One order of Narrativism, hold the Premise please

[Ian Cooper]

I hesitate to contribute to this debate due to my inexperience to the GNS theory and the possibility of my having misread it. It is also some time since I was an undergraduate English Lit student. Nevertheless, I think that you might find some answers to your questions over reconciling Illusionist and Narrative styles (strongly GM authored and player-GM authored) in Eco's semiotic analysis of text in The Role of the Reader (1979).

For Semiotics, all attempts to communicate are interrupted by noise, gaps, and context. Every reading of a text is an act of interpretation by the reader. Eco postulates the existence of two types of text. The closed text is one which is most strongly author directed and linear, but necessarily presupposes an 'idealized' reader. The more the reader departs from this model the greater the dissatisfaction with the work the reader experiences as his or her context and ideological assumptions conflict with those of the author. Canonical examples of the 'closed' work are the James Bond novel or the Superman comic. The open text allows more possible types of interpretation in its reading. The reader finds themselves and not an 'idealized' reader more clearly reflected in the text. They tell a story that reflects what they bring with them. Joyce is a canonical example of this sort. Most works are neither completely open nor closed, but somewhere on the continuum between. We attribute greater literary value to the open work, but the closed is often 'easier' to read as it requires less reader engagement and so tends to dominate the stands at airports.

Following Eco one might classify the degree to which a Narrative session was open or closed depending on the degree of linearity to the narrative and the extent to which the story is GM as opposed to player-GM authored. The popularity of the 'closed' approach reflects the desire of many players to expend less effort in story creation, to play an 'airport novel' adventure, and the success or failure of such an enterprise depends on the degree to which the player reflects the GMs idealized player. A more open session is more challenging in demanding greater input from the player, but if the effort does not itself detract from the enjoyment of the game, could be more satisfying in reflecting what the player brings with them to the session.

The problem may be that you are focusing on premise as the dividing line between Narrativism and Simulationism when in fact it is a technique that helps achieve an aesthetically better story.  I remain uncertain, due to my lack of familiarity with GNS as to whether a closed text is necessarily simulationist (or Illusionist) - I'd have to study Ron's essay much more closely. But wiser heads than mine might be able to exploit Eco's principal.

Ian Cooper

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Fang wrote,
"I think this can only be decided based on whether there can be story-intent genre expectations without unacknowledged Premise."

I agree with Gareth, and have always presented the notion, that such things ("story-intent genre expectations," what a mouthful) exist quite nicely without Premise, unacknowledged or otherwise. In this, I am also agreeing with Christopher's point as well in a parallel thread. Both Christopher and Gareth are saying the same thing (although their preferences differ) and I agree with it.

In other words, as I've always said:

Story-intent A: no Premise in play itself. Story is not created during play. This correspond with "genre-expectation" play, also known as Simulationism with a Situation emphasis.
Story-intent B: Premise present, in play itself. Story is indeed created during play. This is Narrativism with a vast range of how Premise might be established, and how overtly.

Apparently I have to clarify that I do not accept "invisible" Premise. By "in play itself," I mean that it can be identified by a knowledgeable observer in decisions and actions. The question of whether it is "conscious" or any such term has always been irrelevant to me, but I definitely state that it needs to be there, observable, and being addressed.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

I think this can only be decided based on whether there can be story-intent genre expectations without unacknowledged Premise.

I agree with Gareth, and have always presented the notion, that such things ("story-intent genre expectations," what a mouthful) exist quite nicely without Premise, unacknowledged or otherwise. In this, I am also agreeing with Christopher's point as well in a parallel thread. Both Christopher and Gareth are saying the same thing (although their preferences differ) and I agree with it.

In other words, as I've always said:

Story-intent A: no Premise

in play itself. Story is not created during play. This correspond with "genre-expectation" play, also known as Simulationism with a Situation emphasis.

Story-intent B: Premise present, in play itself. Story is indeed created during play. This is Narrativism with a vast range of how Premise might be established, and how overtly.[/list:u]Apparently I have to clarify that I do not accept "invisible" Premise. By "in play itself," I mean that it can be identified by a knowledgeable observer in decisions and actions. The question of whether it is "conscious" or any such term has always been irrelevant to me, but I definitely state that it needs to be there, observable, and being addressed.

Since I put it that 'story-intent' means:

'Story-intent' is as opposed to 'story-result.' 'Story-intent' requires that the parties involved recognize that a 'story' is being made not retroactively ('story-massaging' techniques), but actively during play (and not prior to play to be railroaded through). It can be argued that every game results in a 'story.'

I have to say that "Story-intent A" is nonsensical.  You can't intend on having a story unless 'story' is created during play.  (Play being the follow-through on the "intent".)

Now what I have been calling 'unacknowledged Premise' is manifest in the Reed Richards/Doctor Doom example where the rivalry describes a Premise based on the symbology inherent in the listed characters.  People playing this game would not be consciously addressing this Premise, but could hardly fail to do so (so long as story-intent is adhered to).  To the external observer, the continuous patronage of the Premise is quite clear, but in the minds of the participants they aspire to recreating the genre expectations of a Fantastic Four 'story-intent.'

A lot of this trips over the problems inherent in self-diagnosis and how a "knowledgeable observer" is necessary.  The players in this example will insist there is no Premise whereas the "knowledgeable observer" will see nothing but.  This is what I have been delving into questioning the 'unacknowledged Premise' idea.

Since "Story-intent A" is not story-intent at all, and "invisible Premise" does not exist in the GNS, I guess the question becomes is 'unacknowledged Premise' (that is a Premise addressed in play, using story-intent as I describe) therefore degenerative play bound for eventual breakdown?  (Probably because, not being deliberate, the 'use' of Premise will be unfocused and likely to become incoherent.)

Would I therefore correct in surmising that you are saying that all story-intent (as I put above) has Premise and that only degenerative or naive story-intent play does not realize this?

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

Aaaarrrghhh! You can't do that with "story intent." That term has been around a long, long time, and it applies to the full range that I and Gareth are using it with. Your definition (which is no more nor less than Narrativism) cannot be accepted.

Really. About a thousand GMs would rise up in a shrieking horde to dismember you if you try to take "story" from them, even though you and I (and Gareth, and Christopher) would agree that they are overseeing primarily Sim/Character or Sim/Situation play according to my framework. I would probably join the horde - although I do not enjoy their mode of producing story from role-playing (ie not from the role-playing), I respect their goals and won't marginalize them by hugging "story" to my Narrativist chest in an exclusive way.

That said, I do think that we can keep the discussion going. Suffice to say that we are talking about literary Premise, aknowledged/overt vs. unacknowledged.

"the question becomes is 'unacknowledged Premise' (that is a Premise addressed in play, using story-intent as I describe) therefore degenerative play bound for eventual breakdown? (Probably because, not being deliberate, the 'use' of Premise will be unfocused and likely to become incoherent.)"

I disagree. I think this form of play is probably fun, and generally successful. The problem is when the people within the group bring other forms of story-intent into the picture, and get irritated with the other members' constant (or at least repeated) focus on the Premise. Then the Narrativist-covert ones get irritated back, and no one can discuss it because they all insist they are "story" oriented.

"Would I therefore correct in surmising that you are saying that all story-intent (as I put above) has Premise and that only degenerative or naive story-intent play does not realize this?"

Correct and incorrect. Yes, all story-intent as you have defined it (which I call Narrativism) has Premise. However, no, I do not think that failing to acknowledge the Premise will be degenerative. Whether it's "naive" or not doesn't seem relevant to me - naivete doesn't have to be good or bad, and arguably such a group could achieve phenomenal Narrativist goals without ever being "enlightened," and if that's so, why should they be?

Best,
Ron

[Ian Cooper]

Ron,

I hope this is still on thread. I think I am in need of some clarification. I don't want to test your temper further but please understand I just want to understand you better.

My difficulty is that Egri's premise is a structural part of a successful play; deciding it is, for Egri, the means to achieving aesthetic quality. Egri in fact notes that there are plays that do not have premise or have multiple premises, which Egri sees as failures or dysfunctional. Therefore, for Egri the premise infers a notion of quality. The problem then becomes is that by a skip and a jump the reader then assumes that Narrativism, when defined by the presence of premise, implies a story of quality. By inference, though I do not think by your intent, those prioritizing other play goals then assume that their perceived lack of premise (though it may just be that they are not aware of it) implies a lack of story quality and thus feel depreciated by the GNS model. I fear that this may be at the root of some resistance to the theory.

Is your use of premise distinct from Egri's in this sense of denoting quality? If not, are you not using a marker of the quality of the result to separate play styles rather than the intent? If my intent is to create story, but I fail, because I don not include a premise or have mutiple premises, am I not Narrativist by that failure, or am I a dysfunctional Narrativist.  If I am not Narrativist what happened to my intent, and what happens if I disagree that a single premise is a key part of writing a successful story. If I am dysfunctional, does not distinguishing Narrativism by premise fail me, because I intend to be Narrativist but my technique is poor?

Of course you may be using premise in a different sense to that which I understand it...

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

No need to fear my temper, I hope. I'm pretty sure Fang knows that any Aaaarrrghhh he gets from me is at least 90% in fun.

Let's see if I can run it down ... I'll try to address your post as a whole.

I agree with Egri that - given a literary/thematic goal - one must have Premise. In Narrativist role-playing, of course, the Premise can be emergent rather than explicit, and (I think) it can be a bit more multivariate or nuanced than it can be in a play or movie. The important point is that Narrativist play above the individual-instance level is about everyone having a lot of "rights" to deal with the Premise like an author does.

Regarding stories of quality ...

I agree with you that many people misread GNS discussions to perceive that Narrativism is somehow the be-all of role-playing. However, I think that every such case relative to my essays or posts is eventually reducible to a "well, I just feel it," when challenged. In other words, I can't help what people choose to project into the text. I try hard to put in qualifiers or statements to prevent that; as far as the current essay is concerned, it seems to be working.

I think most people who play this way would like to produce a story of quality, not that we always succeed.

Various people have suggested that "creating good stories" is an invalid defining feature of Narrativism, as (a) who's to say whether they're good or whether they suck, and (b) who's to say that stories created in non-Narrativist ways (e.g. front-loading + railroading) aren't good as well.

I agree with that point, which is why Narrativist play can't be defined by its result, but rather by its process (which is what GNS is about anyway).

Thus a person or group who plays in a Narrativist way but produces a poor story are exactly analogous to an author who writes a crappy story, or a band who plays a crappy song. Because someone tries to use Premise doesn't mean they succeed; because they don't succeed doesn't mean that they were not writing or playing music.

The biggest issue here is that Egri (or whoever applies his ideas to media like movies or novels) is concerned with a single-author situation, or at least with a situation in which the audience is emphatically not the creator. Role-playing is different - its product is enjoyed even as it's being produced, and the authors and audience are the same people. Therefore Premise becomes a question, not a statement; characters become extended verbs instead of nouns; and the plot becomes itself a negotiated and back-and-forth process rather than a set series of events to be enjoyed later.

So an Egri Premise can be evaluated simultaneously with whether the story sucks or not ... role-playing is a bit more tricky, more like music than a play, in this regard.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

You can't do that with "story intent." That term has been around a long, long time, and it applies to the full range that I and Gareth are using it with. Your definition (which is no more nor less than Narrativism) cannot be accepted.

Really. About a thousand GMs would rise up in a shrieking horde to dismember you if you try to take "story" from them, even though you and I (and Gareth, and Christopher) would agree that they are overseeing primarily Sim/Character or Sim/Situation play according to my framework. I would probably join the horde - although I do not enjoy their mode of producing story from role-playing (ie not from the role-playing), I respect their goals and won't marginalize them by hugging "story" to my Narrativist chest in an exclusive way.

???  I'm not taking 'story' away from anyone.  I was dividing out story-intent, but I can see the use of 'intent' is too common to separate out what I seek.

Perhaps 'active story' (as in "Story now!") or 'explicit story' (as in "Remember, this is still a story, dammit!") or, as I have used all along outside of the GNS, Self-Conscious Narrative, would be better.

And for the record, lately it has not been all that clear that Narrativism is exactly as I said.  Most recently there's been this bias that within two or three sentences of explaining what Narrativism is comes the word Premise.  I suggest that your use of the restricted version of Premise is probably no more or less confusing than my choice of 'story-intent.'

I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's drop these loaded terms (Premise and story-intent) and get something less likely to be misinterpreted by lay people (who are arguably all that new gamers start as).  Save for the confusion with Narrativism, I still have a hard time finding anyone not understanding what I term 'narrative.'  And when I add 'self-conscious' people seem to get that it knows what it's doing continually.

What I persistently wonder is if I am alone in thinking that what you term 'Premise' (with a capital 'P') is in fact the 'theme' as I was taught in high school English.  And that 'Premise as a question' would sensibly be called a 'thematic question.'  I suggest all of this because nothing I have heard in terms of 'the answer to the Premise as a question' has been anything but what I was taught was the 'message' of the story.  So these are my suggested alternatives for Premise: theme, thematic question, and message.  Care to start a thread and hash these out?

As far as the rest of your comments, I can see that once again we are falling into the terminology trap with the GNS.  Whereas I thought we'd found an interesting nugget of idea relating the techniques of Author stance play to some idea of implied Premise (much more subtle than a one-to-one correlation to Narrativism), I in fact find only the same confusion with term choice as before.  Author stance, no matter how much it sounds like "authorial artifice" has nothing to do with authoring.  (I already understand that Actor stance, no matter how much it sounds like "performing actors" has nothing to do with acting.  I'm not even going close to Director stance.)

To all of that, all I can do is throw up my hands and leave with the suggestion that the GNS is in bad need of a terminology overhaul.  Yes I understand the 'legacy problems,' but if I had "a thousand GMs [that] rise up in a shrieking horde" (probably from RPG.net and elsewhere), I'd probably rethink the value in sticking with the old, confusing, restricted uses.

I retract any interest I had in delving any deeper here.

Fang Langford

p. s. And that means you can't have "Narrativism, hold the Premise," by the way.

[Ian Cooper]

Aah Ok I think I get it let me see if I understand - the I can go away and ponder more:

- The intent not the result of play is being assessed.
- The GM and the players need not have the same intent but where their desire is different then tension may result.
- For Narrativist play premise is the goal of play though it might emerge through play. For RPGs the premise is a question rather than Egri's: chracter, conflict, conclusion. That it is the goal and not the quality of the result is the deciding factor in determining narratavist play.

Hope I have that now.

So by terms  more familiar to me both an 'open' and 'closed' approach could be narrativism, if the premise is priveldged in play - but in the former case the players are not given the ability to play in Narratavist mode i.e. have no control of the premise, which might create tension if that is the mode that they seek.

Intent and possibly differences of intent seems to be the key here.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

I've tried to make sense with everything I've posted, so I hope you're sticking with it.

1) Yeah, "active story," or "story now" (which is what I called it in Sorcerer & Sword) or Conscious Narrative or something like that would be better. I agree.

2) I think that for role-playing purposes, Narrativist Premise is a thematic question. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that; it is essentially my whole definition for the term. The answer, if it happens, is what's produced by play - and it's Theme, the "message" if you will. I've stated this quite a few times. You mentioned it in a recent thread ("Premise?") but I'll look up some of my answers from older threads and see what I can find.

The big issue - and apparently the source of some frustration for you - is the terminology overhaul issue. The problem is that there isn't any such thing; attempts at them always lead to chaos and multiple splinter groups. I think that it's best to stick with what does work, historically: a constant, somewhat aggravating re-mixture and re-combination of existing terms, with new ones emerging as details or groups as hierarchy-categories spring up and need labels.

The main objection to this is just the same as it is for any discipline: accusations of jargon, of non-intuitive or misleading terms, and so on. I'm afraid I can't see any solution to this except a willingness to continue to explain and to attempt, anyway, to keep the relationships among the terms coherent.

If I've read this thread correctly, the fundamental question you asked was whether a Narrativist group that did not articulate (or even think much about) Premise, Theme, thematic questions, etc, but whose attention was focused on them anyway in play, could be said to be playing in a Narrativist way. My answer is yes, and that such play can be highly successful and is in no necessary danger of becoming dysfunctional.

Let me know if other questions are outstanding that I've missed.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

2) I think that for role-playing purposes, Narrativist Premise is a thematic question. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that; it is essentially my whole definition for the term. The answer, if it happens, is what's produced by play - and it's Theme, the "message" if you will. I've stated this quite a few times. You mentioned it in a recent thread ("Premise?") but I'll look up some of my answers from older threads and see what I can find.

The big issue - and apparently the source of some frustration for you - is the terminology overhaul issue. The problem is that there isn't any such thing; attempts at them always lead to chaos and multiple splinter groups. I think that it's best to stick with what does work, historically: a constant, somewhat aggravating re-mixture and re-combination of existing terms, with new ones emerging as details or groups as hierarchy-categories spring up and need labels.

The main objection to this is just the same as it is for any discipline: accusations of jargon, of non-intuitive or misleading terms, and so on. I'm afraid I can't see any solution to this except a willingness to continue to explain and to attempt, anyway, to keep the relationships among the terms coherent.

The emphasis is mine.

I can't see how there would be any chaos or splintering, it's your theory, in no way a group product.¹  I also can't see how you can "stick with what does work, historically;" if you have to "continue to explain and to attempt, anyway, to keep the relationships among the terms coherent," it doesn't work.  It still seems like beating a dead horse.  As for avoiding "accusations of jargon, of non-intuitive or misleading terms," you've clearly already got that so there'd be no change if there was...well, change.

Hey, don't get me wrong; I am in no way suggesting that you pull the whole thing in and rework it.  It's a fine piece of work.  What I am suggesting is that you get out the label gun and put sticky labels over all the rusty, confusing terminology.

I mean if "Narrativist Premise is a thematic question" and "the answer, if it happens, is what's produced by play - and it is Theme, the 'message' if you will," where's the problem? If it's so simple, why not change?  I have to say that it's much clearer not using Premise (and constantly having to add adjectives anyway).  The failure here is that "it is essentially my whole definition for the term."  Yours, as in most often only understood by you.  These things seem to have a number of rather intuitive names just begging to be used.

The only reason I can see in what I've read by you is 'history.'  But it's exactly history that causes half the problem; your Simulationism isn't equivalent to the historical one.  Nor is your Gamism, Premise (I take that from the last poster's comments, sue me if it's wrong), and so on.  I think you could shake a good deal of the requirement to explain everything over and over, if you'd make a clean breast of the terminology only.

Then you'd finally get your wish to move on to the more 'meatier' issues sprinkled all across the GNS Essay.  (Heck the way a quarter of it is written now, combined with the 'frequent mistakes' article suggest that support of it is turning to the apologists.)

Listen, I can't make you change your mind.  I've made my case.  I've explained 'why.'  (I found it so profound that it literally bade me to create my own model when I first concluded this.)  Unless you can think of a good reason for me to keep thinking of new ways to suggest a shift in terminology (without a shift in theory), I think I better just shut up.  Any more and I'll be ranting.

Fang Langford, signing off....

¹ And don't start the 'they'll be old-school GNSers and the new...' argument; if the theory remains the same, only a period of transition will be necessary as everyone becomes accustomed to the new labels on the old ideas.  (Surely you've seen this following World War II when the language of science stopped being German.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

H'm. You've stated your case well. Noted and logged.

My own disinclination to do the re-labelling is either legit in practical/constructive terms, or it's the inability of an aging brain to break into necessary new ground. No way I can tell which. I could go into a big justification of the "legit" side, but maybe it's best to let the ideas simmer instead of retrenching around the old position out of habit.

The re-labelling may have to be left to the younger, new generation of Young Turks to do (after the Old Man's finally gone, of course), but it could be done.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Well, Ron, you'll be glad to know that I'm decidedly NOT going to jump in at this point and start casting votes for a terminology overhaul...that's completely up to you.

What I am going to suggest is something that's been rolling around in my mind for awhile now and this seems like an opportune point to bring it up.  I think part of the problem is not strictly the terminology itself but the terminology as presented in your writings and essay.

What I mean by this is that you know intimately what the terms mean to you and how you use them.  They've been worked around in your head so long that its second nature to you to associate the meaning you've ascribed to them with the term.  I think perhaps that leads to a degree of taking for granted that the message you are trying to convey (both in the essays and various posts) is actually being communicated.  I'd speculate that part of the recent confusion in this thread between what you've "always said" about this and that stems partially from you having said it in a manner that conveys the message to you (and those on the same wavelength) but doesn't necessarily sink in to others.  I have to admitt that very thing applies to myself when it finally dawned on me what you'd been saying all along about instances of play.

So.  At any rate my suggestion/query is this.  Would it be useful to have the essay reparsed (or addended to) by others, not to change the context, but to clarify the presentation (subject to your final editing, of course).  I'm thinking that perhaps having it organized and laid out by people for whom it is not immediately intuitive might lead to a structure geared more towards bringing a complete newbie up to speed.  I know the act of writing my earlier "primer" helped solidify the concepts for me in a way that I understood more readily.  Perhaps a similiar approach for each major section of the essay might create a body of work that is more accessible to the first time reader.

I'm thinking this may be a way to lower the hurdle bar without having to reinvent all of the terminology.

Thoughts?  I'd be happy to take a stab at parts if its something you'd be interested in seeing.

[Ian Cooper]

What I mean by this is that you know intimately what the terms mean to you and how you use them. They've been worked around in your head so long that its second nature to you to associate the meaning you've ascribed to them with the term.

John Locke's in his' Essay on Human Understanding' states that most arguments are arguments about the meanings of words. What a word means to someone else, is not what it necessarily means to you.  Our argument may be because I attribute meanings, contextual and associative, to a word that you do not. Our conflicting understandings of what the word signifies generate argument but our viewpoints on the idea might be similar if we could agree definitions of the terms being used.

The GNS essay uses a number of existing terms, but uses them in new ways. As such, an obstacle to correct understanding of it becomes clearing your mind of those preconceptions and understanding what the words mean in that context.

There is a related problem that eventually all words become so polluted by popular usage in incorrect contexts that their meaning is so distorted from the original that you have to invent new terms to replace them.

So there may be a basis for arguing that GNS needs new terms. Terms that don't have existing value (particularly in RPG play) and thus force the reader to approach them in an open-minded fashion.

Here is how a naive reader approaches GNS:

A reader reads a work in the light of their preconceptions. For years now role players have been told by game designers that 'story' is the objective, the Holy Grail, of the role-playing experience. From White Wolf to Dragonlance the attempts may have been crap or illusional but the promise is consistent story is good. Therefore, many readers approaching GNS already privilege story. They read in the light of this preconception. Upon seeing the terms Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist, the reader privileges the narrativist mode. The reader already has an association between the words narrative and story. Language provides this. They know story is privileged and that narrative is synonymous with story. Therefore, they infer that Narrativism is story mode and therefore privileged too. It does not matter what you are actually saying, they bring these associations with them. The reader generates a new meaning. Finding that Narrativism implies the intent to consider or reveal premise (and not recognizing it may be a unconscious intent) they determine that they are not Narrativist. Aware that they are not Gamist they assume that they must be, by elimination, Simulationist. However, they know that story or Narrativism is privileged and so infer that Ron is saying that their mode of play is inferior.

Now if they discussed or re-examined GNS they would find otherwise. However, they either don't want to feel criticized or are just too lazy to figure it out – so unless their game has problems they need to resolve, they don't return to GNS but reject it. And then they attack it elsewhere.

Grasping another's meaning is like grabbing an eel. Its slippery and wriggles away from you.

But for my part can understand your unwillingness to invest the time in creating a new terminology. You have to wiegh the rewards it might bring against the prospect of becoming a straw man on other forums.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I am getting very confused by the multiple dialogues in this thread. It's reading to me like crazed leap-about French farce, when everyone's running in and out of different bedrooms.

Ian,
Concerning your post of May 28, 15:29. With respect, I think you're closer to the point, but you are still floundering. "Intent" is emphatically not a concern of GNS. The words you are looking for include decisions, observable goals, actions, and interactions. GNS is not about murky, internal motives, but about things people really do and say.

I do agree with you about the terminology issue, but I think the issue is actually more tangled than you describe. The distinction between "being in" a story and "making" a story is a whole 'nother variable that enters the picture, as is the very strong commitment, among many role-players, to the ideal of The Impossible Thing.

Ralph,
I have called, several times, for people to contribute their own essays to the Forge. I'd very much like to see your own up there - if you were waiting on edits from me, I apologize and let's try to get that process going again. I'd like to see Jesse's as well. I'd like to see lots of stuff from Fang. I'd really like to see Gareth's "fourfold" idea that creates a new tier including Dramatism (as he defines it) and Narrativism.

I'm currently working with J B on the possibility of a semi-user-driven glossary.

All of these would go a long way toward (a) helping new people and (b) demonstrating that varying and interpretive views are welcome at this site.

Best,
Ron