is highlighting the helplessness of the protagonist by contrasting her wholly subjective POV with her total lack of agency. I'd consider it a subversion - the fact that the 'player' character and the protagonist aren't the same is a conscious choice, and it's one where branching points are taken into consideration. But seriously, that sounds like an intriguing story idea, if it could be fleshed out sufficiently.
