Editorial notes:
Shai continuously explores different channels through which he might best document his life’s research work. Having traversed from hand-written notebooks to on-line writers forums and blogs, he begins using his Google Drive as a repository for documents he wishes to store on the web. It seems highly likely that some of his work, originally written and stored in Google Drive is later copied to one of his various blogs. Altogether, this compilation of Shai’s works contains 61 essays and posts retrieved from his Google Drive.
Viewing media:
It has long been appreciated that the taking in of media is not a passive process, but rather one which depends integrally on the preconceptions, preferences, and expectations of the viewing subject. Taken to its logical extreme, this principle realises that the very existence of media qua media-of-a-viewer depends on the viewer who is able to transform a static media into a subjective and continually evolving panorama. Another obvious corollary of this principle is that different viewing schemes may result in significantly different viewing outcomes. It is possible to typify these into a crude schema which idealises three types of viewing modes, which whilst arbitrary, are very useful. For equally arbitrary reasons the following will focus on television serials to define and illustrate these three ways.
The First Way
The first way is the way of the naive, which presumes that I am enjoying this media production for the same reasons for which it was produced. Thus I watch The Bold and the Beautiful precisely for being a soap opera, presuming (even if not explicitly thinking) that those soap opera elements are to be taken as they are presented. For instance, if a former lover’s twin comes out of a coma, then this series of events are interpreted as looking dramatic and being dramatic. Significantly this contrasts with the second and third way in which something can look dramatic without being dramatic.
It is important to realise that the first way is not limited to obvious genre-shows. If I believe (whether consciously or not) that a show would be enjoyed by its Author (as an ideal entity) for the same reasons that I’m enjoying it, then that show is being watched in the First way. Thus most shows identified for their ironic humour (e.g. 30 Rock) would be similarly watched by the majority of viewers in the first way (even though those same irony-prone viewers would dismiss the naive viewing of many other television shows).
The Second Way
The second way is the way of appreciation, which presumes that I am enjoying this media production precisely because of its reasons for being produced. This cryptic sounding description encompasses a few subtypes of viewing, the most obvious of which are (1) ironic viewing and (2) anachronistic viewing. The ironic view of Die Hard 4 is watching precisely because the movie is an archetype infested action romp but is not watching it as an action romp but rather as a camp-film. It is important for the ironic view that enjoyment depends on the variation between how they’re viewing something (esp. foolish) and how it was intended to be (e.g. sentimental). Similarly, the anachronistic mode of the second way is appreciative of how something looks, for instance agreeing with the premises of 1980’s Star Trek, but embedding them with a sense of foreignness (thus this mode can easily apply to a contemporary production from a foreign culture). This viewer is not satirizing the show, but they are treating it (neutrally-speaking) condescendingly. A litmus test for the anachronistic mode is, “Do I believe that this show could exist today (and in my cultural landscape), and if so would I enjoy watching it for the same reasons?”
What both these modes of the second way of viewing have in common is that they both depend (even if tacitly) on an Author, whose intents make enjoyment possible. Who is this Author? The Author is not the creator, producer, or head writer of the show (although each of these in their interactions with the world, e.g. interviews, may affect the viewers’ perceptions of the Author). Rather, the Author is a Platonic embodiment of what is believed to be the purpose of the show. Believed by whom? By the cultural dialogue that permeates the very existence of media. (Thus even if I watch a show which I’ve never heard anyone mention anything, I nonetheless place this show within the cultural dialogue of television shows, because I have completely internalised this dialogue!)
The Third Way
The third way is the way of creation, which enjoys this show because it could exist within a fundamentally different cultural dialogue. It is worth re-introducing the role of cultural dialogue within the television experience. By cultural dialogue, we mean “those aspects of culture which define what a television show is”. In the first way, the cultural dialogue is what makes it possible to say whether a person is viewing the show naively. The cultural dialogue is not a tangible book nor a charter; it is more akin to William Gibson’s “consensual hallucination” being an amorphous and idealised annotation of reality. Thus it is possible for someone to honestly naively presume that 90210 is a comedy[1] even though the statistical norm recognises it to be a romantic drama. The second way agrees with the first way as regards the answer to the question “How would the Author create this?”, since both ways depend on the same cultural dialogue. The radical shift of the third way comes from the ability of the viewer to recognise the existent cultural dialogue, whilst imaging a warping of its topologies.
It will be useful here to completely abstract the argument before giving some tangible illustrations. The first and second way say “Show S was the product of Author A, we know this because of Culture C”; the third way says “It is incredible that S and S’ can be identical, wherein S is the result of C and S’ is the result of C’”. A non-television example would be a pile of sticks (S) which are the product of an agent (A) who is is living in a camp (C). In this example, it is trivial to note that a pile of sticks which appear completely identical (S’, which looks identical to S) could be the waste products of a different agent (A’) who was taught to be a carpenter (C’). The reason that this example is not enlightening is that the relationship between the product (S, the sticks) and the culture (C, the campsite) is obvious (campsites can use sticks for firewood). By contrast, the relationship between a culture (C) and a television show (S) is extremely complicated, and so it absolutely fantastic to imagine that a different culture (C’) could produce what appears to be completely identical, even though it was done for different intents (implicitly by A).
Chuck, a case study
The first show to be identified as worth viewing in the third way was Chuck, and it will be informative to consider how that show could be watched in each of the different ways.
In the first way, Chuck exists within the framework of a Spidermanesque escapism, as the eponymous everyman is allowed to have an exciting identity that parallels his mundane one. The second way of viewing agrees that Chuck is another incarnation of Peter Parker, but finds this fact amusing. Instead of Chuck being enjoyed as a show about a person given an opportunity to excel in a parallel lifestyle, it is enjoyed because of this fact. Viewing Chuck in the second way means being amused by the pathetic yearning of the show’s protagonist[2]. The third way of viewing Chuck realises that although the show (S) is a product of a cultural landscape (C) which desires avenues for heroic excellence, it could just as easily be a show which although looking identical, differs (S’), in that it is a product of a cultural dialogue (C’) which is uncertain of the value of heroic excellence. In the first way, despite coming from a place of petty disputes (Buy More), Chuck’s introduction to the Intersect for the first time in his life gives him the opportunity to explore his capabilities, proving himself to be capable of heroic feats. In the third way, Chuck thinks that his introduction to the Intersect has given him something new, namely the ability to be heroic, but a viewing of all that lies within the show’s breadth reveals that this is not the case. The parallel actions at Buy More, according to the third way, show that heroism is analogous whether performed by a spy or a sales clerk and thus heroism is a completely mundane concept[3]. While it is interesting that the third way morphs the nature of a show (from its naive conception as boy-become-hero to no-more-heroes), it is more important to observe that it realises that a different cultural dialogue (a different intent) could produce the same show.
Seinfeld as a radical third way
Seinfeld was recently reconceptualised through a third way. Although this beloved sitcom is universally watched in the first way (except perhaps for some minor motifs, which have been taken to epitomize certain values of the 1990’s, and so are enjoyed in the second way), it is possible to thoroughly enjoy the show by radically reimagining its intent.
According to this proposal, Seinfeld is not necessarily (as naively perceived) about the magnification and satirization of life’s minutiae. Another possibility is that the show is about the worthlessness of life! On one hand (in the first way) we have Seinfeld produced by a culture which presumes a sit-com format which parodies various of life’s tropes, and on the other (in the third way) a culture which is amused by how baseless life’s importance is. A view in the third way sees Jerry, George, and Elaine, as three people who see life as so completely inconsequential and unworthy of sentiment or evaluation, that they decide to play at life. Their show is not a parody of life, it is about people who have decided that life, as a substratum for existence, is so irrelevant to their decision-making process, that they have decided to be amused by its mere presence by imitating what people think it should look like. Which is to say, it is not the show that is parodying life, it is its characters.
For those seeking to emulate this third way of viewing Seinfeld, the following is recommended: consider that the three characters mentioned are aware of the fact that they are all playing out life. Thus when for instance it looks like Jerry’s faking emotion, it might be because he’s struggling to feed his friend’s narrative. Or similarly, if it feels like they’re struggling to justify (what in the naive sense would be identified as) a joke-arc, the failure is that of Jerry et al., who are just human beings (albeit unprecedently indifferent ones) within this world. Additionally, it is worth contrasting that trinity (viz. Jerry, George, Elain) with Kramer. While the three are faking it, Kramer is being real, and thus the choice of the three to include Kramer in their adventures (without including him in their joke) is maliciously condescending, and a caustic swipe at the concept of life as a personal journey. By this mode of viewing, Seinfeld becomes an incredibly irreverent demotion of life’s majesty.
[1] The reason that this would be a viewing in the first way and not in the second way is that such a viewer in the first way would presume that the Author of 90210 intended for that show to be a comedy. By contrast, a third viewer would conceptualize a cultural dialogue which in turn would imply an Author who would intend 90210 to be a comedy.
[2] Although this makes viewing in the second way self-indulgently nihilistic, such a viewing is far more subtle than indicated here. For instance, it would view the Buy-More antics of the show illustrative of the desire (of the Author) to provide a stepping stone escapism, a sort of faux-escapism, which the audience (viz. the naïve audience) may more easily translate into their own fantasies. This, of course, would have plethora minor implications of its own.
[3] To elaborate: in a single episode, often, Chuck will have a difficult task to complete, as will the people at Buy More. The fact that both bear their respective crosses successfully proves that heroism is a concept that applies equivalently to each. And is this celebrating the heroism of everyday life? No. The nature of the Buy More medley (e.g. Lester) proves that the entire concept of heroism is being put down, and thus that it is a completely valueless property. It should be noted that according to the first way the “heroism” of the Buy More only serves, by its humorous nature, to better contrast the superior heroism of Chuck.
