My coursework at Old Dominion has led me through a lot of writing and reading for last few months — hence, my absence from the site! One of the books I’ve been reading has pushed the back of my mind in some new directions with Harry Potter. In 2006, Henry Jenkins (head of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT) released a book I had wanted to read for some time: Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. And, as most regular readers know, I’ve always harbored an interest in HP as a story told across multiple media forms. Well, Jenkins provides a couple of terms that apply to this interest, and to us here at The Hog’s Head. Here are the terms and some definitions provided by Jenkins’ Introduction:
- Convergence: “[C]onsumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content. [...] Convergence occurs within the brains of the individual consumers and through their social interactions with others. Each of us constructs our own personal mythology from bits and fragments of information extracted from the media flow and transformed into resources through which we make sense of our everyday lives.” (pgs. 3-4)
- Participatory Culture: This is a much broader term, accounting for different forms of audience interaction with stories and cultural products. Most notably, Jenkins sees participation as a feature that blurs, more and more, the distinctions between “media producers and consumers”: “we might now see them as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us fully understands” (pg. 3).
Both terms encompass a lot of features within the media flow to which we’ve grown accustomed, though no one movie, book, game, or website need use all of those features. What Jenkins is worried about here is how stories are now told in a media environment that more and more encourages audience participation. He addresses the voting process on American Idol and the online fan communities surrounding Surviror. Both chapters involve some intriguing ideas for us here, but the chapters 3, 4, and 5 are most important, I think. Chapter 3 discusses “transmedia storytelling”, which I’ll discuss below; chapter 4 chronicles the sometimes troubled intersection between fan communities and the corporations that own the intellectual properties they love; and chapter 5 directly addresses different avenues in the culture wars surrounding Harry Potter, and discusses the books as an example calling for a new form of literacy.
For now, the point to take away is embedded within the definition of convergence, that it takes place “within the brains of individual consumers”. A large, perhaps even crucial, portion of our experience with a story occurs within our heads. In other words, if we’re stuck trying to understand the relationships between the films and the books, then we’re not alone. Personally, I saw the first three films before ever reading a word of the books. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for me to see the characters’ physical appearances and mannerisms outside of their celluloid framework. More than a few people here have lamented this, especially given our problems with some of the films portrayals. The general consensus has been that Gambon in no way emboddies Dumbledore (Travis, RedRocker, and revgeorge are your best sources on this). And some have expressed reservations that Alan Rickman is too old for Snape, while Emma Watson isn’t everyone’s ideal Hermione.
Yet, in an interesting twist, while I sometimes cannot see characters outside of their film counterparts, I can accept the films as wholly different stories from the books. And I am constantly wondering why this is the case.
The books/films/games are not perfectly representative examples of “transmedia storytelling”, a narrative mode whereby a universe’s story unfolds across multiple media channels:
[E]ach medium does what it does best — so that a story might be introduced in a film, expanded through television, novels, and comics; its world might be explored through game play or experienced as an amusement park attraction. Each franchise entry needs to be self-contained so you don’t need to have seen the film to enjoy the game, and vice versa. Any given product is a point of entry into the franchise as a whole. Reading across the media sustains a depth of experience that motivates more consumption. (pg. 98)
Jenkins’ primary example here is The Matrix. Many fans complained that something was lost from the first film to the last two. But, the Wachowski brothers were pursuing a storytelling strategy that saw them develop key moments of the universe’s narrative in other media channels, through anime short films (of which I have only seen bits and pieces) and in a videogame (which, I admit, I have not played). As Jenkins states, “For people who see only the movie, the sources of [some] information remain unclear”, but for anyone who has sought the transmedia experience, they will have picked up on minor details that convey the plot (pg. 104). In other words, the Wachowskis sought to weave all these media into one large, coherent narrative saga — if only a loose one.
One result does apply to us, and is called “collective intelligence”, or the need to combine with multiple people into an interpretive community to weave all the information together to make some kind of analysis possible. Fans, then, start to take over some portion of the narrative world because it “is bigger than the film, bigger even than the franchise — since fan speculations and elaborations also expand the world in a variety of directions” (pg. 116). This should sound familiar: I think it perfectly describes us, and our online comrades. During my time here, I’ve noticed that we form a radically diverse collective of ideas and abilities brought to bear on the HP world. Some of us have expertise in literature as a formal endeavor, others bring with them expertise in religion and theology, and I have seen hints of expertise in fields as diverse as psychology, library science, and early childhood education. Likely, none of us would have found each other’s expertise outsideTHH, Hogwarts Professor, or HPProgs, and many of us may not have sought out such expertise on our own. THH allows this to happen because we are not merely readers and interpreters; we participate in the text’s construction not only by reading the books, but by dragging together our various interests. In other words, Rowling isn’t the only author of the experience of HP, but my interpretations are shaped by Travis’s comments — he (and so many others) shapes my experience with HP, too. It’s difficult for me now to watch or read the stories without thinking of some detailes we discuss here.
Since this process happens primarily in the audience’s minds, there is a fundamental choice here — at least up to a point. For instance, anyone is perfectly free to choose one form of the story over another. We tend to give the books primacy, but many audiences choose the movies. I’ve played some of the games, while most of my posts on those tend to get very little reaction. Yet, by interacting here, some part of the process is beyond our control, too. Our debates over Snape, his allegiances, and his portrayal in Deathly Hallows serve a perfect example. Some of us had created a sense of Snape, driven by both the books and our discussions, that were not necessarily met by DH. Jenkins discusses this phenomena relative to Star Wars:
Adding too much information, however, carries its own risks: fans had long debated whether Boba Fett could actually be a woman underneath the helmet, since we never actually got to see the character’s face or hear its voice. But as Lucas fleshed out the character, he also closed down those possibilities, preempting important lines of fan speculation even as he added information that might sustain new fantasies. (pg. 117)
While Boba Fett is not a perfect analogy to Snape, I think what Jenkins describes here is a very good analysis of why many of us reacted to Snape’s development/demise in DH. Our lines of speculation pursued a character that was already fascinating. We knew that Rowling had to do something with him in DH. But she had set him up as a central character in the story’s scheme, and then carried out his character’s resolution in the background. She was perfectly free to do this, but it is easy to see how some fans (admittedly, myself included) were disappointed by this. Part of the issue, too? Our “lines of speculation” were closed off — witness the drop in online fan participation in the months after Deathly Hallows was released.
Notice that I’ve used the word experience a few times? I think there are different ways to consider my idea here, but I’ve come to two variations on the term:
- Experience is the task of entertainment, when we don’t really look for a coherent storyline, anymore. We simply want to be transported to something beyond our everyday realities. I’ve seen my fair share of movies lately that have no coherent plot, but are full of spectacular visuals. What’s the point? Why do we want such a thing? “Escapism” is the traditional term, but I think experience is a different matter because it takes place in the audience, not the text.
- Another, more interesting version is something I think takes place for many of us with respect to the films. We know the source material so well (and give it such primacy), that we treat the movies as just an extension of that universe. This doesn’t mean that we forgive the films their transgressions and ommissions. But, Order of the Phoenix represented a curious moment for me: I liked the film in many ways, but I felt that anyone who hadn’t read the book would be lost about a few plot details — particularly the section taken from “Snape’s Worst Memory”. I’ve had some students say the same thing about the Twilight adaptation, as well. Much about the new James Bond film, Quantam of Solace, would make no sense to anyone who doesn’t remember much about Casino Royale. This isn’t purely a matter of serialization. I think more and more storytellers are relying on audiences to supply elements of the story within their participatory reactions.
These definitions obviously aren’t perfect, and I’m still thinking my way through them — any help from you super smart readers here at THH would be fantastic!
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
PotterMom05 on 
Red Rocker on 
korg20000bc on 
Loading ...
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave, I think you’re right: escapism and experience are different. Escape is simply that, an escape from the real world for a period of time. And fantasy and fairy tales can be read that way, which may be one reason why they are so often regarded as “kid lit” or “juvenile fiction” – people too often believe that a need to escape implies weakness or lack of maturity.
Fantasy like HP begs to become more than escape; it begs to become experience. An educational vacation, if you will. We are meant to learn from the journey. (I looked for and couldn’t find a quote, I think from Lewis, that says something like “The woods in fantasy stories do not make us hate the woods in our world; they make us appreciate our own woods more.” I know that’s not right – somebody help me out.)
I’ve been reading a book called “The Language of the Night,” a collection of essays by Ursula Le Guin. In the essay “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” she states what she believes are the uses of fantasy. Her first answer is “‘The use of it is to give you pleasure and delight.’” Her second answer is “‘The use of imaginative fiction is to deepen your understanding of your world, and your fellow men, and your own feelings, and your destiny.’” Escape is her first answer; experience is her second answer.
What has happened at THH and other websites is that we’ve engaged in the experience as a group, forming that “collective intelligence.” Each of our personal experiences has changed as a result.
It sounds like a very interesting book, especially in this day and age. I’ve heard of Henry Jenkins before, and this sounds like a fascinating view on culture today, and how it’s affected by interaction with today’s media, in the era of the internet. Harry Potter clearly relies on different modes of communication, from the books to the films to the seemingly unbounded world of the internet. People appreciate the series because of the story, because of its movies, because of its intellectual and literary depth, because of its cultural and societal reflection, because of its interactive fanbase, because of the experience from the books in general, and because of various other aspects of the phenomenon. It started with a book, but now the people who love it remember the experience that came with the books. The books led to friendships, communities, interaction, and communication that live on past the series. And Harry Potter is lucky to have that.
I’d really like to read Jenkins’ book and learn more about this “Convergence Culture.”
With regard to convergence (making connections across media) : in the film of PoA, Cuaron and Kloves took a line with the Marauders’ Map that displeased a lot of readers. A not entirely successful attempt at convergence perhaps?
They took the view that, on the one hand, those who had not read the books did not need to know who the Marauders were, just one too many complications in a two and a half hour experience, and yet they ensured the Marauders names were read out in full on two occasions and kept material in the film that pointed to the identity of the Marauders, such as Lupin and Sirius knowing all about the map and how it worked (with no explanation) and Harry thinking that he saw his father across the lake casting a patronus when all the cinema-goer could see was a silver stag (the non-reader would understand that these two things must be associated but why ???)
The next two films followed this indirect line on the Marauders by having Pettigrew referred to as Wormtail in GoF, and in OotP Mad-Eye telling ‘Padfoot’ that he would give the whole game away, followed by James Potter calling his friends Padfoot (and I think Moony?) in the very brief ‘Snape’s worst memory’ scene.
I enjoyed this nod-and-a-wink to the readers, but judging by the ensuing discussions I do not think it worked for most people, particularly the younger readers who saw PoA.
ps: another reference that would not mean anything to non-readers was in the GoF court scene where Igor Karkaroff refers to the torture by Bellatrix LeStrange of the Longbottoms (who by who?). The only reason for the film makers to mention ‘unknown’ characters to non-readers is if they expect those non-readers to watch the earlier films again once they have seen the later films in the series. Or else it is just another ‘nod-and-a-wink’?
….am I on to something, or have I lost the plot completely?
About convergence.
I’m not convinced it’s a matter of anyone “encouraging” anyone to seek out information and make connections. I think it’s what people naturally and automatically do. We try to link things which are similar. In other words, it’s a natural, internal process, not something one needs to do externally or deliberately. It can be helped by certain actions – releasing videogames at the same time as movies, for example, or using pictures from the movies in books. But the intent there is not convergence, but simply to sell more of one thing based on the popularity of another thing. Thus, for example, you wouldn’t see ads for the books on the videogames and movies, because the latter two sell more than the former.
And what concerns me about the concept is the use of terms such as “consumers” and “product”. Yes, the books and movies and videogames are “‘product” and people who play the games and see the movies and read the books are “consumers”. But using those terms changes the paradigm, and not advantageously. “Product” assumes something which is consumed, digested and disposed of. Ditto “consumers”. But “convergence” assumes an enduring mental construct (call it “schema” for lack of a better word). Mental constructs operate at a completely separate plane than products, although products do have schema attached to them.
And the term I dislike the most is “franchise”. You could call HP a franchise because there is an underlying business model. But not only is that not the level at which “convergence” works, that is not the level that we here look at the books – or movies.
As for the idea that the movies are not stand alone, that people need to see the other movies – or have read the books to understand – I am not convinced that the best movies need to make all points completely comprehensible. For one thing, it’s pretty intriguing to have things going on which you don’t necessarily pick up on the first time around. It takes repeated watchings to “get it”; and the sense of satisfaction which ensues beats having it all handed to you with bullets and flashing lights and connecting arrows. And even if you never “get” all of “it”, the sense that there is a well-thought out world which continues beyond what is immediately happening makes a movie much more interesting.
I’m not sure how comprehensible my thoughts are on this. It’s the second time I’ve tried to response to this post, which obviously stirs some strong feelings. I really dislike talking about books (and some movies) like they were boxes of cereal.
Red Rocker I know what you mean and it seems to me that those who use terms such as ‘product’ and ‘franchise’ in relation to the HP books* wish to disparage HP. They usually dismiss HP as a passing over-hyped fad that they assume will very soon be replaced by the next latest clever new marketing wheeze (well after all, how can something that is so successful have any merit?).
* not everyone would agree but I think that the films and the video games are made with a lot of genuine enthousiasm and care by some very creative and talented people and I do not like them being dismissed as nothing more than junk for mindless consumers.
SeaJay, I think you’re talking about intrinsic merit, or intrinsic value. To me – and to most of us here – the books do have intrinsic merit, unlike, say, a tub of popocorn which, as soon as it is consumed, is gone from awareness or consideration.
And I agree with your opinion that the terms “product” and “consumer” are used in the context of the books and movies in a disparaging way. It makes them sound replaceable, a commodity. It objectifies them. But I suspect this is not aimed solely at the Potter family. It seems to be an approach to culture in general, seeing it as a “thing out there” which can be put in boxes, labelled and disposed of, rather than what it is, words, images, sounds which have symbolic function, and our reaction to those things, individually and collectively. And the ironic thing is, Jenkins then goes on to talk about “participatory culture”, taking the audience’s response into account. But his understanding of that – at least within this paradigm – is quite crude: by the same definition, the audience in the Coliseum giving the thumbs up so that the man on the ground might be dispatched, are taking part in “participatory” culture.
I get the impression we live through a time when everything and everyone is ‘objectified’ ‘commodified’ by the intelligentia (whoever they are) and, as you Red Rocker point out, this includes our culture.
If it cannot be measured quantified it does not exist.
To those in charge, existence is all about ‘power and those too weak to seek it’.
The counter reaction to this inhuman approach manifests as a plethora of incoherent new-age fads a la Trelawney and Xenophilius. That is why for me the HP series is like a breath of fresh air.
(I hope the above is more than a rambling rant)
Argh! Dave you ruined my life! How am I going to write my paper knowing that there is a book out there that is perfect for my project, and I can’t get access to it because it is missing from the ODU Library.
But I have a lead as to where I can get my hands on one. Thanks for suggesting it, and thanks for all your help. I really appreciate it.