I selected question 5 for my blog: 5. "One critic of Murray's book complains that "her utopianism colors all her arguments in this volume, leading her to ignore or play down the more disturbing consequences of technology while unabashedly embracing its possibilities." Do you agree? Why or why not?"
In Hamlet on the Holodeck, Janet Murray’s central premise is that the evolving digital tools available in cyberspace may revolutionize the creation and presentation of narrative forms. Murray argues that the still-evolving medium will allow authors to create revolutionary narrative forms that can have, for example, variable plot lines and indeterminate endings through the use of hypertext and the ability of readers to guide the story line. However, I agree with the criticism that Janet Murray’s “utopianism colors all her arguments.” This utopianism manifests itself in Murray’s assumptions that "immersion” is an end unto itself, and that because deconstructionist and postmodern themes can be more fully explored using cyberspace technology they will be the primary focus of narrative experimentation. Murray’s book is imbued with an unshakeable belief in technology’s immersive effects on its users. For instance, Murray’s “discloses” being disturbed by playing a violent shooter videogame. “But the moment of self-confrontation it provoked, the moment in which I was suddenly aware of an authentic but disquieting side of myself” (p. 54). This assumption is a product of her optimism (read utopianism) with the power of the medium. This revelation is significant only if the reader believes as unabashedly in the power of the immersive qualities of cyberspace as she does. If one does not believe that the content of a given interactive game has a larger significance beyond mindless entertainment, then the force of Murray’s argument throughout the book is weakened. In a similar vein, just because a cyberspace is conducive to producing a narrative with limitless plot twists, varying perception, and no clear ending, does not mean that the public or future authors will exclusively work with this genre of narrative. As Murray shows, for three thousand years authors have toyed with these themes in various mediums, but they are by no means the only genre of narrative.
Despite Murray’s enthusiasm for the power of computers, she does not convincingly show that computer can tell a story in a profoundly different way than other media. While the ability of computers to display narratives is becoming ever more powerful and complex, human beings (for the foreseeable future) have static levels of comprehension. Thus, while Murray explores the potential for “parallel” narratives (p. 179-180) with endless possibilities, the act of reading and clicking on options renders the story linear and essentially no different than a book, albeit with enhancements such as sound and motion pictures.
Thus, it seems that Murray’s enthusiasm and utopianism for the evolving medium of cyberspace narrative leads her to postulate on its revolutionary potential when it is more probable that its impact will be one of degrees.