My colleague Anne Mangen came back to Norway after spending the spring and summer in California. Her eyes were shining, and she was talking about her work with self-reliance and enthusiasm, something which made me envious, but also happy. She is working with an analysis of Myst, originally looking at the way it relies on film theory. By now she was convinced that hyper-text theory and narratology was the right way to approach it. I agree with her, Myst and Riven are narratives to a much larger degree than the games I work with, and narratology can work. I would almost say that they are NOT games, although if I look at them as games I am certain I could fit them into the categories of both Huizinga and Callois. If narratology fits on any of the productions labeled "games", I guess Myst and Riven are the ones.

As for me, I am still wondering why I am so little enthused about the book by Isabel Allende I just finished. I read it fast - devoured it, but it left me oddly hungry. I think this one stopped still in the game - unlike stories, it wasn't rounded off and ended, like a game, it invited me to log on and continue. Why do I love that in games, but hate it in books? I guess that's so simple I shouldn't even ask - I can return to the game, when the book ends, it ends. I feel like I want to write the next chapter about Gregory Reeves, and give him the life I would have wanted, if I was a man of his means and abilities. Perhaps that is still good though...