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!
"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.
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.
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
On April 12, 2012, Hank Green created a video for his brother and fellow Nerdfighters. This was not an unusual event, as Hank is one half of the acclaimed duo known as the Vlogbrothers. Hank and his brother John Green have been video bloggers since 2007. John is a well known author, and his novel The Fault in Our Stars has been adapted into a film, which will be released on June 6, 2014.
Together the brothers decided that they wanted to try something new, so they decided to forgo any text based communication for one year. Each brother was required to create a video every other day on weekdays, in response to the other brother's previous video. This project was called Brotherhood 2.0 and it was meant to last for one year. Rules were created to keep order, such as the length must not exceed four minutes, and if a brother missed a video or used text based communication then he had to be punished on camera. That was probably on of the best decisions they ever made, because the punishments were both popular and hilarious. See them here.
As the year went on, the brothers discovered that they were gaining viewers and followers. Perhaps this is due to John's preexisting fans from his novels. Or maybe it was due to Hank's song "Accio Deathly Hallows," which became a featured video on YouTube. But then again, it could simply have been due to the fact that both men are excellent video bloggers as well as verbal communicators. Nevertheless a fan group was created, which they dubbed the Nerdfighters. There is even a theme song. Yes, it's as nerdy as it sounds. By the time the year was over, a whole community was born, so they decided to just keep going. Why not? No need to fix what isn't broken. But, while they don't post as consistently as they did before, both brothers still have a prominent presence online, various companies, and a continuously growing fandom.
The April 12th video is an important one. This particular video was Hank's way of introducing his newest project to the world. Video blogging was clearly a success for him, so why not utilize it in a new and unique way? In this video, Hank discusses his idea to create a scripted web show. And not just any scripted web show, but an adaption of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.
This video actually came after the release of the first episode, which was posted on April 9, 2012. The second episode was released on the same day as Hank's introduction video.
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.
