Abstract
Critical approaches to media scholarship often avoid incorporating the process of production from the perspective of the producers. Transmedia Television: New Trends in Network Serial Production by M. J. Clarke, who earned his PhD in Film and Television from UCLA in 2010, attempts to challenge this trend by taking up the intimidating task of reaching out to producers to integrate “industrial data in the form of both business strategy and individual practice with textual data through the analysis of programming and [suggest] the ways in which programming trends replicate, complicate, or anticipate the conditions of production itself.” The result is a book that seeks to advance our understanding of how today’s television functions to create meaning as well as researchers’ methods for understanding those functions.
Transmedia Television is written in two parts. The book begins with a short but effective introduction that explains Clarke’s approach to research that includes the nature of production and argues for the consideration of ancillary paratexts in media research. Part 1 examines four of these ancillary texts: the comic book, the tie-in novel, the video game, and the mobisode. Each of these is part of what Clarke calls “tentpole TV,” an attempt by media producers to bring transmedia storytelling to the television experience. This section focuses on how these four types of texts are produced and used in relationship to the television series. These chapters provide some useful evidence as to why contemporary television is struggling to find its form in an ever-changing landscape.
While Part 1 focuses heavily on the production aspect of tentpole TV, Part 2 turns to three textual analyses of twenty-first-century television programs. Clarke uses these critical analyses to explore the ways in which transmedia television must account for problems of time, space, and continuity. Chapter 5, for example, is a detailed study of Lost to explore two trends, non-linear episodic texts and persistent master narratives, which are seemingly at-odds. Chapter 7’s argument that reflexivity in the show Alias works to respond not only to its own characters and narrative but also to the nature of its production also provides some valuable insight.
Part 1 of Transmedia Television feels like a failed exercise, not on the part of Clarke but on the part of the media producers themselves. When Clarke is able to incorporate the feedback from producers, it is often only the producers of the ancillary texts that contribute, and much of what they have to say involves a lack of communication, cooperation, or interest on the part of the television producers to dedicate themselves to the tentpole TV experience. This is best exemplified in the chapter on the mobisode, where Clarke opens up by admitting the mobisode is already “largely a dead end in the practice of transmedia.” While the four approaches discussed in Part 1 do not suggest widespread success at creating a truly transmedia television experience, Clarke’s argument suggests the industry will continue to pursue similar strategies to develop tentpole TV. In the end, this part of Transmedia Television may not be useful for long, since new tentpole strategies will inevitably come along. Still, for scholars, historians, or industry professionals interested in seeing what does not work in transmedia production and why, Part 1 provides some valuable information.
I am more critical of Part 2. The sharp turn toward textual analysis creates a disjointed experience. Transmedia Television feels as if it is two distinct books in one. Furthermore, as a scholar of intertextuality, I have some critiques of Clarke’s views in Chapter 6, most specifically his argument that early intertextuality can be equated to pastiche. A more general concern is that, as the chapter develops, the discussion of intertextuality does not directly play into the analysis clearly. This is a larger problem with the book as the same point could be made about the relationship between Parts 1 and 2. The connection between the two is left mainly to the reader. I wish the two parts had been better integrated into the larger project.
It is also worth noting that, on the surface, the book seems like a useful tool for teaching these concepts. However, the book is written without any headings or breaks within the chapter, creating chapters that flow from start to finish but provide little opportunity to stop and ponder theory or examples. In my opinion, this limits Transmedia Television’s usefulness in the classroom.
Although I am critical of the second half of the book and the structure of the writing, I applaud Clarke for taking up the difficult task of reaching out to the industry for evidence to support his argument. Taken for its method, Transmedia Television, particularly the explanatory introductory chapter, is a useful contribution to the body of knowledge.
Given the results presented in Transmedia Television, however, I am left wondering if the effort is really worth the time. If the industry professionals seem not to communicate much with each other, as Clarke seems to suggest, why would they bother to talk to scholars?
Despite being a new book, Transmedia Television already feels outdated because, in the age of Hulu and Netflix, it seems new trends in production are already upon us. Still, understanding these new trends in production is important to research, and Clarke’s work provides a useful starting point for researchers.