Emma Keates Mr. Taylor AP English 14 March 2014
Shattering the Fourth Wall: The Evolution of Fan Influence On The Creative Process In Television
Today, it is impossible to watch television without actively becoming a fan of something.
Even if a person does not identify as a member of any particular fandom, a basic working knowledge of the season’s most popular shows, plots, and characters has become a requirement of cultural literacy. To be considered in the know, there is a pressure to participate in everything from workplace conversations about Walt and Jesse’s latest drug-filled escapades on the previous night’s Breaking Bad, to passionate arguments about which Game of Thrones highborn should truly sit on Westeros’ iron throne, to critical dissections of the gossip among the staff on
Downton Abbey. Whether it be sports, aliens, doctors, dysfunctional families, vampires, or dragons, fan culture in all its forms and variations has clearly become a staple of modern society.
Fandom is omnipresent and inescapable in our 21st century world, but this was certainly not always the case. While people tend to broadly associate Star Trek with early fan culture, in her comprehensive essay, “A Brief History of Media Fandom,” cultural scholar Francesca Coppa explains that the concept of modern fandom was first born in the letter writing section of the
1926 science fiction magazine Amazing Stories, which provided readers with the first
“interactive element…by publishing fan’s addresses, [allowing] science fiction fans to contact each other directly.”1 The opinions and discussions begun in these early letters soon evolved into a small number of DIY-style “zines,” entirely fan produced publications consisting of writing, art, and analysis. In turn, the connections created through these zines inspired devotees to plan
1 Coppa, Francesca. "A Brief History of Media Fandom." Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Ed. Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2006. section II. Print. Keates 2 and gather at the first ever science fiction convention, Worldcon, held July 4, 1939;2 and thus, a community was born.
It is estimated that this event was only attended by a total of 200 people,3 however, which pales in comparison to the over 130,000 participants at last year’s San Diego Comic-Con,4 what is now the world’s largest fan convention. So what brought about this change? It is evident that the ideas and culture of fans have transformed from a whisper on the fringes of society to a mainstream cultural roar, but at what cost? While it is obviously liberating for television fanatics to no longer be cast off as, in the words of Henry Jenkins, pop culture and media studies expert,
“cultural dupes, social misfits, and mindless consumers,”5 this improved social status threatens the very media to which they are so devoted. The collective voice of fandom has grown louder in the ears not only of society, but perhaps more importantly, the creators of the shows themselves, who have in recent years displayed a growing tendency to cater more and more to the wishes and desires of their most outspoken fans, often at the expense of plot and character.
In accordance with this trend, modern fan culture has developed a collective sense of entitlement, and the creators have allowed a blurring of the line between consumer and producer at the risk of creative integrity and the future of television as an artistic medium overall.
On September 8, 1966, viewers across America settled in to watch the premiere of a small new program about aliens and spaceships and listened as William Shatner recited the now iconic line for the very first time: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”6 While these words were used to represent the five-year mission of the USS Enterprise in the context of the
2 Coppa, Francesca 3 "World Science Fiction Convention." AnimeCons. Adequate, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. 4 "About Comic-Con International." Comic Con International. San Diego Comic Convention, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. 5 Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers. New York City: Routeledge, 1992. Print. 6 "The Man Trap." Dir. Robert Butler. Prod. Gene Roddenberry. Episode #1. Star Trek. Prod. Gene Roddenberry. NBC. Television. Keates 3 story, they also beautifully predicted the magnitude of the show itself. Gene Roddenberry’s Star
Trek truly did venture into the great unknown. While low ratings and budget problems forced
NBC to cancel the original series after only three seasons,7 its short run left a lasting and far- reaching impact. In her essay “Live Long and Prosper…” scholar and long time fan, Elizabeth
Thomas, perfectly sums up the fandom’s genesis by explaining, “With the reruns now airing in syndication, the show’s fan culture took on a life of its own far removed from Roddenberry’s own efforts to revive Star Trek. The fans had found each other.”8 Here, Thomas captures the very essence of what Star Trek truly did for fan culture. While science fiction fandom certainly existed before the days of Klingons and Romulans, nothing up to that point had ever reached the sheer volume or cultural significance as the Star Trek community. As science fiction author and fan Jean Lorrah writes,
Trekfandom is…friends and letters and crafts and fanzines and trivia and costumes and artwork and posters and buttons and conventions – something for everybody who has in common the inspiration of a television show which grew far beyond its TV and film incarnations to become a living part of world culture.9
To fans, this newly formed community was a sort of sanctuary; a place to meet and connect with people across the globe with a set of shared interests and passions.
Yet, the trekkies were stigmatized from the very beginning. In a famous and controversial
1986 Saturday Night Live sketch, Shatner himself appeared in front of a stereotypically geeky
Star Trek convention and after being asked questions about finite details of the show, emphatically proclaims, “Get a life, will you people? I mean for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show! … Move out of your parent’s basements and get your own apartments, and grow the hell
7 Thomas, Elizabeth. "Live Long and Prosper: How Fans Made Star Trek a Cultural Phenomenon." Fan Phenomena: Star Trek. Ed. Bruce E. Drushel. Bristol: Intellect, 2013. N. pag. Print. 8 Thomas, Elizabeth 9 Lorrah, Jean. Star Trek: The IDIC Epidemic. New York City: Pocket, 1988. Print. Keates 4 up!”10 Although this skit was obviously exaggerated for humorous effect, the image it presents is one that has been oft-repeated in the media and the minds of society. In his book, Textual
Poachers, Henry Jenkins sums up the archetype presented by this sketch, which shows fans as people who:
a. are brainless consumers b. devote their lives to the cultivation of worthless knowledge c. place inappropriate importance on devalued cultural material d. are social misfits who have become so obsessed with the show that it forecloses other types of social experience e. are feminized and/or desexualized through their intimate engagement with mass culture f. are infantile, emotionally and intellectually immature g. are unable to separate fantasy from reality11
The Star Trek fans were never able to shake this caricature. They were even ostracized by fellow superfans within the larger science fiction community for caring too much about the relationships of the characters and not the science fiction elements of the show.12 Although the
Star Trek fandom functioned in largely the same exact way as most modern fandoms, the fact that they came first made them almost as alien to outsiders as the extraterrestrials on their screens.
While the actual writers and producers of the show certainly didn’t view their fans with the negative extremity as much of society at the time, the fan/executive relationship was still incredibly unbalanced. When asked about the original writers’ opinion of their audience in a
2003 interview with popular Star Trek fansite, bringbackkirk.com, David Gerrold, writer of multiple episodes (including the famous Trouble with Tribbles) answered, “We were doing Star
Trek for ourselves. We were taking chances, not because we had an eye on the ratings, but
10 "Get a Life!" By Bob Odenkirk and Judd Apatow. Episode #221. Saturday Night Live. Prod. Lorne Michaels. NBC. 20 Dec. 1986. Television. 11 Jenkins, Henry 12 Coppa, Francesca Keates 5 because we wanted to see how far we could push the envelope…the attitude was to do REAL science fiction.”13 The Star Trek system places emphasis on the executive team, rather than the wants and desires of the fans themselves. This philosophy certainly had its share of drawbacks.
In the words of longtime fan P.L Caruthers-Montgomery, fans often wrote their own versions of episodes to “correct the wrongs done to ‘Our Guys’.”14 However, these revised manuscripts were always written in good fun and never with the intention that they would actually be seen by the producers. This system benefited the show in two ways; it not only allowed the writers to retain their creative freedom, but it also kept a sense of entitlement largely out of the fanbase, who were forced to defer to the writers ideas.
The climate of Star Trek era producer/consumer relations is fundamentally different than that of today. But which side accounted for this change? Jenkins argues that this new environment is partially due to an evolved sense of what it means to be a fan, which he defines in a series of poignant comparisons:
If old consumers were assumed to be passive, the new consumer is active. If old consumers were predictable and stationary, then new consumers are migratory, showing a declining loyalty to networks or even media. If old consumers were isolated individuals, then new consumers are more socially connected. If old consumers were seen as compliant, then new consumers are resistant, taking media into their own hands. If the work of media consumers was once silent and invisible, they are now noisy and public.15
These changes are due to a number of factors. Of course, the Internet was seminal in the amplification of fan influence, for a multitude of reasons. Primarily, it replaced slow moving and limited letters and fanzines with an exponential number of new ways to communicate and spread culture and ideas.16 Now, if a fan writes a story, or creates a video, or more importantly
13 Gerrold, David. "Bringbackkirk.com Interviews David Gerrold." Bring Back Kirk. N.p., 2003. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. 14 Jenkins, Henry 15 Jenkins, Henry "The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence." International Journal of Cultural Studies 7.1 (2004): n. pag. Print. 16 Coppa, Francesca Keates 6 complains or critiques an episode, it can be shared instantaneously with thousands of others, instead of the couple hundred that read zines or gathered at early conventions. Fan studies scholar Myc Wiatrowski suggests that perhaps most significantly, the web has effectively eliminated all spacial and temporal barriers, transforming fandom from a “proposition that required participants to engage in physical encounters” into a “well connected global village capable of coordinated and immediate worldwide contact.”17 However, this shift can also be viewed from a business perspective, centering around the changing attitude of media companies themselves. As the size and scope of fandom has grown, major networks and large corporations have begun to loosen regulations on once highly guarded copyright material in an effort to capitalize on the massive advertising opportunity fans provide.18 Jenkins points out that on the surface, this seems to be a win-win situation. Fans gain more freedom to create and distribute content without fear of copyright violations, and media conglomerates greatly reduce advertising costs as their loyal consumers turn into “walking, talking billboards”19 who recommend the show to friends, post about it on their blogs, wear the t-shirts, and buy the merchandise. However, the author also illuminates the inherent problems presented by this scenario, when he explains,
Media producers are responding to these newly empowered consumers in contradictory ways, sometimes encouraging change, sometimes resisting what they see as renegade behavior. Consumers, in turn, are perplexed by what they see as mixed signals about how much participation they can enjoy.20
These confusing messages from the corporate world urged fans to test the waters and push at their boundaries more and more, which over the years have proved to be increasingly lenient and malleable.
17 Wiatrowski, Myc. "The Dynamics of Fandom: Exploring Fan Communities in Online Spaces." MA thesis. Ohio State, 2012. Print. 18 Murray, Simone. "'Celebrating the Story the Way It Is': Cultural Studies, Corporate Media, and the Contested Utility of Fandom." Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 18.1 (2004): 7-25. Print. 19 Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print. 20 Jenkins, Henry Keates 7
This relationship represents a paradox that must be handled extremely delicately. On one hand, a show needs to retain its fanbase week after week to survive. When deciding whether to renew preexisting programs for another season or not, a network’s decisions are based on a number of factors, including that particular show’s basic Nielsen ratings, main demographic, profit brought in, critical buzz, and possession or absence of a loyal core of viewers.21
Executives ensure a positive representation in all of these categories by actively listening to the feelings and wishes of their fans and making efforts to secure their continued enjoyment and enthusiasm. However, too much deference to fan opinion can be equally as dangerous, and has increasingly become the trend over the years.
The changes since Star Trek can also be attributed to a fundamental shift in the perception of television as a medium overall. Writer Emily Nussbaum points to the 2000s as the decade when television was elevated from a meaningless pastime to an art, reminding readers of
“the easy contempt television inspired for 50 years, back when it was ‘the vast wasteland,’ [and]
‘chewing gum for the eyes,’”22 and how the medium has transformed into “something that you
[can] not just merely enjoy and then discard but brood over and analyze, that [can] challenge and elevate, not just entertain.”23 But is this progression accurate? The Oxford English Dictionary defines art as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination… producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”24 Modern television seems to easily fall into this description; however, it is important to note the two very separate roles delineated. The first, that of the artist who possesses the aforementioned “creative skill and
21 Pennington, Gail. "Series Showdown: How Networks Decide Which TV Shows Make the Cut." Philly.com. Philadelphia Media Network, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. 22 Nussbaum, Emily. "When TV Became Art." New York Magazine 4 Dec. 2009: n. pag. New York Entertainment. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. 23 Nussbaum, Emily 24 "Art." OED. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2014. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. Keates 8 imagination,” is embodied by program creators and writers, while the second is embodied by the fans whose job is to “appreciate” what is produced by the artist. Both parties are essential and entirely codependent: if writers did not create the programming, fandom would not exist, but if an audience did not exist to appreciate an artist’s work, there would be no realistic motivation to create in the first place. The undeniable necessity of both of these groups has led to an era of pretension from both sides. As the quality of television improved and amiplified, so did the struggle between writers and fans alike to take ownership of the medium. Nussbaum describes
21st century TV producers as “prickly, idiosyncratic, and egotistical…the best [of which] displayed the entitlement of the artist, a risk in an industry dependent not only on advertisers but on the willingness of viewers to continue to let you in, week after week.”25 However, at the same time entertainment writer Darren Franich asserts that modern fans “always know everything, always more than you. They even know more than the people who make the…things that fans are fans of…Fans create gods and then fans destroy their own gods.”26 These two descriptions are obviously incompatible with each other, but for a television program to retain its artistic quality, the balance between creator and consumer must rest somewhere in the middle of the scale. For obvious reasons, however, this golden mean has become rare to find and incredibly difficult to maintain.
One show in particular provides a prime example of the consequences of this tricky situation. ABC’s Lost can be seen as a turning point that ushered in a new era of fan culture and television itself. In a third season finale twist that shocked viewers across the globe, Jack
Shepherd, the leader of the show’s famous band of castaways, famously exclaimed “We have to
25 Nussbaum, Emily 26 Franich, Darren. "'Breaking Bad,' 'Lost,' and the Precarious Hysteria of TV Fandom." Entertainment Weekly 5 Sept. 2013: n. pag. Entertainment Weekly. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Keates 9 go back!”27 However, at this point, it had become glaringly obvious that a return to the way things were was out of the question. The amount of audience participation and interaction Lost generated was like nothing the television industry had seen up to that point. In a forward to Jon
Lachonis and Amy Johnston’s Lost Ate My Life – just one of the many examples of literature written about the show – supervising producer, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, described the fandom as
“a kind of ‘collective detective’ – an intellectual force that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, dedicated with an admirable singleness of purpose to deciphering the codes and figuring out the answers to the questions posed by the island.”28 However, while devotees obsessively postulated over every single line and scene the creative team gave them, these head writers and executives were equally as dedicated to figuring out the questions and desires of the fandom itself.
This revolutionary communication mainly occurred on a site known as The Fuselage, one of the many online forums available, but the only one to bear the all-important tagline “The
Official Site of the Creative Team Behind ABC's Award Winning TV Show LOST.”29 Here, the most important members of the production team, including JJ Abrams (co-creator), Gregg
Nations (script coordinator), Bryan Burk (producer), and Damon Lindelof (writer, executive producer) all had accounts and posted regularly on the same message boards as the over 60,000 registered fans, answering questions, or taking part in long and in-depth conversations that were common to the forums.30 It was also commonly known that Damon Lindelof often “lurked” on these boards, secretly reading comment threads without posting anything,31 as episodes aired in
27 "Through the Looking Glass." By Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof. Episode #72. Lost. Prod. J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and Carlto Cuse. ABC. 23 May 2007. Television. 28 Grillo-Marxuach, Javier. Foreword. Lost Ate My Life. By Jon Lachonis and Amy Johnston. Toronto: ECW, 2008. N. pag. Print. 29 The Fuselage. vBulletin, 2000. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. 30 Lachonis, Jon and Johnston, Amy 31 "Lurking." Technopedia. Janalta Interactive, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. Keates 10 order to gauge fan reaction in real time.32 This unprecedented free and open direct contact effectively broke down every barrier between producer and consumer and, as Lachonis and
Johnston suggest, “it was here that the roots of the Lost fanbase were formed and cultivated.”33
At this point in the show, the balance between producer and consumer was perfect; the writers followed their own vision but were also intensely aware of the presence and ideas of the fans, and in return those fans’ response was overwhelmingly respectful and appreciative of the writer’s creation. Both sides recognized the other’s role as well as their own limitations and this mutual relationship was what inspired many in the early seasons to claim emphatically that Lost was the “best TV show ever written.”34
However, the authors go on to explain the inherent problem with this level of interaction when they write,
During the first season of Lost, the number of VIPs35 who came to The Fuselage was astounding…But season 1 was a simpler time in the Lost universe…before the mass marketing, before the mass merchandising, before the massive expectations had truly taken hold…As the years and seasons of Lost have passed, The Fuselage has changed along with the show. The size of the show’s marketing presence and the size of the fandom have grown exponentially, causing a dilution of The Fuselage’s concentration and intimacy.36
As Lost progressed, the unanticipated enormity of the program caused it to outgrow the massive amount of fan input that the early adapters had come to take for granted. While in the first season, the writers and directors themselves frequented the forums and communicated directly with the fans, a 2009 (while Lost was in its fifth season) interview with Damon Lindelof and
Carlton Cuse (writer, executive producer) revealed that now they “have a couple of guys in [the]
32 Lachonis, Jon and Johnston, Amy 33 Lachonis, Jon and Johnston, Amy 34 Pirrello, Phil. "Is Lost the Best TV Show Ever?" IGN. IGN Entertainment, 26 May 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. 35 On the fuselage, VIP stood for “Very Important Poster” and was a title given to any user officially on Lost’s payroll (Lachonis, Jon and Johnston, Amy) 36 Lachonis, Jon and Johnston, Amy Keates 11 office whose job is to…read a broad section of the fan sites after every episode, then…give
Damon and [Carlton] the sort of reader's digest synopsis.”37 The focus on fan input continued to dwindle as the show neared its highly anticipated finale, with disastrous results. Lost’s conclusion will always be remembered as one of the most controversial finales of all time, but also to a great number of the show’s most devoted fans, as the worst. In an article published three years after the finale aired, Damon Lindelof asserted, “I know how you feel about the ending of Lost…I will think about your dissatisfaction always and forever…[but] I stand by the
Lost finale. It’s the story that we wanted to tell, and we told it. No Excuses. No apologies.”38
However, in a scathing piece published around the same time, popular blogger Jamie Andrew, sums up the feelings of many of the shows previously die hard fans, by writing, “as endings go it was pretty insidious. At first I was moved, and let those feelings over-ride my judgment. Minutes later, my brain kicked back into gear and I felt cheated. Cheated out of six years of my life.”39
These types of reactions may seem extreme, but the journey of Lost paints a revealing image of the danger that now faces television writers. When executives grant fans any form of access, they must be aware that if they later rescind that access, it may not be seen as a creative decision on the part of the writer, but rather a personal betrayal and a reason to still lash out years after the fact.
Lost’s influence can be seen clearly in many of its successors for two major reasons. On one hand, the formula created by the early seasons, including the writers’ ear for fan input and skillful proclivity for including nods to fandom inside jokes created one of the most dedicated and intensely passionate groups of supporters television had ever seen. On the other hand,
37 Lindelof, Damon, and Carlton Cuse. Interview. Lostpedia. Wikia, 17 Apr. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. 38 Lindelof, Damon. "Damon Lindelof on Why 'Breaking Bad's' Finale Let Him Say Goodbye to 'Lost' (Guest Column)." Hollywood Reporter: n. pag. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. 39 Andrew, Jamie. "Does the Lost Finale Still Hurt?" Den of Geek. Dennis, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. Keates 12 however, ultimately “pulling a Lost”40 became an outcome that executive teams desperately tried to avoid. The solution seems obvious; simply cater to the fans throughout, and don’t let up as the show progresses. However, weighting the scale unfairly on the side of the fans can be just as dangerous as giving too much power to the writers and consequently this practice has given rise to a problematic trend NPR writer Kelly Lawler dubs “‘Tumblr television,’ a state of being where a series is not just beloved by a group of fans but actively aware of the knowledge, behavior and expectations of those fans.”41 Tumblr, the popular blogging platform, has largely eclipsed all other sites as the primary internet fan destination, and features over 50 million active fanblogs and counting.42 These fans are all rabidly passionate about their favorite shows, and will not hesitate to loudly voice either their love for an episode that includes the things they want to see, or their intense dissatisfaction if it somehow does not live up to standards or expectations.
Therefore, in an attempt to avoid the latter, the creators of some of tumblr’s most beloved programs have relied more and more heavily on fan service, or “a feature, inside joke, or obscure reference included in entertainment primarily to please a core fan group.”43 But while the hardcore, obsessed bloggers may be thrilled that their favorite character pairing or reference was acknowledged, these diversions rarely advance the plot and often signify a writer’s desperation for positive ratings any way he can come by them.
BBC’s Sherlock provides an excellent example of “Tumblr television” in play. Over its first two seasons, Sherlock amassed one of the largest and most active fandoms currently on the internet, known affectionately as the “Sherlockians”; these fans have produced millions of
40 Lyons, Margaret. "Game of Thrones Author Hated the End of Lost Too." New York Magazine 5 Apr. 2011: n. pag. Vulture. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. 41 Lawler, Kelly. "Thanks for the Fan Service, but What about the Story?" NPR. NPR, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014. 42 Romano, Aja. "A Beginner's Guide to Fandom." The Daily Dot. Mashable, 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. 43 Barrett, Grant. The Official Dictionary of Unofficial English. New York: McGraw, 2006. Print. Keates 13 tumblr posts per day44 and an ever expanding bank of over 48,000 multi-chaptered narratives on popular fanfiction site, Archive Of Our Own.45 Many of these fans originally came for the intricately detailed and beautifully crafted story telling of the first two seasons, which adapted
Arthur Conan Doyle’s original canon from a modern perspective. While the writers included small references to fan activities - most notably the large portion of the fandom who watched the show purely for the fantastical romantic relationship between the two main protagonists – their ability to “provoke such breathless speculation over a story that’s been re-imagined so many times”46 always shone through. The high volume of fan theorizing didn’t reach its peak, however, until a shocking twist at the end of the Season 2 finale revealed that Sherlock had dramatically faked his own death. Waiting for the third season, fans spent two full years analyzing this scene and coming up with thousands of elaborate theories describing how their favorite detective could have done it. When the Season 3 premiere aired, however, the answer everyone had been waiting for was never given. Instead, the episode featured a group of fans
(evidently meant to represent the Sherlockians themselves), who were equally as dedicated to answering the main question in the world of the show as their real life counterparts.47
Throughout the course of the episode, three different hypothetical solutions, which “essentially recreate[d] the internet chatter”48 to the big mystery were fully recreated by the actors, including two long, gratuitous shots of Sherlock kissing other notable characters. After the last of these theories, presented by Sherlock himself, a very revealing conversation occurs between the
44 Tumblr Staff. "Most Reblogged in 2013: TV Shows." Tumblr Year in Review 2013. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. 45 "Works in Sherlock (TV)." Archive of Our Own. Organization for Transformative Works, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. 46 Blake, Meredith. "Sherlock: 'The Reichenbach Fall.'" A.V. Club. N.p., 20 May 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. 47 "The Empty Hearse." By Mark Gatiss. Sherlock. Prod. Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. BBC. 1 Jan. 2014. Television. 48 Zuckerman, Esther. "The Obsessive's Guide to 'Sherlock' Opener 'The Empty Hearse.'" The Wire. Atlantic Monthly, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. Keates 14 detective and Anderson, the head of the fictional fanclub:
ANDERSON: Hmm. SHERLOCK: What? ANDERSON: Not the way I’d have done it. SHERLOCK: Oh really? ANDERSON: No, I’m not saying it’s not clever, but ... SHERLOCK: What? ANDERSON: ... Bit ... disappointed. SHERLOCK: (sighs) Everyone’s a critic.49
It is evident that in this scenario, Anderson represents the general fandom, while Sherlock speaks with the voice of the creators. The situation the show’s writers, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, found themselves in was certainly not an easy one; fan’s expectations had been building exponentially for two years and the pressure was extremely high to produce a definitive explanation for the death scene. As displayed above, the writers were fully aware that any solution they presented would end up disappointing someone. Therefore, instead of taking that chance, they simply did not write one and let the fans do it themselves.
However, while this maneuver certainly went over very well with a select group of obsessive fans, it also illustrates the major threat posed by tumblr television; in trying harder to appeal to their audiences, creators have actually begun to alienate and lose vast numbers of them.
As writers are constantly barraged by fan’s suggestions, compliments, and complaints, it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that these are mainly coming from a small but vocal minority. There is a wide spectrum of dedication within any fandom, on which PhD candidate Michelle L.
McCudden defines ‘super fans’ and ‘casual fans’ as the two extremes. 50 She then goes on to quantify the difference between the two when she writes,
A [casual] fan is someone who gets excited about a piece of media and really likes it. A super-fan is someone who’s going to go out of their way to incorporate that piece of
49 “The Empty Hearse.” 50 McCudden, Michelle L. "Degrees of Fandom: Authenticity and Hierarchy in the Age of Media Convergence." Diss. U of Kansas. Print. Keates 15
media into their life. They’re going to wait outside at midnight to see the midnight showing. They’re going to go online and follow what the creator’s doing now. They’re going to buy a piece of culture that has to do with it. A super-fan will alter their life to include this piece of media in it. A casual fan will just appreciate it as it naturally flows into their life.51
The bloggers who have become Moffat and Gatiss’ target audience fall into the category of
‘super fan’; however, pandering towards these devotees has alienated and driven away many of the show’s casual fans, who simply want to enjoy the storytelling. Writer for London based newspaper, The Independent, and self-proclaimed casual Sherlock fan, Archie Bland, lamented about the episode,
As the in-jokes piled up and the winks got ever slyer, I had begun to lose the thread…The problem is that it builds its drama on an assumption that you are intimately familiar with the circumstances of Sherlock’s apparent suicide…I loved that story, but I also watched it two years ago. And without remembering it in detail, I felt quite adrift. I suppose I should have rewatched it – but that’s a bit much, isn’t it? That suggests to casual, or even semi- professional, viewers that their attention is not enough. They must also do homework.52
Although creative teams assume that they are producing a product that will appeal most to the masses, they are actually creating something quite the opposite. To some, this new trend has certainly been interpreted as a nod of respect to fan activity, but to many others, it also represents the end of an era in which television could simply be enjoyed for its interesting characters and enjoyable storytelling.
Unfortunately, this alienation is not unique to Sherlock, and its consequences can be seen explicitly in a great number of the show’s peers. Bland suggests, “As franchises proliferate, the creators have discovered their devoted fans are so expert – and so bankable – that the concerns of the casual viewer can be dispensed with altogether.”53 As this demographic is subjected to inside joke after inside joke on their favorite programs, they will eventually become weary and stop
51 McCudden, Michelle L. 52 Bland, Archie. "Doctor Who to Sherlock: TV Franchises Now Have Such Devoted Followings That Casual Viewers Are Alienated." The Independent [London] 2 Jan. 2014: n. pag. The Independent. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. 53 Bland, Archie Keates 16 watching. A timeline of finale viewership for some of the shows that have amassed the largest tumblr followings54 reveals an alarming trend (See Appendix A). As these shows progress and begin to rely more heavily on the input of a select group of fanatics, their overall popularity rapidly declines. This is the direct result of losing casual viewers, who are ignored, and, in some ways, possibly insulted for their lack of effort. It is important for writers to acknowledge and reward superfans for their continued devotion; however, to retain not only artistic quality, but also to simply stay on the air, it is necessary for them to also look back to what drew the majority of their fan base in the first place.
There are certainly a number of shows currently airing that have yet to fall into this trap.
Maybe they never will. But these numbers are still alarming and provide a somewhat bleak prediction for the future of television. The relationship between fans and writers can be viewed on a timeline of sorts, created from the three distinct approaches discussed above. At the beginning of the timeline sits the Star Trek model, an approach to television where the show is written completely by the creative team, with no considerable fan input at all. Then further along comes the Lost model, featuring multitudes of direct contact traded between fans and writers at the beginning of the show, but a rapid decline of that input as the show progressed. And finally the timeline reaches current TV, encapsulated by the Sherlock model, which represents ultimate awareness of fan opinion, but at the expense of casual viewers and in some cases, the story itself.
But time doesn’t stop here; so what comes next?
Doctor Who, another show that has generated a massive fanbase over the years, provides a rather startling glimpse into the future. In 2006, a BBC contest promised fans the chance to create their own Doctor Who monster, with the winning design and fan-created storyline
54 Tumblr Staff Keates 17 produced into a real episode of the show.55 What resulted was Love & Monsters, featuring the
“Abzorbaloff”, a giant green creature that could “absorb his victim’s bodies…into himself with a single touch,”56 and the single lowest rating of any episode of the new series.57 On tumblr, Love
& Monsters has been universally dubbed “That One Episode We Never Discuss.”58 In fact, a
Google Image search for this exact term provides a picture of the infamous Abzorbaloff as the first result. But fans must remember that the reason this episode was so awful was because it effectively erased the line between writer and fan. Unless the audience wants every episode of every show in the future to become as maligned as Love & Monsters, this line must be redrawn.
The nature of television as a medium lends itself to producer/consumer interaction more than any other form of art or entertainment. Movies are a singular, unchanging experience; no matter how much one theorizes, rants, compliments, or criticizes a film, it will never be modified. Novels are much the same; each story is new and fresh and one author has sole authority over its direction. Fans cannot pick up a guitar and play on their favorite band’s album or add a stroke to their favorite artist’s painting. Television, however, is long running and malleable. Viewers have more time to get attached to characters, fall in love with plotlines, discuss episodes with friends, and make their collective voice heard. Writers have more space to let a story grow and evolve naturally, and explore new and innovative narrative techniques over time. With these factors, television has always had the potential to become modern society’s premiere artistic medium, and it still can, if the balance between creator and fan is approached properly. Author Linda Holmes applies a perfect metaphor to this situation when she writes,
55 Wolverson, E.G. "Love & Monsters." Doctor Who Reviews. Ed. E.G. Wolverson. Strato, 17 June 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. 56 "Abzorbaloff." Tardis Data Core. Wikia, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. 57 "'Doctor Who': Episodes Rated by IMDB User Rating." IMDB. IMDB, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. 58 Dewdrops-on-roses. "Every season of Doctor Who has That One Episode We Never Discuss." Wild Geese That Fly with the Moon on Their Wings. Tumblr, 2 Jan. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2014. Keates 18
When you like a show, you're effectively on a bus with everyone else who likes it, and you've got to let the driver do the driving. You can comment on the view, you can point out the pothole he's about to hit, you can ask him to turn up the air conditioning, and if you want, you can always get off at the next stop and hope you can get a better ride. But if you get up there with everybody else on the bus and start trying to grab the wheel, you will find yourself tumbling down the side of a ravine, and at the bottom of that ravine, there will be nothing to watch except Deal Or No Deal.59
There is a reason episodic television has become such a staple of entertainment over the years.
For one or two hours each week, viewers can journey out of their living rooms and directly into whatever fantastical story the creators have provided. If the audience held all the power, there would be no need to watch at all. The best part of any story is being swept up and taken to someplace completely new and unexpected. Drivers need to turn off the GPS and rely on their own internal sense of direction, while passengers everywhere need to start trusting that the drivers are perfectly capable of steering the way. After all, everyone loves a peaceful drive and the view is always better from the backseat
59 Holmes, Linda. "The Double-Edged Sword of Devotion: 'Chuck' Vs. the Entitled Fanbase." NPR. NPR, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014. Appendix A
(All data from TV By The Numbers. TVbytheNumbers, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.)
Works Cited
"About Comic-Con International." Comic Con International. San Diego Comic Convention, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
"Abzorbaloff." Tardis Data Core. Wikia, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
Andrew, Jamie. "Does the Lost Finale Still Hurt?" Den of Geek. Dennis, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
"Art." OED. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2014. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Barrett, Grant. The Official Dictionary of Unofficial English. New York: McGraw, 2006. Print.
Blake, Meredith. "Sherlock: 'The Reichenbach Fall.'" A.V. Club. N.p., 20 May 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
Bland, Archie. "Doctor Who to Sherlock: TV Franchises Now Have Such Devoted Followings That Casual Viewers Are Alienated." The Independent [London] 2 Jan. 2014: n. pag. The Independent. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Coppa, Francesca. "A Brief History of Media Fandom." Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Ed. Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2006. N. pag. Print.
Dewdrops-on-roses. "Every season of Doctor Who has That One Episode We Never Discuss." Wild Geese That Fly with the Moon on Their Wings. Tumblr, 2 Jan. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
"'Doctor Who': Episodes Rated by IMDB User Rating." IMDB. IMDB, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
"The Empty Hearse." By Mark Gatiss. Sherlock. Prod. Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. BBC. 1 Jan. 2014. Television.
Franich, Darren. "'Breaking Bad,' 'Lost,' and the Precarious Hysteria of TV Fandom." Entertainment Weekly 5 Sept. 2013: n. pag. Entertainment Weekly. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
The Fuselage. vBulletin, 2000. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
Gerrold, David. "Bringbackkirk.com Interviews David Gerrold." Bring Back Kirk. N.p., 2003. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
"Get a Life!" By Bob Odenkirk and Judd Apatow. Episode #221. Saturday Night Live. Prod. Lorne Michaels. NBC. 20 Dec. 1986. Television.
Grillo-Marxuach, Javier. Foreword. Lose Ate My Life. By Jon Lachonis and Amy Johnston. Toronto: ECW, 2008. N. pag. Print.
Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse. "Work in Progress." Introduction. Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Ed. Hellekson and Busse. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2006. N. pag. Print.
Holmes, Linda. "The Double-Edged Sword of Devotion: 'Chuck' Vs. the Entitled Fanbase." NPR. NPR, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture. New York: New York UP, 2006. Print.
- - -. "The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence." International Journal of Cultural Studies 7.1 (2004): n. pag. Print.
- - -. Textual Poachers. New York City: Routeledge, 1992. Print.
Lawler, Kelly. "Thanks for the Fan Service, but What about the Story?" NPR. NPR, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
Lindelof, Damon. "Damon Lindelof on Why 'Breaking Bad's' Finale Let Him Say Goodbye to 'Lost' (Guest Column)." Hollywood Reporter: n. pag. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
Lindelof, Damon, and Carlton Cuse. Interview. Lostpedia. Wikia, 17 Apr. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
Lorrah, Jean. Star Trek: The IDIC Epidemic. New York City: Pocket, 1988. Print.
"Lurking." Technopedia. Janalta Interactive, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Lyons, Margaret. "Game of Thrones Author Hated the End of Lost Too." New York Magazine 5 Apr. 2011: n. pag. Vulture. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
"The Man Trap." Dir. Robert Butler. Prod. Gene Roddenberry. Episode #1. Star Trek. Prod. Gene Roddenberry. NBC. Television.
McCudden, Michelle L. "Degrees of Fandom: Authenticity and Hierarchy in the Age of Media Convergence." Diss. U of Kansas. Print.
Nussbaum, Emily. "When TV Became Art." New York Magazine 4 Dec. 2009: n. pag. New York Entertainment. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Pennington, Gail. "Series Showdown: How Networks Decide Which TV Shows Make the Cut." Philly.com. Philadelphia Media Network, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
Pirrello, Phil. "Is Lost the Best TV Show Ever?" IGN. IGN Entertainment, 26 May 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Romano, Aja. "A Beginner's Guide to Fandom." The Daily Dot. Mashable, 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
Thomas, Elizabeth. "Live Long and Prosper: How Fans Made Star Trek a Cultural Phenomenon." Fan Phenomena: Star Trek. Ed. Bruce E. Drushel. Bristol: Intellect, 2013. N. pag. Print.
"Through the Looking Glass." By Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof. Episode #72. Lost. Prod. J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and Carlto Cuse. ABC. 23 May 2007. Television.
Tumblr Staff. "Most Reblogged in 2013: TV Shows." Tumblr Year in Review 2013. Tumblr, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
TV By The Numbers. TVbytheNumbers, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Wiatrowski, Myc. "The Dynamics of Fandom: Exploring Fan Communities in Online Spaces." MA thesis. Ohio State, 2012. Print.
Wolverson, E.G. "Love & Monsters." Doctor Who Reviews. Ed. E.G. Wolverson. Strato, 17 June 2006. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
"Works in Sherlock (TV)." Archive of Our Own. Organization for Transformative Works, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
"World Science Fiction Convention." AnimeCons. Adequate, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
Zuckerman, Esther. "The Obsessive's Guide to 'Sherlock' Opener 'The Empty Hearse.'" The Wire. Atlantic Monthly, 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.