postimg
Nov 2010 01

Lie Transmedia Lie!15

Posted In Blog,reflections

What set me on the ramble below was the amount of creatives I know who, when they hear about transmedia get excited by the possibility of deceit – ‘We could fool people into…’ or, horrifyingly ‘We can MAKE people do this…!’

I want any writing/film/video/work I create to be involving, immersive, engaging and as real as possible – I build for belief in order to reflect or contrast the world in some ‘presented’ way. But this doesn’t seem to sit right in a Transmedia world. The landscape and barriers are different.

Transmedia offers the conceptual possibility of seeding a completely believable set of facts in a story framework: A true, false reality. One example is the construct lie that is never uncovered, and another is extending our worlds as far as possible to maintain suspension of disbelief.

Do we actually need to quest for this blinding belief in our storyworlds though?

I need to do a bit of thinking out loud…

Backtrack to Perception through Legacy Apparatus.

In any and every situation, my perception of events retold, factual or fictional, will be different from the storytellers’. On one hand this is a problem and on the other its something I cherish – both as recipient and creator.

I will also immediately put aside any barriers I am aware of that stand in the way of the information. Each single method of relaying a story, from a chat over the garden fence to an evening in front of the silver screen has its own physical and virtual barriers for the receiver to deal with.

When talking to my neighbour I know he is from another part of the country and sees the world differently to me. I translate colloquialisms and filter anything I consider opinion on its way into my ‘self’.

Cinema has its whole (wonderful) mechanical apparatus, fourth wall and tall guy in the way. Once the lights go down and the narrative begins though, it allows me to suspend my disbelief of light through celluloid and frequency through loudspeakers.

These barriers, once in place, can be interrupted of course to great effect, but I wonder if they are necessary gateways to our internal processes – both a defensive barrier to prevent insanity and a trigger to permit discourse.

“Okay, this isn’t really happening, but I might enjoy it and internalise it. I will ignore the apparatus and add what you are communicating to the way I perceive the world. I will choose to connect it with my real experiences because it resonates with me.”

If we are not made aware of the apparatus at some point of contact with the material so that we can put it aside and step over the line:

1. How does our brain know to play along rather than believe?

which leads to

2. How can we have any meaningful discourse & with the material?

If we don’t have #2, do we have Transmedia?

So. Transmedia offers the conceptual possibility of seeding a completely believable set of facts in a story framework but if there is no line in place, creators foster belief and acceptance over query and discourse.

Photograph courtesy of Marcelo Vial

See @SimonPulman‘s reflections on Jeff Gomez’ tedxtransmedia talk.

This line may be something we deal with intuitively when we design a story and I would suppose at the origins of photography and motion pictures that the disproportionate truth the new technology ‘held’ was discussed too.

If we are to continue to escalate communication beyond one-on-one situations, trust has to come from somewhere.

Interlude. The hoax and the puppet.

I don’t think there is any difference between single media and transmedia hoaxing. The angle of creative approach is the same and the value formula for a positive response is the same too. In both cases you would have to look at the payoff ratio.

The value (to the receiver; not of the creator) of the hoax revelation must be greater than the weight of the entire betrayal.

Hoaxes for consideartion:
http://www.joeyskaggs.com via @mikemonello
@AlxButterworth has written this book with a chapter on the Leo Taxil hoax which took place over ten years in the 1890′s
@sighdone pointed me to this video of James Randi exposing the mechanics behind Peter Popoff’s “reality”

I think here is some value in exposing our blinding trust in any apparatus every now and again though. Newspapers, TV news, documentary all have processes that can be played to remind us they are not verbatim and that as an audience we shouldn’t treat them as such.

A prank is fine too and is very different to a lie because it gives ultimate credit to the ‘prankee’. To craft a lie solely to prove how clever you are though is just wasteful.

@andrhia suberbly covers Sock puppets, fake and non-playing characters
@richardhartley also pulled up some related forum links.

[added 7th Nov 2010 from @christydena. Why ARGS aren’t hoaxes http://www.christydena.com/online-essays/why-args-arent-hoaxes/ and why people perceive them as hoaxes http://www.universecreation101.com/2008/01/anti-hoaxing-strategies-and-the-tinag-fallacy/. ]

Trusting we Should, Cannot, Will.

There must be a line somewhere. There must be some barrier between creator and audience…?

Ownership of the barriers that create the need to suspend disbelief has already become shared with the audience – even at a single media level.

For me, audiences can’t entirely control a story though. Each project’s goals and architecture will speak to that in varying degrees, but I do think creators need to look at the apparatus in the same way as we are encouraged to treat narrative.

So in conclusion I am holding that Transmedia storytelling will evolve into a ring-a-ring-a-roses dance between creators and audiences on the line of reality. That we should invite the audience inside because through shared ownership of the apparatus, character and story, transmedia is the reversal of suspended disbelief. And I feel there is some unexplored value in that.

Reversal (Abolition?) of the Suspension of Disbelief

Single Media Narratives Transmedia Narratives
Mechanics are present until you get into the story.

Apparatus breaks the connection to the narrative

 Mechanics are absent until you get into the story.

Apparatus forms the connection to the narrative.

Online, everything seems true until you shape it, at which point our sensibility to story allows us to reflect on, and engage with the content in the platforms rather than consume them as fact.

The quest is primarily for engagement and empathy then, not for absolute belief.

Would welcome discussion.

Thanks to tweets, replies and connected conversation from
@im2b @andriha @simonstaffans @jeffgomez @scott_walker
@christydena @glecharles @simonpulman @mikemonello, @sighdone
@alxbutterworth @richardhartley. <^^< follow them all for insight!

  • http://stitchmedia.ca Evan Jones

    I definitely agree with the cringe-inducing way that some transmedia claims to ‘make people do things’ instead of speaking of engagement. Religion is a tough topic of comparison – belief structures involve a fair bit of socialization and agreement on the source of wisdom. Transmedia hoaxing is a subset of the possibilities but it has received a high profile – it’s easier to understand ‘tricking’ someone than it is ‘immersing’ them, I suppose. Blunt instruments for an early age – let’s get to refining those tools!

    • hislordship

      Thanks Evan,

      I added the religion definition because from what little I know so far that definition *seems* to be what creators are aiming for in their storyworlds. Not saying that its actually possible either, but am questioning that as the ultimate goal. I do agree though that it would be extremely difficult to create a ‘religion’ and think anything that got to a scale would have attacking and defending communities. Self policing maybe?

  • Pingback: Some great thoughts on transparency and barriers in #transme… - 4D Fiction

  • dl

    Great post Paul …These are my thoughts if I am understanding where you are going with this…ethics vs. submersion/4th wall and the sticking points/definition of a good contract with the audience

    We (and especially I) deal with this in what we are building every day.

    We have bleeding between reality stories (a little girl who really disappeared, men who were really killed by a serial killer, vets returning from war …etc…etc.) we link out to sites, maps, journalism, initiatives, and even people … that interface with those.

    I have serious ethical flags about how we handle these journeys as story vs. reality (wormholes is what we call the interfaces/connections that criss cross between those realities and between the fictional worlds we are building). Where the 4th wall lies, where the suspension of disbelief and out contract with the audience flows close enough for them to see the embankment of reality while still flowing referentially submerged in what (as you know) my teams call the “storycube”.

    I am sure their will be question on many of the projects we are doing about whether we stepped over a line of ethics… I worry and am challenged by that line because first and foremost with an audience (imo) is trust. Because if you screw them enough by fooling them in the unwrittern contract of the 4th wall… most will not be coming back or sign away their suspension of disbelief again. (again my judgement)

    and btw/fyi -I also would add that actors (especially who have written a screenplay they have been in) may have something to teach on this subject. Asking ethical vs. submersion questions and where the 4th wall is placed are issues actors deal with often. …and I don’t think there is simple answers to these questions. I have played rapists and neoNazi’s and I can tell you when you play with suspension of disbelief…even knowingly it stillhas lots of effects on the residue in your subconscious (lol I think that is the chicken and egg thing with a lot of actor vs. unstable ituations that happen)

    Hope you don’t mind my spewing…just my thoughts outloud.

    • hislordship

      Hi DL – Thanks for taking the time to spew so much =). I tend to allocate the 4th wall to actors and (what I am focused on above) suspension of disbelief to the apparatus of production and the tools the audience uses to receive the information. Its a grey area with crossover too though but also where IMHHO the art of transmedia comes out.

  • http://metascott.com Scott Walker

    Love this post. It seems to address the transmedia projects (currently? formerly?) referred to as ARGs, so maybe the delicate issue of trust abuse isn’t as widespread as it might be. Maybe.

    But your final box diagram was brilliant, and, I would humbly suggest, perhaps deserves a post all to itself. I’m intrigued by the idea that – much like there’s a kind of fusion when content is delivered in different media such that the medium shapes the content (and I’m not going anywhere near any medium-is-the-message analysis!) – the structure of a transmedia experience is as defined as much by the method of delivery as it is by the content being delivered.

    Good stuff, Paul!

    P.S. I think you meant to refer to my twitter ID above, which is “scott_walker” (not scottwalker…man, I WISH I had been fast enough to get that one!)

    • hislordship

      Thanks Scott – contact details fixed.
      I think the trust issue will be pertinent for a while yet. Maybe.
      Yes – the table was the result of much more ramble than I ended up including and I felt it was a good place to conclude… for now.

  • Daniel Durrant

    For starters, where is the line between Transmedia and ARGs? Are the definitions still being negotiated?

    Aren’t fictions already overpowering reality? Just look at the fringe republicans, possessed master gBeck. (off topic?)

    What may be needed are educational elements which clearly demarcate authentic from artifice for the player/participants are necessary, in order to maintain trust. I’m imagining a shared set of recognized disclaimers, like a trusted blanket atop all transmedia narratives. For example: Your avatar(?) is not your identity. What do you think?

    Define the discourse, deliberate, and demarcate. What might a transmedia code of ethics look like?
    (Professionals are we?)

    • hislordship

      Hi Daniel, thanks for your comments and tweets. I haven’t been around long enough to answer your first questions I’m afraid, but I must admit to posting from the story side rather than the gaming side (a clumsy way to put it I know).

      You should absolutely check out the two links Christy posted as they address all your points bar the last, including some subtle ways to demarcate. Is your final comment asking if professionals should/must signup to such a code?

      • http://omedia.amplify.com Daniel Durrant

        Thanks for the pointers Paul. I’ve chewed on Christy’s links and I’m pleasantly satisfied.

        My reason for suggesting a professional code isn’t to jam a requirement down producer’s throats, but to ensure the art retains its legitimacy as it enters into the mainstream, preventing reactionary laws from restricting the emerging industry.

        *shrug*

        I may be teaching Granny how to suck eggs. Oh well.

        Peace,

        D

  • Christy Dena

    Hello Paul,

    Thanks for the ping – great to see you’re asking such questions.

    I personally don’t like the hoax approach and don’t find ARGs etc to automatically be hoaxes. So, previously I’ve written a couple of posts on Why ARGS aren’t hoaxes http://www.christydena.com/online-essays/why-args-arent-hoaxes/ and why people perceive them as hoaxes http://www.universecreation101.com/2008/01/anti-hoaxing-strategies-and-the-tinag-fallacy/.

    I am still surprised when I speak with people who can’t wait to do a hoax. They don’t seem to realise that as soon as your audience figures out it is a hoax there is no other place to go. It is a one-trick pony that aggravates your audience more than anything else.

    You’ve also mentioned other issues which I haven’t touched on. Another time! :)

    • hislordship

      Thanks Christy – vital and in depth links as always – have added them to the post. Also in response to your qweet…

      What fascinates me most are the apparatus of delivery, the barriers of receipt and the way empathy is projected by the audience; How, with a transmedia story those things are in very, very different places to single media.

      Where my head is at now says that…

      1. Producing an impenetrable fiction is secondary to inciting engagement and empathy. ?

      2. The mechanics are traditionally something you (as audience) ultimately choose to put aside to ‘get into it’ – but transmedia consciously increases the amount of apparatus ‘in the way’ – successfully pushing ownership onto the recipient. They may not create content, but this moves them onto the other side of the line of suspension of disbelief.?

      3. The Effort+Time to Value ratio of engaging with a transmedia experience is I think, a related, interesting and challenging consideration at the outset of designing/writing any project.

      Finally, I’m new here as you know =). I’m doing this all in my head until I actually make something and have some real data. I have no idea if all that is obvious for those producing ARGs and Transmedia daily. It was a collection of small breakthroughs for me though that will change how I write and shape my own designs.

  • Pingback: Transparency » Silverstring Media

  • Pingback: Demarcate or Deceive? – Lie Transmedia Lie [01Nov10] | The Book

  • Pingback: Invert Nis