{"title":"书评","authors":"David Staton","doi":"10.1177/19312431211042892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What if there were no rhetorical questions? My classes would be a lot shorter and so would Kate Nash’s new book, “Interactive documentary: Theory and debate” (Routledge, 2022). To her great credit, the book’s provocations are given depth and dimension by emulating the polysemic form of interactive documentary itself; the user/reader may exert her own agency in a move toward expansiveness or conclusion amid a kaleidoscope of liminal possibility spaces. This is appropriate, and ultimately rewarding, in examining a process becoming. Nash takes up the “challenge” of exploration and definition thrust on documentarian– scholar–theorists–playful-human-beings by Aston et al. (2017) in their seminal examination of the form, “I-Docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary” (Wallflower Press, 2017, reviewed in EN, 12 vol. 1). In that edited volume, the then-nascent interactive documentary form was described as “...any project that starts with the intention to engage with the real, and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention” (p. 2). Such parameters are broad, sweeping, and, because of that, inclusive. With deft skill, Nash points toward patterns and rhythms (not hierarchies) that add to a fuller understanding of this collaborative process/product and the way in which its creators and users are implicated. She begins to offer structure, appropriately, in the beginning, the place from which the form springs—the database. It is a system of organization with (at least) two lofty ideals at its center: “the desire to escape narrative as a dominant mode of organization for documentary and, flowing from this, a desire to foster polyvocality, producing a space in which multiple voices might speak” (p. 17). By interrogating the database as a sort of agnostic entity (but, is it?), she questions the building blocks of narrative; is it friend or foe, colonizing or inclusive, apolitical or authoritarian? Again, those rhetorical questions. But, herein, Nash suggests answers or possibilities that fundamentally Book Review","PeriodicalId":29929,"journal":{"name":"Electronic News","volume":"15 1","pages":"185 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review\",\"authors\":\"David Staton\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19312431211042892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What if there were no rhetorical questions? My classes would be a lot shorter and so would Kate Nash’s new book, “Interactive documentary: Theory and debate” (Routledge, 2022). To her great credit, the book’s provocations are given depth and dimension by emulating the polysemic form of interactive documentary itself; the user/reader may exert her own agency in a move toward expansiveness or conclusion amid a kaleidoscope of liminal possibility spaces. This is appropriate, and ultimately rewarding, in examining a process becoming. Nash takes up the “challenge” of exploration and definition thrust on documentarian– scholar–theorists–playful-human-beings by Aston et al. (2017) in their seminal examination of the form, “I-Docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary” (Wallflower Press, 2017, reviewed in EN, 12 vol. 1). In that edited volume, the then-nascent interactive documentary form was described as “...any project that starts with the intention to engage with the real, and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention” (p. 2). Such parameters are broad, sweeping, and, because of that, inclusive. With deft skill, Nash points toward patterns and rhythms (not hierarchies) that add to a fuller understanding of this collaborative process/product and the way in which its creators and users are implicated. She begins to offer structure, appropriately, in the beginning, the place from which the form springs—the database. It is a system of organization with (at least) two lofty ideals at its center: “the desire to escape narrative as a dominant mode of organization for documentary and, flowing from this, a desire to foster polyvocality, producing a space in which multiple voices might speak” (p. 17). By interrogating the database as a sort of agnostic entity (but, is it?), she questions the building blocks of narrative; is it friend or foe, colonizing or inclusive, apolitical or authoritarian? Again, those rhetorical questions. But, herein, Nash suggests answers or possibilities that fundamentally Book Review\",\"PeriodicalId\":29929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic News\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"185 - 186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic News\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19312431211042892\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic News","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19312431211042892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
如果没有反问会怎样?我的课会短得多,凯特·纳什的新书《互动纪录片:理论与辩论》(Routledge,2022)也是如此。值得称赞的是,这本书的挑衅通过模仿互动纪录片本身的多义形式而被赋予了深度和维度;用户/读者可以在极限可能性空间的万花筒中发挥她自己的能动性以走向扩展或结论。这是适当的,并且最终是有益的,在审查一个过程成为。Aston等人(2017)在其对形式的开创性研究“I-Docs:the Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary”(Wallflower Press,2017,EN,第12卷第1页)中,Nash接受了对纪录片制作人——学者——理论家——顽皮人类的探索和定义的“挑战”。在那本经过编辑的书中,当时新生的互动纪录片形式被描述为“……任何以参与现实为目的,并使用数字互动技术来实现这一意图的项目”(第2页)。这些参数是广泛的、全面的,因此具有包容性。凭借娴熟的技巧,纳什指出了模式和节奏(而不是层次结构),这些模式和节奏有助于更全面地理解这种协作过程/产品,以及它的创建者和用户所涉及的方式。她从一开始就适当地提供了结构,即表单的来源——数据库。这是一个以(至少)两个崇高理想为中心的组织体系:“逃离叙事作为纪录片的主导组织模式的愿望,以及由此产生的培养多元性的愿望,创造一个多个声音可以说话的空间”(第17页)。通过将数据库作为一种不可知论实体进行质疑(但是,是吗?),她质疑了叙事的构建块;是朋友还是敌人,是殖民主义还是包容性,是非政治主义还是独裁主义?再说一遍,那些修辞问题。但是,在这里,纳什提出了答案或可能性,从根本上说,书评
What if there were no rhetorical questions? My classes would be a lot shorter and so would Kate Nash’s new book, “Interactive documentary: Theory and debate” (Routledge, 2022). To her great credit, the book’s provocations are given depth and dimension by emulating the polysemic form of interactive documentary itself; the user/reader may exert her own agency in a move toward expansiveness or conclusion amid a kaleidoscope of liminal possibility spaces. This is appropriate, and ultimately rewarding, in examining a process becoming. Nash takes up the “challenge” of exploration and definition thrust on documentarian– scholar–theorists–playful-human-beings by Aston et al. (2017) in their seminal examination of the form, “I-Docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary” (Wallflower Press, 2017, reviewed in EN, 12 vol. 1). In that edited volume, the then-nascent interactive documentary form was described as “...any project that starts with the intention to engage with the real, and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention” (p. 2). Such parameters are broad, sweeping, and, because of that, inclusive. With deft skill, Nash points toward patterns and rhythms (not hierarchies) that add to a fuller understanding of this collaborative process/product and the way in which its creators and users are implicated. She begins to offer structure, appropriately, in the beginning, the place from which the form springs—the database. It is a system of organization with (at least) two lofty ideals at its center: “the desire to escape narrative as a dominant mode of organization for documentary and, flowing from this, a desire to foster polyvocality, producing a space in which multiple voices might speak” (p. 17). By interrogating the database as a sort of agnostic entity (but, is it?), she questions the building blocks of narrative; is it friend or foe, colonizing or inclusive, apolitical or authoritarian? Again, those rhetorical questions. But, herein, Nash suggests answers or possibilities that fundamentally Book Review