In an attempt to map what is “interactive,” Crawford chooses to define it as one would imagine a conversation: two (or perhaps more?) actors that listen, think, and speak, be it literally or metaphorically. This approach allows him to better map what “interactivity” is. In the language of computers, one actor gives a command, then the computer reads it and delivers an output. In our case, we tell a computer what to do, press a button, and see an LED light up. It is interactive insofar as we told the computer not only what to output, but also how to think about our input. For programs we don’t make, the interactivity is clear, but the fact that the computer thinks like we make it think seems to pose some sort of a problem. Regardless, Crawford defines interactivity by degree, too, which gives interesting allowances. As a literature major, I can say books aren’t interactive. However, given the conversation idea, I wonder if there is anything “interactive” about referential work and intertextuality that could help perceive literature as more interactive than it seems.