Hello there reader!

My name is Danny and you have somehow stumbled upon my senior thesis project.

It's nice to meet you.

Well, since you're here, allow me to explain what you'll find on this blog.

For starters, you may have noticed that all of the posts are in reverse order. This is not unusual for blogs, as people tend to want to read the most recent post first. But if you want to start from the beginning I have listed all relevant posts on this page (which I've also linked to on the right). There is also another "what is this" page on the side as well, but I wanted some kind of introduction on the homepage too.

This thesis is about transmedia and webseries. I had a few goals when I first started. Whether or not I completed them successfully is up to you. In my personal opinion, I think I completed them all to the best of my ability. Especially number six.

1. Explore the topics of transmedia storytelling and web series in a unique way.

2. Write about transmedia while also creating transmedia.

3. Come up with some of my own theories about said topics.

4. Learn and try new things which will hopefully lead to an interesting end result.

5. Embark on the difficult but rewarding task of being the first student at my school to create an entire thesis online that won't ever be bound in printed form (at least not by me). 

6. Have fun!

My artifact for the thesis was the web show The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. I am a big fan, and it was a lot of fun to examine.

In general I found that there was not a lot of research already done on these topics, so you'll probably see a lot of posts where I postulate (and ramble a bit) about he implications of transmedia storytelling and web shows. So there is a lot of my own opinion in here and a lot of unanswered questions. Hopefully there will be a time where there will be endless amounts of articles, books, videos, and any other academic work about the topics, but for now I just had to wing it.

I also had to wing a lot of this thesis, because a project like this had never been done before. So my advisor and I had to make up a lot of the rules as we went. In the future, when someone else does a project like this (and I'm sure they will) I hope my time spent as guinea pig no. 1 can be beneficial.

Because this project is online, it is highly likely that links, gifs, memes, and other pieces of media will expire. I will attempt to salvage as much of it as possible (by saving the photos and re-uploading them so they wont go away, for example), but I can't make any promises. They say that once things are on the internet they stay there forever, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they stay in the same place.

Also, due to the unconventional nature of my written work it was not all proofed, graded, and returned to me like everyone else. So there are bound to be spelling and grammatical mistakes, and maybe even some incorrect facts or something. I am doing my best to comb through it all again, but that takes time and I don't always catch my own mistakes. But please, feel free to comment on any post if you find an error and I will correct it as soon as I can.

And yea, I know. I use way to many commas. And I hyperlink too much. So sue me.

Even though my thesis is over and I have graduated, I still want to retain the integrity of this blog so I will be checking it periodically.

I hope you enjoy what you read/see here and that it may inspire some people to do some of their own research and come to some of their own conclusions about transmedia and web shows. I am always interested in what people think about this stuff and I can't wait for new authors to create more literature (and other media!) about it.

Thanks for stopping by!

Feel free to contact me with any questions/comments/concerns/hypotheses/epiphanies/absurdities.

-Danny

My advisor will be reading this soon and I don't doubt that she will want me to write a post about the "greater meaning" of my theory. I can't just write up a theory without asking some rhetorical questions that I almost never have the answers to. What does it all mean? What are the larger implications? Why do we even analyze this at all? WHO SHOT J.R.?!?!

My only thoughts on this are these (more lists!):

1. My theory is just a theory. It's not even like a theory with a possible result. It is just a lens that we can look through when analyzing transmedia. Yes, it can lead to bigger questions. After identifying streams and barriers, we can ask questions like: "Are the streams/barriers important? Why? What happens if we remove/alter them? Could the story be told without this stream/barrier? What/whose story is being told here? How is it being told? What did we learn from the stream/barrier about the narrative? Why is it here as opposed to somewhere else? Can we break it down even further?"

Like Poter, Larson, Hathcock, and Nellis' article about The Scene Function Model ("Redefining Narrative Events" cited in bibliography), we could test this lens on students and see what kind of conclusions they come to. Perhaps a new level will need to be added to the theory that better qualifies importance. Or maybe not. We could also discuss some of the same things they discuss but slightly altered. Instead of wondering why fans and novice viewers have different opinions on importance of particular scenes, we can talk about fans versus novice viewers in terms on interaction/immersion and how much they are willing to dive into the universe. Just dip a toe? Full on cannonball? Do you find it easy or hard to follow?

Basically the questions are endless.

2. What does this mean? I don't really know. In terms of media in general I think it means that we are breaking down the walls between producer and consumer and turning it into creator and participant. Eventually the ways that film and television are currently being produced will be obsolete. Perhaps even the mediums themselves will be obsolete. Is webseries the next big thing? Maybe. Only time will tell. Is transmedia the next big thing? Maybe. It's possible that some version(s) of transmedia will become popular. I love that it is so broad, but that is not ideal for businesses (at least not right now) and so they will likely experiment with different versions of transmedia storytelling. Industry and creators transmedia could become bigger and more strictly defined categories. Again, only time will tell. They did make an interactive media Emmy though. So there's that.

3. Why do we analyze it? Psh, that's like asking why I study rhetoric.

a. It's awesome.

b. You can peel back layers and discover what is hiding underneath. As Aristotle says, rhetoric is "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." So what are these different medias trying to say, how are they saying it, are they being persuasive, and should they even be saying it at all?

c. Analyzing transmedia means understanding transmedia. Why are we drawn to that type of storytelling? What is it about this that makes people want to interact? What tactics do they use and are they effective or not? What could be a greater purpose of transmedia storytelling (other than just entertainment)? Why do we like certain transmedia projects more than others? What makes them different or unique? What are the limits? What is possible?

d. It's awesome. Oh, did I already say that? Well I guess I meant it.

Look, this is a thesis. I'm still a student. This wont be published anywhere else other than my blog (at least that I know of right now, but if I feel like publishing it one day then more power to me). It is a loose theory and I did my best to when coming up with it. I think it's pretty cool and I had a lot of fun working on it. No one else needs to use it (but if they do I totally want credit). Of course that's not the point. I made it to say that it is possible (and necessary) to look at transmedia differently. I'm not sure if there are any other implications or meanings that I am just not seeing, but I do know that things are changing and even though I can't predict the future I just hope that everyone else will come to realize how awesome transmedia is.

I mean, come on. It gave us this:

[via giphy.com]

[via rebloggy.com]

 Good gif combo right? My thoughts exactly.

-Danny

P.S. I will edit for grammar/spelling later. I just needed to post it now.

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.

 

[via laughingsquid.com]

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.

[via sheldonsquote.com]

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

 

[via www.panelsonpages.com]

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.

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. 

 

[via thebestgifsforme.blogspot.com]

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.

[via thebestgifsforme.blogspot.com]

-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.

Having a thesis blog is really cool. And very exciting because it's new and different. I love it. 

 

[via undergrad.osu.edu]

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

 

[via fuckyeahreactions.tumblr.com]

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

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