can be cited here. However the applicability of structuralist theories, presents many
difficulties to AI and VR, principally due to their very high level of abstraction.
Analysis of structure seems inescapably tied to a view of narrative-as-artefact which
seems to conflict with VR’s real time process based narrative approach.
It appears that, the analytical benefits of such approaches being evident, it is however
questionable to consider their use in the process view of building a narrative as VR
regards it. The interaction with the user being of prime importance in VR
applications, it seems that a process approach to narrative, based on character
interaction (among them the user) would be more suitable and appropriate. A similar
approach made by Heath , argued that, when considering the relation between
subject and text, the narrative organisation of images and representations maintained
the subject in position within the text. The subject is caught up by the text and bound
not into position but into the process of narrativisation, the text moving the subject in
a constantly shifting regulation and containment . The consideration of
“narrativisation” and the role of the subject bringing there similarities within the
“storification” process and the role of the user in Aylett’s approach .
Both the mimetic and diegetic approaches to narrative considered here lead to the
conclusion that none of them seems to be directly applicable to VR. It is our belief
that a process view of story, as opposed to a chronological view of narrative, should
be adopted in order to provide VR with a more participative narrative form that can be
drawn upon from both mimetic and diegetic considerations.