Analysis: Some Burning Questions (Part 2)
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
This is an interesting dilemma -- 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"?
If you think about each independently and then kinda overlay one on the other does anything interesting reveal itself? Just thinking.....
Totally think you're on to something though....
so you have the type of viewer as variable; the actual NARRATIVE story; and then the media form through which the content is conveyed.... Can you make this blog 3D? :) j/k ... excited to see what you think of :)
Attempted to answer the first two questions in a post.
And yeah, I guess those are the three primary things that I've been focusing on. Hmm.