Harry Potter and the Phantom Menace

The above video is one of the more famous examples of fan participation inside of a prominent mass media franchise.  The most famous of the Potter Puppet Pals videos, "The Mysterious Ticking Noise" has garnered over 100 million hits on youtube in just over 4 years.  Obviously not the pinnacle of artistic fan expression, this is merely a good example of what Jenkins talks about in his chapter about grassroots creativity merging with big media.  While not canonical or doing much to expand the Harry Potter world, the Potter Puppet Pals as a whole have been a form of Harry Potter folk culture for the internet age- spread via Youtube across the globe, injected into the HP culture's vernacular (if not canon) and inspiring other forms of imitation and creativity.

One thing that really struck me in Jenkins' dealing with these grassroots fan cultures is the idea that this participatory fan culture is not a new development.  My original mindset toward fan participation has been a mixed bag:  while I love informational websites and ways to delve more deeply into worlds like the Wizarding World or the Star Wars World or Middle Earth; I have always been someone skeptical of fan-production.  I viewed fan fictions written about romances between Harry Potter and Luna Lovegood, for example, as inauthentic and threatening to the integrity and canon of the world Jo Rowling created.  I would have the same perspective toward the Star Wars universe, in that I would love to delve more deeply into the Lucas-inspired, canonical universe- my curiosity would end about the time fan creativity and grassroots production begins.  I have always been very author-loyal:  I cherish the work and the minds of Rowling, CS Lewis, and JRR Tolkien- to name a few.  To me, fan fiction/production threatened an author's work in some ways.

However, by tracing the parallels of convergence culture to 19th century folk culture and pointing out how that culture spread by sharing and adapting, Jenkins has helped me see the value in this creative process.  I am still a big believer in authorial authority.  I feel that Jenkins did not give this much attention in painting the balance between grassroots/fan participation and mega-media corporations.  The author, while he/she may become adopted by these corporations, is still an individual and I do believe in the value of intellectual property.  To assume that any created work which makes it "big" was written with the intention of becoming a part of mass media is faulty.  If you believe the anecdotal evidence, Jo Rowling was a single mother on food stamps as she created the Harry Potter world on dinner napkins.  While her story was eventually a part of this mass-media, I believe the integrity of that world lies in the fact that she, and she alone, created it.  From this perspective, I see the importance of a balance being struck between not just media producer and fan participant, but also between the aforementioned and authorial intent and canon.

Another thing that softened my stance on "fan fiction" was the idea put forth by Jenkins that this fan participation is not new, but the technological means by which to share it is new and improved.  I never thought of it as fan fiction/participation, but as I look back on it, my brother and I pretending to be Power Rangers- whether on camera in our living room or at Halloween was a pre-internet/digial era form of participation.  I did not see it as "wrong" then, and by looking at that example, or at playing with action figures in my bedroom or pretending to be Batman in my yard, I can see some of the value of this fan participatory culture.

Some of the obvious things this new-age "folk culture" brings about are new forms of artistic expression, new talent as fans refine their skills, and depth to the "Worlds" I have mentioned before.  Jenkins covers these in the Star Wars chapter.  A further benefit, and one that I had never thought of, was the example of Harry Potter as an educational tool.  I thought it was a really good testament to the possibilities of collaborative and informal education, to see the example of the "Daily Prophet," where kids and people of all ages collaborate in a fictional world where they learn any number of skills that might be harder to pick up in a formal educational environment.

More than anything, these chapters illustrated to me the need for development and balance of these new cultures:  between fan participation and big media; between formal and informal education; between fiction and reality.  It is in this world that we currently find ourselves, and I am very interested to see how it develops.  My hope is for growth in creativity, authenticity and knowledge through this new interactive, "folk" and convergent culture.

Questions:
-Have you ever written/read a fan-fiction?  How do you appreciate it?  Does it in any way diminish the canonical world with which it deals?
-Did you read Harry Potter in school?
-What is the earliest example of "fan participation" that you yourself can remember being a part of?

The man who brought Harry Potter to mass media

Image source:
http://www.bluraymovieshop.net/images/act/davidheyman.jpg

Coca-Cola presents: Affective Economics and Trans-Media Storytelling!! (after a message from our sponsors...)

Please excuse this subtly-placed logo!

In Chapters two and three of Henry Jenkins' "Convergence Culture," the author explores the worlds of both American Idol and the Matrix franchise, in continuing to explore the world of converging media- specifically from the angle of the trans-media franchise.  One is looked at from the angle of changes in corporate marketing and branding strategies, while the other is looked at trans-media franchises from the angle of changes in story-telling.  Specifically, Jenkins used the example of American Idol to illustrate his concept of "affective economics," and the marketing theory that focuses less on "impression" and more on building a "long-term relationship" between a consumer and a brand.  With the Matrix, Jenkins focused more on the franchise's exploitation of multiple media formats and platforms to enhance the storytelling experience for the (devoted) consumer.

First, with regard to this concept of affective economics, branding and product placement- I understand the growing presence of these things and the growing significance as well; however, I would have to say that personally, my response to these methods would fall more on the "backlash" side of the fence.  To me, the corporate-driven American Idol has felt more like a force-feeding of different brands, rather than an invitation for me to be invested in and care about those brands.  I am invested in and loyal to American Idol- and the product placement that is a part of the show, I would equate to pock marks on an otherwise attractive face.  While reading, I asked myself if any of this product placement (i.e Simon Cowell drinking out of a Coca-Cola cup at the judges' table) played on my investment to the show itself, and I honestly do not think I feel any more connected to Coke based on how much exposure it gets in my tv show.  If I am loyal to Coke in any way, it is because of the quality of the product, not the placement.  If anything though, I am more prone to drink Pepsi- based on nothing more than the annoyance factor that comes with my awareness of this "hypercommercialism" that is taking place.

With that being said, I did come away from this chapter with a glimpse of the potential that is here.  As producers and brands continue to interact with the consumer in more and new ways, I feel that a more balanced approach (compared to Idol) might be found.  One that gives the consumer, as a part of the "brand community" a voice to be heard.  When the focus is on giving the consumer a voice, that is when I feel like I, at least, would be more apt to become invested in different brands.  Toms Shoes is on example of this- where I buy a pair of TOMS and a pair gets donated to a child in a third world country. Because I'm able to actively participate, I feel more invested in that brand than I do the Nike brand, simply because my favorite football team wears "cool" Nike jerseys.

As for the Matrix, and the trans-media story, I have a few scattered thoughts in closing.  For one thing, I completely understand the appeal of having multiple entry points and added depth to a story/world/franchise that I care about.  Between Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the tv show LOST- I have a few examples in my life of worlds that I would invest in at a deeper level than a 400 page novel, or a 3 hour movie, or a 45 minute episode.  The distinction I make though, is that I lose interest when I begin to perceive that I am beginning to be exposed to non-canonical information or back-story.  The Lord of the Rings franchise, as mentioned by Jenkins, has been explored deeper through video games than JRR Tolkien ever went.  The fact that I wish Tolkien were alive to add depth to his world through all the platforms available today speaks to my position- one concern I have with story telling across platforms is this idea of having multiple authors and expansive canon.  While I see the appeal, my big question for the future of trans-media storytelling is how authenticity is established.  For myself, I am not invested or very interested in anything that is de-centralized from the creative minds of Rowling, Tolkien, and Abrams/Lindelof/Cuse respectively.  However, as the Wachowski brothers and the Matrix franchise showed, it is very possible that stories of the future will be told across many platforms, and from the perspectives and minds of many.  It will be interesting to see how it develops.


Questions:

Look at me!

1. Does audience participation (in a series like AI) foster consumer loyalty to brand sponsors?  Specifically, if you were invested in American Idol, would you also feel emotionally invested in Coca Cola, AT&T, Ford?
2. What types of marketing appeal to you or catch your eye?  
3. What is your exposure to trans-media storytelling?  Do you feel that spreading a story across multiple platforms (and perhaps even multiple story-tellers) could water down the integrity of the story, and what is considered canonical?

Images:

This is my Coke backlash

...and this is my Ford backlash

Henry Jenkins Intro and Spoiling Survivor

As I enter into the world of "Convergence Culture," I should begin just as Henry Jenkins did: with a definition of this word "convergence."  According to the reading, my understanding of convergence is that it is some kind of shift in the way media is delivered and consumed- one that is blurring lines between different mediums and platforms and that is changing the way consumer and producer interact.  This change is more a cultural change than a technological change, as it is dependent on consumer-producer interaction more than it is reliant on any new technology.  In this way, convergence is socially driven.  And it is a sneaky thing.  Convergence enters our lives in ways we might not even notice: it enters into my life when my Iphone plays a song I bought on Itunes via my Macbook.  It sneaks its way into my life when I can then turn around and watch a movie on that same Iphone, and then go home and play that same song over my gaming system of choice.  The fact that I confused myself in writing those sentences gives me a sense of how complex a world; how ever-changing of a world we are entering into when we discuss convergence culture.  It is a world where more media, more information is accessible to more people in more places- and faster than ever before!  We know through the Black Box Fallacy that old media does not die- old technologies do- but rather that old media adapts and changes to fit cultural contexts (and those new technologies.)  Perhaps it should be of no surprise then that this culture is one which is searching for identity, as media giants grasp more and more control across all platforms while consumers continue to gain more and more access to all that this new age of media has to offer.  This lack of identity was made clear to me through Jenkins’ exploration of intelligence communities through his case study on the reality show, “Survivor.”

Survivor is a show that I have known of and heard about for the past decade.  I have seen the appeal of reality television, but of all different platforms I would not think of reality tv when I think about convergence.  However, after reading what Jenkins had to say, I have come to a better appreciation for the impact a show like Survivor can have- specifically by way of its impact on fan communities.  I am very intrigued by the idea of “knowledge communities.”  It makes sense that, in a digital world, community would be less proximity-based and more interest or value-based.  After reading about Survivor, I can see any number of other knowledge communities that I have been exposed to.  Upon reading about these communities, I have come to appreciate a few things about them:

-       
Inclusiveness: knowledge communities are in many ways more accessible than an academic community, or any kind of private community is.  Jenkins referred to the “expert paradigm” as one where a select few individuals know “all” there is to know about a given subject.  The difference inside of this convergence culture is that there is too much to be known for any one person to know it all.  Rather, we depend on our “collective intelligence” to the point where hundreds or thousands of people can bring something useful to the table and in doing so, a knowledge community can know exponentially more about a given subject than any one individual can possibly know.  This is how a person like ChillOne can (allegedly) stumble onto some information and instantly bring something of worth to a community of which (s)he was not an active part.  This inclusiveness underlies the accessibility that is becoming a trademark of the world we live in.

-        
The Scope of the Knowledge Community:  This ties into its inclusiveness, but I was impressed with the depths of information and knowledge that these communities could provide.  Some of these people probably could have pursued Doctorates with the amount of research that went into “spoiling” Survivor- pouring over topographical maps and satellite images and tracking down contestants based on a first name and a rough physical description.  Obviously, these “spoilers” were not always successful, but what was impressed upon me in reading about them is just what is possible when the sharing of this collective intelligence occurs.  It definitely gave me a picture- and Jenkins mentioned this briefly in the intro- of what is (perhaps) to come: a world where knowledge communities merge into politics and economics and religion.  It’s interesting to imagine that world, when you look at the example of the Survivor Spoilers and the strengths and weaknesses that community showed.

-        
The Temporal Nature of the Knowledge Community:  The final thing that struck me about these communities is just how flexible and temporal they are.  People aren’t bound to a community the way an American citizen is bound to his or her nationality.  There is freedom amongst the world of knowledge communities.  If a certain community isn’t meeting one’s needs or interests, one is free to move on.  If a certain interest passes- like the show LOST did for me, members of that knowledge community are able to simply move on.  There is a certain amoeba-like quality here, which lends me to believe that these communities will continue to have a growing significance in an ever-changing, ever-diverse, globally-connected world. 

We (don't) have to go back!!!