inspired by "convergence culture" (henry jenkins)

The second book on the course syllabus was Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins. At the beginning of the term, when I flipped through it at the bookstore, I was pleased to see familiar names right in the table of contents: Survivor, American Idol, The Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter. In each chapter, Jenkins discusses the consumers' shift towards an active, participatory culture while referencing examples of successful media franchises.


(I think maybe the cover should be an iPhone... or at least a newer iPod).

Anyways, I'm a devoted Harry Potter fan, so I quickly flipped to Chapter 5: Why Heather Can Write: Media Literacy and the Harry Potter Wars. This was an interesting chapter to read; as I said, I'm moderately fanatical about Harry Potter, but also, I worked as the Children's Program Coordinator at a library a few summers ago where I saw some of these issues first hand (and I have an interest in these media-related things... I guess I'm in the right program).

Jenkins discusses two main Potter conflicts, which both limit children's ability to fully engage and participate in the imaginary world created by JK Rowling. First, there was the struggle of (mostly religiously affiliated) people to have the books banned from libraries and bookstores. Second, even though JKR herself has always been a supporter, Warner Bros. claimed that fanfiction and other content (art, podcasts etc.) was unauthorized and infringing on the studio's intellectual property. These conflicts are both driven by the tension between corporations and consumers, or the top-down corporate force attempting to control consumer participation and the bottom-up force of creative consumers.

"Corporations imagine participation as something they can start and stop,
channel and reroute, commodify and market. The prohibitionists are trying to
shut down unauthorized participation; the collaborationists are trying to win
grassroots creators over to their side. Consumers, on the other side, are
asserting a right to participate in the culture, on their own terms, when and
where they wish." p 169

Jenkins shares the story of 13-year-old Heather Lawver, creator of The Daily Prophet (http://www.dprophet.com/), a web-based fictional newspaper about Hogwarts. I checked out the site and it's seems to be inactive now, but to be honest, I'm not that surprised by the accomplishments of this girl and the success of her idea.

Throughout my teens, I frequented Harry Potter forums and was active in the online community. Because of the anonymity the internet provides, it was always hard to tell how old people were by only their writing. You could guess by the quality of their writing or the content they wrote about, but really, Heather is proof that young people can write well.

A girl at this age "leading a worldwide staff of student writers with no supervision to publish a school newspaper that only existed in their imaginations" is an amazing example of the benefits of actively engaging in the world of Harry Potter or anything people are passionate about. With internet access and some free time, she was able to create an clear contribution to HP fandom and share some excellent ideas for ways other fans can actively participate. Also, she was able to expand her knowledge and build on her writing and other related skills.

On this particular fan site, people can construct a fictional identity, which is incorporated into 'news stories'. The creative back stories for each character often hint at potential narratives, and subsequently, these character profiles can fuel fan fiction. In our participatory culture, people begin "composing stories on their own as a spontaneous response to popular culture" (p 178).

Although the movie studio was concerned about their intellectual rights being infringed upon, I think fanfiction serves the positive function of adding to the transmedia story. The international community of fans creating fanfiction, web sites, fan art, music and podcasts should not be seen as a threat to profits; these people are already super fans and likely own all the books and DVDs already. Instead, the online Harry Potter community allows fans to interact and contribute a piece of the story. Especially while fans waited for the next book, these fan sites were important to hype up the books/movies and they gave a place for fans to gather, discuss, and generally maintain their interest in the series.

Many fanfiction sites have a system for beta readers to edit or provide notes; this gives people the opportunity to grow their writing skills and others the chance to share their knowledge by mentoring newbies.This kind of learning can only happen by choice, and the opportunities for this kind of interaction with other fans seems to only be increasing. With the internet, there is the opportunity for niche groups to interact as well as produce and share their own work. Today, people want to do more than just passively watch a tv show or read a book.

****

In addition to Harry Potter, I'm also part of the growing fan base for HBO's series, True Blood. Not only is it a great show, it's marketed very well.

Before the premiere, they lauched a viral marketing campaign via an alternate reality game at Blood Copy (Archive). There was a prequel comic distributed to ComicCon 2008 attendees. Also, extra videos and commercials are made available online on the HBO website, Facebook, and myspace. There is a website for the fictional enemy group to vampires, the Christian Fellowship of the Sun with videos and discussion about fictional issues and news from the perspective of this Christian group who believes vampires are too dangerous to be integrated with humans. The youtube channel is amazing. There are over a hundred videos with fictional commercials, news stories, political propaganda and celebrity stories (even sex tapes!). Check out the vampire rights amendment campaign video below:

True Blood is taking world building to a new level. The story is told through various media formats and the success of their approach is undeniable.

crowdsourcing can save a life, but it mostly takes cool ideas from people

I don't have much to write about for Chapter 6. It discusses more of Lanier's concerns and complaints. He better start giving us some suggestions because I'm finding myself saying, "I know, I know... We're doomed."

Lanier discusses how investors don't value human creativity by paying to create new content--tv shows, movies, books, and music--because they can crowdsource for free. They can rely on "the chattering of the crowd within itself" to create free content.

When content is crowdsourced, the creator essentially gives up all rights related to their content, and gives it to the parent website. The parent site has a lot to gain from the work of others, including profits. It can be argued that the “content would be worthless without the parent site, but to that same effect, the site would also be worthless without its content.” More rights issues come up when the content published online is turned into a book or used for other merchandise.

Jaremy Rich, from virology.com, says, “crowdsourced content is created by users with no likely desire for fame or fortune. It's the equivalent of volunteering at a church or non-profit. However, a company IS making a profit off of this content.” While it's true that, in many cases, people are participating because they enjoy being creative; however, sometimes the content is extremely profitable.

For example, the website - icanhascheezburger - relies on content from users: lolcats (funny pictures of cats with captions). There is also an interactive element with users ranking the photos. This website receives hundreds of submissions per day, while it only posts about a dozen. There are a number of successful books. There is also a network of related popular crowdsourced websites, including loldogs, failblog, failbook, and engrish funny. These sites have millions of hits per day, and there are huge revenues because of the user-generated content

There are ways user-generated content can be successful, profitable, but somehow less profit oriented.

One of my favourite websites is postsecret.com. Creator, Frank Warren, says it started in 2004 as a “creative prank” when he bought 3000 blank post cards and put his address on them with an invitation to “artistically share their deepest secret on a postcard and mail it to [him], anonymously.” Frank left them in random places all over the city, and he was surprised when he received 100 in the mail.

He had the first postsecret art exhibit and created his blog. He was surprised with the overwhelming response because after that, they kept coming in. Now, he has received millions of postcards, and his blog has received over 350 million hits. He has published five books and tours the world for postsecret art exhibits and events.

The user-generated content in this case is essential to the essence of the project. The act of sharing the secret is both healing and empowering to the creator. The secrets are inspirational for the readers and give hope to people who identify with them. The anonymity of the secrets is important because it creates a sense of unity within the online community.

The reason I say this very successful use of crowdsourcing is different than most is because Frank Warren donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities and help lines. His work creates awareness for many mental health issues. He reads a lot of dark secrets with themes of suicide, self-harm and depression, and he is doing everything he can to raise awareness and financially assist the channels of support offered.

One really inspiring example of how social media and readers of postsecret came together is when one secret said that the anonymous writer plans to commit suicide this summer by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco this summer. With no way to contact the anonymous writer, people created a facebook page called, “Please don't jump.” There are almost 20 000 members and 500 photos with the same message: please don't jump.

So, I mean, really the crowdsourcing using the internet isn't all bad. Yeah, you probably won't make money (unless you're somehow the lord of a profitable cloud). And yeah, don't give away your awesome content and time for free unless you're getting something out of it (like having fun or personal healing or marks for a class or something).

(The quote from Frank Warren is from the introduction of one of his books, PostSecret: Confessions on Life, Death & God.)

fragments & anonymous trolls

I came across this article this week, and it reminded me of Lanier's comment that technology is moving without considering all the effects and adapting as necessary.

I don't know if I'm surprised that children are more likely to own a cellphone than a book. It's sad, but with so many other distractions, it's hard to sit down with a book and read for a while. Manafy, an editorial director Information Today, suggests that if more children have phones, then “we need to be looking much harder at creating content optimized for this reading environment [...and create] a reading experience that coincides with their [...]shorter attention spans [...and] non-linear reading style.” Maybe parents, librarians and educators should celebrate technology like the iPad that is more conducive for reading. Hopefully, eBooks (or iBooks?) will become popular with kids, or we could be facing a wave of illiteracy in the future.

In Chapter 3, Lanier gives readers his thoughts on the perceived wisdom of crowd. We've all done it: googled a question or wikipediaed something. The idea is that the mistakes of people cancel each other out and there's correctness centred around the right answer (this is also pretty much all I remember about my stats class). The fragments we read online obscure the context and author. This ideology devalues authorship and individuality. Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and all collectives rely on the leadership of intellectuals and visionaries to lead them. Therefore, I agree with Lanier's opinion that quantity doesn't become quality. I can't help but think that there's about to be a whole lot more stupid questions and answers as facebook announces a new questions and answers application.

Anonymity can be one of the bad things about the internet. Not only does it reduce the cultural importance of authorship, but it also encourages trolling. People are not held accountable to what they say, and they are rarely punished or penalized for their online bullying. YouTube pseudonyms are easy to create and recreate for the purpose of posting mean comments on videos. Although there are a lot of stupid videos, it's stupider to watch them and then be mean about it! On a site like SecondLife people won't be as mean because the pseudonym comes with developed personality that isn't as disposable. It requires a lot of work to recreate.

This leads to one of the good things about the internet: online communities. For example, fan forums allow fans to communicate with one another about a shared obsession. These sites use online pseudonyms; however, they come with personalities and the people get to know each other. They are not fragments of people. Like Lanier said about the printing press, it “is not the mechanism, but the authors” who are important. The people make the forum (not the software). The software creates the opportunity, but people run and participate in the forum.

Lanier's ideas resonate with me. A number of years ago, during a special time for discussion among Harry Potter fans while we waited for the next book, I was involved with a Harry Potter fan site and forum. There were very few trolls there. I got to know people by their avatar, their username, and eventually, their REAL name. There needs to be more opportunity for this kind of interaction online. While anonymity is important for safety, too much of it gives people the freedom to let out their inner troll.
Facebook is a place where trolling has repercussions. People have to constantly manage their online reputations. After an in-class conversation about employers facebook creeping potential employees, it's clear that companies want employees who represent them well in public. In the past, this included the workplace only, and it didn't matter what employees did in their private lives as long as they did their jobs. However, many people have accepted that the online world is in the public domain. If it's online, it's not private anymore.