Writing Consequences !On creating a interactive narrative framework in the interactive performance

’BEUL’ ('executioner') !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Introduction It's the ending of the last show of the night. I open the doors of the container and let the audience out. As they go out, they discuss the final choice they made in the performance. In this instance, they chose to execute the main character. Some of them are cheerful, chatty and slightly drunk, others are seemingly lost in thought. They go off into the night, to catch the ferry boat back the city centre and the station. I grab a marker and jot another 'X' on the 'death' side of the decision board (fig 1). !

� (Figure 1, the 'decision board' of 'BEUL') !They have a part of the performance 'BEUL'. Together with Sofieke de Kater (acting), Anneloes van Assem (stage design) and Robin Coops (sound design), I created this performance for the site-specific theatre festival Over het IJ (1) in Amsterdam, in July 2013. In addition to developing a artistic product, the aim with 'BEUL' was to research and try out a possible model for interactive narratives. This article documents the writing- and production process of the performance, the features and aims of the applied interactive model narrative, and its results during the performances at Over het Ij. The material for this article is mostly based on sources of my own: the theatre text, research notes, discussions with the creative team, and feedback from the festival audience. For this reason, this article will not be scientifically 'waterproof', nor does it claim to be. Rather, it is a personal account of the results of applying general ideas of interactive narratives on a (site-)specific performance. Wherever relevant I will quote related research in the bibliography, especially the literature that has been a source of inspiration throughout this process. !The methods and means of this performance are of course quite particular, but I think the rehearsal and performance process of 'BEUL' are indicative of more general challenges and opportunities in the sphere of interactive (narrative) theatre. Most of the things I have learned during this process involve the relation of a live audience to a written theatre work, the tension between fixed script and player/audience agency

and the creation of a satisfying context for the performance. Although this article Is first and foremost meant as an attempt to add a reference point in the research of interactive narrative theatre, I hope the conclusions might be of use for playwrights and theatre practitioners in a more general way. !Foundations of BEUL: Festival Over het IJ & Concept In February 2013, my concept for 'BEUL' was selected for the 'Zeecontainer' (sea container) programme of Over het IJ. This yearly festival presents site-specific performances on the industrial site of the NDSM-wharf in Amsterdam, with a focus on young theatre makers. The 'Zeecontainer' program is an example of this, and provides a space for recently graduated makers of various disciplines to develop new ideas in a small site-specific theater container and present them in a short performance during the festival. !The idea of 'BEUL' originated in a desire to create a theatre show with a choice-driven narrative. By this I mean a performance whose main characteristic is having a dramatic plot with multiple branching plot points and multiple endings. Given the limitations in the available time and performance space, the focus of the production was always on this structure-based experiment. At the same, 'BEUL' was also a small prologue of a storyworld I intend to develop in a series of interactive performances over the coming years. 'BEUL' took place in a fictive city simply called 'City', on the night of a Revolution. The Revolutionaries of this city have just disposed the ruling king, and are trying to assert control over the city. They have also raided the governmental building of the secret service, and burned all the dossiers of the secret service, destroying its sensitive information in the process. The have taken the officials and employees of the secret service to an isolated place outside of the city, ready to execute them without a trial. 'BEUL' is essentially a monologue by 'Vine', a middle-ranked official from the secret service of this old regime. In this old system, it was her job to categorize the incoming documents into 'enemies of the state', or 'innocents'. The audience took on the role of Revolutionaries, who had to decide whether she was guilty of a punishable crime, of whether she was just 'doing her job' as part of the system. !An important facet of the performance were the asymmetric audience roles. Before coming into the container, every audience member received a document with an instruction manual. Among these documents there was one 'PLAYER' manual, that was randomly handed out. With this instruction also came a key, with which it was possible to release Vine at the end of the performance. The other audience members received 'WATCHER' instruction manuals. The main difference between the PLAYER and the WATCHERS, was that the PLAYER was acknowledged as a presence within the fiction of the storyworld, as a Revolutionary. His of her voice commands to Vine gave the performance its narrative thrust, and the fourth wall in the performance only applied to the WATCHERS. At four points in the performance, it was possible for the audience to choose one of three (or two, in the final decision) responses to the monologue of Vine. These responses could be Empathetic (green), Principled/Neutral (blue) or Aggressive (red), as laid out on the choice board (fig 2). However, Sofieke would only respond if the chosen answer was spoken by the PLAYER, giving him or her a clear power advantage over the WATCHERS. The possibles responses could generally be by the whole audience group (something that was encouraged in the instruction manual), but the PLAYER could freely choose to ignore the consensus and make his of her own decision (this happened quite often). !

� (Figure 2, image of a test audience during the rehearsal period, with the 'choice board') !Regardless of the first three chosen responses, all the options eventually led down to a binary choice: either to leave Vine behind to be executed, or to release her and let her escape her execution. In the latter case she would also show the audience the location of a stash of hidden documents that survived the earlier fire. This end choice was constructed as a 'lose-lose' situation: in the case of the execution, the Revolutionary (PLAYER) would resort to the same methods he or originally opposed in the old regime. On the other hand, if Vine would be set free, she would probably not face the consequences for her actions. The paradox in this structure, is that the two 'bad' choices only magnify a lack of real choice. The binary choices were intended as an illustration of the impossibility to do the 'right' thing in times of strong social upheaval, and to foresee the long-term consequences in the immediacy of a moral vacuum. Both choices resulted in an open ending: if the PLAYER would choose the execution, VINE would scoff at the weakness of the PLAYER in a final monologue, after which the container would open again and the performance would end without a clear resolution. If the PLAYER would choose freedom for VINE and release her from her chains, she would thank the PLAYER, give him or her a map of the hiding place of the dossiers, and leave, without a clear clue of her fate or next steps. Finally, after the performance, the 'end choice' would be registered on a sign outside of the container, which documented the amount of times the audiences 'killed' or 'saved' Vine. !Writing consequences: the construction of an interactive plot Although I had the above concept as a general framework for the performance before starting the writing process, at the same time I also had little experience with writing a coherent narrative (or rather, narratives) based on an interactive concept. I had previous experience with both linear and hyperlink writing, but the difference between those modes of writing, is that this model of interactive narrative is at the same time both linear and multiform. Although it encompasses 27 different variations, ultimately the

plot is experienced by the audience as one unified whole story, and therefore should have a fitting unified narrative tension. !The idea of the different plot points echoes the model of the foldback scheme, as defined by Chris Crawford (2) (Although he advices against using it). In this model there are certain dynamic plot points that always 'fold' back into the central narrative. The choices made by the audience send them on a 'detour', but they always come back to the same crucial plot points. The difference with the 'foldback Scheme' and the model I used in 'BEUL', is that there are only two of those 'essential' plot points in 'BEUL': the introduction monologue, and the choice between executing or freeing the main character. The other text blocks are all variable. !In order to write a fitting narrative, I followed three general principles during the writing process of 'BEUL': !1) The different text blocks should be divided by emotional response and tone, not by essential plot information. They are 'context-free' in the sense that every possible choice could follow from every possible preceding choice 2) The different text blocks are grouped according to set 'phases' in the story, and all the text blocks in a 'phase' share the same essential exposition 3) The different text blocks are further differentiated by non-essential exposition, that nevertheless influences the decision process of the audience. !Given the practical and artistic challenges regarding the role of audience agency within the framework of the performance, the focus was always on writing meaningful interactivity instead of creating as much interactivity as possible. The narrowing down of choices at the final decision to convey a lack of 'real' choice, is an example of this. Another thematic reason for the multiple possible responses and plot points was to further enrich the character of Vine. It was possible to choose between different approaches throughout the performance, and switch from aggressive, to empathetic and back. Vine's approach to the player would adapt to the tone of the PLAYER, which could lead to behavior on her side that would seem calculated. She could suddenly turn from pleading victim to a harsh judge, and in this way, the interactive narrative model served to illustrate her increasingly desperate attempts to convince the PLAYER to set her free. It also made the character more mysterious, since it made it harder to tell who the 'real' Vine was behind her facades. !

� (Figure 3, visualization of the text structure of 'BEUL'; the 'phases' are numbered on the left side of the image, and differentiated by color) !In order to create a singular, cohesive plot, I divided three branching plot points of the performance into 'phases' (see fig 3). Each 'phase' would consist of three possible 'blocks' of texts, but they would always contain the same basic information or intention. For example: in the third 'phase' Vine would always try to bargain with the audience. She would do this by telling the PLAYER about the secret dossiers that are still remaining. The subject of the dossiers returns in all three possible responses (and corresponding text blocks), but in a different way and in a different context. In the 'aggressive' option Vine would warn the PLAYER for a new Revolution and claim the dossiers would help him or her to gain a strategic position. Also, she would say the dossier would be hidden somewhere in the city. In the empathetic option, she would urge the PLAYER to find and destroy the dossiers, in order to make sure history would never repeat itself again. She would also say the dossiers would be hidden in a forest outside the city. Thus, choosing different 'blocks' in the performance would still lead to the same basic story with the same key elements of exposition, but its meanings and 'facts' could differ from performance to performance, something the audience would only notice if they'd see multiple performances. !Each emotional response in 'BEUL' was styled in a different way, in both the text and the staging. For instance, the soundscape of the aggressive blocks sounded more oppressive and militaristic, whereas the soundscapes of the Empathetic blocks had a more melancholic piano loop. And as previously mentioned, the way Vine reacted to the PLAYER differed with each response. But that was not the only differentiation between the blocks. Each block offered a 'package' of non-essential exposition, influencing the perception of the character and the storyworld. For example, in the first Empathetic block, Vine would explain that she only started to work at the secret service in order to save the life of her sister. In the principled block of the same phase, she wouldn't mention her sister, but would instead focus on justifying the actions of the regime, by recounting a story about how the execution of seemingly innocent man saved a lot of citizens. These different fragments of information would create a different picture of Vine with each performance, ranging from benign to zealous and unforgiving. This in turn probably also

affected the decision process of the audience, as we will see later. So, although all the 'roads' in 'BEUL' led to the same outcome, the different variations on the way could greatly influence the odds of either an execution or a release. !The challenges of the forking path If this makes it sound as if the production of 'BEUL' was a fairly painless process, then that is obviously a little inaccurate. Although I believe the concept of audience agency within a fixed narrative framework can create new layers of dramatic possibilities, it also brings with it a whole host of challenges and questions. !To start with, it could be argued that this particular model of interactive theatre is hardly 'interactive' at all, but rather reactive. 'BEUL' has three of the elements of interactive art, as defined by Steve Dixon in his work 'Digital Performance' (3): navigation, participation, and collaboration. The only element 'missing' is conversation, a meaningful dialogue between the artwork and its audience. On a surface level, 'BEUL' definitely had 'conversation' in it, since the whole structure of the text was that of a dialogue between the PLAYER and the main character. But this conversation was limited to the fixed set of dialogue possibilities on the 'choice board'. Sofieke was instructed only to react to these specific commands, almost like an NPC in a computer game. Furthermore, the audience was instructed to answer only whenever the 'choice board' became illuminated, and Sofieke turned into a lifeless character (again, resembling an NPC). Whenever the PLAYER would interrupt her during her monologue outside of the signified 'response moments', she would ignore the dialogue, as if given an incorrect prompt. This created a stylistic and narrative consistency within the performance whenever it happened (and further cemented the link between the performance and video game design), but also resulted in a distance between the audience and the character. 'BEUL' was not a conversation between two human beings, but rather an interaction between an audience and a story mechanism, one in which the audience can only choose from pre-described answers. !The reason we chose for this mechanism was because we wanted to maintain the narrative thrust of the performance, and to make sure the performance would not 'escalate'. Given that the fixed text is specifically written for the responses outlined on the 'choice board', any other interaction would disrupt the flow of the narrative, the performance by the actress, and the 'make-believe' of the dramatic situation'. It would be akin to disrupting the fourth wall in a classical dramatic narrative. This limiting of the audience agency, touches on a well documented tension between interactivity/ludology and narrative, that is perceived to be a fundamental element of interactive (performance) art by many researchers. I have touched on this issue previously in my blog (4), so I will not be going into the theoretical aspects too extensively here, but it was certainly evident in this performance as well, and there were audience members who would have liked more means of interacting with the character. !I also believe however, that this tension between interactivity and narrativity might be less fundamental than some researches make it out to be. All interactive performances exist on an axis of audience agency versus fixed storytelling, and in all cases, the freedom of choice is an illusion at its core, since all audience interaction within an artwork takes place within the technical and artistic framework the artist has put up. Friction between these two modes only comes into play whenever the audience perceives it in such a way, or in other words, experiences the limits of the interactive possibilities. The key is, I think, to not let the audience become too conscious of the limits of their agency in a way that disrupts the enjoyment of the theatrical work, and to be transparent about the manner and level of agency they will be able to partake in. This, I believe, also has to do with managing expectations in the build-up to the show (in PR releases, instruction manuals, etcetera). For example, in the case of 'BEUL', some audience members commented

that they could not fully identify themselves with the possible responses, and would have liked the options to create their own options. This made us realize that one of the things that could have been more clearly communicated prior the performance, was that the PLAYER embodies a character in a fictional storyworld, and is not responding as his- or herself. !The fixed set of answers also had to do with practical restrictions in rehearsal and performance time, and budget. This ties into challenge of creating multiple story branches, namely the sheer quantity that is needed in order to write and stage multiple branching story points. If every branching plot point in 'BEUL' would consequently allow for its own branching plot points, there would've been at least 27 different text blocks. That would've posed a big challenge for the writing process, not to mention this would also have been almost impossible for Sofieke to memorize in the time available to us. It should be noted that even with the applied model in 'BEUL', we had to rehearse 60 minutes of performance material in order to create 20 minutes of performance (not including audience discussion time). This is somewhat manageable within the limited scope of BEUL, but it can pose a significant hurdle in creating full-length pieces. !Finally, one thing we struggled with during the rehearsal and performance process, was how to successfully create a sense of the storyworld through other means than the spoken text. 'BEUL' takes place in a new storyworld, with it’s own particularities, ideas and society. All these elements shape the behavior of the main character within the fiction, and should help establish a clear idea with the audience about what is at stake. Of course it was always going to be tough to immerse an audience in a new fictional world within the time span of the performance, but not having a complete grasp of the situation did hamper the decision-making process of the audience in some cases. Most audience members did realize that the storyline took place in a fictive storyworld, but there were also PLAYERS and WATCHERS who thought they were enacting a real historical situation, like the Nuremberg processes, or the aftermath of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. We did try to create a context of the world by littering two forms of distributed media: the first were some dossiers of the secret service, that contained more information about the City and its citizens. The second form was a series of letters from Vine to her sister, which chronicled the key events in the city leading up to the Revolution, as well as giving another perspective on the character of Fley. These documents were scattered in and around the container, and the audience were given some time to read them while waiting for the container to open, and before the performance started. In reality however, most audience members only glanced through the dossiers and letters, being focused more on the game mechanics of the performance. I think this storyworld immersion of the performance could have been improved in several ways. The first would be to give the audience more 'preparation' time before the start of the performance, the second would be to more clearly signal the distributed media as containers of exposition, and not merely elements of the stage design, and finally, I think the performance would have benefitted from more kinds of distributed media, such as maps of the city, and audio logs. !'BEUL' at Over het IJ So how did these concepts work out in the actuality of the performance series at the festival? Since I have already discussed some of the effects and challenges of the chosen concept, I will only briefly touch on some general impression of the playing process, before taking a look at the statistics gathered from the audience participation of the performance. !The thing that struck and surprised me the most during the performance series, was how strong the influence of the social element was on the performances as a whole. My expectations were that the

choices 'BEUL' would be experienced primarily as a 'gamefied' responses, but instead the role-playing elements and choice mechanisms for the most part took a backseat to the discussions about the moral implications of the performance. In some instances, 'BEUL' almost became a kind of forum theatre, with audience discussions for responses moment lasting up to 15 minutes. Instead of exploring the game design and role-playing elements within the performance, a lot of audience members treated the setting as if it were a real-life situation, and made their decisions based primarily on personal opinions and morals, rather than role-playing considerations. This was in part enhanced by the asymmetric roles of the audience within the members. Giving one of the audience members a more powerful role in the decision making process resulted in dynamic discussions, in which the WATCHERS regularly tried to convince the PLAYER by either flattering, threatening, or simply bombarding him or her with arguments. Although never explicitly stated in the instruction manual, the PLAYER was in general also seen as the 'ringleader' of the performance within the audience groups, and the manner in which the PLAYER conducted him or herself for a large part also determined the social dynamics within the group. Some PLAYERS created a very authoritarian system, in which they hardly considered the input of the group, while others chose a very democratic model, giving each member of the group ample speaking time. These different social structures also influenced the interpretation of the performance, with certain assumptions about the character, the setting or the game mechanics quickly becoming 'facts', even though they were never stated as such in the instruction manuals. On top of this, because every text block was also staged in slightly different ways, almost every performance of 'BEUL' differed from the next one in length, atmosphere and theatricality, even though the material itself was fixed. !Another thing we noted during the performance series was the importance of the instruction manuals. I think in interactive narratives, even more so than in linear stories, every sign within the framework of the performances becomes a 'clue' that influences the decision-making process. In the case of 'BEUL', the instruction manuals had an even greater effect on the gaze of the audience than we had anticipated beforehand. As a result, the manuals went through several drafts during the performance series, before we settled on a text that struck a right balance between giving enough information on the one hand and on the other hand keeping enough mystery and openness to spark the possibilities of debate among the audience. One major thing that we added to the instruction manual during the performance series, was the suggestion that leaving Vine in the container would certainly lead to her death. For obvious reasons, it wasn't possible to actually give the possible to execute the main character, which is why we chose for the alternative of leaving her behind to die. Some audience groups interpreted this option of leaving Vine behind as a choice for a fair trial for her, instead of a direct execution. This is an example of an incorrect framing of the mechanics, which gave some of the audience groups a 'compromise' option. By changing the instruction manual to more clearly frame the final choice, this 'compromise' option was by and large removed from the discussions, and this in turn also led to more audience groups freeing Vine, as they saw it as the lesser of two 'bad' options. !Performance statistics These are some of the the main statistics of the audience choices in 'BEUL': !Execution of Vine 43% of total Release of Vine 57% of total Total combinations possible: 27 Total used combinations: 11 Percent combinations used of total: 40% Percent first choice 'P': 82%

Percent first choice 'A': 18% Percent first choice 'E': 0% Percent third choice 'P': 21% Percent third choice 'A': 39% Percent third choice 'E': 39% Percent 'straight lines': 13% (only the 'principled' line) Percent using all 3 options: 35% Percent third choice 'A' leading to 'E': 78% Percent third choice 'A' leading to 'R': 22% Percent third choice 'P' leading to 'E': 20% Percent third choice 'A' leading to 'R': 80% Percent third choice 'E' leading to 'E': 22% Percent third choice 'A' leading to 'R': 78% !The most obvious statistic is the more or less even balance between the two final options of releasing Vine, or leaving her behind. On face value the 43% / 57% indicates that the audience groups (or rather, the PLAYERS) on the whole did not have a clear preference for killing or releasing the main character, but these numbers are somewhat skewed by the aforementioned 'compromise' option. It can be argued that the statistics would've leaned more towards the 'release' option if this would have been clearer from the start of the performance series. However, other statistics, combined with after-show feedback, help to create an impression of the thought processes of the audience in relation to the choice board and the text. In the final choices leading up to the decision there's a fairly even balance in the chosen responses (21% ‘P’ /39% ’A’ /39% ‘E’), although it's remarkable that here the 'principled' choice was chosen the least. This does reflect my own experience with the performance, and can be attributed to two important factors: a developing understanding of the mechanics of the choice board during the performance, and following that, the realization that only the final choice has permanent consequences. Also, the development of the specific group dynamics helped in creating more opinionated discussions and as a result, more 'extreme' choices. While almost all the audience started with the 'safe' neutral principled option (82%), the principled option was actually the least chosen option at the final decision moment (21%). !Another notable statistic is that only 13% of the audience chose a 'straight' line through the choice board, choosing only one 'atmosphere'. On the other hand, 35% chose all three emotional responses during the performance. Again, this can probably be contributed to a understanding of the mechanics of the performance and the establishment of stronger group dynamics. In some cases, authoritarian PLAYERS also pushed for different emotional responses to see the effect on the performance, behaving in a more role-playing manner. !Finally, the statistics show a correlation between the choice of the emotional responses leading up to the final choice, and the final choice itself. If the third emotional response was the 'aggressive' option, it led to the audience leaving Vine behind in 78% of the occurrences. The exact opposite can be seen in the 'empathetic' option, which led to the audience releasing Vine in 78% of the occurrences. This can be explained by looking at the way the text is constructed. In the 'aggressive' option, Vine will scoff the PLAYER, and belittle him, claiming he's not strong enough to actually leave her to die. In the 'Empathetic' option, she will beg for her life, and promise the PLAYER she will become a better person. It is not hard to imagine why the aggressive option would lead to a less sympathetic reaction from the audience. I believe this also a good example of the differences between utilizing choice in theatre, compared to other art

disciplines like film, or games. Having an live performer actually begging for her life, even if it's within the fiction of the storyworld, probably has a more direct effect than if she would've been an avatar in a digital environment, or an on-screen presence. I think the 'liveness' of the theatrical performers, combined with the collective aspects of watching theatre, has also for a great deal 'socialized' the interactive narrative experience in 'BEUL', emphasizing the morality of the choices over the gamification of the experience. This idea however, is something I would have to develop and explore in other projects, in order to draw more definitive conclusions. !Next steps: dynamic interaction & persistent consequences By time of writing this article, 'BEUL' will have at least one reprise, at a theatre festival in the Compagnietheater in Amsterdam in the beginning of 2014. I don't know if 'BEUL' will be performed after that. All in all, creating 'BEUL' has been a very rewarding experience for me, both as a director and a researcher. I think one thing that I can say for certain as a director, is that 'BEUL' (as have other shows of course) has proven that it is possible to incorporate choice mechanisms for an audience in order to enhance the narrative experience and immersion in a theatre work. I was also surprised by the level of social engagement within the audiences, and the sincerity and frankness of their discussions. At the same time, the process of 'BEUL' has also brought forward issues and challenges in creating these kind of narratives, ranging from creating a satisfactory illusion of choice, to keeping the quantity of the material manageable and offering a suitable context and framing of the storyworld for the audience. These are all things I would like to further research and develop in future theatre projects based on interactive narratives, and apply in theatre works of a bigger scale. !Based on my experience with 'BEUL', there two things in particular I would like to further explore within those projects. The first is a way to create a choice mechanism that allows for a more dynamic interaction, and more agency for the audience. 'BEUL' used a fixed set of interactive options, which in some ways oversimplifies the dramatic situation within the storyworld (a deliberate decision within the framework of 'BEUL), and limited the possibilities and the emotional range of the choices for the audience. Also, there is a risk of creating a system that is too heavily reliant on a strict causality, which can lead to a certain predictability. Therefore, I would like to experiment with a more dynamic range of options for the audience to interact with. These options could be in direct response to the characters, but also within the exploration of the storyworld, and choosing which information to digest. I think it would also be worth differentiating between the choices available for every audience member, resulting in a more individualized experience. Ultimately, I will looking for a shift from 'binary choice' to 'binary consequences'. I discussed these concepts with director Annette Mees in a recent interview (5). The differences between the two boil down to a distancing from direct causality ('binary choice'), in order to create more space for player agency. In the case of 'binary consequences', the possible outcomes are still limited, but they are instead determined by the sum of a series of varying kinds of interactions. !The second thing I would like to explore, is the idea of persistent consequences. I think one of the possible prospects of using interactive narrative within the theatre, is the ability to extend the consequences of the choices of the audience into successive performances, thereby raising the stakes of the choices and hopefully establish a connection with the storyworld that goes beyond the particulars of one performance. For example, from the outset of creating 'BEUL' one of my aims was to use the results of the final choices for the next plays that take place in the larger storyworld of the 'City'. Now that the majority of the audience has chosen to release Vine and keep her alive, she will make a return as a character in the next play of 'City' (that chronologically will take place after the events of 'BEUL'). Coupled with a transmedial approach, I believe these persistent consequences can help to build a more lasting

relationship with your audience, and communicate the rules and design of your storyworld outside the theatre space as well. Most importantly, being able to create 'BEUL' at Over het IJ, has given me a reference point for interactive narrative research to further expand upon, and hopefully given me some means to contribute to developing ideas and theories around interactive narratives. Therefore, more so than being an analysis of a production that has already come to pass, I hope the general points brought up in this article will help in creating new transmedial and interactive narrative based theatre in the future. !The complete (Dutch) performance text of 'BEUL' is also readable and downloadable on my site (6) !Footnotes (1) For more information about the festival, see: www.overhetij.nl (2) Crawford, Chris. On Interactive Storytelling. Berkely: New Riders, 2005, p110 (3) Dixon, Steve. Digital Performance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007. P566-590 (4) http://sytzeschalk.info/new-narrative-blog/2013/4/15/digital-storytelling-chris-crawford-heeft-het-fout, Published on April 15, 2013 (5)http://sytzeschalk.info/new-narrative-blog/2013/8/20/interview-annette-mees-regisseur- Coney, published on August 20, 2013. (6) http://sytzeschalk.info/blog/2013/12/12/performancetekst-beul