Written on Sunday, March 23, 2014 by Unknown
This is usually how I feel when my advisor and I talk about my thesis. But that's okay. It is called a "rhetoric major" for a reason. Insert some kind of joke about rhetorical questions here. Insert horribly cheesy laugh track after said joke.
In response to a previous post my advisor asked the following questions:
Do kernels and satellites rely on the knowledge of the viewer? Can an
analysis be nuanced enough to account for both the "novice viewer" and
"fully immersed"?
I think I addressed this (very very briefly) in my video when I talk about some of the problems with the Scene Function Model. The developers of that model tested it on students. When they talked to them about which scenes they
thought were kernels and satellites, the new viewers found certain
scenes to be kernels while returning viewers or fans did not. This was
because the fans had previous knowledge about the characters/plot. The new viewers lacked this knowledge and therefore thought that everything was much
more important. So I think that the answer to this is two-fold. Yes,
kernels and satellites can rely on the knowledge of the viewer, but they
don't always have to.
Let's say Lizzie rants about some event that
already took place and new viewer just jumped in on that episode with no
other knowledge about the show. They might consider the rant to be important (and a kernel) because
it summarizes previous pertinent information. But a returning viewer would call
this repetitive information (and thus a satellite). So this case
would rely on prior knowledge. But what if the viewer jumped in during
the event? Then it wouldn't matter if they knew the background of the
characters, because clearly this plot development was important and
changed the course of the episode/series. This might be a bad example,
but I hope the point is at least somewhat clear. And I don't know if an
analysis can be nuanced enough, because I am an informed viewer already
and am thus already biased. Perhaps if someone else were doing this
about something I haven't seen I could answer this question more
thoroughly.
I also think this question was in response to the book comparison problem, which is even more complex. When talking about kernels and satellites, should we consider the book? For this thesis, I think I am going to say no. The show needs to stand on it's own because I am analyzing transmedia, not adaptation theory or something like that. It is also a modernization, so character motivations are different, events have different impacts, and there are more opinions provided than in the novel. Basically, it is different enough that even though readers like to compare and contrast and will definitely experience the show in their own way, calling an event a kernel or a satellite based on how it played out in the book would be incorrect. Pride and Prejudice takes place over 200 years ago in England during the time of the landed gentry. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries takes place in 21st century United States and uses a hell of a lot more technology. Expectations are not the same. Motivations are not the same. Actions have different repercussions. Central themes (like marriage/relationships) play out much differently. So I just cant say that X scene is a kernel because it was a kernel in the novel. It wouldn't make sense to do that every time. Yes, sometimes the book and show are very close and kernels/satellites are the same, but this is a parallel. Which, you know, tends to happen in adaptations. It's not an unwritten commandment that everything must be taken exactly the same way. Sorry book lovers. I am a Janeite too, but I just can't analyze the show that way.
Hopefully this all made sense. And professor, let me know if I didn't fully answer your questions. I'd love to hear your response.
I'm pretty stoked that I actually came to a conclusion about the book issue. Wohoo!
Anything else? Anyone else?
-Danny
Posted in
analysis,
book,
characters,
expectation,
fan,
important,
janeite,
kernels,
LBD,
motivation,
plot,
pride and prejudice,
questions,
satellites,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries,
themes,
viewer
|
Written on Sunday, March 23, 2014 by Unknown
Most thesis/theses require a literature review. This is when you look for readings that are relevant to your project and then write a paper about your findings. You do not add any new information. Or at least, this is what I have been told, as I've never actually needed to do one before.
So maybe I should make mine more fun? I mean, this isn't a traditional thesis, and my posts certainly aren't in standard paper format. But I still need to do something similar to a lit review. Maybe mine will just have more pictures? I'm still working on the finer details.
One thing that is both a blessing and a curse is the major lack of literature on The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. It is a blessing because it gives me more freedom to come up with my own ideas, and it is a curse because it gives me more freedom than I actually need. A the moment I'm feeling more of the effects of the curse half.
"Lack of literature? What are you talking about? I've read tons of articles about LBD."
Yes, there are plenty of reviews and blog posts out there, but technically those aren't the sources I'm supposed to be relying on. I need some books or peer reviewed academic journals. And unfortunately, not enough people have recognized the genius that is LBD yet. I am positive that they will one day, but as of this post there really isn't much for me to use.
When I can find them, I will use articles directly about LBD, but in the mean time I will focus on works about transmedia and other similar projects.
Time to investigate.
Jeez that camera is huge.
-Danny
"A long time ago, we used to be friends but I haven't thought of you lately at all. If ever again a greeting I send to you, short and sweet to the soul I intend. Ah ah ah ahh ahh. Ah ah ah ahh ahh..."
Posted in
academic,
blog,
book,
information,
investigation,
journal,
LBD,
literature,
paper,
project,
relevant,
research,
review,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries,
thesis,
transmedia,
veronica mars
|
Written on Monday, March 17, 2014 by Unknown
"If you love something, then let it go." Said no one who ever belonged in a fandom ever.
They
also don't say things like "I accept every decision this
author/director/creator made without second guessing it or having any
kind of opinion about it."
Yep. Letting things go and accepting change are two things that die hard fans can be really bad at. And internet fandoms are just as ridiculous. They also love to use abbreviated terms. Take for example...
Ship/Shipping (other fun versions can be found here*):
This
is an abbreviation of the word "relationship" and basically means you
are rooting for a relationship to happen/continue. Ex. "I ship Stefan
and Elena." A sub category of shipping is "otp" or "one true pairing."
*for a much longer explanation go here (note to my advisor, this website claims it originated with fans of The X-Files)
Fans
are passionate. Very passionate. Borderline crazy passionate. (Okay, not all of them.) Some of
them are even like, "There's a line? Well we definitely have to step
over it then. Lines are for irl conversations only, and even then it
will still be crossed."
So the creators of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries
had an interesting dilemma. They wanted the show to be a modern
adaptation, but how modern were they allowed to make it? How far off
could they go from the original text that would a) please fans of the
novel and b) appeal to new fans (who may or may not have liked/read the
novel). As I have established, fans are freakin' passionate. They have
needs. They have feels. And messing too much with the original content
could make Janeites go berserk, but then not messing enough could make new fans roll their eyes.
The first line of Pride and Prejudice is iconic. Any English major can probably quote it to you, as could any Austen fan. LBD tried to incorporate it as best they could (honestly, I didn't exactly love what they did) because not doing so would have upset P&P fans.
The
show was also written by feminists, who don't consider the first line
to be a truth. So they changed things, the ending especially, so that it
fits into a modern feminist context. Austen was more constricted by her
time period and the ending of the novel is indicative of that, but not
really suitable to 21st century ideals. Lydia can't marry Wickham in
this era, because what he did to her in LBD's version is morally wrong and unforgivable (this, of course, is arguable—but not so much my point).
What
might happen if there was a major deviation from the original text?
Would an audience be lost? What if the deviation wasn't so "major"? To
what extent are they allowed to change? What is the audience comfortable
with?
I
know that there have been occasions where some Austen fans have been
like "Hell no, that is not supposed to happen" but then other times
where they say "I really like how you updated this particular scene."
Sometimes both of those statements exist in the same comments thread,
and other times it can be a vast majority pulling one way or the other.
There are major benefits and limitations to adapting. You have a built in audience which is a plus, but as I said you also need to appease them and new viewers too. It is certainly a predicament.
I seem to only have more questions than when I started, but that is why I am writing them out.
Time for more serious investigation...
-Danny
Posted in
adaptation,
audience,
Austen,
book,
change,
fan,
fandom,
LBD,
modern,
opinion,
passionate,
pride and prejudice,
ship,
shipping,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries
|
Written on Monday, March 10, 2014 by Unknown
To book or not to book? That is the question.
So in a previous post I talked a bit about adaptations. And that was fine and everything, but now it's getting serious. Serious my friends.
Do I use the book when identifying kernels and satellites?
(Don't know what those are? Go back to part 1)
What I mean is, there are certain events in the book that would be considered kernels. But maybe they play out differently in the series (perhaps not on Lizzie's videos but on someone else's or on a social media account). Does that mean they are less important? More important? The same?
Should I even be considering the book, or should I look at the show on its own?
My past post was in full defense of the show standing on its own. And in terms of entertainment and storytelling and such, I still stand by that. But when analyzing it with narrative theory, the book can come back into play if I so choose.
Here's what I'm thinking. There is a spectrum concerning adaptations.
From faithful reenactments to interesting modernizations to lose-but-you-might-never-have-known-it interpretations:
Okay, so that last one is Emma but you get the idea.
The first one is so obviously Austen and the last one is the opposite of obvious. LBD falls somewhere in the middle. Some people may have never read P&P but they still love and watch the show. Some people, like me, have read the book and get all of the little jokes and references that they make. So does it turn to a question of viewership? Do kernels and satellites rely on the knowledge of the viewer? One of the problems associated with the Scene Function Model (a more specific version of kernels and satellites) is that the fans and novice viewers disagreed on the importance of certain scenes.
I mean, I can't watch LBD without being aware of the book. But I also know that the series can stand on its own. Then again, maybe I'm biased because I've read the book so many times. And maybe that doesn't matter, seeing as the show clearly has a following.
All right, I'm talking in circles now. But the issue still stands.
Can you believe that this was me being brief? I was way more detailed about this with my advisor, citing tons of examples and perceived conundrums.
I will address these questions again at a later date, along with a few more.
But for now, I'm calling it.
-Danny
Posted in
adaptation,
analysis,
book,
important,
issues,
kernels,
LBD,
pride and prejudice,
questions,
satellites,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries,
videos
|
Written on Sunday, March 02, 2014 by Unknown
I've ranted a lot about transmedia in previous posts. Mostly in this one and this one. However, neither of those were official thesis posts, so I am going to reiterate a few things for clarity's sake. This post will contain some basic definitions and I will try to be as straightforward as possible.
All citations for books and academic articles can be found in my bibliography.
What is transmedia?
I've used this definition before, and I'm going to use it again. This is from Henry Jenkins' blog:
"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."
Jenkins' definition is actually much longer than that, and goes on to highlight 7 points in total. But this piece is a good starting point.
And while we're at it, why don't I explain what transmedia is not.
These definitions have been taken directly from Andrea Phillips' book A Creator's Guide to Transmedia Storytelling (p. 18-19). Why did I quote her word-for-word? Because if someone else says it clearly, then I will let them say it. No need to butcher it by trying to paraphrase. So here are some definitions for things that people often confuse with transmedia:
Multimedia: On the surface, multimedia sounds like it describes exactly what transmedia is meant to be: multiple media. Unfortunately, in the 1990s, the term took on a very specific connotation: text, video, audio, and images delivered together through computer. Multimedia CD-ROMs of atlases and encyclopedias were common and profitable for a few years. They vanished when the new king of multimedia experience arose: the World Wide Web.
Interactive fiction: You might think a story that you can interact with is interactive fiction. But this phrase has been taken for decades to mean a very specific kind of computer game: the text adventure, as in games like Zork or Moonmist. These were the particular specialty of a Massachusetts company named Infocom, which was taken over by Activision in 1986.
But there's another reason why transmedia storytelling can't be called interactive fiction, and that's the growing interest in transmedia documentaries and serious games. The same tools you can use for telling a story that isn't true can just as easily be used to call attention to real-world information,
Cross-Media: Until very recently, cross-media was the top contender to mean the same thing as transmedia. Now, a consensus is growing that cross-media refers to releasing the same content (like, say, a TV show) over multiple platforms. So cross-media is what lets you see the same episode of Yo Gabba Gabba on TV, on your phone, and on a DVD.
Alternate Reality Game (ARG): An alternate reality game is a social media narrative that plays out in real time, using real communications media to make it seem as though the story were really happening. Sounds a lot like transmedia, right? And in fact the ARG is a subset of transmedia – Perplex City was an ARG. But the accepted formula for an ARG requires elements that a transmedia project doesn't always have, such as direct communication with characters or puzzles for the players to solve.
Thanks Andrea. She also talks more about it on her blog.
Need a little more info? No problem.
Examples of transmedia storytelling:
- The Beast - An ARG tie-in game to go along with Stephen Spielberg's film A.I. It was one of the first to be labeled a transmedia project.
- The Blair Witch Project - A feature film with a website, books, comic books, and computer games.
- Assassin's Creed - An extremely
successful transmedia franchise that originated with a video game, and
now includes more games, comic books, short films, and websites.
- Why So Serious? - An viral marketing ARG tie-in game to go along with the release of The Dark Knight film.
- Year Zero - An ARG and concept album combo by Nine Inch Nails.
- Defiance - A television show and video game by the SyFy network and Trion Worlds.
- MyMusic - A YouTube scripted sitcom by the Fine Brothers, in many ways similar to LBD.
- Cathy's Book: If Found Call (650) 266-8233 - A YA novel and ARG with an online following.
- Star Wars - Surprised by this one? This franchise is gigantic, and I wont be able to name everything, but the films, TV shows, books, comic books, games, theme park rides and so on all contribute to the greater Star Wars universe. It is transmedia on a massive scale.
- (and finally) The Lizzie Bennet Diaries - A webseries with a wide array of social media accounts/content.
Now this is just a small sampling of the variety of transmedia stories out there. I didn't go into much detail here because they are not my focus, but if you want to learn more I highly suggest you check some of them out.
You also may have notice that a lot of them involve ARGs, and why not? It is a fantastic way to get an audience involved and have them participate in the narrative. Unfortunately, ARGs can have some negative connotations attached to them, but really they aren't all guild with quests that only geeks like to play.
Sometimes they can be much more than that. For example, in Why So Serious? was very much a scavenger hunt with players searching and finding clues that provided the background for the opening sequence, which were able to see prior to the release of the film. One rabbit hole, for example, involved people finding an address and the name Robin Banks, who apparently had a "very special treat" waiting for him. Another participant(s) would go to that address which turned out to be a bakery. They asked for an order under said name and were given a cake which told them in icing to call a number, which they did and the cake started to ring. They cut the cake and discovered a phone and instructions to call another number which triggered a text message response. With the phone was also a Joker playing card. Participants were now bank robbers for the Joker. So the game went on and findings were always shared with the community. Some people played in real life, like those who traveled to the bakeries, and some simply played online (and of course there were probably many that did both). The game was very successful as was the film.
So what are you thinking about ARGs now?
That was a bit of an off topic rant. But still interesting stuff.
Information about Why So Serious? came from Frank Rose's book The Art of Immersion (p. 9-15). If you want to find out more about this particular ARG experience, check out this link.
More to come on transmedia. It's about time to start analyzing.
-Danny
Update: I just want to say, that regardless of all of the above, transmedia is still a tricky things to define as it is constantly changing and evolving. Not everyone's definition will be the same. But I need to stick with something in order to analyze, so this is what I've got. And in a non-thesis capacity, I am always open to other interpretations.
Posted in
Andrea Phillips,
ARG,
book,
cross-media,
definition,
film,
Frank Rose,
game,
Henry Jenkins,
interactive fiction,
multimedia,
transmedia,
webseries
|
Written on Sunday, March 02, 2014 by Unknown
Seeing as this web show wouldn't be possible without the book it was based on, I thought I should spend at least one post on some facts about the novel.
Pride and Prejudice:
Type - Novel, satire, comedy, classic
Author - Jane Austen
Published - Jan 28, 1813
Publisher - T. Egerton, Whitehall
Volumes - Three, but now sold as one
Origin - United Kingdon
Setting - Early 19th-century England
Class system - Landed gentry
Protagonist - Elizabeth Bennet
Narrated - Third-person omniscient
Chronology - Published after Sense and Sensibility but before Mansfield Park. However, it was thought to be written before S&S.
Original Title - "First Impressions"
Popularity - Well received by critics when first published. Popularity grew with time. It has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide to this day. Probably mostly to high school students, English teachers, and bibliophiles. Did you read it when you were in school? I did. Once in high school and twice in college. And many more times just for fun. Yes, I'm that person.
Characters - Elizabeth (Lizzy/Eliza) Bennet [20], Fitzwilliam Darcy [28], Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Bennet, Jane Bennet [22], Mary Bennet [~18], Catherine (Kitty) Bennet [17], Lydia Bennet [15], Charles Bingley [23], Caroline Bingley [~20], George Wickham [mid/late 20s], William Collins [25], Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Anne de Bourgh [close to Darcy], Mr. Edward Gardiner, Mrs. Gardiner, Georgiana Darcy [16], Charlotte Lucas (and her family), Louisa Hurst (née Bingley), Mr. Hurst, Colonel Fitzwilliam [~30], etc.
[The brackets contain their approximate age at the beginning of the book. Beginning because it takes place in more than a years time so they likely celebrated some birthdays in between those stolen glances.]
Famous first line - “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
(Less important) Last line - “With the Gardiners, they were always on the most intimate terms. Darcy, as well as Elizabeth, really loved them; and they were both ever sensible of the warmest gratitude towards the persons who, by bringing her into Derbyshire, had been the means of uniting them.”
Themes and motifs - Marriage, manners, morality, class, education, love, courtship, self-knowledge, etc. Oh yea, and those two other ones. What were they called? I want to say pride and prejudice, but I'm just not sure...
List of adaptations - Too many to list on my own so here are some helpful links:
Majority of information from the novel itself (included in the bibliography) and some extra info from public resources such as wikipedia, sparknotes, and pemberley.com. Oh, and also some if it is just knowledge I retained from studying it in various classes.
-Danny
Posted in
adaptation,
author,
book,
characters,
jane austen,
novel,
pride and prejudice,
published,
themes
|
Written on Thursday, January 23, 2014 by Unknown
It is hard to create an adaption. Any book that has ever been turned into a movie has run the risk of "not being as good as the book." Take these for example. See any that you would dub, "not as awesome as the novel I cherish so deeply"?
Yep. It happens. And yet adaptations are completely unavoidable. Why is that? Because they sell tickets. People want to see their favorite characters come to life on the big screen. Sometimes it works. Most of the time it doesn't, and then you just love to hate it which somehow manages to reinforce your original dedication to the book/series. You aren't a true Harry Potter fan if you haven't seen all eight movies and have strong opinions on things like the decision to remove S.P.E.W. or the lack of quidditch matches.
I mean come on Water for Elephants, I'm looking at you here. Why the hell did you choose Reese Witherspoon as the love interest when she could basically be Robert Pattinson's mom? She was not that old in the book. Not even close. I call bullshit.
I believe that when an adaptation is done right and done well, fans won't need to draw so many comparisons to the book. Instead, the media should stand on it's own and be judged thusly. No need to point out all the moments that were done wrong, but instead look at all the parts that were done right or maybe even done differently.
This is why I love The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. I don't need to jump back and forth from novel to web show and say "ugh, I hated that they did this" or "why did they take that out when it could so easily have been incorporated?" While I have read (and love) the novel and enjoy the sly references they make to Austen's other works, I don't think about it in terms of the book whenever I watch it. Instead I see the characters as they are and appreciate the show for what it is. Yes it has it's faults. Especially in the beginning there were quite a few problems. But, I'm not going to fight about the decision to make Kitty a literal cat. I actually thought that was an awesome and creative way to incorporate the character without needed to hire/introduce a new actress. All she does in the novel is follow Lydia around anyway, and so that's what she does in the show, just in cat form. It's modern, it's funny, it worked.
-Danny
Posted in
adaptation,
artifact,
book,
harry potter,
LBD,
modern,
movie,
novel,
pride and prejudice,
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries,
water for elephants
|
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."
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
Posted in
Andrea Phillips,
Aristotle,
book,
categorize,
creators,
define,
definition,
East Coast,
Emma Approved,
Henry Jenkins,
Hollywood,
industry,
quote,
rhetoric,
subcategorize,
transmedia,
West Coast
|
