Abstract
This edited collection traces its origins to a series of events at Anglia Ruskin University, UK, in 2018 and 2019, which aimed to explore the implications of binge-watching for Television Studies as a field. Taking an admirably broad approach to this task, these events explored binge-watching within four themes which in turn became the sections of this book: ‘fandom and identity constructions; audience and reception studies; transnational television; and narratology and narrative structures’ (p. 1). Such a broad scope of analysis is welcome, acknowledging the complex ways in which binge-watching can be analysed and understood. Particularly welcome are the sections on fans and on transnational contexts, for these take the subject matter into contexts that are highly relevant but not often acknowledged in debates about bingeing; Lothar Mikos and Deborah Castro discuss ‘the integration of binge-watching as a consumption practice into everyday lives’ (p. 113), and B. G.-Stolz explores the implications of the transnational nature of such programming for television’s ‘global citizen’ (p. 148). Impressively avoiding the piecemeal nature which is sometimes a consequence of edited collections, each section ends with a conclusion written collectively by the authors of all the preceding chapters. These draw out interconnections, point towards future work, and indicate a thoughtful editorial stance intent on making the book cohere.
In the introduction, editor Mareike Jenner states that ‘this collection does not aim to impose one single definition of what binge-watching is. In fact, this would be counter-productive in a collection that brings together a range of approaches’ (p. 13). This productively acknowledges that the term functions in a fluid manner, and is often employed by journalists, academics and others in ways not reliant on an agreed, precise definition. However, in a collection such as this it does mean that sometimes it is hard to be certain what demarcates the topic under scrutiny (and therefore, by extension, what does not count as binge-watching). A variety of definitions are used, all of which situate the episode as ‘the conceptual unit of the binge-watch’ (p. 109); for Mareike Jenner it refers to ‘watching more than one episode’ (p. 12), for Rhiannon Bury it means consuming ‘more than two or three episodes in a row’ (p. 43), and for Lynn Kozak and Martin Zeller-Jacques it is simply ‘watching a lot of a show in a short space of time (p. 207). Given viewing 24-hour sports or news channel could fit in these definitions (and I presume neither of these would usually be understood as bingeing; at least, there’s no mention of them in this book), it would have been helpful if a working definition had been proposed as underpinning all the analysis herein and thus offering some stability to the volume’s central concept from which subsequent critiques can develop. Furthermore, this would have helped place the case studies offered here within the wide variety of formats and genres television employs.
There is also a tension in the book that arises from the debate as to whether binge-watching is a relatively new phenomenon arising from developments in media technology, or a practice with a much longer history. Analysing VHS marathon viewings, E. Charlotte Stevens argues that binge-watching ‘began over forty years ago’ (p. 29), yet the multi-authored concluding section of the book’s ‘binge-watching narratives’ section asserts there have been ‘significant shifts and trends in narrative form, storytelling and temporality’ (p. 276) as a consequence of the development of more recent television distribution models. While it is good that the book as a whole does not resolve this tension and acknowledges the flaws in simplistically comparing the present to the past, this temporal ambiguity contributes to the fuzziness of defining the topic at hand. It meant that, as a reader, I wasn’t always absolutely sure what kind of programming was relevant here, nor the time period the book’s key term related to.
The book’s contributors are careful not to simply reproduce ‘claims of narrative distinction’ (p. 275) touted by on-demand media distributors and compare the desire of those companies to situate themselves as distinct from broadcast television with the ‘quality’ claims espoused by HBO in the 2000s. Yet viewers’ ability to watch all episodes of a series in one go – rather than as weekly events in ‘traditional’ broadcasting – is often couched here in terms that appear celebratory. For Stevens binge-watching is a ‘freedom from a weekly broadcast’ (p. 24), for Emil Steiner it is emblematic of ‘viewer empowerment’ (p. 66), and for Tom Hemingway it indicates programming that requires ‘a high level of attention’ (p. 228) from viewers. Recurring throughout the book is the idea of ‘choice’. While it is acknowledged that this is ‘its own problematic concept’ (p. 5), choice is here understood largely in terms of viewer empowerment, without discussion of the more limited programming being offered by streaming services as a reduction in choice (for example, the lack of news and current affairs programming) compared to many forms of ‘traditional’ broadcasting. Furthermore, the programmes chosen for analysis – while not always aligned with conventional ideas of ‘quality’ – are all adult fiction and overwhelmingly drama; there is no discussion of reality series or children’s series, for example, which are eminently bingeable in this book’s terms. While topics of analysis understandably respond to individual authors’ interests, it does mean the book reproduces in its title the notion, common in many Television Studies publications, that ‘television’ = ‘television fiction (and usually drama)’.
There is much useful material in this collection, with detailed case studies of series such as Júlia Havas and Tanya Horeck’s feminist critique of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (2015-9) and Unbelievable (2019), Stevens’s discussion of fan responses to Starsky and Hutch (1975-79) and Orcun Can’s analysis of the narrative structure of Gilmore Girls (2000-7). The writing is clear and accessible; the evident hesitancy throughout in asserting boundaries and definitions helpfully symbolises the messiness of television and indicates understandable caution on the part of the authors, especially for concepts such as this that circulate outside of academia.