Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

TV Tropes


2001:

VS

2011:


A couple of weeks ago, I watched a really fantastic documentary called Exporting Raymond. It was written by, directed by, and starred Phil Rosenthal, whose name you might not recognize but whose work you almost certainly do. Rosenthal was the creator, executive producer, and head writer of the much-loved sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond -- which, as you probably know, was a show about a guy living with his family, with the in-laws living right across the street -- ran for nine years. During its run it won 13 Emmys, and from Season 4 onward it remained in the top ten of most-watched shows in the U.S. Critics attributed its success -- almost certainly correctly -- to its honest and hilarious portrayal of family life. (Nearly all the episodes, including the one with the fly lady, were based on true stories from the lives of the writers.)

Exporting Raymond details the experience Rosenthal had when he was sent by Sony Pictures International to Russia, to assist a Russian production team in getting their own version of Rosenthal's show up and running. It was a somewhat unusual situation (though not unheard of), as many production companies will go in their own direction while remaking a show -- but in this case, they wanted Rosenthal's input. So off Rosenthal went to Russia, ready to help assist the production team in the making of their pilot episode for Everybody Loves Kostya.

The documentary is at once a great look at culture clash (with Rosenthal's fish-out-of-water experiences in Russia) and being lost in translation (Russian culture has a different sense of humor than American culture, the Russian production team asserts -- and the American humor of Raymond won't work here). But it's also a look at what makes stories and storytelling any good -- and whether or not the answer differs from culture to culture. (And, perhaps, from decade to decade.)

You'll have to watch the documentary yourself to see what conclusions Rothenthal draws to these particular issues. But between this documentary and last night's Emmy awards, I found myself thinking about the shift in television-watching that we've seen over the past decade.

Everybody Loves Raymond is notable for being one of the last "classic" sitcoms to become a phenomenon. By "classic," I mean any sitcom in the multiple-camera, live-studio-audience, broad-laughs vein -- one of the oldest forms of the television series (going back to series like The Honeymooners, which Rosenthal has cited as one source of inspiration for Raymond.)

The classic sit-com is not completely extinct -- Jim Parsons's second Emmy win Sunday night for his starring role in The Big Bang Theory is proof of that, and before his publicized collapse Charlie Sheen was the highest-paid actor on television for his work on Two and a Half Men. These classically-shot sitcoms are becoming the exception rather than the norm, however, as single-camera, audience-less sitcoms have taken over. Newer sit-coms like Modern Family, which won 5 Emmy awards on Sunday -- or the long-running American version of The Office (which, much like Everybody Loves Kostya, is a show which started in another country).

Reality shows and cable TV have also changed the face of television, the former providing uber-popular shows at a fraction of the cost of traditionally-scripted programming, the latter allowing for niche entertainment that the broadcast networks couldn't afford to support. When it comes to cable, well -- whether you were a fan of USA Network's Monk or FX's Rescue Me, shows on cable television can be considered big hits despite pulling in a fraction of the audience size of network television. And HBO shows like The Sopranos have allowed for further cable hits like True Blood, Dexter, and Game of Thrones -- shows which have ratings to sometimes rival network offerings.

And then there's the final new twist on the television-watching experience: watching television without a television. Hulu, Netflix, and TV channels' own websites all offer episodes of TV shows available for streaming online onto your computer (with limited or no commercial interruption). And DVD sets of complete television series -- which you can check out, ahem, from your local library -- are available in a way that simply did not exist ten years ago. (Anybody remember taping episodes of their favorite TV show on VHS cassette tapes so that they could rewatch them later? Now we all just wait for the DVDs to come out.) Nowadays, people watch TV shows on their laptops the day after the show had aired on television -- or pop in DVDs of shows that haven't been on the air in twenty years.

Thinking about the way American television has changed just in the past decade makes some of the facts in Exporting Raymond seem all the odder. Before Everybody Loves Kostya, Russia's top-rated sitcoms were remakes of three other American shows: Married ... With Children, Who's the Boss? and The Nanny. (In particular, the Russian version of Nanny was such a runaway success that after the Russian production staff ran out of American episodes to adapt, Sony brought back the original American writing team for the show to come up with 25 more original stories for the Russian version.)

Nowadays, Americans seem to have traded The Nanny for SuperNanny and Nanny 911. Reality shows, cable, and the internet have given us television in a way unheard of a decade ago. With critics proclaiming the death of the sitcom and shrinking TV ratings due in part to digital viewing, television -- like all technology -- is changing fast. And, some would argue, not necessarily for the better.

Of course, if Exporting Raymond is about anything, it's about universal storytelling truly being universal -- even in television. Despite the changes, good storytelling will always endure, no matter its methods in being told.

Or, so Rosenthal hopes to prove. Check out the documentary for more.


Click here to find out more about the history of television.


-- Post by Ms. B

Friday, September 9, 2011

"I prefer to let George Lucas disappoint me in the order he intended."











In many ways, it's a fine time for anybody who, like myself, has a bit of an Inner Nerd. The relaunch of 52 new DC comic books has brought about record-breaking sales, Star Wars is coming out on Blu-ray, and we've even got a new Lord of the Rings (well, actually, it's The Hobbit) coming out next year. Not to mention what a great summer Pittsburgh has had ...

(Speaking of The New 52, I'm excited to say that Monroeville Public Library has added some of the new issues to our collection! Be sure to stop by the Magazine Room or Teen Area at the Library to check them out.)

And yet, despite all the excitement, not all of us sci-fi and superhero fans are happy. Because much of this excitement hinges not on something new, but rather on something old being changed. And there is a bit of a stereotype about sci-fi fans and their dislike of change to their favorite stories. This accusation is not always completely without merit -- as the brouhaha over, for instance, Wonder Woman's new pants goes to show.

Or take the upcoming Star Wars Blu-ray set (874 customer reviews on Amazon.com, most of them negative, and the discs hasn't even come out yet). You may wonder about the pessimism; surely Star Wars fans should be excited to have all six movies coming out in crisp Blu-ray release? But fans are already up in arms about the more-than-a-few changes that George Lucas has inserted into the set. It's certainly not the first time Lucas has used modern computer effects to tinker with his original low-budget sci-fi stories. (Remember, if you can, a time when a Star Wars movie could actually be considered low budget?) Fans have generally decried each and every tweak, however -- and, while some of these newest additions (blinking Ewok eyes) don't sound particularly heinous, others (Darth Vader crying "NOOOO!" as he steps in to save Luke from the Emperor) are less promising.

You'd think, from some of the subject headings to various Amazon.com reviews ("For shame" -- "Please make it stop"), that people were posting about the economy, the job crisis, or any one of the other political issues currently affecting the country. Which makes it easy to take pot shots at the overreacting fanboys and fangirls who are getting worked up about a DVD release. C'mon, people, you find yourself thinking as you read through the internet vitriol. It's just a movie ... just a comic book character ... just fiction. What's the big deal?

But I found myself reflecting, while scrolling through negative review after negative review of the new Star Wars, that it's unfair to think this is a geek-only sort of problem. Because whether you enjoy science fiction and fantasy films or not, odds are pretty good that you're simply not a big fan of change.

The odds are good for this because most people aren't particularly wild about change. Human beings are good at adapting, but that doesn't mean we enjoy it. And it often doesn't matter if the changes take place in our politics, our jobs, our home lives, or even our fiction -- where change happens, somebody somewhere is not going to approve.

The nature of and need for change are topics particular relevant to libraries in this day and age, as changing technology and shifting culture affect what it is people need and expect from their libraries. From the introduction of ebooks (which we've got here!) to "virtual" librarians and reference texting, the face of the modern library is changing along with its services.

And change is tricky, not only because of the adjustment time but because it's hard to know what changes to embrace and what changes may merely be a passing fad. Do we, for instance, start a virtual online "chat" reference service when text messaging seems to be almost completely replacing instant messaging? Should we continue MPL's Facebook Page or jump on the Google+ bandwagon? What's here to stay and what isn't?

In a world changing as rapidly as ours, that's a question even the best of reference librarians may be stymied in trying to find an answer to. And so the answer, to me, seems to be the same sort of advice I'd give to anybody facing a change, whether in libraries, politics, or even a new sci-fi film release:

Give the new stuff a chance. And if it doesn't work out, well ... you can always change it again. Change, as they say, really is the only true constant.

Even in Star Wars.


(By the way, you get bonus Nerd Points if you recognize where my subject quote is from.)


-- Post by Ms. B

Friday, July 8, 2011

Not Just For Teens: The "All Ages" Reading Phenomenon


Most young adult librarians will tell you that young adult literature is a comparatively modern genre. Now, it's certainly arguable as to exactly when novels written with a teen audience in mind first started to appear. Are Dickens's Oliver Twist and Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer the first real books for young adults? Or should we count the beginning of the "teen literature golden age" as the 50s and 60s, when The Catcher in the Rye and The Outsiders were published? Others might argue that it wasn't until the 70s and 80s -- when authors such as Judy Blume, Lois Lowry, Robert Newton Peck, and Madeleine L'Engle gained mainstream popularity -- that young adult fiction really took off.

But regardless of when you decide teen literature became a mainstream genre, there's no denying that we're in something of a teen lit renaissance at the moment. Much of this burst of popularity is due in no small part to J.K. Rowling, who published her first Harry Potter book in Great Britain in 1997 (the book would make its stateside debut in 1998), and whose famous series would, over the years, grow from best-selling children's book series to worldwide phenomenon.

Harry would pave the way for other, explosively popular teen novels -- Percy Jackson, The Hunger Games, Maximum Ride, and Twilight, the latter of which ushered in a plethora of teen paranormal romance fiction (House of Night, City of Bones, the Shiver series, and Hush, Hush, to name but a few). If the 70s and 80s were the Golden Age of young adult fiction, we're clearly in the Silver Age now.

But if Harry Potter and the Twilight series opened the door to a new generation of teen literature, it also opened the door to another new phenomenon: adults reading books "intended" for kids.

In some ways, this isn't really a new phenomenon at all. Adults have been reading stories with teenage protagonists for years: Oliver Twist, Tom Sawyer, and Holden Caulfield just for starters. But those books weren't considered "young adult literature" the way the Harry Potter books are today; even The Catcher in the Rye, with its quintessential teen protagonist, was originally marketed to adults. Harry and Twilight were considered "children's" books from the start -- and yet a substantial part of their readership is made up of adult readers.

And it's not to say that this is simply a matter of adults reading their children's books. Enough adults are purchasing teen books for themselves that they constitute a complete audience for these books in and of themselves. "Adult" editions of the Harry Potter books were published in Great Britain (the idea being that grown-ups might be too embarrassed to be seen in public reading a children's novel, so sophisticated new covers were given to the books to leave them looking more "mature"). Grown-up fans of the Twilight series can join groups like Twilight Moms, clubs devoted to adult members of Stephenie Meyer's vampire series. And you'd be surprised how many adults confess (because it is usually a sheepishly-admitted confession) to being big fans of Percy Jackson or The Hunger Games.

The opinions for why grown-ups are suddenly devouring kid lit vary with each person you ask. Some people will tell you that adults are tired of heavier, serious fare and are looking for the light escapism that young adult lit brings you. Other people (fans of The Hunger Games, for instance) are quick to point out that there's nothing inherently "light" about the entire teen lit genre -- there are plenty of teen books that deal with heavy issues and high stakes -- and that adult readers love them for exactly that reason.

As for me, I suspect both theories are right. Even if I weren't the Teen Services Librarian here at MPL, I'd still have a deep affection for many of today's most popular young adult novels. I can tell you that the Harry Potter and Percy Jackson books are indeed a lot of escapist fun: who doesn't enjoy reading a fast-paced, funny, high-rise adventure about wizards and demigods, mysteries and quests, monsters and magic?

And yet these books -- like much of young adult literature -- aren't simply brain candy. I think the other reason so many adults are picking up today's teen books is because most of these stories are telling a universal tale, one that readers find appealing regardless of their age. Young adult books, perhaps more than any other genre, tell and retell the archetypal tale of the Hero's Journey, the story of a hero undertaking a quest and facing trials and obstacles before transforming into a truer version of themselves. Although many people refer to these as "coming-of-age tales," there's no denying that this most elemental of stories is one that everybody can relate to -- no matter how young or old. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Lyra Belacqua, Meg Murray -- they all star in their own fantastical adventure series, but their stories are as much about determination, courage, and sacrifice as they are about flying cars and golden compasses.

Young Adult Literature today is smart, fun, and can make for a great read for anyone, teenager or adult. And its stories are also about something, which makes it a satisfying read on more than one level. So the next time you stop by the Library, be sure to check out our Teen Collection.

I'd be happy to recommend some of my favorite titles to you.


-- Post by Ms. B

Friday, April 1, 2011

Riding the eBook Wave




Any time I'm making small talk with someone -- a new hairdresser, a nurse in the doctor's office, someone at a party -- and the question of what I do for a living comes up, the same follow-up question is inevitably asked. "So what do you think about these new ebook things -- are they going to be the end of libraries?"

The question always kind of amuses me, in part because I wonder if people are ever concerned that they'll give me something new to worry about. ("What if ebooks are the end of libraries?? Oh no!") It also, at least in the beginning, left me rather speechless -- because I honestly didn't have an answer for them.

But in my opinion, the real mystery is not so much a question of ebooks being the end of libraries as it is a question of ebooks being the end of physical, printed books, period. Are eReaders the next stage of evolution, similar to the invention of Gutenberg's printing press? Is this the end of an era?