Who's It Gonna Be?

,,,,,,,

[[“Who's it Gonna Be?”:]] Dating Games & Desire On Our Queer Relationship with Technology By [[Jon Heggestad]]

“No feature of the novel seems to be more obvious and yet more easily ignored than its fictionality.[[”->Cite Catherine]] - Catherine Gallagher [[Continue->1. Intro]]

A real-life Dream Daddy! <img src="https://you.stonybrook.edu/expectedturbulence/files/2018/01/jonham-1ouk3wt.jpg" height = 350>

[[Sherry Turkle’s work]] is a great place for any discussion on human interaction with technology to begin. [[Continue->2. Other Ways than Turkle's]]

The last thirty years of her publications have not only laid a clear foundation for anyone looking to examine digital culture; it also presents a wide spectrum of responses to the technologies that have emerged and evolved in that time—visible in Turkle’s own shifting view of the digital age. Her initial interest in and optimism toward the opportunities afforded by digital technologies was incrementally rewritten by the new, relational dangers these same advancements have created. In this, Turkle’s scholarship has mirrored the trajectory of many a science fiction plot as she views the increasingly blurred boundaries between human and machine as a threat to what being human means. This threat first appears in the way we understand our own identities; whether creating “a profile on a social-networking or build[ing] a persona or avatar for a game or virtual world,[[”->Cite Alone]] Turkle views these acts as “performances of identity” which she fears may lead to mistaken for [[“identity itself.”]]

When identity itself is shaken, our relationships—the lived experiences through which these performances of identity interact with one another—follow suit. According to Turkle, these fragmentary performances are often too demanding, especially when we’re offered easier alternatives: “Interactive and reactive, the computer offers the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. One can be a loner yet never be alone.[[”->Cite Life]] Thus, technology is both the tool that has splintered our relationships with one another and the alternative we look to in the wake of this loss. A Debordian spectacle is born. [[Continue->2. Other Ways than Turkle's]]

While Turkle’s work has radically influenced the scholarship that examines the boundaries between human and machine, the conclusions she arrives at are unnecessarily hostile. Others (like [[danah boyd]] and [[Sandy Stone]]) have found alternative narratives. These alternative narratives, alongside which I offer [[my own->fictionality]], allow for continued inquiry, leaving open-ended the questions that Turkle poses. [[Continue->Tie to Daddy]]

//Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator// (whose initials cleverly spell out “DDADDS”) was created by Vernon Shaw and [[Leighton Gray->Gray Births Dream Daddy]] and produced by Game Grumps, a YouTube webseries. [[Continue->Virtual Novels]]

According to Gray, she first had the idea to create a dad dating game after she and some friends from art school went from talking about furry culture and its corresponding “Fursonas” to imagining a dad culture with its own “[[Dadsonas]].[[”->Cite Wilbur]] After bringing the idea to Shaw, the two began writing the game, and a year later Dream Daddy was released to the world on July 13, 2017. [[Continue->Virtual Novels]]

The Dads of Dream Daddy <img src="https://www.metroweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GAMES-dream-daddy-how-to-get-joseph-secret-ending-guide1_feature.jpg" width=700> Image sourced from [[Game Grumps->Cite Dream Game]]

Commonly labeled as a [[virtual novel->Text Adventure Game]] or a visual novel, //Dream Daddy// is the digital equivalent of a choose-your-own-adventure novel. After creating an avatar, you (as the user) clicks through a series of texts that structure a narrative between your avatar and your avatar’s daughter—Amanda (i.e. [[you are the daddy->Avatar Creation]])—as well as your avatar and the game’s potential love interests—other dads in your cul-de-sac (i.e. [[you date the daddies->Dadsonas]]). The narrative branches off into dozens of different directions as you decide whom you’d like to date, what kind of dad you want to be, and how you’ll interact with your daughter and your dates. Many of the dates come equipped with mini-games through which you can [[impress or fail to impress->Multiple Choices]] the other daddies. [[Continue->The Reviews]]

As a user, your first task is to create your own "Dad" avatar. <img src="https://i2.wp.com/www.thegeeklygrind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/dream-daddy-customization.jpg?resize=700%2C438"> Image sourced from [[Dream Daddy->Cite Dream Game]]

The “text adventure game” is another applicable category for //Dream Daddy// (a term which Daniel Punday credits Espen J. Aarseth for coining). As “a sequence of oscillating activities effectuated (but certainly not controlled) by the user,” Aarseth argues that the text adventure game is driven by “intrigue,” which Punday describes as “those actions that a user must perform in order to move the game forward.[[”->Cite Punday]] Punday and Aarseth identify this element of intrigue as what entices users to keep playing a game. Judging by comments from the fandom that exploded into being upon //Dream Daddy//’s initial release, intrigue certainly seems to be worthy of some credit here in thinking about the game’s appeal. Intrigue is not only useful for describing gameplay, however; it also accounts for the intense [[emotional response]] the game’s elicited from players and fans. //Dream Daddy// continues [[a lineage of peculiar dating simulation games]], many of which would also be categorized as virtual novels, visual novels, or text adventure games.

Returning to the community of fans and players, however, their [[incredible reaction->The Reviews]] to //Dream Daddy// might be seen as evidence for many of the observations Turkle notes regarding the blurred boundaries between human and machine, notably in our greater willingness to emotionally invest in [[human-machine relationships->our emotional investment with machines]]. This is made visible in the previously mentioned YouTube tutorials, which generally frame players’ faces alongside the game itself, highlighting [[players’ facial expressions->players getting excited, smiling, or even blushing]] during gameplay. [[Continue->Multiple Choices]]

According to [[Metacritic]], most reviews of //Dream Daddy// were mixed (average) or positive, but the user reviews from this site were much more positive overall[[.->Cite Metacritic]] The game’s creators were quickly overwhelmed and impressed by the response garnered by their small game. Within a week of its release, it was the top-trending story on Tumblr, a trending moment on Twitter, and the subject of a newly-created sub-reddit page[[.->Cite Tweets]] [[Fan art]] of the different daddy characters immediately sprang up, and memes surrounding the game showed the range of communities who had gravitated toward the game. [[Continue->Tutorials]]

<img src="https://you.stonybrook.edu/expectedturbulence/files/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-19-at-7.33.58-PM-2fl8ibm.png"> Image sourced from [[Metacritic->Cite Metacritic]]

<img src="https://you.stonybrook.edu/expectedturbulence/files/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-20-at-9.31.11-AM-1r71669.png" width=700> <img src="https://you.stonybrook.edu/expectedturbulence/files/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-20-at-10.00.15-AM-1x56mc0.png" width=700> <img src="https://you.stonybrook.edu/expectedturbulence/files/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-20-at-9.26.14-AM-1l0emt4.png" width=700> Images sourced from Twitter & Tumblr[[.->Cite Twitter & Tumblr]]

A number of tutorials and playthroughs were posted by well-known [[YouTube gaming accounts->Markiplier]], further extending //Dream Daddy//’s reach. Many of these videos seem to be enjoying the humorous aspects of //Dream Daddy//, with men who identify as straight playing a game where their avatars are dads who date other dads. In interviews, Shaw and Gray express that this humorous element is certainly something they were hoping for, but they juxtapose this with what appears to be a more serious, [[activist]] element, in which their game aims to make room for sincere representations of queerness that expand and break down categories. [[Continue->emotional response]]

Mark Fischbach (more commonly known by his YouTube personality, Markiplier), for example, created a five-hour video of himself playing //Dream Daddy// through Twitch, which he later posted to YouTube. [[This video]] garnered over three million views through YouTube alone[[.->Cite Mark Live]]

“The idea of a Dad as we are using it is the idea of, basically, caring about other people. Investing in people and wanting the best for them,” explains Gray. “‘What does it mean to grow up in a non-nuclear family’ is also something I want to explore, and I think that anything that encourages us to be engaged and supportive of the people around us helps bridge that gap” ([[Wilbur->Cite Wilbur]]). In addition to the inherently queer romances featured in their game, the creators have also confirmed that one of [[the seven dads->Dadsonas]] you can date is also transgender (FTM)[[.->Cite Yes]] This investment in bringing trans* representation to the game is visible in the [[avatar-creation stage->Avatar Creation]] of the game as well, in that one of the first choices one has to make is in deciding whether or not their avatar is wearing a binder. Unfortunately, most of the popular online tutorials of the game fail to appreciate or even recognize this fact, with players mistakenly referring to the binder (despite its being labeled as a binder on the game) as a [[“crop top”]] instead.

Among these are titles like HuniePop, Kitty Powers’ Matchmaker, and Hatoful Boyfriend. In [[HuniePop]], the player woos well-endowed women (most of whom are human, but some are goddesses or even aliens) through tile-matching minigames (much like Candy Crush Saga); the game is often noted for its pornographic content. As an employee of titular drag queen in [[Kitty Powers’ Matchmaker]], the player progresses through the game by successfully pairing clients together. And in [[Hatoful Boyfriend]], another example of a visual novel, the player’s avatar is the only human at a school for birds, with the avian classmates becoming the potential love interests for the female protagonist. What’s perhaps most notable about all of these games is how non-traditional they are. Each seems to monopolize on strange characters or unusual scenarios. I’ll be taking up this notion [[later on->Fiction's Paradox]] in this paper.

In //Dream Daddy//, the [[cast of characters->Dadsonas]] responds to your player’s choices in either a positive or negative manner. On a date with one of the dads, for example, the dad will respond with a flurry of hearts and eggplants (the emoji often used to express sexual acts because of its apparent resemblance to a penis) if he “likes” the choice you’ve made or a black cloud if he disapproves. [[Continue->Emotional Response 2]]

While these responses function as a measure by which users can gauge how they’re performing on a particular date, they also offer some of the clearest moments in which the emotional engagement of users is most evident. Tutorials frequently portray [[players getting excited, smiling, or even blushing]] as their choices merit hearts and eggplants from the dads. On the flip side, [[users display annoyance or visible disappointment]] (frowning or knitting their brows) in response to the dads’ negative reactions. [[Continue->Emotional Response 3]]

[[These and other players are often quick to identify their own emotional involvement as well.]] [[Continue->Shift in Dynamics]]

In a series of tutorials, one user states, “I’m really invested in this digital girl” in connection to her avatar’s daughter, before later asking, “[[Why is my heart beating]]?” as her date with one of the dads reaches a climactic moment[[.->Cite BuzzFeedBlue]] In an article reflecting on her experience playing the game, Philippa Warr notes what she found to be a surprisingly high emotional investment in the game[[.->Cite Warr]]

According to Turkle, this “turn to computers for experiences that [people] hope […] will affect their social and emotional lives” is [[an intentional shift.]] Pointing to MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons), often-cited preferences to text rather than call, and the increased number of digital pets as further proofs of our altered dynamics with machines, Turkle fears that we have increased [[our emotional investment with machines]] at the cost of our relationships with other human beings[[.->Cite Life]] [[Continue->Metaphor]]

“When people explore simulation games, […] [t]hey are seeking out the computer as an [[intimate machine->our emotional investment with machines]],” Turkle states, expanding on this intentional shift towards emotionally investing in technology (Life 26). Elsewhere, Turkle extends this idea by stating that technology has changed the very nature of our sexualities ([[Life->Cite Life]] 9).

Yet, even Turkle notes that our intimate connections to machines are nothing new; she points to “nineteenth century [[romanticism->fictionality]]” as producing a similar cultural response ([[Life->Cite Life]] 24). Indeed, our relationships with books mirrors the way in which video game players are willing to invest in the characters and narratives of the games they play. In //The Company We Keep//, Wayne C. Booth has outlined a long history of keeping book as intimate friends[[.->Cite Booth]] Even Turkle gestures to musical instruments in considering the history of people bonding with the tools they use: “[W]e understand that artists’ encounters with their tools will most probably be close, sensuous, and relational. We assume that artists will develop highly personal styles of working with them” (Life 62). Yet this earlier willingness to entertain the possibilities of these relationships is closed off in Turkle’s later works.

danah boyd is another media scholar who’s traced many of the same observations which Turkle has made without sharing her resulting fears. Regarding online identities as facets (rather than fragments) of one’s identity, boyd explicitly states that she does “not believe that [[this]] creates the identity crises that Turkle suggests.[[”->Cite boyd]] [[Continue->Sandy Stone]]

Here, boyd refers back to the much earlier text by Irving Goffman in //The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life//, a foundational work on human social interaction from 1959 which considered the ordinary ways in which people present different performances of themselves to different audiences[[.->Cite boyd]] That is to say that one does not act the same in front of an employer as one does in front of a friend or a daughter. boyd simply carries this mode of thinking into the digital age.

Sandy Stone offers an additional alternative to how we might view our increased intimacy with machines. In taking what is perhaps the most positive stance on technology (and our relationship with/to it), Stone refers to our use of digital tools as [[prostheses]][[.->Cite Stone]] Bonnie Nardi builds from a similar framework of viewing technology as prosthesis in her work about online communities. Based off of her own experiences playing the multiplayer online game //World of Warcraft// (//WoW//), she states, “The game was an extension of [users’] existing social lives.[[”->Cite Nardi]] In Nardi’s words, technology does not fight against, but rather extends human interaction.

In identifying technology in this way, as “artificial device[s] to replace or augment a missing or impaired part of the body,” Stone gestures towards the idea that digital tools move us in the direction of self-actualization. Perhaps this is the reason she later writes that she “fell in love with [her] prosthesis.[[”->Cite Stone]] In //The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age//, Stone is therefore able to remain open-minded to the possibilities which technology affords. Never fully answering the question she first poses regarding what technology has changed, Stone instead offers two simple answers: everything or nothing (15).

In thinking about our relationship to technology, many metaphors have been suggested: Turkle worries about reducing “people to strings of code” or interacting with one another only through the use of virtual “masks” ([[Life->Cite Life]] 266, 177); [[Sandy Stone]] considers digital tools as prosthetics ([[Stone->Cite Stone]] 1), and [[danah boyd]] suggests that the internet is merely another stage upon which our performances of self are carried out ([[boyd->Cite boyd]] 125). For the remainder of this paper, I highlight a narrative connecting back to literary studies, suggesting that we consider our relationship to technology as akin to readers of fiction. [[Continue->fictionality]]

In the quotation from [[“The Rise of Fictionality”->“Who's it Gonna Be?”:]] at the start of this paper, Catherine Gallagher deems fictionality as the most “obvious,” yet most “easily ignored” aspect of the novel. Pointing to the rise of this literary form at the start of the 18th century, Gallagher traces [[how]] fiction has historically enabled personal and collective imaginations to envision potential futures ([[Gallagher->Cite Catherine]] 337). In this view, the “cognitive provisionality one practices in reading” aids in constructing these imaginative foundations, which—in turn—allow “almost all of the developments we associate with modernity” to come into being (347). [[Continue->Fiction's Paradox]]

Gallagher offers [[young, unmarried women->Why is my heart beating]] as examples, with novels serving as training grounds through which they might learn to affectionately love a future husband in a socially acceptable manner. On a grander scale, Gallagher credits novels for laying the imaginative foundation for entire nations, upon which paper money systems would then be constructed ([[Gallagher->Cite Catherine]] 346-7).

Extending her argument about the benefits afforded by novels and the general referents they offer, Gallagher [[stresses]] that fictionality (or “fictiveness”) is the very thing that produces strong emotional attachments between real-world readers and fictional characters ([[351->Cite Catherine]]). Expanding on this apparent paradox, Gallagher explains that the characters invented in novels are “peculiarly delimited,” i.e. despite the complexities and layers conferred to [[a particular character]], there is nevertheless a clearly finite amount of information that can be discovered about them (358). In this way, fictional characters are always flatter than real people. [[Continue->Leap]] Or consider along with me [[one possible complication]].

Gallagher offers Anna Karenina as an example of the novel’s inherent limits: "No matter how many times we reread Anna Karenina, there will never be more to learn about, say, the childhoods of the heroine and her brother. The proper name 'Anna Karenina' is made up of a finite set of sentences no matter how much more insightful, mature, or knowledgeable our reading becomes, no matter how much more skillfully we analyze that text or how much more ruthlessly we deconstruct it. The text may be hermeneutically inexhaustible and labile; it may be indeterminate and inconstant, but this only means that a variety of 'Anna's can be produced from it, none of whom will have a more fully described childhood" ([[338->Cite Catherine]]). In this way, we observe that the training ground which fiction creates for its readers is similar to the limitations of virtual worlds. Turkle mentions this very quality in (what seems to be) [[her endorsement]] for adolescents’ romantic and sexual experimentation online.

Conversations around canon & canonicity pervading the fandoms that form around creative works gives witness not only to the "flatness" of characters, but of the insistence that they remain flat. [[Continue->canonicity]]

One consideration regarding these limitations that Gallagher leaves unexamined, but that I’d like to take up here is in the afterlives of literary works. One might argue that fictional works (in which I’m now considering both literary texts and simulation games like //Dream Daddy//) can be expanded. Take //Jane Eyre// as a literary example; while Brontë’s novel clearly has its own end and its own limits, other writers have picked up where she left off. Jean Rhys’s //Wide Sargasso Sea//, for instance, provides Bertha Mason with a beautiful although tragic history of her own. It takes a (very) flat character from the original work and provides her with depth. Acknowledging Rhys’s contribution of a redemptive remixing of the text, I’d like to point out two ways in which this latter work further illustrates, rather than subverts, the limitations of fictionality. First, //Wide Sargasso Sea// also comes to an end. It might be argued that it expands the story, but nevertheless it, too, is a finite work. Second, this latter novel functions as a creative work in its own right. Intertextuality aside, Rhys’s novel is a separate text from Brontë’s, and it would be inaccurate to insist that the novels be viewed as one text. This, in turn, brings us to concerns of [[canonicity]]. [[Continue->complication continued]]

In the comments produced by “Dream Mommies,” a popular piece of fan art that reimagined [[the characters of the game as moms->Fan art]] rather than as dads. After the image hit the internet, reposted and reblogged by countless users, different groups began to [[dispute]] about which representations //Dream Daddy// could or could not include. While this is unfortunately a negative example of the boundaries and limitations which fans and players insist on creating around their favorite creative works, it’s offered here as a means of connecting gameplay and the virtual worlds created by games like //Dream Daddy// to the inherent limitations accompanying works of fiction. [[Continue->Another Paradox]]

The point is repeated and made clearer in more contemporary discourses of fandoms. Referring once more to the active fandom surrounding Dream Daddy, I observed before that a number of diverse communities have embraced the game, and with this, discussions between groups can unfortunately become toxic. One of the main reasons for this is because of the fan art and fanfiction that this community has produced. In a war for representation, these communities can often butt heads. Inevitably, these discussions fall back on what is and is not [[canon->canonicity]].

Despite the gender-bending nature of the work, critical responses centered around concerns regarding the potential erasure of the game’s queer elements. The main sources of outrage focused on [[Damien->Dadsonas]] (a canonically trans character) being depicted as female and, more largely, a concern that the game was being appropriated into heteronormativity[[.->Dead Josey]] The toxicity of this dialogue emerged as comments became not only aggressive, but threatening, ultimately attracting the attention from a contributor of Forbes and issuing a statement from the creators of the game distancing themselves from the comments that had been made[[.->Cite Toxic]]

While responding to Turkle in an interview regarding her interactions with web robots, a young woman observed, “I think most of all, while talking to a ‘bot, I become very aware of my [[HUMANNESS->Gallagher's Conclusion]] ” ([[Life->Cite Life]] 94).

“This place works because the guests know the hosts aren't real.[["->Cite Westworld]] - Lee Sizemore, //Westworld//

Following the paradoxes already identified by scholars of these fields, video games produce yet another incongruity. While the possibilities created by virtual worlds seem nearly endless (much like the possibilities created by fictional literary worlds), the limitations and the simplicity of these texts is often identified as [[one of the traits which most attracts users]]. This increased awareness of one’s own complexity, measured alongside the limitations of computer programs directly coincides with Gallagher’s observations about our relationship with fiction. In the HBO series [[Westworld]], Lee Sizemore—the head writer for the theme park’s many narratives, carried out by android hosts—repeats this notion, opposing the idea of creating AI that is "too" lifelike[[.->Cite Westworld]] The flat and limited aspect is essential in our interactions in that it reminds us how complex we, as humans, are. [[Continue->Gallagher's Conclusion]]

Gallagher concludes her article by stating that the reason we are so often attracted to fictional characters, then, is because we are not those characters ourselves. This [[final paradox]] offers an explanation to the way in which users of video games, like so many avid readers, can state that they prefer the “reality” of fiction to “the real thing” ([[Turkle->Cite Life]] 245). [[Continue->Conclusion]]

“What we seek in and through characters, therefore, are not surrogate selves but the contradictory sensations of not being a character.” Expanding on this notion, Gallagher observes, “On the one hand, we experience an ideal version of self-continuity, graced by enunciative mastery, mobility, and powers of almost instantaneous detachment and attachment. We experience, that is, the elation of a unitary unboundedness. On the other hand, we are also allowed to love an equally idealized immanence, an ability to be, we imagine, without textuality, meaningfulness, or any other excuse for existing” ([[361->Cite Catherine]]).

The opportunities that virtual novels present and the affective experiences they create are not so different from those presented by their literary predecessors. While Turkle points out the ways in which [[computer screens have replaced the literary novel]], she ignores many of the characteristics passed down through this lineage. In making this lineage clearer, however, I hope to open up [[more ways of connecting literary criticism to video games]]. [[The End]]

One clear connection might be in the more open-ended mode of considering what a reader’s relationship with a work of fiction can do. [[Booth->our emotional investment with machines]] considers the affordances offered by fictional works. Reading a good (or bad) book does not have a direct effect on the reader; it depends on how the reader chooses to respond to the text. In the same way, [[Harrell and Lim]] have observed this in players’ experiences of using avatars in video games. [[Continue->Alternate Conclusion]]

<img src="https://d1fs8ljxwyzba6.cloudfront.net/assets/editorial/2017/07/dd-mat-1.jpg" width=700> [[Works Cited]]

If other tools and technologies have entered into our lives (musical instruments and literary novels), why not make room for computers as well? For younger generations, Turkle observes that this isn’t even a question. Raised with abundant access to personal computers, they are less likely to talk about distinctions between whether machines are alive or not; instead, they “are increasingly likely to attribute qualities to them that undermine the machine/person distinction” ([[Life->Cite Life]] 84). This adheres to Stone and Nardi’s view of technology as prosthesis and to my notion that technology is not so much changing, but expanding, what it means to be human. [[The End]]

Through [[avatars]], players have the opportunity to interact with the game in certain ways that might be more or less beneficial to the user and their worldview, but they are also free to make any number of affordances that they like. The possibilities for seclusion or warped perceptions of reality that threaten Turkle’s view of our digital future mirror the projections that once accompanied “excessive” novel reading (embodied, most vividly perhaps in //Northanger Abbey//’s Catherine Morland). But this fear is rarely heard (if heard at all) by voracious readers today. The possibility might still exist, but the notion that it could be an inevitably has completely disappeared. [[Continue->Alternate Conclusion]]

“Women and men tell me that the rooms and mazes on MUDs are safer than city streets, virtual sex is safer than sex anywhere, MUD friendships are more intense than real ones, and when things don’t work out you can always leave” ([[Life->Cite Life]] 245). The first half of this statement supports Gallagher’s outlook on what fiction allows readers while the second half suggests another interesting paradox: how can a relationship be “more real” and easier to “leave” at the same time[[?->Gallagher's Conclusion]]

“I argue that it is computer screens where we project ourselves into our own dramas, dramas in which we are producer, director, and star. Some of these dramas are private, but increasingly we are able to draw in other people. Computer screens are the new location for our fantasies, both erotic and intellectual. We are using life on computer screens to become comfortable with new ways of thinking about evolution, relationships, sexuality, politics, and identity” ([[Life->Cite Life]] 26).

In examining these alternative narratives, I hone in on one specific example of the blurred lines between human and machine—looking to a surprisingly popular virtual novel called [[Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator]][[.->Cite Dream Game]] [[Continue->game intro]]

This is a short compilation of tutorials featuring players' positive emotional responses to //Daddy// cues. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/epo7YnxKzfY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> Clips sourced from [[BuzzFeedBlue->Cite BuzzFeedBlue]]

This is a short compilation of tutorials featuring players' negative emotional responses to //Daddy// cues. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rKv0QcHI9dA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> Clips sourced from [[BuzzFeedBlue->Cite BuzzFeedBlue]], [[Markiplier->Cite How to be Daddy]], & [[Game Grumps->Cite Yum Nom]]

“That apparent paradox—that readers attach themselves to characters because of, not despite, their fictionality—was acknowledged and discussed by eighteenth-century writers. As I have already mentioned, they noticed that the fictional framework established a protected affective enclosure that encouraged risk-free emotional investment. Fictional characters, moreover, were thought to be [[easier to sympathize->Gallagher's Conclusion]] or identify with than most real people.” ([[Gallagher->Cite Catherine]] 351).

“Using virtual identity technologies to just look like someone different from yourself is not enough to understand the experiences of someone different from yourself” ([[Harrell & Lim->Cite Harrell]] 50).

Gallagher, Catherine, “The Rise of Fictionality.” //The Novel: History, Geographyand Culture//, edited by Franco Moretti, Princeton University Press, 2006, pp. 336-363, p. 336. [[Works Cited]]

**Works Cited** (css: "font-size: 75%;")[“About Damien’s Transgender Identity.” //Steam//. 28. Jul. 2917, https://steamcommunity.com/app/654880/discussions/0/1471966894869448619/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018. Ashterism. “What a Dad.” 1 Aug 2017, https://dreamdaddygame.tumblr.com/image/163722929695. Booth, Wayne C., //The Company We Keep//. University of California Press, 1988. boyd, danah michele. //Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics//. Diss. UC Berkeley, 2008. Web, p. 125. BuzzFeedBlue. “People Find Their Dream Daddy.” //YouTube//, 9 Aug 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EulRO0W6Y. BuzzFeedBlue. “People Find Their Dream Daddy Part 2.” //YouTube//, 15 Oct 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEQmGi1CWs. Dead Josey. “Dream Daddy's Toxic Fandom.” //YouTube//, 27 Jul 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLcVZ8g75R4. //Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator//. Steam, OS X, 2017. @dreamdaddygame. “Holy Guacamole! we're a Trending moment on Twitter: ‘Dream Daddy is the dating simulation game we deserve.’” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/dreamdaddygame/status/877286748828475392. @dreamdaddygame. “We were recently informed that a fanartist has been receiving death threats and hate messages. Our team does not support this.” //Twitter//. 26. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/dreamdaddygame/status/890421600142716928. Gallagher, Catherine, “The Rise of Fictionality.” //The Novel: History, Geographyand Culture//, edited by Franco Moretti, Princeton University Press, 2006, pp. 336-363. @graylish. “How is there already a subreddit.” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/877273229559291905. @graylish. “I care about these characters and this story so much, it's so surreal and strange and wonderful and exciting to finally share this with yall.” //Twitter//. 18. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/876563139411759105. @graylish. “yes!” //Twitter//. 21. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/888316619168006144?lang=en. Harrell, D. Fox, and Chong-U Lim, “Reimagining the Avatar Dream: Modeling Social Identity in Digital Media.” //Communications of the ACM//. Jul 2017, Vol. 60 Issue 7, p50-61. //Hatoful Boyfriend: A School of Hope and White Wings//. OS X, 2011. //HuniePop//. Steam, OS X, 2015. Kain, Erik. “‘Dream Daddy’ Fan Art Sparks The Summer’s Dumbest Outrage.” //Forbes//, https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/07/29/dream-daddy-fan-art-sparks-the-summers-dumbest-outrage/. Accessed 22 Apr. 2018. //Kitty Powers’ Matchmaker//. Steam, OS X, 2014. Markiplier. “Dream Daddy LIVE.” //YouTube//, 30 July 3017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYyUbfRo8k&t=10704s. Markiplier. “ How to Be Daddy: Dream Daddy - Part 1.” //YouTube//, 30 July 3017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcO-nOu8QE. Metacritic. //Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator for PC Reviews//. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dream-daddy-a-dad-dating-simulator. Accessed 19 Apr. 2018. Nardi, Bonnie. //My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft//. University of Michigan Press, 2010. Nolan, Jonathan and Lisa Joy, creators. //Westworld//. HBO Entertainment, 2016. @ohnips. “Dream MILF @dreamdaddygame.” //Twitter//. 25. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/zombiichixx/status/890413107004100608. Punday, Daniel. “Narration, Intrigue, and Reader Positioning in Electronic Narratives.” //Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies//, vol. 4, 2012, pp. 25–47. JSTOR, doi:10.5250/storyworlds.4.2012.0025. @SpidrMuffin08. “Yup, it's that big! Game grumps is currently #1 in trending!!” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/SpidrMuffin08/status/877178950480482304. Stone, Sandy. //The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age//. MIT Press, 1996, p. 1. Turkle, Sherry. //Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other//. Basic Books, 2011. Turkle, Sherry. //Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet//. Simon & Schuster, 1995. Warr, Philippa. “Dream Daddy: There’s a New Daddy in Town….” //Rock, Paper, Shotgun//, 25 July 2017, https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/25/dream-daddy-playthrough/#more-463801. Wilbur, Brock. “Dream Daddy Invites You to Make Your Own ‘Dadsona.’” //ZAM//, June 2017, http://www.zam.com/article/1479/dream-daddy-invites-you-to-make-your-own-dadsona. Yum Nom. “Game Grumps - Dream Daddy - A Dad Dating Simulator Stream (2017-07-13).” //YouTube//, 18 Jul 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpED2q22r6E&t=33s. @yy62401. “right in front of my salad?” //Twitter//. 1. Aug. 2017, https://twitter.com/yy62401/status/892616299066425344.]

Turkle, Sherry, //Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other//. Basic Books, 2011, p. 12. [[Works Cited]]

Turkle, Sherry. //Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet//. Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 30. [[Works Cited]]

//Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator//. Steam, OS X, 2017. [[Works Cited]]

Metacritic. //Dream Daddy: A Dad Dating Simulator for PC Reviews//. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dream-daddy-a-dad-dating-simulator. Accessed 19 Apr. 2018. [[Works Cited]]

@graylish. “I care about these characters and this story so much, it's so surreal and strange and wonderful and exciting to finally share this with yall.” //Twitter//. 18. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/876563139411759105. @SpidrMuffin08. “Yup, it's that big! Game grumps is currently #1 in trending!!” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/SpidrMuffin08/status/877178950480482304. @graylish. “How is there already a subreddit.” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/877273229559291905. @dreamdaddygame. “Holy Guacamole! we're a Trending moment on Twitter: ‘Dream Daddy is the dating simulation game we deserve.’” //Twitter//. 20. Jun. 2017, https://twitter.com/dreamdaddygame/status/877286748828475392. [[Works Cited]]

@yy62401. “right in front of my salad?” //Twitter//. 1. Aug. 2017, https://twitter.com/yy62401/status/892616299066425344. @ohnips. “Dream MILF @dreamdaddygame.” //Twitter//. 25. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/zombiichixx/status/890413107004100608. Ashterism. “What a Dad.” 1 Aug 2017, https://dreamdaddygame.tumblr.com/image/163722929695. [[Works Cited]]

Stone, Sandy. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age. MIT Press, 1996, p. 1. [[Works Cited]]

boyd, danah michele. //Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics//. Diss. UC Berkeley, 2008. Web, p. 125. [[Works Cited]]

Nolan, Jonathan and Lisa Joy, creators. //Westworld//. HBO Entertainment, 2016.

BuzzFeedBlue. “People Find Their Dream Daddy.” //YouTube//, 9 Aug 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EulRO0W6Y, 4:10; 6:18; 12:30. [[Works Cited]]

Markiplier. “ How to Be Daddy: Dream Daddy - Part 1.” //YouTube//, 30 July 3017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcO-nOu8QE. [[Works Cited]]

Yum Nom. “Game Grumps - Dream Daddy - A Dad Dating Simulator Stream (2017-07-13).” //YouTube//, 18 Jul 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpED2q22r6E&t=33s, 2:26:40.

Booth, Wayne C., //The Company We Keep//. University of California Press, 1988.

Markiplier. “Dream Daddy LIVE.” //YouTube//, 30 July 3017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYyUbfRo8k&t=10704s. [[Works Cited]]

Wilbur, Brock. “Dream Daddy Invites You to Make Your Own ‘Dadsona.’” //ZAM//, June 2017, http://www.zam.com/article/1479/dream-daddy-invites-you-to-make-your-own-dadsona. [[Works Cited]]

Punday, Daniel. “Narration, Intrigue, and Reader Positioning in Electronic Narratives.” //Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies//, vol. 4, 2012, pp. 25–47. JSTOR, doi:10.5250/storyworlds.4.2012.0025, p. 25-6. [[Works Cited]]

//Kitty Powers’ Matchmaker//. Steam, OS X, 2014. [[Works Cited]]

//Hatoful Boyfriend: A School of Hope and White Wings//. OS X, 2011. [[Works Cited]]

//HuniePop//. Steam, OS X, 2015.

@graylish. “yes!” //Twitter//. 21. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/graylish/status/888316619168006144?lang=en. “About Damien’s Transgender Identity.” //Steam//. 28. Jul. 2917, https://steamcommunity.com/app/654880/discussions/0/1471966894869448619/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2018. [[Works Cited]]

Warr, Philippa. “Dream Daddy: There’s a New Daddy in Town….” //Rock, Paper, Shotgun//, 25 July 2017, https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/25/dream-daddy-playthrough/#more-463801. [[Works Cited]]

Stone, Sandy. //The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age//. MIT Press, 1996, p. 1. [[Works Cited]]

Nardi, Bonnie. //My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft//. University of Michigan Press, 2010, p. 21. [[Works Cited]]

Kain, Erik. “‘Dream Daddy’ Fan Art Sparks The Summer’s Dumbest Outrage.” //Forbes//, https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/07/29/dream-daddy-fan-art-sparks-the-summers-dumbest-outrage/. Accessed 22 Apr. 2018. @dreamdaddygame. “We were recently informed that a fanartist has been receiving death threats and hate messages. Our team does not support this.” //Twitter//. 26. Jul. 2017, https://twitter.com/dreamdaddygame/status/890421600142716928 [[Works Cited]]

Harrell, D. Fox, and Chong-U Lim, “Reimagining the Avatar Dream: Modeling Social Identity in Digital Media.” //Communications of the ACM//. Jul 2017, Vol. 60 Issue 7, pp. 50-61, p. 50. [[Works Cited]]

Some of the issues regarding the toxic responses of fans are here expanded on by YouTuber Dead Josey. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fLcVZ8g75R4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> Video sourced from [[Dead Josey->Cite Josey]]

Dead Josey. “Dream Daddy's Toxic Fandom.” //YouTube//, 27 Jul 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLcVZ8g75R4. [[Works Cited]]