I also wanted to point out that it’s sort of interesting that this piece feels like it has more in common with what was being called Hypertext Fiction in the 90s than what we tend to see from Interactive Fiction today, in that the reader’s actions don’t alter events, but rather alter the story’s telling, in this case mostly deciding whether s/he’s interested in various digressions or would prefer to cut right to the chase (though it’s not always clear which decision is which). This leads to the feeling of a really strongly authored piece, which is what I remember feeling about the handful of most-effective hypertext fiction pieces from back in the day.

I don’t really have a thesis statement here, just felt compelled to jot this down, mostly because of how well-done and well-written this piece is (at least until the ending, which may just not be my cup of tea, despite it’s potential commentary on the frivolous aggressions of current-day internet inhabitants).

(And I’m definitely not so well-read as far as contemporary IF goes, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this style is in fact more common than I’m assuming?)