The Sleeper Effect

[coalescent]

Fascinating article in the New York Times by Steven Johnson, about the narrative complexity of modern television. For instance, talking about an episode of 24:

Nine primary narrative threads wind their way through those 44 minutes, each drawing extensively upon events and information revealed in earlier episodes. Draw a map of all those intersecting plots and personalities, and you get structure that -- where formal complexity is concerned -- more closely resembles ''Middlemarch'' than a hit TV drama of years past like ''Bonanza.''

Maybe he's exaggerating, but he's got pretty charts to illustrate his point, and who doesn't like pretty charts?

He points out correctly, though, that the threaded, tapestry-style drama, having originated with Hill Street Blues, is now by far the dominant form (in US television at least, although maybe less within sf tv?), and goes on to say that

The total number of active threads equals the multiple plots of ''Hill Street,'' but here each thread is more substantial. The show doesn't offer a clear distinction between dominant and minor plots; each story line carries its weight in the mix. The episode also displays a chordal mode of storytelling entirely absent from ''Hill Street'': a single scene in ''The Sopranos'' will often connect to three different threads at the same time, layering one plot atop another. And every single thread in this ''Sopranos'' episode builds on events from previous episodes and continues on through the rest of the season and beyond.

I really like the idea of chordal storytelling; strikes me as a very useful concept.

The crux of the argument is that this increase in complexity is market-driven, and good for us.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars.

[...]

But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force your kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

Certainly it makes sense that as TV becomes more fractured and niche-driven that intelligent and complex drama shows would develop to fill their particular ecological niche, but he even argues that reality shows are more sophisticated than their equivalents of thirty years ago, and that they're beneficial as well.

It's a good read. I don't have any immediate detailed responses or obvious nits to pick, but reading it I couldn't help thinking of karentraviss' posts about picking up storytelling from film and tv (not that I can find any of those posts now, of course) as well as greengolux' recent post about what tv is and is not good at.

Comments

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

The danger is that unless done carefully the casual viewer is baffled by all the references. In 2 different generations the Prisoner and Twin Peaks tried for the same effect. They both both became cults, but I never liked them because I never understood what was going on.

Have multi-threaded stories, but keep them at different levels of complexity so both the afficionado and the channel hopper can get something out of the show.

A good literary example of this is David Lodge's "The British Museum is Falling Down", which is full of all the pastiches you might expect of an English proferssor, but who's basic story can interest a dolt like me, who then spots the occasional reference and smiles.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Heh. I wouldn't say I liked Twin Peaks and The Prisoner because I didn't know what was going on, but the sense of uncertainty and ambiguity was definitely part of the appeal. These days Carnivale has a similar thing going for it. All three have other virtues as well, mind.

[andrewducker]

I had noticed that most modern TV is much smarter than our parent's generation's TV was. Watching an episode of almost anything 30 years old is _hard_ because it's so simple - everything moves much more slowly and the plots are so simple I understood them when I was 8.

In fact, I find that's a problem with comedy particularly - I watched comedy with my parents when I was a kid - and now I'm an adult most of that comedy seems too simple and childlike, even though it was aimed at adults then. It seems very odd, for instance, to believe that Benny Hill was liked by anyone over the age of 18.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I think you can pick examples of dumb TV shows from 'the olden days' but they aren't necessarily any more representative than celebrity wrestling is now.

I think what has changed is that TV used to be seen as a transient medium, like a theatrical performance, and it is now seen as something which might be experienced repeatedly, like a novel.

Havign said that, I think a lot of excellent TV barely stands repeat viewing, but is still very good in its own transient terms.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think what has changed is that TV used to be seen as a transient medium, like a theatrical performance, and it is now seen as something which might be experienced repeatedly, like a novel.

I think that's true. I think it's also true that TV has more and more come to be seen as its own medium, with different strengths and demands than either film or theatre or novels. As writers get more familiar with the form, they can produce more complex work.

Havign said that, I think a lot of excellent TV barely stands repeat viewing, but is still very good in its own transient terms.

The same is true for films, theatre, and books, though, of course. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much if any of this progression is simply due to familiarity. Would it be fair to say that in the beginning the novelty of TV--moving pictures! In your living room!--made pretty much anything interesting? Now the existence of the TV is background, and content is more important.

It's also interesting to think about how this article fits into the general portrait of our society as attention-deficient. You could, I suppose, argue that we just don't have the patience to watch slow-burn shows any more, we want constant switching and excitement.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

I'm finding the current series of 24 (s4 on Sky, maybe?) extremely tiresome as it seems to be laying on so much exposition dialogue. It's seriously all over the place with random coming and goings.

I'm still watching it but only because I'm such a damn completist.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I've only seen the first six or so of the current season--my habit of watching 24 with friends has somewhat fallen by the wayside this year, but I haven't been getting copies for myself to compensate. I'm sure I'll catch up at some point, but I don't find myself in a great hurry.

Cheers

[applez.livejournal.com]

This is directly applicable with a project I've been working on.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

the threaded, tapestry-style drama, having originated with Hill Street Blues, is now by far the dominant form (in US television at least

Which is interesting and heartening if true, as I still do hear people quote the received wisdom that audiences can’t keep up with serialised arc storylines and that standalone episodes are more successful ratings-wise: because people can dip in and out, and networks can repeat episodes in any order. I also remember S3 of Roswell (Ron Moore’s first year on the show) which had an incredibly intricate arc with a twist that unravelled half the season – except that the network pre-empted a pivotal episode, forcing the producers to scrabble for a way to reinsert it without spoiling the plot. S4 of Roswell was noticeably more standalone, and I remember hearing behind the scenes comments that this was deliberate. Or how about S5 of Angel, which took a deliberate swerve back towards the accessible and the dip-into-able?

Although my preference is often for threaded story arcs when done well, and I’d love to believe it’s now the dominant form, I do have my doubts. I think that for every example of a current arc show I could find an example of a successful non-arc show. For every 24 or Sopranos on US television there’s a CSI or a Law and Order.

Probably what is true is that arc storylines on US TV thrive in certain markets and in certain genres. A cable network like Showtime has a reputation for hard-hitting intricately-plotted drama and thrives on that. Programmes like Carnivale and Deadwood are deeply serialised. Some mainstream soap-o-drama™ shows like ER also get away with it. Many mainstream shows however thrive on providing a quick, skilful fix of formula in a single episode. Arc is very much to the background in those programmes.

I would note that in general even the most standalone shows these days has low level character development and arc, whereas in the TV of the past the reset button each week was absolute. On an occasional level, more or less all television has embraced the idea that its audience is loyal and savvy enough to remember the past and enjoy change and growth over time – or at least the illusion of it.

So there's arc and there's arc. On balance, I think what the article is correctly noting is that a particular kind of adult show with multiple, detailed, intensive storylines plotted in advance has become increasingly popular over the last decade or so. I could agree with that as an assessment.

I really like the idea of chordal storytelling; strikes me as a very useful concept.

Me too. Lovely descriptive term.

The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwinings, recognizing long-term patterns.

But how different is this from soap opera viewing? I suppose you can argue that arc TV has more intentionality and rigorousness in the plotting and characterisation, in contrast to the often arbitrary or even amnesiac nature of soap storytelling.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Which is interesting and heartening if true, as I still do hear people quote the received wisdom that audiences can’t keep up with serialised arc storylines and that standalone episodes are more successful ratings-wise

The thing is, he's not really talking about arc, he's talking as much as anything about the complexity of the individual episodes. And as I alluded to in the main post, I'm not sure genre shows are very representative of this trend; most of them have A and B plots, sure, but the only ones at the moment that come close to the sort of threaded complexity he's talking about are Galactica and Carnivale, really.

Me too. Lovely descriptive term.

Dan said he'd slap me if I used it. Meh to him, I say.

But how different is this from soap opera viewing?

It's not, really. In the article he notes that this is what Dallas had been doing to years, but married to a more serious type of content.