Ivan Went to Comicon and All I Got Was This Lousy Photograph of T-Shirts

202152816_96a639c934.jpg The title says it all. I've been wanting to go to Comicon for years now but once again, I didn't get to go. I sent Comparative Media Studies graduate student Ivan Askwith to be my eyes and ears at this event. This is the first of an unspecified number of blog posts he's writing about his experiences there.

Here's what he had to report:

Since this was the first year that I've been able to attend ComicCon, I have no strong basis of comparison to describe how the event has changed over time.

From the "Copy Points" briefing I was given at the press registration table, I can tell you that:

- This year marked the 37th annual ComicCon

- ComicCon is the largest comic book and pop culture event in North America

- ComicCon 2006 featured over 600 hours of programming and discussion panels.

- The first ComicCon drew together 300 attendees in the basement of a San Diego hotel.

- The 2005 ComicCon drew about 104,000 attendees.

- The largest presentation hall is a converted exhibit hall which seats 6,500 people.

Since I was attending on Henry's behalf, however, I was interested in seeing how ComicCon might illustrate some of the themes and trends addressed in the forthcoming Convergence Culture. As anyone who has been to ComicCon could tell you, I wasn't disappointed: over three days, I spent more than 40 hours talking with fans, attending panel discussions and content previews, browsing a massive hall packed with more collectible merchandise than I could have imagined, and chatting with reps from some of the most popular exhibition booths.

Trade press estimates suggest that more than 140,000 people attended this year's Con.

So after three exhausting days, and almost a week to reflect and recuperate, let me share a few of my most significant observations and conclusions from attending the San Diego ComicCon.

----

As I've already mentioned, this was my first time at ComicCon, so I'm not in the best position to describe how the event has changed, in tone or content, since it began in 1970.

If I were going to speculate, however, I'd guess that ComicCon began as a fan-centric event, an annual cult gathering where fans could engage and interact with other fans from around the world who shared their particular passion, while meeting some of the artists or creative minds responsible for their objects of appreciation.

Thirty-seven years later, it has turned into something quite different: above all, ComicCon struck me as a perfect setting for Hollywood cool hunters seeking "the next big [marketable] thing," and for entertainment marketers trying to create the diehard fan base needed to make their products the next big thing. More on this in a moment.

Watching people move around the floor in the Convention Center, it was relatively easy to break the attendees into a few distinct (but by no means comprehensive or exclusive) categories:

Most obvious are the spectators, most of them presumably from the San Diego area, who attend for the pure spectacle of the event, but don't demonstrate a strong affiliation with any of the properties or franchises present. For spectators, the panels and exhibitors are fun, but the real draw of the event seems to be the general craziness of the most committed fans and attendees. Spectators don't tend to seek out any particular booth or scheduled event; instead, they mostly wander the floor -- often with children or significant others in tow -- stopping to stand in line only if there's a hot piece of free swag waiting at the front of it.

Then there are the casual enthusiasts, fans who are familiar with (and vocally appreciative of) several shows, comics, or characters. Enthusiasts might wear clothes with affiliation logos on them, but they won't be in full costume -- which is to say that enthusiasts are fans who demonstrate a socially acceptable level of enthusiasm about the objects of their fandom. They might have all of the issues of a particular comic, or own all of the DVDs for a particular show, and their friends might even roll their eyes when they advocate on behalf of their fandom, but by and large, enthusiasts still consider themselves "normal."

And then, of course, there are the hardcore fans. These are the fans who have an obsessive level of knowledge about their active fandoms; who immediately recognize the usually anonymous producers, writers, colorists and illustrators responsible for their favorite shows or comics; who dress up in elaborate handmade costumes, often in small clans; who will get in line at 4 AM to secure front-row seats to an hour-long panel held at 2 PM; who are often extremely vocal in their appreciation or enthusiasm , and so knowledgeable in arcane details that the creators of their obsessions sometimes seem alarmed.

At their most extreme, these are the fans that William Shatner was thinking of when he told an audience member at a Star Trek Convention that he should "get a life" -- but as many marketers have started to learn, the hardcore fan minority can also be the difference between the success and failure of new properties.

----

This brings us back to the Convention itself, and my initial suspicion that there has been a discernible shift in ComicCon's function over the last several years.

The most obvious manifestation of this shift is in the event schedule itself: while many of the smaller panel discussions still feature independent artists, fan-favorite illustrators, and small time cult creators, the largest sessions -- held in auditoriums with capacities ranging from 2000-6500 -- are now showcase sales pitches from the major film studios, comics distributors, publishers and television networks.

The traditional notion of ComicCon as a gathering for pale-skinned geeks and science-fiction nerds seems to be crumbling, giving way to a new notion of ComicCon as a giant pitch session, where marketers and celebrities court the often-skeptical fan market in an attempt to win their approval and support.

Or, to place this in the larger context of Henry's work on convergence: culture producers have finally started to grasp the vital role of fans as a central engine in the new entertainment economy.

Getting Serious About Games...

Hi, guys. You were probably expecting the third installment of my comic book foreign policy series. Sorry. I've fallen behind this weekend and it's going to take me a few more days to pull that together. I decided it was better to do it right than to do it quick. Part of what has me distracted is that Convergence Culture is finally out. And trust me, a new book provides its own distractions. If you are one of the people who've bought the book already, thanks. I look forward to hearing your reactions. If you have questions you'd like to explore, send them to me at henry3@mit.edu and I wil try to cluster them and address them through the blog.

Today, I am sharing with you some thoughts about Serious Games that I wrote Morph, the Media Center Blog late last week. I figure few of you would have seen it there.

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to Clive Thompson's recent article from the New York Time's art section focused on the serious game movement.

Why Now?

Why are serious games happening now? When I spoke with Clive for the story, I identified a range of factors that were all contributing to the emergence of serious games:

1. The generation that grew up playing computer games in the 1980s are now entering adult responsibilities. They are the ones who are taking on roles as parents, teachers, workers for nonprofits and foundations, and so forth. They have a real appreciation of what has captivated them about this medium; they want to find a way to connect with it through their jobs; and they want to use its power to deliver their messages.

2. There has been a growing body of research suggesting that games may indeed represent a powerful instructional medium; there is also clear signs that the ability to interpret and manipulate simulations is going to be a central skill across a range of academic disciplines.

3. There has been a growth of games studies programs at colleges and universities that are seeking ways to give their students real-world experience conceptualizing, designing, making, and testing games. Historically, university based research explores the roads not taken, taking risks on projects that would not thrive within a commercial environment. So, they are turning their attention towards the development of games that serve pro-social purposes or that document aspects of the real world.

4. A small number of games publishers dominate the entertainment market. Small start up companies realize that they can't compete directly with the Electronic Arts of the world and they have to direct their energies elsewhere. At the moment, their best routes forward come from casual games, mobile games, or serious games.

5. As I suggested in my blog recently, there has also been a political debate about whether games constitute a meaningful form of expression and are therefore protected under the First Amendment. Many of us who work in Serious Games have been looking for ways to expand the rhetorical capacity of the medium in response to moral reformers and judges who have dismissed the concept that games might be a vehicle for exploring ideas.

The serious games movement lies at the intersection of these five factors and often takes shape through collaborations amongst the various groups identified above -- educators, policy makers, nonprofits, foundations, educational reformers, university based training programs, and political activists. Working separately and together, they have begun to develop games that demonstrate some of the far-reaching potential of this medium and working together they have begun to bring those games -- in some cases, simply playable prototypes -- to the attention of the larger public. The serious games movement reflects the idea that a medium can serve many functions and that restricting games to purely an entertainment medium seriously undersells its potential.

An Oxymoron?

The term, serious games, may strike some as an oxymoron. Others worry that in turning real world issues into games, one somehow trivializes the subject matter. Both are somewhat misleading. We accept that films, which are most often an entertainment form, may also serve raise awareness of serious social issues. Games are no different -- though we have to shed our somewhat narrow assumptions about what the medium can do. Part of the problem is that we associate games with fun and in a culture still shaped by its puritan past, fun is seen as the opposite of work or of education.

Instead, serious games advocates prefer to use the concept of engagement. After all, much of the time when we are playing a challenging game, we aren't exactly having fun. It can sometimes be a lot of hard or boring work to push ourselves to the next level. (The same, after all, would be true for other recreational activities, such as playing on a sports team). What makes people continue past the pain or boredom is the fact that they are engaged in a compelling and well defined task. I can be engaged by my work as a professional. I was engaged by my work as a student. Most of us wish our work was more engaging. Games simply transform the process of mastering knowledge or interpreting data into a more engaging activity in part by establishing clearly defined goals and roles.

Roles and Goals

As one of the founders of the MIT Education Arcade, a group that over the past five plus years has been focused on prototyping games for learning, we discovered early on that when we wanted to transform a textbook subject into a game, the first question we had to ask experts in that area was what the information allowed you do. This is a question that rarely gets asked in most traditional education. It's considered bad manners to ask an instructor about the use value of what they are teaching you within most academic disciplines. Yet, games take knowledge which is inert on the page and encourage us to act upon it, to do something with it.

As David Schaffer, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has suggested, it is by acting on that knowledge that we learn certain epistemologies -- certain ways of thinking that are specific to the applied versions of the disciplines we learn in school. We learn to think like a historian, a city planner, or a conflict negotiator. We learn to tackle problems of political redistricting or resource management. By taking on those roles, working with complex simulation and visualization tools, solving problems, confronting challenges, and testing one's ideas through action, one refines one's mental models of the world. This is part of what excites us about the idea of games as a pedagogical medium.

Games may teach us by inviting us to step outside the world and manipulate it like a god -- as is the case with the large number of simulation games, the genre most widely represented within the serious games movement. But games may also invite us inside the characters -- as the old expression goes, we get to walk a mile in their moccasins -- as happens with various role-playing games. One of our primary projects at the Education Arcade was a modestly multiplayer game world, Revolution, where participants assumed the roles of townspeople in Colonial Williamsburg in 1775. They went about their work and family life but they also struggled with some the events and dates that paved the way for rebellion against the crown. Testing this game with players, we asked them to write journals describing their experiences from their character's point of view. What we found was that the students produced a synthesis of information gained through previous history lessons, their own introspections about what it would be to occupy a particular role in society, and their observations of what happened during the game. In some cases, they made powerful discoveries about themselves and the world. One girl, for example, was playing a Loyalist character and went to a political rally where redcoats opened fire on the crowd; her character was killed and this, more than anything else, brought home the nature of political violence -- the sense that there are no bystanders at a riot or a massacre and that once the shooting starts, it may no longer matter what side you were on.

Evaluating Our Work

Clive Thompson introduced a note of skepticism from me and other serious games advocates in the story so it is worth taking a moment to clarify what I was saying. I am fully convinced of the educational value of games. I think many kids already have powerful learning experiences working with existing commercial games. I think we can harness that power to produce even more effective resources for teaching and learning if we bring together expertise on pedagogy with the artistic craft of good game design. These games need to be measured in part by the same criteria we would use to measure any documentary or art film -- do they make people think? do they make expressive use of the media? do they deal with the world with all of its complexity and nuance? Or are they simple minded, pedantic, and propagandistic? These are aesthetic judgments. But the reality is that the people who are pouring money into serious games want results. The educational system demands assessment data. Governments and foundations demand proof that they have made valuable investments and not throw away their money. And if we are not able to produce some concrete results that can be traced back to games-based learning, then some of that funding is going to dry up. At the same time, the small games companies need to show proof to school systems if they are going to adopt their products or to parents if they are going to bring them into their homes. And if they can't convince people to try their products, those companies will not be around tomorrow. My comments were not intended as skepticism about the concept of serious games per se. They were intended to describe the reality that we are all working in as we try to make the case that games can be made to serve serious purposes.

Some people have questioned whether games can adequately represent the complexity of human experience. That's a legitimate question. Let's keep in mind that games are representations. They necessarily distort somethings even as they make other things much clearer to the learner. The same is true of all other systems of representations, including those that we take for granted as part of the educational process -- such as maps, charts, diagrams, dioramas, and the like. The difference is that schools put some time into teaching children to read maps -- less than would be ideal but they at least give lip service to doing so. We should not be using games in schools if we are not prepared to teach children to understand how games represent the reality and how to evaluate the credibility of a game's simulation. Some of the most interesting work right now isn't going to develop serious games; it is going into teaching children how to design and develop their own games or into developing tool kits that will put robust simulation tools into the hands of everyday people. This is where the work on serious games starts to intersect our larger conversation about participatory culture.

As more and more people learn how to make games, games will emerge as yet another form of grassroots media. People will use them to explore a broad range of perspectives on a broad range of issues. And we will see political debates staged not simply within games but between different games that have different biases and positions

Comic Book Foreign Policy? Part Two

Responding to recent essays in The American Prospect and Comics Journal which link comic books to the Bush Administration's foreign policy, I have been running some segments from an essay I published in the recent book, Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking 9/11. about the ways the comics industry responded to 9/11. A central theme here is to suggest that the representation of the War on Terror in American mainstream comics has been more ambivalent and complicated than most people who don't read comics might have imagined. While there have been some images of superheroes bopping terrorists, there have been fewer of these images that you might imagine. Yesterday, I walked through the tribute books produced immediately after the attack on the World Trade Center and the ways that Spider-man, Superman, and Captain America were used as vehicles to ask some hard questions about the costs of war. Today, I want to pick up where I left off with some reflections on the shift in the conception of the heroic in comics during the immediate post-9/11 period.

Rethinking the Hero After 9/11

Building on public interest in emergency workers, Marvel launched three new titles - The Precinct about cops, The Brotherhood about firemen, and the Wagon about an ambulance driver - which collectively formed the Call of Duty series. Lest anyone miss the point, "911" was embedded in their logos. Of these new series, The Brotherhood was the most fully grounded in ethnographic detail -- the tools of the trade, the hazards of putting out blazes, and the comradery of the firehouse. The opening issue makes vivid use of reds, oranges, and yellows, bringing us into the perspective of a firefighter making his way through a burning building in search of survivors. The stories construct these characters with surprising nuance and realism, dealing with their frazzled finances, their estranged relationships, their professional disillusionment, and their depression after watching so many friends die at the WTC. The interweaving of the characters and plots across the three series proved an effective means of examining the collaboration between police, fire, and medical workers. Yet, Marvel never fully trusted itself to build reader interest in ordinary heroes, adding supernatural and science fiction elements to the mix. The characters confront the ghostly figure of a young girl who has been sent back in time by her grieving father to warn of a forthcoming terrorist attack on the Statue of Liberty that had claimed the lives of his wife and sons. They also must deal with a strange cult that distributes what one character calls "cellular napalm," turning junkies into human bombs that can be detonated on demand.

Searching for a different kind of hero, Paul Chadwick's "Sacrifice" documents what we know about the uprising on the Pennsylvania flight. Chadwick takes us behind the scenes showing us images that couldn't be seen on television, but could only be reconstructed after the fact. We watch the passengers compile information from their cell phone conversations, hatched a plan, and give their lives trying to insure that the plane never reached its target. Chadwick shows us knife blades slashing through the seat cushions the passengers use as shields and the struggle in the cockpit as they overpower the highjackers. Chadwick often uses his self-published comics, which deal with a self-doubting superhero, Concrete, as vehicles for exploring what communities can accomplish when they work towards a common cause. One of Chadwick's earlier Concrete stories had offered a painfully complex account of environmental terrorism, questioning the human costs of spiking trees but ultimately not rejecting such tactics. Here, he celebrates the passengers' willingness to sacrifice their own lives rather than allow innocents to suffer, a trait that distinguishes them from the terrorists they defeat.

What Chadwick takes several pages to do, Marvel's Igor Kordey accomplishes in a single image. Kordey was born in Croatia and fought in the Balkan wars, before moving to Canada with his wife and children, hoping to escape the destruction he had seen around him. Kordey was the only artist in Heroes who directly depicts the terrorists and he chose to do so in a morally complex fashion. As Quesada explained, "He knows what it's like to live in war, and he doesn't want to sweep anything under the carpet." The image is framed over the shoulders of the panic-striking terrorists who are clustered together as passengers come storming up the aisles. It is a haunting image because Kordey invites us to see the events from the terrorist's perspectives and encourages us to dwell for a moment on their vulnerability and humanity.

Why Comics Matter...

Utopian rhetoric can seem, on first blush, naïve, yet what it establishes is a set of ideals or standards against which the limits of the present moment can be mapped and a set of blueprints through which a future political culture might be constructed. In this process, the comics are perhaps little more than a relay system, communicating messages from one community to another, taking ideas out of the counterculture and transmitting them into the mainstream. We can see this process occurring in several stages - first, the movement of ideas from counterculture into comics-culture (itself fringe, but defined around patterns of consumption rather than political ideologies). Here, the fusion of alternative and mainstream publishers meant ideas that once circulated among the most politically committed now reach readers who would not otherwise have encountered them. As such, these comics do important cultural work, translating the abstract categories of political debate and cultural theory into vivid and emotionally compelling images.

As the market responds to these ideas, they become more deeply embedded within the genres that constitute the bulk of contemporary comics publishing. Much as the depression, the Second War II, and Vietnam left lasting imprints on the superhero genres, giving rise to new characters, plots, and themes which were mined by subsequent generations, September 11 shows signs of altering the way the genre operates. As I am writing this essay (Late 2002), the tribute books have just now moved into the remainder bins at my local comics shop and every month seems to bring new projects which in one way or another have been shaped by the political climate of Post-9/11 America. The comics industry still seems to be engaged in an extended process of self-examination, still questioning their longstanding genre traditions, pondering the nature of the heroic and of evil, reinventing their hero's missions for a new political landscape, and trying to figure out how to absorb the realism and topicality of alternative comics into mainstream entertainment. Some titles, like Captain America, are permanently altered. Cassaday and Reiber are still circling around issues of guilt and responsibility. A new miniseries, Truth, uses Captain America to re-examine the racism that shaped the experience of American GIs during World War II, suggesting eerie parallels between the "super soldier" serum tests that created Captain America and the experiments at Tuskegee Institute; and includes the astonishing image of the American army systematically slaughtering hundreds of African-Americans in order to protect their secrets. Other books have gone back to business as usual. In The Ultimates, Captain America, Giant Man, Wasp Woman, and Thor smash half of Manhattan, demolishing Grand Central Station, all because Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk when he gets jealous that his girlfriend was going out with Freddie Prince Jr. One would describe the book as totally untouched by 9/11 if the artist didn't draw so heavily on what we had learned about what happens when real world skyscrapers come crashing down. These shifts do not need to be uniformly felt across all comics to make a difference. Not all superhero comics -- not even all mainstream titles -- embrace the same ideologies, tell the same stories, and represent the world in the same terms. But, enough creative artists from enough different sectors of the industry have been impacted by September 11 that these influences will be felt across a range of different titles for some time to come.

The long-term impact of September 11 can also be seen in the emergence of new comic book series that celebrate the heroism of average citizens. For example, Warren Ellis's Global Frequency, which Wildstorm, a smaller independent press, launched in Fall 2002, depicts a multiracial, multinational organization of ordinary people who contribute their services on an ad hoc basis. Ellis rejects the mighty demigods and elite groups of the superhero tradition and instead depicts the twenty-first century equivalent of a volunteer fire department. Ellis has stated that the series grew out of his frustration with the hunger for paternalism expressed by superhero fans in the wake of September 11, his pride in the civilian resistance aboard the Pensylvania-bound aircraft, and his fascination with the emerging concept of the "smart mob" - a self-organized group who use the resources of information technology to coordinate their decentralized actions. As Ellis explains, "Global Frequency is about us saving ourselves." Each issue focuses on a different set of characters in a different location, examining what it means for Global Frequency members personally and professionally to contribute their labor to a cause larger than themselves. Once they are called into action, most of the key decisions get made on site as the volunteers act on localized knowledge. Most of the challenges come, appropriately enough, from the debris left behind by the collapse of the military-industrial complex and the end of the cold war--"The bad mad things in the dark that the public never found out about." In other words, the citizen solders use distributed knowledge to overcome the dangers of government secrecy.

The next step is what happens if and when these changes get absorbed into the mainstream of the entertainment industry. Comics function today as a testing ground for new themes and stories for the rest of mass media. Hollywood or network television are not likely to absorb the specific stories which emerged in the immediate aftermath of September 11, but in so far as those changes get felt in the underlying logic through which the comic book industry operates, in so far as those changes get institutionalized within the conventions of the superhero genre, then they will likely have an influence on the films and television series that emerge over the next few years. One could, for example, compare this reassessment of the heroic in comics to the revision of the superhero genre which took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, resulting in a darker, more angsty, more psychologically complex, more physically vulnerable conception of the hero. This rethinking of the superhero impacted not only future comic books but can be seen at work, albeit in a somewhat watered down form, in the big screen adaptations of Batman, Spiderman, and Daredevil. There, the influence is apt to be more implicit than explicit, a shift in tone or the "structure of feeling" as much or more than a shift in ideology.

Let's be clear, though, that superheroes don't have to conquer the world for the political expressions we've discussed here to make a difference. What they do in their own space, in their own communities, matters. Popular culture is the space of dreams, fantasies, and emotions. In that space, it matters enormously whether Captain America stands for fascism or democracy, whether Wonder Woman represents the strong arm of American cultural imperialism or whether she respects and understands third world critiques of her mission, whether Superman is more important than the average men and women who are accidental casualties of his power struggles, or whether everyday people have the power to solve their problems without turning to superheroes for help. It is important to remember, from time to time, that popular culture is not univocal; that it remains a space of contestation and debate; that it often expresses messages which run counter to dominant sentiment within the culture; and that it often opens up space for imagining alternatives to the prevailing political realities. It is also worth remembering that people working within the cultural industries exert an active agency in shaping the ideas which circulate within popular culture and that on occasion, they may act out of political ideals rather than economic agendas.

Coming Soon: How current comics are dealing with the War on Terror

Comic Book Foreign Policy? Part One

The online edition of The American Prospect published an article comparing the Bush administration's current policy in the Middle East to comic books -- specifically, to the Green Lantern Corps. Here's what they had to say:

The trouble is that a broad swathe of hawkish opinion, taking in most conservatives and a tragically large number of liberals, have bought into a comic book view of how international relations works.

I refer, of course, to the Green Lantern Corps, DC Comics' interstellar police force assembled by the Guardians of Oa. Here's how the Corps works: Each member is equipped with a power ring, the ultimate weapon in the universe. The ring makes green stuff -- energy blasts, force fields, protective bubbles, giant hammers, elephants, chairs, cute rabbits, whatever -- under the control of the bearer. When it's fully charged, the only limits to the ring's power (besides the proviso that the stuff must be green) are the user's will and imagination. Historically, the rings couldn't affect yellow objects, but in recent years it's been revealed that this was the "parallax fear anomaly" (don't ask) and that the problem could be overcome by overcoming fear -- which is to say, with more willpower.

This is an OK premise for a comic book. Sadly, it's a piss-poor premise for a foreign policy.

Without getting into the specifics of Bush's current foreign policy (or for that matter, the current run of Green Lantern), this statement seems grossly unfair -- to comic books. I understand why Bush's world view full of its talk about capturing "evil-Doers" who are hell-bent on destroying the "American way of life" reminds some people of comic book superheroes -- it is colorful, broadly drawn, larger than life, and sometimes a little punch-drunk. But the reality is that contemporary comic books have offered a much more nuanced depiction of our current political realities and have adopted a pretty consistently progressive framing of these events than The American Prospect and its readers might imagine.

The American Prospect is not the only publication that has recently taken on comic books as a site for current foreign policy debates. Comics Journal (a publication which has never missed an opportunity to express criticism of mainstream comics) has been running a two part series by Michael Dean about the ways comics responded to 9/11 and its aftermath. You can see a small sample of what they have to say here:

The first part of this report noted a developing trend toward comics with a "superpatriotic" theme, setting square-jawed American heroes and superheroes on the trail of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists -- most notably Frank Miller's much-publicized plans for a Batman-versus-bin Laden showdown. Miller told the press that there was once again a need for the archetypal satisfactions of the classic 1940s wartime propaganda comic. The cover of Tightlip Entertainment's May-shipping comic, Freedom Three #1, is a recreation of the Captain America #1 cover showing the red-white-and-blue hero punching Hitler with Captain America replaced by one of the Freedom Three and bin Laden substituting for Hitler as the punchee. Fantasy tableaux of superheroic vengeance directed against demonic terrorist icons clearly offer a degree of gratification to comics readers today.

Dean does some interesting reporting here, arguing that ideas from conservative think tanks are finding their ways into some contemporary comics though his focus is on a small handful of examples that may not be representative of current industry practice as a whole. It is true, for example, that Marvel worked with former embedded journalist Karl Zinsmeister to produce Combat Zone: True Tales of GIs in Iraq, but that same publisher also launched a new 411 series which first hit the shelf in April 2003 even as American troops were marching into Baghdad. Taking its name from an old telecommunications code for information, the series expresses a belief that it is important to inform the public about alternatives to war and violence. As Marvel President Bill Jemas explained, "411 is about peacemakers: people who make sacrifices in the name of humanity. These are people willing to die to keep all of us - on all sides - alive... But the theme of sacrifice for the sake of peace, for the sake of all of humanity, is hard for many Americans to accept right now, with the hearts and minds of the body politics rising in a patriotic furor... These stories are neither anti-American nor anti-Iraqi, not anti-French, nor anti-Israeli. 411 is pro-human." Opening with an essay on "Understanding the Culture of Nonviolence" written by Mahanda Gandhi's grandson, the series included contributions by Tony Kushner (Angels in America), longtime anti-nuke activist Helen Caldicott and political cartoonist David Rees. Marvel's overt engagement with the antiwar movement was certainly rare among American corporations. How do we decide which book is more representative of Marvel's response to the War on Terror?

So, I think Dean may oversimplify a much more complex history of the ways that the comics industry has responded to American foreign policy since 9/11. As it happens, I recently published an essay on this topic, "Captain America Sheds His Mighty Tears," which can be found in the book, Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking 9/11. Here, I am going to lay out some of my key arguments from that essay. I will be back soon with an update suggesting how some more recent comics -- mainstream and midstream -- have tackled the long-term consequences of the war on terrorism upon American society.

Comics and War: A Brief History

The first thing that should strike anyone who has been reading mainstream comics over the past few years is how few of the kind of images Dean is describing we have actually seen. Witness the fact that he has to go to a bargain row publisher --Tightlip Entertainment -- to find an example extreme enough to illustrate his point.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that these images of superheros tackling the enemy were most common during World War II. Today, it is easy to read such images as simply hawkish and blood thirsty but read Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay book (one of my all time favorite novels), and you get a better sense of the cultural context in which those first wave of images were produced. Chabon suggests that the superheroes were, in a term which Joseph McCarthy would use against progressive, "prematurely antifascist." That is to say, they were battling Nazis before an isolationist country was ready to join the fight. And their early anti-Nazi stance reflected the significant number of Jewish writers, artists, and editors working in the comics book industry during that period.

Comics have shown a great deal more ambivalence towards other armed conflicts. One need only cite for example the dark and gloomy images of the Korean War found in Harvey Kurtzman's Two Fisted Tails or the thorough critique of American culture in the midst of the Vietnam War found in Neal Adam and Denny O'Neil's Green Lantern/Green Arrow series. It may be true that the most aggressive anti-war sentiments emerged through the underground comics of the 1960s which had split from the mainstream precisely so that they could be more outspoken in their critique of American society but we have seen in recent years a growing reintegration between mainstream and indie impulses in American comics, an integration that came to a head in the wake of 9/11. What follows are some excerpts from my published essay on this topic.

The Tribute Books

Post September 11, there were some remarkable collaborations between mainstream and alternative publishers which were only possible, because the artists, writers, and publishers knew each other, have worked together in the past, and had discovered compelling reasons to pool their efforts. Artists who have spent their lifetime producing superhero stories found themselves, for the first time in some cases, exploring autobiographical or real world themes, much as alternative comics creators were introducing new themes into the superhero genre.

We really cannot understand how American media responded to September 11 from an institutional perspective alone. This was deeply personal.

Manhattan has historically been the base of operations for the mainstream publishers. The corporate headquarters of DC and Marvel are within a few miles of ground zero. Some of their employees lost friends and family. Some found themselves, for whatever reason, in the general vicinity of the WTC as the towers collapsed. Marvel felt especially implicated since its stories had always been set in New York City, not some imaginary Metropolis. Captain America, Spiderman, Daredevil, The Fantastic Four live in brownstones or sky-rise apartments; they take the subway; they watch games at Yankee Stadium; they swing past the World Trade Center (or at least, they used to do so); they help out Mayor Giuliani.

These companies saw publishing comic books to raise money for the relief effort as "our way of lifting bricks and mortar" - using their skills and labor to make a difference. Marvel published a series of September 11 themed books, including Heroes, which billed itself "The World's Greatest Superhero Creators Honor the World's Greatest Heroes," and Moment of Silence, which featured more or less wordless stories depicting the real life experiences of people who gave their lives or miraculously survived the events of September 11. DC, joined forces with Dark Horse, Image, Chaos!, Oni, Top Shelf, and several other smaller presses to produce two volumes, 9-11: The World's Finest Comic Book Writers & Artists Tell Stories to Remember and the more modestly titled 9-11: Artists Respond.

Many of the alternative or independent comic artists also lived in or around Manhattan, participating in the New York underground arts scene. The Small Press Expo, one of the major showcases for alternative comics and a central source of their income, was being held in Bethesda and thus got caught up in the panic that hit Washington, DC following the Pentagon attack. Jeff Mason, publisher of Alternative Comics, organized a benefit project, 9-11: Emergency Relief, which brought together some of the top independent and underground comics artists. In all of these projects, the artists donated their time and labor; the printers donated ink and paper; the distributors waived their usual fees; and the publisher contributed their proceeds to groups like the Red Cross. Many comic shops and patrons saw purchasing these books as their way to show their support. Several New York galleries displayed and sold artwork from these projects. These projects drew tremendous interest from readers. On the chart of 2002 best-selling graphic novels, the 9-11 tribute books held first and second place, Emergency Relief held 20th position, and Marvel's Moment of Silence ranked 15th in the list of top-selling single issues for the year.

Comparing the goals editors set for these various projects suggests the very different ideological climates shaping mainstream and alternative comics. Here's Alternative Comics publisher Jeff Mason: "I am really shocked and dismayed by some of the rhetoric and behavior I've seen from some in the guise of patriotism and I think that a book that promotes an alternative to xenophobia and antagonism would be a good thing." And here's DC Publisher Paul Levitz: "We aspire to use comics to reach people; to tell tales of heroism and the ability of the human spirit to triumph over adversity; to extol the unique virtues of the American dream, and its inclusive way of life; to recall that the price of liberty is high." Levitz reaffirms what he sees as the American spirit, Mason critiques prevailing values and assumptions.

To some degree, those different political agendas are reflected in the books themselves, but less than one might imagine, since mainstream and alternative creators contributed to both projects and since most of the contents could be loosely described as progressive. A few of the submitted pieces are out and out reactionary: one of the Heroes posters depicts the Hulk, his green muscles bulging, waving an American flag as fighter jets fly overhead, bound for Afghanistan, with the slogan, "Strongest One There Is." Adopting a similar theme, Beau Smith imagines the thoughts of a Reservist, helping emergency workers today, off to fight tomorrow: "This isn't my grandfather's war. This is a war of rats. There's only one way to hunt rats that bite and then scurry off into dark holes. You send rat terriers into those holes after them, and they don't come out until all of the rats are dead. We are those rat terriers." Yet, these militaristic images might exist, side by side, with something like Pat Moriarity's caricature of Uncle Sam, praying on bent knee, "Dear God, Allah, supreme spaceman, great pumpkin, whoever you are - please stop the cycle of hatred!" One would be hard pressed to see such ideological diversity anywhere else in an increasingly polarized and partisan American media.

A Job For Superman?

Time's Andrew D. Arnold summarized concerns that dogged the various projects: "For some this will come across as a gross commodification and trivialization of an awesome, unspeakable tragedy. These characters are arguably more corporate icons than meaningful characters - like seeing Ronald McDonald and the Keebler Elves giving succor to victim's families." Often, Superman or Spiderman function as brand icons circulating with little or no narrative context, deployed in cross-promotions with fast food restaurants, amusement parks, soft drinks, and breakfast cereals. For those only peripherally aware of comics, this may be all they are. Yet, for regular readers, these characters have greater depth and resonance than almost any other figures in American popular culture. The most successful comic book franchises have been in more or less continuous publication since the 1930s and 1940s; their protagonists have become both vivid personalities with complex histories and powerful symbols with heavily encrusted meanings.

For some, superhero comics hark back to simpler times and get consumed as comfort food. Yet, several decades of revisionist comics have questioned and rethought the superhero myth and its underlying assumptions. Shortly after 9/11, Silver Age artist Jim Steranko offered a blistering rebuke of revisionist superhero creators, calling them "cultural terrorists" who had chipped away at national monuments until nothing of substance was left. The result was a flame war that almost ripped the comics community apart. Nobody ever made that same kind of emotional investment in the Keebler Elves.

As comic book artists and writers re-examined these familiar characters in the wake of September 11, they became powerful vehicles for re-examining America's place in the world. When, for example, Frank Miller depicts Captain America's shattered shield, which we once naively believed to be indestructible, he provides a powerful image of the ways the attacks had demolished America's sense of invincibility. When J. Michael Straczynski and John Romita Jr. depict Spiderman clutching a young boy who has just seen his father's body carried away from the WTC wreckage, they evoke Spiderman's own origins (where his unresolved guilt over the murder of his Uncle Ben motivates his endless war against crime). But he does more than that. It seems to be one of the great unwritten rules of comics that superheroes are orphans and that the moment of truth that makes or breaks them is the moment when their innocence is first violated. Most comic characters - good guys and villains - go through a crucible of pain and suffering; what matters is what they make of themselves in the face of adversity. Read through these genre conventions, the suffering child embodies the choices the nation must make as it works through its grief process and defines its mission for the future. When Straczynski and Romita depict Doc Octopus, Doctor Doom, or the Kingpin, lending their resources to the relief effort, they evoke real world political realignments and moral reawakening: "Even those we thought our enemies are here because some things surpass rivalries and borders." When Straczynski and Romita depict a perplexed Spiderman looking upon the pain-stricken Captain America, they connect the events of September 11 with a much larger history of struggles against fascism and terror. The two characters embody the perspectives of two different generations - Captain America, the product of the Second World War, Spiderman, a product of the early 1960s (though portrayed here as a contemporary teen and thus made to embody the current generation of youth).

Comic book artists rejected fisticuffs or vigilante justice in favor of depicting the superheroes as nurturers and healers. They are more likely to be standing tall against domestic racial violence than punching out terrorists. In a Static Shock story, Dwayne McDuffie depicts the African-American superhero and his girl friend sitting in a coffee shop, discussing when and where military response to the attacks might be justifiable. If he knew who was responsible, Static Shock says he might use his superpowers to "take the bastards out myself," but should one attack a nation for the actions of a few individuals. Using criminal mastermind Lex Luthor as an example, he asks, "What if to get Luthor I had to kill some of his family? Or some of the people who live nearby? Or not so near? There's a line there. I'm not sure where to draw it." Virgil doesn't trust himself to do the right thing and he trusts the government even less. The philosophical debate gets disrupted by flag-waving, baseball-bat yielding youth who smash through the shop's window and threaten its Arab-American owner: "Pearl Harbor yesterdays, Kristallnacht today." In a rhetorical move that mirrors the Popular Front's attempts to link Fascism abroad with struggles against segregation in the States, Static Shock learns that his fight isn't overseas but in his own community.

Geoff John's "A Burning Hate" uses superhero comics to defuse the tensions between native-born and immigrant school kids, reminding readers that DC's Justice League of America is full of "foreigners" - Superman from Metropolis, the Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman from Paradise Island, and Aquaman from Atlantis. The superhero mythos was defined, in large part, by the sons of immigrants working through conflicting investments in assimilation and ethnic pride. DC Superheroes almost always come from elsewhere but they have chosen to be defenders of the American dream; sometimes they blend in, trying to pass as mild-mannered reporters, sometimes they stand out, wearing their colors on their chest.

Comic book artists, from Jack Kirby to Todd McFarland, love to draw splash-pages or whole books full of nothing but bone-crushing, muscle-stretching, building-shattering, fist-flying, slobber-knocking action. Troubled by that legacy, Superman: Day of Doom returns to one of the most controversial chapters in the genre's history - the much hyped death and resurrection of Superman following a world-shattering battle with Doomsday. In November 1992, DC had announced the death of Superman, only to bring him back from the dead some months later. Following September 11, DC asked its original author, Dan Jurgens, to revisit this landmark event in the Superman franchise. In the earlier story, the civilian populations had been simply extras in an epic battle between two superpowers. The Post-9/11 Day of Doom made their loss, fear, and suffering its focal point. Paralleling Jurgens's own reassessment of the earlier series, Daily Planet reporter Ty Duffy is assigned the task to write a report re-examining those traumatic events some years later. Publisher Perry White evokes the wide-spread assertion that September 11 took away the perception of America's indestructibility as he summarizes what Superman's death meant to Metropolis: "Superman had done so much. Conquered so many dangers... that we took him for granted. So long as he was around, I think we considered ourselves invincible. When he died, we all lost something precious...If a superman could die, how could any of us feel safe?" As the story continues, Duffy shifts his investigation away from the Man of Steel and onto the civilians who got caught in the crossfire. Clark Kent scans through old microfilms with tears in his eyes, realizing for the first time how many people died when Superman wasn't there. Yet, Kent is sobered up by a new threat that is terrorizing Metropolis - the "Remnant." A kind of crazed victims rights advocate or perhaps an embodiment of Kent's survivor guilt, The Remnant challenges Superman to justify his own existence when so many others have died: "I am the memory of what you did. A ghost of tragedies past. A remnant of the chaos you heaped upon the world... The drifting wind that hears the moans of the forgotten. I do this for them." Superman, like his readers, must confront the consequences of mass destruction and wrestle with the complex range of emotion it provokes.

What Would Captain America Do?

Captain America was probably the superhero title most directly impacted by 9/11. John Cassaday, the book's primary artist, was on the pier just blocks from his upper west side apartment when the towers fell: "The streets were gray, all covered in dust. So were the people. Gray like ghosts." These impressions inspired the comic book's style and imagery. The first pages of his post-9/11 story are sparse in text and drained of color. The opening image shows the shadow of an airplane flying across the clouds, then rows of passengers inside, and finally an extreme close-up of a box cutter blade: "It doesn't matter where you thought you were going today. You're part of the bomb now." The Cap first appears several pages later, a blurry figure making his way across a colorless wasteland. Cassaday under-saturates his costume as if we were looking at it through a cloud of dust. Only in the book's final moments, when Cap resolves to take his fight to the enemy, do we see anything like his familiar red, white, and blue. Cassaday does the entire comic in shades of gray and tan.

His collaborator, John Ney Rieber, almost pulled out of the project after September 11, wanting no part of jingoistic militarism. He agreed to continue only if he could use the book to ask some hard questions about America's culpability in bloodshed around the world: "I don't know how you could write Captain America if you weren't interested in writing about America. I feel very strongly that Cap should be about the rough questions.... If it weren't controversial, if it were only fulfilling people's expectations or making them comfortable - I'd feel as though I'd let Cap Down. I'd be ashamed." The resulting series sets up a strong contrast between its retro-style covers strongly influenced by World War II recruitment posters and the stories inside which interrogate such patriotic rhetoric. When his commander, Nick Fury, orders him to head for Kandahar he refuses, saying that he has responsibilities at home helping the relief effort and battling hate crimes. Captain America was, in effect, created by the U.S. military during the Second World War. Military research developed a super serum that turned a somewhat weakly recruit into a mighty fighting machine. As Cap explains, he's "military technology." He has spent his career following orders and fighting wars. Now, he refuses to go into the trenches until he has answers to the questions that haunt him. Fury urges him not to pursue his investigation, but Cap refuses: "I'm here to protect the people and the dream, not your secrets."

By the time the series gives the Cap someone he can fight, terrorists have taken command of a small town some 200 miles into the American heartland, strewing landmines in the streets and holding hostages in a church. Centerville is far from an innocent community; the factories where the men work make landmines and cluster bombs or as one man insists in the face of his wife's moral scrutiny, "component parts." Every attempt to draw a clear distinction between America's global mission and terrorism proves futile. When the Cap tells the terrorist leader that America doesn't make war on children, Al-Tarq points to the men under his command, "Tell our children, then, American, who sowed death in their fields and left it for the innocent to harvest? Who took their hands? Their feet?"

After recapturing Centerville, the Cap discovers that the terrorists are wearing a high tech identification system being implemented by S.H.I.E.L.D., the American special ops force. Echoing the real world relations between Bin Laden and the U.S. intelligence community, the American government may be more involved with these terrorists than it wants to admit. Clues force him to retrace his own steps, returning to Dresden where he had fought some of his first battles. As he wanders among what remains of the old section of the city, Cap ponders the firebombing that occurred here half a century earlier: "You didn't understand what we'd done here until September 11...These people weren't soldiers. They huddled in the dark. Trapped. While the fire raged above them." Rieber never allows him to escape his personal responsibility and political culpability for the horrific acts his government had executed. He has been their tool and their apologist; now, he must face the truth. The terrorist leader offers to turn himself over if he can answer a simple question: "Guerrillas gunned my father down while he was at work in the fields. With American bullets. American weapons. Where am I from? ...My mother was interrogated and shot. Our home was burned....You know your history, Captain America. Tell your monster where he's from." And it is clear from the Cap's pained expression that he recognizes that this story could be told over and over in countless parts of the world. He protests that these were the actions of a government that acted outside public knowledge and without democratic authorization. But, how could he be fighting to make the world safe for Democracy and defend a government that was hiding the truth from its own people? In the end, Captain America murders his antagonist in cold blood, recognizing as he does so that there is no way to wash his hands clean of his past actions.

MORE TO COME

Can One Be A Fan of High Art?

A Tale of Two Checkovs Some years ago, I co-authored a book called Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek with a British cultural studies researcher John Tulloch. We had interviewed different groups of consumers about their responses to Star Trek: The Next Generation and Doctor Who. In my own work on Star Trek fans, I focused on three core groups: the members of the mostly female fanzine writing community, a mostly male and highly technologically focused group of MIT students, and the members of the Gaylaxians, a group of Gay-Les-Bi-Trans fans who were interested in the show's social politics. Tulloch's work went back across several decades of interviews conducted on multiple continents and found a range of different thoughts and reflections on the series.

Then, Tulloch went on to another project that involved interviewing theatre goers at productions of Chekhov plays (the Russian playwright, not the classic Trek character). In our work on science fiction audiences, we found enormous variability in the ways that fans talked about their favorite series. For example, asked about the characters one by one, most of the MIT students defined them as autonomous problem-solvers, whereas most of the female fans read them as part of a social network with the other characters.

When Tulloch applied these same methods to talk to theatre patrons, however, he found much less variation in the ways they talked about the work they had just seen. Most of them fell back on a handful of things they had learned about the playwright in school or the kinds of insights that are most often to be found in the Cliff Notes style study guides to classic literature.

It is hard to say precisely why the range of interpretations of Chekhov were so restrictive -- was it because people are intimidated to talk about high culture and so they repeat things they know to be true even if they also see them as boring and unoriginal? Did they see the interview as a chance to impress the researcher with how well they had mastered their lessons? Were they less likely to appropriate from or speculate about the plots and characters and so had a less intimate relationship with them? Was this a product of contemplative distance and the aura of high art?

If high art is supposed to be so enriching and intellectually engaging, why do we respond to it in such predictable and predetermined ways? And if popular culture is supposed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, why does it generate such a broad array of different responses?

The Pleasures of Imperfection

IItalian critic Umberto Eco suggests that cult movies are rarely perfectly constructed nor are they treated with respect: "In order to transform a work into a cult object one must be able to break, dislocate, unhinge it so that one can remember only parts of it, irrespective of their original relationship to the whole." Most cult films fall apart in our hands and we have to work hard to make them cohere. It tis their incoherence that makes such works rich resources for reworking.

I have similarly suggested that fan culture is born of a mixture of fascination and frustration. The work has to fascinate us to inspire fan-like responses but if the work fully satisfied all of our desires, we would have no need to rework it in our imaginations. If you look at the most productive sites within any given fan culture, they often grow up around the very things that frustrate fans the most about the original source material. The author introduces a character and never realizes her full potential. We get a tantalizing bit of back-story and then it gets abandoned, never fully developed or integrated into the narrative. The character acts in a way that seems to contradict everything we previously believed about them. And so forth.

Yet, if great works of art are great because they represent the accomplishment of perfection or near perfection within a particular tradition, then perhaps they don't have the kinds of loose edges that we want to keep playing with. I suspect this is not really the case -- there are, for example, a fair number of fan stories about the characters and situations of Jane Austin for example, and critics, directors, and actors have struggled to make sense of some of Shakespeare's characters for centuries. Rather, I think we are taught to think about high culture as untouchable. We appreciate it. We may even love it. But we rarely approach it as a fan.

In his book, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America , Lawrence Levine describes the process by which Shakespeare's plays moved from being a living part of the culture of 19th century America -- where they were freely appropriated and performed by a wide array of different groups -- and became a sacred and untouchable aspect of our culture in the 20th century. Shakespeare was once thought to be emotionally accessible to all; increasingly, Shakespeare has become something we have to be taught how to appreciate, rather than something we instinctively love.

The Wondering Minstrels

These questions have come back to me in recent week as I have been reviewing a thesis currently being completed by one of the Comparative Media Studies graduate students Amulya Gopalakrishnan. Gopalakrishnan has been applying ideas from fan studies and work on online communities to explore the activities of the Wondering Minstrels:

The Wondering Minstrels is a poem-a-day mailing list of over four thousand people, the majority of whom have a South-Asian connection, but includes members from all over the English-speaking world. The group was formed in 1999 by a couple of Indian engineering students who felt the need for a 'more everyday experience of poetry' and to demystify the appreciation of it, and gradually drew in their friends and acquaintances, until it grew to its current dimensions. The poems are archived and open to commentary and discussion at any time. While the people who run it handle much of the regular poem submissions, those sent in by other members ('guest poems') reflect the heterogeneity and energy of the group. The accompanying comments pay attention to form and

technique, as well as biography and shaping context, but the guiding principle is individual connection with the poem, and some personal comment on why a contributor considers it significant or memorable....

For those who did not get a headstart at home, a community like Minstrels broaches poetry on its terms: as an everyday medium that speaks of ordinary lives and moments in an extraordinary way, one that simply draws attention to the world by drawing attention to language. Sending in a poem, or reacting to someone else's comments about a poem may be a way of tentatively dipping your toe in the vast ocean of notions built around literary works. Just like other fan communities, through conversation and correspondence, they can inaugurate a space that may prove more humane and democratic than the everyday world. The feeling-oriented, middlebrow aesthetic of The Wondering Minstrels is a conversation and counterpractice that challenges conventional classroom

approaches to canonical poetry.

In other words, Wondering Minstrels is a fan community which has grown up around the exchange of poems -- mostly works that are part of the Canon of western literature, though also including a broader range of materials -- poems from other parts of the world (including a fair number from the South Asian Diaspora), song lyrics, rap songs, and so forth. Part of what fascinates Gopalakrishnan about the group is precisely the ways that it cuts across traditional high and low splits -- treating Eminem alongside Elizabeth Browning.

Getting Emotional About It

If Tulloch's Chekhov patrons were surprisingly inarticulate about their actual emotional responses to the plays, these fans of poetry emote, gush, share their memories of childhood, suggest personal associations,

speculate about the motives, and generally talk a lot about the poems that are being transmitted within the community. Participants respect these poems but they do not hold them at a critical distance. These poems are part of their lives; they are tied to their earliest memories of schooling and home life; they are treasures they take with them as they move from one part of the world to another; they are things they want to share with others as part of the ongoing life of this thriving virtual community.

Gopalakrishnan was motivated to explore this group for two reasons, one intellectual, the other personal: first, she was concerned by arguments that pit digital media against literary culture (such as those advanced by Sven

Birkerts), seeing ways that digital culture can enliven and expand our experience of literature, and second, she had herself been a long-time participant within this community (like many of my other friends who write about popular culture texts, she is a fan writing about her own fandom.)

Here's how she describes her own early experience within the group:

when I joined Minstrels, the first poem I sent in was a poem I'd read in the Times Literary Supplement, by a Welsh poet named Sheenagh Pugh. I'd never heard of Pugh before, and indeed, she was relatively unknown at the time. When I sent in the poem along with my English-major attempt at analysis, I received an email from Pugh herself commenting on my comments, adding to them, mildly disagreeing, but eager to carry on the conversation. She later became a Minstrels member herself, and wryly responding to the disproportionate success of her own poem, 'Sometimes', admitted that she 'mistyped "sorrow" for "snow" and then decided I liked that better. I believe in letting the keyboard join in the creative process now and then. Anyway, here's the text, and if you like it, I'm pleased for you, but I'd be more pleased if you liked something else better!'

The Web makes interactions like that possible, and the juxtaposition of Pugh's comments and mine both framing her poem, neither of which claims ultimate authority, invites other readers to participate in the mystique of the poem's

artistry. Rather than destroying the aura of literature, this surrounding conversation only adds to it.

The Wondering Minstrels also suggests something important about the globalization of culture. On the one hand, the group draws heavily upon British poems which were transmitted around the world as part of the colonialist

educational project. In fact, since western schools have often moved away from these works, these poems may be more familiar to people in South Asian or other former Commonwealth nations than they are to people in the United Kingdom or the United States. It is the shared (if imposed) literary heritage that allows people around the world to participate in this forum. The same kind of infrastructure may, ironically enough, be provided by American popular culture, which circulates to countries worldwide, often driving out local media production, but providing a shared framework of meanings and memories that allows communications within a global network of fans. The same is certainly true as well of the "soft goods" -- anime, manga, and games -- produced and circulated by Japan and across parts of the work, the works of the Bollywood film industry may play this role. For a global community to operate, members have to have something in common to talk about. It almost doesn't matter whether the core material is high culture, low culture, or middlebrow culture as long as it allows everyone to participate from a more or less equal footing and as long as it provides an opportunity for each member to contribute a unique perspective to the conversation.

There is notthing about high culture texts that discourages this kind of intimacy and participation. Many of them were part of popular culture at the time they were created. Many of them can be pulled back into popular culture when read in the right contexts. Rather, their untouchable quality has to do with the contexts within which we are introduced to these texts and the stained glass attitudes that too often surround them. Gopalakrishnan has taught me that you can indeed be a fan of high culture.

Behind the Scenes: Spoiling Survivor: Cook Islands

Welcome Survivor fans. Many of you might be interested in seeing some of my other posts about reality telvision, including this one about the racial politics around Cook Islands and this one about the behind the scenes politicing that shaped Big Brother: All-Stars. Now back to the original post:

Most of you probably don't have a clue where the next Survivor series is going to be set (answer: Cook Islands). Yet, there is a hardcore group of fans which has already pieced together detailed information about the location, including photographs of the Tribal Council site and the location of the first challenge. From these pictures, the Survivor fan community will be able to piece together a great deal about the forthcoming series. Even as we speak, other members of that community will be trying to ferret out the names and identities of the contestants (well before they are announced by the network) and others still will be trying to extract information from people on the ground in the Cook Islands who might have seen something or overheard something during the production. They call themselves spoilers.

Mark Burnett acknowledges this contest between producer and fans is part of what creates Survivor's mystique: "With so much of our show shrouded in secrecy until it's broadcast, it makes complete sense that many individuals consider it a challenge to try to gain information before it's officially revealed - sort of like a code they are determined to crack. While it's my job to keep our fans on their toes and stay one step ahead, it is fascinating to hear some of the lengths these individuals are willing to go." From the beginning, the producers have run misinformation campaigns to throw fans off their tracks. There is a widespread rumor within the fan community that the producers now offer bonuses to cast and craw for every boot or event in the series which doesn't get "spoiled" by the fans. If true, this policy reflects the reality of a world where fans pool money and send reporters to snoop around the location, pumping hotel clerks and maids for anything they can learn.

I devote a chapter to "Spoiling Survivor" in my book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. The chapter takes you deep inside this fan community, showing some of their techniques for getting information, and discussing some of the debates that erupted when a guy who went by the user name "ChillOne" claimed to have known the outcomes of a Survivor season before it even reached the air. The ChillOne story, which structures this chapter, focuses attention on the issue of whether spoiling is a goal (that is, find out what you can how ever you can) or a process (put your heads together with lots of other people and solve a puzzle). Some have argued that ChillOne broke the game -- making it a contest to see which individual can access information rather than an issue of how a collective intelligence community can solve complex problems through collaboration and information sharing.

Wezzie and Dan Bollinger run a site called Survivor Maps, which is primary focused on the locations where the series takes place. But their maps become important resources for all kinds of other spoiling activities. Here's a little of what I say about them in the chapter:

"Wezzie" is one of the most respected members of the Survivor spoiling community. She and her partner, Dan Bollinger, have specialized in location spoiling. Offline, Wezzie is a substitute teacher, an arboretum docent, a travel agent, and a free lance writer. Dan is an industrial designer who runs a factory which makes refrigerator magnets. They live half way across the country from each other but they work as a team to try to identify and document the Survivor location --- what Mark Burnett calls "the seventeenth character" -- and to learn as much as they can about the area. As a team, Wezzie and Dan have been able to pinpoint the series location with astonishing accuracy. The process may start with a throwaway comment from Mark Burnett or a tip from "somebody who knows somebody, who knows somebody, who works for CBS or a tourist company." Wezzie and Dan have built up contacts with travel agencies, government officials, film bureaus, tourism directors and resort operators. As Dan notes, "Word gets around the tourism industry very quickly about a large project that will be bringing in millions of American dollars."

From there, they start narrowing things down by looking at the demands of the production. Wezzie describes the process, "We look at latitude, climate, political stability, population density, road system, ports, accommodations, attractions, culture, predominant religion, and proximity to past Survivor locations." Dan notes, "In Africa I overlayed demographic maps of population, agricultural areas, national reserves, tourism destinations and even city lights seen from satellites at night. Sometimes knowing where Survivor can't be is important. That's how I found Shaba Reserve." Wezzie is the people person: she works their network to pull together as much data as she can.

"Then Dan works his magic!" Dan has developed contact with the Denver-based Space Imaging Company, owner of IKONOS, a high resolution commercial remote sensing satellite. Eager to show off what their satellite can do, IKONOS took snapshots of the location for Survivor: Africa Dan had identified from 423 miles in space, and upon closer scrutiny, they could decipher specific buildings in the production compound including the temporary production buildings, the tribal council site, and a row of Massai style huts where the contestants would live, eat, and sleep. They take the snapshots from space because the security-conscious Burnett negotiates a "no fly zone" policy over the location.

Dan uses the comsat images and sophisticated topographical maps to refine his understanding of the core locations. Meanwhile, Wezzie researches the ecosystem and culture: "[On Survivor: Marquesas] I spent approximately 3 hours every day, 7 days a week on the computer or studying maps and travel guides.... I studied a topographical map of the island to familiarize myself with the roads, horse paths, rivers, waterfalls, bays, beaches, reefs, settlements, mountains and hills....I researched the marine life, diving spots, water temperature, tradewinds, windward and leeward sides of the island, the effect that goats have had on the island, the local artisans and businesses, local sports clubs, Marquesan dance, tattoo, rock art, tiki, tapa, cannibalism, ancient sports and games, eatable plants, flora and fauna, local government, studied the Polynesian voyages, learned about copra, monoi oil, and nono's, and followed the route of the tramp steamer, Aranui. I kept a dictionary of terms, e.g., "meae", "tohua", "heva", "paepae", "tahuna", "mana", and "tapu". All that I learned I shared on Survivor Maps and other internet websites." Such information helps viewers to develop a deeper appreciation of what the contestants are going through and what kinds of resources they might draw upon.

And, after all of that, they still sometimes get it wrong. For example, they focused a lot of energy on a location in Mexico, only to learn that the new series was going to be filmed in the Pearl Islands near Panama. They weren't totally wrong, though--they had identified the location for a production company filming another reality television series.

This weekend, I caught back up with Wezzie and Dan Bollanger, to learn about what is going on as fans gear up for yet another installment of CBS's still highly successful reality television series.

What are we looking at when we see these new images you have posted on your site? What can you tell us about where these images came from?

Dan: Most of the images we post are taken by locals and tourists visiting the location. If we are lucky, we get a few people who like a challenge of taking photos of the excitement in their neighborhood.

What kind of response have you gotten from the fan community?

Dan: For the most part, we get rave reviews. Spoiling the location is something that generally ocurrs between airings, so there isn't much going on in the online forums. And, people get excited learning about the new location and theme. At the same time, there is some competition between the various websites since each wants to be the first to uncover some new information and claim the credit. Despite what others may say, the spoiler websites guard their sources well.

What kinds of information have people been able to gather from these photographs?

Dan: You name it, they find it. I'm often amazed at what people read into a blurry photograph. This time around we've learned what Tribal Council and Exile Island will look like, which reveals the theme. And, from the photo of an early challenge, it appears that it begins with four tribes, since there are four 'masts' each in a different color.

What will be the next steps for you in tracking down additional information about the Survivor location?

Dan: Right now, we have called it quits for S13. We have done what we set out to do. Find the location, get the maps, find the camp locations, and get the first photos of Tribal Council. We'll be gearing up for S14 in a few months. The summer is Survivor duldrums for Survivor Maps.

The book describes the way spoiling operated during Survivor:Amazon. What changes have taking place in the spoiling world since that season?

Dan: I don't see changes happening in a Darwinian sense. It is not like spoiling is evolving and refining. Rather, at least for Survivor Maps, we work with what resources and leads present themselves and do the best we can. For instance, contacting tourism officials for information may work one time and not another. Topo maps may be available online for free, as was the case for Cook Islands where I obtained the map in a matter of minutes,

while for Marquesas I had to wait for four months and could only pay with Francs.

Wezzie: Something interesting happened during and after Survivor Palau. A newcomer named mersaydeez posted every detail of the show (who won rewards, where they went , what they ate, who got booted, etc) week after week. Many fans enjoyed reading her posts, particularly those who were playing the fantasy games. Other fans were not as pleased.

While mersaydeez was treated respectfully, in the months following, a number of fans complained that they didn't like having spoilers handed to them on a platter. They'd enjoyed being part of the spoiling (guessing) process, and mersaydeez's posts had made the process obsolete. Spoiling Survivor Palau was not collective intelligence gathering. Many left the community. Others formed private boards to discuss the show with a few friends vs on the public board, Survivor Sucks.

I left the Spoilers section of SurvivorSucks and joined The MESS Hall Tribal Council, where the motto is, "May we always be a little bit wrong.". MESS, as it's called, does old-style spoiling, e.g., vid cap analysis. Despite what has been posted on other boards, MESS members take pride in the fact that they come to their own conclusions. They collaborate, discuss, research and share. MESS is an intelligent and cooperative community that is gaining in popularity.

Thanks to Wezzie, Dan, and Henry for their help in pulling together this post.

Catching Up: The Future of Television

Today, I am just going to highlight a few things that have caught my eye recently. We picked up the July 17 issue of Newsweek, belatedly, and read an interesting article discussing what current network media consumption. The opening paragraphs, though, really annoyed me:

A guy--let's call him Brad--longed for the company of his wife, so he took his iPod to bed. Confiding in an NBC researcher, Brad tells how he inserted his earplugs, nestled down beside his bride and got lost in an episode of "The Office" or another of his favorite TV shows downloaded from the iTunes store. His wife, meanwhile, was riveted by her favorite show playing on the bedroom TV. Yet another intimacy-challenged couple dialed up the heat on their relationship during the college basketball playoffs, say researchers for Verizon, the cellular-service giant. No fan of hoops, the wife snuggled up to her basketball-craving husband on the living-room couch, unfolded her cell phone and watched video clips streaming from Verizon's VCast service while he tuned in the game on CBS. "She thought it would be a good way to spend time together," says Ryan Hughes, Verizon's chief media programmer.

There's a kind of outrage here that people might be sitting side by side in bed and consuming different media content. Now, substitute books or magazines for television content and see if you feel this same level of shock and awe. I think we'd think it a little odd if the couple always coordinated the books they took to bed with them. As my wife points out, in the old days, the wife would have been banished from the room while her husband watched the big game, so, yes, there is some element of togetherness, snuggling down physically together, even if you are in different mental spaces. In any case, other research on television suggests that while homes may have multiple televisions, only one set is on during prime time in most households because we still prefer to watch television content socially rather than individually and the shows that do best are those that give us content we can talk about with others.

Discussion of the future of television continues over at our Convergence Culture Consortium blog.

A while back, I flagged an article about the Lost Experience ARG which Jason Mittell had published in Flow. We are all following this ARG with great interest and so we were pleased that he has written some further commentary about it for our blog:

The first part of TLE was all about setting a stage, a fairly static picture of an institution (The Hanso Foundation), its supporters (Thomas Mittlewerk and Hugh McIntyre), and its detractors (Persephone and DJ Dan). Each clue revealed another layer of deception & hypocrisy within Hanso, but offered little narrative thrust developing the conflict or relationships that it portrayed. Jensen suggests this act was designed for the hardcore Lost fans, but I'd suggest it was more for dedicated ARG players whose paranoid panoramic perception searches for clues within the meta-fictional landscape. As a dedicated Lost-head (but only a lurker in previous ARGs), I found Act I's lack of narrative drive too frustrating to completely justify the time it took to parse out the clues, and I shifted to mostly an observational role of the clue-gathering work of my fellow players.

Act II is more for fans like me--interested enough in ARGs to follow them, but in it more for the story and its relationship to Lost than gameplay. The shift in Act II is both in storytelling form and medium--this portion of TLE moves away from the now-defunct Hanso website and reveals the hacker behind the pseudonym of Persephone to be Rachel Blake. In charting Blake's attempt to discover the truth behind Hanso, we follow her across Europe via her blog. This direct communication from the character is much more narratively engaging than her hacks to Hanso's website, allowing for an illusion of interaction between players and characters, as conversations between Blake and other characters within the blog's comments add to the story significantly. Additionally, most of her blog postings link to videos scattered around the web--presenting Blake's exploits in video form seems more in keeping with the storytelling strategies that most appeal to fans of serialized television.

And in another entry, Mittell writes about what he is calling "Television 2.0", citing the example of The Sci-Fi Channel's digital deployment of the pilot of The Amazing Screw-On Head (which comics fans will recognize as adapted from a Mike Mignolia (Hellboy) graphic novel):

Head is quite a delight - based on a cult comic by Hellboy creator Mike Mignola, the show parodies the steampunk genre of sci-fi set in the 19th Century. The hero works at the pleasure of President Lincoln fighting threats to America (and to quote the show, "and by America, I mean the world") from undead zombies and ancient demon technology; for some as-yet-unspecified reason, he is a screw-on head. The animation is vivid and unique in its visual style, and features strong voice acting by established stars like Paul Giamatti and David Hyde Pierce. It's a show that could easily gain a dedicated audience in sufficient numbers for a cable channel - it most reminds me of the classic 1990s cartoon The Tick, which is high praise in my animation canon.

But Sci-Fi recognizes that it will take some doing to build its audience. Fans of Mignola are vocal and passionate, but far too small in number to guarantee success. So they've put the pilot online two weeks before its TV debut. But more importantly, they have attached a viewer survey to the pilot to gauge reactions and help judge the potential for extending the pilot into a series. This design takes advantages of two great opportunities of online video - the video can go viral through blogging and reviews much more quickly and legitimately than other "official" online videos, and instant feedback gives frustrated fans a way to feel like their voices matter.

And finally, Sam Ford weighs in on the news that NBC will be distributing the pilot episodes of Kidnapped and Studio 60 on Sunset Strip (perhaps the most eagerly awaited program of the fall season) on dvd this summer to Netflix subscribers, yet another way of building up audience interests before the shows hit the air:

Will many viewers be enticed to use one of their Netflix rentals for these sample episodes and assorted trailers? My guess is that they will and that, if these shows are good, the company will get a substantial award in positive support. Of course, that support does hinge on the show's quality and--again--these types of distribution deals only work well if there is a product worth discussing. Of course, using an Aaron Sorkin show and a suspense thriller is probably a smart move on the network's part, as they are two shows that NBC already feel strongly about and are building around for the fall lineup. Once the initiative launches in August, it will be interesting to track rental numbers, but my guess is that this could further popularize these types of campaigns to gain support for shows before they ever hit broadcast television.

These three stories from the C3 blog point to new strategies that television executives are deploying to get television fans talking about their series during the traditional down months of summer. Let's face it: a growing percentage of us spend the summer watching series we missed or old favorite on dvd. Once the new fall season starts, there are going to be so many shows competing for our attention that most of them never get watched a first time. But if they can get new content or new experiences out there now, they get a leg up on their competition, can start to generate buzz, and build viewer loyalty before the season even starts.

So What Happened to Star Wars Galaxies?

Earlier this week, Next Generation published a short excerpt from my much longer discussion of Star Wars Gallaxies and user-generated content in Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. The publication seems to have prompted game designer and theorist Raph Koster to blog about what he learned by adopting a more collaborationist approach to his fans. Here's some of what he had to say:

Some have since decided that it was listening to the players too much that caused some of the design problems with SWG. I am not sure I agree. If anything, I think that many subsequent problems came from not listening enough, or not asking questions in advance of changes. Walking a mile in the players' shoes is a difficult trick to pull off even if you have the best of intentions.

The tensest and most difficult moments in SWG's development -- and they came often -- were when we had to remove something that players really liked. Usually, it was against our own wishes, because of time constraints or (rarely) orders from on high. But we couldn't tell the players the real reasons sometimes. That sucked, frankly, because the open relationship really did matter. As often as we could, we laid everything bare.

These days, it's accepted wisdom that you don't reveal a feature until it's done, so as to guarantee that you never let the players down. Of course, even finished features sometimes fall out for one reason or another...

In any case, I think I don't agree with that philosophy. I'd rather have prospective players on a journey with the team, than have them be a passive group marketed to. Yes, they will suffer the ups and downs, and see the making of the sausage... but these days, that's getting to be an accepted thing in creative fields. There's not much to gain, to my mind, in having the creators sitting off on a pedestal somewhere -- people fall from pedestals, and pedestals certainly will not survive contact with Live operation of a virtual world. Instead, I'd rather the customers know the creators as people who make mistakes, so that when one happens, they are more likely to be forgiven or understood.

One of the challenges of academic publishing is that the world can move out from under year in that long, long period of time between when you finish a book and when it hits the shelves. In the case of Convergence Culture, one of the biggest shifts was the meltdown which has occured in the relations between the players and creators of Star Wars Galaxies, much of which really hit the fan last December. I still think what the book says about Star Wars Galaxies -- Raph Koster, as the comments above suggest, remains a leading advocate for a more collaborationist relationship between producers and consumers; his approach does contrast with at least some of the policies that Lucas has applied elsewhere in dealing with other aspects of Star Wars fandom and so Star Wars represents a rich case study of the uncertain and unstable relations between media franchises and their consumers. If anything, these contrasts are even easier to see when we see how shifts in company leadership impacted the community around this particular game.

I have not been on the inside of that meltdown. Most of what I know came from a close reading of news reports about what happened and conversations with other games researchers, such as USC's Doug Thomas or UW's Kurt Squire. I am sure there are readers who could tell us more about what happened than I can and I would welcome them to share their experiences here. I prepared some reflections about what happened for our Convergence Culture Consortium partners newsletter last January.

THE COLLAPSE OF AN EMPIRE: STAR WARS GALAXIES SHOWS US RIGHT AND WRONG WAYS TO COURT FANS

Shortly after Christmas, a friend and fellow researcher Doug Thomas sent me a link to a fascinating and moving fan-made video by Javier -- marking his decision to leave the massively multiplayer game world, Star Wars Galaxies, and commenting on the mass migration of hard core fans and players from this space.

Some background is needed to be able to appreciate this video and what it might suggest about the nature of fan investments in MMPORGS. In keeping with the cantina sequences which have been a favorite aspect of the Star Wars film series, the game provides opportunities for players to select the entertainer class as a possible role within its world. Javier helped to organize the Entertainer class players to create an extraordinary series of Cantina Musicals -- elaborate Busby Berkeley style musical numbers which required the participation and cooperation of a cast of hundreds of players.

As you watch the video, keep in mind that each character is controlled by an individual player, hitting buttons in a choreographed manner,who may be separated from the other participants by thousands of miles

of real world geography. The potential for such videos is built into the game -- through the capacity to move characters in certain ways,for players to share common spaces and experiences, and for players to

record their own game play activities -- but no one in the game company imagined that the fans would have used them to create Lawrence Welk-inflected Christmas specials or to protest company policies. In

short, the video expresses the power of the fan community both in terms of how it was made and in terms of what it has to say about the experience of playing the game....

Raph Koster saw the Star Wars fans as co-designers in the development of the game: actively courting them from the project's conception, sharing design docs and getting their feedback at every step of the way, designing a game which was highly dependent on fan creativity to provide much of its content and fan performance to create mutually rewarding experiences within the game.

Here are some of the things Koster did right in courting Star Wars fans:

1. He respected their expertise and emotional investments in the series.

2. He opened a channel of communications with fans early in the process.

3. He actively solicited advice from fans about design decisions and followed that advice where-ever possible.

4. He created resources which sustained multiple sets of interests in the series.

5. He designed forms of game play which allowed fans to play diverse roles which were mutually reinforcing.

Here's some of what he had to say about the importance of fans to the franchise's success:

"There's no denying it - the fans know Star Wars better than the developers do. They live and breathe it. They know it in an intimate way. On the other hand, with something as large and broad as the Star Wars universe, there's ample scope for divergent opinions about things. These are the things that lead to religious wars among fans and all of a sudden you have to take a side because you are going to be etablishing how it works in this game."

That said, the policies Koster created were eroded over time, leading to increased player frustration and distrust. In another video, Javier traces a history of grievances and conflicts between the "Powers That Be" within the game company and the Entertainer class of characters. Some casual players felt the game was too dependent on player-generated content, while the more creative players felt that upgrades actually restricted their ability to express themselves through the game and marginalized the Entertainer class from the overall experience. At the same time, the game failed to meet the company's own revenue expectations, especially in the face of competition from the enormously successful World of Warcraft, a game which adopted a very different design philosophy.

Late last year, the company announced plans to radically revamp the game's rules and content, a decision that has led to the wholesale alienation of the existing player base and massive defections. It remains to be seen if the plans will draw in new consumers; it is clear that they have significantly destroyed the existing fan culture. Javier is not alone in seeing these decisions as the end of the road for his community.

The statements made by Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director, at LucasArts to the New York Times illustrates the huge shift in thinking from Koster's original philosophy to this "retooled" franchise:

We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base. There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves.

MacIntyre's comments represent a classic set of mistakes in thinking about how to build a fan community around a property:

1. Don't confuse "accessibility" with simplicity. As Steve Johnson notes in his best-selling book, Everything Bad is Good For You or educator James Paul Gee argues in his new book, Video Games Are Good For the Soul, contemporary media audiences are searching for complexity, not simplicity. The video games that succeed in the market are the ones that demand the most of their players -- not those that require the least. The key to successful games is not dumb content, but complexity that is organized and managed so that users can handle it.

2. Don't underestimate the intelligence of your consumers. Gamers are not illiterate. They are not necessarily simply kids. Industry statistics suggest that the average gamer is in his/her late 20s or early 30s and all signs are that the game market is expanding as the initial generation of gamers ages. Star Wars Galaxies consumers skewed older and as such, they wanted something different from the game play experience than younger Star Wars fans. And if you do think your consumers are idiots, it is not bright to say so to New York Times reporters. The fans do read newspapers and as members of a collective intelligence community, they have an enormous network for circulating information that matters to the group. These comments have come back to haunt the corporate executives many times over and probably did as much as anything else in creating a mass exodus from the game.

3. In an age of transmedia storytelling, don't assume fans want the same experience from every installment of the same franchise. There are many films, books, comics, and games out there which focus on the experience of the central protagonists of the series. Koster wisely recognized that while individual players might want to BE Luke Skywalker or Hans Solo, a world where everyone was a Jedi would be boring for all involved. Instead, he created a game world where there were many different classes of players (including the Entertainer class) and where each of those roles interacted in a complicated ecology of experience.

4. Don't underestimate the diversity of fan cultures. Contrary to what is often claimed, successful media properties do not appeal to the lowest common denominator. Rather, they draw together a coalition of micro-publics, each with their own interests in the material, each expressing their emotional bonds with the content in their own ways. Accordingly, Star Wars has a large, diverse audience interested in everything from the flora and fauna to interrelationships among characters. Given such diversity, why would you assume that the core market only wants to blow things up? The real sweet spot would be to /tap into/ these diverse audiences and sell even more copies. Why, given the richness of fan creative expression around Star Wars, would you assume that Luke Skywalker is the only role people care about? The goal should have been to expand the range of experiences available in the game rather than dismantle what appealed to one audience in hopes of attracting another.

5. Don't underestimate the value of fan creative contributions to the success of contemporary media franchises. Will Wright, the creator of The Sims, the most successful game franchise of all time, has suggested that his success can be traced directly back to player contributions:

We see such benefit from interacting with our fans. They are not just people who buy our stuff. In a very real sense, they are people who helped to create our stuff...We are competing with other properties for these creative individuals. All of these different games are competing for communities, which in the long run are what will drive our sales.... Whichever game attracts the best community will enjoy the most success. What you can do to make the game more successful is not to make the game better but to make the community better.

Conversely, when you alienate your most active and creative fans -- folks like Javier -- then you severely damage the franchise as a whole. These people play valuable roles as grassroots intermediaries helping to build up interest in your property and as performers helping to shape the experience of other players.

6. Don't Sacrifice your existing fan base in search of a totally different market. The kind of robust and creative fan cultures Wright and Koster describe in their comments above are hard to build and even harder to rebuild. To some degree, fans have to find media properties which meets their needs, even though companies can adopt policies of fan relations which will make them more receptive to fans and can help to sustain such communities once they emerge. Koster worked hard to win over Star War fans who were skeptical about his efforts given the history of fairly simplistic action-oriented solo-player titles within the Star Wars franchises. Koster, himself, was fully aware that you could not institute large scale changes in such a game world without damaging the kind of trust he had helped to establish. Here's what he told me when I interviewed him for my book: "Just like it is not a good idea for a government to make radical legal changes without a period of public comment, it is often not wise for an operator of an online world to do the same."

I have just scratched the surface here. I suspect the rise and fall of Star Wars Galaxies will be studied for years to come as a textbook example of good and bad ways to deal with fan communities. Certainly our member companies should draw on it as a reference in framing and evaluating their own fan relations policies.

Pink Pigs and Other Local Knowledge

My references earlier this week to Brian Wood's Demo inspired me to reread something I wrote in January about his new project, Local. This is excerpted from an essay that will run in a forthcoming issue of Cultural Anthropology. It was written as part of a tribute to the great American Studies scholar George Lipsitz. So often, cultural critics accuse digital media of undercutting our relations to the local, cutting us off from the world around us. So often, cyberspace advocates have constructed the digital through their own fantasies of dislocation, seeing it as a space where one is liberated from parochial constraints rather than authenticated through local cultures. Consider, for example, John Perry Barlow's famous formulation in "A Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace": "Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather .... Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live." Here, Barlow renounces all claims upon the local while insisting that the local renounce all claims on him. So it is refreshing to learn about a project where the web is being used to heighten our awareness of local cultures.

A case in point: Brian Wood's Local. Brian Wood is an alternative comics writer whose work has the feel of an independent movie -- complex and compelling characters, rich attention to detail, a slight political edge, and narratives that resemble well-crafted short stories. I was unimpressed by some of his early work but he took off a few years back with Demo, a series that used the superhero metaphor to talk about everyday people in everyday situations. Now, he has three very different series running -- Supermarket, which is a political action thriller; DMZ, which deals with an embedded journalist in Manhattan in the midst of a war on terror that has cut the city off from the rest of America; and Local.

As Brian Wood, Local's author, explains:

People use the place of their birth as an identifier, they wear it as a badge of honor. It's shorthand to explain huge chunks of their personality. Some people stay in their hometown for a lifetime, while others can't leave quickly enough, only to feel it pull them back.

Each issue of Local takes place in an American city or town (such as Richmond, Portland, Burlington, Halifax, Madison, or Minneapolis), cities that are rarely depicted in our popular culture but have a strong sense of location. Wood solicited photographs of these communities from people who lived there, collecting local landmarks that can help ground his stories, and includes guides to these cities written by local authors in the back of many issues.

To publicize the series, Wood has constructed a website where people can submit accounts of their own local communities, pitching them as locations for future storylines. Others can come and vicariously consume their sense of the local with either a specific nostalgia for a place they no longer live or with a generalized appreciation of the imagined authenticity of local experience.

I am intrigued by the idea that cyberspace may be a place where authentic locals can be produced, shared, traded, and consumed. These local memories are becoming more and more precious in a world where the average American moves once every five years and often across regions. This sense of the local speaks to me as a southern ex-pat living in the North who is watching many of my ties back to Atlanta, my home town, breakdown as my mother and father pass away and we sell off family property.

The Truth About The Pink Pig

So I was very interested to find on the Local site a poster describing a landmark that was very much part of my own experience of growing up in Atlanta:

The Pink Pig rollercoaster sits on top of Lenox Mall. It's one of those wacky, only-in-America local traditions by which I'm both embarrassed and mystified. The ride goes up sometime in November every year--it marks the holiday shopping season. It sits on top of Macy's, in a tent bursting with pink pig merchandise, nostalgic pictures of pink pigs from the past, pink carpet, a Christmas tree decorated with pigs....To me, it seems silly and indulgent and another one of those weird effects of rampant consumerism. But then again, it's only a dollar to ride. And everybody's got to have some local holiday tradition.

Of course, as a native Atlantan of long-ago, I remember when the store was called Rich's and was locally owned and operated (Indeed, one of my great aunts spent her entire life working for this Atlanta-based department store). Rich's was deeply enmeshed in the history of Atlanta going back to a dry good store created by Hungarian immigrant Morris Rich on Whitehall Street in 1867. The downtown department store, established in 1924, remained a center of the local culture, politics, and economy into the 1970s. The store was long noted for its liberal exchange and credit policy which allowed many poor Atlantans to buy into consumer culture for the first time. (There are so many classic stories about poor people bringing goods that were purchased decades before and trading them in for cash at Richs. This was in an era where the customer was always right and where the store cared what happened to the people in their local community.) Martin Luther King got arrested during a sit-in at Rich's Magnolia room in 1960.

Federated Department Stores acquired Richs in 1975 and merged it with R.H. Macy and Company in 1994. In a prime example of corporate insensitivity to local traditions, the chain renamed all of the remaining outlets Macy's in 2005. Given the rapid turnover in a city like Atlanta, few local residents may remember that there ever was a store called Richs or that it worked so hard to maintain its ties with its local customers.

So, I bristled at an account that describes the Pink Pig as a Macy's tradition. I also recall that the Pink Pig once ran along the top of the downtown flagship store of the Rich's chain -- at a time when the ride allowed you to see the city's skyline and circle the Great Tree. The lighting of the Great Tree on Thanksgiving night long represented the start of the Christmas season in Atlanta. When the flagship department store closed in the mid-1970s, it was widely read as the final sign of white flight from downtown. The Pink Pig was relocated to the suburbs where it ran along the third story rooftop of a suburban cluster mall.

And of course, because of the erasure of history here, the poster misses the final irony: the Pink Pig became the Christmas tradition of an immigrant merchant (widely whispered to be Jewish) operating within a Bible Belt society, a final wink at the very process of assimilation. Today, it is just another brand icon -- no more or less ironic than the white polar bears which Coca Cola has decided we should associate with the holiday season and its own locally produced brand of sugar and soda. It is probably the last thing that distinguishes the Atlanta Macy's from the chain stores elsewhere around the country. What one woman sees as emblematic of the preservation of local culture was experienced by me - an Atlantan of a different generation -- as equally emblematic of the ways local cultures are being displaced and destroyed.

The Limits of Local Knowledge

Ironically, of course, this desire to produce a multitude of local experiences means that neither the writer Brian Wood (who was born in Vermont) nor the artist Ryan Kelly (who lives in Minneapolis) have personal ties to most of the places they are depicting and in some cases, they have never been there at all. Moreover, the central protagonist, whose travels and experiences provide the glue which links the various local stories together, must be continually dislocated, can live no place because she has to go everyplace. One recent issue set in Nova Scotia seemingly parodied this sense of dislocation: she comes into town and starts work at the Oxford Cinema, a local retro house; she picks up stray name badges from the drawer in the ticket booth and tries to assume those various identities, making up back stories to go with the names, until her various lies catches up with her.

So, the stories are mapped onto the local but do not originate there; the protagonist, like the reader, passes through the local but never resides there. As Woods explains:

The Local stories will be universal, whether you live in Portland, the Pacific Northwest, America, or the rest of the world. But, for the locals, the stories will contain landmarks and references that'll be instantly recognizable.

The series, in short, encourages a fascination with the "local" as a kind of authenticity but it may not be able to produce the kind of local knowledge it is seeking -- not in a world so much subject to flux and change. The local may exist for us now simply as an object of nostalgia -- but not as a real place you can go back and visit from time to time. Susan Stewart taught us that nostalgia represents a desire to return to a world that never really existed.

My family roots go back at least six generations in Georgia, probably more: my grandfather moved from the country to the city after World War I; my father lived in Atlanta his entire life; I have lived in four different cities; my son has lived in eight. Of course, if we had stayed for another generation in Atlanta, we would not have slowed down the process of change: the joke is that Atlanta's skyline looks different every time you drive into work in the morning. Cultural historians and anthropologists understand the local as always in flux and transition, a place where traditions are constantly being invented and reinvented. Indeed, some research suggests that those who remain behind may embrace change, where-as those who left seem to adopt a much more conservative perspective - wanting to be able to return home whenever they want to a world that looks just like it did when they left. We hold onto the idea of deeply rooted local cultures as a way of speaking about what we feel lacking in our own everyday lives. In such a world, the local represents where we are from and not necessarily where we live. We festishize the local because we can never really possess it.

Prohibitionists and Collaborationists: Two Approaches to Participatory Culture

Next Generation, a leading webzine focused on the games industry, ran an excerpt today from my forthcoming book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, which focuses on the very different ways media companies are responding to the desire of their consumers to participate in the production and distribution of media content. This passage cuts to the heart of my book's argument that the new media environment is forcing us to rewrite the relationships between media producers and consumers. Here's how the passage begins:

Grant McCracken, the cultural anthropologist and industry consultant, suggests that in the future, media producers must accommodate consumer demands to participate or they will run the risk of losing the most active and passionate consumers to some other media interest which is more tolerant: "Corporations must decide whether they are, literally, in or out. Will they make themselves an island or will they enter the mix? Making themselves an island may have certain short-term financial benefits, but the long-term costs can be substantial."

The media industry is increasingly dependent on active and committed consumers to spread the word about valued properties in an overcrowded media marketplace and in some cases, they are seeking ways to channel the creative output of media fans to lower their production costs. At the same time, they are terrified of what happens if this consumer power gets out of control, as they claim occurred following the introduction of Napster and other file-sharing services....

One can trace two characteristic responses of media industries to this grassroots expression: Starting with the legal battles over Napster, the media industries have increasingly adopted a scorched earth policy towards their consumers, seeking to regulate and criminalize many forms of fan participation which once fell below their radar. Let's call them the prohibitionists.

To date, the prohibitionist stance has been dominant within old media companies (film, television, the recording industry), though these groups are to varying degrees starting to re-examine some of these assumptions. So far, the prohibitionists get most of the press - with law suits directed against teens who download music or against fan webmasters getting more and more coverage in the popular media.

At the same time, on the fringes, new media companies (internet, games, and to a lesser degree, the mobile phone companies), are experimenting with new approaches which see fans as important collaborators in the production of content and as grassroots intermediaries helping to promote the franchise. We will call them the collaborationists.....

As the excerpt continues, I hold up Raph Koster, the man initially put in charge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, as a prime example of collaborationist thinking within the games industry.

Here's a few of the things Koster said when I interviewed him for the book.

Just like it is not a good idea for a government to make radical legal changes without a period of public comment, it is often not wise for an operator of an online world to do the same.

You can't possibly mandate a fictionally involving universe with thousands of other people. The best you can hope for is a world that is vibrant enough that people act in manners consistent with the fictional tenets.

Koster was an early and vocal advocate of player's rights, recognizing that an interactive medium has to construct a very different relationship with its consumers than exists around more traditional broadcast media. The game player helps to create and sustain the experience of the other players. From there, we can see the games industry embrace a vast array of different forms of user-generated content and we can also see games companies seeking advice from their consumers throughout the creative process. In the case of Star War Galaxies, Koster and his team put out design documents on the web and sought input from potential players while the game was still under development. This is radically different from the secrecy that surrounds the production of the Star Wars films. As I write in the book:

It is hard to imagine Lucas setting up a forum site to preview plot twists and character designs with his audience. If he had done so, he would never have included Jar Jar Binks or devoted so much screen time to the childhood and adolescence of Anakin Skywalker, decisions which alienated his core audience. Koster wanted Star Wars fans to feel that they had, in effect, designed their own Galaxy.

Of course, not everything turned out as Koster planned and the decline of Star Wars Galaxies is one of the major disappointments of the user-generated content movement. (But that's a subject for a future post.)

Keep in mind that the distinction between collaborationist and prohibitionist logics is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. I use Star Wars in the book to show how the same media franchise can create radically different relationships with its fans at different moments in its history and as it moves across different media platforms. Most companies today embrace some elements of both models, resulting in profound contradictions in the ways they relate to their consumers.

Grant McCracken, the anthropologist whose comments open this passage, has suggested that in this new participatory culture, it might make sense to abandon the term consumer all together, seeing it as the product of an old economic system and an old way of thinking about how culture operates. Instead, he proposes the term, "multiplier." Here's what he has to say:

The term multipler may help marketers acknowledge more forthrightly that whether our work is a success is in fact out of our control. All we can do is to invite the multiplier to participate in the construction of the brand by putting it to work for their own purposes in their own world. When we called them "consumers" we could think of our creations as an end game and their responses as an end state. The term "multiplier" or something like it makes it clear that we depend on them to complete the work

As I was putting this post together, I got an e-mail from Mark Deuze, another researcher who is currently doing his own book on the ways companies of all kinds are tapping the creative energies and collective wisdom of their consumers. On his blog today, he posted some thoughts, inspired in part from an advanced look at Convergence Culture. He is also suggesting that user-generated content changes the institutional logic of the creative industries:

Media work tends to get caught between two oppositional structural factors in producing culture within media organizations: on the one hand, practitioners are expected to produce, edit, and publish content that has proven its value on a mass market - which pressure encourages standardized and predictable formats using accepted genre conventions, formulas and routines - while creative workers on the other hand can be expected (and tend to personally favor) to come up with innovative, novel and surprising products.....

Working in an organization using an editorial logic, media professionals tend to more or less ignore the shifting wants and needs of the audience in favor of producing content that holds up to peer review, wins trade awards (such as the Oscars in the film industry, a Pulitzer Prize in journalism, the Game Developer Choice awards, or the Golden Lion in advertising), and build prestige and acknowledgement throughout the industry. A market logic on the other hand embraces a competitive way of doing things, producing compelling content for as wide an audience as possible, and thus favoring a strictly commercial mass market approach to making decisions in the creative process.....

Considering the work by Henry Jenkins (2006) and others on the increasing role of the consumer as collaborator or co-creator of media content, I have to conclude that a possible third institutional logic is emerging next to, and in a symbiotic relationship with, editorial and market logics: a convergent culture logic. Work done following this logic includes the (intended) consumer in the process of product design and innovation, up to and including the production and marketing process. The work of authors in fields as varied as management theory, product design, journalism studies and advertising define media content in this context interchangeably as: consumer-generated, customer-controlled, or user-directed. Researchers in different disciplines have documented a distinct turn towards the consumer as 'co-developer' of the corporate product, particularly where the industry's core commodity is (mediated) information.

I like where Deuze is going with this framework. My experience is that the creative and business sides of media companies often respond differently to the idea of user generated content or participatory culture. For the creative, the fear is a corruption of their artistic integrity as they turn over greater control over the shape of their work to its future consumers. This reflects what Deuze is calling an editorial logic. For the business side, the greatest fear is the idea that consumers might take something they made and not pay them for it. That's the extension of the market logic. Both may need to rethink their position if media companies are going to benefit from the work of McCracken's multipliers, who can both appreciate the value of an intellectual property and extend its shelf life. And it is the neat fit between the Editorial and Market Logics which insures that many media companies will adopt prohibitionist rather than collaborationist approaches in the short term.

Sneak Preview: NBC's Heroes

If a superhero can be such a powerful and effective metaphor for male adolescence, then what else can you do with them? Could you build a superhero story around a metaphor for female adolescence? Around midlife crisis? Around the changes adults go through when they become parents? Sure, why not? And if a superhero can exemplify America's self image at the dawn of World War II, could a superhero exemplify America's self image during the less-confident 1970s? How about the emerging national identity of a newly-independent African nation? Or a nontraditional culture, like the drug culture, or the 'greed is good' business culture of the go-go Eighties. Of course. If it can do one, it can do the others.

- Kurt Busiek, introduction to Astro City: Life in the Fast Lane

The San Diego Comicon has become one of the landmark events in the world of branded entertainment. Begun as a fan convention, Comicon has become much much more. While comics readers remain a small, tight-knit, niche market, the influence of comics extends outward to shape all other entertainment media. As longtime DC editor Denny O'Neil told the Comparative Media Studies colloquium several years ago, comics now constitute the "R&D" sector of the American media - comics don't make much money themselves but they test strategies, model content, and experiment with new relationships to their readers, which will later be deployed across film, television, and video games.

In such a context, the country's biggest comics convention has also become a test market for a range of new entertainment franchises. Take a look at the list of new films and television shows which will be previewed before the Comicon crowd this weekend. Producers, directors, network executives, and cast are waiting anxiously to see how the Comicon crowd will respond to their brainchildren.

One of the shows which will get its first public airing at San Diego this year is NBC's new superhero drama, Heroes. I was lucky enough to get my own advanced look at the series (don't ask how...) and wanted to offer my own thoughts on how it is apt to be received within comics fan culture. There will be a fair amount of spoiler information in this piece, but you are going to have to click to the continuation page to see it. If you just want some broad evaluative comments and background, you can keep reading this top level and then skip to the very end.

Unlike most previous stabs at superhero television, Heroes is not adopted from an existing comics franchise; it was created specifically for television, though its creative team includes several who have solid comics pedigrees - notably Jeph Loeb (best known at the moment for the Batman: Hush series). So far, searching the web, it would seem that the series has only started to register on the radar of most superhero fans, who are still nursing disappointment that two other highly publicized pilots - the adaptation of the Luna Brother's Ultra miniseries (imagine the Ben and JLo story told in a world where superheroes replace movie stars as the favorite topic for celebrity gossip) and Mercy Reef, (a Smallville-style version of the Aquaman mythos) - were not picked up for the fall schedule. What little online discussion I've found suggested that its premise, which bears a superficial relationship to X-Men, led to it being perceived as similar in spirit to Mutant X, a short-lived series which borrowed heavily from (i.e. "ripped off") the established Marvel franchise. If fans are imagining a rapid-paced, larger-than-life and somewhat campy superhero romp, they are in for a surprise.

This show owes more to indie and alternative comics than it does to the DC and Marvel universes: its tone comes closest to Brian Woods' remarkable Demo series of last year (more on this later) or perhaps the kinds of stories one is apt to find at publishers such as Vertigo, Dark Horse, Image, or Oni. I call such publishers mid-stream: that is, not quite mainstream and not quite alternative. They tend to build on conventions of established genres, but pull them in innovative new directions. Their stories tend to be quirky and personal, somewhat dark, intellectually challenging, socially subversive, and aimed at more mature comics readers. These are my favorite kinds of comic books, ones that seem to fall through the cracks between the two main comics news magazines, Wizard (whose editors never met a mainstream superhero they didn't like) and Comics Journal (whose editors never met a mainstream superhero comic they did like), but often attract enthusiastic interest for online fan publications, such as The Sequential Tart. Hopefully, if you are a comics fans, these reference points can help you calibrate your expectations.

If you are television fan, it might be helpful to describe this as "must see TV," that is, a quality drama with an ensemble cast and well orchestrated story arcs, focused more on its character's inner struggles than on external struggles (so far, the only character to wear anything remotely resembling a traditional superhero costume is wearing a cheerleader uniform.) I would place it roughly in the tradition of The X-Files, Lost, and Prison Break in both its emotional tone and its intellectual demands on the viewer.

The series opens with the following text, which more or less sets up its core premise:

In recent days, a seemingly random group of individuals has emerged with what can only be described as 'special' abilities. Although unaware of it now, those individuals will not only save the world, but change it forever. This transformation from ordinary to extraordinary will not occur overnight. Every story has a beginning. Volume one of their epic tale begins here.

Casual comics readers will certainly associate this idea of random everyday people acquiring special abilities and confronting its impact on their lives with the X-Men franchise, but similar premises run through a range of other texts, including George R. R. Martin's Wild Cards books or J. Michael Straczynski's Rising Stars series, both of which come closer to the spirit of this particular narrative.

Spoiler Warnings Start Here

Those who read my earlier post about Krrish will be interested to know that the series opens in Madras, India, where a young professor is lecturing a class on his groundbreaking work in genetic engineering and we soon learn that his father, another professor, has left India to come to New York in search of clues about what he thinks may be some world-altering shift in the human genome.

Professor Mohinder Suresh is one of two Asian protagonists in the series: the other being Hiro Makamua, a otaku-turned-salary-man who is the most pop culture oriented figure in the series. If Prof. Suresh speaks about the events through a mixture of scientific and spiritual analogies, Hiro makes sense of the changes he is experiencing via references to Star Trek, manga, and specific issues of X-men comics. As he explains "every ten year old wishes they had super powers and I got them." His more down to earth friend dares him to teleport into the women's restroom and dismissing his buddy's claims of superior abilities by asking whether they can help him get laid.

The aptly named Hiro is nothing short of exuberant about the discovery that he can manipulate time and space, running shouting through the maze of cubicles in his workplace and laughing giddily when he teleports from a bullet train into the heart of Times Square. For him, having super powers is one big lark, something that makes him exceptional, after being a perpetual loser who was the last in his class and the last picked for any sports team. We can see these two figures as reflecting the further globalization of American television - adding to the ranks of Iraqi, African, and Korean characters on Lost and paying tribute to Japan and India as two central comics producing and consuming countries.

Hiro's fanboy ramblings are simply one of a number of suggestions here that the creators know and love comic conventions even as they are choosing to warp and stretch them for this version of the story. Pay attention, for example, to the role music plays here - several times sending up conventional superhero scores even as it settles into a soundtrack that feels more like a Wes Anderson film than a big screen blockbuster.

Earlier I mentioned Brian Wood's Demo as a point of comparison. For those who don't know the series, Wood is a hot young alternative comics writer whose recent work has taken on new maturity - in part from his ability to play off the tensions between genre borrowings and a much more realistic/pessimistic representation of the world. Demo was a series of short stories about everyday people who suddenly acquire super powers; none of his characters save or transform the world; they are still struggling to get some control over their own lives. The super powers are often incidental to the events of the stories and in some cases, you have to look closely to see them at all. The stories capture a kind of longing and frustration that in Wood's works seems to be the common human experience, something like the quiet desperation that Thoreau wrote about. His characters include working stiffs trapped in nowhere jobs, runaway teens trying to escape domineering parents, angry young men who have never fully accepted traumatic childhood experiences, and a serviceman who has the ability to hit anything who he shoots at but is saddled with a growing conscience about the human consequences of war. In each case, the super power either becomes a metaphoric extension of their emotional conflicts or simply one more complication in an already troubled situation. And Wood avoids altogether the capes, masks, secret identities, transforming rings, and other gewgaws we associate with Golden and Silver Age comics.

Similarly, Heroes takes the superhero genre in some of the directions suggested by my opening quotation from Kurt Buseik - seeing the superhero as a powerful metaphor that can be used to explore a broader range of human issues. Take for example Claire, a cheerleader growing up in a small Texas town in what looks to be a stifling family situation who discovers that she is nigh on indestructible and spends the first episode testing the limits of her remarkable healing powers - flinging herself off buildings so she can push her dislocated bones back into place, sticking her hand down a garbage disposal in what seems as much an act of bored desperation as anything else, and in one of the few moments which looks like a traditional superhero story, rushing into a burning building (except the act of saving a trapped victim is incidental to her desire to see how well her body holds up under extreme heat). If Busiek suggested that the superhero might shed new light on the adolescent female experience, this is an interesting experiment - one where superpowers are linked more to "cutting" or eating disorders than to notions of power and social responsibility.

Or consider the case of the agonizing artist Isaac who seems, under chemical influences, to be able to paint stylized representations of events which have not yet taken place but who is pushed by the end of the first episode into self mutilation because he is so horrified by his clairvoyance. Or there's a young single mother, struggling to keep her child protégée son in an elite private school by stripping but in the process, over-extending her credit with a local loan shark: she is haunted by a "second self," an image in the mirror which may have the power to intervene on her behalf. And then there's Peter, the much-dismissed younger brother of an ambitious politician; Peter believes that he may have the power to fly but still can't get any attention for his sibling.

These characters embody forms of longing and desperation that one rarely sees on television - if for no other reason than that the problems they face are unlikely to be solved by a bite from a radioactive spider or a burst of Gamma rays, let alone by mouthwash or toothpaste. And there are moments here which remind me of films like Crash or Grand Canyon, where people from very different backgrounds cross through each others lives and sometimes have unintended consequences. As the series proceeds, I have no doubt that these lives, seeming so separate at the outset, will become more and more intertwined. In the short term, though, viewers can enjoy looking for subtle -- and not so subtle -- hints of connections between them.

Its somewhat bitter aftertaste links the series more closely with Brian Woods' Demo than to most mainstream superhero comics. The characters here seem drawn earthward - more like suicidal jumpers - rather than skyward. None of them yet knows how to leap over tall buildings with a single bound and we are left with the sense that they are going to have to struggle to bring their emerging powers under their control and to make sense of their impact on their self perceptions. As with Demo, these characters aren't going to run right out and buy fancy new superhero duds anytime soon and it is not yet clear that any of them is ready to take on great responsibilities when they are barely able to solve their own inner demons.

Around the edges, there are hints of dark secrets, perhaps a government conspiracy, perhaps bad guys who are going to track down those with powers and force them to make a choice about where they stands, but the first episode allows the protagonists to wallow in their various emotional responses to the discovery that they are not like mortal men. This is a series which will provide lots of fodder for internet speculation and decipherment within the fan communities that it is apt to inspire.

Spoiler Warnings End Here

All of this makes Heroes a worthy if risky experiment - so far, there's been much more room to experiment with the superhero genre through comics where the line between mainstream and alternative seems to be blurring more and more. (Witness, for example, the recent Project Superior and Bizarro books that have allowed a range of alternative comics folks to experiment both formally and thematically with the genre's core building blocks) Film has been perhaps the most conservative in its use of the superhero (where Ang Lee took some hits for making his version of the Hulk too brainy) while television has shown the greatest pull towards melodrama (Smallville) or romantic comedy (Lois and Clark). It is not clear how this alternative version of the superhero will play with younger comics fans who tend to make theirs Marvel these days or to those who know the superhero only through other media. I think more mature comics fans, especially those who toss something by Daniel Clowes, Charles Burns, or Chris Ware into their pull bin, will really get into this darker than typical vision of the genre if they give it half a chance. And my sense is this may appeal to a large number of viewers who are looking for something different but who have not warmed to the colorful outfits one associates with most superhero television. This is certainly a series I plan to set my tivo for when the fall season rolls around.

One More Rec

While I've got your attention on revisionist superheroes, let me put in a plug here for John Ridley and Georges Jeanty's The American Way, a miniseries coming out this summer from Wildstorm,. This book seems to just get better and better with each issue. Set in the early 1960s against the backdrop of the New Frontier rhetoric and the beginnings of the Civil Rights era, the book depicts superheroes as embodying the social and political debates of the time. The core storyline deals with America's first "colored" superhero who the government has floated as a trial balloon, trying to build public sympathy for a hooded crusader (and only gradually revealing that he is black) but circumstances blow his cover and suddenly the issue of race becomes a central source of division and friction within the superhero community. Predictably, many of the southern superheroes are reluctant to fight alongside him and some resort to race-baiting, but the author is careful to show the complex and contradictory range of attitudes towards race that divided the south during this transitional moment. I've seen little buzz or fanfare about this book in the comics press but it is a provocative reworking of the superhero genre. The series is in its 5th of 8 issues so you either need to go to a store where you can buy back issues easily or hope that they put it out as a graphic novel when the current run is over.

Are Housewives Desperate For Games?

A new PC-game, created by Buena Vista Games, based on the ABC television series, Desperate Housewives, was one of the titles that generated a great deal of buzz at E3 this year. The game is loosely modeled on The Sims in that it involves the simulation of domestic life within a suburban community (the world of Wisteria Lane as depicted on the series); the players adopt the role of a previously unknown housewife who awakes one day with amnesia and seeks to find out more about who she is and how she fits within the community. USA Today qoutes Mary Schuyler, the producer of the title:

As fans of the show would expect, the game is loaded with gossip, betrayal, murder and sex -- you know, all the things women like.

Every so often, a media property emerges that allows us to glimpse future directions for branded entertainment. Desperate Housewives looks like such an example: one that helps us to take inventory of core trends which are going to be shaping the media industry in the next few years. I haven't played the game. I haven't even seen the game. So this isn't an endorsement. I am just interested in what the existence of a Desperate Housewives game suggests about the current state of convergence culture.

1. The Desperate Housewives game represents another interesting experiment in transmedia storytelling.

Scott Sanford Tobis, one of the TV series' writers, wrote more than 13,000 lines of original dialogue and structured the plots for the game.

In an interview with USA Today, Tobis described the game as an "additional episode" , offering new insights into the characters and introducing new situations into the story. Danny Elfman's music from the series plays throughout and narration is provided by actress Brenda Strong (as late housewife Mary Alice Young). The game's locations are modeled precisely on the familiar neighborhood from the hit series.

As such, the game represents a continuation of a trend which I identify in my forthcoming book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide :

A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole. In the ideal form of transmedia storytelling, each medium does what it does best -- so that a story might be introdced in a film, expanded through television, novels and comics; its world might be explored through game play or experienced as an amusement park attraction. Each franchise entry needs to be self contained so you don't need to have seen the film to enjoy the game, and vice-versa. Any given product is a point of entry into the franchise as a whole. Reading across the media sustains a depth of experience that motivates more consumption. Redundancy burns up fan interest and causes franchises to fail. Offering new levels of insight and experience refreshes the franchise and sustains consumer loyalty.

We can see further evidence of this trend at play through the upfront announcements of the major networks last month: several of the networksspent as much time discussing their digital strategies as they spent talking about their broadcast strategies.

2. The Desperate Housewives game represents the latest effort by the games industry to attract more female players.

Let's face it: pretty much every male in America who has the slightest interest in games is probably already playing. All that the games industry can hope to do is to redivy up the pie when it comes to the core male demographic: it's hard to even imagine games companies succeeding in getting men to spend more hours each week playing games. All future growth has to come through either keeping players engaged with games later in life or attracting more female players. (Of course, this has been true for the better part of a decade and yet one should never underestimate the amount of resistance that exists within the games industry to broadening the "boys club" to allow the Kooties-carrying segments of the population access. If you don't think current games are produced and marketed primarily for men, ask yourself why a key piece of hardware is called the game boy and whether most of the people who own it would have purchased it if it had been called, say, the gamegirl.)

Indeed, there has been a dramatic growth in the number of women playing games over the past decade, as was marked by a conference hosted by UCLA in conjunction with E3. For two days, more than fifty leading feminist games scholars and designers met to talk about the emergence of the female games market and what it meant not simply for the economic future of the games industry but also in terms of women's access to technologies and technologically related skills. Again and again, we learned that women outnumber men in online and causal games sectors and are a growing segment of the games market overall. Women still spend less time playing games and see games as less central to their cultural lives. In other words, a relatively small number of women consider themselves to be hardcore "gamers" (a group represented at the UCLA event by a spokesperson for the Frag Dolls, among others) but a growing percentage of them do play games.

Mimi Ito, a USC anthropologist who does work on games culture in Japan, argues that a key factor in closing the gender gap among gamers there had to do with the integration of game content into larger "media mixes", such as the transmedia strategies which have emerged around hot anime and manga properties. She argues that girls in Japan embraced games as another source of content that interested them as it flowed organically from one medium to the next. In that regard, the use of the already successful Desperate Housewives brand to create a space for older female players makes perfect sense.

It also makes sense, given the appeal of casual games for women, to base the game heavily around a series of mini-games, including the integration of cooking challenges and card games as core activities within a larger

framework. This will allow the Desperate Housewives title to build a bridge from causal games that require short investments of time into longer play experiences. Several of the female players at the conference remarked that they didn't play longer titles because they didn't feel like they had the time to devote to really exploring them, yet they found themselves playing "just one more game" with their favorite casual titles and thus playing for several hours at a sitting. Such women may well be ready to move into more extended play experiences if the themes and structure of the game facilitate their interests.

That said, the women who attended the conference had pretty strong responses to the idea that cooking games and gossip were "all the things women like." They saw this push towards stereotypically feminine content as a return to some of the pink box thinking that doomed previous generations of experiments at creating "girls games." Many have argued that the key to getting more women as players is to create games that men and women want to play together and diversifying the range of genres on the market, rather than producing games which appeal exclusively to one gender or another.

3. The Desperate Housewives game represents a new effort at product integration in games.

A Partnership with Massive will result in an unprecidented amount of ingame advertising and product placement. Here's what IGN had to say about these aspects of the game:

Most of the products in the house will be real-world name brands. Thanks to a deal with Sears, washers, dryers, and vacuum cleaners will all have familiar logos on them. When your character walks out to the mailbox, coupons will arrive from time to time. Thanks to a print option, you can take these coupons to their respective store (in the real world) and use them towards a purchase.... Not only bringing ads to the table, Massive has also incorporated a system to stream ABC content onto the TVs within the game itself.

At the UCLA conference, I argued that advergaming could be an important force in expanding the female market for games. Right now, advertisers are using games to reach the young male demographic that has been abandoning television. Yet, historically, women are the key decision-makers shaping many of the most heavily advertised brands. Those brands are also going to want to deploy games to reach consumers and they are going to be searching out new kinds of game content that reflects the tastes and interests of their desired demographics. While games publishers may have an interest in continuing to tap their most hardcore consumers, advergaming will have a different incentive -- to broaden the game market to allow them to reach their most desired demographics. Witness the participation of Sears and other domestically-focused brands in the Desperate Housewives game.

4. The Desperate Housewives game represents another important step towards an episodic model for game content.

For some time, observers of the games industry have questioned whether the current models for content will serve the interests of even the core gamer market for much longer. The average gamer pushes older each year simply because people are continuing to play games later in life than anyone would have imagined. The generation that grew up playing Super Mario Brothers is now entering young adulthood. They now need to manage their game play time alongside expectations from spouses and offspring. Women often complain that the units of time demanded by most games are impossible to negotiate around the expectations they face within their families. All of this points towards the desirability of developing games which come in smaller units of playtime.

Across this same period, leading thinkers in the games industry have suggested that episodic content -- games structured more like television series -- might prove both creatively interesting and commercialy viable. My CMS associate David Edery recently entered into the industry debate about episodic content. What he has to say on this topic warrents a close read.

Details about the episodic structure of Desperate Housewives remain vague, as does the business plan that will support this content: early interviews describe the game as composed of eight smaller episodes that combine to form a larger story arc, each representing roughly two hours of game play. The most likely scenario is that these episodes will all ship as levels within a single game unit, but there has been speculation that there may be opportunities to refresh the game content over time, as occurs in many massively multiplayer games, especially given the ability to provide streaming content from ABC directly into the game world. One can imagine game content that gets updated in response to new information unveiled in the aired episodes, thus changing the game world throughout the television season. Such steps would insure not only viewer loyalty to the television series (in hopes of new content updates for the game) but also persistent engagement with the game itself (with new interest delivered with each aired installment). Such tight coordination between the television series and the game may be premature given the current infrastructure and business models, but the Desperate Housewives propery is certainly a rich space to experiment with new forms of episodic content.

"Never Let Schooling Get in the Way of Your Education" and Other Stories

For those readers who don't get enough of me in my daily posts here (I know that must describe, maybe, three or four people out there who seriously need to get a life), I guest blogged yesterday and today over on PBS's Media Shift site. If you go there you can find two posts dealing with the relationship between education and participatory culture, which touch on some of the work we have been doing through our New Media Literacies Project. Here's a sample of what I talk about in Thursday's post, "Learning Through Remixing":

America's children are become media-makers: they are blogging, designing their own websites, podcasting, modding games, making digital movies, creating soundfiles, constructing digital images, and writing fan fiction, to cite just a few examples. As they do so, they are discovering what previous generations of artists knew: art doesn't emerge whole cloth from individual imaginations. Rather, art emerges through the artist's engagement with previous cultural materials. Artists build on, take inspiration from, appropriate and transform other artist's work: they do so by tapping into a cultural tradition or deploying the conventions of a particular genre. Beginning artists undergo an apprenticeship phase during which they try on for size the styles and techniques of other more established artists. And even well established artists work with images and themes that already have some currency within the culture. Of course, this isn't generally the way we talk about creativity in schools, where the tendency is still to focus on individual artists who rise upon or stand outside any aesthetic tradition.

Most of the classics we teach in the schools are themselves the product of appropriation and transformation or what we would now call sampling and remixing. So Homer remixed Greek myths to construct The Iliad and the Odyssey; Shakespeare sampled his plots and characters from other author's plays; The Sistine Chapel Ceiling mashes up stories and images from across the entire Biblical tradition. Lewis Carroll spoofs the vocabulary of exemplary verses which were a standard part of formal education during his period. Many core works of the western canon emerged through a process of retelling and elaboration: the figure of King Arthur goes from an obscure footnote in an early chronicle into the full blown text of Mort D'Arthur in a few centuries as the original story gets built upon by many generations of storytellers.

The post goes on to discuss a range of media literacy projects -- include our own work teaching children how to rework the Cantina scene from Star Wars -- are teaching kids to understand how culture works by breaking down familiar texts and putting them back together again. It builds on some of the issues raised in my interview with Renee Hobbs on Monday.

Today's post, "Never Let Schooling Get in the Way of Your Education," talks about home schooling, "unschooling," and informal learning, tapping James Gee's concept of "affinity spaces" to talk about such groups as fan fiction writers, gamers, and poetry enthusiasts. (I plan to write more about the later group over here in the next week or so.) But it starts with a more personal account of our decision to home school my son for a year:

Some years ago, my wife, my son, and I came to a parting of the ways with the Sommerville Public School System. We felt the schooling process was failing our son. The science teacher conducted no experiments but simply had students write answers to study questions while he worked crossword puzzles in front of the class. The literature instructor had managed to walk them paragraph by paragraph through a single, not particularly challenging novel for the entire school year. And the history class had not progressed much past the American Revolution after 9 months.

The social environment of the school was hostile. When the other kids were taunting my son by throwing basketballs at him during gym, we suggested he spend a period sitting next to the teacher. When my son’s abusers accidentally hit her with a ball, she asked him to move rather than dealing with the bullies. The school was neither going to nurture his curiosity nor protect his dignity.

My wife and I had decided we wanted to take action but weren't sure how our son would feel about it. One day he asked us if he could stop going to that school and we shocked everyone by saying yes. He had mixed feelings from the start but we plowed forward anyway.

We had been reluctant to add to the ranks of Cambridge faculty members who were not supporting the public schools. We had both been a product of public education ourselves. But at the end of the day, the needs of the child came first. We were reminded of what my father used to say, “never let schooling get in the way of your education.

Anyway, I thought these two posts might interest some of you who regularly read this blog.

More on Games As Art

Reader Hugh wrote a very thoughtful response to my original post about games as art and I want to take the time to respond to it in some depth because it cuts to the heart of the question of why it matters and what it means to describe games as art.

What Makes Games Valuable

His response begins:

I find your comments about computer games (or games in general) needing to be considered "art" for it to be demonstrated that they have "positive cultural contributions to make," interesting.

Hugh is referring to my suggestion that part of the value of treating games as art is to counter claims made by the moral reform movement that has been trying to pressure for government regulation on youth access to video games in cities across the country. If you look closely, the movement often tries to compare games to other kinds of products and commodities -- such as cigarettes -- a common reference point or to forms of expression -- such as pornography -- which do not enjoy full constitutional protection. The goal is to dismiss out of hand the idea that games can be culturally meaningful activities. As I said yesterday, making the case that game playing is a meaningful activity is one of the most important functions of games criticism.

Hugh continues:

Clearly the contribution of value to our culture is not limited to art. Football (American or otherwise) is not art - in fact, it's a game. But it is very hard to question the value that children or indeed grown people playing sport adds to our culture.

Going for a long walk isn't art, either. But it's clearly valuable. Running a popular meeting point, a bar or a cafe, isn't art, but it has considerable value to society. Hell, running a garbage disposal firm isn't art, but I'd rather Edinburgh City Council didn't close their binmen down on that basis.

Even if, say, World of Warcraft isn't art, that doesn't mean it's not of value. In fact, it's entirely possible to argue that its artistic merit is in fact entirely irrelevant to its value to society.

Again, I would agree with Hugh's general conclusion here. We can go back to the 2002 Limbaugh decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. in response to a proposed Saint Louis regulation of youth access to games (and blissfully overturned subsequently). Limbaugh argued that games did not deserve constitutional protection from censorship because they did not represent a meaningful form of expression. He acknowledged that they probably held the same amount of social value as sports or traditional games but noted that there were no constitutional rights attached to these activities. We have freedom of speech, which belatedly was extended from political speech to artistic expression, but we do not have a right to play. More's the pity. At best, there is a vague right to "the pursuit of happiness" but I don't think you are going to find judges take you very seriously if you simply assert that playing games makes you happy.

Getting Serious About Games

Games can be valuable on many levels. Their status as art is simply one of them. Right now, we are seeing defenses of games emerging on multiple levels.

Some writers -- James Paul Gee or Kurt Squire or Steven Johnson, for example -- are making the case for games on educational or cognitive levels rather than aesthetic. Gee demonstrates that games are structured around solid pedagogical principles and that they are teaching young people new ways of processing knowledge. Johnson contends that games, like other modern forms of popular culture, have a degree of complexity (and thus pose cognitive challenges) which may be greater than most critics imagine. Squire has shown that communities emerge around games which enhance or expand the educational value of the play experience itself.

The serious games movement tackles the question of games as a form of political or social expression much more directly. They are demonstrating that games as a medium can serve a wide array of social and pedagogical purposes. Advocates like Gonzalo Frasca or Ian Bogost have made strong cases that games can be used for political speech. There are interesting experiments in the use of games for journalistic purposes. And so forth. If these efforts are successful, they will go to the heart of the legal debate -- representing the kinds of materials which are most cherished and protected under American constitutional law.

Yet this is treacherous territory since if we make too powerful a case that games can be a tool for persuasion or even education, games reformers are apt to cite it as proof that games "brainwash" or "train" the people who consume them. If a game can "teach" you world history (in the case of Civilization) or change how you think about genocide (in the case of Darfur is Dying), than can a game teach you to kill your classmates? I have tried to address this question in terms of a distinction between meanings and effects.

Here's a passage from one of my essays, "The War Between Effects and Meanings," which will be included in my forthcoming book, Fans, Gamers, and Bloggers:

Limbaugh and company see games as having social and psychological "effects" (or in some formulations, as constituting "risk factors" that increase the likelihood of violent and antisocial conduct). Their critics argue that gamers produce meanings through game play and related activities. Effects are seen as emerging more or less spontaneously, with little conscious effort, and are not accessible to self examination. Meanings emerge through an active process of interpretation; they reflect our conscious engagement; they can be articulated into words; and they can be critically examined. New meanings take shape around what we already know and what we already think, and thus, each player will come away from a game with a different experience and interpretation. Often, reformers in the "effects" tradition argue that children are particularly susceptible to confusions between fantasy and reality. A focus on meaning, on the other hand, would emphasize the knowledge and competencies possessed by game players starting with their mastery over the aesthetic conventions which distinguish games from real world experience.

Arguments for the aesthetic value of games represent a third important prong in this effort to develop an affirmative defense of video games rather than simply debunk claims made about media effects. In some ways, it is proving the most controversial in part because of conflicting assumptions about the nature of art.

The New Lively Art

And this is what Hugh gets to next in his comments:

John Carey's "What Good Are The Arts" provides a compelling dissection of the common belief that the arts are somehow inherently "improving". I wouldn't argue that the "art" in World of Warcraft is the reason that kids should be allowed to play it - I'd argue that learning team skills, discipline, perseverance, problem-solving skills and simple escapism are all reasons to play it....

One thing that's interesting here is that games are clearly a form of expression - "speech", indeed - but that doesn't necessarily translate to our conception of art, which is generally considered, at the moment, to be a one-way expression mediated by the author. As I understand it, the US constitution protects freedom of speech, not freedom of art - it is just that in the past 100 years or so, many things considered speech have also been considered art.

My own argument that games constitutes art stems not from a high culture notion of art as uplift or "improvement" but rather from Gilbert Seldes' concept of a lively art. I discuss this idea at some length in my essay, "Games, the New Lively Art," which will be reprinted in my forthcoming anthology, The Wow Climax. Here's some of what I have to say here:

Adopting what was then a controversial position, Seldes argued that America's primary contributions to artistic expression had come through emerging forms of popular culture such as jazz, the Broadway musical, Vaudeville, Hollywood cinema, the comic strip, and the vernacular humor column....Readers then were skeptical of Seldes' claims about cinema for many of the same reasons that contemporary critics dismiss games - they were suspicious of cinema's commercial motivations and technological origins, concerned about Hollywood's appeals to violence and eroticism, and insistent that cinema had not yet produced works of lasting value. Seldes, on the other hand, argued that cinema's popularity demanded that we reassess its aesthetic qualities. Cinema and other popular arts were to be celebrated, Seldes insisted, because they were so deeply imbedded in everyday life, because they were democratic arts embraced by average citizens. Through streamlined styling and syncopated rhythms, they captured the vitality of contemporary urban experience. They took the very machinery of the industrial age, which many felt dehumanizing, and found within it the resources for expressing individual visions, for reasserting basic human needs, desires, and fantasies. And these new forms were still open to experimentation and discovery. They were, in Seldes' words, "lively arts."

What I am arguing, then, is not that games should be removed from the realm of everyday life and put on a pedestal in an art museum. Rather, games are art because they represent a site of play and expression within the contexts of their everyday lives. They teach us to see the world through new eyes. They teach us new ways to interact with the computer. Art is not necessarily uplifting: it is enough that it refreshes us -- heightening our perceptual awareness, enhancing the quality of our lives. In that sense, I am arguing that play matters because it makes us happy.

Expression does not equal Narrative

Hugh continues:

It's also worth noting that whilst our culture generally considers art to be defined by passive consumption, there's plenty of precedent for art to be interactive. Theatre, for example, is highly dependent on the audience for its content, as actors "play" to the crowd. With no crowd and no crowd reaction, there is no theatre. That's even more true in improvised theatre. Architecture by definition is the crafting of an interactive artform, yet no-one doubts it is art.

The core of the problem comes from our assumption that if games are art, then the art must come through telling stories rather than creating new kinds of experiences. Improved storytelling might be one form that games as art will take. But games are not predestined to become a more interactive form of cinema. They could just as easily become about expressive movements -- like dance -- or spaces -- like architecture. For me, Shigaru Miyagawa is perhaps the consummate game artist -- not because he creates such compelling stories or psychologically deep characters but because he is so imaginative in his design of space, so open to exploring new ways of interacting with the medium, and so expressive in his use of movement and iconography. Games tap a spirit of experimentation and improvisation through our freedom to explore their spaces and interact with them in a variety of ways. So, again, I totally agree with Hugh's position here. Stories are one ways that our culture communicates meaning. Rituals are another. Games are still another. These forms may sometimes overlap but they have quite autonomous histories.

Culture and Commerce, Elites and Masses

Hugh concludes:

Possibly some of the resistance to the concept of a game as art comes from the fact that the creation of art is considered in the Western world to be a work of specialized artisans, rather than something which is part of everyday life? Once again, John Carey points out that that's an anomaly of the last few hundred years - art evolved in humankind as a form of play, and indeed several languages do not have separate words for the two activities.

Our culture, of course, has devalued play, as Pat Kane points out in "The Play Ethic". Perhaps this is part of the resistance that computer games find when they try to define themselves as art?

Again, I find myself in loud and emphatic agreement with Hugh's comments here. Games suffer two problems in terms of our modern understanding of art:

1. on the one hand, games are commercial products and there is a tendency to set art against commerce in our critical discussions. We see this even in terms of cinema where some movies get called "art movies" and others get called "popcorn movies," despite decades of criticism which has sought to identify the ways entertainment properties may nevertheless be meaningful and expressive and aesthetically compelling. I was in a debate recently with Ernest Adams, who is one of the most thoughtful commentators on the games industry and medium, but who is not convinced that games are art. His arguments hinge on this distinction between art and commerce.

2. On the other hand, games are not art because they are so accessible to the general population. Art has increasingly been seen as the property of the educated elite. Under this definition, you have to be taught to perceive and value art. Artistic appreciation becomes a form of social distinction. And there is a tendency to devalue the kinds of informal learning which surrounds our mastery of popular culture form. Trust me, none of us were born knowing how to beat a level.

Many gamers are also worried that if we discuss games as art, they will somehow stop making the kinds of games they like to play. Art is thought of as something stuffy or serious-minded, rather than something playful and engaging. I see this tied to some of the ways that modern art embraced an aesthetic of emotional and contemplative distance where-as Seldes' "Lively Arts" embraced an aesthetic that emphasized immediate emotional impact. When I promote the idea that games should be considered art, I don't mean that they should saddle themselves with some alien artistic tradition or that they should necessarily strive to be high art. I want them to remain a popular art. I want them to develop their own aesthetic principles that reflect the ways we engage with games in the course of our everyday life. Rather than strip play from games, I want us to reassert the centrality of play to artistic expression.

Hugh's comments take us a step further -- at least by implication -- in suggesting that the art of games is created not simply by the designer but also by the player. Imagine a world where players were judged not simply on the basis of their high scores but also on their expressive performances? To some degree, this tension has already surfaced around something like Dance Dance Revolution. I am happy to argue there that the best players don't necessarily rake up the highest scores; rather, they score as performers with the audience that watches them. Maybe we make art every time we pick up the joy stick. But in that sense, Hugh is right that this art becomes immediately devalued because these skills are too widespread within our culture and our modern notion of art emphasizes not simply an elite consumer but also an elite producer.

In the end, I don't think Hugh and I disagree. Hugh argues that games can be seen as meaningful without being considered art. I would argue that artistic expression is simply one of a number of different criteria by which we might identify the meaningfulness of games.

Thanks, Hugh, for such a rich response. Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to it.

More on Games Criticism

I hate to use this blog just to update on earlier posts but the debate about games criticism continues to rage across the blogosphere and there's lots of pretty smart things being said on the subject. And of course, being only human, I wanted to offer my ten cents worth on them. For anyone who missed my original post, you can find it here, complete with links to the Esquire article that kicked off this particular round of debate. Today, I am taking up the issue of games criticism. I will be back on friday with some more thoughts about games as art.

The Joy Stick Nation

Clive Thompson over at Wired is one of the smartest people writing about games and digital culture. He's offered his perspective on the state of game criticism. First, he says, there are no great games critics because their editors aren't allowing them to write about games in the same way that one might write about any other medium:

Today's mainstream editors mostly neither play games nor think about them much. When they do, they regard games either as juvenile fluff, or dangerous mind-control technology that is programming a kill-crazed generation of moral zombies. (Or, in a lovely bit of doublethink, both.) Nine times out of 10 their favorite angle is the bromidic "do games make ya violent?" crap; the reviews they commission are 400-word pellets. Worse, they force their critics to write as if games were some bizarre new fad that their shut-in readers have literally never heard of. This kills criticism.... What if the New Yorker had told Pauline Kael to write her columns under the assumption that the magazine's readers never actually watch movies?

At the same time, Thompson argues -- and I would agree -- that the most engaged, passionate, and knowledgeable writing about games comes not from professional critics writing in print publications but from grassroots writers using the web -- that is people who have to write about a particular game because it has changed their lives. This is a point which gets made again and again throughout this discussion: the best games criticism is going to come from people who grew up with this medium, who know it inside and out, who know hundreds if not thousands of games and can tell you what makes each of them interesting or innovative.

I see those kinds of students in my classrooms. I don't see them writing yet for major publications.

I have written and commented a fair amount about games through the years and I always feel vaguely inadequate in doing so because I know there's a 16 year old out there who can tell me why level 35 of this particular game was more interesting than level 12 and can offer a pretty good explanation why. And sooner or later, writers like me are going to be displaced by kids who were born with a joystick in their hands and who think games are not only art but are the highest form of art on the planet. And I will be a very happy man.

John Scalzi makes a very similar point in his discussion of the issue of games criticism:

If we grant that Kael and Bangs typify mature (or, given Bang's style, at least fully engaged) examples of criticism of their media, the reason there is currently no Kael or Bangs for video games is clear: It's awfully damn early for someone like them to arrive for the video game medium. Possibly the "Kael of video games" is the age of my daughter right now, and like her banging out rhythms on Dance Dance Revolution or getting immersed in some Mario World. Like Kael or Bangs, she'll never have known a time in which games were not fully narrative in their way, so like them she won't have to rely on metaphor or perspective that inherently views video games as a disruption (or the supplanter) of other artistic media...The hermeneutics of video games require a whole lot of button-mashing. How many critics are both able to get through a boss level and tell you what it means as a social construct? In the future, probably a lot. At the moment: Not so many.

Again, like Thompson, I am convinced that such games critics are already out there -- taking games studies classes at universities, posting their thoughts in blogs and webzines, doing their own podcasts, and probably working on a game mod or machinema project on the side.The participatory nature of this medium insures that the first wave of great games critics will be more like Sergei Eisenstein than Pauline Kael. This is one reason why I admire Eric Zimmerman so much -- because he works as a game designer to develop a critical vocabulary of game design and then he puts those insights into books (Rules of Play) so that it can be discussed and debated by others who care about this medium.

Entering the Penny Arcade

A number of the posts I've read on this topic arrived at the same conclusion: that the most powerful force for games criticism today comes not through prose writing but in the form of a comic strip, Penny Arcade. Penny Arcade consistently comments on the trends within the medium while also factoring in gamer culture, games industry practices, and social policy debates. That they do so with such wit and economy is a real tribute to these guys as critics/artists and to the richness of game culture. What Penny Arcade does is game criticism of the richest kind -- this has always been true of the strip itself and is even more true of the discussion which surrounds the strip.

I might also point you towards the work of the so-called New Games Journalists, which is perhaps best exemplified by the now famous/infamous "Bow Nigger" essay. These guys take you inside the game, describe what the player experiences from a subjective point of view, takes us through the steps of their mental process in playing the game which includes both things that emerge organically through their interactions with other players and through programmed features of the game itself. Again, it isn't quite criticism in the sense we are talking about but it is work that illuminates the aesthetics and sociology of games.

Retracing the Evolution of Film Criticism

Bill McClain offers a more detailed comparison between how film criticism evolved and the likely path towards a fuller and richer criticism of games:

After all, the earliest film criticism was internal industrial summaries of film products, what we might now call plot summaries, intended to help distributors and exhibitors chose and market their product ("users' guides" in any sense you chose to take it). Then, looking back to the earliest forms of academic/elite critical discourse to the Soviet Avant-Garde and even going as far forward as Andre Bazin we see an attempt to determine a) is film art, or merely entertainment, or perhaps even a social problem and/or tool? b) if it is art, how does it relate to other arts, what makes it unique and what makes it similar to existing forms of art and artistic discourses? c) if it is art, by what standards do we judge it, how do we describe it, how do we interpret it? d) and yes, of course, it's going to totally change the whole fucking world. Sound familiar? My concern is, as video game criticism develops, that it become, as film criticism did before it, so wrapped up in trying to figure out what the hell video games are and what essential properties (usually dependent on whether the medium in question is the savior or the Satan) they exhibit that it ignores the world that creates and uses video games. It would be nice to believe that we can learn from the mistakes of critics past, or at least that this is a sort of necessary phase in the development of a new critical enterprise that we can, with the aid of hindsight, dispense with all the sooner...but plus ca change...

Like Thompson and Scalzi, then, the argument is that the medium is too new and there hasn't been enough time for good critical practices to emerge. (This is different, by the way, from another claim about the history of the medium: that games themselves have not yet evolved to the point that they are worthy of serious criticism, that they are still learning their basic vocabulary. As far as I am concerned, while the medium still has plenty of room for growth, a game designer like Miyamoto proved games could be art a long long time ago.) First, let me suggest that the history of film criticism is more complicated than what we most often learn in film studies classes. I would note, for example, that someone like Epes Winthrop Sargent over at Moving Picture World might superficially be described as a trade press reporter offering "industrial summaries" of films for exhibitors but he also was carefully monitoring the step by step progress being made in the aesthetics of film, tracing the emergence of the close-up across a number of films, speculating on how this device might be used more effectively, articulating the rationale and standards of classical film style, etc. And the early writers who were bogged down writing about whether film were art -- Gilbert Seldes for one -- often managed to make some compelling observations about specific films and filmmakers. And there were great film critics well before Pauline Kael -- folks like Graham Green and James Agee and..., many of whom were writing by the early 1930s. It is precisely because such critics wrote with such great specificity about individual films that they are often not included in your average Introduction to Film class anymore.

What you tend to read are the generalists who mapped the field and not the specialists who applied those aesthetic standards to emerging work. But that doesn't mean that early film critics were "simply reviewers" and didn't play a very important role in shaping the evolution of film as a medium. Much as we suggested about the gamer critics above, though, the best of these writers grew up with film -- read James Agee's thinly veiled autobiographical account of going to see a Chaplin movie with his father in the opening of A Death in the Family for a wonderful account of what it was like to be a child at the moment cinema was being born. And you can see how those early childhood influences took shape into a landmark essay like "Comedy's Greatest Era." You didn't get those insights from Maxim Gorky, a literary figure who dained to write about cinema from time to time.

Technical Vs. Expressive Language

Scalzi seems to imagine that games will require a more technical vocabulary before they can generate solid criticism of the kind we are seeking:

Video games do have their auteurs -- Will Wright, John Carmack, Sid Meyer and Shigeru Miyamoto are examples -- but what they do and how they do it is frightfully opaque. Does a long discussion about Carmack's work on specular lighting or his latest game engine have the same critical accessibility as a discussion about, say, Orson Welles' directorial choices, or the making of Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" technique? Personally, I think it doesn't, save for a small, technically adept tribe.

Maybe -- I certainly have found it hard to explain to non-gamers why the technical advices represented by Grand Theft Auto enhances the art of the medium, even if its content can sometimes feel hard to justify to someone who hasn't played the game. Yet, if you go back and read someone like Kael, she certainly had access to a pretty sophisticated vocabulary of film techniques but she tends to avoid technical terms as much as possible. She isn't a formalist trying to analyze the specific techniques deployed: she left that for academics in the emerging field of film studies. She wrote in a more evocative language, trying to record her own passionate engagement, her own subjective experience of a particular film, trying to help us understand why the filmmaker was doing something fresh and original within the medium.

In my original post, I suggested we had neither the technical vocabulary to write in specifics about games techniques nor the expressive language to communicate effectively what it is like to play a game. Of the two, the second is the more important. Academic game studies is coming of age and will eventually give us the technical language needed to really dissect a game. This can be important. I would argue that it was because film studies classes were becoming more normative in American education that we were able to develop an audience for documentary or independent films over the past two decades: more and more people were open to kinds of films which had not played at their local multiplex and had some initial language for talking about what they were getting from watching such movies.

So, academic criticism has its place. We certainly need an educated consumer. But what's needed right now, more than anything, is a public voice of games criticism.

The Functions of Criticism

Such a voice has several key roles (some within the gamer community, some beyond it): they need to educate the general public about why this medium matters and that means making the big picture case for games as a form of artistic and social expression. They need to be able to deliver consumers behind innovative and interesting products so that they do not die in the marketplace and so that they empower the best game designers to push the limits of the medium. We shouldn't be seeing world class talent spent building expansion packs for top selling games. We should see them always moving onto the next frontier.

At the same time, there has be some accountability within the games industry. One reason I think it's important to start looking at games as art is because artists have responsibilities -- to their publics and to the traditions within which they operate. I don't buy the argument that the games industry has to ship product and so it can't think about the art of game design. Top Hollywood filmmakers of the 1930s might produce as many as seven feature films a year but someone like Howard Hawks or John Ford made sure each of those films mattered, each said something, each created a distinctive experience, each contributed to the evolution of the medium. And game designers need to start thinking about their craft in the same way. A good critic will push artists hard to refine their techniques and to think more deeply about what they are expressing through their work. There are so many commercial pressures exerted on game designers -- it would be nice to have some counterpressures to encourage innovation and diversity.

Yes, I agree with Clive Thompson that some such criticism is out there on the web and that blogs now function the way zines did during the Punk Scene of the 1970s and 1980s. Nobody reads what the mainstream press says about these issues. Indeed, establishment critics are all but irrelevant to the core of the games market (though the opposite may also be true. There are plenty of games which got slammed by every games critic on the internet and went on to sell a massive number of units.) This kind of insider criticism doesn't address the larger problem of the general public's perceptions of this medium. I am outraged that all the general reader hears about games is that some people think they are too violent. Imagine that we were thirty plus years into the history of cinema -- way past Great Train Robbery which demonstrated the films could tell stories, way past Birth of a Nation which demonstrated that films could be a form of political expression, way past Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Battleship Potempkin and Sherlock Junior which proved films could be art, and the only thing that anyone had written about film was that people got pies shoved in their faces. Games are facing steady and relentless public attack to no small degree because no one has made the affirmative case for this medium: we simply get bogged down in arguing that Grand Theft Auto isn't as bad as people think it is.

For this to change, we have to push for games to be regularly covered in Entertainment Weekly, for games to be criticized and debated in the New Yorker, because most of the people who are making our lives miserable right now are not reading Computer Games magazine. So, yes, Clive, it's great to see that no one whose hip looks to Esquire to tell them what games to buy -- I get that -- but then, it's not the hip people I'm worried about.

But this only takes care of the first function of the critic. The second and third functions (promoting innovation, challenging artists) is most likely to come from within the games community. And the challenge there is that a participatory culture is inherently fragmented. For this model to work, we need not simply one great games critics but hundreds of pretty good games critics who are willing to take on the responsibilities of the critic and are willing to ask hard and big questions about the medium they are writing about. There are some such people out there now -- but if this model is going to work, you need to build an army.

What I worry about are people like the reader at Scalzi's site who posted this helpful comment:

Guys don't play videogames for artistic content anymore than they rent porn for artistic content. If I want a story, I have an apartment crammed with books.

I get what he's saying. But keep in mind that there are people out there who want to regulate games precisely because they think they are like pornography -- that is, utterly without redeeming value.

Thanks to CMS graduate student Alec Austin and CMS alum Zhan Li for calling some of these pieces to my attention.

Field Notes from Project Good Luck: CMS in China

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, CMS is experimenting with new ways of opening up our research to the public. This week, a team of CMS graduate students and faculty are traveling to three cities in China -- Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen -- to learn more about how people are incorporating mobile technologies and social networking technologies into their everyday lives. They have created a website through which they are sharing their observations and continuing their dialogue with the people they meet in China. They are conducting this trip in collaboration with GSD&M Advertising as part of the work we are doing for our Convergence Culture Consortium partners. I thought I would share with my readers some of their initial observations based on their first few days of visiting in Shaghai. Here's part of some field notes filed by CMS graduate student Geoffrey Long:

We walked across town down to a shopping district, where we entered into a massive department store. We walked through the men's floor, up across the women's floor, and then to the cell phone floor.

Yes, the cell phone floor.

Were I a millionaire, I would go back to the States, go into my local Sprint store, cackle at their meager offerings and then grab the guy at the counter by the ear like some 18th-century school marm. I would haul him out of the mall, onto the T, down to the airport and straight back here, still dragging him along by his ear, right back to this floor of this store, where I would finally let him go. I would dump him unceremoniously on the floor and yell, "See? SEE? THIS is how it should be done!"

In the States, any given cell phone store only carries a paltry few models of phones. This is because so much of the market back home is totally segmented - the carriers try and convince people to switch by only offering particular models. As a consumer, this bites because it absolutely shatters the amount of choices we have, especially when every time we buy a phone we're basically committing ourselves to a new contract. Ugh. Here, though, you buy a phone and then you insert a SIM chip into it, which contains all of your user information. No matter which phone you buy, most of them will take any SIM chip. This means you can choose from any phone currently being manufactured, and allows for much, much greater choice - including opening up the market to a bunch of cell phone makers that you've never heard of. When you walk into this floor of the department store, you are faced with booths from the different manufacturers. Each one of these booths, from Nokia or Motorola or Sony-Ericsson or Anycall or a dozen others, offers more selection than any cell phone store back home. The phones aren't cheap, but many of the offerings offer seriously tantalizing options.

I'll admit I was a little disappointed by the lack of anything truly revolutionary - they didn't have the Nokia videocam-phone that I'd been eyeballing for a while, but they did have several others offering similar functionality. Videoblogging services are going to explode when people can create their own little moblog entries from anywhere, recorded at DV-level quality and then uploaded wirelessly to the web, which their friends can then download from anywhere. Imagine an RSS feed on your phone where you're sent a text message anytime a friend uploads a new videoblog entry from their phone, and with a click or two you can download that entry straight to your own phone to watch wherever. This is where mobile media is headed, and it seems like several manufacturers are leading the charge. Nokia is right out front - as they are with the design market as well. Motorola has a couple of contenders flitting about the ring as well, but Nokia's L'Amour Collection is a set of leather-trimmed phones with laser-etched (I think) floral patterns right in the metal. On the store floor these models were being displayed on pedastals with items like a Victorian mirror, a mock Tiffany lamp, and a little Asian treasure box, and they fit right in. These phones may be designed for women, but I want one - it's refreshing to see a phone design take a new direction than simply painting the sucker pink. As the RAZR proved for Motorola, the market is teeming with demand for great phone design - according to a BusinessWeek article, Motorola sold more RAZR phones last year than Apple sold iPods. Whether or not American cell dealers are being boneheaded and stingy or not, with markets like China opening up the worldwide mobile media landscape is going to become extremely interesting, extremely fast.

And here's how Beth Coleman, the faculty member who is supervising the trip, describes her experience at that same phone store:

So we are at the counter and I am asked to select the phone number that will go with said phone. There are at least three categories of price ranging from 100 RMB to 300 RMB. I ask, "What's the difference within the numbers offered," assuming that access, long distance, something about mobile IT would figure in here. No. the difference is that some numbers, those containing more 8s and 6s, are more auspicious than other, particularly those containing 4s. No kidding. The variable on price of the phone number was determined by some ratio between appearance of lucky numbers and the memorability of the number itself. And it was common enough for people to pay a premium for this god luck charm that it was built into the regular service. I myself went for a modest amount of good luck, opting for the 120 RMB number with three 8s and two 6s over the bare bones luck.

Liwen, who had translated the transaction for me and noted my look of incredulity when it came to the price variance on lucky numbers, had this to say. "Yes, it is true. It's very old this tradition and it comes from Cantonese where the pronunciation of 8 is "fah," which means "a lot of moneys" and the sound of 4 means "die." It is a bad number. Six sounds like successful. Who pays attention to this? Modern young women like herself? No, no really, but people with money do. Also, she let me know astrology is currently all the rage in Hong Kong with the under thirty set.

We hope you will want to follow along their further adventures over at the Project Good Luck website and in the process, learn more about the technological and economic transformations that are reshaping modern China.

How to Break Out of the Academic Ghetto...

Reader Katie King submitted an interesting question about how academic publishing relates to the new trends towards participatory culture we've been documenting here:

I'm wondering to what extent the participatory culture of fandom does or does not affect academic cultures? For example, academic publishing seems to be more and more conservative, more "broadcast" rather than "niche market" oriented.

The issue is a crucial one that speaks to the "Aca" part of my Aca-Fan identity. I know that not all of you are interested in academic politics but you may be interested in what follows because it speaks to the barriers blocking a fuller dialogue between academics and others who share our interests and passions in popular culture. As someone who studies popular culture and the people who produce and consume it, I have always felt an obligation to try to get my insights back into a larger public circulation. But this is easier said than done.

Publish And Perish

The current state of academic publishing poses some real challenges for those of us who want to engage with a public beyond the textbook market. For starters, there is the challenge of publication time. It can take as long as two years, sometimes longer, between the time that an academic completes a book and when that book hits the stores. For that reason, few of us are able to engage in meaningful ways with contemporary developments in popular culture. I can't tell you the number of books which were started with the goal of responding to popular media in real time and which ended with the phenomenon under investigation dead and buried by the time the book hit the market. There are certainly some things I will need to update about Convergence Culture on the blog even if the general trends I identified in the book remain valid.

Second, there are real filters that make it extremely hard for academics to get books into commercial bookstores where they might fall into the hands of non-academic readers. Most proposals for academic books on popularculture boldly assert that there is a potential crossover market around their topics but it's hard to figure out how they are going to reach that readership when their books are never going to appear in Borders or Barnes and Nobles or any of the other chain bookstores where the vast majority of books get sold.

My goal in writing Convergence Culture was to produce a general market nonfiction book. For all practical purposes, the book which NYU Press will publish was written with such a reader in mind -- the chapters are structured through narratives and examples drawn from familiar programs, the language has been striped down as much as possible (there are some purely academic terms but most of the terms I use come from the media industry or from fans rather than from other theorists. And I have added a glossary in the back which readers can consult if they run into an unfamiliar concept.) I don't think I dummied down the book: I simply did not assume that the reader was immersed in the same academic debates as I was. But I found it hard to find an agent who understood what the book was trying to argue or who could imagine a general reader interested in knowing about the logic by which current media operated. I was told again and again that a nonfiction book could only have three big ideas and that the most successful ones only had one core concept. The passage I quoted in my opening post was a bit of a parody of this claim -- trying to reduce the book's sweeping arguments to the core concepts of convergence, collective intelligence, and participatory culture.

There are some folks out there who think my prose is still much too academic but I work pretty hard to open up my arguments to the widest possible set of readers. If you have enjoyed reading some of the posts on this blog, then I doubt you are going to find Convergence Culture too difficult to read.

NYU Press, by the way, is doing an excellent job working with me and the MIT news office to help publicize the book and set up a press tour around its release, giving me treatment I have received from none of the other publishers I've worked before. They care as much as I do about getting these ideas out to a larger public which is being impacted by the changes in our media landscape.

Why Bad Books Happen to Good Writers

With little hope of writing to a general reader, most academics end up writing mostly to themselves. Certainly, the reader in their heads as they write is someone who goes to the same conferences and reads the same journals they do. And I think this as much as anything else contributes to the extensive use of jargon in most academic prose. You end up short-handing ideas to an in-the-know reader rather than imagining readers who might be introduced to those concepts for the first time. There emerges a kind of insularity -- it isn't just that you end up writing for other academics, but you also become isolated from other kinds of public conversations about the topics that matter to you. Academics often don't read non-academic books, which, after all, get sold in totally different kinds of bookstores.

This is bad enough in an established field but in an emerging field like media studies, at a moment when the whole media landscape is in flux, you cut yourself off from those other voices at your own risk. I have learned so much from conversations with journalists, policy makers, parents, classroom teachers, creative artists, industry leaders, venture capitalists, fans, etc., etc. And indeed, one of my hopes for this blog is that it can create a space where some of these different groups, each dealing with the same issues, may learn a bit more from each other.

Another consequence of the slow pace of academic publishing is that we tend to think of our work not as provisional but as monumental. The idea that you might throw out ideas just to create a dialogue with others interested in your topic is very alien to the way most academics think. What you put on the page is your life's work. It's what you've built your career around. It's what builds your reputation. It's what determines whether you get tenure or not. So, there's no room to explore ideas in the kind of open-ended fashion King is describing here. Instead, everyone wraps their ideas in armor. They start to play it safe. They start to hedge their bets. And the result can be deadening prose which has nothing to do with the way most of us live with or think about media.

There are other things going on with academic publishing right now that contribute further to this problem. Academic presses are facing serious economic difficulties. They are cutting down drastically on the books that they publish. Most of the books now need to have large sweeping themes that cut across the broadest possible range of academic disciplines. One might imagine a form of generalization that opened books up to general readers but that isn't what has happened. Instead, this push towards broader approaches encourages a certain kind of abstraction since theory moves across fields more easily than factual study. Academic presses are cutting back on the publishing of anthologies, which don't sell well but often play an important role in sparking dialogue around new topics or showcasing the work of emerging scholars. And there is a strong pressure to tighten the length of most books -- not always a bad idea but often resulting in further tendencies towards jargon as people shorthand their ideas even more and count on the reader to fill in the gaps in their arguments.

So, from one direction, all academic publishing is niche publishing. Most academic journals get read by fewer people than the average fan discussion list reaches. Most academic books are lucky to sell more than a few thousand copies and most of those go to libraries where many of them will go unread for decades. From the other, academic publishing is moving away from more specialized or niche publications. I can't tell you how many general introductions to game studies I've reviewed for presses in recent years -- all with more or less identical tables of contents and interchangeable introductions. Yet, presses have worried that more focused books on specific games, creators, genres, or issues will be too specialized to attract the "general reader."

Changing the Rules

King continues:

My own feeling has always been that the best "participatory" invoking television (my own interests have been Highlander and Xena) are from shows that are not seamlessly written, not exactly grade "A" (whatever that might mean) but "B" -- shows that have lots of "holes" fans can fill in various forms of participation.

My own academic aspirations are to produce not seamlessly argued academic texts, but suggestively extensive ones -- not intensively analytical, but maybe full of their own proper "holes" to be filled in.

Trying to create and argue for this seems to be an uphill battle now. Or is it? Do you have thoughts about this?

The good news is that the web is creating opportunities for academics to break out of the academic bookstore ghetto and engage in a broader range of conversations. Much as other media producers are taking advantage of digital distribution to reach around traditional gatekeepers, a number of academics are experimenting with ways of communicating their core insights to a more general readership, many of whom will not find our books in their local bookstore (thank goodness for Amazon!) and wouldn't be very engaged by our more specialized journals. As they do so, these academics are finding ways to be both more topical (having a chance to respond to media change in real time) and more provisional (floating ideas, getting feedback, and refining them before putting them into print). Academic culture is discovering what every other sector already knows -- the power of social networks to produce richer insights and pool knowledge.

For example, a growing number of my graduate students are starting their own blogs around their thesis topics, providing them with a strong incentive to write every day, creating opportunities to translate their insights into language which can be understood by lay readers, getting a reality check on their claims, and often connecting with people who have specialized or insider knowledge that they might not encounter otherwise. I am seeing such blogs spring up at many other institutions as well and it does produce the kind of exploratory writing King is describing here. For example, check out this site by CMS graduate student Ravi Purushotma. Ravi is researching the ways games and other forms of popular culture can be used for educational purposes. His site, which includes works in progress and videos designed to dramatize his concepts, has generated response from teachers, textbook publishers, and game designers, among others, who have contributed actively to his research and who have also opened up new job options for him after graduation.

Increasingly, we are also trying to make the work of the research group in CMS as transparent as our arrangements with various sponsors allow, opening up the work in progress to the public. For example, my CMS colleague Beth Coleman is currently in China, leading a team of our students, and working with our research partners from GSD&M advertising. They are looking at social networks and the use of mobile media, particularly with young people, university students, artists, and cultural leaders. The research team is comprised of individuals from heterogeneous fields of expertise, including media studies, network analysis, cultural

anthropology, and market planning.People can follow their adventures and learn of their discoveries via their Project Good Luck website where they are blogging some of their fieldnotes.

There have also been a number of collective projects where academics write about media or popular culture topics as they unfold. Bad Subjects has been going for more than a decade out of Berkeley, offering left-of-center social commentary (what they call "political education for everyday life"). Their writing can sometimes becomes a bit too abstract for my taste, but the site often offers unconventional and challenging perspectives on contemporary issues. Flow is a webzine focused on television and new media and published by graduate students at the University of Texas-Austin. Its contributors include many of the top scholars in the field, all trying to produce work which would appeal to a crossover readership. That said, the editors of Flow have told me that they are having difficulty -- even on the web -- reaching non-academic readers. Because the history of academic writing to the public has been so dismal, the public often runs in fear when they hear a writer is an academic and therefore don't give them a chance or meet them half-way. The borders are being policed from both directions.

And then there is the trend towards academics (not to mention journalists) putting up their works on progress on the web and seeking feedback from interested readers. Many university presses are nervous about us giving away our ideas for free but early signs suggest that where these books take on a life on the web, they actually increase public awareness of the project and thus increase sales. Writers who have been involved in such a process also confirm that they produce better books because they are able to clear up misleading or badly phrased passages and make new discoveries as their ideas get tested by the wisdom of the crowd.

A good example of this process at work right now would be McKenzie Wark's new book, GAM3R 7HE0RY -- a collaboration with the Institute for the Future of the Book, a group which is exploring innovative new approaches to publishing. Wark has posted the entire book on the web where it is generating lively discussions among gamers, game industry insiders, and games researchers alike.

Unfortunately, little or none of this activity counts towards tenure and promotion within most universities. Indeed, there are lots of institutional pressures discouraging younger academics from engaging in public outreach in forms which do not "advance their careers" and this slows down many who might otherwise try to broaden the conversation. Right now, these outlets end up becoming part of a "process" which leads towards a more monumental publication, rather than being seen as valuable in their own right. For the time being, it seems unlikely that we can escape the stranglehold that university presses have on our writing because of the credentialization issue. Yet, the push away from more specialized publications may force this to change. Whole disciplines may discover that they have no print outlets for their work and will have to reorganize and find ways to use digital publishing and peer-review to achieve the same goals.

Update: Jonathan's comments below are a useful corrective and I accept them as a friendly ammendment to this original post. I was speaking from the perspective of someone who very much wants to be sharing my current work with a larger public and has every reason to want to go beyond the academic bookstore and university library space. But university presses sometimes (less often than they once did) do valuable work when they publish research that does not have a strong market appeal, that is unpopular, challenging, difficult, or groundbreaking in ways that is not going to be finding a broad public audience anytime soon. Nothing in my text should be taken as devaluing either such work or the job that university presses play in publishing it. That said, I still question whether many academics don't fall back on this as an excuse for sloppy and jargon-filled writing when they might want to examine closely their motives for closing off such work from larger public scrutiny. I suppose I have more faith in the public's ability and willingness to engage with serious ideas than current academic practice acknowledges. More than anything else, though, I want to open up more options for different kinds of academic publishing that does have greater public access and that is open to a more exploratory process. I don't think Jonathan or I disagree on that point.

Mind Dump onThe Future of Television

Our conversations about Firefly and the Long Tail suggest that there is a good deal of public interest out there in the idea of viewer-supported television. I am convinced this is an idea whose time has come. It may not happen with Firefly, The West Wing, Global Frequency or Arrested Development, but it will happen for some show sooner or later. I for one want a ringside seat to see how the experiment plays itself out. Almost every day brings news that suggests small steps closer to this goal. Nobody's Watching? Guess Again

CMS graduate student Sam Ford reports at the c3 blog about a pilot for a show called Nobody's Watching which got rejected by NBC and the WB Network but is now being distributed via You-Tube. So far, the show has received several hundred thousand downloads from people curious to see a new series from Bill Lawrence, creator of Scrubs and Spin City, which is essentially a sitcom about the networks producing a reality television series about two guys trying to create a sitcom. Lawrence saw the series as a commentary on the current state of network television; network executives worried that it was too meta -- that is, it was too complex a concept to easily communicate to viewers. (It's also likely that with two other television network themed shows starting this fall -- Tina Fey's 30 Rock and Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip -- they were afraid they might oversaturate the market on this untested genre). In the old days, that would have been the end of the story but the You-Tube distribution has started to shift the network's perceptions of the pilot.

Ford writes:

Now, with its grassroots support, Lawrence claimed that it was being revisited by NBC and that he had had calls from both ABC and Comedy Central. And one has to wonder if the CW Network, after WB passed on the show, might now be interested in having a show with such a grassroots following built into its debut.

However, Lawrence sums up the reason why this experiment is successful and why the networks are stupid not to release their pilots more often when trying to decide how to formulate a future lineup. According to reporter Bill Carter in Monday's New York Times story, Lawrence "said he believed this was exactly the kind of development that television needed to break all kinds of hidebound traditions, including presumptions about what people will and won't watch as comedy, and decisions that are made based on small organized focus groups."

If the masses are willing to participate as a test audience, why not launch a legion of pilots on YouTube or allow people to BitTorrent them. Not only do you end up with shows developing strong grassroots potential before they ever hit the air, but you get a wider response to the show in a situation where viral marketing and word-of-mouth give the feedback as to which shows will generate the most popularity based on number of downloads. Of course, the only shows that would be hurt with a system like this one are shows that are low in viewer interest, that are not appealing...but those are the shows that would hit the air and get cancelled soon, anyway. And, for more complicated concepts like the one in Nobody's Watching, releasing the show on YouTube ahead of time allows fans to become educated on the concept and prepared for the premise before the show is ever broadcast.

By the way, readers of this blog who are interested in learning more about current trends in the media industry should check out Sam's posts at the C3 blog. This past week has seen posts about Survivor, Paul Simon, Kentucky Fried Chicken, the plight of weekly papers, and the successful web-based series Soup of the Day.

Tivo and Transformation

A reader sent me a link to this interesting article about the networks push to try to disable the fast forward button on our Tivos and other digital recording devices. Nick argues, however, that this is not the primary reason why networks should be worried about digital video recording devices:

Newer TiVo boxes can connect directly to the internet. Since they are internet enabled, they can download internet content. Combine that with the hard-drive and on-demand abilities, and Tivo is now a television network. Maybe even the television network.

Another way to describe a TiVo is "a box that saves your favorite content, whenever it is played, and allows you to watch it anytime you want." This is the way many people watch TV. The network is irrelevant. With some marketing savvy, any show could bypass the network gatekeepers and go direct to TiVo. RocketBoom did - and the resulting talent fallout shows a glimpse of what happens when the network is no longer relevant. The balance of power shifts to the talent, or at least equalizes it. Not only will networks lose viewers, they will have to compete on lower margins for high-quality content.

So, starting from a very different perspective (focusing on hardware rather than on cultural practices), this writer ends up more or less at the same place Sam Ford does: a world where viewers get to sample a broader range of different television content than would currently make its way onto network television; where some shows might remain "long tail" content which needs to be supported by committed but concentrated niches of viewers; where others would build up large enough grassroots followings to start to interest a network programmer. Right now, we are starting to see brands go to the network to pitch content which they think would be a good vehicle for their products -- that's more or less what happened with Coca Cola and American Idol. We might also see producers test market shows via YouTube and try to figure out which network is most interested in serving their fan followings.

Globalizing Television

Let's toss one more variable into the mix: imagine you are an international media producer who has content you think would have some strong appeal in the United States -- a producer of a successful Japanese anime program which has not yet been picked up by the Cartoon Network, the producer of a Latin American Telenovela which wasn't selected by one of the Spanish Language channels, the developer of a cult comedy from Australia that hasn't a clear point of distribution in this market. You've already covered your core costs of production in your own national market; you've picked up some syndication purchases from neighboring countries. Why not sell that content directly to your consumers here? There's a whole world of media producers out there right now. American companies have been largely successful in blocking most of them from having access to the U.S. market. But this is starting to change and the development of new infrastructures to support the distribution and monetizing of contents will simply accelerate the rate of change.

Of course, the interesting question is whether we will still be calling this stuff "television" content given that it neither uses television as a technology for distribution and consumption of this content (or at least doesn't necessarily do so in a world where there are video iPods and computer screens and...) nor does it use the broadcast networks as the primary system of producing, filtering, or distributing content. Yet, the dramatic and genre structures of television -- short units, serialization, recurring characters, etc. -- are likely to remain in place for sometime to come. Most of us, push come to shove, like watching television even if we don't necessarily fill that the current networks offer us the broadest possible range of options.

Behind the Scenes at My Pop Studio: An Interview with Renee Hobbs

Much of my attention on this blog so far has centered around issues of participatory culture -- the ways fans and consumers are taking media in their own hands whether through user-generated content or through exerting a collective influence over the circulation and reception of media content. I have suggested that the new media landscape -- and the social structures and cultural practices which grow up around it -- creates unique opportunities for everyday people to get involved as media-makers and as they do so, we all benefit through the increased diversification and innovation that results. To insure that every kid in America is able to fully participate within this emerging culture, though, there needs to be a greater commitment to media literacy education. By media literacy, I mean not simply the ability to critically interprete the images and stories that circulate in our culture, but also the ability to produce media (and to understand all of the factors that shape the production of media). We would not consider someone to be literate in the traditional sense if they could read but not write. We shouldn't consider someone to be media literate if they can consume but not produce media. Indeed, the greatest insights about media -- even mass media -- come when we are able to step into the role of media producer and understand the choices that shape the media that we consume.

Several weeks ago, Renee Hobbs helped to launch a fascinating new site -- My Pop Studio -- which takes this premise as a starting point. The site targets young middle school and early high school aged girls, encouraging them to reflect more deeply about some of the media they consume -- pop music, reality television, celebrity magazines, and the like -- by stepping into the role of media producers. The site offers a range of engaging activities -- including designing your own animated pop star and scripting their next sensation, re-editing footage for a reality television show, designing the layout for a teen magazine. Along the way, they are asked to reflect on the messages the media offers about what it is like to be a teen girl in America today and to think about the economic factors shaping the culture that has become so much a part of their everyday interactions with their friends. If you have a daughter, granddaughter, niece or neighbor who falls into that age bracket (and who may be looking increasingly bored with the same ol', same ol' by this point in the summer), you would be doing them a favor by sending them to this site. (Full disclosure: I was one of a number of leading media and child development experts Renee and her team consulted in developing this project.)

I wanted to use my blog today to alert my readers to this new project and share some of the thinking that went into it. Renee Hobbs has spent more than 20 years of her career focused on promoting media literacy education -- through schools, after school programs, and now, through this imaginative intervention into popular culture itself. Hobbs directs the Media Education Lab at Temple University and is a co-founder of the Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA), the national membership organization that hosts the National Media Education Conference. She co-directed the Ph.D. program in Mass Media and Communication at Temple University in 2004-2005 and currently hosts the Media Smart Seminars, a free professional development program for Philadelphia educators, media professionals and community leaders. She's one of the people in this field I admire the most: someone who remains concerned about the issues young people face in their long transition into adulthood and who seeks ways to empower young people to take charge of the media that surrounds them.

She was nice enough to agree to answer some of my questions about the project.

You've been involved with media literacy for a number of years. What do you see as some of the most important challenges facing media literacy at the present time?

Right now, there are a number of opportunities and challenges. One great opportunity is the impending retirement of millions of K-12 teachers. Over the next 10 years, there will be huge shift in the demographics of the teaching profession, and this will help media literacy. Younger teachers have different attitudes about media and technology than older teachers. They are aware that popular film, when used skillfully in the classroom, can promote rich learning experiences. These teachers are already using materials they haveobtained from the Internet--- and they recognize the need for critical thinking skills about images, media, popular culture and technology.

This leads to a great challenge. Lots of teachers are using media and technology in the classroom, but not always in ways that promote critical thinking and communication skills. Many teachers use audio-visual media as a reward or a treat. Other teachers send their students to the computer lab--- but do not create assignments that are structured to provide rich learning experiences. As a result, a lot of what is happening with media and technology in K-12 education is not building the kinds of skills that are important for success in the world outside the classroom. You can see my recent article, "Non-Optimal Uses of Media and Technology in the Classroom," from Learning, Media and Technology for more on this issue. Over half of classroom teachers say that film and television is used in non-educational ways in schools. This includes as a substitute teacher, for "downtime," as a reward, or to fill time. That's a problem that must be addressed, because educational leaders will never accept media literacy as fully legitimate until the problem of misuse of media and technology is confronted head-on.

Another important challenge is the need to keep media literacy relevant to the continually changing media environment of the 21st century. As media literacy becomes institutionalized in K-12 settings, for example, the curriculum tends to freeze. In some schools, students in 2006 are learning about how to critically analyze news and advertising using artifacts and examples from the early 1990s. Sometimes this works--- but often it diminishes one of the major strengths of media literacy: its perceived relevance in bridging the gap between the classroom and the culture. But this problem is challenging to address, because it's hard for teachers to continually adapt their curricula to match the changing media environment. Few have the training, knowledge, resources, time or tools to do this.

This project speaks directly to young girls through the use of images and activities inspired by popular culture. What are the advantages of this approach over one which is focused more on intervention through educational or civic institutions?

One advantage is obvious-- no gatekeepers are required. Girls will learn about My Pop Studio from their friends. Parents and teachers may steer a girl toward the site, but it's also likely that girls will share the site with their peers. Media literacy education has typically been "leader-driven," as individual teachers, parents or youth leaders initiate it with children and young people. My Pop Studio is an approach to media literacy that girls can experience independently.

There's another advantage as well. My Pop Studio makes an assumption about young people that comes from developmental psychology: that play and learning are related to each other. Play can help promote confidence and build a sense of social competence. Girls already participate in popular culture--- My Pop Studio aims to re-frame popular culture in ways that can be powerful for girls.

What do you see as the most important issues confronting young girls today? How do you see this project as addressing those issues?

Adolescence is a challenging time of life. A strange thing happens between age 10 and age 15 for many American girls. At age 10, girls are confident, spunky, outspoken, and see themselves as healthy, capable and strong. By age 15, 30% of teen girls are smokers. Many have chosen to avoid more rigorous courses in math and science, even when they have the capability to perform well in these classes. Teen pregnancy rates, while declining since the 1990s, are still high, especially among young women living in poverty. Tween and teen girls experience higher rates of depression. More than 4 million teen girls shoplift. Nutrition and body image are problems, too. The average teen girl guzzles 21 ounces of soda pop a day and less than 14 ounces of milk. Finally, the intense peer culture of adolescence is stressful: material possessions and social relationships take center stage. The hierarchies and gamesmanship can be overwhelming, exhausting and hard on the ego.

My Pop Studio gives girls an opportunity to be competent at creative activities involving technology, and a sense of competence is important for adolescents. The public health literature informs us that a sense of competence is a "protective factor" that can keep girls healthy during adolescence. The website lets girls take on, in a playful way, the role of a multimedia producer. This gives them the opportunity to feel the power of making creative choices that result in publishable products. At the website, girls can make their own pop star, reflect on values messages in media, and get feedback from peers on their creative choices. They can edit a teen TV program and compose a scene. They can compose a multi-page magazine spread and reflect on how digital images create unreal realities, depicting the bodies and lives of young women in a highly unrealistic way. On My Pop Studio, girls can create and share web comics about how digital media affect their own social relationships. Girls can comment on various kinds of social situations that occur with digital media. They can create their own comics, read comics created by other girls, and use a simple blogging tool to comment on them.

During a time when feelings of confidence diminish, these high-interest activities may help girls to continue to see themselves as capable, competent and part of a creative community, able to make good choices about their lifestyle and health.

How did you choose which forms of popular culture to address through this project?

We looked at the literature on the media consumption habits of children and adolescent girls aged 9 - 14. We talked to over 50 girls who participated in My Pop Studio focus groups from five geographically diverse sites around the nation. That's why popular music takes center stage in My Pop Studio. We looked carefully at girls' feelings of attachment to celebrities. We wanted to tackle issues related to celebrity culture, because this topic has not been well-explored in the context of media literacy pedagogy. Because girls this age are beginning to read fashion magazines, we wanted to address issues of body image and digital image manipulation. Although girls this age are not (generally) using social networking sites, they are feeling social pressure to own cell phones, watch R-rated videos, and many are quite active with IM/chat. So we wanted an opportunity to explore the diversity of family attitudes about media/technology use and encourage girls to reflect on how new media create new kinds of social relationships with family and peers. We wanted to focus on forms of popular culture that were most available to all girls, regardless of their families' economic situation.

How do you balance entertainment and education goals when working on a project like this?

The site has to be entertaining, or girls won't play with it. Play and learning are related, so the language of the site provides a "behind-the-scenes" perspective to offer information about issues in media industries -- minus the didacticism or preachiness.

We tried to build educational goals into the deep structure of the activities, as in Pop Star Producer, where in making choices about your pop star, you learn 1) that there are many choices to be made and 2) that different choices have consequences--- they affect how people interpret your character. Most girls in this age group are not aware of how media messages are constructed--- stuff just appears on the TV set, or on the radio, or in the magazines, or on the Web. These activities provide an "aha" about the constructedness of media messages just by playing.

At My Pop Studio, we have a learning community where younger girls participate in dialogue with older girls. Temple University undergraduate students enrolled in a "Mass Media and Children" course will be responsible for maintaining and updating the site, and they will comment on girls' creations and participate in the creative community. Undergraduates can share their ideas with younger girls, which will extend the learning of both groups.

We also created downloadable lesson plans that can be used by parents in informal, home-based learning as well as with middle-school students in a computer lab. The lesson plans show how My Pop Studio activities can be used to promote rich dialogue, reading, writing, and discussion to strengthen critical thinking and communication skills.

Several of your activities here are focused on remixing media content. Remixing has been a controversial aspect of contemporary youth culture. Do you see remixing as a media literacy skill? Why or why not?

Remixing is now an important part of contemporary media production. In remixing, media texts, now at the center of our cultural environment, get re-interpreted by other creative people through techniques of collage, editing, and juxtaposition. Remixing is a type of creative expression. Through remixing, people can generate new ideas. It can be a vehicle for people to comment upon the role of media and technology in society.

Remixing can strengthen media literacy skills because it can deepen people's awareness of an author's purpose and context. Context is often not well-understood as a component of meaning. Through strategic juxtaposition and shifts in context, messages change their meanings. Remixing illustrates a key concept of media literacy: that meaning is in people, not in texts.

Why the World Doesn't Need Superman

Before I start this, let me say that I have enormous affection for the DC superheroes, especially the Silver Age characters who were so much a part of my own childhood experience. There are still an ample number of DC books in my pull list at my local comics shop -- Million Year Picnic at Harvard Square. But of all of those classic characters, I have always had the least affection for Superman. (Frankly, for all of the bashing the poor guy gets, I have more good things to say about Aquaman as a protagonist than about Superman).

The reality is that Superman is and remains more of an archetype than a fictional character -- too powerful to be really interesting, too bland to be emotionally engaging, and too good to be dramatically compelling. Superman works best for me as a character when he is playing against someone else. Superman standing alone is like a straight man without a comedian, like vanilla ice cream without any topping.

Some writers manage to hit just the right note in the Lois Lane/Superman/Clark Kent relationship so that Lois represents a splash of vinegar tartness that plays well against Clark Kent's wide-eyed naivety (there's some great exchanges between the two in Warren Ellis's recent run on the Justice League that illustrate what I mean); Superman plays well against Wonder Woman especially if they tap the sexual tension between the two (see Greg Rucka's last issue on Wonder Woman, which works through the relationship between the two mighty heroes).

Superman plays well against Batman, setting up contrasting world views: the two keep each other honest, disagreeing about everything, yet ending up more or less in the same place at the end. In small doses, Superman pairs nicely with the Martian Manhunter or the Flash or the Green Lantern or Green Arrow. God help me, he even works in really small doses next to the anarchic comedy of Plastic Man.

I have enjoyed some recent books which explore him as an Icon (see what Alex Ross did with the character in Superman: Peace on Earth) or which turn the story upside down (see Red Son where Superman lands in Russia and ends up working for Stalin or Superman's Metropolis which melds together the myth of Superman's origins with Fritz Lang's German Expressionist classic). I can enjoy scenes where Superman's role as the ultimate establishment figure gets taken down a few notches -- see the treatment of the character in Darwyn Cooke's spectacular, DC: The New Frontier, where Wonder Woman and Superman debate the ethics and politics of the Vietnam War, or what Frank Miller did with an aging Superman (who looks more than a little like Ronald Reagan) in the original Dark Knight Returns series.

Perhaps the most interesting recent book to really systematically deal with the Superman character was Steven T. Seagle's It's a Bird, which really deals with the ambivalent felt by a long-time comics writer who gets assigned to do a script for the flagship superhero and doesn't know what to do with him. Superman is after all the top assignment -- even though he doesn't make the most money and isn't the most popular character with fans -- not by a long shot. The protagonist is struggling with a range of personal issues, mostly surrounding a family history of Huntington's disease, which distract him from but draw him back to engaging with the "problem" posed by the Superman character. He works through many key aspects of the character, providing both a historical context and a mythological analysis of the figure's place in contemporary culture. But in the end, he is no more able to articulate why we should care about this character than when it all started.

One can see why Superman exerts an inevitable influence across the history of superhero comics -- the place where all the parts came together for the first time and jelled in the public's imagination, the seed from which richer and more diverse characters could spring. Gerard Jones does a good job tracing the historical roots and impact of this figure in Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters and The Birth of the Comic Book.

At the end of the day, though, he feels like a museum piece. I have been working hard to try to get excited about the new Superman movie. Honestly, I have. I have gone back and reread some classic Superman stories. I watched the first two Christopher Reeve films again on DVD. But I came out of the theatre and instead of feeling exhilarated, I shrugged. The film wasn't as bad as I feared or as good as I had hoped.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the filmmakers had to deal with two layers of iconicity: first, there is the character of Superman and then, there is the aura of Christopher Reeve, who has emerged over the past several decades as the closest thing imaginable to a secular saint in our culture. So, if you can't touch Superman and you can't touch Reeve's performance, then you are more or less painted into a corner -- all you can become is, to borrow a phrase from Pulp Fiction, "a wax museum with a pulse."

So, let me point you towards two links that I enjoy precisely because they don't treat Superman as sacred and instead, have fun at the character's expense.

The first is a now classic essay by science fiction writer Larry Niven -- "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" which explains once and for all, why Superman could not and should not make love with Lois Lane. This is not appropriate reading for small children, the politically correct, the faint of heart, or anyone else easily subject to irritation. As he explains:

Superman has been known to leave his fingerprints in steel and in hardened concrete, accidentally. What would he do to the woman in his arms during what amounts to an epileptic fit?

Consider the driving urge between a man and a woman, the monomaniacal urge to achieve greater and greater penetration. Remember also that we are dealing with kryptonian muscles.

Superman would literally crush LL's body in his arms, while simultaneously ripping her open from crotch to sternum, gutting her like a trout.

Lastly, he'd blow off the top of her head.

(Garth Ennis plays around with precisely these images in The Pro in a moment which has to be seen to be believed.)

Thankfully, the filmmakers anticipated this issue and has the Man of Steel shed his super-powers long enough to bed Lois in Superman II and thus pave the way for the events of the current film.

The other link is to a webpage that reproduces a number of those classic Silver Age comic book covers where Superman looks like he is about to do something really nasty to one or another of his good friends. Anyone who read those books knows that the covers were usually deceiving and there was a perfectly rational explanation (like time travel or mind control or a especially virulent form of kryptonite) to account his uncharacteristic behavior. But, as this site suggests, if someone did a fraction of the things that Superman did on those covers (even for good reasons), you just might not want to be his friend anymore.

Have fun!