Week Five: Intertexualization in "Glee"

I am a Gleek.

As a former show choir nerd myself, I have been an unabashed fan of the television show “Glee”. And, whether the critics like it or not, “Glee” is a sophisticated show. The show’s creators utilize intertextuality in more nuanced ways than simply straightforward cover of popular songs. I have identified one captivating example of intertextuality as textual strategy in this show.

Before the second season began, nearly all recurring actors in the show started to use Twitter. Fox’s official Twitter account made their actors’ Twitter handles public. On a recent episode, Naya Rivera, who plays Santana, calls her costar Corey Monteith “Frankenteen”. The average viewer may just think this jab is a clever comment on Monteith’s height (see photo above). In fact, it is, but the name has a bit of a history.

Initially, a Twitter-friendly viewer might recognize “Frankenteen” as a reference to Monteith’s Twitter handle. Using this as a point of reference is funny in itself. However, the Twitter handle was, in fact, born from the third episode of the series in which another character referred to Monteith’s character as Frankenteen. The show’s choreographer initially coined the name and the writers worked it into the script. Due to network negotiations, this episode aired quite some time ago, before the cast members were active on Twitter. It is doubtful that many casual viewers remember this first mention of “Frankenteen” and Rivera’s use of it likely reminded viewers of Monteith’s Twitter account instead.

The more layers a fan peels back from this single joke, the more involved he/she feels in the narrative. Ott and Walter call this parodic allusion, or “the pleasure of recognition is often directly proportional to the difficulty of identifying the allusion” (436). As a fan, I do feel incredibly nerdy for knowing this bit of "Glee" trivia but it also made me feel more involved and committed to the show itself.

Ott and Walter make the point that the Internet is changing the way we view television. “Glee” is capitalizing on this intertextualization in a big way.

Week Four: Hollywood Gamers and GoldenEye

I was introduced to Nintendo 64 through the GoldenEye game based on the 1995 Bond film. In high school, we played tournaments after play practice. When I saw Activision was remaking it for the Wii, of course I pre-ordered it.

The game arrived in November. I found it far more difficult than the 64 version, but that’s not my only complaint. James Bond in the Wii remake looks like Daniel Craig. He wasn’t in the GoldenEye film; that was Pierce Brosnan.

It’s possible my hang up comes from the fact that I am a Pierce Brosnan fan in general. I was introduced to the Bond franchise with Brosnan as the face. What disappoints me with GoldenEye for Wii are the differences in the game because of the appearance of Craig. However, for some game fans, there were already inconsistencies in the first GoldenEye game, therefore those of us with trepidations should quit our complaining. According to Evan Elder Eller at VGChartz, Pierce Brosnan never fought Oddjob or Mayday, who both appear in the 64 version, so this game was already a stretch.

This brings up a discussion of licensing and use of likeness in an actors’ contract, a discussion not lost on the video game’s fans. Craig Harris writes at IGN:

Like it or lump it, for GoldenEye 007 Activision has ousted Pierce Brosnan in favor of the current Bond, Daniel Craig, for the role of 007. Whether the switch is due to lacking the likeness rights or simply Eurocom and Activision wanting to take a huge risk with such a massive design change may never be known. The Craig rendition of Bond is one of the biggest alterations to the character, giving the Ian Fleming spy a much more brutal, thug-like personality than his Connery/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan precursors, and with this single change comes a ripple effect: all the existing roles have been recast, some characters have been removed, and key moments – while true to the GoldenEye film – have been altered to work within the Daniel Craig style of Bond.

It's interesting that a simple change in likeness can change an entire game.

Week Three: Bogost, Advergaming, and Call of Duty

In Chapter 5 of Persuasive Games, Bogost discusses advertising in video games and spends a great deal of time dissecting automobile ads in print, television, and in games. Bogost asserts there are three types of advertising: demonstrative, illustrate, and associative. I have provided a YouTube clip of what I consider a fascinating example of demonstrative advertising. This commercial was broadcasted on television, but features the video game Call of Duty to sell a real life Jeep. This Jeep is the new Call of Duty: Black Ops edition of the vehicle.

Though I have not played Call of Duty: Black Ops, I assume this vehicle is used within game play. In an explanation of demonstrative advergaming, as quoted on page 159, Chen and Ringel claim, “Advergames boost messaging effectiveness by present the product in its natural context and inviting the consumer to interact with it.” As anyone familiar with U.S. history and/or war films can tell you, the Jeep was widely popularized by the armed forces’ use of the vehicle. Therefore featuring it in this game is an example of the Jeep in its natural context. (However, anyone from my hometown of Mishawaka, Indiana will be disappointed that our homegrown product, the Hummer, is not featured instead.) This product placement within Call of Duty is believable. In fact, the use of any other vehicle (aside from the military Hummer) would have seemed absurd.

Because Bogost’s text is a few years old, at the time of writing, this kind of hybrid advertising was not yet prevalent, nor is the Black Ops commercial the first of its kind (see also the Grand Theft Auto-esque Coca Cola commercial from 2007). Game culture and gaming technology is becoming increasingly pervasive. Not only is advertising used within games, but we are seeing games used to advertise other products through additional media, a confluence I find endlessly fascinating.

Week Two: Gurak, Cyberliteracy, and Third Wave Feminism

I'm stuck on Gurak's notion of online communication being a hybrid of oral and written communication. He suggests electronic discourse is more personal, though it is in text form. This led me to the conclusion that the difference between online text and printed text is the use of voice. This is precisely what draws me to the blogosphere. The voice of the writer is not only justified but encouraged.

The idea of voice and personality in electronic discourse makes it an inherently feminist space. Just as the second wave used the mantra, "The personal is political," the third wave uses online communication and the blogosphere in particular to assume the same thing. This is why many second wave feminists and anti-feminists don't see the third wave as a coherent movement. We are not marching in the streets; we are marching through the World Wide Web.

Just as Gurak says is necessary in cyberliteracy, we have to think critically about the Internet in cultural history. This allows us to understand some of the key differences between the second and third wave. The key difference between the second wave and third wave movements is the Internet. Unless the computer pictured above has the ability to connect to Feministing or Twitter, I doubt that woman’s feminism can be found online.

Gurak writes, "Cyberliteracy... is about consciousness. It is about taking a critical perspective on a technology that is radically transforming the world" (16). It is a funny coincidence that he makes that point on the page after I scribbled "more voice in online comm -- very feminist!" in the margin. I had started thinking of online forums as the modern consciousness-raising groups of the second wave. Just as cyberliteracy takes a critical perspective on technology, we must be cyberliterate to appreciate critical online third wave perspectives on our global culture.

{photo credit}