Okay, first: When I say "Alan" in this review, I'm referring to the programming language
, not the author. Second: it's always bugged me that Alan provides no scripting capability, but it's never annoyed me more than it did for this game. That's because this is the first Alan game I've encountered that's been more about language than interactivity, and I desperately wanted to keep a copy of my interaction with the game so that I could refer back to its language when I wrote this review. I finally ended up hacking together a solution by periodically opening the scrollback buffer (thank you Joe Mason for porting Arun to Glk
!) and copy-and-pasting the contents into a text file. Now that I've got that text file to peruse, I'm becoming even more aware of the strangenesses in the game's use of words. The main gimmick is obvious from the start: the entire game is written in the first person plural
voice -- as in, "Wait, we must stop." Sometimes an approach just makes me sit back and say "wow, never seen that
in IF before" and this was one of those times. The game is apparently from the point-of-view of a monarch, and therefore it's fairly easy to assume that all this plurality is due to the use of that kingly favorite, the "royal we." However, there are hints here and there that the "we" doesn't just refer to the monarch and his subjects, but to some sort of actual multitude. For example, the narrator offhandedly mentions that "We like to coif our hair into shape, exactly like each other." Each other? Granted, this could
refer to the hairs themselves, but that's not the only reference to multiplicity. For instance, in the first room description, we (that would be the "reviewer's we", dontcha know) see this:
Cozy Throne Room.
This is where we rest, tarry, and make our fears vanish. There is
enough room for all of us here.
Is this monarch of such tremendous girth that most rooms fail to hold him? Well, probably not, given the reference to "razorthin hips" in the response to "X US" (the game cleverly replies to "X ME" with "'me'? We're not aware of that word.", thereby deftly employing a parser default response to further delineate the main character.)
All this would be quite enough to take in, but the game has other plans up its sleeve, too. To confusion of voice, The Isolato Incident adds a pile of words whose meaning has simply been displaced. Take this sentence: "We watch our bees, smear their history on our arms and legs." That's not some sort of metaphor about honey; instead, it's a recontextualizing of the idea of bees and the idea of history into an entirely new grid. All this, and we haven't even left the first location yet! After spending some time with the game, I started to figure out why my response felt familiar: it resembled my reaction to Dan Schmidt's 1999 entry For A Change. I'd look at a passage like this:
The Crux Of Our Landscape.
Still, there is much to be admired here. The green slopes are
flatter; thus, the cleft of the wind is much stronger. There are also
choices etched in the road. South leads to the nearly endless royal
road, and to the east of us is the bonegrass field and (further east)
the treasury. We can also pitter-patter back to our hut to the north.
and run it through my hastily-constructed mental filter. "Okay, 'cleft of the wind' probably just means a breeze. 'Choices etched in the road' is probably indicating that this is a crossroads." This filter felt more natural as the game progressed, but I never stopped feeling at a distance from the PC, and therefore unable to invest any particular emotional commitment into his struggles.
The game's not-terribly-surprising twist ending might have removed this barrier, but as it happens, I still felt just as distanced from the game even after it revealed another layer of itself to me. I think this occurred because even after the twist, the game didn't do much to connect with any particular reality to which I could relate. In the interest of not giving away the surprise, I'll refrain from going into detail, except to say that the ending happened suddenly enough, left enough context unexplained, and raised enough further questions that it didn't give me much of that feeling of satisfaction that we tend to expect from the ends of stories. For me, a narrative layer a little more grounded in reality would have done wonders for my emotional connection to the game. As it was, I could admire the prettiness of the words, but only from a remove.