We discussed In Media Res in quite some depth at the recent MediaCommons editorial board meeting. While general consensus was that we were building a fantastic library of hot-button clips and commentary that speak volumes about both the contemporary media landscape and current approaches and concerns within media scholarship, we also concluded that the feature was not yet generating the types of interaction and community engagement that we believe it has the potential for. Many of the comments written so far for IMR have been outstanding pieces of analysis. How can we transform them into conversation-starters as well?
In general, it tends to go against our basic training as academics to publicly pose questions for which we have no immediate answers or to not try and analyze a media text from every possible angle (even if we already know what position we want to advance), but in the case of IMR, these strategies can close down discussions by making readers feel as though there is nothing left to be said.
With this in mind, I would like to agitate for the development of an IMR style guide for contributors. I will offer some initial ideas below, but as always, I encourage other members of the MediaCommons community to offer other (read: better) suggestions.
Before launching into a series of bullet points, however, let me begin with one of my favorite graduate school tales (at least of the kind that can be shared publicly), which I believe captures a lot of what I hope IMR can become.
In my second semester as a Masters student in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at the University of Texas at Austin, I took a class titled Television Theory and Criticism with Horace Newcomb. At one of our weekly screenings, Horace showed us Paddy Chayefsky’s 1953 live television drama Marty, starring Rod Steiger and Nancy Marchand, followed by a second-season episode of The Sopranos in which Tony Soprano and his mother Livia – played again by Nancy Marchand — finally came face-to-face for the first time since she and Tony’s Uncle Junior had taken out a failed hit on Tony’s life at the end of the first season. As the lights went up and we began collecting our things to head home for the evening, Horace asked the class – almost off-handedly — to imagine that Tony Soprano might be Rod Steiger and Nancy Marchand’s offspring. Holy Crap!
This one deceptively simple question led half a dozen graduate students to a lively 3-hour beer-fuelled discussion at the Dog & Duck Pub that night, touching on a myriad of possible understandings of television history, narrative, genre, policy, marketing, intertextuality and convergence strategies. There are, of course, many surface level connections between Marty and The Sopranos. Both productions feature Marchand as co-star and both Steiger and James Gandolfini, who plays Tony, are portly, balding, atypical protagonists. Steiger’s character, Marty, was a butcher by profession and Tony’s father used the Satriale Butcher shop as a cover for his Mafia-related activities. Beyond these, Horace’s question also called into consideration the connections between HBO’s efforts to brand itself as producing “quality” non-televisual television and the vaunted space live anthology dramas held within early television history (and the different regulatory, economic, and aesthetic models each was invested in for designating “quality”). The question also an inspired thought about the changing position television occupies in American family circles and the changing nature of representational politics on television to name but a few of the ideas bandied about that night.
To this day, I contend that this provocative, mischievous, and amazingly clever question was one of the most brilliant and inspirational teaching moments I’d ever experienced. In typical Horace fashion, he claims not to remember asking the question, but I guarantee that for the dozen graduate students in that class it will never be forgotten.
I believe In Media Res pieces can provoke similarly passionate and multi-perspectival conversations (hopefully, without the accompanying hangovers) by following Horace’s unassuming lead.
Here, without further delay, are some preliminary style guide suggestions (partly inspired by the tale told above). Please forgive the tone:
• In Media Res comments should be very short (150-200 words). Shorter pieces are easier to read on line. In order to help with this:
–> Contributors should use hyperlinks to direct readers to important information that is
extraneous to their comment.
–> Contributors should not describe what can be seen in the video clip (not only is this
redundant, but it tends to frame how others will likely watch the piece)
–> Contributors should avoid jargon.
• In Media Res comments should be casual and conversational in tone. Contributors are not making an argument or defending a position, but offering a perspective and contributing to a conversation. As such, contributors might consider:
–> Addressing why their chosen clip matters to them rather than why it should matter
to media studies scholars (trust that inevitably, the latter will emerge out of the
former).
–> Telling readers why this clip troubles and/or fascinates them.
–> Asking provocative open-ended questions… without feeling obliged to answer them
–> Alternatively, asking practical questions to which contributors might want concrete
feedback
–> Being polemical. Don’t feel the need to “prove your credentials” by analyzing your
clip from every possible perspective. Leave room for others to jump on board.
• In Media Res curators should make an effort to respond to respondents.
Like I said, just a first stab. Please feel free to dispute/refute/add or caveat all you want.
