Though I found Newman’s article “From Beats to Arc” interesting, I couldn’t help but conclude that, though informative about the structure of television, and the relationship between commercialism and entertainment in television, it really serves no greater purpose. Much like I felt after the Mittell articles, I am beginning to feel more and more distanced from the content of television, as we continue to read essays that concentrate solely on the construct. I have slowly begun to realize that the biggest problem with television analysis is that the few who do it, such as MIttell and Newman, constantly feel a need to justify the medium, often causing them to spend a majority of their time doing so, and thus failing to offer any type of insight.
First, let me address my irritation with this constant justification of television: After giving an excruciating long list of vocabulary in his essay “Telling Television Stories,” Mittell explains that this vocabulary is useful because “understanding television’s form can increase your appreciation of the nuances of the medium, and make clear how programs can be engaging or boring, artful or manipulative” (p.266). However, I have a serious problem with the notion that we need to be taught how to appreciate television. Like books, or even film, an appreciation of television as an art form ought to be assumed. One does not need to read hundreds of pages of text and vocabulary to appreciate F Scott Fitzgerald – they do so because the novels he writes are pleasurable to read. Where did the assumption that the same is not true for television, come from? Why does Newman feel that we cannot truly appreciate the Prime-time serials he describes, until we understand what beats, episodes and arcs are?
Don’t get me wrong, I found both writer’s interesting (though, when comparing the two, it is amazing that Newman was able to say in 14 pages what Mittell took over 50 pages to say). Being interesting, however, is not the only thing theorists should be concerned with. They’re supposed to have a point. My question is, what’s their point?
4 responses so far ↓
cmorton10 // 30 September 2009 at 12.01 pm
Personally, I completely understand why these authors have gone to such great lengths to justify television studies. No one took television studies seriously for a long time. These authors have faced a great prejudice against their field from critics of pretty much every other field, including film studies. It is only natural and logical that they would want to defend themselves from this.
Furthermore, I also believe that there is in fact much to be learned from these types of texts in how we understand and view television. Television operates within a set of highly developed narrative systems, whose nuances are not readily apparent to the average viewer. By understanding the way these systems work as a whole, it is easier to understand how a particular text fits into the context of the genre it operates within.
bopritza // 30 September 2009 at 1.26 pm
I have to agree that it is getting old reading about the defense of tv studies; however, I also understand that they face prejudice against their field. My question is whether or not these narrative systems Mittel has defined will change as commercial breaks become obsolete? It seems that television is becoming more and more commercial free. Will act breaks change? Will there be different beats? Will an hour of television eventually be an actual hour of television. It will be interesting to see where tv goes in the future.
catbread // 30 September 2009 at 7.36 pm
I kind of agree with you, jmikva. In a way I’m interested in reading theories that advocate toward a certain course of action–for example, a theory that says that narrative structures of television are problematic/or beneficial in our culture/s, so we should do x to accomplish y.
In all honesty, I do have to say that learning more about television structures HAS made me appreciate the medium more. Before taking this class I was more interested in film narrative structures, and found television to be more of a medium to placate masses. Which sounds kind of awful…
So I don’t know. Maybe with the information we’re given, we can come to our own conclusions. Is there an issue with us being in a culture where we’re okay with there being mass advertising integrated into our entertainment? Should we reject or accept a method of production where time slotting, pacing, and narrative arcs are primarily dependent upon the fact that networks want to get paid?
Maybe we’ll get closer to an answer toward the end of the course.
cupofjuice // 30 September 2009 at 9.35 pm
To me it comes down to the fact that millions (billions? maybe) of people watch television every day. It’s an incredibly important medium in many societies. I think what each of those authors is getting at, after defending television studies of course (which gets dreary…), is that television can be used as a tool to understand society and culture. How is this done? Well, that’s a bigger question, but not one we don’t already know part of the answer to. I liked the “historical poetic” (I might have that phrase wrong…) approach to this.. using our knowledge of a shows historical production to determine what society was like at the time of the show’s production (or at least, to see how society wanted to view itself)