THE AGENCY OF AVATARS

Montogomery Nordwind was acting strangely in nightclubs and in other intimate places, and so the person who owned him-- or rather, someone who thought he did-- e-mailed me with an observation, and an explanation:  his avatar, he believed, was not exactly under his full control.

"I have seen my avatar, unbidden, lean closer to a woman to smell her hair when she is turned slightly away, something I myself would do," he wrote.  "And once as he sat seething in a barroom, while some jackass danced around a PG space with penis exposed, I swear he muttered 'Get Lost' completely of his own accord.  I think there's much to be said about self-determination on the part of avatars; I know I am now asking, rather than telling Montogomery Nordwind, what he wants and needs."

"I know exactly the thing you're talking about," I wrote back, "though I suspect it speaks to our natural inclination to infer motive and self-determinacy, especially in other humans, but even in animals and machines.  Linden Lab designed avatars to have a numerous array of automated fidgets and body movements, and I think we contextualize them with whatever is happening at the time around them."  But maybe this was too mechanistic a view, because Montgomery's owner had a more poetic take, and he even went and brought up the world's premiere Shakespeare scholar.

"I'm reminded of Harold Bloom's notion of the fictional character as a viable person," the man behind Montgomery replied. "To boil down the part of Bloom's thought that's pertinent here: he suggests that fictional characters ought to be viewed as 'real.' Hamlet, in particular, he says is more 'alive' and indeed more 'human' than many real people who have actually lived."  (Hamlet the character, I should clarify, not Hamlet the avatar.) 

"The notion is that fictional characters can be viable," he continued, "and if you throw in a little meme theory it's easy to speculate that our role is to function as the vector of evolution or at least perpetuation of those characters.  My own view, however fanciful, is that the lives of our Second Life characters are to a greater or lesser degree their own, at least seen within in-world terms. I like thinking that way, anyway. So when Montgomery Nordwind appears to show some autonomy, I'm pleased to read into that.

"A related issue: have you ever discussed the lack of mortality in SL?  I know there are many characters who have died because their real life creators died, and I know people who have been really affected by the loss.  But I feel that Montgomery would be a richer, deeper 'person' if he was actually mortal. Not as an extension of my mortality, but as a function of his 'humanness.' I'm wondering if anyone ever declares mortality in-world, and if so, how it is done or conveyed?" 

"I've considered simply naming a death date... but it seems rather momentous and I haven't worked up to it yet."  And so his hands hover over the keyboard, as he wonders if he'll ever have the strength, to let Montgomery go.

Comments

[Noah Balhaus]

If only we could experiment with this further by coming up with a form of Gene simulation based on the way we design our first character and then pass these down by testing the succes of each simulated Gene as we move through the world, the succesfull ones, such as a certain type of walk animation, or a hair colour becoming dominant based on other players rating our avatatrs. These could then be passed onto your next avatar thus it would inherit a set of traits from your previous avatar and whomever you choose to partner with. We'd be well on our way to some form of faked computerised evolution and maybe a simulated kind of mortality too, I'd pay a monthly fee to see how that works out for sure!

[Brace]

Actually Noah that concept is being worked on by the folks creating Spore.

You start out as a thingydoo floating around in the ocean, and as you grow and stuff you eventually get to be a land mammal.

At each stage of growth you get to decide what types of features you would want in the next generation/incarnation of yer thingydo.

Eventually you are supposed to reach a futuristic space faring culture and then go around and meet other people who've been developing their thingys etc.

Anyhow that's a sucky interpretation, cuz I'm tired as hell. You can check out the various links and/or google Spore:

http://www.spore.com/about.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(video_game)

I've been waiting for this game to come out for awhile. Here's hoping its gonna be in 2007!

[Torley]

I'm waiting for Spore too — looks so exciting. I keep in mind that earlier on, one name for consideration was "Sim Everything". That's a pointer at how ambitious it is.

What also gets me going about Spore is how they looked to some demoscene techniques like procedural textures, so I wouldn't be surprised if the game moves boldly forward while respecting its roots in a very big way.

Would love to have planets in Second Life, at the rate some Estate Owners are building out their continentS... it's only a matter of time before Residents go beyond the 2D grid! ;)

[Vincent]

In terms of avatar features such as hair and appearance and what not, the evolution is already occurring in Second Life - forces like consumer demand and competition between producers are at work and selecting for the finest, most appreciated, and most pertinent products. Advances in technology aside, and all other things being equal, just compare how avatars looked 2 years ago and now and you can see that there is evolution in the ways avatars look, and in the items they wear, and in the objects they use.

[Megan]

actually, that feature is in Sims 2 - you can choose the parentage of your Sim at the beginning, and who you partner with dictates the appearance of the offspring

[Mygdala]

All that is fascinating for sure, but in terms of fictional characters becoming to any degree autonomous of their creators, the notion, I believe, is to consider the evolution of human behavior once set into context. Once a character is created and placed into a story line, how much of what follows is the invention of the writer as opposed to the character?

For example, in Aurthurian Legend, the character of King Arthur becomes so celebrated in the culture that for centuries people believe he was a historical figure, and to date the debate about his existence as a real biological human being continues. Arthur was famous enough to eventually have multiple creators spinning his legacy - although he initially was created by one man.

In contemplating this very question, I have always wondered where we draw the distinction between a real human being and a fictional character. In as much as all human experience is contained in individual consciousness, and if we consider the possibility that all of existence is simply information, and that information is created in an infinite variety of ways, it would seem that if the deeds of a character are significant enough, then the life and death of Hamlet, Arthur, and Montgomery Norwind all have potential to be created from a number of sources. In that way, their leagcies can become as real as those of any flesh and blood being.