Untitled

When I was deciding on a personal serial project, I entertained a bunch of possible project ideas. I finally decided on creating a Twitter account called Overheard at Duke, inspired by the many "overheard at..." accounts out there and the infamous GS Elevator account. I wanted to capture the voice of the Duke student body, following the many ups and downs the Spring semester would bring. My goal was to be the eyes, ears, and tweets of Duke for the semester. I candidly reported and disclosed what was being said around me, while still offering my personal commentary and take on the events and situations that transpired. Given that what was being said around me always reflected the most recent, up-to-date, and relevant stories and events that were occurring, my twitter naturally took on a "serialistic" shape and form. It developed over time, just as the lives of the students it was documenting developed. I thought of myself as a narrator of sorts; every tweet I put out came with a few hashtags that would reveal my personal input, adding a humorous, unique aspect to the account. I thought of the account as a long story of the Spring semester. The tweets were essentially voicing ideas, comments, and complaints that a lot of other students could speak to, sympathize with, and live through vicariously. I very often would overhear something and think to myself how spot-on that person was or how perfectly that person captured the emotions I was feeling that day. I also came to learn that there's a very common pattern in the types of tweet-worthy things that Duke students say. For example, there's a hilarious tendency for students to say things that reflect the work-hard-play-hard culture that dominates Duke. Furthermore, I found that the things I overheard that I found most tweet-worthy generally tended to be complaints. The angst-fueled quotes made for the funniest tweets, and opened the doors for the funniest personal commentary-hashtags by me. Looking back through all my tweets this week, I really saw the strong narrative structure my serial project took on, with Twitter as its platform. I was able to nostalgically relive the many ups and down of the spring semester, through the voiced opinions of many of my fellow peers. In this sense, I feel like my project succeeded and I accomplished my goal of serializing (or "storifying", if you will) the lives of Duke students throughout the Spring semester. I hope to continue tweeting and serializing, as my Twitter account has the potential to further grow and develop a lot in the future. One thing I wish I had put more time into was gaining followers. Although I can proudly say that Larry Moneta does in fact follow me, a future development/improvement for the account would be to amass for student followers. I tried to follow various accounts that would provide me with recent campus news/events. This way, I would stay up to date about important campus happenings and be more alert as to what stories would be talked about that day. However, in the future, I should try and follow other Duke student accounts--I could easily "overhear" Tweets too! Since I was striving to narrate the voice of the student body and the "story of Duke students," I think students would both provide information/inspiration for my tweets, and likely retweet many of my tweets. On that note, I think my account has a lot of future potential so follow follow follow if you haven't and tell your friends to do the same! https://twitter.com/Overheard_Duke

Throughout his essay, "Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television," Jason Mittell discusses the concept of narrative complexity that is found in the majority of American television programs today. Mittell asserts that "Narratively complex television encourages, and even at times necessitates, a new mode of viewer engagement. While fan cultures have long demonstrated intense engagement in storyworlds, policing backstory consistency, character unity, and internal logic...contemporary programs focus this detailed dissection onto complex questions of plot and events in addition to storyworld and characters." I find that Scandal perfectly demonstrates the narrative complexity that Mittell is talking about, as it certainly made up of more than just the basic "storyworld ad characters." Scandal is a show that might initially feel like trivial, mindless entertainment--such as 90210 (the new version) or any of those California-based hit series on the CW channel. However, upon finally completing the first season, I realized that there is a much deeper complexity to the plot than I thought. If I zone out of Scandal for 5-10min, I usually have to rewind to be able to further understand the episode (this was certainly not the case with any of those CW shows). Scandal is a show that not only has a large, diverse cast of characters and an engaging plotline for each episode, but also introduces intricate backstories, politics, and several important events and side stories throughout its episodes. Just as Mittell said in his essay, "as programs become established in their own complex conventions we [the audience] also marvel at how far creators can push the boundaries of complexity." Complexity is absolutely a quality Scandal has. From the juicy political scandals that serve as the basis for each episode, to Olivia's twisted and tangle affair with the President, to the mysterious backstories and histories of the members of Olivia's team, to the actual political issues that need to be addressed by the President, all the way to Cyrus' domestic problems--Scandal certainly pushes the boundaries of complexity. Even characters that we feel we know well have convoluted, dark, and cryptic pasts that are, every so often, revealed to us in the middle of already-complicated episodes. Scandal also does an especially good job of adding another few layers of complexity by constantly entertaining audiences with flashbacks into the characters' pasts. Overall, I find that Scandal provides some of the best worst TV out there. Yes, sometimes Olivia's tendency to say basic things melodramatically, while constantly looking like she's going to burst into tears, can be a bit much. But, one cannot deny that Scandal is an intensely engaging TV show that does a lot more than silly shows about L.A. teenagers' love triangles. Politics, crime, sketchy backstories, romantic affairs...Scandal kind of does it all, all while remaining clever, fast-pased, and excitingly complicated.

While reading the Times article titled "The Boy Who Lived Forever," I was especially drawn in by the copyright issues surrounding Fanfiction. As someone who loves music and particularly appreciates remixing and mashups, I saw several parallels between the worlds of music and fanfiction. When fanfiction authors write their stories, they breathe new life into well-known characters and stories. They alter the worlds of the stories they are basing their fanfiction off of and in doing so change the plot, the characters, and many other aspects of the stories. Fanfiction writers can completely shift the tone of the story they are writing; this shift causes audiences to have a shift in mood and a change of response to the characters and the story as a whole. One cannot simply deem fanfiction as mere copying; the authors are undergoing a complicated creative thought process and very much conceiving a story that is their own. Even if the characters are the same, the final product is radically different than the original. The Harry Potter fanfiction that is out there may include all your favorite, familiar characters, but the actual storyline is very different than anything JK Rowling ever wrote. This creative effort by fanfiction authors should be recognized, not criticized. A very similar controversy surrounds the music industry, where dozen of mashup and remix artists get criticized repeatedly for copying previous artists. In reality, when an artist remixes a song or creates a mashup comprised of several song samples from various artists of a diverse set of genres, the final product (usually) has its own very unique, distinct sound-- it is by no means a replica of the sampled song(s). Mashup artists and remix artists have gained increasing popularity, they are admired and praised by many for their genius work. Yet at the same time, there are always critics out there claiming that they are "stealing." This controversy mirrors the controversy behind fanfiction. These authors and musical artists use the same building blocks as previous authors and musical artists to create completely new structures; they should be allowed to call the structures their own. Fanfiction and remixing are both unique arts that should be appreciated, not defamed.

Fred and George are probably two of my favorite characters in the Harry Potter series. When I initially picked them, I thought it might be hard to map out their significance/impact on major characters, such as Harry, because I didn't remember them ever really affecting major events. However, when I looked back at their roles in the books and traced their history, I was actually surprised to find that they were actually important on numerous occasions. Fred and George are silly characters, the jokesters of the series, but this quality of theirs should not be taken for granted! The world of Harry Potter is actually full of fun and laughs--a lot of my favorite memories from both the books and movies are the funny magic moments. Fred and George are, funnily enough, almost always somewhat involved in all these funny magic moments--they are the reason Harry's time at Hogwarts is so fun (and mischievous). But, aside from their ability to light up any situation, Fred and George are actually truly helpful, selfless characters. They helped out Harry, Hogwarts, and others several times in the series. They are actually the reason Harry is able to get to Hogwarts on numerous occasions! We have to give them credit for that. They are highly spirited characters who stand up for themselves and for others. They help Harry when he is needs to leave his hideout safe house on Privet Drive, they help Harry when he is trapped at the Dursleys, they stand up for themselves against Umbridge, they give Harry the important Marauder's Map, and they finally stand up for Hogwarts and protect the school (Fred dies in his efforts to do so). The twins have hearts of gold and in many ways represent everything cheerful and good about the World of Wizardry.

First off sorry this post is late i've been out of town since wednesday and haven't had any time until now to do my princess post. Second of all everyone stop what you're doing and go watch mulan again (if you haven't already seen it for a first time then shame on you i am no longer your friend). My GOD THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER. Mushu. Mushu. He is perfect. He is the funniest thing that has ever happened to movies. But anyway onto my actual post. Mulan is majorly marketed as feminist, almost anti-princess-frills Disney "princess." She is a war-heroine who is not only a pretty face, but also a smart, witty, strong-willed, and resourceful young women. Throughout the movie, it is made clear that Mulan doesn't personally care about the whole looking-pretty thing--she only wishes to look good and be "matched up" with a man by the renowned town matchmaker to please and "bring honor to" her parents. Sure, she ends up with a hunky love-interest, but in all fairness she won him over because she had crazy impressive samurai-warrior-skills and had an awesome personality (plus, was super attractive.) So basically she's strong, brave, and still manages to be pretty and attractive to men! Now, in terms of Andrew Bennet and Nicholas Royle's narrative postulates, I thought the fifth one, "Stories always have something to tell us about stories themselves: they always involve self-reflexive and metafictional dimension," was especially relevant to "Mulan". "Mulan" is a movie with many inconsistencies and paradoxes--especially in the way the film is marketed. First off, despite the whole feminist, anti-princess vibe the movie is supposed to give off, at the end of the movie a big aspect of the happy ending is that Mulan is now "fit" for marriage. The concept of being "fit" for marriage is pretty ridiculous, especially for a movie that supposedly promoting the whole be-yourself, find-your-true-self, don't-conform-to-society thing...So after all that we're really supposed to be happy that she's "acceptable" according to crazy societal standards? Kinda weird if you ask me...I thought this really revealed the classic problem many people have with the Disney princess movies, about all the women always having to, at the end of the day, please men etc. Second point, can we talk about how the only reason Mulan and her fellow soldiers are able to enter the emperor's palace and triumph over the Huns is because Yao, Ling, and Chien-Po literally dress up as a concubines and are then let in....so they used women's sexuality as a tool? Again, like every Disney movie, women's beauty and attraction are integral parts of the story line--and always used to people's advantages. Pretty inconsistent with the story "Mulan" is supposed to be telling....Peggy Orenstein also makes a great point in her NYT article, "What's Wrong with Cinderella?" about how Mulan dolls are always sold with Mulan in her beautiful, dolled-up, geisha-esque outfit "which makes  her  miserable  in  the  movie, rather  than  her  liberated warrior’s  gear." Very interesting point! All that being said, I love Mulan. One of my favor animated movies of all time, right up there with Anastasia. Go watch it now.

Revisiting Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Night Series" made me think about how much Batman has evolved throughout its many recreations, reboots, and franchises. I clearly remember the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series from when I was younger. The films from that series were much flashier, jam packed with hollywood's super star names, sex appeal, and almost cartoonish colors and costumes. They were much more theatrical in that sense and very obviously not "realistic."All the films had important female roles that were glamorized. Michelle Pfeiffer as in red-lipstick clad Cat Woman in "Batman Returns", a glamorous and seductive Nicole Kidman in "Batman Forever", and the infamous Uma Thurman as the hyper-sexualized Poison Ivy in "Batman & Robin." With big names like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Val Kilmer, Jim Carrey, and George Clooney, these films were all about the hollywood appeal; none of them were really considered "good" movies--they were treated more as live cartoons of sorts. Action packed, sex-fueled, and cheesy one-liners (looking at you, Arnold) filled the films in this series. Now, fast-forwarding to Chris Nolan's take on Batman, we see a totally different kind of series. Nolan's films are much darker, much more realistic, and much less flashy. The visual differences mirror the differences in content. Nolan's series still include big names in the cast, but there aren't 5 cartoonish villains with cheesy one liners per film. Instead, there are dark, scary, but real villains like the Joker. His makeup doesn't look like a professional applied it, it looks like his own, messy work. These films are regarded as ones of much higher quality; they are not only visceral experiences that captivate audiences emotionally, but they are smarter films that challenge audiences' intellect and beliefs. Batman doesn't throw around the jokes that he did in the Burton/Schumacher films, the villains are deranged humans, not sexy seductresses, and the overall feel of the movie is much more serious. The evolution of Batman, and the Batman series as a whole mirrors the shift in audience's perceptions of what kinds of movies "work" in hollywood. Movies based off of comics are no longer trivial, cheesy, flashy films that have cool costumes and poorly written scripts. Instead, they are now some of the greatest films being produced in hollywood- they are darker, rawer, and much more realistic.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/33-fabulously-geeky-sherlock-items-you-can-buy-right-now

I thought Tsvetan Todorov touched on many interesting concepts in his essay "The Typology of Fiction." First off, I found the notion of a work officially qualifying as a "major work" only if it created, in a sense, a new genre very interesting. Todorov recognizes that most works are designed to fit into a preconceived genre and created in a way that they will "obey the rules of its genre." However, he asserts that great works are those that are able to establish not one, but two genres. It must create a genre, but still establish the genre that it transgresses. This made me try and think of books, or works in general, that I thought fulfilled these two qualifications. An obvious book that came to mind was the first Harry Potter book. Harry Potter, in many ways, is a classic coming of age novel. It's about a young boy, who is unhappy with his family life, finds himself getting into trouble at school, and has a nice little group of 2 best friends. Sounds pretty typical, doesn't it? Preconceived genre: check. At the same time, Harry Potter introduced millions of people around the world to a new a world of wizardry that was previously unheard of; it established a wizardry-world genre. Should another author release a book about the world of wizards, people will most certainly point to Harry Potter as the pioneer, the source of the revolutionary genre. New genre: check. Everyone can agree that Harry Potter is a "great book", as Todorov would deem it. However, I feel like there is also something to be said for books, and other works, that are (rightfully) considered "great" even though they do not create a genre. In fact, movies that perfectly fit into a widely known genre, such as a comedy or a thriller, and are still able to achieve exceptional praise, acclamation, and distinction from other works within the same genre could in many ways be considered even more great. They are fitting within a preconceived category, and yet still manage to make themselves distinguishable and superior.

I thought Leslie T. Chang's article, "Working Titles," was a very interesting read. Although I am fully aware of the well-known working mentality that overwhelms the Chinese culture, I was still fascinated by the concept of a "workplace novel". It was very interesting to read about what a massive, cult following these types of novels have amongst the Chinese population. That being said, I think it is also worth acknowledging that self-help books, namely self-help books regarding personal finance, becoming successful, etc., also have quite the fan base here in the United States. Although we don't characterize them as workplace novels, these books draw millions of readers here. Much like some of the novels described in Leslie Chang's article, many successful people write books about how to achieve equal success, fame, and fortune, most usually in an autobiographical format. The key difference between these books in the United States and the workplace novels in China is that, in the United States, the books are specifically regarded, promoted, and sold as how-to books of sorts--they aren't leisurely novels. Herein lies the central contrast between the two cultures. Although American's love their "how to get rich/how to be successful" books as much as the Chinese, Americans still look to other books to read for fun, for leisure, and for a way to escape their daily trials and tribulations. These books usually have juicy plots, filled with sex, romance, and fantasy. Whether they offer an escape into the fantastical world of "The Hunger Games" or satisfy guilty sexual pleasures found in "50 Shades of Grey", best-selling novels in the United States are very often best-sellers because they offer Americans a way out of their usual busy, money-centric, work-heavy lives. In China however, this downtime and this concept of escape is not as emphasized-- or even emphasized at all. Instead of using books as a way to relax or take a break from their already-hectic, hard-working lives, the Chinese culture pushes people to further stress themselves out, further challenge themselves, and further increase the pressure they put on themselves to do better, make more money, and be more successful. On top of that, American culture, namely media culture, largely associates money, success, and power with sex. Usually books about mega successful, mega rich people include lots of sex-- its something that is supposed to make success and wealth even more appealing. I thought it was interesting that this was not the case in China. Publishers instead suggest as little sex and romance as possible in workplace novels to make the novels sell better. And they seem to be right!

When I first started reading Linda Hughes and Michael Lund's "Textual/sexual pleasure and serial publication" I was pretty taken aback by the comparison they were trying to make. Naturally, I found it pretty bizarre that they were going to try and establish a connection between reading serial works and sexual pleasure. However, as I read further I started to see just how warranted their comparison was. Their argument made me think about our first day in class, where we discussed as a class what made seriality appealing to us, and what we thought made for successful seriality. Throughout our discussion, we used words like "connection", "intimate", "excitement", etc. to describe appealing qualities of serials we enjoyed. As I read Hughes and Lund's essay, it became clear to me how obvious the sexuality of all this was. Serialized works are able to create true connections and bonds between themselves and audience members, readers, or viewers. The subsequent works that are a part of that serial are modified and tailored in accordance with viewers preferences. It is this aspect of the serial that especially establishes a personal connection with audience members. The excitement associated with the anticipation of waiting for the next installment of a serial very much mirrors the excitement associated with sexual pleasure. As Hughes and Lund put it, "no matter how much [people] want to sustain interest and pleasure in the text, they must wait until the next installment scheduled to appear." Hughes and Lund more specifically delve into a comparison of digesting serial works and the female body. I thought an especially noteworthy comparison was that of a "scheduled (monthly) release of literary parts" and "the monthly scheduling of...female bodily activity." It might sound far-fetched, but they do have a point! Furthermore, Hughes and Lund specifically mention the importance of "making such literary work congenial to women while not excluding or marginalizing male readers." We had spoken in class about how there's an interesting dynamic between women and movies created primarily to draw in a male audience compared to men and movies created primarily for a female audience. It is rare that men will be engaged in movies that are "for women", but women very often see and engage themselves in movies "for men", or movies that are appealing to men. This reflects what Hughes and Lund are saying; very successful serials, across all genders, achieve an air of feminine sexuality/pleasure, but they achieve this without "marginalizing male readers".