New Theory: Streams and Barriers

Written on Saturday, April 19, 2014 by Unknown

So Danny, what is all this business about a timeline?

Well non-existent person, I did actually have a point when I made that. I mean, it sort of got out of control and I spent far too much time on it, but I think it was worth it.

One of the points that I have been repeating like a broken record is that transmedia is freaking complicated. Just look at that timeline image. Can you even follow that without repeatedly referring to the key? (Granted, right now you can't really zoom in on it, but I'm working on that!)

Transmedia has layers and deepness that standard stories don't. They are flat. But the different levels make it confusing sometimes. And right now there is no one true way to define it and therefore no one true way to analyze it. At least not yet. I talked about kernels and satellites as a possibility, but that was quickly revealed to be problematic. 

Now that isn't to say that The Scene Function Model didn't have good and usable components. For example, Porter, Larson, Harthcock, and Nellis posit that in films the plot is most important, but in TV it is the character development and continuous storylines that drive the show (24). The same characters (for the most part) return every week and we become invested in them. What is also fascinating is that in between episodes we assume that the characters keep on living their lives. I love this idea, because transmedia can take that abstract notion and make it literal. Learning what the characters do between episodes was something I never thought I needed to know, but after participating in LBD I found out how much fun that can be. And then those boundaries are broken down further when you literally interact with them through social media. How amazing is that!

There is also some validity to kernels and satellites when looking at transmedia projects, but I think it depends on said project. It can probably apply to things like the Star Wars franchise better than it could with LBD. Die hard Star Wars fans might disagree with me on that. But it is all about the setup. Social media is a big factor. And the fluidity of the pieces of media is another factor. So is the size of the universe, and the amount of audience interaction. There are so many factors. 

For weeks I have been trying to come up with a way to look at transmedia that could be used generally. I wont steal these people's ideas about story bridges (and I don't know if I wholeheartedly agree with it anyway). This has been both the fun part and the hard part. These projects can be so different and transmedia seems to always be changing.

But I did come up with something. Here's my idea. My metaphor if you will. (Correction, pretty sure it's an analogy. 8th grade grammar, you have failed me.)

Meet streams and barriers.

This is my theory. I'll try to break it down as straightforwardly as possible. I actually wanted (and would have preferred) to make a video about this, but I am not at school so my resources are limited. It is entirely possible that I will end up expanding on this thesis even after the deadline, and if that is the case then I'll try to make a video.

Transmedia storytelling is essentially a series of streams and barriers. By streams I mean streams of water flowing down from a source (i.e. the creators of the media or the universe in which the narratives exist). There can be as many streams as the source is able to create, and each stream represents a particular piece of media (video, audio, social media, book, you name it). The barriers can be big or small, permanent or impermanent, good or bad, and represent the different plot devices used to move the story along or to cause conflict. Barriers can separate streams into more streams, keep streams separate, bring them back together, and keep them together. They can also serve as obstacles that a stream needs to get around (such as a problem a character needs to solve) or even something that helps the story move along faster or slower. 

Streams practice divergence, convergence, and reconvergence. Water is a cohesive molecule, meaning that it is attracted to itself (because oxygen is electronegative and hydrogen is electropositive). So in general, it wants to stick together. But at the same time water is also an adhesive molecule, meaning that it likes to stick to other things (ever done the surface tension test where you put water droplets on a penny and see how many it can hold before it spills over? That is both cohesion and adhesion working at the same time). In storytelling, narrative devices can push components of the story apart thus separating a stream into two or more streams. But water is naturally attracted to itself and wants to interact, sometimes bringing streams back together (or back into the original stream, depending on the transmedia story). This can happen over and over again. Split, return, split, return. Diverge, reconverge, diverge, reconverge. The same can be said for two different streams that still emanate from the same source. They want to come together, and sometimes they will. Convergence is natural, as long as there isn't a major barrier in the way.

This might sound a bit confusing, so I made a crude drawing of LBD streams and barriers which might help. Really this is supposed to be a metaphor and not quite so literal, but I enjoy the visuals.  


Like I said, it's very crude. So we have the source of the water which is the LBD universe. The stream here is the YouTube videos. And Charlotte, Lizzie, Jane, and Lydia are all moving along. They reach the first barrier which is a location change, but that is relatively smooth. Then the second barrier, another location change (and also that little brown thing I guess), causes Lydia to veer off into Mary's stream (one that was not visible until Lydia appears). Charlotte also does not go to Netherfield, nor is there any twitter activity from her, implying that she is underwater for this portion and not visible to the viewers. But she has not ceased to exist, we still assume she's up to something. Then the girls return home which causes Lydia to also return from Mary's and Charlotte makes an appearance to. Then the story continues. This is a about 35 of the core episodes and 7 of Lydia's. Obviously it isn't totally accurate and it doesn't show any other streams, but I just wanted to show some kind of example. Next time I'll make a video instead of a crappy drawing.

Moving on, we come to the outside forces. In my metaphor (or is it an analogy? yea, it's definitely an analogy) the outside forces are the weather or other natural phenomena. These are things not created by the Powers That Be but are still things that they have to deal with and factors that they have to account for. Much like the weather, outside forces can be unpredictable sometimes. You can understand them and attempt to predict them (like a weatherperson) but you will never have 100% control. The weather is one of the things that makes transmedia so much different than normal narrative storytelling. 

Some forecasts:
Hot and sunny - This would be a bad thing. Seeing the sun means that you have no viewers/participants. Sun causes water to evaporate, so smaller and maybe less important streams would tend to dry up because of it and the major streams would suffer losses. 
Cloudy as hell - This is excellent. You have a lot of viewers and they are crowding up the sky! Your streams remain intact and are free to flow on. And if the clouds stick around, you must be doing something right. Your streams are stable and perhaps this means you can experiment with more. 
Thunder and lightning - Your audience is a rambunctious one! They like to make fandoms and fandoms like to argue. They are vocal (literally) and are reacting to your material. This chatter can be good or bad, it all depends. They may also create rainbows (fan art/fanfic, videos, songs), cloud formations (fandoms, shippers), and more.
Rain - This is one of the most significant aspect of transmedia, and that is the ability to allow your audience to participate. In this scenario, rain enters the streams and interacts with the water. It can evaporate out later, but the fact that this is even possible is a clear sign that this is an immersive transmedia project. Not everyone likes rain, and they often create barriers to keep it out. But sometimes rain is welcome, so interaction and contribution is encouraged. The audiences can be an unpredictable force though, so it is good to try to monitor some of it, or at least check in and see what's going on and what kind of feedback they might be giving you.
Freezing -  When streams become frozen, they cease to move. This is a very interesting force, because it can be cause by a lot of different things. Take the '07-'08 Writers Guild Strike of America. This caused tons of shows to simply stop. No scripts were coming in, actors wouldn't act, and episodes weren't being made. Everything just hit a standstill until the problems were resolved. This wasn't a foreseen circumstance, nor was it one people could easily work around. You pretty much just had to wait it out. Eventually problems were solved, and streams can become unfrozen and move on. But you do have to account for the delay and adjust the streams and barriers accordingly. It's a tough one.
Wind - Wind can cause old (and impermanent) barriers to reappear. Wind can be created (like a fan), but it can also just appear and mix things up. Two consequences of wind are:
        Pollution -  Your streams can become polluted due to an unforeseen outside source. Sometimes the pollution can irreparably damage your stream and cause it to become contaminated. Other times your streams might just become a little dirty, or the pollution is fixable (e.g. oil and water can be separated). Dilution is also possible with the addition of more water. And also, water is a natural and very strong solvent, so some things can be resolved (or dissolved) with time.
        Dirt - Stuff happens. Things get thrown in your way and sometimes the stones and pebbles will sink to the bottom and you can move on. But not always. Dirt and grittiness can also indicate what kind of resources you have and are working with. Pure, untainted water is usually the product of industry level production houses that have tons of money and professionals working on the story. Less clean water is usually associated with people who have less money, time, and hands on deck. They also tend to have less water in general.

And this last one isn't weather, but it is a factor:
Incline change - This is one that could be manipulated by the creators in the sense that the general trajectory of the narrative can be mapped out. An incline can cause the flow to quicken, slow, or possibly even plateau. Momentum is very important to the flow of a narrative. If a stream reaches too flat of a surface (or a really big barrier) that causes it to be unable to continue, then more water (via other streams or more content/characters/plot) needs to be added in order for it to be heavy enough to move on. This is different from a pool. 
A pool can be a stationary, possibly unchanging source of content that adds substance to a narrative, but does not further the plot. So maybe a website or a guidebook that just tells you what things are but doesn't do anything else.

Alright, I think that's enough possibilities for now. If necessary, I can always make more specific examples to go along with each of those, but this is already getting a bit long. But it's really cool though, right!

After coming up with this I tried to figure out how kernels and satellites might still be used. Could you say that the barriers are the events and the streams are the existents? That doesn't seem quite right because kernels and satellites are a subcategory of events not existents and would not apply to streams at all. But it is possible to call a stream a kernel if you wanted to. If Lizzie's videos are a stream, and the videos created by other characters are other streams with characters that may pass between them, then could you not say that Lizzie's stream is a kernel and the others are satellites? What about barriers? Are particular barriers kernels and others satellites? Does it depend on how much of an impact they have? What about the ones that cause new streams to be created. Are they kernels because they create streams, or are they satellites because those streams aren't kernels themselves? So confusing.

Basically, I don't think that kernels and satellites are usable theories for examining transmedia and I don't think that they can be used in conjunction with my theory either. It just isn't the right combination of formats. Kernels and satellites are for linear narratives that lack other dimensions. If it were a chess board then TV would be a single board with set pieces, players, and rules. Transmedia stories, on the other hand, would be composed of multi-tiered boards with far more pieces, players, and possible moves due to a lack of cut and dry rules. That game is more flexible and complex, whereas TV is far more simple and set in it's ways. You could even call webseries as a medium a broader game than TV or film. It's like turning rock-paper-scissors into rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/how-to-play-20110520-080642.jpg 

And then transmedia is like, hell no! We can do better than that! And so they play rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock-spiderman-batman-wizard-glock. Sounds awesome, but what a mouthful. I can barely say that once without messing up, let alone five times fast.



And then when transmedia gets bored with that version, it makes something else. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmQtPcz_noymD4cE9xYtzP3ZWt5cyrsudz-KfvYq3BV6SlypmCQmTkSiUtCRBho1-oaq4LkyZr6ze4jg5ZePy1tHG2pw4gDsiWarg9vqiJbjVoN7iOQshyphenhyphen2u5sUbrMB2y5DpsuLgXVgiFZ/s1600/1301672909038.png 

Holy crap you guys. I could never play that. I don't even want to try. 

But the fact that this kind of complexity is even possible just reinforces the idea that storytelling doesn't have to be the same three things over and over again. People have experimented with transmedia or other types of immersive and alternative storytelling, but ever since the 1990's this stuff has practically been on steriods and it isn't even that huge yet. Way back when you could (more) easily quantify all of the possible outcomes of a narrative trajectory. There were only a certain amount of plausible end results that could happen (unless it's just a really crappy narrative). But now it seems there are infinite amounts. Well not infinite, but way more than before. Three hand movements just became 101. It's crazy.

Well I hope this all made sense. Please let me know if it didn't. And let me know if you think this method could work when looking at transmedia stories. Just bombard me with all your thoughts! I want to know!

-Danny

P.S. I had a handful of other thoughts and examples on this but I forgot some of them. I'll check back in my notes and if I see anything I missed then I'll add it. Because I definitely had more specific examples. I just know I did.

P.P.S. And yes, I will re-read and then edit this again for the probably numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, but for now I just needed to post it.

Analysis: Responding to Questions and Comments

Written on Sunday, March 23, 2014 by Unknown

http://24.media.tumblr.com/24c872ff517bb387018d0ed248bfb8cd/tumblr_mrew17I4aW1rkyz0ro1_500.gif 

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?

http://media.tumblr.com/b142f870ae5e73300c8fdfdc365423e0/tumblr_inline_mgoy1pZGWr1ro2d43.gif

-Danny

Analysis: Name That Event!

Written on Sunday, March 23, 2014 by Unknown

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. 

http://media.tumblr.com/361b81eb66a1f18c592b443942e8e226/tumblr_inline_mfb6q42SJ21rx2s6k.gif 

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. 

How I do that, I have no idea.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyb8vr7o4y1qk682c.gif

-Danny

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.

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:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EEPG81WVL._SY300_.jpghttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1uf1e3cF_gU-CrRcKnFbKb1iu6-UKR4X7GT4Fv2n2MsJfxauPFDlpQL9-jbkCXqKWLV00-37QmSWQM_m8y36gVIC3StPs-T8doRz5BJWEP2iXreX6ggWZO3d1D439_b1ABl5MgzBtJTQ/s1600/image.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Clueless.jpg

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

Analysis: Some Burning Questions

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. 

http://undergrad.osu.edu/buckeyes_blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Blog-meme-2.0.png 

Legendary, huh? Well then. I guess I need one more gif to round this out...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lua1jp2DjQ1qafrh6.gif 

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

Video #1: Narrative Theory - Kernels and Satellites

Written on Monday, March 10, 2014 by Unknown

My first video is officially complete. 

You can watch it here:


Why I made it:
1. It was fun.
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.

Until next time.
-Danny