In this episode of "Off Center," Scott Rettberg, Director of the Center for Digital Narrative at the University of Bergen, interviews Caitlin Fisher, a pioneer of immersive AR and VR and Director of the Immersive Storytelling Lab at York University.
SR: Welcome to Off Center, the podcast about digital narrative and algorithmic narrativity. My name is Scott Rettberg and I’m the Director of the Center for Digital Narrative at the University of Bergen. In this episode, I’ll be talking with Caitlin Fisher, extended reality innovator and Director of the Immersive Storytelling Lab at York University, as well as Professor II at Center for Digital Narrative about her career, storytelling experiments and hopes for the future of narrative and AR environments. Hi, Caitlin.
CF: Hi.
SR: Welcome to Bergen. I’ve known you since 2001, 20-some years ago. You were the first winner of the Electronic Literature Award for Fiction. At the time that I met you, you were just wrapping up your Ph.D, and now you’re a renowned Professor of Cinema and Media Arts, and you’ve even had a prestigious Canada Chair. Can you tell us a little bit about the journey that you’ve taken to get to where you were writing a dissertation in creative hypertext form?
CF: I’d be delighted to. This week I was taking some moments to look back and wondering how I managed to get here. First off, I didn’t actually do my doctoral work in creative practice. My Ph.D. was actually in Social and Political Thought, I was a political economist, and I was all about four-day workweeks and better work life balance. Then I was introduced to hypertext, and I actually thought it was this incredible philosophy machine, that it concretized so many experimental practices and that it actually constituted this huge challenge to academic writing. So, I was all in. My doctoral work was initially written in Storyspace, which having chosen that software, sort of introduced me to this emerging community that I’d never heard of, of artists working with computer scientists and literary scholars. I found it incredibly attractive to do that work. Then I exported my doctoral work from Storyspace to HTML, and it flattened out all the structure. I was really interested in responding back to the emerging elit community: My doctoral work was called Building Feminist Theory: a Hypertextual Heuristics. So, I initially thought I was going to go out and find all this emerging feminist hypertext, and there would be like ten of them. What happened was more, “Here’s a new way of writing. Here’s a new way of opening up the academy.” Along that way, I did start to sneak in a tiny bit of creative writing in, and if you’re starting to push the form, you end up with pictures, there were going to be sounds and a few other things.
CF: Cut to the chase, by the time I’d finished my doctoral work, nobody wanted to read that kind of work. It’s 2000, nobody really cares. I was having readers say, ”Could you print it all out?” That actually happened at my defense, and I felt like I’d put so much stuff into it and I loved it. It was like this huge constellation of ideas in my head, and I kept thinking, “This really is a form, like this is amazing”, and it was like crickets. Anyway, I passed my exam, and it was actually the first born-digital dissertation, I think, in Canada. It had no print companion. I was actually racing through at the same time that my university was making regulations because electronic dissertations were conceptualized, and they were going to be PDFs or something. So, I was like trying to get there before these new rules hit. When I finished that, I felt like I was a magician who’d done a ten card lift and no one had noticed. I was like, “My next piece people are going to like.” So, I took everything about the dissertation and its really tricky linking structure and the collages, and you had to follow across multiple reading nodes and I did everything the opposite way. When I saw that there was a call for this electronic literature award for fiction, I thought not only had I been kind of pushing the boundaries and helping to do a little bit more fiction, I’d had that creative writing practice in print, but I never wanted it. I never thought that it could be part of my scholarly practice. So, I thought, “What are the rules that I’ve learned? I’m going to have something character driven, I’m going to have a table of contents, I thought about the granularity of the page. I’m going to have things that people will like.” That was basically the difference, something people would like.
SR: There was a little bit of flash animation and—
CF: Yeah, there was a little bit of everything, but I felt like when I finished it, I thought this is something that I’m pretty sure will land. Not that everybody’s going to like it, and I was thrilled, but I wasn’t entirely surprised when people liked These Waves of Girls, and it really changed my life. It opened me up to being able to incorporate creative practice in the whole rest of my career.
SR: One of the things I loved about These Waves of Girls, and in a way, it’s probably the work of yours that I’m most familiar with because I've taught it a few times. It does come out of hypertext, but it also embraces the form and matches it to the topic in this objective, correlative way. I remember, because at the time we had just started the Electronic Literature Organization and I was the first Executive Director, talking to Larry McCaffery, who is the judge of that award, and there were several other really interesting works on the shortlist as well. He said, “Well, this one kind of reminds me of punk rock or it’s sort of postmodernist. It’s like this Kathy Acker take on a memoir and a coming-of-age story, of discovering sexuality and identity as a girl and as a woman, and it has this kind of scrapbook quality to it.”
CF: Wow, that’s so flattering.
SR: Well, it really did. You got that sense of being a teenager and coming to grips with who you are and the messiness.
CF: That was very much the aesthetic. I know afterwards people were like, “Wow, it doesn’t have these beautiful formal, rounded aesthetics”, and I’m like, “No, it doesn’t. It’s supposed to be like some kid’s stuff under the bed.” It’s so interesting to hear those comments and so flattering, but I was also very keen on the idea that hypertext could totally disrupt the developmental novel. That is that scrappy quality, right? That’s what hypertext does. You miss out on this teleological story where you know what happens because of something. I love that that kind of that brokenness.
SR: It’s also really interesting that you comment on that sort of interplay between coming to hypertext more or less through theory. George Landow, who wrote a lot of early theoretical work on hypertext recently passed away, but I think that’s also the case for a lot of people that it was about how we can sort of embody postmodernism in a text, but at the time he wasn’t really writing about many projects that were actually there. It was more about ideas, and then writers sort of took that.
CF: Yeah, my early work definitely was a response to Landow, and I think he was just such a huge figure and so important. So, even works like mine that were gentle critiques, they weren’t even critiques. They were pushing back, it was kind of like where is Rachel Blau DuPlessis? Where is Zora Neale Hurston? I also think it went deeper than that, coming from social and political thought, does this concretize the postmodern? It was also back to the Frankfurt School, it was Adorno. I’ve talked a lot about what it means to have this constellation and Adorno saying, "You can’t open the concept with a single key. It’s open from all of these areas." Every time I looked at it, you always kind of see what you’re looking for, but it just seemed so rich theoretically, from so many angles. So, it wasn’t just postmodernity. I still think this is why I’m excited, even by link node hypertext. My work has moved on, but I do think there’s something fundamentally there around how we think, these are building blocks for how we communicate, these are these very cool story making machines. Even though I’ve gone on and I’ve done a lot of work in immersive storytelling in different labs and computer vision and virtual reality, I still have the dream of a huge immersive link node hypertext, because I think that’s where data visualization meets proprioception, meets the body when you can pull out this constellation, like Adorno. You’re walking in a book, so it’s not just fiction. You know, I’ve been in those kinds of environments, this is the same kind of knowledge that I could be getting from reading a 200-page book because I’m getting the relationships.
SR: It’s interesting to think about the history of electronic literature genres, that there was this moment of the hypertext novel before people figured out that the novel and hypertext are very different entities in terms of the cultural baggage around them, maybe even the way that attention is paid in the traditional immersive novel versus the kind of fragmented approach of hypertext. I still miss that, Bobby Arellano is here in Bergen and I remember discovering Sunshine ‘69 and being like, “Wow, this is really all the different ways that we can take to structuring a story.”
CF: Remember too, that HTML basically ruined hypertext. I mean, it also made it—
SR: It liberated it too.
CF: And it liberated it. So, even just going back to my first experiments, Storyspace could do stuff that HTML couldn’t do, but ultimately, I had to distribute it and I wanted people to read it. At that time, Storyspace was proprietary, so it cost money in order to distribute it. Even in that translation, I remember just how much I lost and, being able to work with guard fields. Sometimes when technology democratizes, the experimental, what you could really do in terms of pushing writing, is lost a bit. I feel this is also the same in augmented reality. I’m still waiting for the optical see-through headsets to come back because I think that is where the story is. It was amazing to have computer vision based augmented reality that came on your phones, but it made every story a magic looking glass. It mediated stories in a particular way and it made you make certain kinds of stories.
SR: Let’s go to that. So, you go from hypertext and pretty quickly you start to explore newer technologies, right?
CF: Part of it, honestly, is the great good fortune of having These Waves of Girls winning ELO’s Electronic Literature Award for Fiction because it made my work that had been formerly kind of marginal, and all of a sudden it was like, it’s not the way things should work, but it’s the way things mostly work where there is a stamp of approval and people started to look at the work differently. Then it pushed it from being weird to being pioneering work. So, right when I graduated, I actually had a number of interviews and I was fortunate enough to be interviewed in the States at a time when the Canada Research Chairs program was starting up to keep people in Canada. It was this perfect collision, all of a sudden somebody said this would be maybe worth looking at more closely and it resulted in a number of opportunities for me. One of those opportunities alongside the Canada Research chair was access to infrastructure. I had no idea what it would be like to run a lab. It’s been just this kind of funny thing that my entire career I’ve generally I moved from working in a solitary practice to working in physical spaces, generally in teams, working collaboratively.
SR: I want to read the list because you’re the Director of the Immersive Storytelling Lab at York University, the Augmented Reality Lab, and the Founding Director of the Future Cinema Lab. That’s a lot of labs.
CF: It’s a lot of labs.
SR: Can you say just a little bit about what all those things are and how you juggle it all?
CF: Yeah. So, the first lab was actually the Augmented Reality Lab. I’d done this hypertext, I called it a hypertext novella, but I’d been thinking about screen-based hypertext. When I was imagining a research project for this Canada Research Chair, it was actually my colleague Janine Marchessault who had been down at Georgia Tech and heard a talk by Jay David Bolter talking about augmented reality. She came back to me and said, “You might be interested in this” and my brain just spun because I thought, "What happens when you go from the flat screen and then you have to write in space?" It was just this incredible challenge. So I went down to Georgia Tech and incredible generosity there with Blair MacIntyre and Jay David Bolter. My first proposal was largely a twin of their set up with the InterSense tracker. I couldn’t have done this without the intellectual generosity of people who had done this before, and I also didn’t have a certainty that I had enough of a team. I’d never built a team, so it was like, "If something breaks, maybe Blair MacIntyre will take my call?" He’s probably forgotten all about this so he might be appalled if he hears this podcast. In the end, I didn’t have to do that, but it was a really wonderful working relationship.
CF: The first lab I built was actually a really good one because I had access to this expertise and then I didn’t even really know what I needed. I was like, “Why don’t I have a sound person?” I stood in an empty room with this huge tracking system and everything was so expensive. I had military grade optical see-through, I think my headset was over $100,000 USD. It had a field of vision of about 20% and you had to carry it around with this huge cable. It was so exciting and thinking about what future forms you could make. I was like, “I should know more theater, I should know more circus.” It just became this massive research project as it was so fascinating. All the things I knew, all the things I didn’t know, the translatable skills, what it would mean to have a critical mass of artists come into a space like this. In that sense, I was really inspired by the Brown CAVE and the work that had been done there. I went down and I had my first visiting professor moment at Brown, invited by Robert Coover, and I thought about that a lot: What does it mean to have these big sort of scientific infrastructures and have it filled with poets? A lot of my trajectory was on building easy access tools: What would it mean to make it easier for people to not have to go through so many intermediaries to get work back? That was a lot of trajectory and just making weird small things. For any listeners who work in a university, you know that you get the money and by the time the thing is built, your research project sometimes moves on a little bit.
CF: So, it was a good 18 months, and in that 18 months of going to this small gym set up with an InterSense tracker and everything, perfectly immersive and everything’s super expensive, but I still had to move forward with my work, and that’s when I started to work with a computer vision based augmented reality. So, it was cheap, paper-based, and that started like a whole other trajectory of small print-based works.
SR: Like pop-up books?
CF: Little, kind of equivalent of QR codes, placed on things. We all joked about having little tattoos or haunted objects, and I still continue that. The translation of these poems you can walk through versus things you can hold in your hand. When my lab was still very active in AR, we had an opportunity, a group of us in the Department of Cinema and Media Arts, then the film department, to think about getting more funding that could actually sustain more people. It was kind of a conceit to say Future Cinema Lab. If I hadn’t been so junior, I wouldn’t be so naive to come into the Film Department and say, “Now we’re future.” It wasn’t really meant like that, it was supposed to be so that people would know that it would be fundable, that people would know instantly what you were trying to do. So, we had another large pot of money for that, and the tagline was “new stories for new screens”, something that was really quite resonant with the AR lab, just separate from it. It became more of an umbrella structure, and it was also very helpful because there were three of us: Janine Marchessault, filmmaker John Greyson and myself. We were able to get more students and more people involved, but the AR lab was still going, and then the Immersive Storytelling Lab sort of fits organically in that structure. It’s funding for a new project, so it’s largely focused not just on XR and film technologies, but in different kinds of practices. We do a little bit of everything, the work keeps growing, but the teams keep growing as well and I feel like they’re always complementing each other.
SR: That’s great. I was just thinking when you mentioned one of your first visits as a researcher at Brown to look at the work that they were doing in the CAVE. That was actually one of Jill and I’s first dates, we met at Brown to interview Coover, Noah and Damien.
CF: We should go back to those old places and do a if these walls could talk.
SR: Yeah. So, one of the things I’d say is that you’re one of the more positive people that I know in terms of idea generation, and I think that has a lot to do with how your work has traversed so many different media and genres over the years. You’re sort of a yes, and… kind of person, right? That leads to a lot of collaboration. Can you say something about that, about how collaboration has enabled some of the work that you created and sort of driven you into different pathways?
CF: That’s really nice of you to say that, Scott, and I’m very glad to be thought of as a positive person. Mostly I’m just super curious and I’ve always felt that I do always say yes rather than no. I think mostly I just am really curiosity-driven and almost every person I sit down with, almost every other research project has some point of intersection with something that either I feel I know or that I really want to know. I guess that’s really the privilege of being in a research lab like mine and also in the public sector rather than the private, where I don’t have to be focused always on getting a certain product out to market. I have the ability to shift things, to learn new things. I also think that’s my responsibility: We get a lot of public money in, public good out, and sometimes my collaborations are really basic. They’re simply putting my infrastructure at the service of ideas, but the most exciting things and I think the things that keep my work fresh, or at least they keep my brain working, is that I try to think of other people’s work as a challenge to my own and as offering new pathways to think about things.
SR: Maybe a couple of examples of this: Some of your recent work has dealt with things like vaccine refusal or microbial resistance, public health science driven projects. Has that been an easy fit for you and what have you discovered out of creating these projects in tandem with things like public health research teams?
CF: One of the things that I love about all of those multi-year projects that I’ve been involved with that haven’t been about the literary or about AR or technology, is that they have been in the company of people also incredibly invested in making things work and finding things that are fresh. So, I was part of a multi-year project on vaccine hesitancy spearheaded by Natalie Loveless and Steven Hoffman. Natalie is probably Canada’s most important thinker around research creation and art-based research, she did her PhD in Santa Cruz with Donna Haraway, and is super interesting and an amazing curator of people. The people she brought together, I think weren’t initially all attracted by the idea of studying vaccine hesitancy. We were all interested and attracted by the idea of a central research question: How could scientists, vaccinologist, artists and policymakers work together to create world changing things like exhibitions and publications? That was the central driver. If you can’t feel that you have something to give, then it’s very difficult, but in this case, it felt like everybody was in. I think the projects I like best, are when everybody’s on some kind of adventure, everybody is having to give and take, everybody is hoping to become a little bit different at the end of it. We did incredible data driven projects, I worked with my doctoral student, Alison Humphrey, who had a brilliant idea, a near-future fiction, science fiction framework of a disease that wasn’t here yet, called Shadowpox, and it was—
SR: Right before the pandemic.
CF: Before the pandemic, yeah. Steven Hoffman, who’s probably the world’s most cited researcher in AMR and policy discussions and who I think led Canada’s COVID response provided data, I think it was roughly built on smallpox. It was really interesting to look at different practices and I was interested in looking at data driven work and in thinking about what I knew about digital narrative storytelling, the kinds of things that I could bring, could actually advance these discussions. For that one, we did a full body, I think Alison calls it a video game. It was an immersive exhibition where you could decide whether you were going to be vaccinated or not and decide on the vaccine penetration. You could choose your country and it was just very interesting to think about that kind of interactivity to advance that conversation.
SR: Well, this gets to the poetics that are specific to VR and AR, what kinds of affordances or efficacy do these technologies enable? We can do a brochure and put it out, just put hundreds of thousands on the street, but what in particular about doing it in this immersive, embodied environment is it that you think enhances it in a way that just picking up a brochure and reading about the vaccine doesn’t?
CF: I think for some audiences maybe it doesn’t enhance it. I never go in assuming that because I like XR it’s all going to be always better for all people. I do think that new kinds of literacies demand different ways of reaching out. I’ve got this new program funded through SSHRC with Steven Hoffman to create a VR museum looking at antimicrobial resistance, and I think one of the issues, especially around an existential threat like AMR, is that it’s very tricky for people to see themselves inside that story. I think if you can build stories where people understand what is at stake for them, you can move the needle. I’m not convinced that XR is necessarily better, I think there are always going to be multiple communication channels, but I do think that there are some things that are just very cool. Distributed narratives could be really interesting, at one point I really wanted to work with Niantic and make something like Pokémon Go, where we’re in the world. I also love the idea of playing with scale. Technologies have always been about making the invisible visible, what would it be like? Maybe we need to make these things huge and threatening, but then the public health people might tell me not to scare people. My approach is that I generally make a whole lot of prototypes and test a lot of things out. I think virtual reality, because of the price point of some of these devices coming down and new distribution channels opening up, is part of why I think of doing a lot of work on something like the Quest VR headset. When you’re thinking about the poetics and the things that really catch me, this is where I go back to 20 years ago, to starting the AR lab.
CF: I think we’re finally coming back to a point where what I’ve been always really interested in: The poetics of AR are so fascinating and the physical world and the digital world are constitutive of the meaning. Coming at it like a filmmaker, it’s like the entire physical world is your film set. You can set these things up anywhere. My big question is really why we don’t have a critical mass of way cooler works. The authoring tools are changing and that if we do end up with optical see-through head mounted displays at a price point people can get, people might be as excited as I am about it. A lot of the early hypertext theory feeds into this: There’s so many ideas that were generated in those early days of hypertext theory around granularity and how things are linked when people are walking through space, whether it’s a field or a graveyard or a museum. They’re still going through a node, and you change for having been there. Even when I’m authoring in these more high-tech environments, a lot of what I’ve learned on that flat screen and with those early thinkers imagining how you piece together a story in a way that is not just linear, I think all of that still translates.
SR: It goes back to that idea of spatial storytelling that people like Jay David Bolter were writing about, referring at the time to the page, but now we’re thinking about actually moving through visual fields and physical environments.
CF: One of the reasons why I don’t love phone based augmented reality is because it’s been so instrumentalized. I think very rarely now, like in the early days of the lab, especially when we would just have basically a headset on and then you hold something in your hand and it came alive, there was this incredible moment of awe. I think the grammar and poetics of working spatially, to have the digital complement the physical or to push back against the digital, but you also can think there’s still time to leverage people. You are the cinema of attractions, I think there’s still things that can make grownups go, “Wow.” Most of what I aim for is something a tiny bit more magical, that is less like putting sticky notes all over the world to direct me to do things or to give me guidance, but to make the world stranger and more interesting. One of the things that can happen in long form are it can be spread out over not only a large physical area, but also it could be durational. We could have targeted movies that are built just for us that we can inhabit, and like anything like that, you have to have really strong storytelling skills. This is where you get back to something basic.
SR: I was just going to come back to this cultural moment where there was massive investment in the metaverse, as Zuckerberg called it. During the pandemic you saw a lot of adoption of headsets, then in the last 10 minutes or so AI’s exploded and a lot of these investments that Facebook and headset makers and maybe even what Apple was doing with XR are fading. The rhetoric of the metaverse is gone, essentially. So, in terms of thinking about the practices that that you engage in, do you think this is a reduction or do you think it offers any kinds of new opportunities?
CF: First of all, I don’t think it’s gone. There are always terrible overhyped bits. This might be unpopular on this CDN podcast, but I feel fundamentally for those of us working now, these are always intermediate forms. I still feel like it’s 2004 and I’ve got my headset with my field of vision at 20% and somebody having to carry all my cables and I’m making stories for a time in the near future. I’ve always thought that, and I still think that now. Investment in AI does not disrupt the central dreams of what an immersive, collaborative, networked and social space will be. I worked a lot collaboratively with Steve Mann, he’s a total genius, largely considered to be the founder of wearable computing. Of course we don’t want heavy, awful, disruptive things on our heads all the time, and we are human people who don’t want to look like idiots. I don’t think you can judge the dream of what it means to be connected and to be able to do a lot of the things that the Metaverse aims to do on that basis. You might have the discourse going underground, but actually artificial or humanistic intelligence dovetailed with an idea, even at a baseline, there are things I still want to make in the metaverse that I haven’t. There’s no reason why I can’t have my headset on, and actually, you can do this right now. There are a lot of design prototypes that are like this where I would build a vase and I would send it to you, and you would get it and you would like to refine it and then you’d send it back to me and we could create a magical object together. You can’t separate it from being in the moment of late capitalism, and I totally get why people hate the idea of the Metaverse, but AI only adds to what can actually happen there. When you and I are not having to be in particular space and can real time collaboratively make stuff together, that’s another thing that I’ve been really interested in tools like multi brush. I’ve been working a lot with artists inside these spaces and the vulnerability of making together and talking together. I think these things are not nothing.
SR: It’s so important that artists are in these spaces because I think of demos I’ve seen of cutting edge XR applications or headset-based VR applications and they’re like, “Look, you can create a virtual keyboard, or you can have eight different windows. It’s going to be your new desktop and you can have corporate meetings there.”
CF: Most people want to instrumentalize everything, and it’s just going to be, “How we can make the worst elements of our work lives heightened, and now they’re also virtual.” That is not an argument against the fact that a lot of this at root is incredibly cool. A lot of my career is focused on this, I would love to get these tools into the hands of weirder people, of cooler people, of people who know story, of people who are interested in thinking about how these tools can make our lives full of joy rather than full of keyboards.
SR: I hope we’ll be doing some of that in our research together with you as a Professor II with the Center for Digital Narrative. Maybe one thing, just to come back to a general idea of what we do and why we do it: I’ve always thought of electronic literature as being an experimental field or the literature that we make as being experimental literature. I’m all for that, I’m not going to apologize for that, but sometimes the experimentation might seem like novelty for the sake of novelty. In other works, you get a sense that people are really pushing to get at those particular poetic affordances of a new technology and then using them in ways that add new layers of meaning, of making the environment particular to the type of story that you want to tell. So just to come back to that, if you had to say one thing that you think VR and AR brings to the table for narrative that you don’t get from the written word on its own, what would that one thing be?
CF: I think it has to do something about being transported to the center of the story, and I don’t think that you always have to have that as the as the only point of view. I do think there’s something incredibly powerful about inhabiting a story, that the combination of content and proprioception and having to activate is, and I’m not even a giant proponent that says I think some people will always be incredibly immersed in the novel and would never want that. But I know that for me, putting on those headsets for the first time and I think this is also where I come back to expressive tools, I think also being able to change that environment when you’re in there, there’s something very visually powerful in this moment of something where you are just walking, you’re maybe just seeing like a 360° video and you’re transported to the middle of someplace you’ve never been. I think that’s powerful. It works because I think the technology is there to make that seamless and possible, but the real power is actually going to be in these environments where when you walk through and can see your footsteps, something that takes the affordances like multi brush that turns being in those spaces into some kind of expressive tool. The first time that I saw my hand, like drawing in a VR space and creating a small sculpture and shrinking it down and then bringing it up and inhabiting it anyway, it was really inspiring and it really changed the way I worked. One of the things that can happen in spaces is you can defy the laws of physics. I think it was—
SR: Alice in Wonderland.
CF: Yeah. What attracts me most to this moment is that I really took this to heart when I’m having visited that lab with Gibraltar around it. This is really like film at the turn of the last century. And I think if you play it right, one of the things that’s most interesting is that because there are no rules, there will be a lot of terrible things. There’ll be things that break, but there’ll be things that just hit. And I think in terms of stories, I don’t know yet what we need to leverage to have stories that will equal and exceed the power of an incredibly well-written novel. I think we’re still at this kind of tinkering thing, which is why I hate it when people close it down and try to make it like really small or about wayfinding or about commerce, because I think it really is about where the human imagination lands, co-creating with computers in this infinite canvas that you can walk through. I think we’ve got a huge responsibility to make cooler things. So, that’s really a meandering answer because I don’t really know yet, but I have come back to being an optimist. There’s something there.
SR: I’ve been talking with Caitlin Fisher, the Director of the Immersive Storytelling Lab, and we’re going to be working together over the next several years with the Extending Digital Narrative project and at the Center for Digital Narrative.I look forward to seeing you back here in Bergen very soon and thank you so much for coming.
CF: Thank you, Scott, and I’m really excited and honored to be a part of these projects.
Listen to the full episode of Off Center.
References
Arellano, Robert. 1996. Sunshine '69. https://bobbyrabyd.github.io/sunshine69//’
Fisher, Caitlin. 2001. These Waves of Girls. https://www.yorku.ca/caitlin/waves/
Humphrey, Alison. 2020. Shadowpox: #StayHome Edition. https://shadowpox.org/game/
Niantic. Pokémon Go. Niantic. 2016. iOS and Android.
This research is partially supported by the Research Council of Norway Centers of Excellence program, project number 332643, Center for Digital Narrative and project number 335129, Extending Digital Narrative.