Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Let's Talk About: Paratext! Wait, what's that?

Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:57 am
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37263 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:57 am
Well...

quote:

The paratext is the satellite debris orbiting and radiating out from the core text: what the post-­telecast chatfest Talking Dead is to The Walking Dead, what Madonna-vs.-Lady Gaga mashups are to the original music videos, what Wolverine action figures are to the X-Men franchise—what all the buzzing swarms of trailers, teasers, bloopers, tweets, swag, webisodes, podcasts, chat rooms, fanzines, geek conventions, DVD extras, synergistic tie-ins, and branded merchandise, in all their infinite varieties, are to the mother ship. If the main text is the great white shark, the paratext is the pilot fish—and if the old-school film critic wanted to sink his teeth into a close textual analysis of Steven Spielberg's Jaws (1975), the paratextual critic prefers to dissect the creation and marketing of Bruce, the mechanical shark at the Universal Studios tour.


LINK

Intriguing, whether or not I agree. But I think this strikes to the core of what we talk about. One could almost say that the paratext can involve a public display of our own interpretations, or at least someone else's interpretations. Because, although it can happen, the leaders in content creation are not often involved with what would be considered the "paratextual" art.

For instance:

quote:

You may have paused over the word "interstitial" above, a paratextual neologism for "the bits in between" the program lineup: If it is listed in TV Guide, it is not an interstitial. In Grainge's Ephemeral Media, John Ellis, a professor of media arts at Royal Holloway, University of London, notes that on a cost-per-second basis interstitials (like traditional commercials) are more expensive and meticulously storyboarded than regular programming—a fact that in itself argues for their higher profile in media studies. Traditional commercials are technically interstitials, but they may or may not be classified as paratexts because they tend to play independently of a given program or network. Besides, to the paratextually minded, commercials are so 20th century. Outside of the Super Bowl, the 30-second spot is a vestige of a dying televisual universe.


Commercials and trailers. Widely lauded (depending on the film), do they in fact shape our expectation of a movie enough to alter the perception when we finally experience it?

quote:

In one sense, the critical appetite for extra servings is nothing new. At least since the demise of the New Criticism, where the critic's blinkered eyeballs were glued to the text to the exclusion of all outside forces, scholars of all stripes have attended to secondary material to provide a context, inform a reading, and in general make the meaning of a text richer and more resonant.


And who had the appetite first: Critics or Casual Viewers? Honestly, I'd say that the economy plays a role in this. We are more anxious in modern culture about our spendings (most normal folks), therefore we seek the highest ROI on our entertainment dollars and this means going neck deep in a show's mythology through shorts, discussion shows, discussion forums (so meta!), etc.

quote:

Collectively, the paratextual cohort makes a powerful argument about reception and delivery in the digital age, where screens are as likely to be in your hand as in the living room, where the old boundaries—of time, place, and program—are dissolving before our eyes. To a new generation of web-wise and business-oriented media scholars, critics still bewitched by the autonomous integrity of the titled film or television show are hopelessly antiquarian in their understanding of how texts now send out meaning across multiple platforms. Little wonder that so much of the paratextual scholarship is more likely to draw from the fields of economics, technology, and sociology than from the humanities, where residual disciplinary affinities may still privilege the text as the holy of holies.


Ultimately, How important is it?

For me, as someone who puts high importance on both the author (yes, I don't care what you think the author is doing or how you are deciding something is relevant to you unless of course you are following the author) and the original content, Paratext is extremely varied in importance. For some shows it's critical or at least very much a part of the experience (I would consider Marvel post-credit scenes as essential paratexts, BSG shorts, etc), but I'd never watch an episode of the Talking Dead (and never have).

Anyways, I thought this could be interesting, or...




tl;dr.
Posted by Libertyabides71
Fyffe Alabama (Yeah the UFO place)
Member since Jul 2013
5082 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:00 am to
Wouldn't this just be fanon and meta-discussion and he simply wanted to create his own word/context?
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150672 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:39 am to
quote:

therefore we seek the highest ROI on our entertainment dollars and this means going neck deep in a show's mythology through shorts, discussion shows, discussion forums (so meta!), etc.

It's not just dollars though. I think us choosing to spend our time is just as important (or even moreso in certain situations) as spending our money.

A perfect example of this is the experience I/we had watching Lost. I know you hated it in the end, but the amount of time we, as a board/forum, put into discussing and analyzing that show and all of its intricacies was staggering. There were SO frickING MANY peripherals to that show, from the mythologies of the island to the themes of the show to the mind-boggling breakdown of details (down to the number of stitches on a baseball being significant in one episode). Lost was so much more than just "watching a TV show" for me, and that's one reason I rank it as one of my favorite and best shows of all time. It was easily one of the most fun television experiences I've ever had, and that has a lot to do with this "paratext."
quote:

Paratext is extremely varied in importance.

Absolutely. For a show like Lost, I loved all of the discussion about the fringe details of the show and what peoples' theories consisted of, no matter how whacked out or spot on they were. It was all fun.

But for a show like TWD, I'd much rather just consume the show as-is and not read into too much detail outside of that. Like you, I've never watched TTD nor do I ever plan to. And I have zero desire to ever pick up the comics either. Same with a show like GoT...I love that fricking show, but the show (and not the books or countless sites discussing the histories/backgrounds) is the only thing that interests me. The actual episodes are the only thing I care to digest when it comes to GoT.


To keep along with this idea of "paratext," I am one of those people that really could completely do without DVD extras. If I could buy DVDs that just had the actual film for cheaper than "normal" DVDs, I would do it prolly 97 times out of 100. Sure, there may be a few movies here and there where I think extras and special features would be enticing for me, but those are VERY few and far between. For me, most of the time, the movie is good enough. Though I will admit that I enjoy reading about how things were made sometimes...like I really enjoy the "Production" section on Wiki pages for movies, for example. Another example is that certain shows that I like, specifically comedies...I enjoy watching the outtakes. Shows like The Office or Community have great outtakes from each of their seasons, and I like watching shite like that sometimes.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 9:42 am
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37263 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 10:42 am to
quote:

It's not just dollars though. I think us choosing to spend our time is just as important (or even moreso in certain situations) as spending our money.


Fair point.

quote:

A perfect example of this is the experience I/we had watching Lost. I know you hated it in the end, but the amount of time we, as a board/forum, put into discussing and analyzing that show and all of its intricacies was staggering. There were SO frickING MANY peripherals to that show, from the mythologies of the island to the themes of the show to the mind-boggling breakdown of details (down to the number of stitches on a baseball being significant in one episode). Lost was so much more than just "watching a TV show" for me, and that's one reason I rank it as one of my favorite and best shows of all time. It was easily one of the most fun television experiences I've ever had, and that has a lot to do with this "paratext."


Correct. But for me, and I hope I don't say this wrong, but I wouldn't have discussed Lost without the glaring errors, the ones that bugged me (and the overall mystery). It's a show that almost requires paratext and doesn't really live up without it (I just don't see how people can enjoy that mess without millions of other people plunging into the black water with them).

quote:

Absolutely. For a show like Lost, I loved all of the discussion about the fringe details of the show and what peoples' theories consisted of, no matter how whacked out or spot on they were. It was all fun.

But for a show like TWD, I'd much rather just consume the show as-is and not read into too much detail outside of that. Like you, I've never watched TTD nor do I ever plan to. And I have zero desire to ever pick up the comics either. Same with a show like GoT...I love that fricking show, but the show (and not the books or countless sites discussing the histories/backgrounds) is the only thing that interests me. The actual episodes are the only thing I care to digest when it comes to GoT.


Bingo. My comparison wouldn't necessarily be TWD. I'll bring up Fringe in relation to my earlier point. Fringe was Lost done right, honestly. And I didn't really engage in the paratext for that either. But it had the mystery, the red herrings, the overall arcs, of Lost without the errors.

So to go back to my first post, I put faith in the author and the content, and unless paratext is part of that content (see BSG), I would almost say it's superfluous.

Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150672 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 11:34 am to
quote:

But for me, and I hope I don't say this wrong, but I wouldn't have discussed Lost without the glaring errors, the ones that bugged me (and the overall mystery). It's a show that almost requires paratext and doesn't really live up without it (I just don't see how people can enjoy that mess without millions of other people plunging into the black water with them).

I rewatched the series with my ex-gf and all we did was watch the episodes. And it was her first time through the series, and she digested it completely within the episodes themselves (and no outside reading, so to speak). And she LOVED it, and I appreciated it more BECAUSE I didn't sit there and ponder or overanalyze everything. Taken at face value, the show "makes sense" and all of the extra "paratext" things, while they may enhance the experience, don't necessarily make it better. They did for me, but they aren't prerequisites for enjoying the show.

And I hope I said that right..
quote:

I'll bring up Fringe in relation to my earlier point. Fringe was Lost done right, honestly. And I didn't really engage in the paratext for that either. But it had the mystery, the red herrings, the overall arcs, of Lost without the errors.

While I think Lost is better than Fringe, I agree that Fringe works as an example for me as well in that regard. Though I will say that because I wasn't "as involved" in Fringe as I was in Lost, I felt most confused a lot of times on the happenings of Fringe. One thing about overanalyzing the paratext of a show is that regardless of if it makes you enjoy something more or less, it definitely makes you more connected to the material and gives you a better understanding of what is going on IMO.

So while some of the paratext may be superfluous, not all of it may. And even the unnecessary shite can help enhance your experience of watching (and it may make it much better/worse, not affect it at all, or only make it marginally better/worse).




Speaking of this....I still need to try to coordinate a Fringe rewatch on here...I forgot all about that.
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37263 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 11:47 am to
quote:

I rewatched the series with my ex-gf and all we did was watch the episodes. And it was her first time through the series, and she digested it completely within the episodes themselves (and no outside reading, so to speak). And she LOVED it, and I appreciated it more BECAUSE I didn't sit there and ponder or overanalyze everything. Taken at face value, the show "makes sense" and all of the extra "paratext" things, while they may enhance the experience, don't necessarily make it better. They did for me, but they aren't prerequisites for enjoying the show.


But you didn't and can't view the show without that approach anymore. What if the show would have been BETTER had you not engaged? Is there a chance of that?

quote:

While I think Lost is better than Fringe, I agree that Fringe works as an example for me as well in that regard. Though I will say that because I wasn't "as involved" in Fringe as I was in Lost, I felt most confused a lot of times on the happenings of Fringe. One thing about overanalyzing the paratext of a show is that regardless of if it makes you enjoy something more or less, it definitely makes you more connected to the material and gives you a better understanding of what is going on IMO.


Exactly.

I mention Fringe because I never thought I was "required" to engage, like I did with Lost (and is reflective of how I see Lost now, I don't see how people can watch that without engage because, for me, it's so problematic). On the other hand, Fringe is self-contained. The twists and turns makes sense. I actually stopped decoding the pre-commercials symbols because I thought they ruined the experience, honestly.

I think that's a strength of Fringe, the ability to be compelling and engaging WITHOUT the requirement of exterior engagement (Like I said, authorial intent first, content second).

quote:

So while some of the paratext may be superfluous, not all of it may. And even the unnecessary shite can help enhance your experience of watching (and it may make it much better/worse, not affect it at all, or only make it marginally better/worse).


Exactly.

quote:

Speaking of this....I still need to try to coordinate a Fringe rewatch on here...I forgot all about that.


If I hadn't watched the entirety of Fringe last year with my girlfriend, I'd be all over this. Brilliant show.

With that said, you should try Battlestar Galactica, and I would lead a watch/rewatch of that if people were interested.
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150672 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 12:32 pm to
quote:

But you didn't and can't view the show without that approach anymore. What if the show would have been BETTER had you not engaged? Is there a chance of that?

Well of course I can't, but I did enjoy the show better the second time around just watching and nto questioning everything. And that is why I mention my ex...she loved the show and did exactly zero "outsied reading" on it. That's why I say that it stands on its own as a great show and is best suited for marathon viewing. As much fun as I had in the weekly threads on here, being able to just ingest it on a binge basis makes the show work much better IMO.
quote:

I think that's a strength of Fringe, the ability to be compelling and engaging WITHOUT the requirement of exterior engagement

And I think Lost has that same ability. I don't want this to turn into a Lost vs. Fringe thread, but I do think it stands alone as a solid series if you don't get into the details and mythology. It just so happens that Lost had a H.U.G.E. online following and that kind of setting allowed for that kind of discussion every week. For me, it made it awesome. For you, it made it suck.

quote:

If I hadn't watched the entirety of Fringe last year with my girlfriend, I'd be all over this. Brilliant show.

With that said, you should try Battlestar Galactica, and I would lead a watch/rewatch of that if people were interested.

I will watch BSG one day, but it's a pretty big undertaking. I think Deadwood will be my next binge series...just ordered the complete series yesterday actually.

Fringe is real close to being my next watch/rewatch as well. I thought about mixing the two (DW and Fringe), but I feel like that may not be a good idea. Think I may get into Happy Endings as a good intermix with Deadwood...that's a show I know I will like, and there are only three seasons as well (like Deadwood). Plus, it's easier to mix in because it's a silly comedy, which is a stark contrast to Deadwood.
Posted by Freauxzen
Utah
Member since Feb 2006
37263 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 1:16 pm to
quote:

Well of course I can't, but I did enjoy the show better the second time around just watching and nto questioning everything. And that is why I mention my ex...she loved the show and did exactly zero "outsied reading" on it. That's why I say that it stands on its own as a great show and is best suited for marathon viewing. As much fun as I had in the weekly threads on here, being able to just ingest it on a binge basis makes the show work much better IMO.


Binge viewing can certainly affect how we perceive the narrative. I binged to catch up on Lost the two times I quit watching it.

quote:

I will watch BSG one day, but it's a pretty big undertaking. I think Deadwood will be my next binge series...just ordered the complete series yesterday actually.

Fringe is real close to being my next watch/rewatch as well. I thought about mixing the two (DW and Fringe), but I feel like that may not be a good idea. Think I may get into Happy Endings as a good intermix with Deadwood...that's a show I know I will like, and there are only three seasons as well (like Deadwood). Plus, it's easier to mix in because it's a silly comedy, which is a stark contrast to Deadwood.


Cool.

I tried Deadwood. Wasn't a big fan.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram