I’ve been thinking a lot about why I haven’t (and maybe why the world hasn’t) taken interactive literature (like the ones we’ve been discussing) very seriously. As a super important preface, I don’t mean that they aren’t important or that they aren’t taken seriously by certain circles, but instead why they haven’t become very popular, why they aren’t taught in schools (like Susan pointed out, none of us have ever come in contact with these things as texts and we’re English Majors living in 2015!), etc.
One of my conclusions is that they don’t have the physicality of books. Now an argument against this (and a very strong argument, at that) is that we’ve learned to love lots of things that aren’t physical – films, video games, for example. But ultimately, those are things you can own – you can buy a film, you can buy a video game. When something is stuck on a screen that you can’t conceptualize as an object, maybe that has made it unable to compete, especially (and this is why I think it’s different to films or video games) because it IS competing against physical books.
This is just a watery idea I’ve been thinking about, and I am open to absolute disagreement. This is also just one of the reasons I think these types of literatures haven’t been more widely accepted, so it’s not “THE reason.” What do you think – does the lack of physicality have anything to do with it?