There are certainly some usability issues with Ivanhoe. I spent quite a bit of time at home downloading the demo, and then my computer would not let me run it for security issues. Neither can I get it to run on a UMD computer.
I'm still considering the project, and I feel a little, um challenged, trying to find the practical classroom use for Ivanhoe. I realize that we can all get stumped by orthodoxy and habit when encountering new ideas. So, I'm still a little unclear as to what Ivanhoe is trying to accomplish. Is it the rhetoric? or just the idea itself that is giving me trouble.
We always seem to return to the question of 'what is the text?' If the text is 'rewritten', well, it's a different text. When we think of translated texts, we know that it will be a different text. When we rewrite a text, that,too, is a translation.
In fact, to some degree, translation and interpetation co-mingle during the reading process. If, for example, you encounter a word of which you don't know the meaning, are you translating with the dictionary, and interpreting the the dictionary's definition to help you interpret the rest of the text?
And, if the goal of Ivanhoe is to call attention to textual studies and the processes of interpretation, can you do that with a game that interprets much of the text for you with action and image and visual sophistication?
Or, can you only interpret the game?
Posted by wood0072 at November 3, 2005 9:21 AM