While I was watching the video (available here), a related video about a Jekyll and Hyde Augmented Reality Book popped up in the sidebar. The idea is the same: as you read, elements of the page are scanned and then projected to you on your computer screen. For example, on one page, Hyde’s shadow skulks across the screen. (I couldn't embed the video here, but you really should go at watch it here.)
Personally I couldn’t imagine reading a book like this, and the technology—at least so far—seems best geared towards children’s books or certain types of genre fiction, like horror (for some reason I am reminded of that scene from the Goosebumps opening sequence when the golden retriever’s eyes flash green—which is still the most frightening thing I have ever seen) or mystery (maybe clues could be revealed this way or something).
Otherwise, I think this technology paired with a more traditional (?) piece of literature would prove to be really distracting and ultimately unnecessary—kind of like when someone first discovers the animation possibilities for a PowerPoint presentation (as my mum did this past reading week, and proceeded to create a truly terrible presentation that utilized nearly every animation element available). I’m having a really hard time trying to imagine what reading an augmented reality version of Wuthering Heights (I hope Kate Bush would somehow be involved) or Anna Karenina (hopefully Keira Knightley would not be involved) might be like, but I don't think that I would like it. I'm also not sure how many times the experience could be repeated. One of the great things about reading is that you can re-read a book several times, and with each reading, new elements are revealed. But so far, at least with the Jekyll and Hyde example, the augmented features seem finite, and perhaps not worth re-reading.
So although it seems like an exciting new way to interpret literature visually and offers all of these new ways to read a book, I wonder if it doesn't actually place more limitations on the text instead.
But it's also just really weird. If I'm reading a book, I want to read a book--I don't particularly want to watch myself on a screen watching a book become animated.
Of the two examples you mentioned, I found the Jekyll and Hyde the most interesting. With this kind of technology, I always think that subtle is the way to go. I was really impressed that they thought to make the candles flicker in that one image. For books where creating a certain ambiance is critical, this could be a useful tool. I agree that this will likely be limited mostly to horror or mystery books. That being said, it could be a powerful tool. I can't help but think that "A Telltale Heart" would be an interesting book to try and do this way. You could make an image of the old man and make his eye pulse irregularly to draw the reader's attention back to it again and again as they read, have the audience read a couple of pages through the narrow beam of the lantern, and even have a slowly building heartbeat in the later portion of the book. However, that sort of thing would be very hard to sustain for a whole novel. Perhaps the length of the work will determine the usefulness of this technology as much as the genre.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that subtlety is key here and that there are a lot of interesting potential applications of this technology--your ideas for "A Telltale Heart" sound amazing. Although I initially said I thought AR might work well with horror fiction, I am curious to know whether or not it would break the reader's concentration too much. I haven't read very much horror, but I have read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and although I think the augmented reality examples in the video are all really incredible, if I had first encountered the text in that format, I'm not sure I would have found it as spooky as I did the first time around. It seems like for a horror story to be really effective, it has to totally immerse the reader, but I wonder if all of the added features wouldn't continuously break the fourth wall and kind of ruin the effect...
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your last point about how difficult it would be to sustain for an entire novel. I can't imagine this kind of technology working well with any text longer than a short story.