Learning from King and Whedon, and getting out of the ghetto
July 26, 2008
If Spielberg joins the party, it’s all over but the shoutin’.
This is an ultra-oversimplification of matters — matters of which I’ll explain in a moment — but I honesty believe that if my personal trifecta of the most-brilliant storytellers of the past 30 years can all hop aboard and support this “new media” thing, it’ll legitimize online distribution in more ways than a thousand-thousand podcasting J.C. Hutchinses, Scott Siglers, Grammar Girls, Ask A Ninjas, Dan Klasses and Keith and the Girls ever could.
Joss Whedon is now in the new media entertainment space. Stephen King is, too. If we snag Steven Spielberg, I reckon a great many eyes will open, a great many hands will slap against foreheads, and we’ll see some much-needed mainstream movement towards using the ‘Net as a viable platform to deliver original content to audiences.
As the whole frickin’ world knows by now, Whedon blew his savings account during last year’s Writer’s Strike to create Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, a 45-minute serialized video send-up of superhero stories. It’s a damned funny musical, and can only be found online — initially for free at the Dr. Horrible website, and now exclusively for purchase at iTunes.
King, my personal hero (for reasons beyond his superb prose), is also involved in a serialized new media project. Titled Stephen King’s N., this video series, adapted from a King story, is a fascinating animated comic book produced in a partnership between Marvel and Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS. The epsiodes will be distributed online via the CBS Audience Network and on mobile phones via the CBS Mobile platform. They will also be available for purchase on iTunes. It debuts July 28.
It would be easy for me to go on and on about how this finally gives me — and a great many others — much-deserved validation for pioneering the distribution of free digital serialized fiction … but I won’t do that. It’s a boring angle, and it works from the assumption that Entertainment Money Men™ far away from the small (but growing) ranks of RSS-savvy audiences actually noticed what we were doing in the first place.
Maybe they did. Maybe they didn’t. There’s plenty of evidence to point either way. It’s not important.
What is important is that it’s finally happening: big-name, truly talented creators see new media as a viable avenue to release original content. These ain’t Hulu re-broadcasts … or ultra-truncated 1980s TV “minisode” reruns for Myspace tweens with hummingbird attention spans … or any of the many other safe, cowardly, predictable ways to reapportion existing content. These are new stories, intentionally designed for Web release. That’s some bold shit. In the eyes of traditionalists, it’s crazy, risky, Wild West stuff.
Make no mistake: it is. The risk assumed by the independent Siglers, Klasses, Keith and the Girls and Hutchinses of the world is mostly time, more than expense. But for big boys such as Whedon and the mega-companies backing King, the risk is money. The way we indies justify the risk is by betting, despite the nigh-insurmountable odds, that we might one day get “discovered” and make a buck for our efforts. The way the Whedons and Kings justify their risk is by scoring an immediate monetary return on their investments.
They can, and will, do this because of the millions of existing fans who support their work. In fact, Whedon recently announced that a Dr. Horrible sequel will happen … and you’re naive if you think it’s simply because he’s acquiesing to fan requests. There’s money to be made from this endeavor.
These creators deserve the compensation, as well as the mainstream and blogosphere buzz. They are proven world-class entertainers and audience-builders. They also deserve props for playing in this wily space in which the rules are still being written, and “first ever in history” bragging rights are as plentiful as wildflowers. Artists deserve to be monetarily rewarded for their work.
I’ve made two significant realizations from all this new media-friendly news.
The first is that I’m excited — speaking truthfully, excited for the first time in at least a year — about the landscape of serialized online fiction, and how this will enhance and improve the medium. Yes, we’ve seen a lot of game-changing projects roll into this space recently, including the Stranger Things vidcast, my OBSIDIAN anthology (I believe OBSIDIAN’s author/audience role reversal is trailblazing), Seth Harwood’s new CrimeWAV project (which, like OBSIDIAN, brings a much-needed Alfred Hitchcock Presents vibe to podfiction), Mur Lafferty’s fan-created Stories of the Third Wave podcast, Matthew Wayne Selznick’s recent anthology/live reading “webathon” and more. But the Whedon and King projects bring a level of money, professionalism, promotion and attention to this realm that we indies simply can’t cultivate at present.
This is a great thing. It pulls TV-addicted norms away from the “glass teat” (as Harlan Ellison deftly put it) and all the passivity that comes with that experience … and puts them in an active role, questing for new content online. That makes for adventurous consumers. Maybe someday they’ll find content like mine. Or MINE.
While we indie creators can’t compete with King or Whedon in terms of production quality, audience size or exposure (though I’d like to think we can give them a run for their money in the strengths of our narratives), we can compete for people’s time and attention. I’d like to think Stephen King’s N. will inject new, curious, fiction-hungry audiences into this new media space. That’s also a great thing, because it desperately needs it.
The math is simple: mainstream creators experimenting with original online content will bring more awareness to the space, more investment from producers, more enthusiasm from audiences, and more original, professionally-produced content. The belles have finally come to the ball. It’s cool to be here. Others will follow. Independent creators will benefit from this, either through the muchly-cited Long Tail, or by entertainment companies seeking new creative blood in this thriving online talent pool.
The second significant realization I’ve made is that we new media creators — the folks who cut our teeth in this space, nearly all of us amateurs — are making grave mistakes in the way we perceive ourselves.
As the recent works of Whedon and King illustrate, the Web is the new frontier for storytelling. More than that, Web-based, time-shifted content is the future of entertainment and distribution. The scene is small and fragmented now, but in the upcoming years, mainstream companies will finance more online-exclusive entertainment — and then, one day, the entertainment won’t be “online-exclusive.” All entertainment will be online, piped through very smart television sets and handheld devices.
Some of this content will be free. Some will be pay-to-play. A great deal will be ad-supported.
Working from this eventuality of ubiquity, indie creators must unlearn words like “blogger” and “podcaster” and “netcaster” and “vidcaster” and “podnovelist,” and they must do it soon. These are stupid words that ghettoize what we do. They create artificial boundaries, and provide stunted perceptions to the public and perhaps ourselves (and our audiences) of what our art is capable of.
Put more pointedly: Joss Whedon is not a vidcaster, and Dr. Horrible is not a vidcast. It’s a serialized film released online. Stephen King is not a podcaster; his N. project is an adapted short story presented in serialized, animated video form. These writers transcend the monikers partly because of their existing bodies of work — but also because they wish to.
Scott Sigler is a novelist. Keith and the Girl are comedians. Ask A Ninja is powered by brilliant filmmakers. Annalee Newitz is a writer. Grammar Girl is a renowned grammar expert.
We are far more than the method we choose to release our work.
Understand that podcasting is a complicated, ultra-niche distribution method. Understand that the creative world — and the impact your work can make on it — extends far beyond this postage stamp-sized realm on the ‘Net. We are entertainment producers above all else, and should perceive ourselves as such.
View the world through this lens, and the wisdom of King’s and Whedon’s experimentation — and yes, monetization — becomes not only appreciated but imperative. Their miniseries models and business plans are the future of online entertainment. Pro creators and Entertainment Money Men™ are learning a lot from us trailblazing indies, but we must also watch them keenly, should we want to profit from the fruits of our labors … because artists deserve to be monetarily rewarded for their work.
We must ape the very best of the big boys’ executions, while remaining faithful to our audiences and our personal ethics. And if we want to acheive our creative dreams, we must not intractably wed our art with our distribution vehicles. You’re never just a blogger, or a podcaster, or a YouTube Director. If we mentally adhere to these labels, we willfully paint ourselves into creative corners. If the fumes don’t kill you, the frustration will.
Be more than your RSS feed, and do it soon. You’ll want to be ready. Because when Spielberg starts to play in our backyard, things will get mighty interesting mighty fast.
What do you think about these recent developments, how it will affect online distribution, and the new media “ghetto” I’ve described? I’d sure like to hear from you in the comments.
–J.C.
Comments
16 Responses to “Learning from King and Whedon, and getting out of the ghetto”
Got something to say?
-
Sept. 9: Get the "Ask A Ninja" Ninja Handbook!
-
7th Son MOBILE
-
Listen to 7th Son Now
-
Subscribe to the 7th Son Podcasts in iTunes
Well said JC. To further your point, I read this on my iphone accessing it through Twitter. This is a normal way for me to get certain kinds of news and to learn new technologies and “stuff”. One day (soon) that will be as ubiqutous as TV/Radio.
Love your stuff and thanks again for your hard work in this field.continued success!
[...] for now, I’m going to link you over to his article. I think you’ll find it as interesting as I did. And I’ll return later with something of [...]
I was wondering when you’d write on Dr. Horrible, J.C.
The moment I saw it I knew it was a huge thing for new media. It looks like Whedon is embracing thing with open arms, which is delightful.
I don’t know about the ghetoization thing — you could make the same argument about webcomics. Thing is, most people I know who are online read webcomics and webcomics are swiftly becoming recognized as a legit way to do comics by all people.
Thing is, the internet distribution method DOES change the thing being distributed. For example, the concept of infinite canvas in webcomics. Or, in a choose-your-own-adventure style of youtube video, which blurs the lines between a movie and a videogame. (If you’d like to check out what I’m talking about: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lFfNDFDUuA
Ultimately the fact that these stories are being distributed via computers changes them. Computers mean code. And the difference between a work distributed via computer coding and work printed on dead trees is as vast as the difference between work painted on a canvas and work sculpted in stone.
The internet, and computers, are more than just a distribution method — they are also a new medium for artists. Consider the playing for keeps podcasts Mur Lafferty did — with her PDFs she was able to sneak in easter eggs that provided a new level of content. Those easter eggs could not have existed in any other medium.
I don’t think those words ghetoize new media producers — rather I just think they are words designed to describe aspects of the new medium that is computers and the internet.
@Jeff: Thanks for chiming in, and for the kind words!
@Mabus: I appreciate your thoughts, and absolutely agree that internet distribution changes the content and intent of the thing being distributed. We’ve seen that with “Dr. Horrible” — the serialization and short episodes play to the strengths (or weaknesses, depending on your perspective) of the distribution method and audience. Video files sizes are large and time-consuming to download (warranting the serialization) and Web-based viewers dig shorter content (warranting brief episodes).
I also dig your comments about webcomics creators, and how — like the indie and pro creators mentioned in my post — they use the canvas of the Web to experiment in their work.
However, I feel the seemingly intractable combination of the word “web” and “comics” — just like “pod” and “novelist,” for instance — showcases the mental ghettoization I mention in my post.
Webcomics creators should not perceive themselves as merely “webcomics creators.” The term is just as restrictive as the monikers I mentioned in my post. These folks are comics creators, period. The Web may be the current way we’re all distributing our content, but I feel these terms — not our content — can limit the public’s (and artists’) perception of our works’ impact .
The point of the second half of my post is that since all entertainment will soon be available in an online digital format, artists should start calling themselves what there are — novelists, comics creators, filmmakers — and drop the pod-, web-, and -caster add-ons to what they do. While the Web is the future, most norms currently associate the word “Web” with the words “amateur” or “awful.”
What a great many of us do is far better than that, and — in preparation for the “inevitable ubiquity” I mentioned in my post, and in the interest of leading popular opinion toward that acceptance — I suggest we call ourselves what we are, and lessen the association of how we release our content.
–J.C.
Hey, J.C. I’m in agreement about the direction that entertainment is going. I’ve written on my blog a few times about how the next revolution won’t be a new genre, like in the punk and hardcore movements, but instead be a revolution in distribution and consumption of entertainment. I think one reason it is happening so well in the fiction world with regards to big names like King and Whedon, is because there is no literary version of the MPAA or RIAA. Both of those groups are so against any kind of free, or even DRM-less, content, and don’t even have the artists’ best interest in mind…much less the fans. Not saying that the publishers are running to embrace the format, but it does seem like the fiction world is moving along a little easier, and not digging their heels in, being dragged kicking and screaming while entertainment is moving ahead to the digital world.
As to the second part of your post, I can certainly understand where you’re going with it. What it reminds me of is when Wil Wheaton talked about being a writer. For a long time, even after he published two books, he regarded himself as a “small w writer”. He struggled with thinking of himself as a Writer, even though he is, and a good one at that. Could that type of thinking be involved also? Certainly fans would think of you, Sigler, Lafferty, Doctrow, etc as writers, (and much of your stuff is better than “mainstream” authors!) but I’m sure there are people like me - ones who write as a hobby and for fun - who might feel like calling ourselves a “Writer” is too much. I don’t see calling myself a “blogger”, even when I include some fiction on my blog, as anything bad or worse per se. But I do think that many people, especially in the Main Stream Media, regard bloggers, and by proxy podcasters, with disdain. I think we just need to change their perception, and with Wheaton et al showing digital entertainment is the wave of the future, we’ll get there.
Sorry for the long response. Hope my ramblings made sense. I wanted to link my blog posts titled “The revolution will be downloaded”, but my blog is down! Hate the timing, too, with MINE going live.
Hutch, your article made me really think about what it means to be an online content creator in a way I’ve never thought about it before. Thank you for your stimulating post.
I must say, I will miss the feeling that I belong to a secret, underground, little-known community of writers when that feeling is gone. On the other hand, for me, the sense that we’re better than mainstream writers was tied up with that feeling, and I know that it’s wrong to look down on other groups of people like that. The only ethical thing for me to do is to accept these newcomers into our space with an open and understanding heart, so I will do my best to do that.
Well said, JC. Henceforth I’ll describe myself as a storyteller. (Or, if I’m in a more NPR/pretentious mood … an essayist.)
Shame the Big boys entry into New Media are to be iTunes exclusives. Tried it hated it, got rid of it. Thats me excluded :-<
“Be more then your RSS feed…..” AMEN!
I think the shift you talk about and the points you raise are good ones. For too long people have focused on the delivery mechanism of their content (podcasting) more then the content itself.
People want to be entertained, informed or educated. They want to consume what they like and just because the device and method that they do this consumption is changing no one wants to focus on that, but those of us creating in this space have gotten stuck in that rut for a while now and as you suggested it is time to move beyond that.
Thanks for a nice state of the union and where you’d like to see it go. Great thoughts as usual.
Wow JC,
What you have written here is something that has been on my mind a lot lately, but you have expressed it far better than I have been able thus far.
Becoming more than our delivery method is so important. I remember the early days, back in late 2004 through 2005. The podcast community. It was warm, almost like a blanket, and it felt great to be a part of it all.
That community has pretty much splintered now. Not in a bad way, but just as a natural progression. Some of us have gone the route of making this a professional endeavor, while others have perfected the hobby aspect. Still, our productions have become more than what they were in 2004-2005, but we still cling to those early, limited, views of what we create.
I like the use of producers. We are not podcasters, or net casters, or any other limiting label. We are film makers, writers, dj’s, whatever. Thank you for articulating that point so well.
To paraphrase a much wiser man than I, Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you are absolutely right.
We need to drop the limiting thoughts about who and what we are and what we create. Every major media success started with somebody in a room with an idea, wondering if what he is creating is worthy or not. The successes decided it was indeed worthy, and ran with it.
Get ready for the marathon as there will be a lot of running.
Great post.
It would be nice if we could use the iTunes store to charge for content too.
[...] This post by J.C. Hutchins brings up some valid points and prompts me to lay out a more detailed mission statement of Astral Audio Productions. While a podcast is currently our main product, it is only the bait, (or more accurately, one form of bait), that grabs your attention. When I started thinking of what I wanted this place to represent, what I wanted to accomplish, and furthermore, how to achieve those goals, I knew that I wanted to be outside the box. I wanted to incoorporate the things I enjoy into what I do and produce. The short answer is that Astral Audio Productions is here to entertain, inform, instruct, and inspire the community that is built through interaction. [...]
Thanks for this post, it’s very kickass. There is a HUGE leveling of the playing field going on and I think it’s very exciting. The trouble is, writers of fiction already have to fight so much stigma if they go indie. Because while indie bands and filmmakers are perceived as “cool” the indie author is often percieved as “not good enough to get a publisher.”
I’d love for this perception to change. I’m in the planning stages of podcasting my novel and this post couldn’t have come at a better time.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about ebooks, and how initially everybody wanted to sell them and make money in a very linear fashion from it. This works in some genres, like romance. And with the Kindle it may start working more in others, but free ebooks are, IMO an excellent marketing tool. (Sorry, that veered.)
Viva La Resistance!
Keep on kicking asses, and congrats on the book deal.
Zoe
After just reading about Josh Whedon’s upcoming new TV series, with webisodes, “Dollhouse”, it sounds like he has learned something from you.
His blank “Dolls” sounded very similar to the “blanks” in your 7th son series.
Sounds like a great new series.
I’ve been watching this tide slowly grow for a long time, and along with adding my “amen” to dropping the surly “web” prefix from our definitions, I think fellow creators need to stop considering what they are doing as “mainstream” vs “underground”.
The underground is already gone. When you have an “Independent Film Channel” in millions of homes, you are no longer underground.
You are a creator as much as anyone else is. Everything after that comes down to talent and money.
I was discussing with my brother (he’s had his tech site since some time in 1997 and I followed with a content-driven site of my own in ‘99). I was geeked the first time I was in an online newsletter, then a print magazine, then a print book, then another, etc. I’ve never been listed as a blogger, nor has he. When we–like many in the ‘underground’–started our sites “blogging” wasn’t even a word. Nor was “Web Log”. Certainly, “podcast” wasn’t even on the horizon.
It’s been very interesting to watch the shift in perceptions of new media being “nerds” in their basements to being something you could talk about in a job interview–very cool.
I fully foresee serialized audio fiction making a dent in the published fiction scene. It opens the doors for exceptionally talented creators to reach a wider range of audiences without much of the hype and hurdles.