Mittell present several parts of this project at conferences and ... promises to live
up to the very high expectations I have come to hold for Prof. Mittell's work.
Review #1 I very much enjoyed reading the prospectus for Jason Mittell’s new book, Complex Television. I had heard Prof. Mittell present several parts of this project at conferences and symposia over the past few years, and have been following his attempts to combine narratology and television studies for the better part of a decade. The proposed book promises to live up to the very high expectations I have come to hold for Prof. Mittell’s work. What is the main argument of the manuscript? Complex Television argues that, contrary to received wisdom about the passivity of television audiences and the simple-‐mindedness of TV programming, a new form of serialized television storytelling has emerged that is worthy of recognition as one of the narrative arts. Prof. Mittell contends that mainstream television dramas and comedies loosely referred to as “quality TV” require as much creativity and artistry on the parts of their producers, as much technological sophistication on the parts of their makers, and as much critical acuity on the parts of their viewers as novels and films. Furthermore, Prof. Mittell argues, television narrative has developed a unique array of storytelling techniques and aesthetics which existing forms of cinematic and literary theory and criticism can’t adequately address. Prof. Mittell’s book sets out to invest television narrative with new respect as a legitimate art form, to place its recent formal innovations in the context of the medium’s own history, to recognize the sophisticated activity required of the contemporary viewing audience, and to develop a new critical vocabulary for discussing television based in cultural studies, narratology and the historical poetics that has emerged in cinema studies. Prof. Mittell highlights a broad range of formal features of complex TV in his analysis of how the medium works. Serial form is central to Mittell’s argument, and it frames his thoughts about beginnings and endings of series; suspense, surprise, anticipation, and curiosity as aspects of audience comprehension; temporal “gimmicks” such as flashbacks, flashforwards, ellipses, jumbled chronology, time travel, and real-‐time storytelling; and the range of viewers’ practices including puzzle-‐solvers, rewatchers, and those who trade in spoilers. In addition to serial form, Mittell considers genre mixing (and the mixing of gendered appeals that goes with it); authorial presence and voice; and self-‐reflexiveness as elements of complexity in quality TV. His study places observations about all these features in the context of the history of technological developments such as DVDs and time-‐ shifting, changes in the TV industry, and the evolution of serial plots over the decades since Dallas and Hill Street Blues established the basic conventions of the “evening soap.” As evidence of full part the audience plays in the construction and re-‐construction of complex TV texts, Mittell examines transmedial fan practices including those generated by fans (wikis, ret-‐cons, and self-‐designed games) and those participated in or consumed by fans (video games, novelizations, websites, online video, and alternate reality games). Prof. Mittell promises to offer observations on why complex TV has blossomed so fully in the
first decade of the twentieth century, and his book proposal demonstrates that he is a scholar uniquely positioned to put forth such an argument. 2. Significance of the contribution The proposed book is significant both for the macro-‐field of cinema/TV/narrative theories and for the micro-‐field of serial television studies. Prof. Mittell’s methodology promises to establish a new and easily transferable way of talking about complex TV forms in the context of cultural history without having to collapse the form into either the literary or filmic genres it resembles. Complex TV is, as Mittell argues, a narrative form unto itself, and Mittell’s work so far has demonstrated that he is capable of sketching out a language for talking about it independently of film theory or literary theory. Like cinema studies, TV studies requires a deep awareness of the economic and technological circumstances driving generic change in programming; unlike film studies, TV studies also requires a comprehensive account of the activities of actual viewers. Prof. Mittell’s book will map out a method for talking formally about TV in a way that will speak to film theorists and narrative theorists, yes, but more importantly a way that will be distinct to TV studies. For the field of serial television studies (and studies of serial in all forms), Prof. Mittell’s book will make the unique contribution of developing a history of the form that describes its complexities in terms informed by narrative theory. In terms of comparable scholarship, the only work I can think of that makes a systematic move toward applying narrative theoretical methods to the analysis of serialized television would be Robert C. Allen’s Speaking of Soap Operas, a brilliant book from 1985 that subjects day-‐time soaps to a similar analysis bringing history together with narratology and audience analysis. Since Allen’s book no one has made the kind of comprehensive and focused use of narrative theory in the study of serial TV, so for those of us who are interested both in television studies and in narrative theory, Mittell’s contribution will be both welcome and overdue. Prof. Mittell’s book also promises to be a uniquely significant contribution to the genre of academic writing itself, given his plans to make a transmedial object of the study. His plan to begin the book with an anchoring chapter on “Discovering Complexity,” then arrange the subsequent chapters as hypertexts that could be read in any order is brilliant. It lends itself beautifully to digital reading of the book, and even to the “app” Prof. Mittell envisions. His plan to post the manuscript to CommentPress for peer-‐to-‐peer review is also excellent. In making these innovations, Prof. Mittell is participating in the media that also inform his argument. This makes for an object lesson in the relationship between form and content that will closely mirror what Prof. Mittell is doing in his analysis of the structure of complex TV series. 3. Potential audiences
I agree with Prof. Mittell’s prediction that the book has potential to be a “cross-‐over” as well as an important text for scholars and students of television studies. Certainly it will be a must-‐read for anyone writing a book or dissertation about television in the twenty-‐first century, and would lend itself beautifully to graduate and undergraduate seminars not just in television studies but also in narrative theory. Its clear but flexible organization into topical chapters will make it easy to work into syllabi either in part or in its totality. More unusually, though, given its projected existence as an e-‐text and even an “app,” this book will appeal to the vast number of fans of serial television who are endlessly looking for and contributing to discussion about the form as well as the content of their favorite shows. The level of sophistication of the discussions of media forms on such websites as “TV Tropes” suggests that there is a wide non-‐academic audience seriously interested in the intersection of formal and cultural questions Prof. Mittell’s book will address. They will participate, I am sure in the on-‐line discussion of the manuscript, and the book itself will become canonical for their own on-‐line forums and blogs. It’s a book that readers might casually pick up in a chain bookstore, as well, and it will be written in a clear and accessible prose that will inspire such people to keep reading. 4. My recommendation I give my strongest recommendation for this book to be accepted for publication. It will be a book that is important, but even more significantly, a book that is fun for scholars and general readers alike. Prof. Mittell’s joy in his subject is contagious. I would be happy to read the manuscript for the press, once it is complete. Please convey my sincere apologies to Prof. Mittell for the delay in my sending in this report. It in no way reflects my enthusiasm for his project.
Review #2 What do you regard as the main argument of the manuscript [as best you can discern in the absence of the full work]? The book addresses the emergence of complex narrative structures in contemporary US television, contextualized in terms of industrial drivers, new technologies and audience reception. The author himself provides the best summary: This project argues that contemporary developments in television narrative have led to the emergence of a medium-‐specific mode of storytelling, moving beyond its cinematic, literary, and theatrical origins. Will the work be a significant and unique contribution to the field? How does it compare to related recent scholarship? Mittell is recognized amongst television studies scholars as the leading expert in the field of television narratology. As he himself says, “The most central article from this project, “Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television” (published in The Velvet Light Trap in 2006), has been influential to the field, cited in dozens of other works and taught in numerous courses. I have since published six book chapters, two journal articles, numerous blog posts, and over ten different public lectures on topics connected to this project.” Anyone interested in the topic knows to turn to Mittell’s work first. What do you think of the scholarship, argumentation, and style? The scholarship is impeccable drawing upon industrial and textual analysis, personal interviews, responses through drawn from fan websites, chat rooms, published commentary, and audience surveys which results in a reach mix of evidence. The style is engaging and accessible. What audiences do you envision for the work? How teachable is this book, and do you see potential in it for course adoption—if so, which courses? Scholars in the fields of media, cultural and television studies as well as in narratology should appreciate this book. It will appeal to advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, and perhaps non specialist readers in interested in contemporary television. I can envision using it as the primary text for an advanced undergraduate course on contemporary US television which I am currently teaching since it covers all the relevant topics I’d want to consider in such a module and offers a wide range of texts with which the students will be familiar. The book should work in other English speaking markets and perhaps even foreign language markets because of the ubiquity and popularity of US television. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the work?
The book’s strengths will make it the key work in the field. The only weakness is one common to books that rely in part on textual analysis: it’s not very engaging to read an extended analysis of a text with which you’re not personally familiar. This for me was the case with the Veronica Mars chapter. I would recommend not having extensive analysis of any one particular text but rather drawing on several texts to make a point. Do you recommend we publish this work? Without question.
