#transmedial | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

power-chords · 5 months ago

Text

Malcolm’s epiphany constructs a narrative frame—an explanation of the condition or source of the narrative. But this is a frame or condition we only learn about at film’s end, and is thus a terminal frame, or a buried frame, a late embedding of one narrative level by another, or a narrative that takes the “form of a vision” from which the reader or viewer is “rudely ejected” at narrative’s end (Fludernik 29). In American Psycho, A Beautiful Mind, Cypher, eXistenZ, Fight Club, Hide and Seek, Identity, The Jacket, The Machinist, Mulholland Drive, The Number 23, The Others, Premonition, The Prestige, Secret Window, Shutter Island, The Spanish Prisoner, Third Person, Unknown, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky, and so on, the central character at film’s end is revealed to be spectral, virtual, imagined, traumatized, conned, delusional, or in some other way compromised as a credible witness to, or participant in, the narrative’s events. In most of these films, what we thought to be objective narration turns out to have been thoroughly subjective, as a “deeper diegetic ground is inserted below the level we took for the baseline of reality” (Stewart 143). In several of these films we encounter the millennial trope I label retrospective revision: a montage sequence near the end of the movie in which we review earlier scenes, now recognizing the blind-spots, freshly cognizant of how we were deceived and how completely we should revise our understanding of the entire film. Like a transmedial franchise in which the narrative is just so much data to be used, reformatted, and reused, the ending of The Sixth Sense goes about repurposing the film itself, remixing and recontextualizing earlier scenes, a narrative parallel to the new fluidity of the moving image; it can go back and remix itself, even as it directs us forward to acquire and re-watch the movie in its post-theatrical life. This is a new formal logic within popular cinematic narrative: reconfiguration, revision, and remixing.

Audiences today have come to expect final plot twists to be thoroughly integrated into the structure of the film: “The ending can’t seem arbitrary, non sequitur, or tacked on; it should flow naturally and organically (if only in retrospect) from the rest of the story” (Susman). Twist movies today are often made to repay multiple viewings, to enter into a “culture of replay,” in which “the already seen and heard” becomes an “emblematic feature of the media business” (Klinger, “Becoming Cult” 4). This is a type of movie that viewers are encouraged to analyze, reflect back on, likely re-view, and perhaps even read about online in order to fully appreciate the intricacies of the story’s narration. This marks a stark departure from traditional expectations—as Charles Ramírez Berg writes, “For nearly a century now, the poetics of film narration was based on the need to be completely legible to one-time viewers” (31). Writers and producers of these films, in a “cognitive arms race” (Max) with audiences, begin to void long-held narrative contracts. They draft new arrangements with new rules that take into account the attainability and interactivity of contemporary cinema, or all of the digital means that encourage deep immersion in story worlds and negate the primacy of the theater. These movies are internet- and “DVD-enabled,” Thomas Elsaesser writes, their narrative structures determined in part by the technologies audiences use to consume them (“Mind-Game” 38).

—J Lavender-Smith, The New Reflexivity: Puzzle Films, Found Footage, and Cinematic Narration in the Digital Age, 2016. Emphasis mine.

#the sixth sense #m. night shyamalan #heat 2 midrash

19 notes · View notes

fireworkfeelings2night · 3 months ago

Text

Hi, i’m writing an assignment for uni in my youth culture class about transmedial storytelling techniques of Skam! <3 I know many people (like me) love Skam and it’s remakes for their uniqueness and relatability, so i would be very thankful if some people who watched Skam or maybe engaged with the show on other platforms would help me out here and fill out my short survey. The questions deal with what the audience thinks about the format of the show/the show in general: :)

https://de.surveymonkey.com/r/HCKVP7C

10 notes · View notes

spaceintruderdetector · 4 months ago

Text

Anime Studies: Media-Specific Approaches to Neon Genesis Evangelion aims at advancing the study of anime, understood as largely TV-based genre fiction rendered in cel, or cel-look, animation with a strong affinity to participatory cultures and media convergence. Taking Neon Genesis Evangelion (Shin Seiki Evangerion) as a case study, this volume acknowledges anime as a media form with clearly recognizable aesthetic properties, (sub)cultural affordances and situated discourses. First broadcast in Japan in 1995-96, Neon Genesis Evangelion became an epoch-making anime, and later franchise. The initial series used already available conventions, visual resources and narrative tropes typical of anime in general and the mecha (or giant-robot) genre in particular, but at the same time it subverted and reinterpreted them in a highly innovative and as such standard-setting way.;Investigating anime through Neon Genesis Evangelion this volume takes a broadly understood media-aesthetic and media-cultural perspective, which pertains to medium in the narrow sense of technology, techniques, materials, and semiotics, but also mediality and mediations related to practices and institutions of production, circulation, and consumption. In no way intended to be exhaustive, this volume attests to the emergence of anime studies as a field in its own right, including but not prioritizing expertise in film studies and Japanese studies, and with due regard to the most widely shared critical publications in Japanese and English language. Thus, the volume provides an introduction to studies of anime, a field that necessarily interrelates media-specific and transmedial aspects.;In Anime Studies: Media-Specific Approaches to Neon Genesis Evangelion, anime is addressed from a transnational and transdisciplinary stance.

Anime Studies - Media-Specific Approaches to Neon Genesis Evangelion : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

#anime #film studies #media studies #japanese animation

10 notes · View notes

paullapotteritsmynameipromise · 1 year ago

Text

SPOILERS FOR THE BALLAD OF SONGBIRDS AND SNAKES BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE I get that without the inner monologues Snow doesn’t seem that bad until the ending of the movie, and I think that’s not only intentional but also a good choice for the transmediation of the story. Hear me out...

The inner monologues work pretty well for the book, we get to see that he's not a good person from the beginnig, so you know that the romance has zero chances of ever working and that he is never a true friend to Sejanus. I read it screaming don't trust him! It was great.

But movies work differently, so what we get to see is the Snow that everybody see. The Snow that Lucy sees. And though there are glimpses of his true self throughout the movie, they are way less obvious than the constant string of red flags that is his mind, but that’s the point.

Because even if you ignored all the signs and perceived the whole thing as romantic, in the end the reality is he betrays his friend and then steals his inheritance and tries to kill Lucy Grey to ensure nothing will stop his ascension to the top. It takes him seconds to give up on her and choose his career.

So maybe it works as a twist. Because nothing makes him evil, it is his choice. It's a different look at the nuances of the story, a different road, but it should lead to the same place. At least I think it does.

#the ballad of songbirds and snakes #ballad of song birds and snalkes spoilers #coriolanus snow

27 notes · View notes

mpchev · 6 months ago

Text

hello hello! welcome to my academic blog!

my name is marie! i'm currently doing a dissertation on fanfiction bookbinding!

[updated 9/7/2024]

the original purpose of this blog was to find research participants (you can read what my call for participants looked like here — thank you so much to everyone who liked, reblogged, and/or replied!!)

i now use it to reblog/store the resources I come across on tumblr and elsewhere relating to fan studies, folklore, and ethnology, and eventually share the results of my own research. i'm also trying to document the big steps of the dissertation (which will include binding a fic!), both for the auto-ethnography aspect of it and because academia is a weird place — as a first gen uni-goer + international student, i would have loved any extra info i could've gotten my hands on before getting into this, so if that can help anyone, yay! (and if you have questions, ask away!)

tags:

# fanbinding dissertation -> for anything that's directly diss-related

# fanbinding resources -> how-to's, inspo, lists of resources

# fanbinding lit -> everything i'll hopefully have the time to read and might want to cite/reference

more about me & how i ended up here:

i’m in my 30s, white, queer (bi, genderqueer, she/they), and physically disabled.

i first studied music (i used to play the accordion!)

then translation (that’s still how i pay the bills — we do not dream of labour, but as far as labour go, that’s a pretty sweet gig)

then linguistics (words are fake and we love them <3)

and now folklore and ethnology! (yes as in tales and legends, but more broadly as in culture in context, which includes online communities and vernacular crafts, hence the lovely dissertation topic)

i was a big harry potter fan growing up (my final linguistics paper was called expecto transphobia: a study of dogwhistles on twitter, we live and we learn)(at least some of us do, looking at you joanne) and i vaguely remember enrolling in online hogwarts circa 2005 (took notes and studied for the exams and everything), but i sadly wasn’t around for the golden/cursed days of 2010s tumblr, and i only recently fell (head first) into fanfiction. started with all the young dudes, currently reading some wolfstar, some ofmd, lots of good omens, lots sandman, some tma. also trying to follow along dracula daily. and i’m halfway through a supernatural rewatch, so who knows what the future holds.

if i’m not reading (neverending tbr of academic papers, fics, scifi novels old and new, folktales anthologies, epic poetry, translated plays in beautiful metres) or working, i’m probably trying to translate beowulf in french (not enough people have, it’s a fun story with monsters and dragons, more people should!), with star trek playing in the background.

open source resources are my love language (let me know if there's anything i might help with), the internet is my happy place (thank you for your contribution), transmediality gives me warm fuzzy feelings, folksonomies are works of art, my kingdom for a good AU.

header: The Concert by Gerrit van Honthorst (1623)

pfp: Watermelon and Grapes by John F. Francis (1863)

(both taken from the open-access collection of the National Gallery of Art, Washington)

#intro post #fanbinding dissertation #folklore #ethnology #research #fanfic #fanfiction #bookbinding #fanbinding #ficbinding #studyblr #ao3

17 notes · View notes

am--f · 5 months ago

Text

TikTok, Seriality, and the Algorithmic Gaze

Princeton-Weimar Summer School for Media Studies, 2024 Princeton University

If digital moving image platforms like TikTok differ in meaningful ways from cinema and television, certainly one of the most important differences is the mode by which the viewing experience is composed. We are dealing not only with fixed media nor with live broadcast media, but with an AI recommender system, a serial format that mixes both, generated on the fly and addressed to each individual user. Out of this series emerges something like a subject, or at least an image of one, which is then stored and constantly re-addressed.

TikTok has introduced a potentially dominant design for the delivery of moving images—and, potentially, a default delivery system for information in general. Already, Instagram has adopted this design with its Reels feature, and Twitter, too, has shifted towards a similar emphasis. YouTube has been providing video recommendations since 2008. More than other comparable services, TikTok places its proprietary recommender system at the core of the apparatus. The “For You” page, as TikTok calls it, presents a dynamically generated, infinitely scrollable series of video loops. The For You page is the primary interface and homepage for users. Content is curated and served on the For You page not only according to explicit user interactions (such as liking or following) or social graphs (although these do play some role in the curation). Instead, content is selected on the basis of a wider range of user behavior that seems to be particularly weighted towards viewing time—the time spent watching each video loop. This is automatic montage, personalized montages produced in real time for billions of daily users. To use another transmedial analogy—one perhaps justified by TikTok’s approximation of color convergence errors in its luminous cyan and red branding—this montage has the uncanny rhythm of TV channel surfing. But the “channels” you pass through are not determined by the fixed linear series of numbered broadcast channels. Instead, each “channel” you encounter has been preselected for you; you are shown “channels” that are like the ones you have tended to linger on.

The experience of spectatorship on TikTok, therefore, is also an experience of the responsive modeling of one’s spectatorship—it involves the awareness of such modeling. This is a cybernetic loop, in effect, within which future action is performed on the basis of the past behavior of the recommender system as it operates. Spectatorship is fully integrated into the circuit. Here is how it works: the system starts by recommending a sequence of more or less arbitrary videos. It notes my view time on each, and cross-references the descriptive metadata that underwrites each video. (This involves, to some degree, internal, invisible tags, not just user-generated tags.) The more I view something, the more likely I am to be shown something like it in the future. A series of likenesses unfolds, passing between two addresses: my behavior and the database of videos. It’s a serial process of individuation. As TikTok puts it in a 2020 blog post: these likenesses or recommendations increasingly become “polished,” “tailored,” “refined,” “improved,” and “corrected” apparently as a function of consistent use over time.

Like many recommender systems—and such systems are to be found everywhere nowadays—the For You algorithm is a black box. It has not been released to the public, although there seem to have been, at some point, promises to do this. In lieu of this, a “TikTok Transparency Center” run by TikTok in Los Angeles (delayed, apparently, by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic) opened in 2023. TikTok has published informal descriptions of the algorithm, and by all accounts it appears to be rather straightforward. At the same time, the algorithm has engendered all kinds of folk sciences, superstitions, paranoid theories, and magical practices. What is this algorithm that shows me such interesting, bizarre, entertaining, unexpected things? What does it think I want? Why does it think I want this? How does this algorithm sometimes seem to know me so well, to know what I want to see? What is it watching me watch? (From the side of content creators, of course, there is also always the question: what kind of content do I need to produce in order to be recognized and distributed by the algorithm? How can I go viral and how can I maximize engagement? What kinds of things will the algorithm want to see? Why is the algorithm not seeing me?)

These seem to be questions involving an algorithmic gaze. That is to say: there is something or someone watching prior to the actual instance of watching, something or someone which is beyond empirical, human viewers, “watching” them watch. There is something watching me, whether or not I actually make an optical image of myself. I am looked at by the algorithm. There is a structuring gaze. But what is this gaze? How does it address us? Is this the gaze of a cinematic apparatus? Is it the gaze we know from filmtheory, a gaze of mastery with which we are supposed to identify, a gaze which hails or interpellates us, which masters us? Is it a Foucauldian, panoptic gaze, one that disciplines us?

Any one of us who uses the major platforms is familiar with how the gaze of the system feels. It a gaze that looks back—looks at our looking—and inscribes our attention onto a balance sheet. It counts and accounts for our attention. This account appears to be a personalized account, a personalized perspective. People use the phrase “my TikTok algorithm,” referring to the personalized model which they have generated through use. Strictly speaking, of course, it’s not the algorithm that’s individualized or that individuates, but the model that is its product. The model that is generated by the algorithm as I use it and as it learns from my activity is my profile. The profile is “mine” because I am constantly “training” it with my attention as its input, and feel a sense of ownership since it’s associated with my account, but the profile is also “of me” and “for me” because it is constantly subjecting me to my picture, a picture of my history of attention. Incidentally, I think this is precisely something that Jacques Lacan, in his 1973 lecture on the gaze in Seminar XI, refers to as a “bipolar reflexive relation,” the ambiguity of the phrase “my image.” “As soon as I perceive, my representations belong to me.” But, at the same time, something looks back; something pictures me looking. “The picture, certainly, is in my eye. But I am in the picture.”

On TikTok, the picture often seems sort of wrong, malformed. Perhaps more often than not. Things drift around and get stuck in loops. The screen fills with garbage. As spectators, we are constantly being shown things we don’t want any more of, or things we would never admit we want, or things we hate (but cannot avoid watching: this is the pleasurable phenomenon of “cringe”). But we are compelled to watch them all. The apparatus seems to endlessly produce desire. Where does this desire come from? Is it from the addictive charge of the occasional good guess, the moment of brief recognition (the lucky find, the Surrealist trouvaille: “this is for me”)? Is it the promise that further training will yield better results? Is it possible that our desire is constituted and propelled in the failures of the machine, in moments of misrecognition and misidentification in the line of sight of a gaze that evidently cannot really see us?

In the early 1970s, in the British journal Screen, scholars such as Laura Mulvey, Colin MacCabe, and Stephen Heath developed a film-theoretical concept of the gaze. This concept was used to explain how desire is determined, specified, and produced by visual media. In some ways, the theory echoes Lacan’s phenomenological interest in “the pre-existence to the seen of a given-to-be-seen” (Seminar XI, 74). The gaze is what the cinematic apparatus produces as part of its configuration of the given-to-be-seen.

In Screen theory, as it came to be known, the screen becomes a mirror. On it, all representations seem to belong to me, the individual spectator. This is an illusion of mastery, an imaginary relation to real conditions of existence in the terms of the Althusserian formula. It corresponds to the jubilant identification that occurs in a moment in Lacan’s famous 1949 paper “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience,” in which the motor-challenged infant, its body fragmented (en morceaux) in reality, discovers the illusion of its wholeness in the mirror. The subject is brought perfectly in line with this ideal-I, with this spectacle, such that what it sees is simply identical to its desire. There is convergence. To slightly oversimplify: for Screen theory, this moment in mirror stage is the essence of cinema and ideology, or cinema as ideology.

Joan Copjec, in her essay “The Orthopsychic Subject,” notes that Screen theory considered a certain relationship of property to be one of its primary discoveries. The “screen as mirror”: the ideological-cinematic apparatus produces representations which are “accepted by the subject as its own.” This is what Lacan calls the “belong to me aspect so reminiscent of property.” “It is this aspect,” says Copjec, speaking for Screen theory, “that allows the subject to see in any representation not only a reflection of itself but a reflection of itself as master of all it surveys. The imaginary relation produces the subject as master of the image. . . . The subject is satisfied that it has been adequately reflected on the screen. The ‘reality effect’ and the ‘subject effect’ both name the same constructed impression: that the image makes the subject fully visible to itself” (21–22).

According to Copjec, “the gaze always remains within film theory the sense of being that point at which sense and being coincide. The subject comes into being by identifying with the image’s signified. Sense founds the subject—that is the ultimate point of the film-theoretical and Foucauldian concepts of the gaze” (22).

But this is not Lacan’s gaze. The gaze that Lacan introduces in Seminar XI is something much less complete, much less satisfying. The gaze concept is not exhausted by the imaginary relation of identification described in Screen theory, where the subject simply appropriates the gaze, assumes the position created for it by the image “without the hint of failure,” as Copjec puts it. In its emphasis on the imaginary, Screen theory neglects the symbolic relation as well as the issue of the real.

In Seminar XI, Lacan explicates the gaze in the midst of a discussion on Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. Again, Lacan’s gaze is something that pre-exists the seeing subject and is encountered as pre-existing it: “we are beings who are looked at, in the spectacle of the world” (75). But—and this is the crucial difference in emphasis—it is impossible to look at ourselves from the position of this all-seeing spectacle. The gaze, as objet a in the field of the visible, is something that in fact cannot be appropriated or inhabited. It is nevertheless the object of the drive, a cause of desire. The gaze “may come to symbolize” the "central lack expressed in the phenomenon of castration” (77). Lacan even says, later in the seminar, that the gaze is “the most characteristic term for apprehending the proper function of the objet a” (270). As objet a, as the object-cause of desire, the gaze is said to be separable and separated off from the subject and has only ever existed as lack. The gaze is just all of those points from which I myself will never see, the views I will never possess or master. I may occasionally imagine that I have the object, that I occupy the gaze, but I am also constantly reminded of the fact that I don’t, by images that show me my partiality, my separation. This is the separation—between eye and gaze—that manifests as the drive in the scopic field.

The gaze is a position that cannot be assumed. It indicates an impossible real. Beyond everything that is shown to the subject, beyond the series of images to which the subject is subjected, the question is asked: “What is being concealed from me? What in this graphic space does not show, does not stop not writing itself?” This missing point is the point of the gaze. “At the moment the gaze is discerned, the image, the entire visual field, takes on a terrifying alterity,” says Copjec. “It loses its ‘belong-to-me aspect’ and suddenly assumes the function of a screen” (35). We get the sense of being cut off from the gaze completely. We get the sense of a blind gaze, a gaze that “is not clear or penetrating, not filled with knowledge or recognition; it is clouded over and turned back on itself, absorbed in its own enjoyment” (36). As Copjec concludes: “the gaze does not see you” (36).

So the holes and stains in the model continuously produced by the TikTok algorithm—those moments in which what we are shown seems to indicate a misreading, a wrong guess—are those moments wherein the gaze can be discerned. The experience is this: I am watching a modeling process and engaging with the serial missed encounters or misrecognitions (meconnaissance—not only misrecognition but mistaken knowledge—mis-knowing) that the modeling process performs. The Lacanian point would simply be the following: the situation is not that the algorithm knows me too well or that it gives me the illusion of mastery that would be provided by such knowledge. The situation is that the algorithm may not know or recognize me at all, even though it seems to respond to my behavior in some limited way, and offers the promise of knowing or recognizing me. And this is perhaps the stain or tuche, the point at which we make contact with the real, where the network of signifiers, the automaton, or the symbolic order starts to break down. It is only available through the series, through the repeated presentation of likenesses.

As Friedrich Kittler memorably put it, “the discourse of the other is the discourse of the circuit.” It is not the discourse of cinema or television or literature. Computational recommender systems operating as series of moving image loops seem to correspond strangely closely to the Lacanian models, to the gaze that is responsive yet absent, perceptive yet blind, desired yet impossible, perhaps even to the analytic scene. Lacan and psychoanalysis constantly seemed to suggest that humans carry out the same operations as machines, that the psyche is a camera-like apparatus capable of complicated performance, and that the analyst might be replaced with an optical device. Might we substitute recommender media for either psyche or analyst? In any case, it’s clear that the imaginary register of identification does not provide a sufficient model for subjectivity as it is addressed by computational media. That model, as Kittler points out, is to be found in Lacan’s symbolic register: “the world of the machine.”

#writing

8 notes · View notes

min3nc · 1 year ago

Text

we're doing this assignment on transmediality and for extrability we're doing a funko pop.

sadly the. huh. character is not very. funko pop friendly and.

and i'm using the kirby La creature as a base for it. huh. here

8 notes · View notes

redmelawashere · 4 months ago

Text

tbh probably a controversial hot take considering what I've seen floating in the tags, but I actually really like the HOD show and I'm really getting exhausted with book purists. The book and show aren't meant to be a 1-to-1 adaptation, they're meant to be a transmedial storytelling - when media complements one another and are interwoven like fabric. The book is meant to be a historical summation of the events written by Maesters like 100 years after the fact, based on unreliable sources and hearsay. The show is the "what actually happened" and I think that's FASCINATING from a historical revisionist perspective, the biases of the Maesters and their disdain of Targaryen customs from a religious perspective, misogyny, and patriarchy. Its an excellent commentary on history written by the victors, demonization of women, and how PR works. I've really enjoyed seeing Blood and Cheese, the Battle of Rooks Rest and having this "ooooh OOOH OF COURSE IT WAS WRITTEN IN X WAY TO NOT REVEAL Y" eureka moments while watching.

#hod #just my opinions not really in the mood to engage in discourse and fight with people #redmela screams #like rhaenyra is not denaerys PLS stop being like “dany would do THIS” OK THEY'RE DIFFERENT PEOPLE #or the OMG THEY HAVE NO AGENCY yes they do. Not burning everything to the ground and letting your emotions run wild is not weak #its politically and strategically savey and basically a cost benefit analysis #and women trying to fight against narratives that will ALWAYS be stacked against them #like sometimes I really think people have GOT to read up on how women in power actually gained and maneouvered power historically #She Wolves is a great book that looks a lot of like “hmm a women had to avoid xyz to not get murdered!!!” just a thought #also like yes I love a battle girlboss moment but I also like a brainiac girlboss moment #don't even get me started on the boys #ugh #wow these tags are way saltier than expected mb #pls just choose your favourite war criminal and have fun with it #house of the dragon #hotd

4 notes · View notes

alexhwriting · 6 months ago

Text

Bloodborne: A Study of Environmental Narratives and Ludonarrative Harmony.

VII. Conclusion

While this paper only addresses Bloodborne as far as concerns about ludonarrative harmony go, that is far from the extent of the concept’s applications within the field of video game studies going forward. Engaging with games and looking for this blending between the ludic and narrative elements proves fruitful as an exploration of developer intention and whether or not those marks have been missed. Without ludonarrative harmony, players are faced with disjointed and un-immersive experiences in their narrative games. Games that deemphasize narrative are, of course, less concerned about ludonarrative harmony, though the vast majority of things being produced by gaming companies as of this paper’s writing to involve some form of narrative progression.

To summarize, Bloodborne gives its players a sense of harmony between its narrative themes and its gameplay by blending its environmental storytelling, narrative elements, and gameplay into a cohesive whole. This paper looked at how each of these elements worked, moving from the most broad, environmental storytelling, to the most complicated and narrow, ludonarrative harmony. Through an exploration of the narrative expectations of Bloodborne and comparing those with the gameplay, we can see that the game emphasizes its narrative themes throughout the play experience by utilizing elements like health damage, enemies, and item descriptions to effectively blur the line between what is narrative and what is gameplay.

Bibliography

Aarseth, Espen. “A Hollow World: World of Warcraft as Spatial Practice.” In Digital Culture, Play and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader, edited by Hilde G Corneliussen and Jill Walker Rettberg, 111–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

Christopher, David, and Aidan Leuszler. “Horror Video Games and the ‘Active-Passive’ Debate.” Games and Culture, April 27, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120221088115.

FromSoftware. Bloodborne. Bandai Namco. Xbox One/PC/PlayStation. 2015

Green, Amy M. Storytelling in Video Games. McFarland, 2017.

Grodel, Torben. “Video Games and the Pleasures of Control.” Media Entertainment, 2000, 209–26.

Hocking, Clint. “Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock.” Click Nothing, October 7, 2007. https://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html.

Jenkins, Henry. “Game Design as Narrative Architecture.” In First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, edited by Pat Harrington and Noah Frup, 118–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

Kirkland, Ewan. “Storytelling in Survival Horror Video Games.” In Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play, edited by Bernard Perron, 62–78. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009.

Kocurek, Carly A. “Who Hearkens to the Monster’s Scream? Death, Violence, and the Veil of the Monstrous in Video Games.” Visual Studies 30, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586x.2015.996402.

Krzywinska, Tanya. “Blood Scythes, Festivals, Quests, and Backstories.” Games and Culture 1, no. 4 (October 2006): 383–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412006292618.

Ruberg, Bonnie. Video Games Have Always Been Queer. New York: New York University Press, 2019.

Ryan, Marie-Laure. Narrative as Virtual Reality 2: Revisiting Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.

Soriani, Alessandro, and Stefano Caselli. “Visual Narratives in Videogames: How Videogames Tell Stories through Graphical Elements.” Img Journal 3 (2020): 474–99.

Thon, Jan-Noël. “Transmedial Narratology Revisited: On the Intersubjective Construction of Storyworlds and the Problem of Representational Correspondence in Films, Comics, and Video Games.” Narrative 25, no. 3 (2017): 286–320. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2017.0016.

Wolf, Mark J. P. “Beyond Immersion: Absorption, Saturation, and Overflow in the Building of Imaginary Worlds.” In World Building, Transmedia, Fans, Industries, edited by Marta Boni, 204–14. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017.

#video games #fromsoftware #fromsoft games #soulsborne #elden ring #dark souls #bloodborne #unpacking #2023 Work #Ludonarrative harmony #environmental storytelling #Bloodborne: A Study of Environmental Narratives and Ludonarrative Harmony #graduate school #grad student #Graduate research

2 notes · View notes