This is an interesting article but could benefit from some restructuring in
the middle section, the shift between general discussion of
fantasy/surrealist works and how to implement them. The problem is that the
implementation section starts of too generally, with an author's
reflections on implementing in general. There are many other places where
people can read about IF authors reflecting on implementation issues. This
article must be different. The fantasy/surrealist slant gives it that. Keep
it strictly to that genre and resist any temptations to discuss
implementation in more general terms. Also use relevant examples liberally,
as with the Djinni case study here but more are needed, preferably from
other IF or fiction in general. For example relevant to the comment about
changing player perspectives how might an IF author implementing "The
Prisoner" cope with both the ever-changing number 2 and number 6's evolving
views of who is in command of the Village and what they want? In an IF
version of Alice in Wonderland how would the IF author cope with the
frequent intricate word-play?
<P>
A few other points jarred as I read and may be worth reworking:
<P>
1/ in the opening half there are probably too many quotes from others, or
at least it appears that way by the time Paul O'Brian's quote appears. I
know that he is commenting on the author's game but a quote of this length
in an article of this length is shockingly long. It also represents a very
abrupt/unexpected shift towards discussing character issues. Ideally write
something heralding that shift towards character and shorten that quote
drastically.
<P>
2/ "The player, upon his realization that he's in a lazy medieval setting,
will attribute laziness to the author." - Well no I wouldn't, especially if
the game was a clear pastiche. Recommend changing "will attribute" to "may
attribute".
<P>
3/ "A tree can be only as tall as its roots allow. The deeper you dig your
world, the fuller your work will be." - Is this eastern mysticism, or Yoda,
or what? This seemed so out of place, a very strange form of writing to
encounter as a reader compared to the clear/direct writing of before and
after.
<P>
4/ "The rules of the world never change ..." - Are there no games where
that happens, or effectively happens? It might be worth rewording that a
little bit.
<P>
5/ "Both IF and StF authors work from a set of "world rules"." - is this
really true, particularly for all "StF"? Don't some write more organically
and see what evolves, including the world around the story? Perhaps add ",
implicit or explicit", to allow for people with implicit rules in their
head as they write.