Ledoux 1

Dear Reader,

The following paper is the product of many long nights of brainstorming, list making,

writing, and editing, and yet it barely scratches at the surface of what the video game The Stanley

Parable accomplishes in under forty-five minutes of play. In retrospect, I should have narrowed

the scope of my paper- perhaps I should have chosen to just examine non-autonomous agency in

the more linear, twenty-minute demo of The Stanley Parable rather than the full, two hour game.

Possibly the toughest part about writing this paper was the realization that it would be

impossible to delve into the game in its entirety and consequently having to decide which

moments to keep and which to do away with. This is what led to multiple, truncated rough drafts:

I would partially write about several different parts of the game, later be forced to select those

which I felt best supported the core of my thesis, and then polished these with whatever time

remained. I am still suffering from this misstep and now find myself consistently undoing and

redoing various edits that attempt to smooth the flow of the paper.

This, with some form of irony, transitions nicely into the second difficulty I experienced;

the focus of my paper is on a non-linear, interactive game that is highly regarded specifically

because of its inability to be represented in a different format. Part of what makes The Stanley

Parable such a unique and special experience is how it is rooted in a player's individual

experimentation and exploration, meaning each of the different segments of the deliver

information independent from the rest while still building off the others to form a larger message.

This made it challenging to build a structure that incorporated a summary and analysis of a

segment while also transitioning into the next segment and maintaining a consistent pace

throughout. So, in addition to initially not knowing which parts of the game I would include, I

had already ordered and transitioned each in relation to one another, resulting in a myriad of
 Ledoux 2

retroactive changes to the whole paper when a single segment was altered or omitted. The

cascading nature of these issues made it so the pacing in some areas seem more rigid or

disjointed than intended.

Perhaps I am being my own worst critic, or perhaps the paper is much worse than I am

able to recognize- desensitized from my proximity over time. No matter which, the more I worry,

the longer I keep you from being able to form your own opinions, so I will attempt to come to a

conclusion and end on a bit of a lighter note.

I could be merely trying to assure myself at this point, but I think part of the reason I feel

negatively toward my own work is because I am viewing my summaries of the segments after

recently having played The Stanley Parable. Because of this, I am directly comparing the

experience of playing the game to my written adaptation, when, in reality, the purpose of each

summary is to give context to those who have never played the game.

Despite my various doubts regarding the structure of the paper, I think it has a strong

foundation to stand on; Stephen Greenblatt's concept of non-autonomous agency can be viewed

through The Stanley Parable in a very direct manner due to its thematic equivalent being at the

heart of The Stanley Parable. This allows for the natural progression of the paper to

accommodate the analysis of methods The Stanley Parable uses to convey this theme and the

discovery of what The Stanley Parable contributes to the scholarly conversation.

I hope this cover letter has been of some use to you, and I am interested to hear your

thoughts on the pages that follow.

-Ben Ledoux
 Ledoux 1

Ben Ledoux

Dr. Lauren Holt

English 12 Period 3

1 May 2017

Agency in The Stanley Parable

There is an ineffable quality which surrounds the topics of free will and agency -a

persons ability to make choices- that makes it difficult to put my thoughts into words. Daunting,

too, is the prospect of this paper representing my voice in the established conversation of

skillfully crafted texts by writers like Stephen Greenblatt and his masterful manipulation of the

English language used to define the concept of non-autonomous agency. So dense is his writing

that I only glimpsed the full repercussions of his words after a full, hour and a half long class

period dedicated to deconstructing the preface of his book Renaissance Self-Fashioning. It was

during that class period I began to realize that what Greenblatt referrers to as the dream of

autonomous agency, is almost identical to the concept video game developers refer to when

discussing the illusion of choice (Greenblatt). From there I was able to see how, due to the

medium's inherent requirement for interactivity, video games are able to explore themes of

agency both through conventional methods and through the manipulation of the amount of

control given to the player within the game. While there are many games that utilize this

technique to convey a desired theme or to effect the players emotions, Galactic Cafe's The

Stanley Parable is among a select few which are held in the highest regard. This elite group of

video games earned their recognition by fully taking advantage of the unique aspects of the

medium to the extent that they are unable to be adapted into another format. Whereas the

majority of story-centric games that place an emphasis on player choice often use methods
 Ledoux 2

derived from choose-your-own-adventure-books,1 games like The Stanley Parable present choice

and player agency with a level of subtly, placing unknown constraints on the player that requires

one to discover, test, and attempt to break the limits placed upon them.2 It is for this reason that

The Stanley Parable serves as an exemplar of video games, which fully utilize their interactive

aspects to explore complex subjects like non-autonomous agency.

Allow me to reiterate myself for a brief period: in the preface to his book Renaissance

Self-Fashioning Stephen Greenblatt states how he found himself in a dream of autonomous

agency, referring to how there existed an underlying designover which [he] exercised only

partial control (Greenblatt). In our class discussion of the preface, it was decided that, to

simplify matters, we would substitute the word dream with the prefix of non- thus arriving at

the term non-autonomous agency. In laymens terms, non-autonomous agency refers to a state

where a persons freedom, or the choices the person is able to make, is restricted or defined by

some external system or structure. As I hope to one day find a career in the video game industry,

I have developed the habit of viewing my education as a means to prepare myself for the job of a

game developer. This is what first led me to create an association between non-autonomous
1 This model of player choice does not necessarily make for a lesser game, however, because this method is
used so frequently, (to the point that an entire genera of games have formed based around this one
mechanic), games that incorporate choice in inventive or unique ways are often appreciated on a higher
level for their originality. "mechanic" is an abbreviated form of the term game mechanic, which is defined
as a rule describing an interaction that remains constant throughout a game. For example, some game
mechanics in the game Doom (2016) are how: the games camera is always meant to emulate a first person
perspective, the player travels at a base speed comparable to 20 units per second, enemies travel at a base
speed comparable to 15 units per second, the player shoots at enemies with a gun, enemies have a finite
amount of health that decreases when hit by the players gunfire, the player has a finite amount of health
that decreases when hit by an enemy projectile, the player can regain health by pressing a button near an
enemy, if an enemys health reaches zero add a point, if the players health reaches zero trigger the game
over screen, etc.

2 In some games of a similar caliber, agency is explored through an inverse

method. At first it appears as though the player is given a nondescript
amount of agency, but, as the game progresses, an event or multiple events
occur which subvert this by recontextualizing the player's past actions and
revealing how the player actually was given a measure of choice and
unknowingly or instinctively made a decision.
 Ledoux 3

agency and the illusion of choice. The illusion of choice is a term which describes the

phenomena wherein a player believes that the actions or choices they make in a game are

meaningful and their own will, while, in reality, a game designer had preplanned all of the

possible choices a player could make while developing the game. While Greenblatt, in a certain

sense, exposes the philosophy of non-autonomous agency through his writing, it is the job of a

game creator to mask, maintain, and perpetuate the illusion of choice as the players

acknowledgement of a system limiting their actions removes and distracts from the games

narrative. However, Galactic Cafe disregards this convention: the illusion of choice is explored,

deconstructed, and applied to philosophy throughout The Stanley Parable, but, in order to

analyze the game through the lens of non-autonomous agency, it is necessary to first provide a

small amount of context.

The Stanley Parable was released in 2013 by Galactic Cafe and was met with critical

acclaim by the majority of video game publications, however there was some question whether

or not The Stanley Parable constituted a game as it had no way to win or lose and no clear goal.

Galactic Cafe fanned the flames of the debate, encouraging all to come to their own conclusion,

seen in the following excerpt of their official description for The Stanley Parable:

The Stanley Parable is a first person exploration game. You will play as Stanley,

and you will not play as Stanley. You will follow a story, you will not follow a story. You

will have a choice, you will have no choice. The game will end, the game will never end.

Contradiction follows contradiction, the rules of how games should work are broken, then

broken again. This world was not made for you to understand.
 Ledoux 4

But as you explore, slowly, meaning begins to arise, the paradoxes might start to

make sense, perhaps you are powerful after all. The game is not here to fight you; it is

inviting you to dance (The Stanley Parable).

Though steeped in fallacy, the gameplay3 of The Stanley Parable, is surprisingly simple

to explain. The player plays as the titular character, Stanley, from a first person perspective

exploring an abandoned office building while a British, male narrator tells the player what

Stanley is thinking and experiencing, in addition to describing what actions Stanley will perform

next. The player can choose to either follow the narrator's instructions or ignore them, causing

him to react based on the players decision. By following different paths, and obeying or

disobeying the narrator at different points, the player can arrive at one of nearly twenty endings.

When the player arrives at an ending, the game restarts to the point when the player can first take

control of Stanley. I have selected a few of these ending to recount in detail and connect to the

concept non-autonomous agency, but, before I continue, I must stress that I am unable to

accurately portray how the game presents these choices, and I cannot replicate the experience of

playing the Stanley Parable through words alone, but I shall try my best to do justice to the

source material.

3 Gameplay is a general term that describes how a player interacts with a

game and, by proxy, how a game interacts with the player; a game's
gameplay is comprised of the sum of all the game's mechanics interacting.
For example, the gameplay of Doom (2016) consists of all of the previously
stated game mechanics from footnote11 interacting, and so it can be
described as a first-person shooter where the player is constantly moving (as
their speed is an advantage over the enemies) while fighting offensively in
close quarters (as this is the only way the player can replenish health).
 Ledoux 5

The game begins with a cutscene4 where the narrator establishes the character of Stanley

and describes his life as employee number 4275 at his office job, which solely consists of pushing

buttons on a keyboard whenever prompted to by his computer monitor. "And although others

might have considered it soul-rending," the narrator states, "Stanley relished every moment the

orders came in, as though he had been made exactly for this job. And Stanley was happy" (The

Stanley Parable). The narrator pauses as the title card begins to fade in, and then continues to

introduce the catalyst which sets the story in motion: one day Stanley's monitor stopped giving

him instructions, and he comes to realize that the entire office building is deserted. The cutscene

ends, and the player gains control of Stanley.6

Many who have written about The Stanley Parable are quick to begin analyzing one of

the games many endings, and the importance of the opening cutscene is often overlooked. In

The Stanley Parable Demo, a free standalone experience made to promote the full game, the

narrator talks directly to the player, explaining his desire that more people see The Stanley

Parable the way he does: "Oh, but back at the beginning of the demonstration, now that was

lovely. No concerns about where it was all going. No confusion. Just a blank slate. Yes, that's

what I want. A game of beginnings" (The Stanley Parable Demo). His statement is easily

applicable to the opening cutscene, serving as a blank slate for both the Stanley, and by proxy,

the player.

It is necessary that I make a brief aside regarding the idea of projection protagonists in

video games. A projection protagonist is a main character that is deliberately lacking certain

character elements so that the audience can put themselves in the place of the character. I use the

4 The term cutscene can be defined as a non-interactive sequence

commonly used in video games to establish a scene or to deliver exposition.
(A scene that cuts away from the interactive game).
5 Read as four-two-seven by the narrator.
6 It is this moment the game resets to after the player reaches an ending.
 Ledoux 6

term audience instead of player as the projection protagonist is not unique to video games. In

fact, some of the best examples of projection protagonists can often be found in film. Certain

types of video games, however, are especially suited for projection protagonists, and games with

a projection protagonist often share many qualities. These games are often from the first person

perspective, the player character may remain, for the most part, silent throughout the game, and,

most importantly, the player normally fills the role of the hero in the narrative. This is one of the

ways that The Stanley Parable subverts the players expectations: you are filling the role of a

character who, most likely, leads a duller life than you do- removing any hope of the escapism

entertainment which video games are known for. Regardless, the player is put in a position where

they project themselves into the place of Stanley, and, in doing so, a link is established between

the two that The Stanley Parable wastes no time in exploiting.

The narrator establishes the character of Stanley as being in a position of limited agency

from the onset, the mundane office worker being fed direct instructions for a repetitive task that

serves no clear purpose. The narrator then places Stanley in a world where the system, which

actively limited his freedom, just disappears. The thematic elements contained within the plot,

are mirrored by the player's interaction with the games mechanics. The player, like Stanley,

begins in the mundane and the expected: a cutscene. Cutscenes are an extremely common

technique used by game designers to deliver narrative in a direct, and occasionally lazy, manner.

Galactic Cafe, however, knows this and uses it to benefit the narrative and thematic aspects of

the game; the player is not only told about Stanley gaining agency, but they get to experience and

feel it firsthand. The cutscene, which actively limits the player's agency (being a non-interactive

segment) transitions into the moment when both Stanley and the player gain agency.
 Ledoux 7

Once again, I must mention how, on paper, recounting this event severely pales in

comparison to the experience- almost all subtlety is lost. This is a small detail which, for most

players, would blur into the background of the game as a whole, but, on subconscious level, the

player one experiences this new found agency. The game, already at this point, has begun to lay

down the foundation to construct its stance on non-autonomous agency. This manipulation of the

connection between Stanley and the player and of their agency continues to be the primary tool

Galactic Cafe uses throughout The Stanley Parable.

Now that I have demonstrated how integral the opening is to understanding the game as a

whole, I can continue to discuss and analyze some of the endings the player can reach. The two

most common endings players encounter first are the Freedom Ending and the Explosion Ending,

due to the fact that both follow the narrators instructions for the longest amount of time. The

narrator guides the player through Stanleys abandoned office building when, while trying to

solve the mystery of Stanleys missing coworkers, the player comes across a hidden set of floors,

all apparently serving the purpose of controlling the minds of the employees and monitoring their

every move. After the narrator describes Stanleys shock and indignation after learning of this

elaborate conspiracy, he directs Stanley to the main panel with two buttons, on and off, stating

how Stanley pressed the off button in the hopes that doing so would free him.

If the player listens to the narrator and shuts down the mind control operation, the

narrator recounts Stanleys realization that he never had any freedom when he was told what

buttons to push, despite being happy. As the first sight of world outside the office building is

revealed, the narrator goes on to describe Stanleys new perspective:

And, yet, even as the immense door slowly opened, Stanley reflected on how many

puzzles still lay unsolved. Where had his co-workers gone? How had he been freed from
 Ledoux 8

the machine's grasp? What other mysteries did this strange building hold? But as sunlight

streamed into the chamber, he realized none of this mattered to him. For it was not

knowledge, or even power, that he had been seeking, but happiness. Perhaps his goal had

not been to understand, but to let go. No longer would anyone tell him where to go, what

to do, or how to feel. Whatever life he lives, it will be his. And that was all he needed to

know. It was, perhaps, the only thing worth knowing And Stanley was happy (The

Stanley Parable).

The contradiction of The Freedom Ending is one of the first clues that the player receives,

building towards the larger statement about non-autonomous agency which The Stanley Parable

makes. Stanley is freed from the structure of the office, but he never truly becomes free from a

system that limits his freedom, specifically that of the narrator. Through this ending The Stanley

Parable establishes the idea that non-autonomous agency is an absolute: there will always be a

system that limits ones actions, no matter if they believe themself to be free. This ending also

reinforces the concept, established in the opening, that ignorance is bliss an agent who believes

themselves to be free, regardless if they truly are, can find comfort in the belief that they have

control.7

The Explosion Ending, occurs when the player chooses the on button to turn on the mind control

operation, and, if you are unable to tell from name of the ending, all does not go according to

plan. This, for most players, is the moment when The Stanley Parable reveals its darker half- the

moment when the Stanley parable makes you want to stop playing. The player presses the button

in an attempt to gain control over the facility, and the story stops. For the first time, the narrator

addresses Stanley (and by proxy the player) directly:

7 This idea is explored later in the analysis of The Reluctant Ending.

 Ledoux 9

Oh Stanley, you didn't just activate the controls, did you? After being enslaved all these

years you go and try to take control of the machine for yourself, is that want you wanted?

Control? OhStanley. I applaud your effort, I really do, but you need to understand;

there's only so much that machine can do. You were supposed to let it go, turn the

controls off, and leave. If you want to throw my story off track, you're going to have to do

much better than that. I'm afraid you don't have nearly the power you think you do (The

Stanley Parable).

The narrator then, to prove a point to Stanley and the player, describes how, by attempting to

restart the mind control operation, the facilitys self-destruct system was inadvertently activated

and only two minutes remain before its detonation. The natural response of the player, being in

Stanleys position, is to find a way to stop the countdown. The next logical step, for most, is to

return to a previously encountered room that contained various control panels for the mind

control machine as the consoles were one of the few objects in the game the player can interact

with using the mouse (though at the time the monitors only displayed an error screen). However,

upon returning the monitors are functioning again, each displaying various numbers and colors

that change when the buttons on the consoles are clicked. So, the player then runs from console

to console, clicking various buttons, attempting to find a way to stop the shutdown. The narrator

picks up his conversation with Stanley, but as he continues, it becomes clear that the narrator is

addressing you, the player, through Stanley:

I have to say this, though, this version of events has been rather amusing. Watching you

try to make sense of everything and take back the control wrested away from you...it's

quite rich. I almost hate to see it go! But I'm sure whatever I come up with on the next go

around will be even better[] Oh, dear me, what's the matter, Stanley? Is it that you have
 Ledoux 10

no idea where you are going or what you're supposed to be doing right now? Or did you

just assume when you saw that timer that something in this room is capable of turning it

off? I mean, look at you, running from button to button, screen to screen, clicking on

every little thing in this room! These numbered buttons! No! These colored ones! Or

maybe this big, red button! Or this door! Everything! Anything! Something here will save

me! Why would you think that, Stanley? That this video game can be beaten, won,

solved? Do you have any idea what your purpose in this place is? Hahaha, heh,

Stanley...you're in for quite a disappointment (The Stanley Parable).

I feel that I must break this block quote to draw attention to his final remarks as it is the most

important, and most unsettling, part of the narrators monologue:

But here's a spoiler for you: that timer isn't a catalyst to keep the action moving along. It's

just seconds ticking away to your death. You're only still playing instead of watching a

cutscene because I want to watch you for every moment that you're powerless, to see you

made humble. This is not a challenge. It's a tragedy. You wanted to control this world;

that's fine. But I'm going to destroy it first (The Stanley Parable).

The Explosion Ending covers a large amount of ground, thematically speaking, but, in

general, the ending can be seen as the first time the player (and Stanley) experience the taking

away or limiting of agency. And, once again, the player does truly experience this lack of

agency: the realization that any action you take is futile, that you are trapped- forced to slowly

await your demise, and countless other feelings in rapid succession all flood the player. The most

important lesson the player learns, however, is not that their agency can be taken away, but that

they never had any to begin with. Yet, this bleak ending does contain a kernel of hope within it.

The Explosion ending is where the player learns what their goal in The Stanley Parable is: to
 Ledoux 11

find what their purpose in The Stanley Parable is (a goal which, once again, mirrors the player

outside the context of the game). This ending also sets the precedent featured throughout The

Stanley Parable that an agent in a system of limiting agency is unable gain control or overthrow

the system through methods contained or controlled by the system. The endings which follow

examine the different ways one might try to break free from the system.

In contrast to the previous two endings, The Reluctant Ending is often the most

overlooked as it is very subtle and immediately available when the player is first granted control.

The player can choose to shut the door to Stanley's office, refusing the call to action by the

narrator. The narrator responds by relaying how Stanley decided to stay in his cubicle, too afraid

that an undue burden would be placed upon him to make large-scale decisions. He goes on to

state how Stanley would wait in his cubicle until the end of time attempting to latch on to the

happiness he once had. The narrator concludes by describing the futile hope Stanley still held:

that if he waited long enough, his monitor would begin to prompt him again.

This ending is representative of how, after one becomes aware of their limited agency

(when Stanley stops receiving the prompts) one cannot simply turn a blind eye to it. This

sequence is similar to the transition from cutscene to gameplay; just like Stanley, the player is

unable to return to the cutscene (the time before being granted agency) without exiting the game

entirely. In other words, the player, once aware of the structure of the game, is unable to return to

the point before they were aware of the game's structure without superseding it entirely.

This idea of superseding the game is supported in various other endings, but particularly

so in The Museum Ending. To briefly summarize, in The Museum Ending, the game itself pauses

and a female narrator begin to detail both Stanleys and the male narrators thoughts, eventually

transitioning to speak directly to the player about the relationship between them both:
 Ledoux 12

Oh look at these two! How they wish to destroy one another! How they wish to control

one another! How they both wish to be free. Can you see? Can you see how much they

need one another? No, perhaps not. Sometimes these things cannot be seen. But listen to

me! You can still save these two! You can stop the program before they both fail! Push

escape and press Quit! There's no other way to beat this game! As long as you move

forward you'll be walking someone else's path! Stop now and it'll be your only true

choice! Whatever you do choose it! (The Stanley Parable).

However, while I think it is tempting to consider the definitive answer to how one breaks

free from non-autonomous agency simply just remove yourself from the system entirely, The

Museum Ending contains several other pieces of information that are of greater use. Based on the

previously established concept from The Freedom Ending, that there will always exist a system

of power limiting the agency of an agent, one can draw the conclusion that the female narrator is

a representation of the male narrators system of limited, and furthermore one can conclude that

there exists a narrator for the female narrator and an infinite number more narrators, each

residing over another. And so, while one could attempt to beat the game by never playing it

again, once again the system of limited agency within the game is simply exchanged for that

which presides over our lives. With the female narrators main argument being a null point, it

simply shows that she is just as naive as Stanley and the male narrator.

While it does help to confirm what the player previously learned in The Freedom Ending,

The Museum ending also raises the idea that both the narrator and Stanley need each other, both

in a constant struggle to control one another. This idea is expanded upon, and The Stanley

Parables elusive statement on non-autonomous agency is nearing fruition.

 Ledoux 13

The Choice Ending is technically the last ending of the game, being one of the hardest

to obtain and the only one which triggers the games credits to roll.8 One can obtain The Choice

Ending by disobeying the narrators every instruction (which requires the player to find multiple,

incredibly subtle ways to disobey him). Because of this constant defiance, the narrator comes to

that Stanley is, in reality, the player (a real person) which is why Stanley was able to make

incorrect choices. A cutscene then plays about rational decision making for real people that

emphasizes how the choices we make on a daily basis are mostly inconsequential and any choice

we perceive to be life changing is meaningless to the rest of the world. We return after the

cutscene to find that the game world has become unstable due to narrative contradiction (The

Stanley Parable). The narrator eventually descends into a rage at seeing his story continually

dismantled, so he makes the decision to turn off the game thus destroying all of his work (it is

also implied later that, by doing so, the narrator also ceases to exist). The game, however, is

turned back on by the narrator after some undetermined amount time (the game looks to be in

ruins) and, after briefly talking with the narrator, the game is reset as though it was the end of the

ending. The game continues as it normally would until the point where the player encounters a

voice activated lock, halting their progress. As there is no way to enter in a voice activated code

or to communicate at all with the narrator, the narrator descends into madness demanding you

speak. The player is then transported to a previously visited room where Stanley must choose

between taking the door on the left or on the right, however, this time the players camera is not

in Stanleys body, instead looking down from above. Credits begin to scroll as the narrator pleads

8 It is important to note that the credits rolling are not a different segment;
The Choice Ending ends with the credits scrolling down the screen, but the
game still resets to the point previously specified like all the other endings.
Part of the meaning behind The Stanley Parable not containing any win or
loss states is that every ending one can obtain is a real ending- a small piece
of a larger picture.
 Ledoux 14

with Stanley to make a decision, stating how, without him, the story cannot go on but, the player

is unable to move Stanley.

Only after experiencing all of the endings The Stanley Parable has to offer, can one come to a

definite conclusion on what the main idea that The Stanley Parable contributes to the scholarly

conversation about non-autonomous agency is. As with any text, but especially with non-linear

narratives like video games, different people can arrive at different answers depending on their

personal experiences with the text and their perspective on the world. And, while it would take

the length of a graduate thesis to summarize and analyze all the endings of featured in The

Stanley Parable to the extent that the source material deserves, I believe that I have provided

sufficient evidence to support what I consider to be the greater message that The Stanley Parable

imparts to the player.

It is my belief that the major concept which The Stanley Parable desires to communicate

is the inevitability of non-autonomous agency and the acceptance of the symbiotic relationship

between the structure that limits agency and the agent within the structure. There is no way for a

person to have autonomous agency as, even if one manages to break free from a system limiting

their agency, there will always be another system to fill the gap left by the previous one. The

structure which defines the degree of agency one has, too, is also subject to a system that limits

the agency of the structure. Both the agent and the structure fight for more control, however, if

the agent were to simply not participate in the structure, it would collapse, and if the structure

that an agent was in disappeared or collapsed, there would be anarchy until another system rises

and brings order.

I believe the concept of non-autonomous agency laid out by The Stanley Parable, and

the message to embrace the symbiotic nature of an agent and a structure can best be exemplified
 Ledoux 15

by this paper I am currently typing, or rather the assignment of it. I am an agent, and I currently

reside in various structures that limit my agency, but for this example I am going to focus on the

structure of Galloway, the substructure of English, and the substructure of this assignment. For

this paper, the class was given the freedom to write about any outside discipline they have an

interest in, but they must relate it back to a topic we covered in English. The assignment had

several other parameters, like due date, necessity of cover letter, which formed the structure

defining what choices I could make regarding the paper. The assignment, however, is not the

final authority on the matter as the parameters were defined by the structure of English class

which is defined by Dr. Holt who, is not the final authority on the structure of English class as

she must answer to Galloways various administrators. This cycle will continue to repeat itself as

there is always another person or organization who someone else must answer to. Returning our

focus to the structure of English class defined by Dr. Holt, if the entire class refused to

participate in Dr. Holts class, then Dr. Holt would no longer have a class, and, if Dr. Holt refused

to teach the class, then the students would be unable to learn any new information (most likely

descending into anarchy) until Galloway would step in and find a different teacher who would

form a new structure that defines English class. But, if the students and Dr. Holt come to terms

with the interdependent nature of English class, then Dr. Holt could provide a structure while

giving the students more freedom within the structure. Hopefully, this example I provide has

helped to clarify what I believe The Stanley Parables statement regarding non-autonomous

agency is.

I hope that this paper has shown why I hold The Stanley Parable in such high regard,

how I connected the concept of non-autonomous agency to the illusion of choice, and what I

believe The Stanley Parable contributes to its respective scholarly conversation. But, above all, I
 Ledoux 16

hope I have sparked enough interest for you to try The Stanley Parable out for yourself, so you

can find what you think it says about non-autonomous agency.

 Ledoux 17

Works Cited

Galactic Cafe. The Stanley Parable Demo. Galactic Cafe, 2013. Computer software.

Galactic Cafe. The Stanley Parable. Galactic Cafe, 2013. Computer software.

Galactic Cafe. "The Stanley Parable." Steam. Valve Corporation, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Apr.

2017.

Greenblatt, Stephen. "Fashioning Renaissance Self-Fashioning." Preface. Renaissance Self-

Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2005. N. pag. Print.