So how do you categorize and subcategorize transmedia?
Written on Sunday, December 22, 2013 by Unknown
The concept of transmedia can be tricky to define, and when asked I usually just blab something about it being like a story that's told through multiple mediums mumblemumble... and then I talk about some examples. But if I really wanted to use my smarts and memorize a definition then I would probably go with -you guessed it- Henry Jenkins' version.
It goes a little something like this...
"Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience. Ideally, each medium makes it own unique contribution to the unfolding of the story."
(from Confessions of an Aca-Fan posted in 2007 under Transmedia Storytelling 101)
Tah-dah! Yes, I added the blue for emphasis. EMPHASIS. (Josh anyone?)
His definition expands from there, but this is the gist.
It's a wee bit too long to memorize without more mumbling. Unlike my professor's favorite definition of rhetoric: "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion" - Aristotle. Now that one is short and sweet. But then again, what are iPhones for if not to use to pull up random information and spew it at other people as if you'd really known it all along. Shout out to whoever invented bookmarks for webpages. I would pretend to know, but Wikipedia isn't budging.
So anyway, now that we have loosely defined transmedia, can we break it down even more? As Emma would say, "HELL YEAH."
Now here is where I have some issues. Not many people really do break it down. I know, right? Why the hell not! But I was reading a book by Andrea Phillips called A Creators Guide to Transmedia Storytelling and she attempts to make some more classifications. She states that some people like to identify two types of transmedia: "West Coast (or Hollywood) transmedia" and "East Coast transmedia." (Are those supposed to stay capitalized? Hmm.) West Coast uses bigger chunks of media that don't rely so much on each other, and East Coast uses more social media and the media is much more connected. I had actually never heard of this concept before. And a quick google search simply leads back to her book. If you want some quotes from that chapter you can read this and she also is interviewed by Jenkins here where she talks about it even more. In that interview she claims that she regrets using the geographical terms, and frankly I don't blame her. Obviously you can make proverbial East Coast style transmedia on the literal West Coast and vice versa. I think I just used proverbial wrong. Whatever, I'm leaving it.
So while I think there is a lot of great stuff in the book, I absolutely hated this terminology. If I had to come up with something different, I would likely have chosen the terms "creator's transmedia" (in place of East Coast) and "industry transmedia" (in place of West Coast). Creators because that's the term that those who dabble/live in the transmedia arts tend to use to refer to themselves, and industry because, well, Hollywood = industry. Creators tend to make their works out of love for the story, while the industry's goal usually ends up in their pockets. They have different motives. But it isn't all black and white. You can be or use both. So there needs to be some hybrid. I don't want to call it "hybrid transmedia" because that implies something more complex, but I know there's probably a word out there that can better capture the essence of this better. And I'm always taking suggestions.
For the sake of bored readers who think I talk to much (and I do, I know I do) I'm going to stop here. I'll post again later with more thoughts about creators vs. industry vs. something else transmedia. I do have a lot to say, but I just wanted to put those words out there for now.
Ranting over.
-Danny
edit: I expand here.
