Category Archives: student blogs

first draft of the revolution

Once I realized what this piece of electronic literature was doing, I was delighted! I loved this concept of rewriting and watching the draft in process - I think that's genius.

However, I got stuck very quickly, I feel. Maybe the piece is short, or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing, but I cannot get passed changing the last part of page four. It keeps telling me to change the last bit before she signs her name, and I keep doing it- it keeps cycling between three phrases, and there is no where else for me to click. I wish there was a help / guide button or something to tell me what to do in case I get stuck like this, because I feel like I'm not thoroughly experiencing the piece. Or, if it really is that short, I wished the author expanded more (however, I don't think that's the case.) I hope we can go through this more for class, as I want to know about this feminist revolution that we are helping our narrator draft.

Blog #8- First Draft of the Revolution


      Unfortunately, I was not able to play this interactive Elit piece. I tried several times throughout the week, but was unsuccessful in accessing it. I did however watch the 7 minute video on how to play and the process behind Emily Short and Liza Daly’s “First Draft of the Revolution.” I thought about what the title meant and the word draft can pertain to two different meanings. First, it could focus on the draft from the window that is mentioned in the beginning of the piece and second, it could focus on the idea of a war draft. Revolution is mentioned so war is what automatically pops into my mind and then after reading the description I see that it is during the French Revolution.

As the video plays, the reader navigates through a letter that the wife, Juliette, writes to her husband, Henri, who seems to be very controlling of her. I wondered to myself as to why the letter had a scroller when it was so short. What was the reason we needed to scroll down a letter that stopped at mid page. After getting into the video even more I saw that this was an editing process of the original letter Juliette has created.

I do not like normally editing my own papers so I am assuming if I was actually able to get to play I would have felt a bit of frustration editing Juliette’s letter. I believe that maybe that is what the authors wanted their reader’s to feel because as I read along with the letter I felt as thought Juliette may have been frustrated with her husband for sending her away. The concept of editing was interesting in a way that we were pretty much in the mind of Juliette, what she was thinking about each and every line composed, we were able to see and feel. One thing that did surprise me was the fact that we could not change the line, “Your obedient wife, Juliette.” That was the one line I wanted to change immediately after seeing we were able to edit it and once I saw we were unable I once again felt that frustration. I am assuming that because the husband is so controlling of his wife that we cannot change that fact. He wants her to be obedient of him and that is how she must remain.

Overall, I did enjoy watching the video and really wished I could have went through this piece myself, but I did get a pretty good understanding of it from what I saw. I cannot wait to go over it in class today and see what is was that I missed about the Elit piece because I was very limited to what the reader wanted me to see. I feel an appreciation for Elit even more now because I like the fact that I have a sense of freedom of allowing myself to go through the pieces on my own. I felt caged in with this one!

First Draft of the Revolution

Alternative history is a fascinating field – it explores what would happen if certain events played out differently than they did in real life. What if the D-Day invasion had failed? What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? These opportunities to explore alternate worlds open up untold possibilities for authors and storytellers.

That is what I thought I would find in “First Draft of the Revolution”, the interactive epistolary novel by Emily Short and Liza Daly. (“Epistolary” meaning that it pertains to letters and letter-writing). I was drawn to it specifically because I hoped that it would present an experience that paralleled that of an alternative history narrative. While there were elements of that, the experience was not as exciting as I had hoped.

The interactive experience at the heart of “Revolution” is one in which the reader actively participates in the exchange of nearly two dozen letters between four different figures living in an alternate France in 1788 and 1789 (Juliette and Henri, a husband and wife, the mother superior from Juliette’s former convent and Henri’s sister, Alise).  While it takes place during the years of the French Revolution, it is set in a world of Short’s imagination in which magic and magicians are common.

The story itself is interactive in the sense that it uses a form of hypertext to present the player with options to choose alternate ways of wording letters back and forth. It is definitely e-literature in that the core of the entire experience is based in an exploration of linguistics and word choice. The choices are presented in the form of limited hypertext that opens a box on the screen when highlighted phrases embedded in the letters are clicked. The twist is that the reader isn’t shown the alternate wording that they can choose. Instead, they are presented with a brief blurb characterizing the fictional letter writers’ mindset (i.e. whether the wording as initially constituted would be too blunt, too subtle or whether it would be taken seriously). In some cases, you can erase a line completely. It is important to note that the alternate wording of the letter does not appear until after a choice is made. This is critical to the interactivity. The reader must consider their motive (or the characters’ motive) apart from the wording. Short describes it as an “interactive piece about the process of writing”. It was a fascinating take on how writing is an evolving process; how we as writers rarely (if ever) write something down on a page (particularly a letter to someone else) in one shot and consider it finished. It is the process of considering one’s word and tone, taking the audience or recipient into account, and choosing words that accurately convey one’s intentions that are at the heart of how this story works. The fact that Short opted to build the game around the written letter encourages the reader to take time and be patient (just as we would in writing a real letter). Unfortunately, though, if you aren’t into the idea of editing letters, there is essentially nothing else to the experience.  While the parchment-style “paper” and calligraphy looks great, there is no audio, no video and nothing to click except the lines on the page, the option to send the letter and the arrows at the top of the page that lead you backward and forward through the game. (You can’t go back and “rewrite” the letters once they’ve been sent.  Once it’s sent, it’s sent.)

The idea here is to give the reader the chance to think through their choice of wording before sending the letter off. As I played it multiple times, I found myself trying to adopt a persona for each character and crafting my letters to fit their persona. In one instance, I “played” Juliette as a brasher, straightforward woman. In another, I channeled a more submissive tone. Depending on his word choice, Henri could be caring and sensitive to his wife or harsh and unforgiving. But there was only so much I could do or choose, and that limited how much I enjoyed the experience. For instance, one must change a certain number of lines in a given letter before the option to send that letter appears at the top of the screen. You cannot, for example, send a letter without changing anything. In addition, only certain lines can be altered and, of course, there are a finite number of choices you can make when trying to alter them. I found that there are certain scenes you reach no matter what choices you make in the letters. By not allowing the reader to send letters whenever they felt like it and by limiting the variation of storylines, I felt the authors intentionally limited the experience. Short herself said that the story was not designed to be CYOA (“choose your own adventure”). She said “the interaction is all about revising the letters” and said she wanted to offer “lots of small, parallel choices submitted at once rather than a sequence of large choices submitted serially”. In that way, she said, she hoped the story “creates some of the texture and exploratory feel that (is often) missing from CYOA.” After thinking about that, I believe Short achieves her goal, but only partially. There is plenty of interaction here and a sense of exploration, but she’s right: much of it is in your mind, rather than in the game. So how much of that interaction actually impacts the game? Inkle, which co-made the code for “First Draft” with Liza Daly, answered the question this way. “We can tell you that every choice you make is discarded by the computer the moment that you commit to it. But do the choices affect the story? Yes. Of course they do. Partly because the choices are being remembered by the other data-collecting system in action during the game, which is the one that sits between your ears.  And partly because you’re performing the act of choosing.” In other words, the act of considering your choices and experiencing the narrative through your own choices is the game.   The problem for me was that with each successive experience, the pathway through this novel became more and more familiar and lost some of its thrill. With some letters, the reader is encouraged to change multiple lines; there is only one alternative to each highlighted line, and you must change all of them before you have the option to send the letter. It left my sharing the sentiments of critics at the site  “Seems like a nice little exercise for people who enjoy writing, but it’s not really a ‘game’. In another review, a critic said “Some branching paths and endings would have made it gratifying”.

On the positive side, I think there were several points of the story in which I felt that Short’s goal of forcing the reader to think through the implications of their words was driven home in a particularly effective manner. By the middle of the story, we’ve learned that Henri believes that the bastard son that Juliette has met while in exile from Paris is actually his own son and we have several options as to how he tries to find out for sure from Juliette. I tried multiple different ways, but no matter what I did, Juliette always seemed to see right through him. We also find out that Juliette is becoming more and more attracted to the friar, but also begins to suspect he is not what he seems, even struggling with telling her husband that the friar’s ideas seem “revolutionary”. The extent of her attraction is revealed, not through the written words, but through the thoughts that are revealed while she is deciding how to phrase her latest letter to her husband.  After Henri catches on to the friar’s intentions towards his wife Juliette, he decides to write a letter to her, asking about their relationship. The first option you get is just a blank page and an encouragement to start over. Your option to rewrite starts as a single line “do you take him in place of me” – very emotional, Henri too upset to even write a greeting. He rewrites it again, with a choice to criticize her for “doing wrong”, but we are not allowed to send that. It ends up being a long letter in which he admits his relationship with Bernadette (the bastard son’s mother). He also challenges her to answer to charges that she is sleeping with the friar or in a relationship with him.  Juliette goes through similar ways of thinking, wondering how much to reveal about her feelings, but eventually simply says she has been faithful.  The one line that cannot be changed is the first one: “I have not betrayed you.” So we as the “player” are not allowed to hide that truth from Henri and Juliette apparently has no intention of trying to hide it. Could the story have been more interesting if we had been allowed to do so? Perhaps, but it would then have been the reader driving the narrative and not the reader-as-character.

I should mention that “First Draft” is set in a world that Short previously explored in interactive fiction games like “Savoir-Faire” (2002) and “Damnatio Memoriae” (2006), stories about magic-users in an alternate France of the mid-1780’s. In those stories, she explains a type of magic known as “Lavori d’Aracne” in which objects (like letters) can be linked together.  The earlier stories represent a more rudimentary form of interactive fiction. However, those earlier stories are just typewritten text and rely on the player’s input to carry the narrative.  In “First Draft”, Short has taken on much more of that job herself.) As such, the “First Draft” story is rich with parallels to the actual French Revolution, which took place in the late 1780’s. Locations and dates share significance. For instance, “First Draft” begins in the city of Grenoble in the summer of 1788, the time and setting for the first major conflict of the real French Revolution, Parallels exist throughout – from references to French churches that fell in both the fictional and real world, as well as the inherent struggle between those in power and those who aren’t. Short describes her universe of “Lavori d’Aracne” as one in which “certain anti-aristocratic forces are finally discovering how to break the magical power that has kept the nobility in power for so long.” It is not a far leap to draw a rough parallel from the anti-aristocratic forces in her stories to the actual French peasantry that finally found a way to topple the ruling religious and governmental hierarchy in the closing years of the 18th century.

“First Draft of the Revolution” was recognized by the XYZZY Awards for the Best Use of Innovation a few years ago. Rock Paper Shotgun reviewed it and praised its inventiveness, although the reviewer’s mother says “the idea was all right but the hook didn’t hook me”. That echoes something from the XYZZY review, in which it is praised as a “unique mechanic and a refreshing take on interactive text.” But once again, we find the same kind of criticism we discussed previously, as the reviewer argues that the lack of choices that I mentioned before makes it feel many times that the creator is guiding you and that “the experience comes close to feeling on rails.” The review also points out that “while the project’s website implies certain choices can have an effect on subsequent letters in the web-based version, it wasn’t clear what the effect was.” As previously mentioned, I felt the same way, finding that you were destined to arrive at certain points of the story no matter what you did or how many times you played.

I came away from “First Draft” with a sense that there was good news and bad news. While I thought the whole thing was inventive and aesthetically beautiful, the limitations in the game play sapped some of the excitement and thrill. At points, it was even boring and I clicked lines randomly just to get to the next letter. I was frustrated that here weren’t more options available and that the story became predictable the more times you went through it. On the other hand, once I played it a few times, I gained a new appreciation for the way the narrative was advanced through the character’s thoughts and deliberations in conjunction with the reader’s word choices as opposed to the narrative alone. It reminded me of the fact that our own character is often held mostly below the surface and just hinted at by our words and deeds. Our thoughts provide a much clearer picture of who we are. In addition, “First Draft” shows how we can mold our relationships and alter our destinies simply by the words we chose to use and, just as importantly, the words we chose not to use. Is there perhaps a modern day lesson here for those who head to Twitter or Facebook and fire off missives without thinking them though? I think there could be, even if that wasn’t initially what the creators intended. Nevertheless, the importance of how we communicate and the importance of thinking about how we say things, not just what we say, could not be starker than it is in “First Draft”.


First Draft of the Revolution! Or is it?


First reading this piece, I thought it was pretty interesting especially as an English major that I was able to “edit” the letters before sending them out on this portal piece of elit. Interesting enough, I thought there would be different outcomes, but mid-way, I was eager to reach the end. I asked myself, when will this end, and when is it over? I later wanted the piece to finish and just let me read the piece like a regular story. One of the main characters Juliette, who has left the country for the summer, and her husband Henri, who has banished his wife because of pressure from his family were in a portal filled with letters that needed to be changed.

In the beginning of the story, it is revealed that both Henri and his wife are using magic paper to deliver instant letters to each-other. The point of the story is revealed through Juliette’s and Henri’s letters to one another. Interesting enough, the reader clicked through different portals of these letters following a provided change or edit within the text. It gives you great insight on revision and also how un-done the author made the reader think these letters were.

After a while, these edits were just becoming redundant and overbearing. I wanted to read a story that was consistent and had an accurate ending. I appreciated the playful edits and renditions of letter, however, mid-way I wanted it to be over. By helping to revise their letters, the reader exposes who the characters are. She doesn’t define or change them. Juliette, Henri, and the others are meant to have consistent personalities, and there’s nothing the reader can do to alter this.

A story that was written to be before the French Revolution, I found this piece to be similar to a novella. A novella that I was forced to watch as a child with my grandmother. These shows were many based on overly dramatized plots that had loads of screaming, crying, and misunderstandings. Overall, I enjoyed the click and interactive-ness of this piece, and also how it was a dated piece meant to play out before the French Revolution, anything written back in the day paved the way as they say. It could’ve been better in the whole flow of the story but I understand there was a purpose for that in this piece.

Thermopolis In Love!

The thought of having to join a so called “game” that was more like a blogging site seemed pretty interesting at first. It was the complete opposite of what I had expected it to be. Thermopolis in love described the characters as having different genders. It made corky and cartoony connection to different types of characters and how they played roles in this particular netprov game. At first hearing the word netprov, I thought of the word improve. Improv is a term that is usually used in theatre classes and plays where characters jump into acts and have to come up with things on the spot at the top of their head. Reacting and interacting in the game, I felt like improv was very much needed in order to effectively play the game. This game gave you a chance to embrace the characteristics of the character you were given. This gave netprovers opportunities to embrace being someone or something they wouldn’t regularly be. As a so called “fac” one of the characters in the game, I felt like my own personal personality did not embody what a fac really was. Networking and interacting with other facs made me feel like I didn’t belong, therefore, making me act and speak like someone I am not. Being a fac,

Gender: Fac
Formal Classification: Facultative thermophiles
Strengths: Shape-shifting gender. You conform to whatever situation you are in.
Propensity to develop different personalities, which to you are more like modalities.
Personality is just a tool. You are up for whatever. (Can cause jealousy as you flit about doing your thing.)
Propensity to lose yourself.
Weakness: Truth is relative to you; ‘lying’ isn’t in a concept to you.
Motto: Dare To be Similar
Other Genders: Feel connected and at home with you
Occupations: Explorer, investigative reporter, private eye, spy, political strategist

I feel like I did not embody the details of being a fac that are listed above. With that being said, I found it rather difficult to relate and not sound robotic. What also threw me off, was the science and biological terms that were used in this game. I was thrown for a loop trying to decipher what words meant what in order to continue on in this game. Even towards the beginning, I didn’t understand the point of the game, but obviously given the title “ Thermopolis in Love” gave it light. All in all, I thought the concept of the game was cool, however, I feel like they could of made it more fun being interactive and playing around with the characters more.

Artifice is the Engine

I'm glad Dave decided to present "First Draft of the Revolution" by Emily Short and Liza Daly; I was intrigued by this piece earlier in the semester when I was browsing through Volume 3.  The combination of an 18th century setting, with all the worries of a noble European family, and magical elements reminded me a little of the novel "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell," despite the fact that said novel was set in the 19th century (if I remember correctly).  The woodcut images, elegant font, and book framing device all accentuate the period piece aspect, as does the period-appropriate language.  I also think it's interesting to have a piece of electronic literature mimic the publishing traditions of an earlier era; it draws the reader's attention to the artificiality of it.  This artifice is, I believe, a driving theme in "First Draft."

The metafictional elements (if you could call it that since the letters being sent aren't fiction to the characters; maybe metacompositional would be more appropriate?  Metaepistolary?) in the piece contrast with the magical elements to make the reader engage more fully its theme of artifice.  It creates a kind of irony, and I think it's metaphorical for the power of writing in general.  Because humans instinctively organize their thoughts and experiences through narration, when one writes, one has the power to alter reality; this is especially true if they're writing about history or experiences.  Like the magic in the piece, however, that power is tempered by societal norms.  Each time a character changes a piece of what they have written, whether the character is male or female, magic-user or not, they are giving away a little bit of their power, and they have made their communication more artificial.  The fact that the piece won't move forward until the reader has rewritten or erased certain parts of the letters emphasizes the fact that the authors wanted their readers to see how each writer is altering their words due to the expectations/possible reactions of others.  It's fascinating to see the different writing processes of each character (for example, Henri makes a list of the points he wants to address), and the limited choices for revisions also raise a number of questions about gender and society, both historical and modern. 

It's also worth noting that by involving the reader in multiple characters' writing processes, "First Draft" blurs the line between reader, writer, and fictional entity.  In this case, all three interact to create meaning, or to dilute it.  This feature is all the more powerful because the reader is seeing the true thoughts of multiple characters, so the reader is omniscient, and dramatic irony is infused into everything.  The reader is asked to act as every character, though, as if they don't know the truth of the other characters' thoughts.  This ties into what I was saying earlier about the surrender of power and the triumph of artifice over truth.  The reader must pretend they don't know all they do know in order to make revision choices and move the story forward.  Artifice is the engine, but is it only the engine driving the story, or is it driving all our lives?

The First Draft of the Revolution: Emily Short and Liza Daly

According to the author's statement on the Electronic Literature Collection site, this work is an "interactive epistolary novel set in an alternative version of the French Revolution". In this alternate universe, the war is over those high class members of society who process magic and have married within their class in order to keep the magic for themselves, and those lower class citizens who think that magic should be for everyone.

The two main correspondents are Juliette, who has been banished to the country for the summer, and her husband Henri, who has banished his wife because of pressure from his family. In the beginning of the story, it is revealed that both Henri and his wife are using magic paper to deliver instant correspondence to one  another. The plot of the story is unveiled through their letters to one another, and to minor characters as well.

In addition to Henri and Juliette, the story includes or mentions the following characters: Henri's illegitimate son; The Friar; Henri's sister, Alise; Bernadette, the boy's mother; Mother Catherine- Agnes; and Henri's aunt.

The reader interacts with the text by clicking on parts of the text and following along with the provided edit, and also making choices about which edits to allow. By doing so, I began to think a lot about revision.

There seemed to be a few types of revision being made in this text. First, there were practical edits: revision for the purpose of clarifying something or erasing extraneous detail. There were also manipulative edits made in order to coerce, to gain information, or to hide information. Finally, there were manipulative edits. This occurred when revision was needed because the writer wanted to regain control of themselves, or to clam themselves.

In addition to being a compelling read, and a historical fiction (which I love!), I like that this piece made me think about the writing process and about how revision is possible because of the written letters and because these characters were not having a face-to-face conversation. Revision is unique to writing.

thermophiles in love

This past week of the netprov has definitely been interesting! I enjoyed the concept of Thermophiles in Love, specifically the idea of have five different genders; in particular, it made you think outside the box of gender performance, and therefore embody and become something entirely new and different. I think the idea definitely points us in the direction to be more accepting in real life, and be open to various gender identities, or having more than one of them (or none at all). The gender Regardless of the gender you do end up performing, you're still just a person searching for love, which is significant to note after playing TiL.

Admittedly, though, I was actually out of my comfort zone throughout the whole process. To begin with, I know virtually nothing of any cellular biological vocabulary / terminology - the context and language itself is pretty confusing for me and makes me eyes glaze over from traumatic flashbacks from high school science lab. Because of that, I felt hindered when I tried to make posts. I felt jealous of everyone whose posts seemed perfect and fitting, as their use of the language was so eloquent and fluent that they could even make hilarious and scientifically sound puns. On occasion, I tried to do the same, but it either elicited no response or was just weak in comparison. Additionally, I felt parts of my own personality stopping me from truly being involved in the experience, because I don't know how to sell myself / flirt with other people! Even though it was a netprov, I think we all still had a bit of a personal investment in our cell characters. As a fac, which seems the opposite of what I would have identified with in real life, it made it twice as hard to come off as confident, or even deceitful.

However, I enjoyed the narratives going on around me, even if I couldn't make myself into a more prominent role as a fac. Like I said, the idea itself was very cool, but I wish the context of it would have been something less sciencey!

Blog #7- Thermophiles in Love_Netprov


When first entering the world of Netprov, Thermophiles in Love, I was excited as well as hesitant in approaching this new experience. When discussing this in class I immediately thought of it as an online dating site, but with a twist. I have never done any online dating so I didn’t know exactly what I was getting into, but knowing this assignment was for a class, I knew that there had to be something more to it, something worth learning about.

There were 5 different genders of cells you could have been and each had their own personality traits, just like humans have. The genders were basically stereotyped in a way we stereotype different groups in a high school setting. For example, Hype, was the so- called “jock” of the group in that those who were considered Hype were classified as, “too cool for school.” Another example of the type of different genders was Acido; those were the “outspoken and stuck- up” types who were mainly only concerned with their appearance the way a popular girl would be in high school. The gender I was assigned to be an Obli, and that gender, my gender, was considered to be a “sensitive soul” type of cell. We like to overthink every situation and choose our words carefully. It was funny to me that this was the gender given to me because that is kind of how I am in real life so it was very easy for me to get into my character. By the way, my character’s name is Obli_MimosaPudica and for those who do not know, Mimosa Pudica is a “shy” or “sensitive” plant and I found this appropriate to relate to the theme of cells and some kind of science related topic, and also it relates to the type of gender I was given.

Overall, I enjoyed playing this interactive collaboration for about half an hour everyday whenever I got the chance. I was able to break out of my shell, which as an Obli, was usually closed very tightly and not allowing others to enter. The only thing I found disconcerting was the theme of the entire Netprov. I felt as though if you did not have an decent background on the subject of cells or anything else relating to that then it was hard to understand some of the things the other players were discussing in order to remain focused on its theme. I found myself entering Google and trying to explore new types of phrases and ideas in a scientific method in order to portray a character that knew what I was trying to say and in a clever sort of manner.

While going through this experience day-by-day, I realized that people were really trying to portray their genders for what and who they really were, but I also noticed some genders trying to break free of that stereotype. For example, there were several Obli’s who explained their shyness and bashfulness, but explored the ideas of acting as if they were of the gender Hype, basically the total opposite of them. It was interesting to see people respond to my discussions, I did not believe I would receive so many comments and it was definitely a confidence booster for me in the Netprov, online world. My nervousness of the whole idea deceased more and more with each day that passed and I was able to make some great interactions with some great characters, whether they were in my same gender or in another gender.

Some new things I have learned from this entire experience were the connections people made and how when people are hidden by this kind of secret identity, they are much more opened into saying exactly how they feel. I connected this with electronic literature because of how I feel when I am reading someone else’s Elit piece and I try and notice the way I am feeling about that piece and at the same time trying to get a feel on the reader and how they want us, as the reader and as the audience to feel what messages they are trying to get across.

We were able to share our thoughts and ideas about the discussions we posted throughout the week and discovering the way other genders pursued not only their reactions, but the reactions of other cells only made it that much more interesting and that much for entertaining. This is what kept drawing me back, trying to discover what is being said and how it was being said. I definitely enjoyed this experience and felt no inconvenience when it came time to allowing myself to interact with these people who I either did or did not know.

Thermophiles in Love

thermophile-cover-photoMake me a match, find me a find, catch me a catch!

I absolutely loved participating in this Netprov project! I was excite from the minute I created my username and my character’s profile. For the duration of the project, my character was obli_wankenobi.



In the beginning, the environment of Thermophiles in Love wad fast paced and intriguing. I knew that I didn’t have to know everything about the bacteria to participate, but I felt like I did for some reason. I took notice of how every other student was entering into the project with vastly different perspectives and I didn’t want to seem “behind”. I actually found it interesting that I felt that way, and thought I needed to keep myself in check in terms of what I said. I thought having the anonymity behind my character would make me want to open up a bit more, but in the beginning I was still very shy as if I were meeting everyone in person. I definitely retreated back to the rules a lot and I would check the characteristics of my character to make sure I was getting things right. I went to bed the first night convincing myself I had to loosen up a bit more.

By the second day, I felt more comfortable in the environment. Conversations were taking off and topics held more weight than on the first day. I began to see disagreements about made up preconceived notions about the community that we were all building and I felt compelled more to add in my two cents in whatever imagined way I could drum up in my head. I feel like the obli gender is closer than any other to my true self, so it wasn’t hard to be me, but I still tried to venture out and do/say a few things that I wouldn’t necessary do or say. I know nothing about replicating and plasmids but my character sure did!

I absolutely loved how everyone carried on however they felt and represented themselves in whatever way they chose (e.g. Jason) from arrogant and bold to straight up chill and hippie-like! This project not only taught me more about myself, but allowed me to make new discoveries about communication in obscure and abstract situations. I think something is to be said about the way in which there were cliques and groups forming naturally by the third and second day that I joined. I feel like humans have this natural disposition to react and respond in similar ways that they would in real life sometimes without knowing it. I liked the fact that you never knew when someone was pulling from something real within themselves to give life and a sort of dimension to their character or when it was just something literally made up on the spot, but I loved even more how you could be as silly as you wanted like having a movie mesflix and chill night to watch Meso_Streep and Meso_nardoDiCaprio movies with some meso and obli buddies!

I think this project is innovative and serves its purpose well bringing up the importance of community, communication, interacting in an online forum, and even discussion of the ways the gender are looked at and can be socially constructed (since the entire idea was based off of five different types of thermophile genders). I have learned so much and kind of wish that it wasn’t over! I will place some screenshots below of some of my comments and interactions!