Review of Mazes by Nick
From Maze
- Variations on a maze (Jeremy), particularly "Context of Expectations"
- Cultural History of Mazes (Mark M.)
- Computing History of Mazes (Mark S.)
Related and should be referenced, but I do not suggest integrating into the chapter:
Contents[hide] |
General comments
I suggest the working title "Mazes" for a chapter that should be developed out of Jeremy's, Mark M.'s, and Mark S.'s contributions, listed above.
The way the sections are currently titled ("Cultural History of Mazes," "Computing History of Mazes") makes it seem that computers and culture are two different things, which is unfortunate. The whole chapter should be about the cultural history of mazes up to 1982, including the representation/simulation of mazes by computer and video games.
I see the chapter as mainly answering the following question: What does it mean for a home computer in the early 1980s to display a maze in the way the 10 PRINT program does? Computers could and did display many other things. What did the maze, specifically, signify and connote? For us to understand this, we have to consider the maze's place in Western culture.
One question that we've discussed, and which is hinted at in the draft text, is whether or not the generated image is really a maze. I think it is possible that this question can be quickly handled in a footnote or a parenthetical comment at the beginning of the chapter. So far, we have not really found any consequence to seeing the program's output as something other than a maze. (I suppose someone so disgusted with the idea that this is a maze might want to skip this chapter, but there's nothing to be done about that.) If there is something about this maze/non-maze distinction that this actually adds to our understand of the program and its place in culture, however, that should definitely be included and discussed explicitly.
Specific sections
Variations on a maze (Jeremy)
This is an exceptional draft text with insights about the numbering of PETSCII characters based on the material nature of the computer (the layout of the keyboard), a discussion of how 10 PRINT's maze is formally different than other computer mazes because it is diagonal, and very good and solid scholarship on contemporary maze games. So there is something important there in terms of technology, theory, and scholarship.
Given the organization of the book that is proposed now, the first section ("Keyboard and Character Map...") should be integrated into the C64 chapter.
The last full section ("Patterns") should be integrated into the Ports and Variations chapter. A reference to these variations should be included in the Mazes chapter.
The middle section ("Context of Expectations: ...") is what clearly belongs in the Mazes chapter. It should be closely integrated with Mark S.'s section, and there should be discussion of how graphical game mazes, text game mazes, and 10 PRINT's maze relate. I consider that (1) graphical game mazes show a visual representation of a maze that is functional (it can be traversed by an operator of the program, within the representation) (2) text games mazes do not show a visual representation, but those mazes are nevertheless functional, and (3) 10 PRINT's maze is the opposite of a text game maze in that it is a visual representation, but it is not functional. Another dimension to consider is whether the maze is symmetric or regular on a large scale (Pac-Man) or has other sorts of regularity - and how would 10 PRINT's regularity be defined? Are there mazes where the scale varies radically - some large open spaces, some narrow corridors? Where would 10 PRINT fall in a typology or categorization of computer game mazes along these lines?
Did joystick navigation or other control schemes (up/down/left/right cursor keys) have an influence on the lack of other diagonal mazes in computing? The mention of Q*bert and Zaxxon is relevant here. Are the only "diagonal" games (at least pre-1982) really these two isometric ones and similar isometric ones?
Are there discourses, advertisements, etc. that show mazes from early computer games in a particularly interesting light? Was the maze generically associated with fun, or did it offer something that the computer user/video game player could master, or was it associated with challenge, competition, and racing against other players? Was there a strong fantasy genre ("Mazes and Monsters") connection, and if so, how do we know about it?
Cultural History of Mazes (Mark M.)
The first section (which consists of text I wrote on the list) should probably just go, although perhaps the OED definition of "maze" is a good starting point for another discussion. Why is something "bewildering" associated with fun and amusement? In our maze, are the "individual components" "difficult to separate or make out"? What indeed are the "individual components" of our maze - the / and \ characters or the passages between them?
We have a great groundwork for considering the maze's (labyrinth's) early history here. But I want to know more about how 10 PRINT connects to it. Here are some ideas that may be worth pursuing:
10 PRINT builds a maze before the eyes of the computer user. The program can be interrupted, but as long as it's running, it's continually building a maze. One interesting thing about the Cretan Labyrinth is that *the story of its construction* is part of the legend of it. We now only know the king who had it built; we also know the name of the architect. And I notice that even in Herodotus's description of the labyrinthine building in Egypt, he writes: "the Egyptians in charge refused to let me see [the underground rooms], as they contain the tombs of the kings who built the labyrinth ..." So even in this case, as we learn about the labyrinth we hear about its construction. Is there something culturally compelling about the construction of a maze as opposed to some other structure? Or does any remarkable structure also invite consideration of who built it and why? If so, is that something that makes 10 PRINT more compelling? We don't see the Pac-Man maze built, but we do see 10 PRINT continually building its maze.
As a critic I will agree that a dance can be a maze or labyrinth, but I would like to see this connected to 10 PRINT a bit more. 10 PRINT itself isn't solving a maze, but building a maze, isn't it? What are the productive ways to see 10 PRINT, executing, as dance?
"the program begins as a maze to the initiated" - excellent section which can be developed further. You can indeed "solve" the program as you would a maze by understanding, after you've typed it in and ran it, exactly why it does what it does. But the code is only a maze to the user, not to the computer; it's more of a blueprint to the computer. This should be elaborated and explained further in the general context of BASIC programming and learning about computing in the early 1980s. What is the cognitive process of figuring out this program most like? Do you kill the minotaur/eat all the dots and escape? Or arrive at some understanding which you might come to from walking a labyrinth or wandering in a hedge maze? Or some understanding you might develop from building a maze?
Computing History of Mazes (Mark S.)
It's important to note that both the User's Guide and the item in RUN Magazine call this program's output a maze. I would also look at what *else* RUN Magazine, and similar sources, called a maze. An example can be found linked from:
http://weizenbaum.mit.edu/mediawiki/index.php/%22True%22_BASIC_maze_generator_in_Compute
I was amused to read the New York Times and Newsweek quotes about Pac-Man. Really, who doesn't think that Pac-Man's playing field is a maze? (The New York Times, however, seems to be under the impression that the monsters have or are mouths ...) If there are people who dispute that Pac-Man's playing field is a maze, it would be better to read those quotes. I think this is a case where our specialized studies lead us to understand distinctions that aren't popularly held. I just heard a long presentation by an author dealing with the idea of the book as a maze; the terms "maze" and "labyrinth" were used interchangeably throughout. It's okay for *us* to make a distinction between those two terms in specific scholarly contexts, but we shouldn't expect that typical users of our language are doing so or that it has anything to do with the way mazes are popularly received.
I grant, on the other hand, that many people today, looking at this program, wonder whether or not it is soluble and have that as a criterion for whether or not it is a maze. What are the implications of that perspective? Is 10 PRINT a generator of mazes, sometimes defective? Or of something that looks like a maze but has no solution?
Speaking of our language, Patsy has pointed out that while English has the possibility for making this maze/labyrinth distinction, it doesn't exist in other languages, which don't have two terms like this. So we don't want to portray this as an essential division that exists in all cultures and languages.
I think bringing in text adventure mazes is great and rounds out the discussion Jemery has started. I mentioned some ideas for relating these to graphical game mazes and 10 PRINT already. We should also cover earlier grid-like settings for BASIC games and the advance that Hunt the Wumpus made in moving from that grid to another regular shape - a step toward more complicated playing fields, such as mazes. It's probably worthwhile here to discuss how text adventure mazes function in the game (why are they there?) and how they're solved.
Other games we should definitely cover are the early multiplayer games Maze (Lebling et al., MIT) and Mazewar.
What We Are Missing
Of the many types of maze and meanings of the maze within culture, one we do not have discussion of is the maze of the research psychologist. This is a compelling idea of the maze in several ways. It makes the maze walker a research subject, but it also makes the maze itself "serious" and scientific rather than purely a diversion. There is at least one clear precedent in computing: One of the early recreational computer programs on the TX-0 at MIT was Mouse in the Maze, which simulated a mouse moving around in a psychologist's maze; the mouse could drink martinis, which caused disorientation. See for instance the paragraph mentioning this program here:
http://wheels.org/spacewar/creative/SpacewarOrigin.html
Aside from what I've already mentioned about the construction of labyrinths, I suggest we discuss the maze as something architectural - as a structure as opposed to a visual pattern, and, when it is a visual pattern, as one that suggests a structure. Does the way one character at a time is added relate to this? Does it suggest architecture and construction particularly, or maybe weaving or writing just as much? Does it really matter whether the output suggests architecture, structure, or three-dimensonality? Since the maze is not interactive and functional within the program (can't be navigated by the arrow keys, etc.), is it essentially flat and a pattern that should not be considered as architecture?
We don't have much discussion of how the idea of the maze evolved throughout history. When did mazes emerge as recreations and diversions? Has the connotation of "maze" been more negative or more positive at different points in history? In order to arrive at what a maze means in the West in 1982, we should at least sketch the main things that it has meant, and how those meanings have developed over the centuries. We've got a start to that in Mark M.'s section.
Proposed organization
By cultural concept of maze rather than by raw chronology. Obviously the terrifying, confusing maze of Crete, designed for confinement, is "before" the amusing diversion of the maze in puzzle-books, which is probably before the psychological researcher's maze; computer game mazes would be last of all. This organization would progress through history to some extent, although different concepts of the maze are active at different times and it's doubtful that and of them ever are erased completely: We still see mazes as bewildering and terrifying while we also see them as fun, etc.
Conclusion
We are in very good shape with this material. However, this proto-chapter does need to have its sections integrated, needs to be revised, and needs to be completed. The draft text we have is largely usable with minor revision. It does not overlap much. It can be integrated into the core of a chapter without too much difficulty. With perhaps as much text added (some within sections, to elaborate points there and some to address some overall gaps), we will have a great chapter that makes important cultural connections.
