On the Importance of Crunchiness in Stories
Michael Goroff
I love videogames. I always have and I always will. Why do I feel like I’m admitting something perverse when I say that?
Nine times out of ten, you give me the choice to read a 500-page novel or sit down for a few hours to play Super Mario Bros., I’m choosing the latter.
Maybe it’s because I’m lazy (I am). Maybe it’s because reading is “hard work.” Maybe it’s because playing a videogame is “mindless entertainment.” Regardless, there’s something incredibly compelling about videogames that isn’t so readily apparent (or discussed, or championed) in literature.
That compelling thing is friction.
(Before we get to friction, indulge me for a little while longer while I discuss narrative in videogames.)
You see, there’s a certain way to read “narrative” in videogames. Lately, the trend in narration that game developers have crafted is a basic pattern of gameplay, cut-scene, gameplay, cut-scene, etc. etc. In this relationship between gameplay and cut-scene, the gameplay gives the player all the “fun,” while the cut-scene gives the player all the “story.” You see how developers segregate these two things? Fun and story? Many cut-scenes, usually featuring a fraternity of greased-up, physically maxed-out and disproportional space marines (or some equivalent modern warrior), are not fun. They are simply thought necessary. The player puts down the controller for three-or-so minutes (even that seems like a ridiculously long amount of time) to passively watch (or ignore) these graphical meat-puppets yammer on about some enemy base or some giant enemy space worm, before the game demands the player retrieve his or her controller to get back to the actual fun stuff. Why do we need this break? Who cares about space worms and the history of whatever doomed space fortress we are about to invade? What matters most in a game is playing the game, which is to say the narrative is in how a game plays, not why the game is being played.
Let’s return to Mario. I love Super Mario Bros. I love it so much I bought this stupid track jacket. When I get my first tattoo
(probably never), I will have the 1-up mushroom tattooed over my heart (I won’t). Mario, to me, is a perfect example of gameplay as story. Sure, there’s the perennial instigation—Bowser (King Koopa) kidnaps Princess Peach, and Mario must rescue her—which, I suppose, counts as part of the “story,” but actually it’s only an excuse for the real story. In more recent Mario games, there are cut-scenes before and after you beat the game, but while you’re playing, there are no cut-scenes. That’s because Mario doesn’t need cut-scenes. The narrative in Mario is that Mario must go to the right and reach the end of the level. The nuances of the narrative, the actual language of the story, are in how the player plays the game, how the player gets to the right. Every jump the player makes over every bottomless pit is its own little story. Every encounter with every enemy is its own little story. All these tiny encounters and challenges (“little stories”) come together to create the whole—the level, the “big story.” Mario doesn’t try to appropriate more novelistic forms in order to tell a story. It understands that games are different from other narrative forms because you play them to experience them. Whatever meager back story you think you need, can be found in the instruction manual, where you read it.
Very few modern games understand the importance of moment-to-moment narratives, and so they try to introduce a story with the cut-scenes, and usually, because most game developers are big nerds, the story takes on the epic scale of Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. Most of the stories involve the eradication of the human race, or the threat of eradication, and the player character is almost always the “only man for the job.” We know how these stories play out, and yet game developers waste an incredible amount of time writing and choreographing the same predictable cut-scenes. Take, for example, the incredibly popular Halo series. The story in the Halo series is that some alien race is threatening humans with extinction, and you play as Master Chief (yikes, I know), a super-soldier “Spartan” space marine who is Earth’s only hope. But the real story is the moment-to-moment confrontations, when some big alien mother is all up in your face, snapping the odd appendage-like claws on the side of his mouth and growling with primal rage. The way you proceed in taking down this enemy is the actual narrative, not the bogus and cliché back story.
Some of the only games I’ve played that understand how narrative in videogames actually works are in the first-person shooter Half-Life series. Sure, the main setup is the same as Halo or any other series: aliens are invading Earth, and only one man can stop them. Except: in Half-Life that one man isn’t some steroid-puking space marine, but a normal old theoretical physicist who inadvertently created a rift in the space-time continuum, bringing the alien Combine to Earth. Which is how alien overlords invading Earth would probably happen, if you think about it. Hubris and all that. If Shakespeare had written about alien invasions, he would have written Half-Life instead of Hamlet.
But this twist on the typical sci-fi videogame genre story isn’t the best part about Half-Life’s narrative. The best part is that you never leave the game for a cut-scene. In Half-Life and Half-Life 2 (and all its subsequent episodic sequels), the theoretical physicist player character is named Gordon Freeman. But, you never actually see Gordon Freeman. There are no cut-scenes (like with Halo) that bring you out of the head of Gordon Freeman to give the player a third-person perspective. You are, at all times, trapped within the head of your character. In fact, the only reason people actually know what Gordon Freeman looks like is because his image is on the cover and in the in-game menus. So the game progresses, a story is told, but instead of cut-scenes, you don’t leave the gameplay. Events happen around you and you observe them. Scientists try to formulate plans against the alien invaders, and you watch them have these conversations. Next thing you know, five or six giant arachnid alien-robot freakbeasts are storming the small forested valley where the surviving humans have fled. The story then becomes you, Gordon Freeman, but really you, defeating five or six of these towering robot monsters. How you defeat them, or how you cross a pulsating underground acid river, or how you stave off an invasion of giant subterranean ant-like creatures in the caverns of an abandoned mine, is how the actual narrative is developed—moment by moment.

(I swear I’ll bring this back to writing and books and literature in a second. But first I must introduce you to Tim Rogers’ Sticky Frictions.)
Videogame guru and enfant terrible Tim Rogers wrote this article this past summer that changed my life, changed forever how I view videogames. If the narrative of a video game is crafted by the moment-to-moment conflicts within the actual gameplay itself, Rogers’ sticky frictions are the sentences of those narratives.
Friction in a videogame is basically defined as how a game feels to its players. This is the same as friction in real life. The friction of wind blowing against your face is different from the friction of your feet impacting the pavement. Friction is important. In fact, if you agree with Rogers (like I do), friction is truly everything in a game. A videogame interacts with its audience by letting its audience actually play it to experience it, so how that interaction feels is what matters most. It’s the most tactile of textual experiences, as opposed to reading books or seeing movies. Feeling is everything in videogames.
Rogers has different words for the types of frictions we encounter when playing a videogame—crunchy, sticky, chunky, swishy, soupy, greasy, snappy, juicy, electric, etc. Narrative in videogames is entirely crafted by the language of these frictions. How crunchy, swishy, chunky frictions all engage with each other in a game, informs how the game feels, and thus how the player experiences the game, and thus how the text of the game is read.
After I read “In Praise of Sticky Friction” this past summer, I couldn’t stop thinking about how friction really is everything. My life, I realized, can be thought to have been informed entirely through the various forms of friction I have encountered. What frictions do I like? What frictions do I dislike? What frictions have I encountered that have scarred me? What frictions have I learned from? Friction can be a bad breakup (crunchy friction), or friction can be the pleasure of a perfectly designed napkin dispenser (more swishy than anything else, I suppose).
So what about friction in reading and writing? (I told you I’d try to bring it back.)

As an MFA student of fiction, if I’m discussing craft, it’s probably because I’m sitting in a workshop. In workshops, we talk about character, plot, tone, setting, conflict, perspective, etc. We talk about all the “elements” that make a story what it is—the “building blocks,” or the “ingredients,” or whatever other shorthand catchwords writers have created to discuss the incredibly complicated experience of reading, writing, and fully comprehending a piece of fiction.
No one ever talks about a story’s friction in workshop.
But friction is everything!
How a piece of fiction feels is everything. Boil a story down to its elements—its character and plot and tone—and the only thing that ultimately matters to the reader is how that story reacts physically with their innards. Readers want to be touched in some way. That’s not to say you can’t have a piece that’s theoretically interesting and experimental, a piece that pushes the reader more intellectually than emotionally. But even within these intellectual, experimental jumps, there has to be friction.
Friction in videogames is entirely tactile; it’s how a game feels. Friction in fiction is a little bit more complicated. There are two kinds of “feel”: the word-by-word tactile sensation of language, and the overall emotional impact of a piece.
Language is physical. When we are reading, the way the words sound to us and how they move on the page is like the moment-to-moment interactions in videogames, in that the sounds and movements of language inform every other aspect of a narrative—characters, plot, etc.
There are different approaches to friction in language. Barry Hannah is loopy, sticky, fluid, and rough and because of that, his characters are loopy, sticky, fluid, and rough. Flannery O’Connor is stiff and accelerative, and her stories have the impact of an oncoming train (or at least a Buick). Philip Roth is dense and accumulative like a heavy snow or a doctoral dissertation.
The physical friction of language informs and accompanies the emotional friction in fiction. For the purposes of this post, I’ve sort of reduced emotional friction to two categories—transgressive and progressive.
Transgressive friction is the easier one to define, I think, so I’m going to start there. Transgressive friction either tries to attack the reader or subvert the reader’s expectations in some way. Beneath that, there are different kinds of transgressive friction. There is the transgressive friction like what Joyce offers in like Finnegans Wake, which more or less subverts not only accepted structures and elements readers expect out of a conventional novel, but also baffles readers with its rich (like, eating-an-entire-chocolate-cake rich) language of portmanteaus, neologisms, puns, and Gaelic. Then there’s the transgressive friction of Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho, which is not a text-based friction, but a content based friction that challenges the limits of what a reader actually wants to read about. We have, then, these two dichotomies of transgressive friction—textual and content-based—under which many different sub-frictions can occur. Think of Vanessa Place’s La Medusa or Blake Butler’s Ever or anything by Gary Lutz or Ben Marcus. The friction created by these writers in their fiction is transgressive because it attacks the reader in some way. Transgressive friction is aggressive against what a reader expects.
Progressive friction in literature is harder to define. It might be more like taking the conventions and expectations of fiction (or poetry or whatever) and blowing them up, exploiting the conventions and making them do new things. When I think of progressive friction in fiction, I think of Joy Williams and the beautiful, true, moment-by-moment sentiments she somehow can clarify in one perfect sentence or description (like this one from Williams’ The Quick and the Dead): “She appeared Saturday morning at Alice’s house in her big sloppy station wagon.” That word sloppy is so perfect—with one unexpected word, Williams completely clarifies our view of the woman driving the station wagon, of the station wagon itself, of how we view station wagons and will continue to view station wagons, forever.
Progressive fiction, then, seems to clarify more than bewilder. It takes how we view the world, and it makes that view sharper, more concise and perfect. That is, it attempts to clarify instead of befuddle or flip or subvert. It uses convention—in both narrative structure and language—to open up how we understand the world.
We never talk about friction in our writing workshop, but we should. We should try to identify what kind of friction we or the other writers whose work we’re reviewing are trying to accomplish, and better understand how we can accomplish that. Friction in writing is the physical, gut-wrenching, heart-destroying horror and wonder that make the literature that is profoundly affecting. The stories that invade our insides are the ones that really matter, and friction—tactile and emotional, progressive and transgressive—is the harbinger of that invasion.
So: what kind of frictions do you try to accomplish in your writing, or crave in your reading—tactilely, emotionally? Use the comments below or visit our Facebook page to discuss.
*There’s a super awesome “NES” adaptation of the Great Gatsby that these images are taken from. We’re not sure where this fits into Michael’s requests for narrative, but you do periodically encounter dialog from the novel as you chase after Gatsby.
*We borrowed the 1 Up image from Geek With Curves’ post on Geek Sounds.
Hey, you should totally share this: