|
This type of thing isn't going away but it's not going to kill books as a media form. If it were, text-based graphic novels (See: Stardust) would have won out by now. For the most part if people want to read they'll read.
But sometimes people don't want to read. Some of the arguments on here for interactivity in detective novels are, in my opinion, missing the point. Heavy Rain (PS3) is actually a perfect example of that sort of thing - a choose your own adventure book dressed up as a game. There's a market for it, but it's tough to argue that it's a book. Yes, you could have the crime scene explorable without actual interactivity but why?
In On Writing Stephen King talks about what the medium is, exactly. It's not intended to be a fixed story. If you want a fixed story with visuals associated with everything watch a movie. The point of a novel is that it's created by both the reader and the writer -- it's two-way. The author's job is to give you just enough information so that the reader is able to create the image in their heads. That way each person will be reading a unique novel, one personal to them and fluid based on that person's thoughts and ideas at the time of reading. A re-read therefore should be reading a new book that just happens to have all of the same words.
Now that's all specifically tied to fiction, and there's definitely an argument to be made for interactivity in nonfiction books. Most nonfiction books would be greatly aided by such a format. But will it kill the existing novel? There's no way. Some stories work better in the imagination (and on the written page) and some work better on screen. Some work best as an amalgam of the two (Comics/Graphic Novels), and some work best as poetry.
All the iPad does, all any computer can do, is create a new medium between comics and movies (See: Broken Saints) and add animation to children's books. Is it a game changer in nonfiction? Definitely. In fiction? No. Not at all.
|