Henry Jenkins bio, aka “quick and repeated” version: Born in Atlanta, GA; used to work for MIT Comparative Media Studies program but recently left to work for the USC School of Cinematic Arts. He has written a number of books, including Textual Poachers, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, and Convergence Culture. He has some online presence: a blog and a Twitter feed, but no Facebook page.

He focuses his scholarship on aspects of popular culture, including video games, media convergence, and the topic of this week’s class, transmedia storytelling. The work “Revenge of the Origami Unicorn: Seven Principles of Transmedia Storytelling,” outlines some of the core tenets that shape transmedia storytelling.

Side Note: Origami Unicorn reference: The 1982 film Blade Runner contains a symbolic representation of the origami unicorn. In the future, dystopian Los Angeles human beings called replicants have been engineered and cast from society. It is illegal for a replicant to return to Earth, and those who hunt them down are called blade runners. The focus of the story is on Rick Deckard, a blade runner who is on one last assignment (Synopsis via Wikipedia). in the Director’s Cut of the film, supposedly it is the origami unicorn that shows that Deckard is not a genuine human, but a replicant. In Convergence Culture, Jenkins states the term “refers to any element added to a text that potentially invites reconsideration of other works in the same franchise” (330). It is also important to note that the first essay about transmedia storytelling in the text is called “Searching for the Origami Unicorn,” and this one is called “Revenge.” Why the difference, do you think?

Instructions for how to make your own origami unicorn!

Transmedia Storytelling

Jenkins defines transmedia storytelling as “a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience. Ideally, each medium makes its own unique contribution to the unfolding of the story.” Therefore a narrative is no longer limited to a film, or a game, or a book; rather, it expands across several kinds of media, each one playing a part in revealing the narrative. Jenkins comments that there “is almost a transmedia expectation” in modern society, and that fan become disappointed when there is no extension of narrative, as shown in the Flash Forward example. What do you think of this comment? Has transmedia storytelling become so commonplace that we expect it?

Distinctions, or What Transmedia Storytelling is Not

Transmedia Branding: Storytelling provides insights and new revelations about particular characters, but branding does not. Rather, branding has “a limited contribution to make to our understanding of the narrative or the world of the story.” Jenkins makes the example of Star Wars cereal as branding, but the novel Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader as storytelling. Because something like cosplay is not necessarily contributing to the narrative and is a token step to understanding, it makes me wonder if cosplay can be reduced to branding for a particular anime or game.

Adaptation: Defined as the reproduction “of the original narrative with minimal changes into a new medium and is essentially redundant to the original work.” In contrast, extension “expands our understanding of the original by introducing new elements into the fiction.” Here Jenkins uses Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet as an adaptation, and Stoppard’s Rosencranz & Guildenstern Are Dead as an extension. i see the “extension” a lot with particular video game franchises, particularly Kingdom Hearts–each game released is an expansion of the original story. It is interesting to note that each game is released on a different platform, with the exception of I and II (both were on the PS2). I have to ask: is this purely based on the desire to make maximum profit or to allow all fans the ability to play? A little bit of both? Just last night I heard a friend complain that he was so lost on the storyline because he did not have an Advance or a DS to play the extensions. However, I have played all the extensions and have all the games, so I am familiar with the storyline. As a fan, I show I am dedicated to the story and the franchise, but I have also spent the money to prove it.

So, the Seven Core Concepts of Transmedia Storytelling

1. Spreadability vs. Drillability: Spreadbility is the capacity for the public to engage in media content; seen as causal, whereas drillability is, in a nutshell, making the public to engage with the media content; or, dig deeper for content. I’m not sure about use of the word “drill” here, because to me the word drill has a negative connotation, suggesting something is invasive and forced. Any thoughts on that? Maybe another term?

2. Continuity vs. Multiplicity: Contributes to a fan’s “coherence” of a world and is seen as a payoff. Multiplicity is “alternative versions of the characters or parallel universe versions” of existing storylines. Jenkins uses excellent examples of Marvel superheroes and the retellings of Austen’s works with the additions of zombies and sea monsters.

3. Immersion vs. Extractability: Immersion is when the consumer “enters into the world of the story,” whereas extractability is the consumer taking a piece of that world home with him or her. Jenkins uses Miyazaki and the Studio Ghibli museum in Japan as his example. Once again, I think of anime conventions and the extractability therein. Consumers never enter the world of a story, persay, but the merchant room is nothing but a giant opportunity for fans to extract something from that culture. And that leads me right back into thinking in terms of profits. As for immersion, I have high hopes for Harry Potter Land, and Disney World has the idea of immersion and extractability down to a science. Come to think of this, where would parks’ rides fit into the idea of transmedia storytelling?

4. Worldbuilding: Connections between worlds and stories. Jenkins mentions the “desire of audiences to map and master as much as they can know about such universes, often through the productions of charts, maps, concordances.” I also find that this worldbuilding is apparent in Wikis, as seen in the Silent Hill Wiki. Crude as it is, it is still a fan-based archive of information. However, I also have to question the idea of copyright. Online, in a wiki, anyone can contribute and the information is free. However, when it is packaged and sold, it is an infringement of copyright, as seen in the Harry Potter Lexicon suit. Should the line be drawn that way, or would it benefit to have fans craft their own lexicons?

5. Seriality: Chunks of stories told in multiple installments. Jenkins refers to Dickens as a classical example, but I also think of graphic novel series like The Walking Dead . He calls transmedia storytelling a “hyperbolic version of the serial” where not only have chunks of stories been dispersed in multiple installments, but multiple mediums. he does not have much to say on this point, but rather gives a call to study this aspect more. Any thoughts? What about the use of classic serials as a framework? Should a newer, more updated one be established?

6. Subjectivity: Connected to transmedia extension; the comparison-contrast of “multiple subjective experiences of the same events.” Examples include mock websites, webisodes, and spinoffs. Jenkins gives many corporate examples, but not many fan-based ones. What does this suggest and is it significant?

7. Performance: Cultural attractors bring communities together, and activators give them something to do. For example, Lady Gaga can be seen as a cultural attractor, specifically in the “Bad Romance” video, and fan videos such as “Badder Romance” and “Lab Romance” are the reactions. In this case, is the video or the means through which the video is distributed (Youtube) the activator?

Jenkins ends the piece with the comment that “the study of transmedia narrative needs to reconnect with the study of commercial industries and fan communities if we are to really understand the dynamic being created by these interventions. And most of them point to new space for creative experimentation.” Is this view too optimistic? Right now, based on the examples given on the reading, there is still a line drawn between the industry content and the fan content. Is it possible for the two to reconcile?

Biography(1930-2002)

Pierre Bourdieu was a French sociologist. He studied with Louis Althusser at the Parisian university Ecole Normale Supérieure , a prestigious French school. After his studies, he taught at a number of schools and universities in France, including the University of Paris and the University of Lille. He held a number of distinguished positions in French academia, including the the Centre de Sociologie Européenne, from 1968 to his death. One of his best known books is called Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, originally published in 1979. He died of cancer in 2002. Read his obituary from The Guardian here. In it, his book Distinction is touted as “one of the 20th century’s 10 most important works of sociology by the International Sociological Association.” This Youtube video provides an overview of his works, and also defines a couple of the concepts used in On Television.

On Television (or, My Beef with TV)

Bourdieu’s article begins with the statement that television will kill print media. He makes the provocative statement that the “evening news on French TV brings together more people than the French newspapers together” (328). He believes this is so because what is aired on TV is adapted to the audience. Programs and information on TV must adapt to the audience because the programs cannot exist without audience ratings.

The journalist is given a role of importance under this system, because it is the journalist who holds the information key. This key allows the public to know or not know information. This power also allows the journalist to “control the means of public expression” (329). If these journalists desire, according to Bourdieu, they can impose their views on the public and also participate in censorship by choosing what the audience can and cannot know.

The agenda is defined as the “issues up for discussion, the subjects of the editorials, and the important problems to be covered” (332). The agenda becomes almost trivialized in the wake of economic dependence. The result is a kind of “tabloid journalism” that is emphasized, rather than stories that require deep thought and/or analysis. They make the meaningless meaningful and vice versa.

Audience ratings are the root of the problem for Bourdieu. Because of the production of fluff to create more ratings, the consumer loses out. Bourdieu makes a call to become aware of the rating system and question it. He even says that one day alliances can be made between news media so that the transmittal of information is the goal, not the ratings. However, his comment that such a view is highly utopian suggests that he does not feel such a united front can be possible.

Reflection

Bourdieu paints a rather bleak view of the media in France. Such a view could also be applied to our own media. Do you agree with Bourdieu’s assessments in regards to our own media? What part does audience agency play in this?

At the time this was written, Bourdieu believed that TV would have horrible implications for print media. However, print media managed to coexist with TV. however, the Internet has become a problem for both TV and print media. In what ways does it threaten them? Is it a turn for the worse or for the better?

I personally thought about the audience as the writer of the news in the wake of the Middletown explosion yesterday. Twitter had a feed up and running before any of the major news networks; likewise, there were videos and pictures posted that the news networks drew from. While I found the idea that people could write the news, I also questioned it due to conflicting reports, such as the one shown in Picture 1.

Ratings are seen in TV, but also on the Internet. Youtube videos, news stories, pictures, and a number of other elements contain a rating system usually based on stars. Could these rating systems destroy a story or video in a similar fashion as ratings for television?

A synopsis of Fiske’s life and accomplishments has already been provided here. However, I’ve dug up a couple of fun facts/links:

Henry Jenkins was one of his disciples. I knew there was a reason I liked this guy.

I found a link to his antiques website. The “About” section gives a quick blurb about his academic career.

He has an entire conference dedicated to him called Fiske Matters.

Television Culture

First and foremost, Fiske defines two terms: television and culture. He defines television as “the bearer/provoker of meanings and pleasures” and culture as “circulation of this variety of meanings and pleasures within society” (1). These meanings come together to one larger meaning, and it becomes a dominant ideology. The television is the source of this circulation among audiences.

Fiske also gives the audience some agency in the sense he identifies the viewer as the one who creates meaning. However, he acknowledges that the TV is also “a commodity in a capitalist economy.”

Fiske uses an episode of Hart to Hart to illustrate how meanings are communicated to audiences. He establishes that TV uses codes, or “a rule-governed system of signs, whose rules and conventions are shared amongst members of a culture, and which is used to generate and circulate meanings in and for that culture” (4). These codes are encoded, but they are also decoded by the audience in order to create a perception of reality.

There are three levels to the codes of television: 1. Reality, which is encoded by technical codes of 2. Representation, which transmits conventional representational codes, which lead to 3. Ideology, which is organized into ideological codes (5). The result of these levels is twofold: it can be shared with a wider audience and it can become a cultural text for the audience to read.

In the Hart to Hart example, Fiske examines elements such as camera views (space, distance, etc.), lighting (hues and intensity), editing (time allotted to particular characters), music (tones used for situations and characters), casting (characters), setting and costume (material social codes), action (taken by characters), and dialogue between characters. All of these elements are considered to create ideological codes (6-12).

These codes are then imparted to an audience that receives and decodes them. It is the audience that makes these ideologies legit and naturalized.

Reflections

Television Tropes and Idioms. Also known as the “Television Culture” database.

Even though Fiske was writing about television, his semiotic analysis can be applied to many aspects of the Internet. Hillary Savoie provides an interesting analysis of Youtube and and Fiske, using the clip “John McCain Gets Barack’Rold.” Savoie’s analysis shows how a particular Youtube video, through theuse of semiotic signs, can be used to create shared meanings and communities.

Another essay, written by Kathleen Curry, uses Fiske as a springboard to assess viewer satisfaction of the TV show COPS based on perceived views and thoughts due to crime and social control. I found it an it an interesting application of Fiske’s work. In another article called “Resituating the Popular in the People,” Fiske takes into account the fact that not all audiences read TV the same. He mentions that “popularity does not equal baseness.” The comment made me think about the meanings we assign the academy awards or ratings on websites.

Zombies and Fiske: In this article, the author views the reclaiming of the mall as evidence that consumers are not slaves to corporate control. I saw this piece as a similar reading to Fiske and agency- the consumer has the choice of whether or not to decode the semiotic signs and gain meaning from them. I particularly like the metaphor of consumer and zombie. Is this metaphor applicable under Fiske’s system? How much agency do we actually have when we decode meanings?

Usually i post all of my personal pictures on Facebook. I like the way Facebook’s picture interface works, and I like being able to get pictures I normally wouldn’t have through tagging. I’ve heard that Flickr has community components to it, but I wouldn’t know so early in the game.

I really did not like having to create a Yahoo! account in order to access the site. I have so many social media applications I use, and keeping track of all these names and passwords is tough. If only there could be one password to rule them all . . . Uploading and tagging the pictures was easy, however, and I had no problems. I loved how fast they went up!

In short, maybe I would use this site to archive some pictures, but I’m not sure I would use it too often. For now, I like Facebook’s UI better. ^_^

“Folksonomies: Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata” is a paper by Adam Mathes that “examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services.” He defines metadata as “data about data” that has been approached from the vantage points of “professional creation and author creation” (Mathes). He gives the example of cataloging systems as metadata in a more traditional form. I thought of it in the same form as Rosenfeld and Morville – library catalogs. Mathes acknowledges that the problem with this traditional form is “scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being used and produced.” He also points out that dedicated professionals, usually people with advanced degrees, are the one who generate and manage this content (Mathes). Author creation metadata has its problems as well, such as “inaccurate description or outright deception” (Mathes). It also disconnects users from the creative process. Mathes chooses to concentrate on a third vantage point: “user created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is shared throughout a community” (Mathes).

The two examples of sites that Mathes uses to illustrate his points are Del.icio.us and Flickr. Del.icio.us is a site in which “tags,” or words used to describe the bookmarks they create, “allow users to describe and organize content with any vocabulary they choose” (Mathes). The result is an effective way for the bookmarks to be organized and shared. Flickr is a photo sharing site that also contains the use of tags to share and organize photos. Mathes notes that while the methods of tagging are similar, the purposes are different: one is for “users of web documents that were written by another party,” whereas Flickr is more individual based (Mathes).

Folksonomies, then, are the system of organization that these sites use (Mathes). While tags can be related, there is no hierarchy between them, thus they are not predetermined labels (Mathes). However, like the other two vantages, this one also has some setbacks. One is what Mathes defines as ambiguity, or the fact that “different users apply terms to documents in different ways” (Mathes). He gives a hilarious example of “filtering” and the different ways in which it can be applied. Another problem with ambiguity he brings up are acronyms. Once again, different acronyms have different meanings, and confusion can result. The other problems Mathes brings up are multiple words and synonyms; all these problems show that “a controlled vocabulary would be impossible in the context” of these two sites (Mathes).

Some of the strengths that Mathes acknowledges are finding things that would not be found otherwise, a snapshot of the vocabularies people use, the emergence of “desire paths,” and a “capability to adapt to user vocabulary changes and needs” (Mathes). Also, these systems are cheap and participatory, plus give immediate feedback to what is being tagged. Thus the “organizational scheme that emerges for each individual reflects their individual information needs” (Mathes). In a way, the participatory aspect becomes almost a working consensus through which a community can share amounts of information and work together to do so.

Mathes closes out his article with areas that should be examined further: quantitative user analysis, qualitative user analysis, and applicability to other systems.

Folksonomies and Social Media
Folksonomies and Information Architecture sound extremely interwoven. In fact, to me, Folksonomies are an illustration of effective Information Architecture because they are effective ways in which the needs of the consumers are outright defined through their own words and they shift effectively as needs change.

This blog synopsis raises an interesting issue with user submitted tags that Mathes did not cover, which is tagging for self-promotion. The problem of spam arises, and the question of deception, as was with author-submitted content, is highlighted.

This blog entry asks the question of expression on sites such as Myspace and Facebook. The author notes that while we spend much time in such sites, there is an interesting disconnect between being passive and receiving information (i.e. ads) and creating our own content.

This post asks that folksonomies be taken out of the anonymous and corporate realm and back into the personal. After all, the author reminds us, “while I value collective authority and reputation, in most information-seeking contexts I value it more when that collective is one that I’ve chosen.”

This post, while a rehash of sorts of Information Architecture, gives some feedback and reasonings about his company’s use of the system. The comments are worth a look as well.

Last, Clay Shirky has something to say about tagging and folksonomies. He attacks the idea of ontology, and remarks it is a good idea to organize objects with it, but not ideas.

Adam Mathes has a big personality. He is a self proclaimed “mercenary library scientist” based in Mountain View, CA. He went to Stanford for his B.S. in Computer Science in 2002, and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for an M.S. in Library and Information Science in 2005. He worked as a teaching assistant at UIUC and helped out in graduate courses that were concentrated in Web documents and publishing.

He was the co-founder of a website called cosumating.com, which on his resume claims was a “dating site that was a first to use communication and search.” It seems that the site is now defunct.

He has a number of academic writings. Of particular interest to me is the article about video games and screenshots, but there are a lot of interesting writings he had published. Apparently he is well known for his paper on Folksonomies.

He also worked on sites such as Orbut, Android, and is now a product manager at Google. He is quite active in online communities; he has a Twitter page, Flickr stream, and other various social networkings.

Apparently his claim to fame is Google bombing, for which he claims full responsibility.

Synopsis

In chapter one of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville establish that they are concerned with the architecture of web sites – some are easy to navigate through, and others seem next to impossible. In order for a website to be successful, Rosenfeld and Morville maintain, a Web developer must understand the needs of the customers and to be pliable. In other words, it must be able to shift with the needs of the customers, because the needs of the customers are constantly shifting.

Rosenfeld and Morville give a rather multidimensional definition of information architecture. It has four parts: One, the “combination of organization, labeling, and navigation schemes within an information system,” two, “the structural design of an information space to facilitate task completion .  . . and access to content,” three, “art and science structuring  . . . to help people find and manage information,” and four, “an emerging discipline and community of practice focused on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape” (4). The reason for giving such a broad definition, the authors say, is because there are many challenges “inherent in language and representation” (4), thus a multidimensional definition is needed to demonstate the complexitites of the term.

Expansion of the Definitions

Information – different from data and knowledge management. Information comes in a variety of forms: “websites, documents, software applications, images, and more” (5). Also, the authors are concerned with information in the form of metadata: “terms used to describe and represent content objects” (5).

Structuring, Organizing, and Labeling – determining the size of information given, the groups chosen to put that information in, and the names chosen to give those categories and how to get to them (Rosenfeld and Morville 5).

Finding and Managing – the ease of the consumer to find what he or she is looking for and the people behind the site. To the authors, “an information architecture must balance the needs of the users with the goals of the business” (5).

Art and Science – incorporate scientific method and risks with the development of web sites; “information architects must rely on experience, intuition, and creativity” (5).

What Information Architecture is NOT

Rosenfeld and Morville make it clear that information architecture is a sophisticated concept with many dimensions. They also make it clear that it does not fall any one particular category in the lexicon of Web development. Rather, they give a number of categories that it differs from, such as interaction design and knowledge management, and a few that it is associated with, such as graphic design, usability enginnering, experince design, software development, and content management (10-11).

Importance

Rosenfeld and Morville comment that there are a number of ways that being informed in information architecture is important. Most of the way they mention are concerned with value and cost effectiveness (12). Though the concept of information architecture is not prevalent on the surface, it is still an important underlying component of Web site development. They end the chapter with a number of calls to action, including “ways to articulate the key concepts of our craft . . . and how these concepts can be applied to transform static web websites into complex adaptive systems” (14). They also comment that “we must be able to dive into detail  . . . and produce concrete deliverables” (14).

Work Cited
Rosenfeld, Louis and Peter Morville. Information Architecture foe the World Wide Web. Sebastopol: O’Reilly, 2002.

Information Architecture and Social Media

Though the chapter explores the importance of information architecture for the World Wide Web in the context of business, it is important to note that customer interaction as an important element in the design of Web pages. The idea of customer interaction is one that has picked up a lot of momentum lately, and This presentation by the company Xplore International highlights some of the main components that they considered in making a community portal for Nepalese development organizations, including an information board, e-resources, links, a vacant zone for other organizations to post, directories, libararies, blogs, etc. The developers are using information architecture to stucture their website in such a way that community participation is of utmost importance.

This article by Eric Sorensen covers the marketing aspect of information architecture. He comments that “feeds to ad placements are a great idea” in the realm of Twitter. Think about the ad feeds in other sites such as Myspace and Facebook – it seems that they are linked depending on your interests and your statues. I know I am listed as “single” on mine, and I am constantly seeing ads for match.com. When I was engaged, they always had “plan your wedding” type ads.

Speaking of Facebook, this article is a guide for how to market within the Facebook space. It breaks down the components of the page into categories and gives ways to best utilize each section.

Finally, because I love Warcraft and constantly am looking for ways to connect video games to what I am learning, This article talks about the user space in Warcraft and how it needs revamping. It even includes a screenshot of the user window, and mentions what can be learned from the user dashboard. Also, the concept of user add-ons is another way in which information architecture is participatory. Add-ons are user submitted to make play easier. A link to some of the more popular ones can be found here.

Louis Rosenfeld was educated at the University of Michigan. He holds a B.A. in History and an M.S. in Information and Library Science. According to the biography on his website, he “became convinced that the skills of librarians were grossly undervalued.” With the advent of the Internet, he sought to find ways in which the work of cataloging, arranging, and presenting large amounts of information would be made easier. With this interest, he helped develop the idea of information architectures, or “additional skills and perspectives were required to develop coherent, intuitive structures” (Biography).

Rosenfeld also is credited with founding the Internet research service called Argus Clearinghouse. I found a page about the service which outlined the purpose as “a rapidly growing collection of over 1,000 topical guides to the Internet’s information resources.” It also was “created by librarians and other information professionals” and was open to other people to submit guides (“Clearinghouse”). However, all the links are now defunct, and it seems the service has been suspended.

Even so, Rosenfeld has kept busy. He runs Rosenfeldmedia.com, which even has its own twitter feed. The company publishes books and documents related to design and execution of web documents. He co-wrote the text Information Architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing Large-Scale Web Sites with Peter Morville. Out of 107 reviews on Amazon.com, 52 of them are five stars and 14 are one to two stars. The book is overall highly regarded and, according to Rosenfeld’s biography, is used in many classrooms on Web Design. See an interview with Rosenfeld and Peter Morville here. Rosenfeld has also published in a number of places, including Internet World and Web Review. See a list of published works here.

And yes, he’s on Twitter Send him a tweet! He’s also on Facebook, but his profile is friends-only.

Works Cited
Argus Clearinghouse Link Change. 1996. Web. 23 October 2009.
“Biography.” LouisRosenfeld.com. Louis Rosenfeld, LLC, 2009. Web. 24 October 2009.

Goffman looks into the notion of performance much more closely in the first chapter. he draws an analogy between the social performance and the one that an actor does, the the result is what he calls dramaturgy. He wants to look, first and foremost, at the ways in which the individual treats his or her performance. To Goffman, there are two extremes to how a person can view his or her performances: as a genuine construct of reality, or as an act. In between these extremes is where most constructions of identity are.

A helpful breakdown of these concepts can be found here.

Front

The first thing Goffman tackles is the idea of the front. The front is “the part of the individual’s performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance (22). It involves elements such as setting (place on which it takes place), the personal front (items we expect are always associated with the individual), appearance (status), and manner (the role the performer is expected to play). The definition on urbandictionary.com, interestingly enough, shows that this terms has crossed over into slang and has a largely negative connotation. 

Dramatic Realization

The performer’s ability to “mobilize his activity so that it will express during the interaction what he wishes to convey” (30). in other words, it is the performer that controls what he wishes his audience to see. I thought of waitressing when I read this; I was a waitress for ten years, and I would have never thought that dramatic realization was me putting up a front to let people just see one side of my personality. This link is from the movie Waiting (disclaimer: lots of loud obscenities at the end). I include this link because it shows, to me, a beautiful example of the faces we have to put on in certain situations.

Idealization

This aspect is what I think of as the socially acceptable face. According to Goffman, it is when “the individual presents himself before others” and “his performance will tend to incorporate and exemplify the officially accredited values of the society” (35). In this case the individual is performing to  socially accepted standards. 

Maitenance of Expressive Control

While an audience can pick up on signs exhibited by the performer, it is sometimes possible for the audience to misinterpret these signs. When this happens, the performer’s act is questioned, and the audience may grow skeptical. As Goffman notes, “a single note off key can disrupt the entire performance” (52). 

Misrepresentation and Mystification

When people are being entertained or are the part of an audience, they want to experience a realness to the performance. However, if the audience is aware of such acting, then they may question the right of the performer to do what he or she is doing. The result is an audience that, as Goffman puts it, feels threatened (59). Mystification is when a performer conceals parts of his or her personality to pique interest from the audience (Goffman 70). 

Reality and Contrivance

The last section of this chapter suggests that in our culture he have a split in our sensibilities: one side is the honest, real performance, and the other is the one constructed for us (Goffman 70). Goffman suggests that we balance carefully between the two in our everyday lives. He mentions that “while persons are usually what they appear to be, such appearances still could have been managed” (71) in the sense that life is not scripted, but social situations are contrived. 

Chapter 1 and Social Media

As the example with the video from the movie Waiting shows, in certain situations we have to perform a particular way to our audiences, or in other cases, choose to. We do it for a multitude of reasons, from validation to just doing what is acceptable by social standards. Once again, the Internet is the place where these lines get crossed and become somewhat sticky. Like I mentioned in the previous post, I believe these concepts can be closely related to spaces such as Facebook and World of Warcraft. 

Also, I came across this really neat site that covers some aspects of Goffman on the Internet I have not considered before. Among the topics are anonymity, flaming, and privacy.