Yesterday I had a meeting with my advisor and she brought to my attention that the current tone of my posts is a tad depressing. Or as she said, "Quit being such a Debbie Downer." Thanks, prof.
To that I say: Hey now, I think I have every right to be stressed out during the final weeks of my thesis.
But okay, I looked back on the posts and I see what you mean.
This meeting also had some positive results and I definitely feel much more confident about my thesis project as a whole.
Because guess what internet, I AM ALMOST DONE. WOOOO!!!!
[via www.retreatbyrandomhouse.ca]
I mean I clearly still have stuff to do, but I am very close.
We mapped out most of the rest of what I need to do. I get to start the fun part where I get to make up my own theory. Yay!
Also, this Friday I will be doing a talk about my project and I will try to post the powerpoint that I will make for it once it's done. And possibly the transcript of the speech. We'll see.
Anyway, that is all for now. I need to go back and make a couple of edits. Actual thesis posts to come later. Random tangent: The previous "Hey now" has now inspired the use of a song that I think is appropriate...
Nothin' like some good music to get you pumped! And simultaneously nostalgic. Because omg the video. -Danny
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"?
Ithink 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!
Before I finish up my litvestigation (yes, I did just make up an awesome new word) I'd like to play a little game. Well, in a minute.
Right now, I have basically hit a wall. And that's bad. Really bad. Because it is almost the end of the semester which means that this thesis needs to be done. Soon.
I'm not really sure what to do at this point. It's frustrating. And I am verging on disaster mode.
Whoever told you senior year of college is a breeze is a big fat liar. I don't remember who told me this, but I'm certainly not happy with them. It was probably someone who didn't have a required thesis project. Damn those lucky stress-free people.
So here is my problem: Even though my analysis section has been started, I haven't actually analyzed anything.
Which is why I'd like to get back to this fun little game. I'm making it up right now, and it shall be called "Name That Event!" I was thinking about going with "Name that kernel/satellite!" but I didn't like the slash.
Goal: I need to identify some kernels and some satellites.
In a previous post I showed you a timeline that a fan had created. This timeline basically made it clear to me that it will not be easy to identify kernels and satellites because there are far too many pieces of media. But if I had to try, here are a few ways I might name some events. (For a review about what events, kernels, and satellites are, check out this video!)
Name That Event!
Option 1:
KERNEL - Lizzie's Videos
SATELLITE - Everything else
Option 2:
KERNEL - Lizzie's Videos
KERNEL - Certain twitter accounts of major characters
SATELLITE - Everything else
Option 3:
KERNEL - All videos by all characters
SATELLITE - All social media accounts
Option 4:
KERNEL - All videos by all characters
KERNEL - All twitter accounts
KERNEL - Lydia's sex tape website
SATELLITE - Everything else
Option 5:
KERNEL - Certain videos by Lizzie, Lydia, and any other character that explicitly moves the story along
KERNEL - Certain tweets, pinterest boards, or other social media content that explicitly moves the story along
KERNEL - Websites that explicitly move the story along (such as Lydia's sex tape website)
SATELLITE - Videos that do not do much or forward the story and only provide fluff
SATELLITE - Social media that does not do much nor does it forward the story along
SATELLITE - Websites that have no function other than to exist and sometimes re-post information that can be found elsewhere
Option 6:
Some other combination of previous pieces of previous options Or make something else up on the spot
_______
Yea guys. This is irritating. You with me now?
But in general, if the game continued and someone were to ask me about specific episodes or something, I could play like this...
Name That Event!
Q: Episode 1
A: Kernel!
Q: Collins and Collins + Maria of the Lu videos
A: Satellite!
Q: Episodes 60 and 98
A: Kernels!
Q: The San Francisco Photo/Twitter Adventure
A: Tough one. It could do either way. Leaning more towards satellite?
Get the idea?
And do you also get the problem? How do I know what is significant and what isn't? Would twitter be the main social media kernel in the social media realm, but a satellite in the greater transmedia story? And what does this tell us?
My conclusion is that this tells me that kernels and satellites cannot be the primary form of identification. Even if I were to use the Scene Function Model (which would make this process a lot easier), that is only actually supposed to be used for television. I need a new model. The Transmedia Function Model or something.
And then there are a whole bunch of other questions about fan participation and such that I just don't even know what to call, let alone whether or not they should be considered. I mean is a fan's question canon if Lizzie responds to them on twitter? What is that! I don't know!
This whole transmedia form is entirely different than what narrative theory usually deals with. But that doesn't mean I'm abandoning narrative theory all together. It just means I need to use it in a new way and possibly change some of the rules to suit my project.
UPDATE (4/18/14): I found some YouTube playlists that people made. One is called "The Essentials" and I swear to god it's almost like this person found all of the kernels for me. If only I had found it sooner! The other one is called "The Darcy Heavy Episodes" which could also be considered a kernel playlist for those only focused on the romance as the driving force of the show. I don't really think that would be accurate, but whatever.
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.
"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..."
"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.
Now that the history section is done and I've defined most of the things that I need to define, I will be focusing on analysis.
This is the more abstract part of the thesis, where I ask questions and use what I've learned to try and figure things out. This is both the fun and the hard part.
Some topics I may cover: If We Change, Will They Watch? - talking about the need to adhere to the novel to a certain extent, and what the changes might mean
The Differences Between Analyzing a TV Show and a Web Show - why certain things are both the same and different, looking at plot versus character
Narrative Theory - more stuff? I'm not quite there yet.
Some things I may create:
The other timelines (if possible) - like big social media events (i.e. the Wickham scandal or Jane's sad pinterest board)
Another video - maybe one that describes The Scene Function Model more fully
More twitter/social media conversations - with advisor, and possibly other people
These aren't necessarily in order.
But for now, this is a week by week update-as-I-go point in the thesis.
I have a meeting tomorrow, so we'll see what happens.
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. LBDfalls somewhere in the middle. Some people may have never read P&Pbut 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.
One drawback is the fact that I do not write sections and then turn in draft after draft to my advisor for editing/revising until it is perfect. I just write it, post it, and hope I don't screw up. That isn't to say I don't edit after I hit "Publish," but I can't make any huge changes without completely changing a post, which kind of defeats the purpose of it being available instantaneously. So I only edit for clarity and accuracy, and no changes are that huge or noticeable to anyone other than myself.
So what does this have to do with my analysis section? A lot actually. Because I can't turn in drafts, I will have to work out a lot of this online. This means that not all of my posts will be perfect and sometimes it could just be me being confused about stuff. Like right now. But the only way to reach any kind of conclusion is to ask a lot of questions.
First question: How do I analyze transmedia that is all over the place? (Actually, how do I analyze transmedia at all?)
This is a rhetoric thesis so I need to be looking at things as a rhetorical critic. My advisor suggested the concept of kernels and satellites. I was somewhat familiar with this concept already, but after reading an article called Re(de)fining Narrative Events: Examining Television and Narrative Structure (see Bibliography for citation), I decided I liked the concept a lot and wanted to use it. For those who have no idea what kernels and satellites are, I made a video. But if you won't click that then here is the most basic definition I can give. Kernels are the parts of a story that move it along, and the story wouldn't make sense if you removed them. Satellites are the parts of the story that add dimension, but can be removed while the story stays intact. Okay? Okay.
And that is all great. A little vague, but the article I read adds more specific criteria which makes it easier to identify kernel and satellite scenes (which they call The Scene Function Model). But this theory is meant for television. Not for a webseries that incorporates social media. How the hell do I categorize what is and is not important and why, when there are waaaaay too many outlets to look at? I was making a timeline (but luckily I found this better one) and I found that I could look at the show in a variety of different ways. What if Lizzie's videos are the kernel of the series and the spin-offs (i.e. Lydia, Maria, Domino) are all satellites? Or maybe only some of Lizzie's videos are kernels. Or maybe the videos are all kernels and the extra stuff (twitter, facebook, pinterest) is all satellites. What do I separate? Do I separate? What do I look at? What is important? There are just too many factors. I can barely keep any of it straight.
2. It adds to the transmedia aspect of the thesis.
3. It allowed me to discuss some semi-boring stuff in a less boring way.
This video is inspired by the Draw My Life videos that became really popular last year. Honestly, it seemed like an easy way to approach this subject so that it wouldn't just be me talking to a camera, explaining a bunch of complicated things.
How I made it:
1. GoPro + whiteboard + printouts + other props + some serious lighting + Final Cut Pro X + voice over
2. A lot of books, articles, and research went into this. They can be found in my bibliography and in the video's description.
3. Patience. Or as much as I could muster.
This was actually much more difficult than I had anticipated. I ran into a lot of unexpected problems. It was also the first time I had ever used the GoPro, and the studio and lighting equipment from my school. I also had never done a video like this before and probably overcompensated in terms of preparation, but that actually may have saved me some headaches.
It was a time suck, the result is not really what I wanted, the video goes too quickly sometimes and too slowly at other times, and overall I wouldn't call this my finest hour. But hey, I learned a lot from this one experience, and I'm glad I did it. The video isn't my best work, but it isn't horrible either. Maybe someone else might find it to be useful. Who knows.
So Danny, stop complaining. You worked hard. You did fine.
I may end up doing a second (very brief) one where I expand on the different types of kernel and satellite scenes. But not right now. Later. After I've had a mental break.
But I think we need another kind of timeline. Or perhaps a few timelines. My analysis section will likely have me looking at the narrative in new ways, so I think a visual could really help me.
One fan has already created something (click to enlarge):
"The main line are Lizzie’s videos, each color representing a location
(Lizzie’s room, vidcon, Netherfield, Collins&Collins, Pemberley
Digital and the Den), the stripes are Q&A videos.
Pink, on top, is for Lydia’s videos, and the two blues under are for Maria’s videos and domino/Gigi’s videos respectively."
While I like it, I will probably try to make my own more detailed version, and possibly a few others that will include some of the social media accounts and not just the videos.
I've gotta know what I'm looking at before I start making any assumptions.
If I make my own images, they will be posted here.
-Danny
UPDATE: I finally did it! Here is my very own version of an LBD timeline! It took forever, but it's done.
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 isnot.
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.
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.
In honor of finishing one of my sections, I feel I deserve a reward. And my reward will be posting something just for fun.
So here it is...
Last year a mega fan got creative and decided to make LBD-opoly. Probably the best decision she's ever made. And I hope she doesn't mind me re-blogging the photos. They are just too amazing to link to. The creator's name is Katie. She is from Wisconsin. This is her tumblr. This is her post with her LBD-opoly photos. If you want to make one just like it, you can download it from her here. You can also see a video if you want. And finally here is LBD-opoly in all of its glory:
And if you want to see more closeups of the cards and such then you can check them out here. This is some truly amazing stuff. I would actually buy this.
