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 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 Monday, March 10, 2014 by Unknown
Having a thesis blog is really cool. And very exciting because it's new and different. I love it.
Legendary, huh? Well then. I guess I need one more gif to round this out...
BAM. Blogging. It's legen-waitforit-dary.
But there are some occasional drawbacks.
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.
This leads me to my second question...
To book or not to book?
Continued in part 2.
-Danny
Posted in
advisor,
analysis,
blog,
factors,
important,
kernels,
post,
questions,
satellites,
television,
theory,
thesis,
transmedia,
webseries
|
