0

The Yolanda and David Katz

Faculty of the Arts

Film & Television Department

“Connecting the Dots:”

Catastrophic Narratives on Contemporary

American Television

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Master of the Arts

Presented by:

Ariel Avissar

Supervised by:

Dr. Boaz Hagin and Dr. Itay Harlap

December 2015

i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION: “FUTURE SHOCK” – CATASTROPHIC NARRATIVES ON POST-9/11 AMERICAN TELEVISION..........................................................................................................................1

1. CHAPTER 1: NEW WORLD, NEW RULES – TERRORISM IN THE AGE OF NETWORKS 7

1.1. INTRODUCTION: “NO MORE GOOD DAYS” – POST-9/11 REALITIES AND COLD WAR NOSTALGIA..71.2. THE NETWORK SOCIETY: AN INTRODUCTION ................................................................................10

1.2.1. Rhizomatic Thought and Distributed Structures..................................................................111.2.2. The Life and Times of the Network Society ..........................................................................14

1.3. THE NATURE OF TERRORISM: A NETWORKED ENEMY FOR THE NETWORKED ERA ......................171.3.1. Case Study: Flashforward and the Global Blackout Network.............................................191.3.2. The War on Terror: Fighting the Many-Headed Hydra ......................................................24

1.4. CONCLUSION: THE NETWORK AS THREAT.....................................................................................28

2. CHAPTER 2: “CONNECTING THE DOTS” – COMPREHENDING NETWORK COMPLEXITY.............................................................................................................................................31

2.1. INTRODUCTION: “TOO MUCH INFORMATION” – SEEING THE PATTERN FOR THE DATA.................312.2. “HOW TO STOP AN EXPLODING MAN:” TOOLS AND TROPES FOR CONNECTING THE DOTS ...........33

2.2.1. “The Wall of Crazy:” Pins, Papers and Strings ..................................................................342.2.2. “Welcome to the Machine:” Information Networks and Super-Computers........................422.2.3. “The Brain is a Computer:” Unique Minds and Productive Pathologies...........................462.2.4. “We’re All Prophets Now:” Temporal Manipulation and Synchronous Temporality ........50

2.3. “ALL PART OF THE PLAN:” ORDER BEHIND CHAOS......................................................................532.3.1. “Deus Ex Machina:” Faith in the Grand Design................................................................552.3.2. “Not Every Conspiracy Is a Theory,” or the Unexpected Virtue of Paranoia ....................59

2.4. CONCLUSION: “EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED” ..............................................................................66

ii

3. CHAPTER 3: NEW MEDIA, NEW NARRATIVE STRUCTURES – “POST-TV” AND SERIAL COMPLEXITY.............................................................................................................................69

3.1. INTRODUCTION: “GONE ARE THE DAYS…” – TELEVISION ISN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE ...............693.2. A NETWORKED MEDIA LANDSCAPE: INTRODUCTION TO “POST-TV” ...........................................713.3. COMPLEX SERIALITY: A NETWORKED NARRATIVE FOR THE NETWORKED MEDIUM ....................76

3.3.1. Case Study: “137 Sekunden” – Episode Break-Down ........................................................793.3.2. “Multiple Threading:” Fragmented Narrative Progression ...............................................823.3.3. Complex Character Networks: The Ensemble Series ..........................................................873.3.4. Temporal Manipulation and Non-Linear Narratives...........................................................903.3.5. Transmedia Narratives and the “Hyperdiegesis” ...............................................................943.3.6. “I Have No Idea What Is Going On:” Confusion and Orientation .....................................98

3.4. CONCLUSION: THE NETWORK NARRATIVE AS THREAT...............................................................102

4. CHAPTER 4: COMPREHENDING COMPLEX NARRATIVES – THE VIEWER AS INVESTIGATOR.......................................................................................................................................106

4.1. INTRODUCTION: “WHAT DID YOU SEE?” – AN INVITATION TO CONNECT THE DOTS .................1064.2. PARTICIPATORY CULTURE AND FORENSIC ENGAGEMENT...........................................................109

4.2.1. Networked Fandom: The Audience as Collective Intelligence ..........................................1164.2.2. Help Yourself: Narrative Orientation and Paratextual Aids .............................................121

4.2.2.1. Social Networks: Mapping Character Relationships.....................................................................1214.2.2.2. Back in Time: Making Sense of Temporality ...............................................................................131

4.2.3. “Better Learning through Television:” Forensic Engagement as Cognitive Workout .....1374.3. “IT HAS TO MAKE SENSE:” FAITH IN THE GRAND NARRATIVE DESIGN ......................................141

4.3.1. “Deus ex Scriptum:” The Cult of the Showrunner ............................................................1434.3.2. Critical and Transformational Fandom: The Audience as Heretic ...................................1484.3.3. Spoiler Fandom: The Audience as Terrorist......................................................................150

4.4. CONCLUSION: COMPLEXITY MADE SIMPLE.................................................................................153

5. CONCLUSION: “THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, AND SO MUST WE”...............................156

5.1. CODA: “ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE” – THE NEVER-ENDING NARRATIVE......................................161

WORKS CITED .........................................................................................................................................164

OTHER SOURCES....................................................................................................................................185

TELEVISION...............................................................................................................................................185FILM..........................................................................................................................................................188

1

Introduction: “Future Shock” – Catastrophic Narratives on Post-9/11 American Television

FBI Agent Mark Benford opens his eyes to find the world upside down. As he struggles

free, battered and bleeding, from the shattered wreckage of his overturned SUV, we hear

the sounds of car alarms, sirens, yelling and indistinct cries for help, a cacophony of

distress; as he frantically surveys his surroundings, a rapid series of shots reveals, in

shaky hand-held camera, multiple casualties, debris strewn across the road, people

running around helplessly, one man engulfed in flames, shouting in agony.

These are the opening moments of Flashforward (2009-2010, ABC; episode

1.01). Later in the episode, as Mark gains a better vantage point, the fragmented images

are finally replaced by a wide establishing shot, revealing the urban landscape of

downtown Los Angeles all in ruins, smoke billowing from numerous skyscrapers (see

figure 1). Rumors start spreading of similar incidents in other cities, in other countries, all

over the world. As the full, global extent of the chaos becomes clear, televised news

reports attempt to describe what happened: it seems that for two minutes and seventeen

seconds, everyone in the world simultaneously and inexplicably lost consciousness,

resulting in dozens of millions of fatalities worldwide. During this event, which would

come to be known as the Global Blackout, everyone saw a vision – or a “flashforward” –

of their lives at a specific point in time, several months into the future.1

1 The narrative would only catch up to this point in time during the series finale, “Future Shock” (episode 1.22).

2

Figure 1: Images of mass destruction following the Global Blackout; screen grab, Flashforward’s pilot episode (episode 1.01).

This sudden and unexpected global catastrophe serves as the inciting event of

Flashforward’s narrative. The intelligence community having been caught entirely off

guard, a special FBI task-force, led by Mark, is created to investigate the Global

Blackout, now deemed an act of terrorism; as Mark’s superior, Assistant Director

Stanford Wedeck, puts it: “The whole world's on pins and needles […] Priority number

one – finding out what caused this. Priority number two is figuring out whether or not it'll

happen again.”

Flashfoward thus joins an ever-growing list of dramatic series centered on the

catastrophic, a trend which some have dubbed a veritable “crisis fetish” (Muller); these

series, which I shall generally refer to as “catastrophic series” throughout this thesis, have

been produced in abundance on American television over the last decade and a half.

Whether in the context of real-world acts of terrorism on American soil – on shows such

3

as 24 (2001-2010, Fox), Homeland (2011-present, Showtime), Rubicon (2010, AMC) or

Quantico (2015-present, ABC) – or of various forms of fantastic or otherworldly

“terrorism,” at times endangering all of mankind – as happens on shows such as Fringe

(2008-2013, Fox), Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009, Sci-Fi), 12 Monkeys (2015-present,

Syfy) or Odyssey 5 (2002-2004, Showtime) – these series invariably follow the efforts of

the protagonists (often agents of law enforcement) to comprehend what led to a

catastrophic event, and/or prevent one from occurring in the future (and in some cases,

using time-travel plots, from having ever happened in the first place).

If Flashforward’s apocalyptic images might be reminiscent of the attacks of

September the 11th, 2001, as some have argued (Lascala),2 it is no coincidence, as the

creators of the series have explicitly stated that 9/11 was a source of inspiration (Topel).

This again is indicative of a broad trend in catastrophic series. Mysterious airplane

accidents feature in the pilot episodes of Fringe, Lost (2004-2010, ABC)3 and The Event

(2010-2011, NBC) – in the latter case, a plane was hijacked and flown directly at the

residence of the United States President; Homeland incorporates real life footage from

9/11 in the opening credit sequence of its first four seasons; and many fictional

catastrophes are localized to New York City.4 These catastrophic events – whether they

take the form of terrorist attacks, technological experiments gone awry or alien invasions

– all evoke, explicitly or implicitly, the events of 9/11.

2 At one point, the pilot features the image of a helicopter crashing into an office building.3 Much like Flashforward, Lost’s opening sequence also features a protagonist waking up to find chaos all around them, as does Quantico’s. 4 As happens on Fringe, Quantico, Heroes (2006-2010, NBC), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (2013-present, ABC), Agent Carter (2015-present, ABC), Person of Interest (2011-present, CBS), Blindspot (2015-present, NBC), Limitless (2015-present, CBS), Traveler (2007, ABC) and many more.

4

This abundance of terrorism-oriented catastrophic narratives in post-9/11 fictional

programming has been explored previously, and many of the series mentioned in this

thesis have been discussed, in this historical context, as a narrative platform on which

various cultural, ideological and ethical conflicts can be played out, and issues of power,

identity and faith can be worked through.5 Catastrophic series have also been widely

discussed in the context of trauma theory, read as a form of “repetition compulsion” of

the traumatic events of 9/11, or functioning as a coping mechanism with collective

national traumas.6

Rather than focusing on trauma theory or examining ethical, political and

ideological concerns, my thesis will explore the cognitive aspect of the war on

“terrorism” – actual or allegorical – as invariably emphasized in catastrophic narratives

by the depiction of the protagonists’ fervent attempts to “connect the dots,” piecing

together bits of information and clues in order to construct a coherent narrative leading up

to the catastrophe. Drawing comparisons between the nature of terrorism as depicted in

the series, and the series’ own narrative structures, I will illustrate how both are

characterized by rhizomatic complexity, emblematic products of contemporary,

networked society. I will thus argue that the series serve as a cultural coping mechanism

for much broader existential anxieties inherent within contemporary life, offering the

viewers epistemological reassurance and mastery by operating on two levels: at the

narrative level, through the protagonists’ efforts to make sense of their diegetic world,

5 On American television in the historical context of post-9/11, see Takacs; Dixon; Lacey and Paget; Birkenstein, Froula and Randell. In the context of redefining American politics, ideology and power, see Caeners; Picarelli, “Questions of Memory;” Faludi; Johnson D.; Tenenboim-Weinblatt. In the context of the ethics of the war on terror and cultural representations of the racial or ethnic “other,” see: Randell; Downing; Banita; Alsultany. 6 See Steiner, “Dealing with a Nation’s Trauma;” Kaminsky; Mousoustzanis; Muller.

5

and at the level of audience engagement, by encouraging the viewers to actively work

towards narrative comprehension – and by extension supplying them with the necessary

cognitive skills for dealing with their own world.

The diegetic level will be the focus of the first two chapters. Chapter 1 will

examine the nature of terrorism as a product of the Network Society (based on Manuel

Castells’s theory), after introducing basic concepts of networks and rhizomatic structures

(based on Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of the rhizome). Chapter 2 will detail the

various tropes employed by catastrophic series when presenting tools and strategies for

comprehending terrorist networks and constructing the catastrophic narratives, and

examine the underlying ontological and epistemological presuppositions which motivate

and validate these efforts of comprehension. These chapters will also make use of

Galloway and Thacker’s theory of networks, Hardt and Negri’s theories of networked

warfare, Baudrillard’s writing on the essence of terrorism, as well as examples from

contemporary American political discourse.

The next two chapters will be dedicated to the extradiegetic level. Chapter 3 will

examine the narrative structures of catastrophic series, representatives of the serial

complexity which characterizes contemporary American television (based on concepts

defined by Jason Mittell); as I will demonstrate, this narrative complexity mirrors the

complexity of the terrorist threat as depicted in the series. Chapter 4 will examine the

ways in which fans of catastrophic series actively work to comprehend these complex

narratives, using tools and strategies and motivated by underlying ontological and

epistemological presuppositions which again mirror those employed by the protagonists

against terrorism. Besides Mittell’s writing on narrative complexity and “forensic”

6

audience engagement, these chapters will also make use of Henry Jenkins’s notion of

“convergence culture,” further writing on the current state of television by John Caldwell,

Elizabeth Evans and others, and theories of narrative complexity and its effects on the

viewers by Steven Johnson, Paul Booth and Thomas Elsaesser; I will also make use of

various illustrations from fan activity and audience discourse.

Though Flashforward will serve as a main case study throughout the thesis, I will

be using many examples from various other catastrophic series, and briefly touch on

additional genres as well, drawing comparisons and pointing out recurring narrative

tropes, as I aim to describe a larger pattern on contemporary American television. Due to

the relatively limited space of this thesis I will obviously not be able to thoroughly

examine most of the series mentioned, and in some cases will only reference a series by

name, focusing on the broader trends as illustrated by a more limited range of examples.

As this thesis will argue, contemporary complexity in American television

presents the viewers with challenges that parallel those posed by the terrorist threats

depicted in the series – and also equips them for dealing with those challenges, in ways

which again parallel the actions of the protagonists. Both the series’ narrative structures

and the terrorist organizations are complex products of contemporary Network Society.

The network, defying normative linear notions, is an elusive, nebulous entity that can

never be fully grasped or clearly defined, and is therefore sometimes perceived as

threatening in its nature. Contemporary television – or “post-television” – with its

technological and transmedial narrative complexities is thus, as I will demonstrate, a

fitting popular medium for addressing these concerns.

7

1. Chapter 1: New World, New Rules – Terrorism in the Age of Networks

1.1. Introduction: “No More Good Days” – Post-9/11 Realities and Cold War Nostalgia

“[T]he world is changed after September the 11th.”

(President George W. Bush, November 3rd, 2002)7

“The Battle of New York was the end of the world. This, now, is the new world.”

(Agent Maria Hill, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, episode 1.01)

Stated by an agent of the fictional counter-terrorism agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D,8 this

latter quote, while echoing the sentiments of the former, does not refer to the real-life

events of 9/11, but rather to a fictional devastating alien invasion which wreaked havoc in

New York City, as was depicted in The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012). “The Battle of

New York” had a significant impact on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, leaving many

characters, such as the eponymous Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D of the television series, to deal

with the aftermath, protecting a world that would never be the same again. On

Flashforward, FBI agents Mark Benford and Demetri Noh similarly discuss the aftermath

of the Global Blackout (episode 1.07):

Mark: Things have changed for everybody. It's a new world.

Demetri: Yeah? I miss the old one then.

7 See “Remarks by the President in Minnesota.”8 An acronym for “Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.”

8

In both these examples and others, “a new world” has suddenly and unexpectedly been

ushered in by the catastrophic event, a world more complex and challenging,9 triggering

nostalgia for “simpler times,”10 also evidenced in the foreboding title of Flashforward’s

pilot episode, “No More Good Days.”

The connection to 9/11 and to the war on terror is made explicit in many cases. In

an episode of Homeland, a conversation between CIA officers Dar Adal and Saul

Berenson includes these lines (episode 2.20):

Dar: Christ, I miss the Cold War.

Saul: Prefer the daily threat of nuclear annihilation?

Dar: No, I miss the rules. The Soviets didn't shoot us; we didn't shoot

them. Boy, this bunch…

These sentiments are expressed again in a later episode, in a conversation between Saul

and a Pakistani General named Latif (episode 4.04):

Latif: It's not like when we were fighting the Cold War. No, the Russians

were tough, but...

Saul: They didn't saw our heads off on the internet. Blow up innocent

people. Fly airplanes into the Twin Towers.

These examples and others11 illustrate a trend of “nostalgia for the good old days of the

Cold War” (Galloway and Thacker 6), for “the familiar contours of that bygone conflict,

which has been replaced by a much more murky, elusive and confusing age” (Kennedy).

9 “The world is over; the fight has just begun,” went the tagline for the first season of Battelstar Galactica.10 “This job isn't what it was 10 years ago,” says Fringe’s Charlie Francis, an agent of Fringe Division, referring to the recent wave of peculiar terrorist events (episode 2.23, which aired, significantly, in 2010, nearly 10 years after the events of 9/11).11 The line “Christ, I Miss the Cold War” has also appeared verbatim in Casino Royale (Martin Campbell, 2006), spoken by M, head of MI6; “God, I miss the Cold War” is spoken by characters in Rubicon and The Peacemaker (Mimi Leder, 1997).

9

While similar sentiments had been expressed before the events of 9/11, in recent years

the trend of “Cold War nostalgia” has become more prominent by far, both on-screen and

in political discourse.12 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, for example, said in a

2007 conference on security policy: “As an old cold warrior, one of yesterday's speeches

almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time” (Gates, qtd. in Shanker). James

Inhofe, a Republican senator, similarly stated in a 2014 interview:

I look back wistfully at the Cold War […] There were two superpowers,

they knew what we had, we knew what they had, mutually assured

destruction meant something. It doesn’t mean anything anymore. Now we

have these people who are not rational, not logical, they’re nuts. (Inhofe,

qtd. in Rogin)

As these examples illustrate, the Cold War is seen by many today as an inherently stable,

predictable, bipolar era, in which a perpetual state of peace, albeit a strained one, was

maintained, held in check by the “Balance of Terror” between the opposing superpowers

(Kennedy; Auslin). Back then, it is argued, there used to be simple rules – but the

terrorists no longer play by the rules, certainly not by “our” rules (Baudrillard, “L’Esprit

du Terrorisme” 406-411).

While stability is associated with the Cold War, change and uncertainty are seen

as closely related to terrorism, and perceived as threats to national security (Pape 115-

116). In another Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D episode, U.S. Air Force Colonel Glenn Talbot,

referring to recent terrorist attacks, states that “the American people are looking for a

simple enemy […] It's what makes them feel safe” (episode 2.06). Similarly, on The

Blacklist (2013-present, NBC), senior members of government conspire to “reignite” the

12 See Tisdall; Hanhimäki; Auslin.

10

Cold War, believing that “there are too many players on the board,” and that “a bipolar

world is inherently more stable” (episode 2.20). While this conception of the Cold War

era as “simpler times” errs in simplification of reality, if it isn’t a straight-out falsity,

Cold War nostalgia is nonetheless an illuminating trope, capturing something of the

cultural and political zeitgeist of the contemporary era and its conception of the terrorist

threat.13

This chapter will explore just what it is that makes the terrorist threat, and the new

world (dis)order it represents, so structurally complex and incomprehensible, as depicted

in many series. Terrorism will be examined in the historical and cultural context of the

Network Society, following a general introduction of its main characteristics. But first,

we need to better understand the concept of the “network.”

1.2. The Network Society: an Introduction

“The World is a Network and Networks are the World.”

(Rhodes, 435)

At its most basic definition, “a network is a set of interconnected nodes,” a configuration

of lines intersecting at various nodal points (Castells, Network Society 501). In everyday

life, we interact with computer networks, communication networks, social networks,

financial networks; we conceive of many aspects of life as having a networked structure.

13 Cold War nostalgia might also help account for the evident aesthetic influences of 1970’s Cold War era thrillers on the design and tone of series such as Homeland (Paskin) or Rubicon (Kirsch), as well as the recent resurgence in the depiction of Russian agents and sleeper cells embedded within the United States, in series like Agent Carter, set in the 1950’s, The Americans (2013-present, FX), set in the 1980’s, or The Blacklist, Blindspot, Alias (2001-2006, ABC), Allegiance (2015, NBC) and the fifth season of Homeland, set in present day.

11

Manuel Castells has named the contemporary era, with its prominence of network

formations and of network thinking, “the Network Society.” To better understand the

nature of the network – and what differentiates networks from other forms of

organization – we shall turn to Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the “rhizome.”

1.2.1. Rhizomatic Thought and Distributed Structures

“We're tired of trees. We should stop believing in trees.”

(Deleuze and Guattari 15)

The “tree” is evoked by Deleuze and Guattari as a symbol of what they call “arborescent

culture,” based on simple, linear formations. Arborescent models are hierarchical systems

with clearly defined centers of “command,” where information flows only in pre-

established paths, much like a tree, in which all branches and roots stem from the trunk to

which they are subordinated (Deleuze and Guattari 16). In a “tree” model, however vast

and expansive, there is always a clearly defined “root node,” or point of origin, which

serves as the “parent” of all other nodes, and as the source of all communication.

Following on the ideas of French mathematicians Pierre Rosenstiehl and Jean Petitot,

Deleuze and Guattari contrast these centered and hierarchical systems to acentered, non-

hierarchical systems,

in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or

channels do not preexist, and all individuals are interchangeable, defined

only by their state at a given moment – such that the local operations are

12

coordinated and the final, global result synchronized without a central

agency. (Deleuze and Guattari 17)

If the vertical tree is the symbol of linear, centered configurations, Deleuze and Guattari

offer the rhizome, with its multiplicity of autonomous horizontal offshoots, as a symbol

of complex, non-linear configurations consisting of multiple interconnected nodal points,

which function collectively as part of the larger structure (ibid.).14 In a rhizome there is

no hierarchy and no singular point of origin or clearly defined entry points. Unlike linear

formations, it “connects any point to any other point” and “has neither beginning nor end,

but always a middle,” which can be accessed at any point (Deleuze and Guattari 21). In

this sense, the rhizome can be said to have no “points” at all, no “edges” or “sides,” only

lines of connection and nodes where lines intersect (Deleuze and Guattari 8).

The rhizome, then, provides an apt metaphor with which to conceptualize the

network: a non-centralized, non-hierarchical configuration of interconnected elements.15

And while not all networks are created equal, some adopting a simple, ultimately

centered structure, the essence of network architecture does provide the potential for a

diffuse, a-hierarchical rhizomatic formation (Galloway and Thacker 31-32). As Michael

Hardt and Antonio Negri have described it, “the distributed network form […] has no

center. Its power cannot be understood accurately as flowing from a central source or

even as polycentric, but rather as distributed variably, unevenly, and indefinitely” (Hardt

and Negri, Multitude 54-55).

14 Also see Vail 40-41.15 Other metaphors variously used for this type of collective decentralized formation – this time zoological rather than botanical – include “web,” “swarm,” or “hive” (Kelly 20-24); also see the notions of “multitude” (Hardt and Negri, Multitude), “emergence” (Johnson S., Emergence) and “smart mobs” (Rheingold) as further useful conceptualizations.

13

The Internet is an illustrative example of the nature and qualities of network

architecture; a prototypical rhizomatic entity, the World Wide Web was conceived and

constructed as a global interconnected network which “cannot be controlled from any

center, and is made up of thousands of autonomous computer networks that have

innumerable ways to link up" (Castells, Network Society 6). Distributed control and

worldwide connectivity are key structural features of the Net, as are its openness and

pervasiveness (Castells, Network Society 371-394), constantly incorporating additional

computer terminals, websites and users; indeed, digital networks seem to expand

endlessly, to “sprawl as colonies of micro-organisms” (Castells, Network Society 385).

As Don Delillo describes it in Underworld:

Here in Cyberspace […] There are only connections. Everything is

connected. All human knowledge gathered and linked, hyperlinked, this

site leading to that, this fact referenced to that, a keystroke, a mouse-click,

a password – world without end, amen. (Delillo 824-825)

This is another important characteristic of networks, as “open structures, able to expand

without limits, integrating new nodes” (Castells, Network Society 501), like a rhizome,

which “operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots,” always in motion,

always growing and “overspilling” its bounds (Deleuze and Guattari 21).16

16 And see Castells, Internet Galaxy.

14

1.2.2. The Life and Times of the Network Society

“[A]round the end of the second millennium […] a number of major social,

technological, economic, and cultural transformations came together to give rise to a

new form of society, the network society.”

(Castells, Network Society xvii)

While network logic has existed before, the contemporary era and its new information

technologies have resulted in the network becoming the most pervasive mode of

configuration in almost every sphere of social life, so that most “dominant functions and

processes […] are increasingly organized around networks” (Castells, Network Society

500).17 As Castells has described, the Network Society is largely the result of several

decades-long developments which culminated in the 1990’s, such as the information

technology revolution, the restructuring of international politics following the end of the

Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the accelerated process of

globalization enabled by increased avenues for international mobility, trade and

communications (Castells, Network Society 1-27). The widespread use of the Internet, in

particular, was a key component of the information technology revolution, enabling free

and instantly available global communication without the need for centralized control or

supervisory authority (Castells, Network Society 45-51; also see Kelly 25-27).

Galloway and Thacker similarly describe the contemporary era as being

thoroughly networked, stating that the increased processes of globalization over recent

17 Rheingold’s notion of “smart mobs” is likewise facilitated by the availability of modern communications networks, which enable people who would otherwise have no connection to act in concert (Rheingold).

15

decades has transformed dominant power structures – political, economical and cultural –

“from a system of control housed in a relatively small number of power hubs to a system

of control infused into” what is essentially a “dense web of distributed networks”

(Galloway and Thacker 3-4).18 The flexible and adaptable nature of networking logic

proves “well adapted to increasing complexity of interaction and to unpredictable

patterns of development” which characterize the contemporary era, marked by “constant

change and organizational fluidity” in various spheres of life (Castells, Network Society

70-71).

Thus, for example, in the economic logic of the Network Society, “productivity is

generated through and competition is played out in a global network of interaction

between business networks” (Castells, Network Society 77). In this networked economic

environment, decentralized multinational conglomerates coordinate globally through an

interconnected “network enterprise” (Castells, Network Society 172-176), with various

industries forming “an increasingly complex web of alliances, agreements, and joint

ventures in which most large corporations are interlinked,” allowing for increased

mobility and fluidity in the management of resources and personnel (Castells, Network

Society 175).19

The open-ended and non-hierarchical nature of the network makes it far more

flexible and adaptable to variation than other, centralized – and therefore more rigid –

18 And see also Hardt and Negri’s notion of “Empire” as a global decentralized sovereignty that has replaced the traditional power of sovereign nations (Hardt and Negri, Empire).19 The globalized nature and flexibility of contemporary economic networks are integral aspects of the Post-Fordist paradigm, as opposed to the more “rigid” Fordist economy (see Amin; Harvey). And also see Paul Mason’s notion of “Postcapitalism” as the contemporary form of economy pitted against older, traditional forms of capitalism, a clash of sensibilities described as a “struggle between the network and the hierarchy” (Mason). For more on the flexible management of the work force in the Network Society, see Castells, Network Society 247-255.

16

structures (Castells, Network Society 69-77).20 Therefore, it is not surprising that the

increasingly rapid changes and instability of recent decades have been met with – and

accelerated by – the adoption of network logic in many aspects of contemporary life

within the Network Society.

Another significant aspect of the Network Society is the introduction of a new,

more complex relation to temporality replacing the traditional, sequential conception of

time. In a “real-time” global economy based on instantaneous transnational transactions

conducted across various time-zones, and on the compression of time (and space) enabled

by modern communication technologies, a flexible temporality is required to

accommodate for the simultaneous managing of diverse temporal frames (Castells,

Network Society 465-472). This new temporality, according to Castells, works towards

the “annihilation” and compression of time into what he calls “timeless time” (Castells,

Network Society 460-499).21

Networked temporality, then, involves the juxtaposition of different temporalities

simultaneously, past, present and future interacting with each other, experienced as “a

temporal collage” (Castells, Network Society 492), in place of traditional, linear

conceptions of time. As Michel Foucault has described:

We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition,

the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed. We are

at a moment, I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a

long life developing through time than that of a network that connects

points and intersects with its own skein. (Foucault, “Other Spaces” 22)

20 Also see Jagoda 82-96; Vail 45-7; Kelly 22-26.21 Also see Robert Hassan on “Network Time” and the compression of temporality (Hassan 233-237) and Patrick Jagoda on complex networked temporalities (Jagoda 82-96).

17

This is an important aspect of the postmodern condition, the product of life in “an age of

über-simultaneity where we experience many different temporalities all at once” (Booth,

“Memories, Temporalities” 375),22 so that “the individual is overwhelmed by the various

temporalities he has to confront” (Frederic de Coninck, qtd. in Castells, Network Society

472). Fredric Jameson has termed this condition “postmodern schizophrenia,” a direct

result of life in the contemporary Network Society (Jameson 25-30).23

Contemporary life, then, is marked by constant interaction with complex global

networks, as well as the experience of the self as fragmented and distributed over various

networks of relations. Indeed, the experience of life as a complex network of relations is

one of the principal characteristics of the postmodern condition; as Jean-François Lyotard

has described it: “no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more

complex and mobile than ever before […] a person is always located at ‘nodal points’ of

specific communication circuits” (Lyotard 15).24

But what does all this have to do with Al Qaeda?

1.3. The Nature of Terrorism: A Networked Enemy for the Networked Era

In an episode of Rubicon, Will Travers, an intelligence analyst for the fictional American

Policy Institute (API) charged with monitoring terrorist threats, is having dinner with his

supervisor, Kale Ingram. The following conversation takes place (episode 1.06):

22 David Harvey similarly describes the compression of time and space in the context of the postmodern condition (Harvey 284-307).23 Also see Baudrillard, “Ecstasy of Communication” 133; Booth, “Memories, Temporalities” 375-376.24 Also See Shaviro.

18

Will: A slime mold is really thousands of independent single-cell units.

But you put them under favorable conditions, and they come

together as a much larger organism working towards a common

purpose. There is no boss, yet they work in concert. Now, you can't

eliminate the units. You can only make the conditions less

favorable for them to form a network.

Kale: And what does this have to do with Al-Qaeda?

Will: Our enemies, they used to be hierarchical. You could identify a

controller and neutralize it. Now it's, it's... it's a web. A self-

organized network, a collection of hubs that form a much larger

whole that wasn't predetermined and remains ungoverned; like

slime mold.

Kale: God, I miss the Cold War.

Again demonstrating Cold War nostalgia, these lines sum up quite succinctly just what it

is about the terrorist threat which contrasts it from earlier enemies: its rhizomatic,

networked structure. The war on terror saw a break with the equilibrium and centralized,

localized power structures which characterized earlier instances of war – the World Wars

and the Cold War. Terrorism’s fluid, interconnected nature and global reach make it a

threat to national security, and a challenge for the intelligence community (Baudrillard,

“L’Esprit du Terrorisme” 406-409; Hastedt 759-762). As stated in “The National Strategy

for Combating Terrorism,” an official White House document released in February 2003:

The terrorist threat is a flexible, transnational network structure, enabled

by modern technology and characterized by loose interconnectivity both

19

within and between groups […] The terrorist threat today is both resilient

and diffuse because of this mutually reinforcing, dynamic network

structure. (Bush, National Strategy 8)

As the document further states, terrorist networks “have adopted a more decentralized

organization with largely autonomous cells” that are able, though highly dispersed, to

coordinate efforts globally with ease, making use of modern global communication

networks (Bush, National Strategy 7-8).

The terrorist network, then, represents “[a] new type of enemy, at once diffuse,

unpredictable, multiple, and infiltrative” (Jagoda 61). A product – and symptom – of the

Network Society, making use of its modern tools of communication and organization,

and adopting its distributed logic, it is the terrorist network’s rhizomatic structure which

significantly distinguishes it from previous enemy formations, as a complex, adaptable

and infiltrative power (Hardt and Negri, Multitude 51-93).25

1.3.1. Case Study: Flashforward and the Global Blackout Network

As an example for the way terrorism is depicted on contemporary series, let’s look at the

terrorist organization that orchestrated the Global Blackout on Flashforward. The FBI

investigation of the terrorists, code-named “Mosaic” and led by agent Mark Benford, is

the principal storyline of the series. In the pilot episode, a prime suspect emerges, code-

named “Suspect Zero” (episode 1.01). In the next episode, a second suspect, operating

under the alias “D. Gibbons,” is linked to Suspect Zero (episode 1.02), and is considered

the main antagonist for much of the remainder of the season. D. Gibbons, whose real

25 Also see Galloway and Thacker 11-22; Jagoda 57-116; Marion and Uhl-Bien.

20

name is Dyson Frost, is now believed to be the mastermind behind the Global Blackout,

and is connected to several other characters, organizations and events, including a series

of mysterious psychological tests held in the United States in the 1980’s, a secret

scientific experiment held in Somalia in the early 1990’s, a private military contractor

named “Jericho,” operating in Afghanistan, Nhadra Udaya, a woman operating in Hong

Kong, and more than a dozen other characters.

At a certain point, a scientist named Lloyd Simcoe claims that the Blackout was

the result of a particle accelerator test run by himself and his colleague, Simon Campos

(episode 1.06). This is later disproved, however, when it is discovered that the test did not

cause the Blackout but merely amplified its effects, and that Simcoe and Campos were

only unwillingly involved in the event. They both later join forces with the FBI, assisting

with the ongoing investigation. Campos, however, knows more than he lets on, and is

later revealed to be Suspect Zero himself, and to have been in contact with several

accomplices of Frost (episode 1.12). One of these, known alternately as “Flosso” or

“Cousin Teddy” (first introduced in episode 1.08), seems at first to be high up the

command chain – but is later killed off by Campos after refusing to reveal his superiors

(episode 1.12). Frost is again considered the main perpetrator – until he himself is shot

and killed, by one of his own colleagues, Alda Hertzog, for unknown reasons, indicating

that some of the conspirators may have conflicting agendas (episode 1.17).

Another associate of both Frost and Hertzog, a man named Lucas Hellinger, is

later stated by several other characters to be the “leader” of the organization (episode

1.20), though this is later refuted by both Hellinger himself and Campos, who claim the

organization goes far beyond him (episodes 1.21). To further complicate matters, two

21

members of the FBI’s Mosaic Investigation team, agents Marcie Turrof and Janis Hawk,

are found to be undercover moles working for the terrorists, recruited by other associates

of Hellinger (episode 1.15) – though Janis later turns out to be a double agent, also

working for the CIA (episode 1.18). And these are only a few of the characters

introduced throughout the series; the ultimate endgame and the identities of all persons

involved in the orchestration of the Global Blackout are never fully revealed (as the series

was cancelled after only one season), though it is implied that some, like Frost, had in

fact caused the Blackout in an attempt to prevent a global catastrophe which might bring

about the end of all mankind (episode 1.17).26 A comprehensive visual representation of

all players involved, as depicted throughout the season, can be found on the following

page (figure 2). More than 30 characters are depicted in this visualization, and nearly

twice as many connections between characters (represented by red lines). As this

visualization illustrates, the Global Blackout was the work of a complex network of

interconnected individuals, operating independently in many cases, under no clearly

defined leadership, yet managing to successfully carry out their elaborate plot.

26 This would reportedly have been a major plotline in the second season that never came, possibly bringing FBI agents and so-called “terrorists” together, in alliance against a larger, unknown threat (Wightman).

22

Korfa

Motorcyclist

James Erskine

Mercenary

Somali Woman

Philippe Tarhan

Gabe Clayson

Gordon Myhill

Elizabeth Rhee

Khalid Omar

Neil Parofsky

Gabriel McDowKent Nelson

Unknown Accomplice

Flosso / Cousin Teddy

Unknown Leader/s?

Lita

Carline(Janis’s handler)

Janis Hawk (mole within FBI /double agent)

Marcie Turrof (mole within FBI)

Lucas Hellinger (Leader?)

Alda Hertzog

Lloyd Simcoe

Nhadra Udaya

D. Gibbons / Dyson Frost

Suspect Zero / Simon Campos

National Linear

Accelerator Project (NLAP)

Three-Star Tattooed Men

U.S. President Dave Segovia

Unknown handler

Victor

Wheeler / John

Quarry / Reed

Somalia Experiments

(1990’s)

Jericho (Private Military

Contractor)

Figure 2: Visual mapping of all individuals and groups involved in the orchestration of Flashforward’s Global Blackout.

A B Known connection A B Implied connection A B Murder (A kills B)

All images and data retrieved from the FlashForward Wiki website.

Group/ project

Unwilling / unknowing participant

Ian Rutherford

Raven River Psychological Experiments

(1980’s)

23

Some individuals (such as Gibbons, Hellinger and Campos) are situated at crucial nodal

points, interacting with many other players (crucial nodes, where seven or more lines

intersect, are marked in bold), but these are hardly “centers” or “roots” as one might

expect to find in an “arborescent” structure. This visual representation enables us to see

“the big picture,” effectively putting together many characters and, more importantly,

making evident the lines of connection between them, in ways that a simple verbal

description or list would not be able to. This sort of visualization is a very useful tool for

depicting complex networks – and we shall return to it in the following chapter.

This example from Flashforward is illustrative of the depiction of terrorist

networks on many contemporary series dealing with either real-world terrorism or

various forms of “other-worldly” terrorism, series such as 24, Lost, Battlestar Galactica,

Heroes, Homeland, Rubicon, Dollhouse (2009-2010, Fox), The Blacklist, The Event,

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008-2009, Fox),

Odyssey 5, Alphas (2011-2012, Syfy), The Following (2013-2015, Fox), Cult (2013, The

CW), American Odyssey (2015, NBC), Quantico, Blindspot, Minority Report (2015-

present, Fox), Traveler and many others. Terrorist networks are invariably depicted as

complex, non-centralized structures consisting of multiple agents, interconnected through

various nodal points, coordinating efforts with no clearly recognizable central authority.27

27 In contrast, older series dealing with terrorism, from Mission: Impossible (1966-1973, CBS) to Seven Days (1998-2001, UPN), as well as series dealing with other types of enemy, such as traditional police procedurals – from Dragnet (1951-1959, NBC) to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000-2015, CBS) – typically feature from one or two antagonists up to a small group with a clearly defined “leader” at a time, who are usually apprehended by the end of each episode.

24

1.3.2. The War on Terror: Fighting the Many-Headed Hydra

“[O]ur new enemy is networked and distributed to such a degree that it cannot be named.

And yet there continues the persistent naming of the entity-that-cannot-be-named.”

(Galloway and Thacker 11)

Imagined as a complex, rhizomatic configuration, rather than the simpler, linear

dichotomous structure associated with previous enemies, terrorist networks are perceived

as threatening not only as a result of their violent acts and ruthless nature but also, and

primarily, due to their elusiveness and constant state of variation, which make them

difficult to define and comprehend fully (Deleuze and Guattari 12-15; Galloway and

Thacker 4-5; Jagoda 41-43). As Hardt and Negri have pointed out:

If the traditional army is like a single armed body, with organic and

centralized relations among its units […] then the distributed network

might be imagined like a swarm of ants or bees – a seemingly amorphous

multiplicity that can strike at a single point from all sides or disperse in the

environment so as to become almost invisible. It is very difficult to hunt

down a swarm. (Hardt and Negri, Multitude 57)

The war on terror, then, “is a fractal, cellular war” against “a phantasmatic enemy

[which] surges forward, permeating the whole planet, filtering through like a virus”

(Baudrillard, “L’Esprit du Terrorisme” 406-408)28 and defying previous conceptions of

warfare.

28 In many ways, the terrorist threat is perceived along similar lines to the threat of global epidemics, another recurring subject in many contemporary series. Both are depicted as lethal, global-reaching and uncontrollable products of modernized, networked society (the epidemic sometimes brought about by a terrorist attack); “Terrorism, like viruses, is everywhere” (Baudrillard, “L’Esprit du Terrorisme” 406). See

25

Defining terrorist networks, as they are depicted on many series, is further

complicated by their ability to infiltrate government agencies, planting moles and

subverting from within,29 always lurking at “the shadow of any system of domination,

everywhere ready to awaken as a double agent” (Baudrillard, “L’Esprit du Terrorisme”

406), making borders fluid and demarcation elusive. Moreover, the terrorists themselves

are often depicted not as one unified homogeneous force, but rather as prone to

conflicting agendas and ideologies. Indeed, the network is internally heterogeneous by its

nature, containing within itself “antagonistic clusterings, divergent subtopologies, rogue

nodes” (Galloway and Thacker 34).

While “binary enmity is easier to understand than network antagonism” (Jagoda

68), in rhizomatic systems “one can never posit a dualism or a dichotomy, even in the

rudimentary form of the good and the bad […which] are only the products of an active

and temporary selection” (Deleuze and Guattari 9-10). Consequently, not only is

terrorism itself difficult to define, it also complicates the nature of “friend/enemy”

relations in the political sphere (Jagoda 64-73).30 This again is a recurring narrative

element in many contemporary series, where internal conflicts and split loyalties often

create temporary alliances between past enemies, united in a common goal, further

blurring dichotomies of “good vs. evil” and “us vs. them,” sometimes rendering them

Sampson. Also see Schweitzer’s discussion of “Outbreak Narratives” on contemporary American film and television (Schweitzer).29 Examples of this can be found on Flashforward (as was detailed earlier), 24, Lost, Battelstar Galactica, Homeland, Rubicon, Dollhouse, The Blacklist, The Event, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Odyssey 5, The Following, Intelligence (2014, CBS), Quantico and many other series.30 Al Qaeda’s own origins as part of an alliance with the U.S fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1980’s comes to mind as an apt illustration of this. The same principle applies to network economy, where temporary strategic business alliances between competitors often lead to “today’s partners becoming tomorrow’s foes” (Castells, Network Society 175).

26

effectively redundant as the narrative progresses.31 Many series, however, while

portraying the battle as structurally complex, still maintain a strict ideological and moral

dichotomy – in line with mainstream American political paradigms inherited from the

Cold War era; as Patrick Jagoda argues: “American politics continues to rely on the

fearful binary logic of friend and enemy, us and them, invoking the complexity of

networks in name but rarely in substance” (Jagoda 28).

The elusive and diffuse structural nature of terrorism hardly makes it an ideal

target for American intelligence and military operations; after all, “if it has no center and

no stable boundaries, where can we strike?” (Hardt and Negri, Multitude 55).32 Unlike

previous, more “traditional” forms of warfare, identifying a specific target in the war on

terror can be extremely complicated.33 But even when this is successfully accomplished,

the decentralized structure of the network makes it resilient, able to compensate for the

loss of any node, and exceedingly difficult – if not impossible – to eliminate: “A rhizome

may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again […] You can never get

rid of ants because they form an animal rhizome that can rebound time and again after

most of it has been destroyed” (Deleuze and Guattari 9). Consequently, the “decapitation

model” applied in traditional warfare – under the assumption that “if the head is cut off

[…] then the body will wither and die” – proves ineffective against a distributed enemy

31 The later seasons of Battlestar Galactica might be the best illustration of this principle, which is also, to some extent or other, worked into the narratives of Lost, The Event, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Dollhouse and others.32 Also see Jagoda (16-30) and Vail (40-51).33 In Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, 2012), a frustrated senior CIA supervisor angrily orders his team of analysts, after a string of intelligence failures against Al Qaeda: “I want targets. Do your fucking jobs. Bring me people to kill.”

27

formation, as each time a head is cut off, “another head springs up in its place like a

monstrous Hydra” (Hardt and Negri, Multitude 56-57).34

At the start of the second season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, after the antagonistic –

and aptly named – “Hydra” organization35 had seemingly been defeated, the above

mentioned Colonel Talbot – apparently not proficient in rhizomatic thinking –

triumphantly declares: “We cut down the tree, we pulled up the roots” (episode 2.01).

However, as Hydra agent Dr. Werner Reinhardt reminds us, that very same episode: “Cut

off one head, two more shall grow in its place.” Hydra is not a tree but rather a

rhizomatic, networked entity; indeed, many additional Hydra cells are later discovered.

On The Event, an episode titled “Cut Off the Head” similarly depicts the elimination of a

character previously believed to be the antagonistic mastermind, which only serves to

further complicate the plot (episode 1.17). When Elizabeth Keen, protagonist of The

Blacklist, threatens to shoot Tom Connolly, a prominent member of a nefarious

organization known as “The Cabal,” Connolly replies along similar lines: “I am nothing.

I am a cog in a very large wheel. Shoot me, and somebody at least as powerful will take

my place” (episode 2.22).

As President Bush declared, in his address to the nation following the events of

9/11, the war on global terrorism will not be “swift” and “decisive” as previous wars had

(presumably) been, and will not be won in a single, defining moment; it will involve “far

more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle,

34 The “Many-Headed Hydra” is often used in news coverage as a symbol of terrorist networks, referring to either Al Qaeda (Kalic), ISIS (Berger) or other terrorist organizations (“Terrorism: Fighting the Hydra”). The image of the Hydra also appears as a clue in the “Mosaic” investigation on Flashforward.35 The main antagonist of the series, “Hydra” had started out as a branch of the Third Reich; having seemingly been defeated in the second World War – as depicted on Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston, 2011) – it had in fact gone on to infiltrate S.H.I.E.L.D, decades later activating numerous sleeper agents in an attempt to take control of America – as depicted on Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2014).

28

but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen” (Bush, “Address”). Indeed,

swift “surgical” victories and “instant wars” do not exist in the war on terror (Castells,

Network Society 491).36 Moreover, any attempt at branding a single individual as

ultimately “responsible” for terrorist attacks – as Osama Bin Laden was branded in the

wake of 9/11 – and their capture or elimination as a “solution” to the problem, is

ultimately a misconception, a simplification of a much more complex reality (Hastedt

760).37

1.4. Conclusion: The Network as Threat

“Connectivity is a threat. The network is a weapons system.”

(Galloway and Thacker 16)

As we’ve seen, terrorism, as a product of the Network Society, is perceived to be

threatening largely due to its distributed, interconnected and rhizomatic nature –

rendering it ultimately incomprehensible and therefore uncontrollable (Jagoda 17-18;

Kelly 27). In this sense, terrorism is only one symptomatic example of the various threats

that proliferate in the Network Society: multinational drug-trafficking rings, global

terrorist networks, worldwide computer viruses and others, are all rendered more

36 As no “quick and easy” solutions can resolve terrorism, it seems only fitting that fictional terrorist plots on television would be depicted as serial and ongoing rather than stand-alone episodic narratives; the growing complexity of the contemporary era and of the threats which characterize it might offer a partial explanation for the tendency of contemporary American television towards serial rather than episodic dramas. Kojak or Columbo might have caught their man in under an hour every week, but nowadays even Jack Bauer needs 24 hours. Chapter 3 will explore complexity in serial narratives.37 Al Qaeda itself might be seen as a “unifying” brand for many different “splinter groups” (Galloway and Thacker 12).

29

threatening because they are “networks beyond one’s capacity to control them, or even to

comprehend them” (Galloway and Thacker 6).

Networks, it seems, “have a dark side” (Kleindorfer and Wind 19). Perceived as

inherently unstable and volatile, susceptible to sudden and unexpected structural

fluctuation, they are the markers of change, uncertainty and chaos (Jagoda 59-61; Hassan

236).38 These networks are liable to strike at any given time and place, their

“uncontrollable connectedness” (Castells, Network Society 23) conceived as positing “a

growing crisis in Western sovereignty at the hands of various networked forces that seem

to threaten it” (Galloway and Thacker 2).

This notion is illustrated, among others, in the contemporary cinematic “Network

Narrative” (Bordwell, “Subjective Stories”), in films such as Babel (Alejandro González

Iñárritu, 2006), Traffic (Steven Soderbergh, 2000) and Syriana (Stephen Gaghan, 2005),

in which Western protagonists invariably find themselves – typically following a central

violent and traumatic incident (Naribe 213-214) – pitted against globally networked

entities, “enmeshed in a clandestine web of relations,”39 so that “the network itself is a

threatening formation” (Narine 222). In this sense, the “Network Narrative” is very

similar in theme to contemporary catastrophic television series.40

Faced with a fragmented and elusive enemy, protagonists are often at a loss,

always one step behind, unable to fully comprehend the nature of the threat or prevent the

next attack; putting all the pieces together is a complicated, near impossible feat. In this

38 Castells similarly describes the interconnected global economic network as an unstable structure, each node prone to unforeseen effects caused by other nodal events (Castells, Network Society 466-467), leading to diminishing job stability in the networked, post-fordist working conditions (Castells, Network Society 281-296).39 This is again reminiscent of 1970’s thrillers (see Cobley).40 Not coincidentally, the cinematic “Network Narrative” and catastrophic series also share several structural narrative characteristics; these will be discussed further in chapter 3. Also see Patricia Pisters on “Mosaic Films.”

30

light, it becomes clear why intelligence failures – such as 9/11 – are often explained as a

“failure to connect the dots” (Diamond and Kiely).41 Fortunately, however, while the

Network Society facilitates and encourages this new type of threat, it also provides

several tools and strategies for fighting it, and inspires useful thought paradigms for

comprehending it. The next chapter will explore a few of these tools and strategies, as

depicted on many series.

41 Galloway and Thacker specifically describe networks as posing “a standard connect-the-dots situation” (Galloway and Thacker 31).

31

2. Chapter 2: “Connecting the Dots” – Comprehending Network Complexity

2.1. Introduction: “Too Much Information” – Seeing the Pattern for the Data

In an episode of Rubicon titled “Connect the Dots” (Episode 1.05), a former API

intelligence officer, says: “Our job [is] to find the dots, then connect the dots, then

understand the dots […] The dots are out there in the world, or in the bits and pieces of

information; the thousands of signs and symbols that we can pull out of raw data.” In the

war on terror, it is suggested, all the relevant data is readily available; the difficult part is

making the connections.

This suggestion is emblematic of the conceptions of the war on terrorism that

dominate contemporary political discourse. The episode aired on August 2010; in January

that same year, a similar description was given by President Obama, after a Nigerian

terrorist carrying explosives had managed to board a flight bound for the United States.

The President stated that:

[T]he U.S. government had the information – scattered throughout the

system – to potentially uncover this plot and disrupt the attack. Rather

than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect

and understand the intelligence that we already had. (“Remarks by the

President on Strengthening Intelligence”)

A statement issued by the White House further addressed the incident as “a component

failure to ‘connect the dots,’ rather than a lack of information,” stressing that the

information available to the analysts, “as is usually the case, was fragmentary and

32

embedded in a large volume of other data,” and that consequently “the different pieces of

the puzzle were not brought together […] the dots were never connected” (“White House

Review”).

This is illustrative of the prevalent consensus among the American intelligence

community, at least as it is conveyed to the general public: intelligence failures are the

result not of inadequate surveillance capabilities or insufficient volumes of information

gathered, but rather of too much information gathered, making it more difficult to sort

through and connect crucial bits of intelligence (Diamond and Kiely; Zegart). This is a

somewhat reassuring axiom on an operational level, not only in reaffirming American

intelligence gathering capabilities – and emphasizing the necessity of maintaining them –

but also in presupposing that any act of terrorism can be successfully predicted and

preempted if only the relevant “dots” are connected in time (Hastedt 761).

“Connect the dots” is indeed the guiding principle of the characters on many

catastrophic series. On Flashforward, the FBI agents investigate various clues derived

from flashforwards, together making up the “Mosaic.” On Fringe, the agents of Fringe

Division investigate various bizarre cases (labeled “fringe cases”) which all somehow

interconnect, part of a larger scheme known as “The Pattern.” On The 4400 (2004-2007,

USA Network), agents of the fictional NTAC (the National Threat Assessment

Command) investigate the way seemingly unrelated occurrences add up to collectively

comprise “The Ripple Effect,” aimed at affecting the direction of human history.

Invariably, investigative characters search for patterns and connections.

As the dominant thought paradigm in the war on terror, the notion of “connecting

the dots” rests on two underlying presuppositions, one epistemological and the other

33

ontological: first, that it is indeed possible to connect the dots; it might not be easy, but

given the proper skill-set, tools and/or determination, they can be added up to uncover a

larger pattern. The second underlying assumption is that there exists a pattern to be

uncovered in the first place, that events follow a grand scheme rather than being random,

chaotic and meaningless occurrences. This chapter will explore the various ways in

which contemporary catastrophic series validate these two presuppositions, by first

examining several prominent tools commonly employed by the protagonists in order to

comprehend and/or prevent the catastrophic event; and then exploring the main strategies

employed in the portrayal of a “larger plan” behind seemingly chaotic occurrences.

2.2. “How to Stop an Exploding Man:” Tools and Tropes for Connecting the Dots

The following are various recurring tropes in the portrayal of attempts at “connecting the

dots,” as depicted on numerous catastrophic series. While the tools and strategies

employed by the protagonists have certainly existed before, in different genres and

contexts, they recur abundantly on contemporary series, as will be demonstrated, used as

tools against various forms of terrorism, in the specific context of comprehension and

prevention of a national or global catastrophe. The recurrence of these narrative elements

and the ways in which they are depicted will provide further illumination on

contemporary conceptions of the war on terror.

34

2.2.1. “The Wall of Crazy:” Pins, Papers and Strings

FBI agent Mark Benford, Flashforward’s central protagonist, is investigating the Global

Blackout, trying to determine who or what caused it, and figure out how to prevent a

similar event from happening in the future. Mark constantly consults the “Mosaic

investigation wall,” a large pinboard which contains all information crucial to the case

(figure 3): newspaper clippings, documents, photos, sketches, maps, color-coded notes

containing names, places, dates and various clues, all pinned to the board, arranged

against a timeline beginning a few weeks before the Global Blackout and leading up to

the date glimpsed in the flashforwards, many items connected by red strings. Having seen

himself, in his own flashforward, standing in front of a full board, Mark begins the series

by reconstructing it, putting up whichever clues he can remember. In his own words

(episode 1.01): “In my flashforward, I was investigating what caused all this. I seemed to

have an idea why all of this was happening. And those people, the places I saw on the

board – they were part of this puzzle – Mosaic.”

Following up on these leads throughout the series, as more clues and bits of

information are discovered and the board gradually becomes full, Mark and his

coworkers at the FBI come closer to solving the mystery of the Global Blackout. Mark’s

board eventually leads him to discover in advance the exact date and time of a second

Global Blackout, giving the world a chance to prepare and minimize casualties (episode

1.22).42

42 This time the event is depicted as calm and serene, people all over the world lying down on the ground simultaneously, awaiting the Blackout in peace; these images contrast starkly with the chaotic scenes that accompanied the series’ catastrophic opening, as detailed in the introduction.

35

Figure 3: Mark Benford examining the Mosaic investigation wall; screen grab, Flashforward episode 1.11.

The Mosaic investigation wall is by no means the only one of its kind. In an episode of

Homeland (episode 1.11), CIA officer Carrie Mathison, in a manic bipolar episode, is

seen franticly sifting through a sea of classified documents and pictures, scattered

chaotically on the floor all around her, color-coding them using pens. Later that episode,

Saul Berenson, her colleague and mentor, goes through this colorful, seemingly chaotic

mess, and pins every bit of intelligence onto a large pinboard, eventually constructing a

timeline of terrorist activities related to Abu Nazir, the season’s arch-terrorist mastermind

(figure 4). This timeline significantly advances Carrie and Saul towards uncovering Abu

Nazir’s end goal, and helps prevent a deadly terrorist attack (episode 1.12).

36

Figure 4: Homeland’s Saul Berenson examining Carrie Mathison’s handiwork; screen grab, episode 1.11.

In other cases, an entire room is used as a three-dimensional “wall.” In an episode of

Heroes (episode 1.20), the time-travelling protagonist Hiro Nakamura, operating in the

future, constructs a timeline of events leading up to a nuclear explosion which had

leveled half of New York City five years earlier,43 a catastrophe that the main characters

spend most of the season trying to prevent. Hiro’s timeline is not confined to a board, but

rather takes up the space of an entire room (figure 5). Once again, newspaper clippings,

drawings, notes and photographs are all interconnected using color-coded strings, each

string representing a specific character’s progression over time, intersecting with other

characters where their paths cross (reflecting many events depicted throughout the

season), comprising a massive and tangled web hanging above a floor mural that depicts

a nuclear mushroom cloud hanging over the New York City skyline.

43 The episode aired, significantly, about five years after the events of 9/11.

37

Figure 5: Heroes’ Hiro Nakamura and his friend Ando Masahashi, barely visible behind the complex web of string that makes up Hiro’s “map of time;” screen grab, episode 1.20.

This enables Hiro to ascertain the exact intersection in time – or “nodal point” – to which

he could travel back and alter events in order to prevent the catastrophe from ever

happening.44 As Hiro explains: “This is a map of time. The events that led up to the bomb

that destroyed half the city, five years ago today. I’ve been working on it for years […] to

determine the precise moment to go back in time to change the future.” This quest

ultimately proves successful, in the finale of the first season, titled “How to Stop an

Exploding Man” (episode 1.23), when the catastrophe is prevented as a direct result of

Hiro’s intervention, based on his analysis of the strings.

44 This attempt is what prompts the season’s famous tagline: “Save the cheerleader, save the world,” “the world” in this case reduced to New York City. Once again, New York’s destruction – much like the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s “Battle of New York” – symbolizes “the end of the world.”

38

A pattern emerges, from just these few examples45 – and similar boards or rooms

full of strings and bits of information can be found on many recent American television

series, depicting either real-world terrorism, from Rubicon to Blindspot, or sci-fi oriented

terrorism, from Fringe to 12 Monkeys; on comic-book oriented series, from Agents of

S.H.I.E.L.D to The Flash (2014-present, The CW), and in crime and police genre series,

from Prison Break (2005-2009, Fox) to The Wire (2002-2008, HBO), to name only a few

(see figure 6). Fans and critics have noticed this trend, which has become so popular on

American television in recent years, that it has prompted numerous parodies on comedy

series as well (see figure 7).46

The popular wiki TV Tropes has the following definition for this device, named

“String Theory:”47

Somebody’s conducting an investigation — and every little bit of

information could be the break they need […] they need to get everything

organized. What better way to do it than with a pegboard (or an

entire room) covered in pictures of people, maps of places, and cryptic

hints? Often the items are related, and these relationships are expressed by

a complex web of strings connecting pairs of items.

Other popular names for the trope are “conspiracy wall” (Pacheco), or more commonly

“crazy wall” or “wall of crazy” (Benson; Gyford; Furlong, M.). Richard Benson has

offered the term “Post-It Procedural” to describe shows that rely heavily on this trope,

45 All three series feature additional boards beyond those mentioned; for more on Flashforward’s various forms of data mapping, see Pape, 129-138.46 This trope recurs in several recent films as well, though to a lesser extent, appearing, for example, in A Beautiful Mind (Ron Howard, 2001), Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Guy Ritchie, 2011), The Next Three Days (Paul Haggis, 2010), 21 Jump Street (Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, 2012), Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Mark Webb, 2014) and others.47 See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StringTheory. The trope is named after the original title of the Heroes episode mentioned above.

39

which serves as a useful “recap” for the audience, an elegant ”visual shorthand” aid in

mastering complex serial narratives (Benson), which might at least in part explain its

rising popularity in recent television series. Benson also relates the trope’s current

popularity to both post-9/11 era and information age sensibilities, with global terrorist

conspiracies and big data visualization culture neatly converging on the “wall of crazy.”

Conversely, the over-reliance of digital-age protagonists on post-it notes, strings, pins and

pegboards, which has been noted as somewhat anachronistic, is reminiscent of 1970’s era

Cold War thrillers, which influence many contemporary thriller series, as has been

previously noted (Kirsch; Benson).

In any case, whether aiding viewer orientation in an ongoing narrative or

displaying Cold War nostalgia, the “wall of crazy” provides a powerful tool for

investigative protagonists with which to organize mass amounts of information into a

coherent narrative sequence. A useful device for visually connecting the dots, it allows

them to see “the big picture,” uncover invisible connections and reach conclusions and

epiphanies that advance their investigation, a helpful aid in comprehending and/or

preventing catastrophes.

40

Figure 6: Further examples of “crazy walls” in contemporary series. From top left corner downwards: Breaking Bad (2008-2013, AMC), The Wire, Fargo (2014-present, FX), True Detective (2014-present, HBO), The Following, Life (2007-2009, NBC), Rubicon, The Blacklist, Castle (2009-present, ABC), Person of Interest, American Odyssey, Cult, 12 Monkeys, Fringe, Almost Human (2013-2014, Fox), Smallville (2001-2006, The WB; 2006-2010, The CW), Gotham (2014-present, Fox), The Flash, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and Daredevil (2015-present, Netflix).

41

Figure 7: Parodies of “crazy walls” on contemporary series. From top left to right: Suburgatory (2011-2014, ABC) and Saturday Night Live (1975-present, NBC), both specifically parodying Homeland; two examples from Parks and Recreation (2009-2015, NBC); Community (2009-2014, NBC; 2015, Yahoo! Screen) and Wilfred (2011-2013, FX; 2014, FXX). Also see this fan-made parody, featuring clips from Homeland and several catastrophic series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pD5L5BUEw.

However, the protagonists are not the only ones who can use this device. On

Flashforward, for example, at least two members of the Global Blackout Conspiracy

have built their own versions of the “wall of crazy” (episodes 1.10 and 1.17), employed

for their own devious ends. On an episode of Castle, a room full of strings, much like

Hiro’s, is used to calculate the exact actions that would help bring about, rather than

prevent, World War Three (episode 4.16). While “crazy walls” are mostly used by the

protagonists, applied in the prevention of catastrophic attacks – they are at times depicted

in use by antagonists as well, applied in the service of those very same catastrophes. 48

48 And see “Room Full of Crazy,” the evil, “serial killer-y,” counterpart of the “String Theory” trope as listed on TV Tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RoomFullOfCrazy.

42

2.2.2. “Welcome to the Machine:” Information Networks and Super-Computers

Relying on paper and string can only get you so far; modern technology offers many

digital solutions for mass data processing. And while these might not be as visually

appealing for television creators as the pinboard, they are far more practical in dealing

with large amounts of information, and in reality have largely replaced traditional paper

and string as a chief investigative tool (Benson). This, too, is reflected in many series. In

Flashforward, a key element of the FBI’s Mosaic investigation is the Mosaic Collective

website, thought up by agent Janis Hawk (in episode 1.01). The website invites people

from all over the world to post their flahsforwards, forming an expansive searchable

online database; in Janis’s own words (episode 1.02):

[I]f you put the descriptions of peoples’ visions together, you do start to

get a definitive picture – a mosaic – of April 29th. Now we’re using

NSA’s echelon network algorithm to intercept any suspicious words and

to look for patterns. Now the hope is those patterns will eventually lead to

an explanation of what caused the blackout so we can at least prevent

another one.

Mass amounts of data are stored online, where disparate bits and pieces of the future can

quickly and effectively be cross-referenced, and patterns can much more easily be

detected. The Mosaic website (see figure 8) indeed soon proves useful, providing leads to

the investigation, the whole of mankind potentially serving as a massive collective

intelligence community.

43

It is no coincidence that a network-based intelligence operation is employed

against a networked enemy; this fictional example is in line with the dominant

contemporary paradigm of network warfare, holding that since “traditional, centralized,

hierarchical military structures” are largely ineffectual against a networked enemy, as

Hardt and Negri have argued: “It takes a network to fight a network” (Hardt and Negri,

Multitude 58; italics in source). And, as Galloway and Thacker add: “it also takes

networks to understand networks” (Galloway and Thacker 100; italics in source). The

war on terror, then, is conceived as a battle of “network against network,” in which

“[w]hoever masters the network form first and best will gain major advantages” (Arquilla

and Ronfeldt 15).49 The application of vast information networks and collective

intelligence logic as tools against terrorism exemplifies this notion, utilizing the benefits

of the Network Society as a means to tackle its threats.

The Mosaic Collective is one such example; as a general rule, advanced

computers, information networks and surveillance systems are common tools used by

intelligence and law enforcement agencies and other investigative characters, in many

contemporary series, from 24 and Homeland to Fringe and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Person

of Interest, CBS’s sci-fi crime drama, takes this concept to the extreme. Set in post-9/11

New York City, the series depicts a world in which the government’s surveillance

capabilities know no boundaries, and every single electronic signal transmitted is

monitored and stored. Harold Finch, a reclusive genius billionaire, has built a machine

able to sift through this endless stream of data. The purpose of the Machine, according to

Finch, is “to prevent the next 9/11;” as he explains (episode 1.01):

49 Also see Kleindorfer and Wind 453-470. This paradigm refers more broadly to the structural and organizational logic of military organizations, less relevant to our discussion, as well as the functions and methods of intelligence gathering and analysis.

44

After the attacks, the government gave itself the power to read every

email, listen to every cell phone, but they needed something that could sort

through it all, something that could pick the terrorists out of the general

population before they could act […] The Machine is everywhere.

Watching us with ten thousand eyes. Listening with a million ears.

More than a mere computer network, the Machine is an all-knowing artificial

intelligence, a veritable “Big Brother,” instantaneously processing unfathomable amounts

of data, detecting patterns that might pose a risk to national security, uncovering and

predicting terrorist plots before they even unfold and enabling their preemption by the

government (see figure 9).50

Figure 8: Figure 9:Flashforward’s Mosaic Collective website interface; Person of Interest’s Machine interface;source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4taMXtM2tY screen grab, episode 2.10.

The application of various types of digital entities able to process data and find

connections in ways the human mind could never hope to, is another common trope on

contemporary series; various kinds of supercomputers, AI’s, cyborgs and androids

50 This is known as “predictive policing;” the Machine is in fact very similar in nature to the real-life “Total Information Awareness” program, started in 2003 by the United Stated Information Awareness Office (see Murray, N.). A similar system, known as “Hawk-Eye,” is featured on Minority Report.

45

serving this function can be found in series such as Terminator: The Sarah Connors

Chronicles, Odyssey 5, Almost Human, Battlestar Galactica and others.51

A middle ground between human and machine also exists, in the form of an

augmented human mind, implanted with a digital chip which allows access to

information networks, along with enhanced memory storage and data processing

capabilities. Intelligence, following government agent Gabriel Vaughn, is one example of

this. Implanted with a chip that connects him directly to the global information grid,

Gabriel, hailed as “the next evolution of intelligence,” is able to intercept, process and

cross-reference all forms of digital communication (see figure 10). Similar devices are

employed in the final season of Fringe, in H+: The Digital Series (2012-2013, Youtube)

and in Minority Report.

Through the use of various computers, machines and digital augmentations of

human perception, advanced technologies serve as extensions of the protagonists,

enabling them to make sense of seemingly infinite amounts of data, and thus digitally

connect the dots, the red strings of the physical world replaced by the hyper-links of

cyberspace, powerful tools against terrorism. Conversely, in the third season of Person of

Interest, a rival Machine is created, serving forces bent on world domination, and

subverting the efforts of the “benevolent” Machine (as the two Machines go to war, we

have a literal case of “network against network”); on Intelligence, a chip identical to

Gabriel’s is implanted in a woman serving America’s enemies; on H+, a global

interconnected digital-neural network is used for uploading a catastrophic global virus.

51 Almost Human also employs a technology that enables the construction of a digital “wall of crazy,” through the holographic projection of virtual post-it notes.

46

Much like the “wall of crazy,” advanced technology certainly serves anti-terrorism efforts

– but it can also serve the terrorists.

2.2.3. “The Brain is a Computer:” Unique Minds and Productive Pathologies

The human mind, much like a computer, has the ability to collect, store and analyze

information; as Fringe’s Walter Bishop claims, “the brain is a computer […] It’s an

organic computer” (episode 2.07). Human computational capabilities are obviously vastly

inferior when compared against modern computer systems, much less fictionalized super-

intelligent supercomputers. Some minds, however, are different, “special,” naturally or

artificially altered in some way that significantly increases their perceptual and cognitive

functions. Or so it is suggested in many series, which feature various characters whose

“unique” minds prove to be a useful tool in locating and connecting the dots.

Touch (2012-2013, Fox) features the 11-year-old Jake Bohm, an autistic child

who does not speak; his mind, constantly obsessed with numbers and formulas, is highly

attuned to various patterns which make up a sort of cosmic interconnected “roadmap” of

the future. Communicating only through the use of numbers, Jake leads his father,

Martin, on various missions to prevent misfortunes and disasters.52 As Prof. Arthur

Teller, a character on the show, explains to Martin: “The whole cosmic wheel of

humanity comes down to just electromagnetic energy and connections. There are those

among us […] whose sole purpose is to act as air traffic controllers for that

interconnectivity” (episode 1.01).

52 Similar in concept to Person of Interest’s “predictive policing,” as discussed earlier.

47

Jake is by no means the only example of an autistic character serving in this

capacity. On Flashforward, the character of Gabriel McDow, an autistic savant with

eidetic memory (or “total recall”), proves valuable by pointing Mark’s investigation in

the right direction. On Fringe, the alternate-universe version of the character Astrid

Farnsworth is a high-functioning autistic, and is highly proficient in mathematics and

probability, often serving as a “human calculator.” On Alphas, Garry Bell has a brain

anomaly which makes him autistic, and also enables him to “see” and manipulate

electromagnetic frequencies, hack into any information network using his mind, and

process mass amounts of data near-instantaneously (similar to Intelligence’s Gabriel,

Gary’s brain anomaly replacing Gabriel’s digital chip; see figure 11).

Figure 10: Figure 11:Intelligence’s Gabriel uses his chip to sift through Alphas’ Gary can access all digital signals usingcyberspace; screen grab, episode 1.01. his “unique” mind; screen grab, episode 1.01.

Besides autistic savant syndrome, other forms of unique or altered consciousness are also

featured in similar functions. Homeland’s Carrie suffers from bipolar disorder, and while

this condition presents her with various challenges, it also enables her to intuitively

“connect the dots” in ways no one else around her can. Prison Break’s Michael Scofield

suffers from low latent inhibition (as explained in episode 1.09), rendering him highly

perceptive and unable to filter outside stimuli. Being highly intelligent, this condition

makes him a creative genius, able to process mass amounts of information and make

48

connections that no one else could, skills necessary for masterminding his elaborate

eponymous prison break. Fringe features instances of drug-induced savants (such as on

episode 3.03) as does Limitless,53 while Heroes features several characters with a

propensity for pattern recognition and increased memory or perception, all precipitated

by either genetic mutation, drug use or a brain tumor. The protagonist of Intelligence is

likewise only able to access his digital chip thanks to a rare genetic mutation. Further

characters skilled in pattern recognition and other cognitive abilities, while not suffering

from any particular mental or neurologic condition, are depicted as anti-social, reclusive

or eccentric geniuses, such as the protagonists of Rubicon and Person of Interest.54

These characters and others all have an unusual or “damaged” mental complexion

which imparts them with cognitive abilities that far surpass normal human capacity,

enabling them to “think in hyperlinks,” much like a computer: to collect, store, access

and/or process mass amounts of data. These abilities are similar in nature to Thomas

Elsaesser’s notion of “productive pathologies,” in the context of “mind-game films,”

which also focus on “characters whose mental condition is extreme, unstable, or

pathological” (Elsaesser 14). As Elsaesser argues, pathologies such as schizophrenia and

paranoia are often portrayed as symptoms of trauma (Elsaesser 29); similarly, the

“damaged” mental condition of many characters in contemporary catastrophic series can

be traced back to a central trauma, in particular the traumatic events of 9/11.55 More

53 The protagonist of Limitless describes his drug-enhanced cognitive capabilities: “I have, among other things, perfect recall. I can analyze data and patterns, and I can use that analysis to solve complex problems or make connections” (episode 1.03). He is employed as a “unique resource” of the FBI, assisting in investigations.54 As are countless modern-day televisual variations on Sherlock Holmes, such as the protagonists of Sherlock (2010-present, BBC One), Elementary (2012-present, CBS), Monk (2002-2009, USA Network), House (2004-2012, Fox), Hannibal (2013-2015, NBC) and many others.55 Carrie’s bipolarity on Homeland is directly related to the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist incidents which serve as triggers for her manic episodes (Edgerton and Edgerton 91); Will’s reclusiveness on Rubicon is

49

importantly, however, these pathologies can also liberate, increase perception, heighten

intuition and lead to new kinds of knowledge: “these apparently damaged minds […] are

capable of displaying remarkable faculties at times […] In other words, these pathologies

are presented to the spectator in some sense as productive pathologies” (Elsaesser 31).56

Moreover, these productive “damaged” minds are in fact presented as the

“appropriate” response to the contemporary Network Society, providing various

cognitive skills required for dealing with its challenges (Elsaesser 25-26), such as the

ability to flexibly adapt thought patterns to an ever-changing environment; to discover

connections where none seem to exist; to discern patterns in seeming chaos; and to

perceive fragmentation and multiplicity. Indeed, as Deleuze and Guattari write,

rhizomatic perception – the perception of multiplicity – is itself often deemed

“pathological” in the eyes of modern psychotherapy (Deleuze and Guattari 27-31).57

Characters with “unique” minds are thus portrayed as better equipped for

comprehending networked complexity. Mentally connecting the dots, their neural

synapses come in place of physical strings and digital hyperlinks, providing another

useful tool in the war on terror; and one which, once again, can also be used by the

terrorists themselves. Sylar, one of the main antagonists of Heroes, has a “unique” mind

which enables to him to see how complex systems work, how all the pieces fit together,

an ability which leads him to commit numerous violent murders. Flashforward, Lost and

linked to the tragic loss of his wife and child, both 9/11 victims; Touch’s Jake lost his mother – another 9/11 victim – when he was only a baby; etc.56 While very similar in principle, unlike the mind-game films Elsaesser refers to, characters in catastrophic series are rarely depicted as schizophrenic (with possible exceptions such as Dollhouse and Awake (2012, NBC), though still not quite presenting “schizophrenia” in the literal sense of the word). And while investigating characters are often accused of paranoia – these accusations ultimately prove false, as the narratives validate their beliefs; this will be discussed in detail later in this chapter.57 Also see Castells on networked life as subverting “normative” consciousness (Castells, Network Society 21-25).

50

Touch all feature sinister organizations that round up groups of autistic savants, seeking

to use their high computational capabilities or eidetic memories for their own selfish

ends. In this fairly specific ploy, savants are used as a kind of living “cluster computing”

network, mass computational tasks distributed over parallel “components” processing

simultaneously, in attempt to calculate the end of the world.58 Like “crazy walls” and

advanced information technologies, unique minds are also depicted as a double-edged

sword, available for use by forces of both sides.

2.2.4. “We’re All Prophets Now:” Temporal Manipulation and Synchronous Temporality

As has previously been mentioned, many series prominently feature various forms of

temporal manipulation, a common trope of science fiction, often employed as a means of

preventing a future catastrophe, or undoing one that has already taken place. Time travel

and precognition are the two most commonly used manifestations of temporal

manipulation, sometimes leading to the creation of alternate timelines and parallel

universes.59 While by no means new, contemporary applications of these tropes on

television are distinguished both by their abundance, in particular when applied in the

prevention of catastrophes, and their depiction as a means of collecting bits of

58 By unlocking the “God Sequence” on Touch, the “Valenzetti Equation” on Lost’s online ARG, “The Lost Experience,” or an unknown apocalyptic event on Flashforward. 59 Time travel is featured on Heroes, 12 Monkeys, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, The 4400, Odyssey 5, Fringe, Lost, The Flash, Tru Calling (2003-2005, Fox), Daybreak (2006, ABC; 2008, TV One) and others (“time loops” are used in the latter two). Precognition and prophecies appear on Flashforward, Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Fringe, The 4400, Alphas, The Messengers (2015, The CW), The Dead Zone (2002-2007, USA Network), Minority Report and others. Though not featuring actual precognition, the “predictive policing” premise of both Touch and Person of Interest functions similarly. Alternate timelines are featured prominently on Fringe and Heroes, among others.

51

information which enable the construction of a coherent sequence of events leading up to

the catastrophe, another aid in connecting the dots.

On Heroes, for example, the time traveling Hiro from the future makes constant

excursions into the past, collecting the bits and pieces that eventually enable the

construction of his “map of time,” as detailed above. Similarly, on 12 Monkeys, James

Cole constantly jumps backwards and forwards in time, searching for information that

will help understand how a deadly global plague had come about. On Flashforward, the

clues in Mark’s vision of his future are what set him on the construction of his “wall of

crazy,” while the Mosaic website culls collective visions for further clues; as Aaron

Stark, a friend of Mark’s, says: “we’re all prophets now” (episode 1.02).60

Temporal manipulation thus enables the juxtaposition of past, present and future

events, all offered up for analysis, enabling a forensic examination of time required for

the reconstruction of the catastrophic narrative. In this sense, temporal manipulation is

similar in effect to the previous tools mentioned, each in its own way facilitating a

synchronous perception of time, emblematic of the postmodernist notion of temporality

as simultaneity, or “timeless time” (as was discussed in the previous chapter). Regarding

past, present or future events as isolated is not enough – all need to be connected and

considered in tandem for the “big picture” to become clear.

Hiro’s “map” and Carrie’s and Mark’s walls are spatial representations of time,

all events presented simultaneously, the physical embodiment of life experienced and

represented not linearly but as “a network that connects points and intersects with its own

skein” (Foucault, “Other Spaces” 22). Person of Interest’s Machine instantaneously

connects occurrences in the present to events from years and even decades in the past,

60 Aaron is himself named after the biblical prophet of the same name.

52

making predictions for the future. On Touch, as Prof. Teller explains, Jake “sees

everything. The past, the present, the future. He sees how it’s all connected” (episode

1.01). Similarly, the futuristic Observers on Fringe, augmented by a device implanted in

their brains, are not only capable of time travel but also exist effectively “outside of

time,” experiencing time not as linear but rather as “happening all at once” and so able to

observe it at any point (as explained in episode 2.08), making them near-omniscient.

The privileged epistemological position enabled by the synchronous perception of

time, it is suggested, is essential in the comprehension and prevention of the catastrophes

brought about by sinister terrorist networks. Faced with a complex, networked enemy,

only a more complex conception of temporality will prove effective, not as operating

along a single, rigid linear trajectory but rather as a web of interconnected temporal

“nodes,” flexible, changeable, and accessible at any point. Or, as eloquently put by The

Doctor himself: “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but

actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it's more like a big ball of wibbly

wobbly... time-y wime-y... stuff” (Doctor Who [1963-present, BBC One], episode 3.10).

Once more, like the previous tools and tropes mentioned, temporal manipulation

and the synchronous perception of time serve both protagonists and antagonists: on

Fringe, the futuristic Observers use their enhanced temporal cognition and time travel

abilities to enslave humanity, as do the machines in Terminator: The Sarah Connor

Chronicles; on Flashforward, Dyson Frost and his cohorts constantly gain the upper hand

over the protagonists through their knowledge of the future – as do the members of the

“Army of the Twelve Monkeys” on 12 Monkeys. As Aaron had foreseen: “We’re all

prophets now;” both good and evil.

53

2.3. “All Part of The Plan:” Order Behind Chaos

Using the above mentioned tools and others, the protagonists work to “connect the dots,”

piecing seemingly unrelated events and data into coherent patterns. However, connecting

the dots is not an easy task, and the protagonists are prone to doubting themselves along

the way: perhaps there is no larger pattern to be found, hidden behind isolated events;

perhaps it’s all just random and coincidental. Often doubted, scolded and even ridiculed

by their co-workers, superiors and families, they might be labeled overzealous, obsessive,

delusional, or downright insane.

On the first season of Homeland, Carrie is the only person on the CIA to correctly

connect the dots leading to an upcoming terrorist attack; behaving erratically, she is

constantly doubted by her superiors, and the discovery of her bipolar disorder leads to her

temporary removal from the CIA (episode 1.11). Carrie comes to doubt her own sanity,

ultimately opting to undergo electroconvulsive therapy at the end of the season (episode

1.12). On Flashforward, Mark’s infamous “wall of crazy” is met with much criticism and

distrust throughout the series; funding for the Mosaic investigation is almost cut short at

one point (episode 1.05), and Mark himself is temporarily suspended (episode 1.11).

Riddled with self-doubt after several leads on his board have seemingly turned out to be

dead ends, Mark’s demeanor becomes increasingly edgy, gradually spiraling towards

despair; this culminates during his interrogation of the apprehended Lucas Hellinger, one

of the main antagonists of the series, who taunts him (episode 1.21):

Hellinger: “Mark, you work hard. You're passionate about what you do.

But don't you see? All of this is just so futile […] that board in

54

your office – how much time have you spent […] just looking at it,

all on faith? But deep down, you've got to know what that board

really is.”

Mark: “Tell me. What is that board about?”

Hellinger: “It's nothing but a scrapbook of your failures.”

Following this exchange, Mark finally reaches his breaking point, leading to his eventual

relapse into alcoholism, after a season-long struggle to maintain sobriety. Many other

investigating characters similarly experience their own personal “crises of faith.”

In most cases, however, these turn out to be only momentary lapses, as eventually

the characters’ beliefs are proven right, evidenced in their successful reconstruction of the

terrorist narrative and prevention of catastrophes, as happens on the first seasons of

Flashforward, Homeland and Heroes (as was detailed above), and in many other

examples. Though connecting the dots might not be easy, the protagonists must not lose

faith, even when all seems lost, as the overall message of the narrative is that everything

is connected, that “everything happens for a reason,”61 and that what might seem like

chaos at first, is in fact part of a plan.

But whose plan? The answers to this question, as offered by many series, broadly

fall under two possible categories: the mystical and the conspiratorial.

61 One of the taglines for Lost.

55

2.3.1. “Deus Ex Machina:” Faith in the Grand Design

“We are being stitched together to form a tapestry, something larger that can’t be

understood until we step back to see the whole thing […] Do we walk in hope, believing

that what God is doing is good, or do we stumble around, resigning ourselves to chaos?”

(Timothy, Flashforward, episode 1.11)

The above quote from Flashforward is part of a sermon delivered by Timothy, a

character who had become an evangelist preacher following the Global Blackout.

Characters on The Event similarly reference the existence of a cosmic “tapestry” of

history which weaves together all events and characters (episodes 1.16 and 1.17). On

Heroes, the character of Muhinder Suresh muses: “Perhaps there’s a master plan that

drives the randomness of creation,” suggesting that “we are all connected, joined together

by an invisible thread” (episode 3.25). The pilot episode of Touch mentions the Chinese

myth of the “red thread of fate” which connects everyone “whose lives are destined to

touch” (episode 1.01) – a myth which is also mentioned on an episode of Flashforward

(episode 1.21).62 Touch also incorporates this notion of cosmic interconnectedness into

the aesthetics of its opening sequence, by visualizing the “red thread of fate” (see figure

12), mystic counterpart of both physical red string and digital hyperlink.

62 The red string is described in the episode as bringing good fortune. Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that the red strings on Mark’s board are eventually the key to discovering when the next Global Blackout will take place (episode 1.22). Most iterations of the “wall of crazy” invariably feature red-colored strings.

56

Figure 12: Touch’s title sequence visualizes the “red thread of fate” as a mystic force of interconnection; screen grabs, episode 1.01.

As these examples illustrate, many series turn to a “higher power” which presumably puts

all events into motion, guiding humanity towards an ultimately desirable outcome.

Sometimes, as is the case on Lost, Heroes, The Event and others, this is a general,

undefined mystical force or mythic entity. On other series, characters rely on an actual

“God” or gods. On Touch, it is eventually revealed that the autistic Jake is one of the

“righteous 36” put on earth, according to Kabalistic Judaism, to do God’s work and

“repair the universe” (episode 1.09). Similarly, on The Messengers, God’s apostles are

put on Earth to prevent the Apocalypse, while the eponymous protagonist of Angel

57

(1999-2004, The WB) has prevented several Apocalypses, guided by “The Powers That

Be.”63

While Fringe ultimately offers a pseudo-scientific or technological explanation to

every problem, this “science” is often presented as an almost mystic force, and in a sense

the show’s worldview almost suggests that “God is technology” (Kaminsky 67). On

Person of Interest, “god” is the Machine, depicted as an all-seeing, near-omniscient deity,

often referred to explicitly as a “god;” on one episode, a character known as “Root,”

referring to the Machine, says: “there’s an order to things, a plan. And everything that

happens is part of it.” The Machine, it is suggested, has a plan, and the protagonists

“serving her” must have faith and devoutly follow “her” instructions; though she “works

in mysterious ways,” often leaving them oblivious to the bigger picture, doing the

Machine’s bidding will nevertheless save lives and better the world (episode 3.17).

Whether a generalized cosmic notion of fate or destiny, an actual “god” or god-

like divinity, or the technological or scientific equivalent of one – the end result is the

same; as put by Jake from Touch:64 “The patterns are hidden in plain sight. You just have

to know where to look. Things most people see as chaos actually follow subtle laws of

behavior” (episode 1.01). On Fringe, a character known as William Bell, similarly states:

“destiny, fate. Jung called it synchronicity, the interconnectedness of apparently unrelated

events […] nothing just happens […] every event has some meaning. Some sort of

message. You just have to be able to listen closely enough to hear it” (episode 3.17).

63 Additionally, many series often include biblical or religious references and allusions, through the use of symbolic character names, episode titles and other means; Lost, Flashforward and Battlestar Galactica are notable examples of this.64 Though largely mute, Jake addresses the viewers in voice-over narration throughout the series.

58

And so many series turn to the mythical as a means to order chaos, to find

reassurance and meaning behind events. Nothing is random, everything happens for a

reason, even – perhaps particularly – when it is beyond human understanding. All the

characters can do is attempt to discern, through signs and clues, what the grand design is,

though they can never hope to fully comprehend it.

While this might seem to be somewhat detrimental to the cause – as it implies that

the characters are attempting to comprehend the ultimately incomprehensible – it

nevertheless provides unyielding conviction for the protagonists, necessary motivation

for their otherwise thankless task. And while the complete design might elude them, faith

in a higher power does provide a way to better the world. Though at the end of

Flashforward Mark, for all his efforts, is left with mostly unanswered questions, he does

manage to save many lives, as was detailed above. Have faith and thou shall be rewarded,

this is the promise, and not necessarily with total comprehension.

And so the efforts of the – mostly Western – protagonists of catastrophic series

are often sanctioned by the divine, while the – largely non-Western – terrorists are

framed as evildoers or agents of chaos, even when they too claim to be agents of God.

This again is illustrative of the dominant political discourse in the United States. In the

years following 9/11, in particular, President Bush and other leadership figures have

repeatedly and explicitly aligned God with America when speaking of the war on terror

(Green 2-3; Carver). Conceived of as a “holy crusade,” ridding the world of evil (by all

means necessary), America’s campaign against terrorism is seen as “a noble and pure

quest;” this rhetoric “imbues the war on terrorism with a holy justification and a sense of

59

divine sanction,” indicating that America is “on the side of good and God” (Jackson 68-

69).65

Religious rhetoric thus serves to simplify cultural and political conflicts,

rendering them fundamentally dichotomous, moving from the complexities of cultural,

historical, political and ideological clashes to the (apparent) simplicities of a religious

moral binary. The incorporation of God and other mystic divinities in contemporary

catastrophic narratives, then, serves a reassuring function morally as well as

ontologically.66 Not all series, however, opt for the “divine” route when searching for

ontological reassurance, some preferring instead a rather more erstwhile, and generally

far bleaker one: that of the nefarious conspiracy.

2.3.2. “Not Every Conspiracy Is a Theory,” or the Unexpected Virtue of Paranoia

In the second-season finale of The Blacklist, the character of Raymond Reddington

arranges to meet with some of the world’s leading investigative journalists; he then

presents them with extensive documentation of a sinister clandestine organization known

as “The Cabal,” which has secretly been the driving force behind many of the events

depicted throughout the series. He proceeds to explain (episode 2.22):

65 The terrorists, on the other hand, are described as evil, unfaithful and “godless:” “They believe in no faith. They have adherence to no religion” (Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, qtd. in Jackson 65; emphasis in source); unlike the Americans, their own claims of a “holy jihad” are not “true” and sincere, as they have merely “hijacked a great religion in order to justify their evil deeds” (President George W. Bush, qtd. in Jackson 68). Violence in the name of God, it seems, is only permitted on America’s side. 66 There are some exceptions, it should be noted, as far as the moral binarism of religion as depicted on contemporary series; in the more theologically complex Battelstar Galactica and Caprica (2010, Syfy), for example, multiple deities are involved in directing both Human and Cylon followers towards eventual redemption.

60

They are among the most powerful men and women on the planet. They

are also part of a global conspiracy, a shadow organization that spans

across every continent […] consisting of leaders in world government and

the private sector […] The world you live in is the world they want you to

think you live in. They start wars, create chaos. And when it suits them,

they resolve it […] Their alliance effects sea-change in every aspect of

human life – the value and distribution of commodities, money, weapons,

water, fuel, the food we eat to live, the information we rely on to tell us

who we are.

“The Cabal” is but one example of another common trope featured on many

contemporary series: there exist secretive groups of (mostly) men, known variously as

“The Company” on both Heroes and Prison Break, “The Cadre” on Odyssey 5, “The

Group” on Life, “The Fourth Branch” on Traveler, “The Circle of the Black Thorn” on

the final season of Angel, and various other names on many more series.67 Typically

portrayed silently consorting around tables in darkened rooms, they plot and execute

elaborate conspiracies involving individuals embedded in key positions of various

branches of the government, the military, the intelligence community and powerful

industrial companies (broadly referred to as the military-intelligence-industrial complex).

Using their deep-rooted influence, they manipulate national or global events – at times

going so far as to support, initiate or even stage terrorist attacks against America – to

further their own political and economic agendas, looking to achieve and maintain power.

67 Such as Person of Interest, Rubicon, 24 (particularly in seasons 5 through 7), American Odyssey, Flashforward, The 4400, Dollhouse, The Dead Zone, Jericho (2006-2008, CBS) and others.

61

On Rubicon, for example, a deadly Islamist terrorist attack on American soil,

supposedly backed by Iran, was in fact orchestrated by members of the American

intelligence-industrial complex, including Will’s boss at the API, as a means of

restructuring the global oil economy (episode 1.12). The third season of Person of

Interest similarly depicts a “terrorist” attack which kills dozens, staged in the interests of

reshaping American security and surveillance policies (episode 3.23).68

These numerous conspiracy plots demonstrate once again the influence of 1970’s

era conspiracy thrillers, and also of the brand of popular conspiracy theorizing brought

into the mainstream in the 1990’s, evidenced in the success of series like The X-Files

(1993-2002, Fox).69 Presented predominantly in the context of terrorism, contemporary

conspiracies reflect the trend of conspiracy thinking re-invigorated by the events of 9/11,

with many conspiracy theories implicating the American government and the military-

industrial complex in the attacks.70 The conspiracy theorists set out to uncover the truth,

placing themselves at risk and disregarding others who might doubt them; though they

attempt to prove their theories through a methodic accumulation and analysis of forensic

“evidence” (Hofstadter 35-38), with each bit of intelligence seen as an omen or a fateful

sign (Apter 376), their mission “ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof”

(Barkun, 4-7).

68 This time placing the blame on America’s Cold War nemesis, the fifth season of Homeland has Russian intelligence facilitating a deadly terrorist attack by Muslim extremists in Berlin, in an effort to harden U.S. foreign policy towards radical Islam. 69 See Scott, C. For more on the history of conspiracy thinking in American culture, see: Walker, Jesse; Goldberg, Enemies Within; Douthat; and Barkun.70 The “obsession” with 9/11 conspiracy thinking, evident in many contemporary series (see Kelley-Romano; Brinker; Hart), has led conspiracy-minded fans to suggest, for example, that Rubicon was cancelled after only one season due to “direct or indirect pressure applied to AMC” by certain people the series might have made “nervous or unhappy,” as its conspiracy ideas may have been “hitting too close to home” (Brewer); or that Flashforward, as a blatant 9/11 allegory, was implicitly endorsing certain 9/11 conspiracy theories (Singh).

62

Conspiracy thinking, with its dire, apocalyptic visions and tendency towards

catastrophism and urgency, is often equated with paranoia (Hofstadter 29-30; Apter 366),

leading to delusions of grandeur and persecutory fantasies.71 The paranoid conspiracy

thinker, “by devising a system of omniscience capable of binding everything into

coherence,” driven by the faith that “everything is connected,” will see himself as “God”

(Apter 371). And so, on an episode of Flashforward, for example, Mark’s psychiatrist

claims he has “a God complex,” believing himself to be “the center of the universe”

(episode 1.11). Other characters are similarly often discredited for being delusional,

sometimes outright psychotic (such as Homeland’s Carrie, as was previously discussed).

However, as Harold Finch responds to being called “paranoid,” in an episode of Person

of Interest: “It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you” (episode 4.21). Conspiracies

really exist, as the narratives ultimately prove, and the protagonists are right in their

suspicions. As Rubicon’s tagline suggests: “Not every conspiracy is a theory.”

The narratives thus construct a worldview which ultimately validates the beliefs

of the conspiracy theorists, justifies their actions and rewards them, if not with the

elimination of the conspiracy or the prevention of its intended consequences, then at the

very least with proof that their theories had been correct all along, as indeed happens on

Flashforward, Homeland, Rubicon and other shows. And so it is not that the characters

suffer from paranoid delusions; rather, it’s the series themselves that adopt “the paranoid

style,” not as a clinical condition but rather as a mode of expression (Hofstadter 3-4).72

71 “Trust No One,” went a tagline for the first season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, echoing one of the taglines for The X-Files.72 And see Felix Brinker’s discussion of the “conspiratorial mode of storytelling” in contemporary American television (Brinker).

63

Ultimately, the paranoid conspiratorial worldview proves not that different from

the belief in a “grand design” of a godlike entity.73 Both faith and paranoia, in response to

a feeling of helplessness and powerlessness, place the blame on external forces beyond

one’s control (Mirowsky and Ross 228; Kelley-Romano 113). In place of an all-powerful

deity, conspiracy theories posit an all-powerful and malicious group or organization of

conspirators as the central axis of events (Hofstadter 31-32), again imagining a world in

which “everything is connected,” nothing is random and there are no accidents or

coincidences (Goldberg, “Enemies Within” 2; Barkun 3-4), as disparate events, though

seemingly unrelated, all lead back to the conspiracy (Keeley-Romano 115).74 Rubicon

incorporates this notion of conspiracy thinking into the aesthetics of its title sequence,

visualized as a yellow line constantly and franticly tracing connections among disparate

items, the paranoid counterpart of Touch’s “red thread of thread” (see figure 13).

Initially the functions these two forces serve may seem entirely oppositional:

while the “grand design” suggests a comforting belief in a benevolent higher power,

paranoid conspiracy thinking sees the world as being unknowingly subjected to the

control of an all-powerful evil. However, while it might certainly be unsettling, the

paranoid mode is also reassuring and comforting (Barkun 4-5; Kelley-Romano 106),

promising a world that is more coherent and less complex than the real world, one not

governed by randomness or coincidence (Hofstadter 36; Kelley-Romano 113-117), but

rather operating according to a “master-plan.”

73 Jesse Walker, for example, in fact considers the belief in an unseen divine force surreptitiously orchestrating events for good to be an example of a sub-category of conspiracy theories, one he names “benevolent conspiracies” (Walker, Jesse).74 In this context, it should be mentioned that Flashforward, the series, varies significantly from its source material, the novel Flashforward (Robert J. Sawyer, 1999), in which the Blackout was an accidental, even coincidental occurrence, and not the intentional result of an elaborate terrorist plot.

64

Figure 13: As this collection of frames taken from Rubicon’s title sequence illustrates, the sequence uses a yellow line which connects various items, tracing the conspiracy narrative.Source: http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/rubicon/.

As devious and unstoppable as this plan may be, it is nevertheless concocted and carried

out by (mostly) human agents, and in that sense is perhaps even more comforting,

ontologically. Unlike the “grand design,” which the characters are asked to accept

submissively, surrendering themselves to a higher power and acting on its behalf even as

it is beyond their understanding, the conspiratorial mode sets the investigating characters

on an uncompromising quest for total comprehension. Indeed, for the conspiracy theorist,

“everything can be explained; all the dots can be connected” (Goldberg, “Enemies

Within” 2). And as the quest to uncover the conspiracy pits the protagonists against a

powerful evil, it offers them purpose and resolve, and – much like religious faith – is

emotionally comforting and empowering on the moral level as well as the ontological one

(Barkun 4-5; Goldberg, “Enemies Within” 13).

Paranoia and conspiracy thinking thus prove useful in dealing with the complex

challenges of the era, much like the “productive pathologies” discussed earlier. As

65

Elsaesser has argued, paranoia is arguably “the appropriate – or even ‘productive’ –

pathology of our contemporary network society” (Elsaesser 25-26). Paranoia might also

be seen as the “appropriate” response to the threat of modern terrorism, its networked

complexity defying earlier conceptions of enmity; as Hardt and Negri have stated:

“Confronting a network enemy can certainly throw an old form of power into a state of

universal paranoia” (Hardt and Negri, Multitude 55). However, unlike the previously

mentioned “pathologies,” which manifested in “unique,” “abnormal” characters, paranoia

is expressed at the narrative level; as stated above, rather than depicting paranoid

characters, the series are “paranoid” themselves, assimilating the paranoid style as a

“productive” response to their subject matter: complex networked terrorism.75

Finally, while conspiracy thinking might on the one hand serve to erode faith in

the government and its institutions, in its portrayal of villainy and deceit in the highest

office (Goldberg, “Enemies Within” 11-16),76 at the same time it also serves to the

contrary, reinforcing that very faith. When terrorist attacks are the result of a homegrown

conspiracy and not of an intelligence failure; when the terrorists are not evil masterminds

but rather the pawns and puppets of manipulative American power; when everything that

happens is not chaotic, random and unexpected, but rather the result of carefully laid

plans, plotted in advance by our very own government – then the American public can

still rely on its leaders, if not for their moral constitution and good intentions, then at least

for their capability and level of control.

75 As we’ll discuss in chapter 4, the paranoid style also encourages the audience to adapt a “paranoid” or “conspiratorial” mode of viewing.76 Either the president or vice president of the United States, for example, are often implicated in the evil conspiracies as depicted on series such as Flashforward, 24, The Event, Heroes, Prison Break, Traveler and others. House of Cards (2013-present, Netflix), though not a catastrophic series, also depicts a powerful and devious mastermind seated in the Oval Office.

66

2.4. Conclusion: “Everything Is Connected”

As we’ve seen, catastrophic series pit protagonists against a complex, networked enemy,

providing them with the necessary skills and tools to comprehend it and to foresee – and

often prevent – future catastrophes; the protagonists’ ability to successfully “connect the

dots” and uncover the larger pattern leading up to an attack is epistemologically

reassuring, even when this occurs too late to prevent it – as happens on the final episodes

of Flashforward (episode 1.22) and Rubicon (episodes 1.12-1.13), among other

examples. More than mere re-enactments of various “9/11” scenarios, these narratives

function as fantasies of epistemological mastery over the threatening network formation,

and of successfully managing the complex challenges inherent within the Network

Society.

Tim Kring, the creator of Heroes, for example, has described the series in

interviews as a “sort of wish-fulfillment,” depicting “more capable” and “more powerful”

audience surrogates, able to deal with the complexities of contemporary life: “the world

is a very complicated, confusing place for most people right now. With things like global

warming, diminishing resources, terrorism, people are really feeling that something is

amiss” (Kring, qtd. in Weiland). Heroes offers protagonists who are not only able and

willing to do what’s necessary for the “common good,” but more importantly – who are

capable of figuring out just what it is that needs to be done.

Homeland’s Carrie Mathison, embodying national traumatic anxieties, similarly

enacts a collective fantasy of epistemological mastery, by periodically adopting “an

omnipotent mindset” as compensation “for what she perceives as the personal and public

67

failure of 9/11” (Edgerton and Edgerton 91). Rubicon’s Will Travers was likewise

described by a critic as “a man lost in a complex web of information,” and who, “like all

of us to some extent, is searching for something more,” looking for “meaning in everyday

occurrences” (Carabott). Meaning, order and coherence – these are what the protagonists

repeatedly strive for, against a seemingly chaotic existence.77

The series thus serve as “wish fulfillment,” by providing the characters with the

appropriate tools and capabilities for dealing with a complex reality – and also by

simplifying it; the world as depicted might seem complex and rhizomatic at the outset,

but is ultimately discovered to be constructed more like a tree, albeit a many-branched

one. Through the narrative reliance on elaborate, all-encompassing “grand designs,”

terrorist plots and conspiracies, seemingly chaotic events are mostly all linked back to

centralized points of origin by the end of many catastrophic series.

In this simplified worldview, it is stressed time and again, “everything is

connected;” it might not be easy to connect the dots – but it is possible, and when they

are, a comprehensive “solution” will present itself. This is an obvious simplification of

the nature of terrorism, based on the underlying ontological assumption that a single,

unifying explanation exists, that all the dots are – much like The Truth – “out there;” and

on the epistemological assumption that the explanation can be discovered, that the dots

can be found and connected by human agents. In other words – all the necessary pieces of

the puzzle are simply waiting to be assembled; and the necessary tools for assembling

them are readily available.

77 And compare the two contrasting central images of Flashforward – the image of destruction following the Global Blackout (figure 1 in the introduction), and the image of Mark’s wall (figure 3 in this chapter), illustrating this desire to put chaos in order.

68

And while these tools are also used at times by terrorists and other malevolent

forces, as was previously detailed, their very existence and successful application is

nonetheless epistemologically comforting. Against the terrifying complexities of the

modern, networked era, it is reassuring to know that the tools exist which can help make

sense of the world and master its complexities. The threat of incalculable,

incomprehensible, random chaos can be eliminated no matter which side has the upper

hand. Events can be mapped out and controlled, catastrophic series repeatedly assure us;

all that matters is that everything happens for a reason, whether part of an elaborate

terrorist plot, a benevolent grand design, or a nefarious conspiracy – just so long as it’s

part of a plan.

69

3. Chapter 3: New Media, New Narrative Structures – “Post-TV” and Serial Complexity

3.1. Introduction: “Gone are the Days…” – Television Isn’t What It Used to Be

“I have fond memories of the days when there were only three networks and I could let

my mind go slack as I half-watched Diane and Sam circle each other on ‘Cheers,’

because that was pretty much the only thing on […] gone now is the guilty pleasure of

simply staring at something mildly entertaining.” (Carr)

In the recent decade and a half, many critics and scholars have heralded a “new golden

age of television,”78 referring primarily to the veritable cornucopia of high quality

dramatic series, a trend broadly traced back to The Sopranos (1999-2007, HBO) and its

influence on subsequent cable series.79 While these proclamations of unprecedented

quality of content are far from ubiquitously accepted,80 one defining characteristic of

contemporary television which most seem to agree on is the significantly increased

choice of programming, with the sheer volumes of content undeniable.81 As one media

78 See Cowan; Leopold; Plunkett and Deans.79 See Mccabe and Akass; Leverette, Ott and Buckley. 80 See Newman and Levine; VanDerWerff, “Golden Age of TV.”81 While up to the 1970’s there were traditionally three available television channels in the United States, a recent Nielsen report showed 189 channels were available to the average American household in 2013, with numbers steadily increasing by the year (Nielsen Company 14); the total number of available channels in America is currently over a thousand, including broadcast, cable, satellite and internet television providers (see detailed lists on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_over-the-air_television_networks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_television_providers#United_States).

70

buyer describes it: “Television isn’t what it used to be […] Gone are the days of little or

no choice of what to watch […] Gone are the days of three channels” (Coleman).

In fact, at present there might be too much content on television, as some critics –

and viewers – believe.82 Most agree that “[c]hoices can be good, but sometimes too many

cause a headache” (Coleman), with floods of readily available content leaving the

audience “overwhelmed by the sheer volume of TV shows” (Landgraf, qtd. in Littleton).

83 Conversely, while relatively poor in choice, the “good old days” of television are

sometimes regarded by viewers with a wistful nostalgia, a yearning for “simpler times.”

The wealth of choice in content, however, is only part of the story; in many other ways,

television is indeed not what it used to be, the medium undergoing a “crisis of identity”

as the very meaning of “television” constantly shifts within an ever-changing

contemporary media landscape (Evans 1-3; Ross).

This chapter will examine the narrative structure of catastrophic series as products

of the current era of television, and the significant transformations – industrial,

technological and creative – that this era has brought with it. These transformations in the

medium, emblematic of broader trends inherent within the Network Society, have

redefined and reshaped practices of television production and consumption, as well as

enabled and encouraged the wide-spread popularity of narrative complexity on

mainstream American television.

As this chapter will illustrate, the complexity of contemporary television, which

triggers a sense of nostalgia in some viewers, is comparable with the complexities and

challenges of the Network Society, similarly depicted as triggering feelings of “Cold War

82 See Carr; Leopold; Littleton; Prigg; Graylocks.83 The notion was also reinforced in the 2015 Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony’s opening musical number, beginning with the lyrics: “So many shows, and so little time” (Kreps).

71

nostalgia” (as discussed in chapter 1). As we shall see, this complexity is a result of the

increasingly distributed “networked” logic of both the medium of television in its current

incarnation and the structures of its catastrophic narratives, in contrast with older, more

traditional “linear” paradigms.

3.2. A Networked Media Landscape: Introduction to “Post-TV”

As stated above, television, informed by numerous cultural, technological and economic

processes, has undergone many transformations over the past two decades, radically

altering the medium and transforming the very meaning of “television.” This has led

some scholars to proclaim “the end of television” (Katz; Kiley, Lowry and Grover) or

even “the death of television” (McRae), and describe the current era as the one “after

TV” (Spiegel), or the “Post-TV” era (Nicholas); this era is characterized by drastic shifts

in many aspects of the medium, from institutional structures and modes of delivery to

practices of production and consumption; these have all garnered much scholarly

attention and debate.84 We will now briefly introduce a few of these significant shifts,

focusing on the various ways in which television’s industry, technologies, and viewing

experience have all become increasingly more complex and “networked.”

One of the major changes American television has gone through over the past few

decades was “[t]he demise of the three-network system” (Spiegel 2).85 In what is

sometimes referred to as the “post-network” (Spiegel; Caldwell) or “post-broadcasting”

84 See Spiegel; Jenkins; Evans; Lotz, Beyond Prime Time and Television Will Be Revolutionized; Nicholas; Kackman et al.; de Valck and Teurlings.85 This refers to the “oligopoly” of the three major commercial broadcast television networks which had dominated the market from the 1950’s to the 1980’s: ABC, CBS and NBC (or the “Big Three”).

72

(Parks) era of television, production companies and television channels have proliferated,

and the logics of narrowcasting and niche programming have largely replaced that of

broadcasting, leaving networks to compete over ever smaller segments of the viewing

public (Spiegel 1-6; Caldwell 43-45; Nicholas 153-155). The industry – and its audience

– had become increasingly fragmented, in continuation of the historic trend towards

fragmentation in television, moving from “scarcity” to “plenty” (Ellis).

Television networks and production companies have adapted to these increasingly

competitive and unstable market conditions by restructuring along more flexible,

decentralized business models, spreading over various affiliates and subsidiaries, and

merging with other players on the market (Castells, Network Society 365-371; Spiegel

16-18). What was once a simple, hierarchical, centralized, hegemonic market – had now

become complex, fragmented, multiple and distributed; “post-network” television, in

short, had become more “networked,” in logic as well as in institutional structure

(Caldwell 66-71). The forming of multimedia conglomerates, in particular, is essential for

understanding the current media landscape, as television companies have branched out –

or rather, like a rhizome, sent out offshoots – to other media, creating “a horizontally

integrated entertainment industry” (Jenkins 96); which brings us to another key concept

in understanding the current state of the medium – that of media convergence.

Convergence, broadly speaking, refers to “the flow of content across multiple

media platforms,” as well as “the cooperation between multiple media industries”

(Jenkins 2). The pervasiveness of new media technologies in the Network Society

(Galloway and Thacker 10), and the non-hierarchical and decentralized nature of the

internet, in particular, meant that content could now spread freely and uncontrollably,

73

leaving the “centralized, dinosaurian one-to-many media that roared and trampled

through the twentieth century […] poorly adapted to the postmodern technological

environment” (Jenkins 13-16; see also Everett and Caldwell; Harries).

And so, many members of the “traditional” television industry initially viewed

new media as a threat, a “destabilizing” and “disruptive” element “eroding the base of

this powerful industry” – and some still do (Bobowski). Realizing their threat – as well as

their economic potential – production companies have gradually come to embrace new

media, to some degree or other, making content available through a variety of platforms

and devices, aiming to connect with audiences in multiple ways (Jenkins 1-24; Caldwell

47-66; Castells, Network Society 365-371; Nicholas 157-159). The result is a diverse and

interconnected media environment where content is free “to flow through many different

channels and assume many different forms” (Jenkins 11), as all cultural products are

linked and subsumed into an all-inclusive digital “hypertext” (Castells, Network Society

394-403), blurring the distinctions between media platforms and types of content.86

Having largely embraced this aspect of convergence, despite initial reservations,

many media companies have made extensive use of it, offering the audience a more

customizable viewing experience. Readily downloadable content, live streaming

websites, time-shifting technologies (DVR), remote-access digital content libraries (VOD

– “Video on Demand”); these and other services all invite an active viewing experience,

lending viewers a greater measure of control over content (Caldwell 47-66; Nicholas 154-

156; Thompson, E. 283), and giving them the freedom “to personalize the flow of

television: how and when it comes to them” (Nicholas 154). This is another important

86 Also see the notions of “hypermedia” (Packer and Jordan), “media matrix” (Curtin) and “networked media spaces” (Chamberlain in Kackman et al.), in similar contexts.

74

aspect of convergence: “the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost

anywhere,” actively looking for content (Jenkins 2).

The traditional notion of televisual “flow” (Williams) has thus been supplanted by

alternative metaphors, which are in a sense the adaptation of “flow” to the age of

convergence, its more complex and networked extension onto multiple media

(Thompson, E. 287). In place of the experience of centralized, linear broadcast “flow,”

media content is now experienced more as a sort of “hyperflow” (Nicholas 159-160),87

not necessarily proceeding along pre-determined paths but rather – like a rhizome – in all

directions, potentially providing multiple entry points.88

As the viewing experience becomes ever more complex, it is clear why some

viewers find themselves baffled and overwhelmed in the face of an unprecedented wealth

of choice in content, delivery platforms and technologies of viewing (Priggs). This is

another key factor evoking a certain yearning for “simpler times,” as was previously

discussed, a nostalgia for the “good old days” when television was less demanding

technologically, and didn’t turn the viewer “into a cool hunter, worried about missing

something, or a technologist, juggling devices and platforms the minute [they] got home”

(Carr). Sometimes people “simply want to watch” (Prigg).89 Not all viewers agree,

however, as many welcome the convergence of new media platforms and embrace the

benefits of modern technology and the opportunities it provides for active and

participatory engagement with the medium – as will be further explored in chapter 4.

87 Or, alternately, “overflow” (Brooker).88 Potentially, as it’s important to remember that a significant majority of the audience still consumes television content “the old-fashioned way,” as traditional broadcast “flow” (Frutkin 6).89 Picking up on reactions such as these, certain members of the industry are looking to simplify the viewing experience, making it technologically “as easy as changing a channel” (Priggs; Clover).

75

As we’ve seen, in the “Post-TV,” “post-network” era, the medium has become

increasingly networked, as a fragmented industry of interconnected multimedia

companies offers increasingly diverse content, enabling added control for the audience

over a decentralized cross-media “hyperflow,” accessible through many different

platforms. As Manuel Castells has described it: “This is indeed the present and future of

television: decentralization, diversification, and customization” (Castells, Network

Society 368).

The medium’s complexity – of industry structure, of technological functioning

and of audience interface – has also been accompanied by a resultant narrative

complexity (Mittell, Complex TV 31-33; Caldwell 41-43; Lotz, Television Will Be

Revolutionized 233-262). Henry Jenkins has postulated that the modern age of

convergence would see “the emergence of new story structures, which create complexity

by expanding the range of narrative possibility rather than pursuing a single path with a

beginning, middle, and end” (Jenkins 122-122). Thomas Elsaesser, in the context of

“mind-game” films, has similarly described the potential of new media technologies for

enabling alternative narrative configurations:

[N]ew technologies […] will in due course engender and enable new

forms of “narrative,” which is to say, other ways of sequencing and

“linking” data than that of the story, centered on single characters, and

with a beginning, a middle, and an ending. […] The hotspots and network

nodes that now link the web are clearly breaks with narrative linearity.

(Elsaesser 22-23)

76

New digital technologies, in other words, have enabled the creation of a “rhizomatic

narratology” (Wilson and Nash).90 As we shall see, this new form of complex rhizomatic

narrative configuration, which has found noticeable popularity in Hollywood cinema in

recent decades (Elsaesser 19-22), has been more widely and enthusiastically embraced by

the medium of television.

3.3. Complex Seriality: A Networked Narrative for the Networked Medium

In its basic essence, complex television, as Jason Mittell defines it, “employs a range of

serial techniques, with the underlying assumption that a series is a cumulative narrative

that builds over time,” balancing episodic and serial narrative properties, and – unlike

traditional episodic forms – not offering full narrative closure each week (Mittell,

Complex TV 18).91

The interplay between serial and episodic is made evident in several shows which

seem to initially follow the traditional “procedural” formula, each episode dealing with a

particular case in what appears to be distinct, self-contained episodic narratives: each

episode of Fringe depicts the investigation of another “fringe” case; each episode of The

4400 depicts the investigation of another “returnee;” each episode of The Blacklist

depicts the investigation of another “blacklister;” each episode of Person of Interest

90 For more on new media and non-linear storytelling, see Packer and Jordan.91 The term “cumulative narrative” was first coined by Horace Newcomb, who defined it as “a ‘new’ television form that stands between the traditional self-contained episodic forms and the open-ended serials” (Newcomb 103). This type of narrative is also sometimes referred to as a “flexi-narrative,” a term coined by Robin Nelson, who defined it as a “hybrid mixture” of “the series and the serial form, involving the closure of one story arc within an episode (like a series) but with other, ongoing story arcs involving the regular characters (like a serial)” (Nelson 82).

77

investigates another “number,” etc. In all these cases, however, the narrative balance

gradually shifts towards more serialized form, with seemingly unrelated events and plots

ultimately revealed to be part of a larger pattern (literally named “The Pattern” on Fringe,

similarly dubbed “The Ripple Effect” on The 4400, etc, as was discussed in the previous

chapter).92 In this way, the narrative does not offer any “instant solutions” to the main

conflicts it presents, much like in the realities of the war on terror (as discussed in chapter

1); narrative resolution will typically only arrive after a season-long – or several seasons-

long – arc.93

Though by no means unique to recent decades – as the soap opera narrative had

been constructed along serialized storylines since the early days of the medium (Allen) –

the incorporation of ongoing story arcs is emblematic of a broader trend in American

television dramas towards serial rather than purely episodic structures, a trend accelerated

since the 1980’s (Fiske 219; Mccabe and Akass xvii-xx; Thompson, R.). This basic

leaning towards increasingly serialized dramatic formats demands higher levels of

attention and accrued memory as prerequisites for comprehension, hence complicating

the viewing experience. As a user review of Flashforward on Netflix claims, offering a

possible “explanation” for the show’s premature cancellation, the show was just too

92 A mixture of episodic and ongoing narrative arcs can be traced back to the early 1990’s, The X-Files being one of the most prominent and influential examples. However, episodes of The X-Files regularly fell under two distinct narrative categories: the “myth-arc” – the ongoing serial mystery storyline spanning the show’s run, and the “monster-of-the-week,” stand-alone episodic stories, which were largely inconsequential to the continuity of the ongoing mystery (Sconce 107-109). In later series, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2001, The WB; 2001-2003, UPN) to contemporary catastrophic series, this mixture has grown more complex, blurring the lines between episodic and serial arcs. 93 Characters are often frustrated by the “serial” nature of their challenges, sometimes insisting on finding “episodic” solutions, and baffled as this strategy inevitably fails them. See for example the police captains of The Wire, always pushing for quick and easy arrests instead of lengthy investigative operations; or the protagonists of series like 12 Monkeys or Daredevil, who learn early on that “getting their man” is only the first, rather than last, step towards achieving their goals. These would all like to believe they are characters in a traditional “procedural,” and are repeatedly disappointed to learn they are in fact operating within a complex serial narrative.

78

“complicated and too serial for most viewers” (“Flashforward – Member Reviews”; my

emphasis). Or, eloquently put by another user (under a post titled “TV Is Too

Complicated for Me”):

it used to be you could sit down and pull up a show and follow along

pretty easily. Nowadays it seems most of the “good” TV shows have all

devolved into […] serials. You have to watch them in order, and if you

miss one, well, you're lost and screwed […] We need more [procedurals],

and less serial soaps. (Argus)

Disregarding the obvious underlying qualitative and generic assumptions evident in this

description, it clearly illustrates serial complexity on contemporary television as a

contributing factor of nostalgia for the “good old days” of simpler, episodic television.94

Beyond the basic definition of seriality, narrative complexity employs various

formal strategies, such as the interweaving of multiple narrative threads involving an

expanded network of characters; temporal manipulations and non-linear storytelling; and

narrative extensions onto multiple media platforms. These strategies enable complex

television narratives to serve to some extent as an alternative to traditional, linear

narrative configuration.

Before elaborating on these aspects of narrative complexity, let’s take a closer

look at a specific episode of Flashforward, to help illustrate these points and others.

94 As a way to “mitigate” the dangers inherent in complex serialized narratives (and maintain viewership), many contemporary series rely more heavily than ever before on various orienting para-texts, aiming to assist the viewers in remembering what is necessary for comprehension, such as the recap of previous events preceding episodes of many series; extended, one-hour-long recap episodes preceding season premieres of ongoing series; as well as websites, companion books and various other means (see Mittell, Complex TV 261-291).

79

3.3.1. Case Study: “137 Sekunden” – Episode Break-Down

“137 Sekunden,” the third episode of Flashforward (episode 1.03), consists of 27 scenes,

95 and begins with a recap of pertinent events from the two preceding episodes, restating

the premise of the show (“On October 6, the planet blacked out for two minutes and

seventeen seconds. The whole world saw the future”) and presenting reminders as to

ongoing plot threads that will be picked up in this episode. These include the following:

Agent Mark Benford is investigating The Blackout, led by clues from his

flashforward, which first appeared in the series premiere (episode 1.01); this will

eventually pay off in the finale (episode 1.22), when the timeline of the series finally

catches up with April 29th, 2010, the date witnessed in the flashforwards. The Mosaic

Investigation is the main ongoing mystery plotline of the entire series (Plot A).

Agent Demetri Noh did not have a flashforward, which he believes to mean that he

might die before April 29th. Demetri’s uncertain fate is another ongoing plotline

throughout the series (Plot B).

Charlie, Mark’s daughter, mentioned a man named D. Gibbons seen in her own

flashforward; D. Gibbons is a prime suspect in the Mosaic Investigation, whose name

appears on Mark’s board; he was first encountered in episode 1.02 (Plot C).

Aaron Stark, Mark’s friend and AA sponsor, had a flashforward of himself reuniting

with his daughter, Tracey, who had been dead and buried for over 2 years; Aaron

spends much of the series investigating his daughter’s fate (Plot D).

95 For the purposes of this analysis I have generally used the classic definition of a “scene” as a distinct narrative unit, which maintains unity of time and place. In some instances in the episode, I have referred to a sequence of two scenes maintaining unity of time as one “scene;” though technically breaking the unity of time and place, I have included flashbacks and flashforwards as part of the scene in which they are shown, rather than independent scenes.

80

Mark, who is a recovering alcoholic, sober for seven years now, saw himself drinking

in his flashforward; Mark struggles throughout the series to remain sober in spite of

his flashforward (Plot E).

Following this recap, the first scene of the episode shows Demetri receiving a phone call

from an unknown woman who informs him that according to her flashforward, he will be

murdered on March 15th. This confirms Demetri’s fears (Plot B), and beginning with this

episode he will make attempts to locate the mystery woman and learn more about his fate

(Plot B.1, a new subplot of B). The mystery woman’s identity will only be revealed in

episode 1.10; Demetri’s fate will ultimately be revealed in episode 1.17 (and hang over

subsequent episodes as well).

Next comes the show’s brief title sequence (six-seconds-long), in which a crucial

clue is hidden for the attentive viewer, as happens in every episode’s title sequence. This

episode’s clue is an image of a flock of flying crows, and the meaning of this clue will

only be made clear towards the end of the episode (Plot F, a new plotline).

Scene 2 introduces us to the previously unknown characters of Rudolf Geyer, an

aging Nazi prisoner, and Schultz, his guard at a maximum security prison in Munich,

Germany; Geyer tells Schultz that what he saw in his flashforward will get him out of

prison. Geyer’s plotline (Plot G) begins and ends in this episode; it will be one of the

main plotlines of the episode and will soon be connected to the Mosaic Investigation

(Plot A); a connection to the crows (Plot F) is implied in this scene, through the use of

crow sounds in the background at the beginning of the scene, connecting it to the clue

embedded in the title sequence preceding it; this connection will only be made explicit

towards the end of the episode.

81

Scene 3 takes place in the Benfords’ house. Olivia, Mark’s wife, is leaving a

voice message for Nicole Kirbey, Charlie’s babysitter, who hasn’t been seen since the

blackout (episode 1.01). Nicole is not mentioned or seen in this episode again, her story

(Plot H) will be picked up in the next episode (episode 1.04), explaining her absence.

Aaron comes over, and he and Mark discuss the flashforwards (Mark’s flashforward is

shown briefly), touching on the Mosaic Investigation (Plot A), Charlie’s mentioning of

D. Gibbons (Plot C), and the future of Mark and Olivia’s marriage (Plot I), in light of

Olivia’s flashforward (episode 1.01), in which she saw herself with another man; Mark’s

drinking problems (Plot E) are not mentioned explicitly but implied, as is Tracey (Plot

D), thematically linking both Aaron and Mark’s concerns for their daughters.

This continues throughout the episode, with various ongoing threads picked up or

referenced, and several new threads introduced; Geyer informs Mark that after the

blackout he noticed dead crows outside his cell (explicitly introducing Plot F and

connecting to the hidden clue from the opening title sequence); FBI Assistant Director

Stanford Wedeck prepares for a memorial service that is to be held in honor of the FBI

agents who perished in the Blackout (Plot K, introduced in scene 7); Felicia, Wedeck’s

wife, recounts her flashforward (in scene 13), in which she saw an unknown young boy

named Attaf, calling her “Mom” (Plot M, introduced in scene 13). These two last threads

are purely episodic, introduced in this episode and not picked up again.

Moving ahead towards the end of the episode: scene 26 has Mark and Janis follow

up on Geyer’s clue, checking recorded mass changes in crow population, to discover that

a blackout of a smaller scale took place in Somalia in 1991. This ties up the Geyer plot

line (Plot G), and reveals the meaning of the hidden clue from the opening sequence:

82

crows lead to Somalia (Plot F), a significant step forward in the Mosaic investigation

(Plot A), which will continue in future episodes. The final scene, scene 27, goes back in

time to show the blackout in Somalia in 1991 (plot F), revealing a mysterious-looking

tower and introducing an unknown Somalian boy – whose identity will be made clear in

episode 1.14, as will the true significance of the Somalia plotline.

In total, 29 characters (not including extras) appear or are mentioned in this

episode, of which 12 are introduced for the first time in the series. 18 narrative threads

are introduced, picked up or referenced; all but four of those are ongoing threads that will

be picked up in future episodes.96

3.3.2. “Multiple Threading:” Fragmented Narrative Progression

A significant aspect of narrative complexity in contemporary television is what Steven

Johnson has termed “multiple threading:” the weaving of several, distinct narrative

threads into a single episode (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 65-72).

Johnson illustrates how narrative threading has become more complex over the years,

particularly since the 1980’s. To put Flashforward’s complex structure in context, it

would be helpful to regard it against the following four charts (see figure 14), taken from

Johnson’s book (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 70). The fifth chart is my

own similar break-down of “137 Sekunden.”

96 For a similar, detailed break-down of Flashforward’s pilot episode, see Steiner, “Flash Forward” 35-42.

83

Figure 14: Narrative threading break-down

The charts break down the narrative threading of either typical episode structures or specific individual episodes of drama series from different time periods. Each row in a chart corresponds to a distinct narrative thread, and each column represents a scene, arranged from left to right in the order of scenes in the episode. When a thread is picked up at a particular scene, the square where the thread/row and the scene/column intersect is filled in.

The first four charts are taken from Johnson, truncated to fit (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 70). The last chart is my own similar break-down of “137 Sekunden.” In this chart, dark squares represent threads that are explicitly dealt with in a given scene, whereas grey signifies threads that are only implied or mentioned in passing; recognizing these implicit connections adds another layer of narrative complexity.

84

The first chart represents the typical narrative layout of an episode of Dragnet (1951-

1959, NBC). As is evident, each episode deals with one narrative thread, which is carried

over from scene to scene in a linear fashion, introduced at the first scene and resolved in

the last. These episodic plots are self-contained, and there is no narrative accumulation

from week to week. The second chart represents the narrative scheme of a typical episode

of Starsky and Hutch (1975-1979, ABC). This is a similarly linear episodic structure,

with a slight variation, in which a secondary thread, separate from the episode’s main

plot, appears in the first and last scenes of the episode, serving as a – mostly humorous –

“frame story” to the episode (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 66-67).

This changes significantly in the 1980’s. The third chart represents the narrative

scheme of a particular episode of Hill Street Blues (1981-1987, NBC). As evident from

the chart, the episode “weaves together a collection of distinct strands – sometimes as

many as ten” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 67; see also Fiske 219),

considerably more than in the previous examples. Johnson also describes the episode as

having “fuzzy borders, picking up one or two threads from previous episodes at the

outset, and leaving one or two threads open at the end” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is

Good for You 67), combining episodic alongside ongoing narrative threads.

The fourth chart, representing an episode of The Sopranos, similarly combines

many narrative threads, this time with a clear emphasis on seriality and few, if any,

purely episodic threads. More importantly, an episode of The Sopranos displays a more

complex, “chordal mode of storytelling” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You

69), where as many as three or sometimes even four threads intersect within a scene –

85

whereas in the previous chart, almost every scene picks up only a single narrative line,

keeping the threads distinct, not multi-layered as they are in the fourth chart.

Following Johnson’s examples, it’s clear that the fifth chart I have added here,

detailing the structure of “137 Sekunden” (2009), continues and intensifies this trend. As

we can see, the total number of threads within this episode is twice that of any one of the

previous two charts; moreover, almost every scene of the episode connects two or more

threads, sometimes as many as six, seven and even eight different threads (a detailed and

annotated version of this chart can be found in figure 15).

Moving from the first chart to the last, a clear pattern of narrative fragmentation

and layering is evident, from the simple linear narrative of Dragnet to the almost chaotic,

“scattered dots” structure of “137 Sekunden,” characteristic not only of Flashforward,

but of the more general trend towards narrative complexity in contemporary serial drama

(and in some contemporary comedy series as well).

86

#. Name Type Recap 1 Title 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27A Mosaic Investigation ongoing V V V V V V V V V V V V V I VB Demetri's fate ongoing V v V I V I I I V I IC D. Gibbons ongoing V V VD Tracey's fate ongoing V I V V V V V IE Mark's drinking ongoing V I I

B.1 Mystery woman ongoing v V VF Crows / Somalia* ongoing V I V I V VG Geyer* episodic V V V V V V V V V V V I I VH Nicole ongoing VI Mark and Olivia's marriage ongoing V V I V I

D.1 Tracey's exhumation* episodic I V V V V VJ Zoe and Demetri's wedding ongoing V V V V I VK The memorial service* episodic V V V VL Suspect Zero ongoing VM Attaf* episodic V VN Janice's personal life* ongoing IO Janice's baby ongoing V IP Al's flashforward ongoing I

*indicates a thread introduced for the first time v = featured thread I = implied thread

Plot threads Episode scenes

Figure 15: Detailed narrative threading break-down of “137 Sekunden” (Flashforward episode 1.03).

87

3.3.3. Complex Character Networks: The Ensemble Series

Another aspect of narrative complexity is the forming of intricate and expansive networks

of characters; this again is part of a larger trend towards incrementally larger character

ensembles on American drama series, with the numbers of characters – in main and

supporting, regular and recurring roles – consistently on the rise over the decades, the

most noticeable increase again marked in the 1980’s, with series like Hill Street Blues

(Thompson, R.; Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 67). To illustrate this point,

returning to the series represented in the previous charts, let’s examine the numbers of

characters listed for the debut season of each series:97

Dragnet (1951-1952 season) – 2 characters;

Starsky and Hutch (1975-1976 season) – 4 characters (2 main, 2 supporting);

Hill Street Blues (1981 season) – 19 characters (13 main, 6 recurring);

The Sopranos (1999 season) – 22 characters (11 main, 11 recurring/supporting);

Flashforward (2009 season) – 33 characters (10 main, 23 recurring).

The trend is evident from just these few representative examples. The past decade in

particular has seen a significant increase in the total number of characters that inhabit the

richly populated and ever-expanding story-world.

Characters have not only grown in numbers, but also interact and relate with other

characters in much more complex ways than ever before, leading some, like Paul Booth

and Steven Johnson, to suggest examining television narratives as social networks

(Booth, “Television Social Network;” Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 108-

115). Booth defines a “social network mode” of addressing a serial narrative, as “a

97 Numbers are based on the Wikipedia and IMDb pages of each of the series.

88

structure with an inherent interwoven complexity [in which] elements are related to other

elements in more than one manner, and objects intersect with one another multiple times”

(Booth, “Television Social Network” 309-311).98 Indeed, characters can be connected to

one another in numerous ways, and relationships are constantly evolving and

transforming, with shifting loyalties and conflicting agendas leading to the breaking of

friendships and familial bonds, while new and sometimes unexpected connections come

into play, past enemies forming bonds and cooperating towards a common goal (as

happens on Flashforward and on many other series, as was detailed in chapter 1).

This structuring of complex character networks is by no means a new

phenomenon in television narratives, nor is it unique to the genre of drama. As Robert C.

Allen and others have pointed out, the soap opera has always exhibited just this type of

decentered narrative configuration, constructed around densely populated social

communities in which multiple interrelated characters interact with each other. In the

soap opera narrative, a single (nodal) event or interaction between characters, while not

necessarily advancing the plot significantly (in “syntagmatic” terms), holds profound

repercussions for the social structure as a whole; Allen defines this quality of the soap

98 This type of narrative configuration is similar to David Bordwell’s definition of the cinematic “network narrative” (alternately referred to as “hyperlink cinema” – see Ebert; Quart), depicting aspects of globalization and the network society (in films such as Babel, Traffic and others, as was mentioned in chapter 1). Bordwell refers to ensemble films that establish a complex social structure, in which multiple threads and characters form a web of converging and intersecting lines (Bordwell, “Mutual Friends” 191).However, unlike in contemporary television, “network narratives” in film are largely the exception rather than the rule; moreover, as Patrick Jagoda demonstrates, in his discussion of The Wire (Jagoda 365-380), the televisual “network narrative” is in fact much more “networked” than its filmic counterpart, and is comparable with literature rather than film, in scope and complexity. Applying Caroline Levine’s analysis of Dickensian film adaptations to his discussion of television, he concludes that filmic “network narratives” unfold more linearly than in television and literature, ultimately progressing along a singular causal chain, “more like dominoes than like the Internet;” furthermore, they “typically rely on a single principle of interconnection” (the drug trade in the case of Traffic, the oil industry in the case of Syrianna etc.), whereas the significantly broader scope of television and literature allows for a more complex layering of “multiple principles of interconnection, linking [characters] over and over again through different channels” (Levine, qtd. in Jagoda 378).

89

opera narrative as “paradigmatic complexity,” wherein only the attentive viewer, attuned

to the implicit connections between characters and aware of their histories, will be able to

comprehend an event’s resonance and importance to the overall scheme (Allen 69-75).

For example, returning to “137 Sekunden:” in scene 24, Wedeck is giving a

eulogy at the FBI memorial service mentioned earlier (Plot K), with most main characters

(agents and their spouses) in attendance. These include Mark and Olivia, Demetri and his

fiancée Zoey, agents Janis Hawk, Al Gough, Marcie Turoff and Shelly Vreede, as well as

Wedeck’s wife, Felicia, and Attaf (the young boy from Felicia’s vision). Different

characters’ reactions are presented against Wedeck’s eulogy (as well as intercut images

of Aaron and his ex-wife, Kate), implying thematic connections with several other

plotlines, some more explicit, others subtle and implicit: Demetri’s fate (Plot B), Tracey’s

fate (Plot D), Mark and Olivia’s marriage (Plot I), Zoey and Demetri’s wedding (Plot J),

Felicia’s vision (Plot M), Janice’s baby (Plot O) and Al’s vision (Plot P).

While nothing much is “happening” per se – the camera alternating between the

speaker and the reactions of various characters listening – this scene thematically links

eight separate narrative threads, with each of the characters relating to the words of the

eulogy from their own unique situation in that point in time: some characters thinking of

past losses, others hopeful for the future, some contemplating the inevitability of fate,

others devising ways to take action and regain control of their lives, etc. To fully

understand these connections one needs an understanding of the overall network, as well

as knowledge of past – and future – events.99

99 Allen makes a similar analysis of a wedding scene from the soap opera Guiding Light (1952-2009, CBS), in which the camera alternates between the nuptial couple and the silent reaction shots of various characters attending the ceremony, each relating to the situation according to their present situation and past history (Allen 71-72).

90

3.3.4. Temporal Manipulation and Non-Linear Narratives

Another aspect of complexity in many contemporary series is a break (or rather a bend),

in varying forms and degrees, with traditional linear temporality; this manifests on two

possible – not mutually exclusive – levels: on the diegetic, story-world level (fabula) and

on the level of narrative structure (syuzhet).100 These wide-spread experimentations with

non-linear temporality have been connected to the non-linear nature of new media

technologies as well as the disjointed temporal experience associated with traumatic

experiences (see Booth, “Memories, Temporalities;” Ames; Mousoustzanis), and serve to

create a more complex, networked narrative.

On the diegetic level, as has been discussed in the previous chapter, time and

linear causality are often displaced through various forms of temporal manipulation.

Figuring time travel and alternate timelines as integral narrative elements enables events

on two or more temporal frames – multiple pasts, presents and futures – to unfold

concurrently, with both characters and viewers struggling to make sense of this complex

temporality and piece together the underlying causal chain leading up to the catastrophic

event. This kind of temporal displacement further complicates the understanding of

character relationships, as an alternate timeline affected by manipulations of past events

might cause a complete realignment of character relationships, which requires the

viewers – sometimes along with the time-traveling protagonist – to reorient themselves

with this altered network (this happens on Heroes, Fringe, Odyssey 5, Terminator: The

Sarah Connors Chronicles, and other shows). The existence of a parallel universe in

100 At the same time, many contemporary series, while highly complex in various narrative aspects, mostly maintain a simple, linear chronology. Game of Thrones (2011-present, HBO) and Homeland are but two such examples.

91

Fringe means that there are (at least) two versions of many of the main characters,

operating within parallel but by no means identical character networks, and all of this

needs to be taken into account when, for example, one character crosses over and

interacts with the parallel versions of its peers, as well as its “other self.”

The future visions of Flashforward provide another form of temporal

complication, with both viewers and characters aware of new or altered character

connections that will come to be in the future, but lack the information as to how these

changes in the network will come about; hence needing to consider not only what has

happened and what is supposed to happen, but also the original state of the network, the

future state of the network as glimpsed in the flashforwards, and how these glimpses of

the future have themselves already altered the network in the present. To name just one

simple example: Mark and Olivia begin the series as a happily married couple, and have

no knowledge of Lloyd Simcoe; in the future they will be separated, with Olivia and

Lloyd intimately involved; after having seen that future, their relationship is more

strained already, and so is the first meeting between Olivia and Lloyd, who does not

recognize her yet at this point.

At the level of narrative structure, many series manipulate the temporal sequence

of events as they are presented to the viewer. In this respect, “137 Sekunden” tells a

pretty straightforward, linear narrative; though it is filled with numerous flashbacks

inserted in specific moments, when characters are recollecting past events – including

their visions of the future (these are in fact flashbacks of flashforwards) – the scenes

otherwise progress pretty much linearly (with the exception of the final scene, going back

to 1991); later episodes sometimes digress a bit more, jumping back to the day of the

92

Global Blackout or further back, but still progressing more or less linearly; in

Flashforward temporal confusion occurs mostly on the level of the diegetic world. Other

series manipulate the temporal sequencing of the narrative more freely; these include first

and foremost Lost’s trademark flashbacks, flashforwards and “flash-sideways” variously

applied throughout its run, setting the template for the consequent widespread use of non-

linear narrative devices, in series like The Event, Heroes, 12 Monkeys, Damages (2007-

2010, FX; 2011-2012, Audience Network), Arrow (2012-present, The CW), Quantico

and many others (See Ames; Mousoustzanis).101

The web-based H+: The Digital Series takes this temporal fragmentation further,

with each of its 48 short episodes taking place at different times ranging from nine years

before the catastrophic global “event” to two years after it (as illustrated in figure 16).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123

H+: The Digital Series - Episodes Timeline

EPISODE NUMBER

YEAR

S BE

FORE

/ A

FTER

THE

GLO

BAL

EVEN

T

Figure 16: H+: The Digital Series Episodes Timeline; figures on the vertical axis indicate the time period in years between the events depicted in each episode and “the event.” Information based on the series’ Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%2B:_The_Digital_Series.

101 These types of non-linear narrative devices are also common in “mind game” films (Elsaesser 17-19), as well as “network narrative” films (Bordwell, “Mutual Friends” 209). The serial nature and wide-ranging arcs of television narratives, however, enable more elaborate and continuous uses of these devices, with the narrative potentially alternating between separate timelines for entire seasons.

93

Deeply new media oriented in both its content and delivery platform, the series can be

viewed either in the order in which the episodes were uploaded, largely out of

chronological sequence (as depicted in the graph above), or in chronologically ordered

character playlists, following different characters through their relevant episodes as they

unfold; viewers can also browse and select episodes arranged chronologically on an

interactive timeline,102 or they can be viewed by popularity or even at random, if one so

desires. The order of viewing accordingly shapes your understanding of the ways in

which each individual fragment fits into the larger narrative. Pre-designed to be

consumed actively online, this is an excellent example of the way new media platforms,

as well as various recording devices and time-shifting technologies (Nicholas 154-156;

Booth, “Memories, Temporalities” 383-385), can be utilized to break with traditional

notions of linear, predetermined narrative progression, and generate a rhizomatic

narrative, with multiple access points, that can flow along different paths and

configurations.103

Most series, it should be stressed, do not realize this rhizomatic narrative potential

to its extreme, for all their various forms of temporal displacements and non-linear

narrative devices, ultimately progressing along a single narrative path with clearly

defined beginning and end points, all episodes meant to be viewed in a fixed and

predetermined sequence. They do, however, allow for more complex configurations of

102 Available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHsSR21Fnl0.103 I’m focusing here on dramatic series; it should be mentioned that similar trends of complexity are just as relevant to other genres; many comedy series, for example, feature non-linear narrative devices – How I Met Your Mother (2005-2014, CBS) is but one popular example – as well as multiple threads and a large character ensemble. Arrested Development (2003-2006, Fox; 2013, Netflix) is perhaps the most prominent example of these features; its fourth season was constructed non-linearly, jumping back and forth over several years, individual episodes covering the same events from a particular character’s point of view.

94

linearity, and through various temporal manipulations – on both the levels of fabula and

syuzhet – can offer a more fragmented temporality.

Moreover, while not quite offering multiple entry points temporally (with,

perhaps, rare examples such as H+), many series do provide multiple access points on

another level – through transmedia extensions of the story-world.

3.3.5. Transmedia Narratives and the “Hyperdiegesis”

As part of the promotional campaign aimed at creating hype around the upcoming

Flashforward, a fictional blog site named Truth Hack was set up on July 23, 2009, two

months before the series premiere; the site hosted, among others, weekly video posts by a

fictional investigative journalist named Oscar Obregon, a character that would later

feature in a minor role on two Flashforward episodes (episodes 1.05 and 1.10).104 The

posts included video messages from Obregon, as well as interviews with other people

recounting their own flashforwards. Obregon was reportedly investigating the Global

Blackout, and also the Mosaic Initiative, of which he was suspicious; in one video post he

was seen questioning the character of FBI Agent Marcie Turoff (edition #2), who smiled

him away, avoiding direct answers; in others he conducted brief phone interviews with a

somewhat apprehensive Mark Benford (special updates #1 and #2). The evasive FBI

104 The site’s address, now defunct, is: www.truthhack.com; the video posts can still be found on Obregon’s Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/user/TruthHack; Obregon also ran a Twitter account: www.twitter.com/truthhack.

95

agents, still unknown to the viewers at the time of the original posts, might have come off

as antagonistic, when viewed through Obregon’s eyes.105

Obregon also appeared to have had contact with an anonymous source who

provided him with information in the form of puzzles; Obregon urged visitors at his blog

to aid him in unlocking these puzzles and finding additional clues,106 initiating an

interactive ARG (Alternate Reality Game) that would continue in the weeks leading up to

the premiere. Obregon’s investigation led him to believe he was gradually uncovering a

conspiracy, and ultimately drove him into hiding, as he believed he was being followed.

The ARG ended with him seemingly being abducted, his last video entry abruptly cut off;

Obregon was never heard from again. Truth Hack thus enabled further exploration of

Flashforward’s story-world, narrative, and characters from a different perspective,

maintaining the series’ paranoid and conspiratorial essence.107

Another fictional site that went up during that time period was The Mosaic

Collective, mirroring the Mosaic Website introduced within the show: the site hosted

hundreds of video postings in which people – mostly fans, some actors – recounted their

“flashforwards;” the site’s interface enabled users to graphically browse through these

stories, find connections and detect patterns. Obregon dedicated several posts in his blog

to this website and encouraged his viewers to check it out.108

105 Perhaps fittingly, Agent Turoff is in fact later (episode 1.15) discovered to be a mole within the FBI, as was previously mentioned.106 Including at least one clue that would later appear on Mark’s Mosaic board.107 For more on the ARG, see Picarelli, “Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign;” Powell.108 The Mosaic Collective site address, now defunct: www.jointhemosaic.com; Agent Turoff’s introductory video can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlnK-UMPYsM; hundreds of videos that were uploaded at the 2009 San Diego Comic-Con (where Agent Turrof, in character, directed fans to a recording booth where they could recount their “flashforwards,” sometimes questioning them afterwards), are still available at the Mosaic Collective’s Youtube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UCck_z49FGeHor55H5QArm_Q; these are mostly fan-invented flashforwards,

96

Flashforward is but one example of many contemporary series that employ

similar strategies and extend to various media outlets, in what is known as “transmedia

storytelling” or “transmediality:” “the increasingly popular industrial practice of using

multiple media technologies to present information concerning a single fictional world

through a range of textual forms” (Evans 1). Transmedia narratives expand the fictional

universe beyond the boundaries of the television episodes, using additional platforms as

entry points into that universe (see Evans 8-13; Spiegel 5-6; Jenkins 93-97), and by

inviting the audience to explore this universe in its totality, moving from platform to

platform, create an immersive, cross-media experience of “hyperflow” (Nicholas). Lost

was one of the first prominent milestones – and arguably the most successful – in this

endeavor, making extensive and well known use of multiple media extensions and

interactive platforms (Mittell, Complex TV 303-311), in many ways setting the template

for future series.109

These and other diverse forms of transmedia extensions construct what Matt Hills,

in the context of cult television, has termed “hyperdiegesis:” an expansive, vast,

immensely detailed narrative space, existing beyond and in between textual “gaps” (Hills,

“Defining Cult TV” 511).110 Flashforward, Lost and other series made use of various

media platforms as “hyperdiegetic” extensions of their story-worlds: these include the

but also include Obregon’s: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jwuKjhwcys. For more on Flashforward’s interactive marketing campaign, see Picarelli, “Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign.”109 Flashforward in particular aimed to emulate Lost’s marketing and transmedia strategies; Obregon’s conspiratorial truth-seeking endeavor follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, the fictional Rachel Blake, whose blog played along similar lines as part of Lost’s own ARG, “The Lost Experience” (Picarelli, “Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign” 131-134).110 Perhaps the most prominent and expansive hyperdiegesis currently being produced is the popular “Marvel Cinematic Universe” (MCU), spanning 12 major motion pictures released to date (with almost as many scheduled for release over the next four years), four running television series (with four more on the way), five short films and 21 comic-book series released so far, all interconnected to form a gargantuan hyperdiegetic narrative universe/cash cow.

97

above mentioned ARG’s (also employed by Fringe and Heroes) and fictional websites

and blogs, as well as fictional Twitter accounts (a strategy employed by Obregon’s and

Turoff’s characters from Flashforward, and several characters from The Event), exclusive

web or mobile content in the form of “webisodes” or “mobisodes”111 (a popular type of

transmedia extension, used by Lost, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, 24, Homeland and

others), tie-in novels or graphic novels (used by Heroes, Homeland, Fringe, The Blacklist

and Lost, in the latter case a novel supposedly written “in-universe” by a minor character

on the show), and others.112

This widespread use of transmedia platforms, particularly by shows labeled

“cult,” clearly serves first and foremost as a promotional tool, actively engaging fans,

raising awareness and drawing audiences to the primary, core text – the series itself.

However, as these multiple platforms in essence “create a narrative so large that it cannot

be contained within a single medium,” with “[a]ny given product […] a point of entry

into the franchise as a whole” (Jenkins 95-96), the resultant “hyperdiegesis” is potentially

far more expansive than the primary text, transgressing its borders, never fully contained

by it, and in some cases subverting the very definition of “core” and “periphery” textual

hierarchy.113

Diverse technologies and content platforms thus work together in the creation of

“a coherent diegesis that offers multiple points of access and multiple forms of

111 A “webisode” is an episode, typically between three to 15-minutes-long, originally (often exclusively) distributed as web content, available either as downloadable or streaming content; a “mobisode” is an episode, typically between 30 seconds and five minutes long, meant to be viewed online using mobile platforms (see Friedmann).112 Many series are also accompanied by various “behind the scenes” materials, interviews with creators and actors, podcasts discussing and commenting on the show, encyclopedias etc. I’m focusing here on diegetic extensions of the story-world and not touching on further, contextual extensions; see Mittell, Complex TV 261-291 for more on these.113 And see Jill Walker's discussion of “distributed narratives” (Walker, Jill).

98

engagement” (Evans 8-13), leaving viewers free – at least partially, at least potentially –

to access the multifaceted “hyperdiegesis” wherever and however they choose.

3.3.6. “I Have No Idea What Is Going On:” Confusion and Orientation

A thread discussing Lost in a forum on Yahoo begins with the question (posted by a user

named “The Thinker”): “Is Lost too confusing?” with the user further stating: “I have no

idea what is going on with this show. There are way too many ups and downs and

different subplots and twists. I really am so confused.” The answer marked as “Best

Answer” is simply: “Yes. It is too confusing,” while several other commenters mention

quitting the show for that very reason (Thinker).

This example points to a significant aspect of contemporary complex serial drama

– an increased tendency to disorient the viewer; as Jason Mittell has described it:

“complex television has increased the medium’s tolerance for viewers to be confused”

(Mittell, Complex TV 164). This trend in large part results from the characteristics of

complex narrative structures detailed above – serialized story arcs, multiple threading,

complex character networks, temporal disorientation and transmedia extensions.

Many contemporary series are also characterized by a higher level of intentional

confusion achieved by the significant reduction of what Steven Johnson terms “flashing

arrows:” clearly designated “narrative signposts,” which are “planted conveniently to

help the audience keep track of what’s going on,” serving as a kind of “narrative

handholding,” spoon-feeding the audience and in so doing reducing the amount of

“analytic work” required for narrative comprehension (Johnson S., Everything Bad is

99

Good for You 73-74).114 This device, Johnson claims, is noticeably less common in use

on contemporary series, when compared against older ones. As an example of this, let’s

compare two series pilots, one from 1998 and one from 2010, both featuring very similar

plotlines: terrorists hijack a plane, intending to use it to assassinate the U.S. President.

The 1998 pilot of the time-travel procedural Seven Days (episodes 1.01-1.02)

begins with a detailed five-minute-long sequence depicting terrorists arming and loading

a plane with explosive devices (shown to be armed in several close-up shots throughout

the sequence), then flying the plane, clearly seen headed toward the Washington

Monument. Five minutes into the episode, all but the hardest of comprehension should

understand exactly what is about to happen. In the following scene, the protagonist

notices a live news coverage on television, proclaims: “hey, somebody’s bombed the

White House!” and proceeds to watch a detailed news report covering the event. Over the

next few scenes characters are seen watching additional live reports recounting the events

in greater detail, one presenting an “amateur” video showing the attack in full frame,

accompanied by a straightforward narration explaining what is clearly seen on screen.115

Additionally, various characters are shown referring to the events and repeatedly stating

their outcome (in particular the death of the President). And all of this happens in the first

twelve minutes of the episode, the remainder of which strictly and linearly follows the

protagonist over the course of seven days, as he travels back in time, prevents the attack

from happening and neatly ties up all loose ends, leaving subsequent episodes to deal

with other, unrelated incidents.

114 And see the relevant TV Tropes article, “Narrating the Obvious,” referring to just this kind of narrative redundancy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NarratingTheObvious).115 Indeed, perhaps more than any other genre, news broadcasts make the most constant and liberal use of “flashing arrows.”

100

The 2010 pilot of The Event (episode 1.01) also opens with a live news coverage

of sorts, though a fragmented and incoherent one: jumbled images are shown briefly

(people running, trees shaking), shot with highly unsteady hand-held camera, and

accompanied by panicked voices which do nothing to shed light on what is happening

(“Wait. Something's happening. No, I don't know, I'm not sure what this is. Oh, my

God!”). This goes on for less than 20 seconds, conveying no information to the viewer

other than the fact that something, probably something bad, is happening, somewhere.

The narrative then jumps backwards and forwards in time throughout the episode,

following several characters and alternately covering multiple happenings hours, days,

and months before – and leading up to – “the event.” How all of these come together, as

well as the nature of “the event” itself, only begin to become clear about two-thirds of the

way into the episode (after 26 minutes), when the President is being evacuated from his

summer residence. None of the characters explain what is happening, all simply looking

on – terrified – at a rapidly approaching plane, which is shown on-screen for less than

two seconds before the narrative again jumps to an earlier point in time. “The event” only

concludes at the very last moments of the episode (after 39 minutes), when the plane

suddenly and inexplicably vanishes in mid-air, moments before impact. “What

happened?” asks one character; “I don’t know,” replies another. The answers will only

come in future episodes.

As this brief comparison illustrates, contemporary complex shows feature

relatively few “flashing arrows,” intentionally withholding crucial information, either

temporarily or indefinitely (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 75); as Johnson

describes it “You're supposed to be in the dark […] you're supposed to be confused”

101

(Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 76-77). Jason Mittell holds similar views,

noting that while by no means reaching “avant-garde” levels of incomprehensibility

bordering on the abstract, many contemporary series have “embraced a degree of planned

confusion” (Mittell, Complex TV 164), and that “the lack of explicit storytelling cues and

signposts creates moments of disorientation, asking viewers to engage more actively to

comprehend the story” (Mittell, Complex TV 50).

Thomas Elsaesser has made similar observations regarding “mind-game” films,

whose maze-like and twist-filled narratives “play games” with the audience, delighting in

disorienting or misleading both spectators and protagonists, narrative information often

“withheld or ambiguously presented” (Elsaesser 13-17). However, as Jason Mittell notes,

while in film this mode of narration constitutes the exception to the rule, by no means

characterizing most mainstream Hollywood products – television seemed to have warmly

embraced this narrative mode, with many of the medium’s most successful series

adopting complexity and confusing narrative strategies (Mittell, Complex TV 32). And

while some viewers find the resultant disorientation frustrating and might consequently

abandon a series, as was illustrated above, others respond positively to it – even

criticizing some series for being “too obvious” rather than too confusing.

In a review of Rubicon, for example, one critic praised the series for its often

vague and confusing narrative build, positively noting that it “doesn't simply pander to

our need for information to be delivered in an unhealthy dose of exposition,” and hence

forces viewers “to piece together the scant clues presented” (Carabott). Conversely,

Flashforward, for all its other aspects of complexity, has been criticized for “stating the

obvious” on many occasions, using variations of the “flashing arrow” principle such as

102

repeatedly displaying flashbacks of previous events, or having characters explain what is

happening, in – as one critic describes it – a “leaden attempt to tell the audience exactly

what they're seeing” (VanDerWerff, “Flashforward”). Also of note is one of the

comments posted to this last review, stating that “the writers clearly have little respect for

the intelligence of the audience” (posted by user-name “MyNameIsRick”).

As these examples demonstrate, “flashing arrows” are often perceived as a lack of

confidence, on the part of the creators, in the audience’s ability to deal with ambiguity or

remember relevant narrative information without adequate “narrative handholding.”116 In

contrast, by withholding such devices, and through the application of the various

structural characteristics detailed above, complex series invariably invite audience

members to more actively engage with the texts, which are rendered “explicitly activating

[…] designed to stimulate viewers, strategically confuse them, and force them to orient”

(Mittell, Complex TV 275).

3.4. Conclusion: The Network Narrative as Threat

As we’ve seen, both the medium of television in its current form and the narratives of

contemporary catastrophic series represent a break with older and “simpler” conceptions

of television, offering fragmentation in place of unity, decentralization in place of

hierarchy, complexity in place of linearity. The result is a more networked, rhizomatic

logic of narrative structure, of its delivery channels and of its modes of address.

116 And see the relevant TV Tropes articles, “Viewers Are Morons” and “Viewers Are Goldfish:” http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreMorons, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreGoldfish.

103

And so, much as the protagonists find themselves up against a complex

networked enemy, so the viewer is confronted with increasingly complex networked

narratives, both “struggling” against that which seemingly eludes complete

comprehension by its very nature. Indeed, just as in the war on terror the network itself is

perceived as a threat, so the very structure of the networked narrative can be threatening

as well, disrupting normative conceptions of linearity, impeding coherence and

forestalling a comprehensive reading (Jagoda 334-338).117

This perception of networked narratives as “threatening” and overly confusing

might offer some insights into the frustrations felt by some viewers, and in some cases

causing viewers to abandon a series deemed “too complicated.” Aware of this, producers

may try to “simplify” an ongoing series in an effort to improve its ratings, as

demonstrated by The Event, which suffered from steadily declining viewership. The

producers of the series decided its jumbled temporal sequencing – which one critic had

described as “exhausting” (Alston) – was to blame, and opted to revert to a more

traditional, linear narrative format upon returning from the mid-season hiatus, on March

2011. Blair Underwood, a cast member, discussed this decision in an interview held

during the hiatus: “We had been jumping around a lot and doing flashbacks and that was

confusing to people […] So when we come back, that device is done with! We are now

telling the story straight through so people can track it and follow it easier” (Rice). And

117 Jagoda also points to the similarities between the subject-position of the reader as constituted by the “network narrative” (in literature) and Jameson’s conception of postmodern schizophrenia (Jagoda 337).

104

while this seemed to help, if not raise the show’s ratings then at least maintain them, it

did not prevent the show’s ultimate cancellation after just one season.118

However, while some viewers might nostalgically yearn for “simpler times,”

frustrated and confused by narrative complexity, the increased abundance and popularity

of complex series is the best proof that for a significant portion of the audience, who do

not share these sentiments, “simpler” might not always be “better” after all; embracing

complexity, they rise to the challenge, engaging with the texts and actively striving for

narrative comprehension. And fortunately for these viewers, the “networked” structural

logic of the medium and of its catastrophic serial narratives not only poses a “threat,” by

presenting complex challenges – but also provides several tools and strategies for coping

with those challenges.

Thus, for example, while non-linear temporal sequencing might make the

narrative more confusing, it can also serve to better orientate viewers, with flashbacks

providing relevant background information and insights into a character’s true

motivations in the present (as happens frequently on Lost, The Event and many other

series), flashforwards allowing viewers to see where the narrative is leading (as is the

case on Damages and some seasons of Lost), etc.119 Viewers thus receive additional

pieces of the puzzle which, if assembled, can earn them a more privileged

epistemological standpoint than that of the characters (see Booth, “Memories,

Temporalities” 376-381). Similarly, while multiple transmedia extensions serve on the

118 A similar “simplification” of a non-linear narrative format in an effort to improve declining ratings happened on the second season of Boomtown (2002-2003, NBC); this again did not work, as the series was taken off the air in mid-season.119 The flashbacks and flashforwards mentioned in the detailed description of “137 Sekunden” above are also illustrative of this; and see Toni Pape on Flashforward’s usage of temporal digressions as a means to reinforce the linear narrative (Pape 129-131).

105

one hand to further complicate the narrative scope, overflowing and transgressing clearly-

defined textual boundaries, these extensions also invite viewers into the story-world and

better orientate them in its comprehension, with various meta-textual aids “catering to

audience desires to ‘master’ the details and complexities of the story world” (Sconce, 93-

96; also see Mittell, Complex TV 261-291).

The next chapter will explore the type of audience engagement encouraged by

complex catastrophic narratives, examining several tools and strategies of comprehension

available to contemporary viewers; as will be illustrated, these tools and strategies for

dealing with narrative complexity mirror those employed by the protagonists faced with

the complexities of terrorism.

106

4. Chapter 4: Comprehending Complex Narratives – The Viewer as Investigator

4.1. Introduction: “What Did You See?” – An Invitation to Connect the Dots

At the time of the original airing of Lost’s final season on ABC, viewers were baffled by

mysterious images that would appear intermittently during the commercial breaks: a

bride and groom on their wedding day, pallbearers carrying a coffin, a surfer balancing

on a wave, an ultrasound image of a uterus, children exiting a school. Each of these

isolated fragments would alternately appear in between various commercials, for less

than two seconds at a time, taking up only a small, rectangular portion of the mostly

blank screen (see figure 17), each followed by the tagline: “What did you see?”120 Taking

textual ambiguity to the extreme, and unmarked by any brand logo or program affiliation,

these “atomized narratives flowing freely” through the televisual “flow” (Picarelli,

“Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign” 128), invited the viewers to wonder and

speculate on how these images related to one another, and to which larger context they

might belong (Picarelli, “Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign” 127-128).121 Were

these further clues to the mysteries of Lost? Were they teasing an unrelated program? Or

was it something else entirely?

In the following days, the cryptic fragments were followed by a slightly longer,

13-second-long clip, which displayed a series of several isolated images, gradually

120 These short clips can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgf8yKfuoGk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH0cBn4i7h0.121 Thus reinforcing traditional broadcast viewing, with fragments scattered throughout commercial breaks all making up a continuous textual “flow.”

107

appearing side by side, again followed by the tagline: “What did you see?” and the sound

of a voice whispering “just because we saw these things doesn’t mean they’re going to

happen,” raising further curiosity and confusion (see figure 17).122

Figure 17: “What did you see?” Screen grabs, various Flashforward teaser trailers.

Only the third stage in what would now be revealed to be a creative promotional

campaign for ABC’s upcoming Flashforward, provided clear information that explicitly

linked the previous instalments to the series, in the form of a more informative, thirty-

second-long ad which included the series logo; at least three alternate, mostly identical,

versions of this ad were aired, each concluding with a different, isolated image, appearing

for two seconds – these were various clues from the as yet unknown Mosaic board.123

Only the fourth and final stage of promotional trailers would later present a detailed

description of the show’s premise and clearly introduce its main characters, in the form of

a conventional promo, nearly three minutes long.124

And so, months before the series premiere, and weeks before they even realized

which series was being promoted, audience members were invited to “connect the dots,”

to find meaning in isolated fragments and actively work to bind them into a coherent

122 Clip available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EexC0XZBczU.123 The different versions are available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLq8Z24VHt4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp1p-he8O50, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_nBihn8IA.124 Available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLumJ_fWI04.

108

narrative.125 The cryptic images in Flashforward’s teasers foreshadowed the similar use

of hidden images in its title sequence (as was mentioned in the previous chapter), which

would provide clues for each episode.

This example and others126 make explicit the type of engagement contemporary

complex serials invite, presenting the viewers with narratives that are fragmented,

distributed over a network of characters, over multiple story threads, over numerous

temporal frames, and over varied media platforms. Complex serial narratives encourage

viewers to pay attention and actively work towards comprehension, “stitching together

individual episodes into a coherent universe” (Sconce 100); transmedia extensions

likewise encourage viewers to “make connections among dispersed media content”

(Jenkins 3), with transmedia texts attracting – and providing added viewing pleasure to –

fans looking for coherent patterns and making connections between isolated textual

components across platforms (Murray, J. 257; Jenkins 119).127

While some of these elements are not integral to the “core” text – one can

reasonably follow the main narrative of most series without exploring their numerous

media extensions – other aspects of narrative fragmentation, like the jumbled temporal

sequencing or the multiple threading of each episode, are elements that must be stitched

together by the viewer and connected to a larger whole in order to attain basic narrative

125 For more on Flashforward’s marketing campaign, see Picarelli, “Flashforward’s Promotional Campaign.”126 To name only a few examples of other shows employing similar devices: Cult embedded hidden symbols (visible for only two or three frames) in each episode’s title sequence; Fringe displayed a range of bizarre hieroglyphic symbols with each commercial break which, when deciphered, made up a significant clue for each episode (for more details on Fringe’s hieroglyphs: http://fringepedia.net/wiki/Glyphs_code); Blindspot’s episode titles are anagrams which when decoded provide clues to the episodes’ plots (Joyce).127 Flashforward’s website, The Mosaic Collective, for example, encouraged users to look for connections between isolated “visions,” as was mentioned in the previous chapter; Fringe’s online ARG explicitly asked players to “follow the clues” and “find the pattern” (Woerner); Lost’s series of 1000-piece “Mystery of the Island” jigsaw puzzles – part of a massive merchandizing blitz – invited players to literally “put all the pieces together,” unlocking further clues to the mysteries of the island (Mittell, Complex TV 314).

109

comprehension, making for a more complex and demanding viewing experience. Rather

than merely watching, consuming a simple, straightforward story (as was presumably the

case in the “good old days” of television – as discussed in the previous chapter), the

audience must now become – like the protagonists of catastrophic series – an active

investigator, “connecting the dots” in an attempt to solve a complex narrative puzzle.128

This chapter will explore contemporary practices of engagement with complex

series, by first introducing several prominent tools commonly employed by fans

attempting to make sense of complex narratives; and then exploring the discursive

practices which encourage this type of engagement, promising eventual pay-off once all

the narrative pieces are put together. As will be illustrated, investigative audiences –

much like the protagonists – operate under two important assumptions: that the narrative

dots can be connected, through viewing commitment and an application of the

appropriate tools; and that there exists an underlying pattern to be discerned, a grand

scheme orchestrating otherwise seemingly fragmented narratives.

4.2. Participatory Culture and Forensic Engagement

As Jason Mittell has argued, contemporary complex series encourage and demand from

their viewers “a hyper-attentive mode of spectatorship,” requiring that they “embrace a

detective mentality, seeking out clues, charting patterns, and assembling evidence into

narrative hypotheses and theories” and demanding “a mode of forensic engagement to

128 As Thomas Elsaesser has noted, mind-game films similarly function as “puzzles” which “favor pattern recognition (over identification of individual incidents)” (Elsaesser 39); this tendency is not only more common in mainstream American television than in the mainstream Hollywood film, but also more complex due to the unique attributes of television narratives, as discussed in the previous chapter.

110

organise and uncover a wealth of narrative data” (Mittell, “Lost” 14-17;129 also see

Sconce 109-111). New media convergence amplifies this operation, with committed fans

tracking and hunting for clues spread across multiple platforms, “scanning each and

every text for insights” (Jenkins 95), effectively becoming “informational hunters and

gatherers” who take pleasure in delving into complex “hypertexts,” tracking down clues

and making textual connections (Jenkins 129).

This type of viewer engagement and the fragmented textual nature which

encourages it find a natural venue with cult audiences and cult texts in particular.130

According to Umberto Eco, the cult movie “should not display a central idea but many”

(Eco 198); he describes the cult text as fragmentary and “unhinged,” experienced as a

“disconnected series of images,” leaving interpretive gaps and a level of textual

incoherence that allows and invites active interpretation and exploration (ibid.). The cult

text, offering rich potential for active engagement, “can be drilled, practiced, and

mastered by devoted consumers” (Jenkins 97).131

While not new or unique to television texts of the last decade or two,

contemporary practices of television production and consumption prove far more

accommodating than ever before to this type of active audience engagement and textual

analysis, both in terms of the technological tools readily available to forensic fans and the

industry’s willingness to confuse the viewers and demand that they “pay attention and

129 When Mittell speaks of “the viewer” in his analysis, he is not referring to an actual, empiric viewer, but rather to an implied, hypothetical viewer as constructed by the text and by the operations required for its comprehension, a “hypothetical entity executing the operations relevant to constructing a story” (Bordwell, qtd. in Mittell, Complex TV 165). I will likewise be referring to the viewers on a mostly hypothetical level, though I will illustrate theoretical arguments not only through textual analysis but also by presenting empirical examples of particular fan practices.130 See Hills, “Defining Cult TV” for more on the definition and characteristics of cult television.131 Thomas Elsaesser similarly describes the cult status of mind-game movies and the type of engagement and scrutiny they encourage (Elsaesser 13-17).

111

connect the narrative dots” (Mittell, Complex TV 289), actively working to gain

orientation (as was discussed in the previous chapter).

Indeed, contemporary new media technologies and online services enable

audiences to interact with texts in numerous ways previously unavailable, moving from

relatively passive consumers to more active participants (Castells, Network Society 358-

371; Jenkins 18-19). This participatory mode of media consumption, along with the

fragmentation of the media industry (as discussed in the previous chapter), further breaks

down boundaries between producers and consumers, as anyone can easily create and

disseminate content (Jenkins 1-4; Nicholas 158-159).132 Various digital tools in the age of

new media convergence have thus “enabled consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate,

and recirculate media content in powerful new ways” (Jenkins 17-18), partaking more

than ever before in an immersive participatory forensic exploration.

Significantly, contemporary technological developments – from DVDs and DVR

services to streaming websites and mobile content providers – enable repeat viewings and

frame-by-frame scrutiny, giving the audience a level of control over content that was

previously unavailable and encouraging a heightened attention to detail. Contemporary

series like Lost, ripe with semiotically rich moments of textual “excess,” invite the

audience to rewatch scenes and pause the image, taking the time to parse it for details and

clues that the casual viewer would not be able to notice or comprehend fully, interacting

with the text in ways that were simply not possible in the past (Mittell, Complex TV 37-

132 A relevant term in this context is “prosumer,” an amalgamation of “producer” and “consumer,” denoting a consumer who also produces content (Toffler). Originating in the early 1980’s, the term is today used to describe the creative capacity of consumers in the new media environment, differentiating them from the passive consumer emblematic of traditional, linear content delivery channels. Active participation in the creation and dissemination of user-generated content are distinct characteristics of what is sometimes referred to as “Web 2.0” (DiNucci), or the “writable” phase of the internet, as opposed to the earlier, “readable” phase, or “Web 1.0,” where users could only receive information (see O’Reilly; Packer and Jordan).

112

38; also see Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 168). Producers, aware of the

potential for heightened engagement, respond by creating texts that encourage it, inviting

active, in-depth exploration (Nicholas 158-159).

As an example, let’s return to “137 Sekunden,” the Flashforward episode

examined in the previous chapter. The young boy encountered in this episode, seen first

in Felicia Wedeck’s vision and later attending the memorial service, was hitherto

unknown to the audience, but his name, Attaf, had actually appeared on the series before.

At a certain point in the pilot episode (episode 1.01), Mark Benford was standing in front

of a movie theatre with a marquee displaying the film title “The Tale of Attaf.” This

could only be seen briefly, far in the background and slightly out of focus, but attentive

viewers applying “liberal use of pause and rewind” (Mittell, Complex TV 38) could spot

it, and afterwards make the connection to the young boy met two episodes later (or

conversely, spot the importance of the marquee only upon rewatching the pilot episode

after having seen “137 Sekunden”).

Realizing the significance of this repeated name, and assuming there’s no such

thing as coincidence, fans might look up “The Tale of Attaf” online, to discover that

while no film by this name has ever been made, it is a title of one of the tales from The

Thousand and One Nights (Mahdi), the tale of a vision of the future which then sets

events in motion that cause this future to occur.133 The notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy

is a main theme on Flashforward, sparking debate and hypothesizing among both

protagonists and fans, and the observant viewer might thus have derived satisfaction from

spotting this thematic connection. Similarly, viewers and critics have looked for

significance in details such as the length of the Global Blackout – two minutes and 17

133 As indeed fans of the show have pointed out: http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/Attaf.

113

seconds – which led one viewer to a corresponding New Testament verse (Acts 2:17) that

deals with divine visions bestowed by god (“Could this Bible Verse Explain

FlashForward?”); or the date glimpsed in the visions, April 29th, which led one critic to

several historic events and figures, such as Joan of Arc, herself the recipient of divine

visions (Bellafante).134

Textual clues such as these and others often – advertently or inadvertently – send

viewers to seek further intertextual connections, at times constructing elaborate

conspiracy theories that connect separate series. For example, in one scene of the pilot

episode of Flashforward, a billboard promoting the fictional “Oceanic Airlines” is seen

in the background. “Oceanic” was featured prominently on Lost, and this sent fans

looking for many thematic and narrative similarities between the two series, some

hypothesizing that both narratives take place within the same diegetic universe; this

theory in turn triggered much speculation by fans of both series as to possible

explanations of various questions that were unanswered at the time (Zjawinski).135

As these examples illustrate, contemporary series and viewing technologies

encourage an investigative mode of viewing, with keen viewers invited to identify

various textual clues, construct elaborate interpretive theories and speculate on the

narrative mysteries – mirroring the series’ own conspiracy narratives. Indeed, in the

“conspiratorial” mode of media consumption, viewers – much like the conspiracy-

minded protagonists – are “taught to dismiss nothing and to scan the visual scene for

134 The critic explicitly cites Lost as inspiring both the series and the type of clue-seeking mode of engagement it invites; referring to her own hypothesizing on the significance of the date, she states: “It’s tempting to go down the rabbit hole; this is, after all, a post-‘Lost’ world and who could resist the temptation?” (Bellafante).135 Lost fans have developed similar conspiracy theories (varying in popularity and plausibility) involving other series, linking the series to Heroes (Weiss), Fringe (Ghosh) and others.

114

clues and cues to solve the mystery” (Kelley-Romano 113-4).136 As one critic wrote,

noting the “crazy wall” trope as emblematic of this “conspiratorial” mode: “the Crazy

Wall is TV’s way of marking the era in which we all became armchair conspiracy

theorists” (Benson; and see figure 18).137

We shall now elaborate on a few of the main strategies employed by forensic fans

actively working to comprehend and analyze catastrophic series – strategies which, as

will be evident, remarkably mirror the ones employed by the investigative protagonists of

those very series (as detailed in chapter 2).

136 Felix Brinker has suggested that this type of active fan engagement might be the key to explaining the popularity of the “conspiratorial mode” of storytelling in contemporary American television, as a means of attracting audiences in the fragmented “post-network” age (Brinker 98-105).137 Thomas Elsaesser similarly describes audience engagement with “mind-game films,” “endowing the text with a plethora of clues, on which paranoia can feed, networks can proliferate, and conspiracy theories can blossom” (Elsaesser 30).

115

Figure 18: “A Crazy Wall of TV Crazy Walls”

This rendition by Yahoo’s television critics humorously illustrates the “conspiratorial” viewing mode encouraged by conspiracy narratives; as its original introduction reads: “Behold, our crazy wall of TV crazy walls! We connected all the TV shows that have prominently featured crazy walls — by shared actors or storylines, casting directors or music supervisors, and more — on one corkboard of insanity, push pins and standard issue red string included” (Furlong).

Source: http://yahooentertainment.tumblr.com/post/88019669538/a-crazy-wall-of-tv-crazy-walls.

116

4.2.1. Networked Fandom: The Audience as Collective Intelligence

“None of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces

together if we pool our resources and combine our skills.”

(Jenkins 4)

As Henry Jenkins has noted, the internet offers significant opportunities for forensic

viewing, enabling viewers to consult and share information among large communities of

likeminded fans, embracing a “collective intelligence” for textual comprehension and

interpretation. Much like Flashforward’s Mosaic Initiative, devoted fans collaborate in

online websites, forums and blogs, to share and discuss “what they saw” and hypothesize

as to what it means, working collectively to solve narrative puzzles, to raise and evaluate

theories, and to collaboratively connect the narrative dots (See Jenkins 93-97, 123-130;

Mittell, Complex TV 40). Again mirroring the logic of network warfare, by which “it

takes a network to fight a network” (as discussed in chapter 2), the assumption – as

illustrated in the quote above – is that “it takes a network” of fans to fully understand a

networked narrative.138

Cult texts, in particular, encourage this kind of collective “drilling;” ripe with

semiotic potential and spaces for interpretation, these texts seem to suggest that no single

viewer can master them on their own, with the implied promise that working collectively

will enable the viewers to “get more” out of the experience, and that there is “more, much

more, to be found if the community put its collective mind to work” (Jenkins 100). The

138 Patrick Jagoda similarly argues, in the context of “networked” literary narratives, that interaction with a network of other readers is “the ideal way of engaging the text,” allowing for “a mode of associative discussion and distributed brainstorming” far more productive than the traditional, singular mode of reading (Jagoda 338).

117

internet, as an open and free platform for discussion, enables the kind of “drilling” these

texts encourage, providing the space and resources for each new piece of narrative data to

be examined thoroughly, with every episode collectively “scrutinized and annotated with

an intensity usually reserved for Talmudic scholars” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good

for You 169).

And so, various elements of many series are routinely discussed, dissected,

analyzed and debated online among members of devoted fan communities; an episode

such as “137 Sekunden,” as an example, would typically be followed by many debates on

various forums and blogs;139 Flashforward’s teasers, mentioned above, likewise

prompted lengthy online discussions;140 and its ARG similarly led to the creation of

several sites where users regularly posted clues and solutions to various stages of the

game, carefully chronicling its timeline and keeping track of all relevant web links.141

These are but a handful of examples, surrounding a series which lasted for only one

season and did not perform well in the ratings, as was previously mentioned; in the case

of highly successful shows such as Lost or Game of Thrones, the amount of online fan

activity increases considerably.142

By far the most common and widespread manifestation of collective exploration

comes in the form of fan-made “wikis,” offering an encyclopedic dissection of popular

texts, roughly following the template of Wikipedia. Wiki sites are essentially non-

139 Such as these discussion threads on “137 Sekunden:” http://www.flashforwardaddicts.com/2009/10/flashforward-season-1-episode-3-137.html and: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/flashforward-murder-to-thank.html, the latter receiving more than 100 comments and consisting of almost 10,000 words.140 Such as this thread: http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27785, beginning a few weeks before the series premiere, and consisting of nearly 500 posts.141 Two examples of such sites can be found here: http://flashforwardarg.blogspot.co.il/ and here: http://gbo.wikibruce.com/Home.142 With many discussion threads reaching hundreds of thousands of comments, some over a million; see a partial list of Lost discussion forums here: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fan_forums.

118

hierarchical collective knowledge bases, which anyone can add to, edit and browse

freely. Wikis generally have no clearly defined “leader” or content manager, but rather

are constructed collaboratively, following a few basic rules but otherwise shaped

dynamically according to the users’ needs and preferences (Jenkins 254-255).

Following the success of Lostpedia, a wiki dedicated to Lost, most series today

have their own wikis; most of these sites use the Wikia free web hosting service (which

has been around since 2004). Wikia promotes itself as “the world’s largest network of

collaboratively published content on the web,” stressing the principles of collectivity and

interconnectedness in its mission statement:

As the Social Universe for Fans, by Fans, we represent the infinite

potential of collaboration. Content and fandom are interconnected, woven

together through shared pursuit and dedication. Our network of

communities is expansive, fresh and dynamic, but we operate as one.

(“About”)

This approach, and the features enabled by wikis, prove particularly useful with shows

such as Lost, presented as “a puzzle to be solved, a set of interlocking enigmas that

require research materials and a searchable archive to enable comprehension” (Mittell,

Complex TV 277). Indeed, most wikis serve primarily in an orienting function, as “a

shared archive of narrative knowledge, combing the series, its brand extensions, and its

cultural references to make sense of the program’s mysteries and storytelling web for

viewers seeking orientation” (Mittell, Complex TV 278).

Let’s take Flashforward’s wiki as one example. FlashForward Wiki143 currently

holds 826 articles (some added while I was writing this thesis, more than five years after

143 http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/FlashForward_Wiki.

119

the show’s cancellation), which include, among others, detailed information on characters

and episodes, a list of all known visions shown or mentioned on the show, pages for

theories, clues and questions, and even full episode transcripts,144 easily enabling fans to

browse through dialogue. While the number of articles in this wiki is not high when

compared with other, larger wikis, it is nonetheless impressive given the fact that the

series only lasted for 22 episodes. That is an average of nearly 40 articles per episode,

nearly one article for every minute of screen time, on average (for comparison:

Lostpedia’s average ratio of articles per minute of screen time is nearly 1.5, holding

7,360 articles for 121 episodes; Heroes Wiki currently has a ratio of nearly 1.8, with

6,312 articles for 84 episodes; in contrast, CSI: Wiki, dedicated to the highly popular

procedural “CSI” franchise which consists of several, purely episodic series – holds only

1,488 articles for 784 episodes broadcast to date, which is less than 1 article per 22

minutes of screen time, or a ratio of less than 0.05).145

The wiki interface is also very useful for documenting and exploring connections

– between characters, themes, plots and more – with a plethora of hyperlinks connecting

separate articles, each one just a click away, the virtual hyperlink thus replacing the

physical red thread of the Mosaic board; which is itself analyzed thoroughly, in its own

detailed article,146 containing a lengthy list of clues that were seen – some only briefly –

in Mark’s vision. There are 36 items listed for the board, each clue linked to its own

separate article, expanding on that clue, providing an enlarged screen caption, describing

how the clue connects to the larger plot (if this is known) and linking to relevant episodes

144 Such as this one of “137 Sekunden:” http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/137_Sekunden/Transcript.145 The main page for each site lists the number of articles currently on the wiki; the total numbers of episodes aired are also listed. The ratios were calculated against an average episode length of 42 minutes.146 http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/Mosaic_Investigation_wall.

120

of the series. The “Mosaic Investigation Board” article also links to another site, Mosaic

Mosaic, dedicated to an even more in-depth analysis of the board; this site contains an

extended list of 46 clues, theories and interpretations, an online, virtual version of the

board, with enlarged pop-up screen captions superimposed over a photo of the complete

board, as well as composite images of the board’s various stages of progress along the

series, reconstructed from numerous partial shots. FlashForward Wiki has similar articles

on other clue boards and walls seen throughout the series (such as Dyson Frost’s wall,

listing 67 color-coded clues, as well as complete sketches and diagrams of the wall,147

and others148), as do other wiki sites.149

Like Mark, attempting to piece together the Mosaic board using bits and pieces

recollected and parsed from his vision of the future, the forensic fan community of

dedicated viewers works to piece together those same bits and pieces, using the internet

as a platform for online collaborative investigation, “encouraging research, collaboration,

analysis, and interpretation” (Mittell, Complex TV 277). In this process, the text is

rendered, through online fan engagement, into a “drillable” and researchable source of

information, a starting point for an ongoing exploration, rather than a linearly consumed,

self-contained narrative. The series thus essentially becomes, as Thomas Elsaesser has

described in the context of mind-game movies, “part-text, part-archive, part-point of

147 http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/Dyson_Frost%27s_wall.148 http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/Nhadra_Udaya%27s_wall.149 Such as Lostpedia’s detailed article concerning the blast door map (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Blast_door_map) and Heroes Wiki, with articles detailing the contents of Hiro’s string web (http://heroeswiki.com/String_web) and other maps (http://heroeswiki.com/The_map), as well as an article detailing the contents of the Heroes ARG map (http://heroeswiki.com/Interactive_ map), which the game’s participants were invited to piece together themselves using various clues they had to gather. Also see this non-wiki fan-made page enabling an interactive exploration of Homeland’s “wall of crazy:” https://www.thinglink.com/scene/272827291183087617.

121

departure, part-node in a rhizomatic, expandable network” of fan communication

(Elsaesser 35).

4.2.2. Help Yourself: Narrative Orientation and Paratextual Aids

Forensic engagement with contemporary series entails investigating and comprehending

story-worlds so complex that “viewers [need] a roadmap to get their bearings” (Sconce

110), much like the characters investigating their complex diegetic worlds. Indeed,

“complex series encourage viewers to both consult and create maps and guides” (Mittell,

Complex TV 288), with many forms of “orientating paratexts,” both fan-made and

“official” (production-made), used as aids for orientation with various facets of the

narrative. We shall now explore the ways forensic fans orientate themselves with two

significant aspects of complexity: character connections and temporal sequencing.150

4.2.2.1. Social Networks: Mapping Character Relationships

As discussed in the previous chapter, contemporary series feature large character

ensembles, forming complex interconnected networks. Narrative comprehension is

dependent upon the audience’s ability to understand these networks and see the

connections that comprise them (Booth, “Television Social Network” 309-311). This

150 Spatial orientation, which will not be elaborated on here, is also commonly practiced, with both fans and producers creating and proliferating various types of maps, spatially charting the locations of characters, events and journeys made throughout the story-world. Lost fans, in particular, have created many detailed maps of the island (see: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fan_maps), and the creators of Lost have produced more (see http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Complete_Collection_island_map); Game of Thrones viewers can explore the story-world using several interactive maps, both fan-made (see: http://quartermaester.info/) and producer-made (see: http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/). See Mittell, Complex TV 269-274 for more on spatial orientation.

122

means that beyond merely recognizing and memorizing scores of characters, “it’s much

more important to see the hypertextual links between the characters” (Booth, “Television

Social Network” 312-313), which has led Booth, Jonhson and others to suggest analyzing

contemporary series as social networks (as was discussed in the previous chapter). The

“social network mode,” rather than treating characters as “mere components of

narrative,” instead “reveals them as links in a network” of multiple intersecting players

(Booth, “Television Social Network” 309-311).

This conceptualization of a series as a social network is not just a prerequisite for

narrative comprehension, but also provides viewers with added pleasure in mastering

complex social formations, uncovering their underlying structures and even managing to

guess at certain character connections before these are made explicit (Johnson S.,

Everything Bad is Good for You 115). Heroes creator, Tim Kring, has explicitly stated

this in an interview: “part of the fun of the show is watching how these characters’ lives

will intersect […seeing how] disparate characters will cross paths […] trying to guess

how characters’ lives come together” (Weiland).

Seeing the connections between characters, then, is an important part of following

the narrative. Accordingly, besides hosting numerous highly detailed character pages,151

some wikis also contain lists of known character connections – both explicit and implicit,

including chance encounters and connections unknown to the characters themselves – all

carefully collected and annotated by fans. Two prominent examples of “character

connections” lists are those of Lostpedia152 and Heroes Wiki153, the latter detailing nearly

151 Lostpedia holds a total of 164 unique character pages (for 121 episodes); FlashForward Wiki holds over 220 unique character pages (for just 22 episodes); Game of Thrones Wiki currently holds a whopping 846 unique character pages (for 50 episodes so far).152 See: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Character_connections.

123

1,150 known connections between 57 different characters (interconnectedness being a

recurring theme on the series, as was mentioned in chapter 2).

However, as Johnson has noted, lengthy lists of characters and relationships are

not the most adequate tool for comprehending complex character webs, which are rather

“better visualized as a network: a series of points connected by lines of affiliation”

(Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 108).154 Booth’s “social network mode”

similarly enables the understanding and visualization of complex interactions and

connections as a web of interlinked characters or “nodal points” (Booth, “Television

Social Network” 314). Indeed, by far the most widespread form of orientating aid for

mapping character connections comes in various forms of visualization, with numerous

genealogical charts connecting characters through intricate lines of intersection, mirroring

the investigating protagonists’ own “crazy walls.”

The following pages present merely a handful of examples, some fan-made,

others created by the production, encouraging engagement and inviting fans to actively

explore character connections (figures 19-26).155 These examples and many others

attempt to bring order and structure into complex networks of characters, constructing a

unifying and all-encompassing configuration of interconnectedness, intricate and tangled

but ultimately mappable and intelligible.

153 See: http://heroeswiki.com/Character_connections.154 And see Johnson’s break-down of character relationships from 24’s first season in visual chart form (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 111-115); my own visualization of Flashforward’s Global Blackout network, in chapter 1; and a similar visual break-down of Flashforward’s character network by Tobias Steiner (Steiner, “Flash Forward” 34).155 See more examples of character orientation paratexts in Mittell, Complex TV 268-269.

124

Figure 19: “The Lost Connections” – this fan-made graph charts all known connections between Lost characters, at the end of season 2.

Source: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Character_connections; uploaded by RickSalsman.

125

Figure 20: The fan-made "A Web of Thrones” and “A Web of Thrones 2.0” map connections between Game of Thrones characters as of seasons 2 and 3, respectively.

Sources: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/game-of-thrones/images/30670278/title/web-thrones-photo, http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/game-of-thrones/images/35518817/title/web-thrones-set-2-photo; uploaded by Michael JD.156

156 Also see this detailed character relationships infographics for season 1, by episode: http://hauteslides.com/2011/05/game-of-thrones-infographic-illustrated-guide-to-houses-and-character-relationships/.

126

Figure 21: Fringe’s fan-made “Web of Relationships," by David Ryan Andersson, details connections between characters on the series; in Fringe’s case, this includes connections between characters existing at different times, as well as connections between different versions of characters on alternate universes and timelines.

Source: http://anderssondavid1.deviantart.com/art/Fringe-Web-of-Relationships-Infographic-376952064.

127

Figure 22: These are photos of “Conditions of Compromise and Failure (The Dickensian Aspect)” – The Wire character connections map by Daniel McKewen; art installation documentation from “Bazinga!” Starkwhite Gallery, Auckland, 11 May – 8 June 2014.

Here resorting to the tried and tested method of strings and pins on a board, McKewen’s map illustrates how dense and complex a web of relations (color-coded by type) all The Wire characters form; a web so dense, that the characters can sometimes hardly be seen underneath it.

Source: http://www.danielmckewen.com/work/conditions-of-compromise-and-failure-the-dickensian-aspect/.

128

Figure 23: This is a screen grab from a fan-made interactive Lost character connections graph for episode 1.23, from the “Lostalgic” project, by Santiago Ortiz; this site parses every single action and line of dialogue from each of Lost’s 121 episodes, based on full episode transcripts available at Lostpedia, and enables an interactive visual exploration of character relationships – both explicit and implicit – in each episode. Relationships are presented in either chart or graph form, the latter seen above (grey lines representing explicit relationships, red lines “hidden” relationships); clicking on each character brings up detailed information on that character’s relationships with other characters throughout the series, and clicking on a line of intersection between two characters brings up detailed information on all of the interactions between those characters throughout the series.

Source: http://intuitionanalytics.com/other/lostalgic/.

129

Figure 24: This is a screen grab from the “Lost Connections” bonus feature, in the DVD box set of the second season of Lost. This feature invites the viewers to explore the various ways in which Lost characters are interconnected. The feature begins with a narration by Carlton Cuse, one of Lost’s showrunners, discussing the themes of interconnectedness, and of random character intersections, raising the question: “Is it possible that seemingly random connections have significance? Are these meetings mere chance? Or could there be a larger picture that has yet to come into focus?"

Significantly, Cuse begins his narration by explaining the concept of “six-degrees of separation,” or the “Theory of Centrality,” which seeks to arrange a seemingly random multitude of characters into a coherent relational structure with a singular, centralized point of origin.

A comprehensive description and full in-depth annotated analysis of this feature and of the connections portrayed in it (including links to relevant episodes) can be found on Lostpedia:

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Connections.

130

Figure 25: Screen grab from the “Character Connections” bonus feature, in the DVD box set of the first season of Heroes. This feature allows the viewer to explore character backgrounds and connections using an interactive “crazy wall” layout.

Source: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Heroes/7844.

Figure 26: This “character web” for H+: The Digital Series is an image attached to episode 46 in the interactive map on the official H+ website. It is intentionally cryptic, consisting of letters, numbers and colors that represent characters and types of connections, for fans to decipher and interpret.

Source: http://hplusdigitalseries.com/.

A detailed fan analysis of this web can be found on H+ Wiki: http://hplus.wikia.com/wiki/Character_Web.

131

4.2.2.2. Back in Time: Making Sense of Temporality

Besides featuring intricate character networks, many catastrophic series also employ

complex and fragmented temporalities, as was discussed in the previous chapter. Time

travel and alternate timeline plots, as well as non-linear presentation of events, create a

complex temporal configuration, intertwining narrative past, present and future,

demanding the viewers’ temporal orientation and further challenging their

comprehension of the overall narrative. Audiences are sometimes required to make sense

of events occurring on several timeframes, along jumbled or uncertain causal chains,

making the necessary temporal connections themselves and figuring out how each

narrative fragment fits within the whole.

Helpful aids for temporal orientation often come in the form of detailed and

chronologically arranged lists of events. Many wikis hold an article – or several articles

divided into subcategories – dedicated to chronicling timelines of events, each event

annotated and hyperlinked to other relevant articles on the wiki.157 Visualization is

another powerful tool for comprehending complex temporalities as well as character

connections. The following pages present a handful of fan-made visual representations of

complex temporal sequences, aiming to depict jumbled, multiple, alternate or diverging

timelines as a coherent visual narrative (figures 27-32).

157 Some examples include Lostpedia’s timeline (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline), divided into ten sub-categories, and lengthily chronicling all events including flashbacks, flashforwards and time jumps, as well as events mentioned in Lost’s ARG; Heroes Wiki’s timeline (http://heroeswiki.com/Portal:Timeline), which similarly chronicles events including possible and alternate futures, as does Fringe Wiki’s timeline (http://fringe.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Timeline); and the rather simpler timeline in FlashForward Wiki (http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline).

132

Figure 27: This is a fan-made illustration of the chronological sequence of events from the first season of Heroes; following Hiro Nakamura’s various time jumps and consequent alternate timelines, it attempts to piece the jumbled, non-linear temporal structure of the season into a simple, coherent causal chain with clear beginning and end points.

Source: http://www.blueelephantbrigade.com/images/Dave/Heroes%20timeline%20(rough%20draft).jpg.

Figure 28: Battlestar Galactica’s “Space & Timeline,” by Billy Ray Stephens Jr., is a fan-made illustration of the vast history of the franchise’s universe, incorporating events from all three series in the franchise, and connecting them all to form a single, flowing narrative timeline.

Source: http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/02/timeline-of-battlestar-galactica.html.

133

Figure 29: This timeline of Lost, by David Ryan Andersson, puts together all events depicted over the six seasons of the series, and threads the multiple time frames – including flashbacks, flashforwards and time-travel plots – into a coherent, interconnected visual narrative graph.

Source: http://anderssondavid1.deviantart.com/art/Lost-Timeline-Infographic-184741887.

Figure 30: Similarly, this illustration of Fringe’s chronology binds together the multiple timelines and alternate universes that interweave throughout five seasons.

Source: http://www.serialmente.com/wp-content/uploads/fringe-timeline.jpg; uploaded by user-name “Defyallodds.”

134

Figure 31: This rather lengthier chronological mapping of Fringe’s “Universes and Timelines, Past and Present,” by David Ryan Andersson, goes into further detail, chronicling all significant temporal events, jumps, mishaps and resets, and their effects on the overall temporal sequence of each universe.

Source: http://anderssondavid1.deviantart.com/art/Fringe-Timeline-Infographic-350541948.

135

Figure 32: Similarly, “Assembled Developments,” by Brad Serum, chronologically maps all events depicted in the fourth season of Arrested Development, which alternately followed different characters over a period of a few years. This comedic – rather than dramatic – serial provides an excellent illustration of complex temporalities and the active temporal orientation process they require from the viewers.

Source: http://bradserum.com/assembleddevelopments/index.html.

136

Another strategy for temporal orientation, though not as common, consists of reordering

narrative fragments so that they can be viewed in chronological order (the order of the

fabula), instead of the order in which they originally aired (the order of the syuzhet). The

text is broken down to its basic narrative components (scenes, or sometimes parts of a

scene), which are then reassembled chronologically to form a new text, sometimes far

removed from the original.158 Fans of Lost have constructed a comprehensive viewing

order list for all scenes,159 and at least two re-edits of the entire series.160 A fan-made re-

edited version of Arrested Development’s fourth season exists as well (Itzkoff). Similarly,

though not fan-made, H+’s interactive timeline, as was previously mentioned, orders all

episodes – originally having been presented non-linearly – in chronological sequence,

allowing viewers to click on any episode and watch it.161

Jumbled temporalities thus invite active engagement, with audiences working “to

piece into a linear structure what may be nonlinearly organized in the television text”

(Booth, “Memories, Temporalities” 373-5).162 By carefully chronicling events, and

ordering them chronologically in both lists and visual charts, sometimes going so far as to

disassemble and reconstruct the original narrative, forensic fans – much like the

investigating protagonists – work towards narrative comprehension, simplifying complex

158 This is a typical example of “prosuming” activity.159 Available here: http://www.chronology.org/lost/.160 See http://darkufo.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/lost-chrono.html and http://www.chronologicallylost.com/. The former presents all events in chronological sequence, while the latter follows the temporal perspective of the main characters (maintaining flashbacks, for example). Both versions also incorporate additional materials – such as deleted scenes and mobisodes – into the definitive re-edited version.161 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHsSR21Fnl0.162 Booth uses the network as a metaphor for the complex temporal experience of the television audience in the Post-TV era, a metaphor which “works to help redefine how meaning is made from fragmentation in television narrative” (Booth, “Television Social Network” 312-313). Also see Elsaesser on temporal complexities in mind-game films and the type of viewing they require (Elsaesser 21).

137

temporalities into a coherent causal sequence.163 This enables the viewers to “transcend

time and space in relation to the series” (Stuart 171), attaining temporal mastery over the

narrative.

4.2.3. “Better Learning through Television:” Forensic Engagement as Cognitive Workout

So far we have examined how viewers, when confronted with complex, “network”

narratives, apply various tools and strategies for comprehension, mirroring those

employed by the protagonists facing complex terrorist networks (as detailed in chapter 2).

As we’ve seen, contemporary audiences create their own versions of the “wall of crazy”

and use modern technology to consult online collective intelligence communities, sort

through complex character networks and master fragmented temporal sequences, working

to achieve orientation by connecting the narrative dots. It seems only one “tool”

mentioned in chapter 2 – the cognitively enhanced “unique” mind – is not equivalently

available to the viewers; unlike the other strategies, which involve their active

participation in various “external” activities, a viewer’s cognitive makeup is inherently

fixed, and therefore not malleable or adaptable. Or is it?

The influential theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability (SCM), developed by

renowned cognitive psychologist Reuven Feuerstein, proposes “that intelligence is

dynamic and modifiable, not static or fixed” (Feuerstein 560), and that an individual’s

cognitive skills “may be significantly improved by producing structural changes in the

brain” (O’Neill). And how would one go about realizing this theoretical potential in

163 See Mittell, Complex TV 263-266 for more on temporal orientation.

138

practice? One of the many developments in the field of cognitive psychology based on

the assumptions of SCM is Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Program (FIE), a

cognitive education program designed to enhance various cognitive functions (Feuerstein

560).

FIE is based on various types of tasks (or “instruments”) that focus on specific

cognitive skills; the first instrument consists of tasks which require identifying and

outlining figures and patterns within a cloud of dots – in this instance working to literally,

rather than figuratively, “connect the dots” – searching for “meaning among otherwise

separate phenomena” (Feuerstein 561); other instruments involve the creation and

analysis of genealogical and relational charts, similar in concept to the fan-made

character charts shown above; further instruments practice various forms of temporal and

spatial orientation (Feuerstein 561-567). In this way, “[t]hrough repeated practice and

successful completion of progressively more difficult exercises, […] a variety of

cognitive functions” is activated, developed and refined (Feuerstein 561).

One of the main cognitive abilities developed by these exercises is “summative

behavior,” or the ability to function based on “summative thinking,” which enables

cumulative knowledge construction and learning from experience. Without the capacity

for summative thinking, individuals are unable – and unmotivated – to “connect the dots”

and actively search for a unifying systemic principle; rather, they are “passive recipients

of information,” and “are prone to view events as unrelated and as individual occurrences

[…] episodic and disconnected from one another” (Jensen and Jensen). Summative

behavior allows “[o]vercoming an episodic grasp of reality,” by seeking connections,

establishing causal relationships and identifying underlying patterns (Feuerstein 564).

139

Related cognitive skills enhanced by FIE are the ability to “organize and integrate

separate and distinct bits of information into coordinated and meaningful systems”

(Feuerstein 561), and the capacity to comprehend complex systems “while bearing in

mind a number of discrete elements and the relationships among them” (Feuerstein 564).

As is evident, these instruments of FIE bear a striking resemblance to the

activities routinely carried out by contemporary forensic viewers, prompted by complex

narratives, while the skills these instruments aim at developing are likewise prerequisites

for the comprehension and enjoyment of those narratives.164 Might viewing complex

serial narratives, then, function similarly to develop viewers’ cognitive skills?

While no empirical studies have been conducted to confirm this hypothesis,165 the

notion has come to carry weight in recent discussions of narrative complexity, influenced

by Steven Johnson’s self-explanatory titled book, Everything Bad is Good for You: How

Today’s Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter. As Johnson has suggested,

contemporary television places increased demands on various mental faculties more than

ever before, requiring attention, patience and the analytical parsing of multiple narrative

threads; by repeatedly forcing viewers to apply these mental skills, complex narratives

allow viewers to hone and improve their cognitive abilities, serving as a sort of

“cognitive workout” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 62-115).

This notion of a “cognitive workout” is heavily influenced by the same theoretical

assumptions guiding CSM; as Johnson writes, “by executing a certain cognitive function

164 The definition of summative vs. episodic behavior is also applicable in describing the nature of television characters; indeed, unlike characters in cumulative narratives, characters in purely episodic series are essentially incapable of summative behavior, not learning from their experience and doomed to “repeat over and over ineffectual behavior […] and show lack of insight” (Jensen and Jensen).165 See Jamie L. Krenn’s dissertation for a preliminary effort in this vein, though concerned more with specific content areas rather than aspects of narrative complexity (Krenn).

140

again and again, you recruit more neurons to participate in the task” (Johnson S.,

Everything Bad is Good for You 108). A similar process, he argues, is involved in

following a serial narrative which portrays complex character networks, an activity that

gradually renders the brain “more adapt at tracking all those intersecting relationships”

(Ibid.).166 As Johnson argues, “part of the pleasure in these modern television narratives

comes from the cognitive labor you’re forced to do” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good

for You 77).167 Jason Mittell similarly argues that contemporary serial narratives

encourage viewers to develop their comprehension skills over time, with narrative

competency thus gained providing added viewing pleasure (Mittell, Complex TV

50-51).168

And as the numerous examples of forensic fan activities presented in this chapter

demonstrate, many viewers are up to the challenge, passionately engaging with complex

narratives, interpreting, analyzing and working towards orientation, and thus, like the

participants of FIE, enhancing their capacity for summative thinking, improving their

ability to “make connections and see relationships” (Feuerstein 560), and practicing the

use of “inferential thinking, analytic thinking, and deductive reasoning to justify

conclusions based on logical evidence” (Feuerstein 564). These last cognitive functions

are fundamental requisites for the “conspiratorial” mode of viewing, as discussed earlier,

166 It should be noted that similar notions have been made before Johnson’s, and well before the rise of contemporary complexity on American serial dramas; as David Bordwell has noted, for example, a similar type of “cognitive workout” has long characterized soap opera narratives, which “made audiences adept at keeping track of many characters and their interactions” (Bordwell, “Mutual Friends” 194-195).167 This also explains, according to Johnson, the comparative scarcity of “flashing arrows,” or “narrative signposts” on contemporary series, as was discussed in the previous chapter; current-day viewers, he argues, “no longer require those training wheels, because twenty-five years of increasingly complex television has honed their analytic skills” (Johnson S., Everything Bad is Good for You 77).168 For further writing influenced by Johnson, see Lavik; Lavery; and Parke as an interesting example of its application in teaching writing for television.

141

with viewers going through a process of logical reasoning designed to confirm or

disprove their hypotheses (Kelley-Romano 106; Brinker).169

While not going so far as to argue that viewing complex television series

functions to induce “productive pathologies” nor to render the viewer a cognitive

“savant,” it might nevertheless assist in honing certain cognitive skills needed for dealing

with complexity and connecting the dots, making the viewers “better narrative decoders

of the series” in the process (Caldwell 52). Forensic engagement thus potentially serves

to constitute an “ideal” viewer, mentally and cognitively equipped for comprehending

serial complexity. In this sense, the cognitively enhanced character trope might have an

extratextual equivalent after all – in the ideal image of the viewer.

4.3. “It Has to Make Sense:” Faith in the Grand Narrative Design

Faced with complex serial narratives, at times difficult to comprehend and requiring

active engagement and constant orientation efforts, viewers might feel confused and

frustrated; as was demonstrated in the previous chapter by a thread discussing Lost – in

answer to the question: “Is Lost too confusing?” – some viewers are liable to despair and

quit watching rather than submit to weekly doses of epistemological self-flagellation.

More illuminating, however, is this excerpt from another response on the thread (posted

169 Contrarily, it could be argued that the conspiratorial mode serves to warp critical thinking skills rather than enhancing them (Kelley-Romano 117-118), as conspiracy-minded fans might find “proof” everywhere, seeking to confirm convoluted hypotheses using self-validating arguments. This would suggest that the conspiratorial viewers, rather than practicing analytical and rational thought, instead embrace the very paranoid mindset that the investigative characters themselves are often blamed for (as discussed in chapter 2), their reasoning constructed as “a self-referential paranoia machine that (mis)recognizes everything as an omen or fateful piece of intelligence” (Apter 376).

142

by a user named “Susie”): “You just have to follow along with it I guess. Because it has

to make sense, it can’t just be a lie” (Thinker).

As this comment illustrates, moments of temporary disorientation are something

audiences are asked to endure, with the implied promise of eventual narrative “pay-off.”

Though the underlying narrative pattern may elude the audience for most of the series’

run, the unspoken contract implies a rhyme and a reason for everything, known by the

creator, to be inferred by the fans through commitment and hard work, and ultimately

promised to be revealed in a satisfying narrative denouement which will – retroactively –

make it all worthwhile, arriving at “a moment of complex but coherent comprehension”

(Mittell, Complex TV 50). Temporary confusion will be paid off in due time, the audience

is promised, asked to “believe that the twisty looping narrative [is] guided by a master

plan exhibiting continuity and consistency,” rather than thinking the creators are “making

it up as they go” (Mittell, Complex TV 39).170 As one reviewer of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D

has noted, the show “suggests that everything you’re seeing […] is part of a grand master

plan, and that if you sit back and enjoy the ride the pieces will fit together eventually”

(VanDerWerff, “Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”).171

And so devoted fans endure and continue watching, motivated – much like the

protagonists – by their unwavering faith in a “higher power” guiding the narrative, able to

bind its myriad disparate elements into cohesion. But while the protagonists might put

their trust in God or a divine being of sorts, for many fans this deific entity is given more

170 This is particularly characteristic of “cult” series, whose complex and at times convoluted narrative structure nonetheless “typically displays such a coherence and continuity that it can be trusted by the viewer, presenting the grounds for ‘ontological security’,” fan trust being vital for establishing “cult” status (Hills, Fan Cultures 104).171 The hashtag “#itsallconnected,” one of the most commonly used labels in both fan and marketing chatter surrounding the series, serves to reinforce this notion – as well as encourage the “conspiratorial” mode of viewing, as previously discussed.

143

corporeal form in the Author of the text, commonly perceived to be the creator, head

writer, or “showrunner.”

4.3.1. “Deus ex Scriptum:” The Cult of the Showrunner

“I’m responsible for everything in every frame of every show. That’s my job, whether or

not I’m directing the episode.”

(Joss Whedon, qtd. in Pearson18)

The conception of the television showrunner as “the auteur of the small screen”

(Robertson), ultimately in charge of both the managerial aspects and creative vision of

the series, has become increasingly popular in recent decades among fans, critics,

scholars and members of the industry.172 As the Writers Guild of America explicitly

states in its official booklet for television writers, under the chapter dedicated to

showrunners: “You are now in charge of pre-production, production, and post-

production. In other words, everything” (Wirth and Melvoin 41). Though not without its

opponents,173 the “cult of the showrunner” is today a widely held practice.

Discussing the authorial agency over a work, however, and in particular when

ascribed to a television series, calls for a few qualifications; not least of which is the

deconstruction, by structuralist and poststructuralist criticism, of the very notion of

“authorism,” as argued by Roland Barthes in his influential essay, “The Death of the

Author” (Barthes). Dismantling the traditional, romantic notion of singular creative

172 See Newman and Levine 38-58; Mittell, Complex TV 86-117; Pearson; Martin, B.; Robertson; Littlejohn.173 See Adams; Fehrman.

144

agency, the meaning of a work was no longer seen as stemming from its creator, but as

open to interpretation, to be constructed by the reader, from their own subjective position

(Staiger 45-46). Yet while new interpretive possibilities had certainly been opened,

authorship was far from obsolete; the author was resurrected, reimagined in the realm of

discourse, as suggested by Michel Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” (Foucault, “What

Is”). For Foucault, the author is not dead, but rather reframed as a function of discourse

“that works to attribute, classify, delimit, contextualize, hierarchize, and authenticate

creative works” (Mittell, Complex TV 96). Authorship of a text, then, is no longer

attached to an actual creator, but rather perceived as “a fantasy construction of a reader

that may have value to the reader in producing interpretations of the text” (Staiger 45).174

Television is a particularly interesting test case for the discursive assigning of

singular authorship, as its material “creative processes are far more collaborative and

decentered than in most other media” (Mittell, Complex TV 96), problematizing the

delineation of a singular creative vision. Flashforward, as a typical example, had eight

different directing credits and 15 different story credits billed over 22 episodes, including

the author of the source novel, Flashforward (Sawyer), who scripted one episode of the

series; Lost had 26 directing credits and 33 story credits over 121 episodes; Fringe had 36

directing credits and 35 writing credits over 100 episodes, and so on. These numbers do

not include the dozens of executive producers who provided creative input and regularly

approved scripts, nor the hundreds and thousands of other production members – from

174 This is in line with structuralist conceptions of the “auteur theory” in cinema which, as put forth by Peter Wollen, “does not consist of retracing a film to its origins, to its creative source,” but rather “of tracing a structure […] within the work, which can then post factum be assigned to an individual” (Wollen 168). Thus, to paraphrase Wollen, Joss Whedon or David Chase or Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, the showrunners, are quite separate from “Joss Whedon” or “David Chase” or “Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse” (conflatedly referred to as “Darlton” by Lost fans), “the structures named after them, and should not be methodologically confused” (ibid.).

145

main cast members to lowly production assistants – involved in the “creation” of the

series. As one critic put it, “it takes a village” to make a TV series (Thomas).

It is therefore clear why the discursive foregrounding of the showrunner as a

singular and centralized creative force, the “image of an all-powerful creator with a

master plan” (Mittell, Complex TV 117), is regarded by some to be a fallacy, a practice

embraced by a media “obsessed” with showrunners, disregarding the complex realities of

the industry (Fehrman). Even showrunners don’t always embrace the “auteur” status

bestowed upon them; as Vince Gilligan, creator and showrunner of Breaking Bad, has

stated: “The worst thing the French ever gave us is the auteur theory. It's a load of

horseshit. You don't make a movie by yourself, you certainly don't make a TV show by

yourself” (Vince Gilligan, qtd. in Robertson).175

Understood as a practice of discourse, however, it is more productive to examine

the cultural function of showrunner-based authorship rather than debate its truth value or

its merit as a faithful descriptor of the medium’s material workings. For one, the

discourse of authorship was a prominent factor in establishing the medium’s cultural

legitimacy as an art form, particularly since the 1980’s, with a unified artistic vision and

authoritative consistency perceived as markers of aesthetic value, key factors in the

discourse of “quality television” (Newman and Levine 38-58).176

Moreover, by constructing the showrunner as “a point of coherence and

continuity” (Hills, Fan Cultures 99), the “cult of the showrunner” also serves a

reactionary function for both creators and audiences seeking to simplify, unify and

hierarchize the complex and collaborative nature of the medium. In the fractured “post-

175 And see Denise Mann’s discussion of Lost’s “collective authorship” (Mann).176 For more on television authorship and issues of quality judgment, see Mccabe and Akass 171-184; Thompson R. 14; Mittell, Complex TV 39-40, 96-97; Pearson.

146

network” industry in particular, “a fragmented business that provided few forms of

continuity […] the stamp of an author,” regardless of actual “authority” in the creative

process itself, “gave a program a degree of authenticity and legitimacy” (Michele Hilmes,

qtd. in Pearson 17).177 As Mittell notes,

[C]omplex stories can seem far too elaborate to be designed by a

decentered team beset by contingencies and unplanned interference, so we

look to an imagined authorial power to account for narrative complexity

and to provide ongoing serial assurances that somebody is actually in

control. (Mittell, Complex TV 117)

This perception of authorship is adopted by both creators and audiences. Tim Kring,

creator and showrunner of Heroes, promised, in an interview regarding the first season:

“we know where it’s going,” claiming the narrative arc for the entire season had been

“mapped out” in advance (Kring, qtd. in Weiland). Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof,

Lost’s executive producers and showrunners, went a step further and announced a

predetermined end date for the then immensely popular series, several years in advance,

in a highly unusual industry practice for a major broadcast network at the time, enforcing

the message that everything on the series was part of a pre-determined plan – one they

were simply not ready to share with the audience just yet (Mccabe and Akass 246-247).

The audience’s faith might constantly be tested, but the devotion of “true believers” is

promised to ultimately be rewarded.

177 Also relevant in this context is the increasingly common practice of quality series that promote their “auteur” status, emphasizing the fact that every single episode was written, and sometimes directed, by the same individual creator, as is the case with shows like True Detective, Fargo, Louie (2010-present, FX) and others.

147

This conflation of faith in the creator with religious practices is not incidental.

Indeed, fans, critics and industry personnel alike often refer to the showrunner as a deific

entity, at times explicitly stating that “the showrunner is God” (See Martin, B.; Fienberg;

Mcdermon; Thomas). David Chase, Sopranos creator and showrunner, was often

described as having “godlike powers” in the production of the series, and “his name and

its power were so often invoked, usually in whispers, that he came to seem like an un-

seen, all-knowing deity” (Brett Martin, qtd. in Fehrman). Likewise, many fans routinely

refer to information coming directly from the creator as “word of god,” and to events

comprising a series’ officially sanctioned continuity as “canon.”178

This demonstration of blind faith might be considered “subservient,” the audience

yielding authority to a “higher power,” relinquishing control over the narrative and

“enjoying the ride,” thus subverting the potential for active participation (Mittell,

Complex TV 116-117). However, it is to a large extent this very faith which motivates

active engagement in the first place, with committed fans willing to endure frustration

and confusion, relying on faith to drive them forward, striving for ultimate narrative

comprehension.

Moreover, fans might at times refuse to heed the creator’s “gospel,” transgressing

their command and practicing various acts of “blasphemy;” and while the cult of the

showrunner may try to simplify and discursively centralize the creative process,

“transgressive” fans might embrace a more rhizomatic, decentralized model of authority.

178 For more on the “religious” discourse surrounding the showrunner, see Mittell, Complex TV 115-117; also see the relevant TV Tropes articles, “Word of God” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod), “Canon” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Canon) and related tropes. It is interesting to note that the definition of the “Canon” trope directly addresses the collaborative nature of the medium as complicating the designation of “canonical status” ascribed to a work of television; this may generate heated disputes over “canonicity,” which can in turn be settled by “word of god.”

148

4.3.2. Critical and Transformational Fandom: The Audience as Heretic

“They were just making it up as they went along,” claimed a critic of Lost’s creators,

expressing – as many fans did – particular disappointment at the series finale

(Wollaston). A critic writing negatively of Flashforward similarly stated that “the more

you look at it, the more you realize no one is in control of this thing” (VanDerWerff,

“Flashforward”), another describing its finale as “one of the worst in TV history,”

deriding it for being “chaotic” and not providing enough answers, and concluded by

stating: “Not all faith is rewarded” (Hinckley).

As these examples illustrate, when a show fails to deliver on the promise of pay-

off, it often garners negative reception, with fans prone to “losing faith” and doubting the

existence of a master plan. Though these expressions of “heresy” often follow an

unsatisfactory ending,179 they can be triggered by many undesired or disappointing

narrative developments throughout the series. Fans might also disagree with the authors

as to the meaning of the text or criticize unwelcome narrative decisions, sometimes going

so far as to ignore them completely, establishing their own “canon,” which TV Tropes

defines as “Fanon,” that might vary – at times significantly – from official “Canon.”180

Active fans deciding that the creators have “got it wrong,” not content with

merely complaining about these “mistakes” or ignoring them, might further decide to

take matters into their own hands, by either altering existing works (such as the re-edited

179 Somewhat ironically, fans are particularly prone to “losing faith” when a series opts for a “mythic” or “spiritual,” rather than a rational and “logical” resolution, as demonstrated by the many angry reactions to the finales of Lost and Battlestar Galactica, considered by many to be “deus ex machina,” proof that the writers “didn’t know what they were doing” (D’Addario), and that “there was never any real plan” (Pierce). Also see Tyler; Martin, G.; and Mittell, Complex TV 309-310.180 See “Fanon” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanon) and related tropes, in particular “Fanon Discontinuity” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanonDiscontinuity), defined as “the act of fans mentally writing out certain events in a show’s continuity which don’t sit well,” thus deciding to disregard canonical events or even entire storylines or seasons.

149

versions discussed previously) or creating their own stories, in the form of (mostly

written) “fan fiction” or “Fanfic,” whose definition on TV Tropes begins by stating: “If

you want to do something right, do it yourself.”181 Not all fanfic, however, goes against

the intentions of the creator, some rather working to reinforce them.

Useful in this context is the influential categorization suggested by a fanfic writer

using the pseudonym “Obsession_inc,” who proposed two general kinds of fandom:

“affirmational” vs. “transformational” (Obsession_inc). Affirmational fandom (or

“sanctioned” fandom) works to enforce the authority of the creator, who “always [has]

the last word on their own works” (ibid.), fans reaffirming the canon and the author’s

(inferred) vision (Mittell, Complex TV 114-115). Conversely, transformational fandom

(or “non-sanctioned” fandom) works to play with the source material, altering, “fixing”

and “improving” it; transformational fandom is therefore “largely a democracy of taste;

everyone has their own shot at declaring what the source material means, and at radically

re-interpreting it” (Obsession_inc). Unlike affirmational fans, transformational fans

“engage in dialogue or sparring matches with their inferred authors, not treating them as

powerful figures to be revered, respected, and treated as the source of creative authority”

(Mittell, Complex TV 115).182

And so, while “the cult of the showrunner” might be an attempt to simplify the

complexities of the media industry, seeking to establish a hierarchized, centralized model

of authority, critical and transformative fandoms subvert this attempt, usurping control

over the original texts and repurposing them for the fans’ own agendas, at times to the

181 See “Fanfic” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanFic). For examples of fanfic, visit Archive of Our Own (http://archiveofourown.org/) and Fan Fiction (https://www.fanfiction.net/), each holding millions of fanfics for various media, with the numbers of works for many television series ranging in the dozens of thousands, some more than 100 thousand. 182 See also Hills, “Mimetic Fandom;” Scott, S.

150

dismay of the showrunners (Itzkoff; Mittell, Complex TV 114-115). Indeed, while some

creators embrace and even encourage transformational fans, others, like a vengeful deity,

attempt to “beat the recalcitrant fans into submission,” at times even threatening litigation

as a punishment for fans “stepping out of place” by not respecting the authority of the

creator (obsession_inc).

4.3.3. Spoiler Fandom: The Audience as Terrorist

The second season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D was accompanied by a tie-in web series,

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: Double Agent (2015, Watch ABC), which followed a (fictional)

fan who infiltrated the set of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D by posing as a production assistant,

and came into contact with series cast and crew members, attempting to uncover and leak

future plot details and other secrets; serving as an audience surrogate, viewers were

invited to suggest which production department the double agent should visit next.

Double Agent’s plot directly paralleled Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D’s own “hidden moles” and

double agents plotlines, this time casting the fans themselves in the role of terrorists

(Dickey). In a similar vein, Marvel Studio representatives jokingly blamed “Hydra” when

a teaser trailer for their upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron (Joss Whedon, 2015) was

leaked online ahead of schedule (Kamen).

These examples reference another common type of fan practice, which is

“transgressive” in another way, this time committed by otherwise loyal fans. “Spoiler

fans,” as defined by Jonathan Gray and Jason Mittell, are fans who “seemingly short-

circuit the program’s narrative design by seeking out advanced plot points” and sharing

them online (Gray and Mittell). Not content with merely surmising and hypothesizing

151

over narrative mysteries, patiently waiting for clues doled out piecemeal by the creators,

avid fans might decide to take matters into their own hands, not rejecting or criticizing

their God but rather employing a mode of “trust, but verify.”

Taking active engagement to the extreme, certain spoiler fans make every effort

to uncover plot details in advance, applying unconventional and at times even illegal

methods, ostensibly working against the express wishes of the creators. Instances of

entire episodes being leaked online weeks or even months ahead of their intended

airdates have become commonplace, as is the illegal online sharing of scripts, set photos

or other production secrets, serving as “spoilers” for future narrative developments (Gray

143-174); fans of 24 have reportedly rifled through trash bins near the set of the show to

find secret production documents which were consequently posted online, as was a script

allegedly stolen from the mailbox of one of Lost’s producers (Chozick).

Transgressive fan behaviors such as these have purportedly led creators to adopt

increasingly covert production practices, publicized as a means to keep meddling fans

from uncovering secrets and potentially spoiling crucial plot points and twists. Production

teams of series like Flashforward, Lost and others were known to operate very

secretively (Chozick): writers would operate in a locked room “with the window blinds

drawn tight” to avoid secrets revealed by fans peeping from outside;183 each script would

reportedly have a fake title and would be watermarked; production documents would use

constantly changing code names when referring to scenes or cast and crew members;184

actors might sometimes audition for fake roles, and receive directions to shooting

183 Some writers’ rooms, incidentally, are said to hold top secret “crazy walls” of their very own, complete with color coded notes and clues, assisting the creative team in maintaining the multiple narratives threads and other complexities of the story-world (Chozick).184 Transgressive fans, meanwhile, employ pseudonyms when leaking unlicensed material or uploading unsanctioned “transformational” fanfic, fearing litigation (Obsession_inc).

152

locations as late as midnight the night before the shoot, guided there using signs with fake

titles (“a strategy that has led to some actors getting lost”), and typically did not know

what would happen more than a couple of episodes in advance, crucial plot details

routinely withheld from anyone not directly involved with those scenes. The producers of

Lost went so far as to shoot several alternate versions of the fourth season’s final scene,

to create confusion and speculation as to the season’s twist ending (Garfein).

However, while “spoiler fandom” might subvert the creators’ authority over when

and where the narrative is revealed, it is also “affirmational,” in that it again reinforces

their authority over the narrative itself. Moreover, while some leaks and other

transgressions might genuinely be carried out by fans, conspiracy-minded critics have

suggested that these are mostly publicity scams (Jeffery), aimed at directing internet

chatter towards a program and attracting viewers. In this sense, it could be argued that the

fictional “terrorist fan” portrayed in Double Agent merely highlights – explicitly – these

blurred distinctions between creators and transgressors.185 And ultimately, whether a

malicious security breach or a calculated publicity stunt, these incidents typically tend to

serve to the series’ advantage, creating “hype” and boosting ratings (Juddery; Benton and

Hill), perhaps even enhancing viewer enjoyment rather than hindering it, as some studies

have shown (Leavitt and Christenfeld, “Story Spoilers” and “Fluency of Spoilers;” Gray

and Mittell).186

185 The fact that the mastermind behind Double Agent’s infiltration efforts eventually turns out to be none other than Stan Lee – creator of most of the iconic Marvel characters – further blurs these distinctions.186 Interestingly, one critic has suggested that “spoilerphobia,” rather than being a fear of narrative spoilers, is an expression of powerlessness experienced against the accelerated sense of temporality in the digital age (Brogan).

153

Again mirroring the series’ own conspiracy plots, which present powerful

government agencies orchestrating homeland “terrorist attacks” for their own gains (as

discussed in chapter 2), these notions of production-orchestrated “fan attacks” –

regardless of their veracity – serve once more to reinforce authorial agency and control.

Not confined to the story-world alone, conspiracy theories and a sense of paranoia appear

to seep out into the realm of discourse surrounding the series as well. It seems fitting,

somehow, that in an age when television is noticeably preoccupied with terrorism, spoiler

culture and the resultant studio backlash have led both fans and producers to adopt covert

militia tactics characteristic of terrorist cells.

4.4. Conclusion: Complexity Made Simple

As we've seen, contemporary American television, with its increasingly complex,

networked narratives, encourages and demands active forensic engagement and the

application of new technologies of consumption and communication in order to attain

narrative mastery. This type of engagement is particularly emphasized in catastrophic

series, which are deliberately constructed around central narrative puzzles and mysteries,

presenting protagonists engaged in a similar type of investigation.

Moreover, as this chapter has illustrated, the strategies and skills exercised by

audiences seeking narrative orientation mirror those employed by the protagonists.

Rather than merely identifying with the investigating characters, following their quest for

epistemological mastery, the viewers are invited to partake in a similar activity

themselves, working to “connect the dots,” uncover the underlying narrative patterns and

make meaning from fragmentation. This type of engagement provides the viewers with

154

the appropriate tools – and potentially aids in honing the necessary cognitive abilities –

for dealing with complex narratives.

The series also function to simplify complexity, by discursively anchoring it to a

centralized point of authority, embodied in the deific image of the showrunner, which

provides motivation for devoted fans, conveying a sense of purpose and unity behind the

text; everything that happens, it is promised, is part of a plan that will eventually become

clear. Adopting a paranoid, “conspiratorial” mode of viewing, the audience operates

under the ontologically reassuring promise that “everything is connected,” and that “the

truth is out there,” accessible “by traditional, rational means” (Kelley-Romano 106). This

again mirrors the protagonists’ own reliance on either a transcendent “higher power” or

their own capacity for rational comprehension, two alternative routes which converge in

the case of forensic engagement.

Interestingly, this figurative analogy – correlating the investigations portrayed in

catastrophic series and the mode of audience engagement they encourage – is given a

decidedly literal illustration on Cult, a series which revolves around the investigation of a

mysterious murderous cult, whose members are all cult fans of the fictional “Cult,” a cult

series that also revolves around the investigation of a mysterious murderous cult.187 The

avid fans of “Cult” collectively work as a vast network to decipher messages they believe

to be embedded within the (fictional) series; among these is a character named Nate

Sefton, endowed with high cognitive capacities, who has constructed his own “wall of

crazy” comprised of images and bits of information extracted from “Cult” episodes (see

figure 6 in episode 2).

187Obvious pun very much intended. Cult itself utterly failed, despite its optimistic title, to generate any cult status or popularity, cancelled halfway through its first and only season.

155

The answers to Cult’s narrative mysteries are believed by the investigating

characters to be hidden within “Cult,” with attentive forensic engagement the only way to

unlock them.188 Holding similar views are the members of a shadowy network of “Cult”

fans – who call themselves “True Believers” – who abduct Nate, in order to use his

unique cognitive abilities to unlock the mysteries of the series (in vein with the “abducted

savant” trope described in chapter 2). Nate’s abductors confine him to a room where he is

forced to re-watch and analyze fragments from “Cult” displayed over and over, until he

uncovers the “true meaning” behind the series, taking forensic engagement to its

hyperbolic extreme.

Concluding our debate on the nature of audience engagement, forensic fans, as

depicted on Cult, are variously cast in the roles of investigators and of terrorists; of

conspiracy theorists and of conspirators; of collective intelligence network and of

cognitively “unique” individuals. While several possible standpoints are made available

to the fans – from the affirmative to the transformational, from the heretic to the

terroristic – these all aid, in various ways, to restore a sense of narrative mastery; whether

subserviently ceding textual control over to a creator or “rebelling,” appropriating or

actively repurposing it, they nonetheless work to reestablish control. The conviction that

the narrative is ultimately comprehensible, whether its meaning is produced by the

makers or the viewers, functions to neutralize the threat posed by a fully networked, open

and rhizomatic narrative.

188 Motivated in large part by their worship of the mysterious creator of the show, the reclusive Steven Rae; while his name is uttered in reverence by his devoted fans, not a single person has ever met him in person or communicated with him directly. This leads the protagonists to suspect that no such person ever really existed, literalizing the notion of the author as a discursive construct guiding viewers’ interpretation.

156

5. Conclusion: “The World Has Changed, and So Must We”

As this thesis has illustrated, the networked challenges facing the protagonists of

contemporary catastrophic series are similar in nature to those confronted by the viewers,

both terrorist networks and complex television narratives each in its own way an

emblematic product of the Network Society. As we’ve seen, the tools and strategies

employed by the protagonists have equivalent counterparts at the level of audience

engagement, as do the underlying epistemological and ontological presuppositions

motivating their investigative efforts.

Much like the investigating characters, who attempt to bind seemingly disparate

occurrences and assign meaning to the smallest of details, fervently searching for clues as

to the hidden patterns governing their diegetic worlds, so the forensic fans attempt to bind

seemingly disparate textual – and paratextual – elements into unified narrative coherence;

and like them, too, the viewers are guided by a mixture of faith and paranoid conviction,

trusting that “everything is connected,” everything happens for a reason and is part of a

grand plan, which will be revealed to the observant viewer if they actively work towards

deciphering the text.

Another parallel between these two levels is their shared expression of the need to

adapt in order to accommodate these new, networked challenges. As Donald Rumsfeld,

former American Secretary of Defense, has stated, regarding the war on terror: “The

world has changed, and so must we” (Rumsfeld). One way of doing so, as was discussed

previously, is by becoming more networked in order to counter networked threats;

adopting the logic of “network against network,” both protagonists and fans employ

157

digital networks and collective intelligence communities to better tackle intelligence –

and narrative – challenges.

However, “[t]ransformation is about more than just new ways of fighting. It's

about new ways of thinking” (Rumsfeld). And so, more than employing networked tools

and organizational structures, dealing with rhizomatic enemies and distributed narratives

also entails adopting the logic of networks as a new thought paradigm, developing the

ability to think flexibly and rhizomatically, to “think in hyperlinks” and perceive

connections, to have a cognitive capacity for processing mass amounts of data and

analyzing complex systems. In other words: “We need to think like a network” (T. Irene

Sanders, qtd. in Wagner 51).

This need for new ways of thought is also emphasized by Manuel Castells, who

has suggested that one of the major challenges of life in the Network Society is to

establish “a new pedagogy” of interactive, personalized learning, which will assist in “the

installation of information processing and knowledge generation capacity” necessary for

successfully functioning in a networked, digital environment (Castells, Internet Galaxy

277-278). This “pedagogic” function is perhaps most adequately assumed by

contemporary media, the consumption of which has become, as Thomas Elsaesser has

argued, “part of the ‘affective labor’ required in modern […] societies,” encouraging

flexibility, adaptability and interactivity (Elsaesser 34). Complex contemporary television

narratives are particularly suited to this task, as they embody in structure the complexities

and interconnectedness of “real life” (Booth, “Memories, Temporalities” 317).

158

Comprehending these narratives, then, requires that the viewers practice a skill-set which

has broader, real-world applications.189

This, I would argue, is the main function catastrophic series have the potential to

serve: training the viewers in the active application of cognitive skills useful for handling

not only narrative complexity, but more broadly, the types of networked challenges they

confront in every-day life. And in this sense, the parallels that we have drawn between

the efforts of investigative protagonists and forensic audiences are not coincidental – as

both attempt to adapt themselves to the complex and at times threatening realities of the

Network Society. And while viewing catastrophic series will most probably not transform

the viewers into expert terrorist hunters, it might hold the potential to help them adapt to

the complexities of contemporary life, and to become better equipped to handle its trials

and tribulations.

Thus, for example, the ability to visualize and make sense of complex webs of

relationships between characters helps develop one’s “social intelligence,” a vital skill for

successfully functioning in the Network Society, which is based on the same kind of

networking logic (Booth, “Television Social Network” 322-324; Johnson S., Everything

Bad is Good for You 108-109).190 Similarly, actively gaining comprehension of

temporally fragmented narratives might provide necessary practice for dealing with the

complex and divergent temporalities which characterize the Network Society. In this

light, television’s recent trend towards increased temporal displacement and narrative

189 Similarly, the cognitive benefits of FIE, though based on a limited set of specific exercises, are “intended to be more readily transferable to all life situations” (Feuerstein 561), designed to assist its subjects in becoming “flexible adaptable thinkers and learners in the 21st century” (O’Neill).190 Booth specifically cites Flashforward’s fragmented narrative structure as an example of how a complex text can enable viewers to practice various comprehension skills useful for conducting themselves in a an online digital environment, skills such as “cross-referencing, fact-checking, and ethos-establishing” (Booth, “Television Social Network” 322).

159

fragmentation can be read, as Paul Booth has suggested, as a response to the feeling of

postmodern schizophrenia inherent within contemporary networked living (Booth,

“Memories, Temporalities” 375-376). In this context, the effects on the viewers can

alternately be read as a “cognitive workout,” practicing orientation skills that can assist in

attaining temporal control, as I have argued, or as the semblance of control, an escapist

and cathartic sense of temporal mastery so lacking in real life, as Booth has argued

(Booth, “Memories, Temporalities” 376), two options which are not mutually exclusive.

Convergence culture and transmedial narrative fragmentation can likewise

function as powerful instructors for networked thinking; as Henry Jenkins has suggested,

convergent popular media, by forcing the viewers to actively engage and practice their

“hunting and gathering” skills, teaches them – better than any school – what it’s like to

live in collaborative, interconnected, decentralized information communities (Jenkins

128-129). Convergence culture might thus precipitate a “process of cultural evolution,”

providing “a bridge to a new kind of culture and a new kind of society” (Jenkins 130),

one in which humanity can become adapted to the nebulous and interconnected

complexity of the network, embracing its liberating potential and internalizing its

cognitive benefits through constant engagement with distributed digital media, so that, as

Castells writes, “the hypertext is inside us” (Castells, Internet Galaxy 202).

These ideas are reminiscent of Walter Benjamin’s conception of the medium of

film “as a disciplinary machine, ‘training the senses’ for modernity and urban life”

(Elsaesser 32), a necessary reaction to the complex sensory experience that humanity had

been subjected to by the technologies of modernity (Benjamin, “On Some Motifs” 328).

As Benjamin describes: “The function of film is to train human beings in the

160

appreciations and reactions needed to deal with” the technological apparatus of

modernity, “whose role in their lives is expanding almost daily” (Benjamin, “Work of

Art” 26). And so, the cinematic experience enables “humanity’s whole constitution” to

adapt itself to the rhythms and sensations of modernity (Benjamin, “Work of Art” 26-27).

If the medium of film was the appropriate response to modernity, providing much

needed “training in coping with stimuli” (Benjamin, “On Some Motifs” 318), then

contemporary convergent media – and television in particular – might be the appropriate

response of our own time, reorienting us “with the sensory overload of contemporary

life” (Elsaesser 32), providing cognitive training for the digital apparatus of

postmodernity at the core of the Network Society.191 And, as this thesis has illustrated, it

is not the technology in and of itself, but the unique types of narrative structures it fosters,

which can serve this function, reacting to the significant changes that the Network

Society has brought with it. As Jill Walker, discussing distributed narratives, has pointed

out: “narratives are one of our main ways of understanding ourselves and of

understanding our world. When the world changes, our ways of understanding it must

change too” (Walker, Jill 91).

This aspect of complex narratives on contemporary American television is

explicitly emphasized and made evident in catastrophic series, which portray similar

efforts in their own narratives, as both protagonists and viewers attempt to adapt

themselves to an ever-changing and increasingly complex networked reality. It should be

191 While I have focused on the cognitive aspects of media engagement and interaction with the world, Benjamin places greater emphasis on the sensory, somatic aspects of film viewing, which resensitizes its audience to the experience of the world (see Armstrong; Rutzky; and Forrest’s discussion of Benjamin and of similar notions by Kracauer). This is an aspect I have not touched on here; see Toni Pape’s thesis on temporally complex narrative series, in which he argues that complex temporalities – specifically discussing Flashforward – “resensitize us to the continuous stirrings of a complex reality” (Pape 127).

161

reiterated that the series’ reliance on a “grand design” at both the diegetic level and that

of narrative structure, which simplifies complexity and reduces it to a more manageable,

centralized model, might subvert this potential, to varying degrees; at the same time,

however, it also provides much needed motivation for forensic engagement, without

which said potential might never be realized at all.

5.1. Coda: “Always in the Middle” – The Never-Ending Narrative

As we near the end, one final point to be made – regarding endings, or lack thereof, as

serial television dramas, and particularly cult texts, are typically characterized by

“endlessly deferred narrative” (Hills, Fan Cultures 100-102), often failing to resolve

major narrative questions.192 Along the way answers are slow to arrive, while new

questions are raised in abundance, and central narrative mysteries often go unanswered

for long stretches of time, narrative closure thus “indefinitely deferred” (Hills, “Defining

Cult TV” 512-513), leaving the audience in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction, at times

exasperation; and even when the answers do eventually arrive, they might be deemed

unsatisfying or disappointing (as was discussed in chapter 4).

Furthermore, many series are cancelled before ever getting a chance to offer any

kind of narrative closure – as happened with Flashforward, cancelled by ABC after its

first and only season due to insufficient ratings, the season finale (episode 1.22)

effectively serving as a series finale, to the dismay of its narrow but loyal following.

Once again assuming the role of terrorist network, devoted fans of the series coordinated

192 Once again, this is also highly characteristic of the soap opera, whose narrative exists in an “infinitely extended middle” (Fiske 180), displaying “syntagmatic openness” and an “absolute resistance to final closure (Allen 75-77).

162

their own Global Blackout, staged in a dozen cities around the world in protest, filmed

and then posted online (Adler), a tribute which proved futile, as did other online

campaigns aimed at overturning ABC’s decision.

Flashforward’s premature cancellation, effectively ending the series on a

cliffhanger that would never be resolved, is by no means an isolated incident, many other

catastrophic series having met similar fates;193 in all these cases, as forensic enthusiasm is

met with ultimate frustration, and narrative resolution is never presented despite the best

intentions of the creators and regardless of how much effort is made by the fans, the

potential for epistemological reassurance and comfort is radically subverted. Perhaps

these instances of frustration are in fact best suited to the function of preparing the

viewers for dealing with the challenges of the Network Society, practicing their cognitive

faculties while denying them the crutches of an exhaustive and oversimplified

catharsis.194

And so, while Mark Benford was eventually able to provide advance warning of a

second Global Blackout which occurred in the series finale, he – along with the viewers –

ultimately remained in the dark as to the true motivations behind the antagonists’ actions;

most of the major narrative questions went unanswered and no “unified, global and all-

inclusive revelation” was ever given (Kaminsky 72). In its final moments, Flashforward

depicted the second Global Blackout, accompanied by a compressed montage of

fragmented visions of the future displayed in disarray, and followed by a massive

explosion at the FBI offices, leaving Mark to an uncertain fate. Just as the season had

193 Examples include The Event, Rubicon, Odyssey 5, Traveler, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Alphas, Cult and others.194 It might be argued that the denial of an ending also renders the narratives essentially more “rhizomatic,” as “[a] rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things” (Deleuze and Guattari 25).

163

largely followed in the footsteps of the initial visions witnessed in its pilot episode, the

visions displayed in its finale may have been laying the groundwork for future seasons

that would never be; despite the best speculative efforts of forensic fans to connect the

dots and hypothesize on possible narrative explanations,195 the answers would never

come, and the fragments would forever remain disconnected.

195 Including detailed frame-by-frame analyses of the closing sequence (RJAKS).

164

Works cited

“About.” Wikia. Accessed 30 October 2015 <http://www.wikia.com/About_Us>.

Adams, Sam. “‘Difficult Men's Author on the Drawbacks of Auteur-Driven TV.”

Indiewire, 7 August 2014 <http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/difficult-mens-

author-on-the-drawbacks-of-auteur-driven-tv-20140807>.

Adler, Tim. “‘FlashForward’ Fans Stage Global Blackout.” Deadline, 11 June 2010

<http://deadline.com/2010/06/flashforward-fans-stage-global-blackout-46366/>.

Allen, Robert Clyde. Speaking of Soap Operas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1985.

Alston, Joshua. “The Event: ‘I Haven't Told You Everything’” (review). A.V. Club, 20

September 2010 <http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/the-event-i-havent-told-you-

everything-45360>.

Alsultany, Evelyn. “The Prime Time Plight of the Arab Muslim American after

9/11.” Race and Arab Americans Before and After 9.11: From Invisible Citizens

to Visible Subjects. Amaney Jamal and Nadine Naber, eds. Syracuse: Syracuse

University Press, 2008 204-228.

Ames, Melissa. “The Fear of the Future and the Pain of the Past.” Time in Television

Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First-Century Programming.

Melissa Ames, ed. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2012. 110-124.

Amin, Ash. “Post-Fordism: Models, Fantasies and Phantoms of Transition.” Post-

Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. 1-39.

Apter, Emily. “On Oneworldedness: Or Paranoia as a World System.” American Literary

History 18.2 (2006): 365-389.

Archive of Our Own. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <http://archiveofourown.org/>.

Argus (username). “TV Is Too Complicated for Me” (forum post). Maple Leaf Web, 25

February 2014 <http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23389-tv-is-too-

complicated-for-me/>.

Armstrong, Tim. “Two Types of Shock in Modernity.” Critical Quarterly 42.1 (2000):

60-73.

165

Arquilla, John, and David Ronfeldt. Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime,

and Militancy. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2001.

Auslin, Michael. “PBS’s Cold War Nostalgia.” National Review, 18 November 2014

<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392890/pbss-cold-war-nostalgia-

michael-auslin>.

Banita, Georgiana. “Reading for the Pattern: Narrative, Data Mining, and the

Transnational Ethics of Surveillance.” Plotting Justice: Narrative Ethics and

Literary Culture after 9/11. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012.

Barkun, Michael. Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America.

Oakland: University of California Press, 2013.

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image-Music-Text. Stephen Heath, trans.

New York: Hill and Wang, 1978.

Baudrillard, Jean. “L’Esprit du Terrorisme.” Trans. Michel Valentin. The South Atlantic

Quarterly 101.2 (2002): 403-415.

Baudrillard, Jean. “The Ecstasy of Communication.” Trans. John Johnston. Postmodern

Culture. Hal Foster, ed. London: Pluto Press, 1985. 126-134.

Bellafante, Ginia. “On ABC’s New Drama, Fearing a Future They’ve Seen” (review).

The New York Times, 23 September 2009

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/arts/television/24flash.html>.

Benjamin, Walter. “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire.” Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Walter

Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 4, 1938-1940. Howard Eiland and Michael

William Jennings, eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. 313-355.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility:

Second Version.” The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological

Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Trans. Edmund Jephcott and

Harry Zohn. Michael William Jennings, Brigid Doherty and Thomas Y. Levin,

eds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. 19-55.

Benson, Richard. “Decoding the Detective’s ‘Crazy Wall’.” Esquire, 23 January 2015

<http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/film-tv/7703/detective-show-crazy-walls/>.

166

Benton, Adrian, and Shawndra Hill. “The Spoiler Effect?: Designing Social TV Content

That Promotes Ongoing WOM.” Paper presented at the Informs Conference on

Information Systems and Technology 2012, Orlando, Florida, December 2012.

Berger, J. M. “Fighting the many-headed Hydra of ISIS.” The Boston Globe, 26 June

2015 <https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/06/26/fighting-

many-headed-hydra-isis/abeHAlBCRIEK1wycNlxWdM/story.html>.

Birkenstein, Jeff, Anna Froula, and Karen Randell, eds. Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular

Culture and the “War on Terror.” New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2010.

Bobowski, Kevin. “The Video Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” Entrepreneur, 28

August 2014 <http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236878>.

Booth, Paul. “Memories, Temporalities, Fictions: Temporal Displacement in

Contemporary Television.” TV & New Media 12.4 (2011): 370–388.

Booth, Paul. “The Television Social Network: Exploring TV Characters.”

Communication Studies 63.3 (2012): 309-327.

Bordwell, David. “Mutual Friends and Chronologies of Chance.” Poetics of Cinema.

New York: Routledge, 2008. 189-250.

Bordwell, David. “Subjective Stories and Network Narratives.” The Way Hollywood

Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies. Berkley: University of California

Press, 2006. 72-103.

Brewer, James. “The Cancellation of AMC Series Rubicon: Too Close to Home?” World

Socialist Web Site, 2 December 2010

<https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/rubi-d02.html>.

Brinker, Felix. “Hidden Agendas, Endless Investigations, and the Dynamics of

Complexity: The Conspiratorial Mode of Storytelling in Contemporary American

Television Series.” Aspeers 5 (2012): 87-109

<http://www.aspeers.com/2012/brinker>.

Brogan, Jacob. “You’re Not Afraid of Spoilers: You’re Afraid of the Future.” Slate, 13

April 2015

<http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/game_of_throne

s_and_internet_spoiler_culture.html>.

167

Brooker, Will. “Living on Dawson's Creek: Teen Viewers, Cultural Convergence, and

Television Overflow.” The Television Studies Reader. Robert C. Allen

and Annette Hill, eds. Abingdon: Routledge. 2004. 569-580.

Bush, George W. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American

People.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 25 (2001): xviii-xxv.

Bush, George W. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Executive Office of the

President, Washington, DC, February 2003.

Caeners, Torsten. “‘You’re Broken. I Can Fix You’: Negotiating Concepts of US

Ideology.” Investigating Heroes: Essays on Truth, Justice and Quality TV. David

Simmons, ed. Jefferson: McFarland, 2011.130-143.

Caldwell, John. “Convergence Television: Aggregating Form and Repurposing Content

in the Culture of Conglomeration.” Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in

Transition. Lynn Spiegel and Jan Olsson, eds. Durham: Duke University Press,

2004. 41-74.

Carabott, Chris. “Rubicon: ‘Pilot’ Review.” IGN, 14 June 2010

<http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/06/14/rubicon-pilot-review>.

Carr, David. “The Glut of Shows Unwatched.” The New York Times, 5 September 2010

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/business/media/06carr.html>.

Carver, Tom. “Bush Puts God on His Side.” BBC News, 6 April 2003

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2921345.stm>.

Castells, Manuel. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy,

Society, and Culture. Vol. 1. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Chozick, Amy. “The Art of the Cliffhanger.” The Wall Street Journal, 18 September

2009

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702039173045744153422536250

48>.

Clover, Julian. “BBC: Connected TV is Too Complex.” Broadband TV News, 2 March

2012 <http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/03/02/bbc-connected-tv-is-too-

complex/>.

168

Cobley, Paul. “Just Because You’re Paranoid It Doesn’t Mean They’re Not Out to Get

You.” The American Thriller: Generic Innovation and Social Change in the

1970s. London: Palgrave, 2000. 146-166.

Coleman, Melissa. “Television Isn’t What it Used to Be.” Tipping Point

Communications, accessed on 30 October 2015

<http://tippingpointcomm.com/media/tv/television-isnt-what-it-used-to-be>.

“Could this Bible Verse Explain FlashForward?” Blastr, 14 December 2012

<http://www.blastr.com/2009/10/could_this_bible_verse_ex.php>.

Cowan, Lee. “Welcome to TV's second ‘Golden Age’.” CBS News, 1 October 2013

<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/welcome-to-tvs-second-golden-age/>.

CSI: Wikia. Accessed 30 October 2015 <http://csi.wikia.com/wiki/CSI_Wiki>.

Curtin, Michael, and Jane Shattuc. The American Television Industry. London: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2009.

D’Addario, Daniel. “The Worst Finales Ever.” Salon, 27 September 2013

<http://www.salon.com/2013/09/27/the_worst_finales_ever/>.

de Valck, Marijke, and Jan Teurlings, eds. After the Break: Television Theory Today.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Félix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and

Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press, 1987.

DeLillo, Don. Underworld. New York: Scribner, 1997

Diamond, John, and Kathy Kiely. “Administration, Agencies Failed to Connect the

Dots.” USA Today, 17 May 2002

<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/05/17/failure-usatcov.htm>.

Dickey, Josh. “‘Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ Springs a Leak with ‘Double Agent’.”

Mashable, 3 March 2015 <http://mashable.com/2015/03/03/marvel-agents-of-s-h-

i-e-l-d-web-series-clip/#vz.YLVpivqq3>.

DiNucci, Darcy. “Fragmented Future.” Print 53.4 (1999): 32, 221–222.

Dixon, Wheeler W. Film and Television after 9/11. Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press, 2004.

Douthat, Ross. "The Return of the Paranoid Style." Atlantic Monthly 301.3 (2008): 52-59.

169

Downing, John. “Terrorism, Torture and Television: 24 in its Context.” Democratic

Communiqué 21.2 (Fall 2007): 62-82

Ebert, Roger. “Syriana” (review). Roger Ebert.com, 8 December 2005

<http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/syriana-2005>.

Eco, Umberto. “Casablanca: Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage.” Travels in

Hyperreality. New York: Harcourt, 1986. 197-212.

Edgerton, Gary R. and Katherine C. Edgerton. “Pathologizing Post-9/11 America

in Homeland: Private Paranoia, Public Psychosis.” Critical Studies in Television

7/1 (2012): 89-92.

Ellis, John. Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty. London: I.B. Tauris,

2000.

Elsaesser, Thomas. “The Mind-Game Film.” Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in

Contemporary Cinema. Warren Buckland, ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

13-41.

Evans, Elizabeth. Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media, and Daily Life. New

York: Routledge, 2011.

Everett, Anna, and John T. Caldwell, eds. New Media: Theories and Practices of

Digitextuality. New York: Routledge, 2015.

Faludi, Susan. The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. London:

Macmillan, 2007.

Fan Fiction. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <https://www.fanfiction.net/>.

Fehrman, Craig. “The Showrunner Fallacy: TV's Auteurs Matter Much Less than You

Think.” New Republic, 13 June 2013

<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113374/why-tv-critics-should-stop-

focusing-showrunners>.

Feuerstein, Reuven. “Mediated Learning Experience, Instrumental Enrichment, and the

Learning Propensity Assessment Device.” ICDL Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Bethesda MD: The Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning

Disorders, 2000. 557-577.

170

Fienberg, Daniel. “Interview: 'Vikings' Creator Michael Hirst Talks Season 1 and

Beyond.” HitFix, 12 June 2013 <http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/interview-

vikings-creator-michael-hirst-talks-season-1-and-beyond>.

Fiske, John. Television Culture. London: Methuen, 1987.

“Flashforward – Member Reviews.” Netflix DVDs, accessed on 30 October 2015

<http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/FlashForward/70172463>.

FlashForward Wiki. Accessed on 30 October 2015

<http://flashforward.wikia.com/wiki/FlashForward_Wiki>.

Forrest, Tara. “Experimental Set-ups: Benjamin on History and Film.” Walter Benjamin

and the Architecture of Modernity. Andrew E. Benjamin and Charles Rice,

eds. Melbourne: re.press, 2009. 201-209.

Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Trans. Jay Miskowiec. Diacritics 16.1 (Spring

1986): 22-27.

Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Trans. Josué V. Harari. The Foucault

Reader. Paul Rabinow, ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.

Friedmann, Anthony. “Writing for Mobile Media Platforms.” Writing for Visual Media.

New York: Focal Press, 2014. 325-355.

Fringe Wiki. Accessed 30 November 2015 <http://fringe.wikia.com/wiki/FringeWiki>.

Frutkin, A.J. “Going with the Flow.” MediaWeek 17.29 (2007): 6-6.

Furlong, Maggie. “The Ultimate Crazy Wall of TV Crazy Walls.” Yahoo, 7 June 2014

<https://www.yahoo.com/tv/bp/the-ultimate-crazy-wall-of-tv-crazy-walls-

194834333.html>.

Galloway, Alexander, and Thacker, Eugene. The Exploit: A Theory of Networks.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

Game of Thrones Wiki. Accessed 30 October 2015

<http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_Wiki>.

Garfein, Jo. “15 Behind-the-Scenes Facts About ‘Lost’.” Mental Floss, 5 October 2015

<http://mentalfloss.com/article/58356/15-behind-scenes-facts-about-lost>.

Ghosh, Korbi. “Let's Talk 'Fringe': Is There A Serious 'Lost' Connection?” zap2it, 15 July

2008 <http://zap2it.com/2008/07/lets-talk-fringe-is-there-a-serious-lost-

connection/>.

171

Goldberg, Robert Alan. “Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern

America.” Lecture given at the Department of History, Florida Atlantic

University, as part of the John O’Sullivan Memorial Lecture series, 2010

<http://www.fau.edu/osullivan/images/Robert_A__Goldberg_booklet.pdf>.

Goldberg, Robert Alan. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Gray, Jonathan, and Jason Mittell. “Speculation on Spoilers: Lost Fandom, Narrative

Consumption and Rethinking Textuality.” Particip@tions 4.1 (2007)

<http://www.participations.org/Volume%204/Issue%201/4_01_graymittell.htm>.

Gray, Jonathan. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts.

New York: New York University Press, 2010.

Graylocks (username). “Modern TV is Too Complicated” (forum post). MacResource, 3

September 2011 <http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,1218580,1218626>.

Green, Steven K. Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Gyford, Phil. “Crazy Walls.” Tumbler, accessed on 30 October 2015

<http://crazywalls.tumblr.com/>.

H+ Wiki. Accessed 30 October 2015 <http://hplus.wikia.com/wiki/H%2B_Wiki>.

Hanhimäki, Jussi M. “The (Really) Good War? Cold War Nostalgia and American

Foreign Policy.” Cold War History 14.4 (2014): 673-683.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of

Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.

Harries, Dan, ed. The New Media Book. London: British Film Institute, 2002.

Hart, Hugh. “The Event Continues Tv’s Post-9/11 Conspiracy Obsession.” Wired, 20

September 2010 <http://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-event/>.

Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of

Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.

Hassan, Robert. “Network Time and the New Knowledge Epoch.” Time & Society 12.2-3

(2003): 225-241.

172

Hastedt, Glenn Peter, ed. Wiretaps, and Secret Operations: An Encyclopedia of American

Espionage. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010.

Heroes Wiki. Accessed 30 October 2015 <http://heroeswiki.com/Main_Page>.

Hills, Matt. “Defining Cult TV: Texts, Inter-texts, and Fan Audiences.” The Television

Studies Reader. Robert C. Allen and Annette Hill, eds. London: Routledge, 2004.

509-523.

Hills, Matt. “From Dalek Half Balls to Daft Punk Helmets: Mimetic Fandom and the

Crafting of Replicas.” Transformative Works and Cultures 16 (2014).

Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002.

Hinckley, David. “‘FlashForward’ Series Finale Is One of the Worst in TV History”

(review). New York Daily News, 28 May 2010

<http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/flashforward-series-

finale-worst-tv-history-article-1.449559>.

Hofstadter, Richard. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” The Paranoid Style in

American Politics and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.

3-40.

IMDb. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <http://www.imdb.com/>.

Itzkoff, Dave. “In a Twist on the Remix, Fans Recut TV Series.” The New York Times, 9

June 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/arts/television/arrested-

development-and-game-of-thrones-the-fans-cut.html>.

Jackson, Richard. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-

Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.

Jagoda, Patrick. Network Aesthetics: American Fictions in the Culture of Interconnection.

Dissertation, Duke University, 2010.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham:

Duke University Press, 1991.

Jeffery, Morgan. “Oops! Supergirl and 10 More TV Shows that Leaked.” Digital Spy, 26

May 2015

<http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s270/supergirl/feature/a649283/oops-supergirl-

and-10-more-tv-shows-that-leaked.html>.

173

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New

York: New York University Press, 2006.

Jensen, Mogens R., and Myltreda L. Jensen. “Summative Thinking.” MindLadder

Learning Guide Advisor, accessed on 30 October 2015 <http://www.mindladder-

lg.com/html/GeneralStrategiesT_25.html>.

Johnson, Derek. “Neoliberal Politics, Convergence, and the Do-It-Yourself Security of

24.” Cinema Journal 51.1 (2011): 149-154.

Johnson, Steven. Emergence: the Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software.

New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002.

Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good for You. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005.

Joyce, Amanda. “‘Blindspot’ Fans Decode Episode Titles for Clues.” TMN: The Movie

Network, 14 October 2015 <http://www.themovienetwork.com/article/blindspot-

fans-decode-episode-titles-clues>.

Juddery, Mark. “How Spoilers Can Actually Enhance a TV Show.” The Week, 28

January 2014 <http://theweek.com/articles/452150/how-spoilers-actually-

enhance-tv-show>.

Kackman, Michael, et al., eds. Flow TV: Television in the Age of Media Convergence.

New York: Routledge, 2010.

Kalic, Sean N. Combating a Modern Hydra: Al Qaeda and the Global War on Terrorism.

Darby: Diane Publishing, 2005.

Kamen, Matt. “Marvel Blames Avengers: Age of Ultron Trailer Leak on Hydra.” Wired,

14 October 2014 <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-10/23/avengers-

trailer-leak>.

Kaminsky, Inbar. “The Seed of an Idea and its Cognitive Field: Minding the Gap of

Alternate Reality in Flash Forward and Fringe.” Critical Reflections on Audience

and Narrativity: New Connections, New Perspectives. Valentina Marinescu, ed.

New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. 63-75.

Katz, Elihu. “The End of Television?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 625.1 (September 2009): 6-18

Kelley-Romano, Stephanie. “Trust no one: The Conspiracy Genre on American

Television.” Southern Communication Journal 73.2 (2008): 105-121.

174

Kelly, Kevin. Out of Control: the Rise of Neo-biological Civilization. New York: Basic

Books, 1995.

Kennedy, Paul. “The Good Old Days of the Cold War.” Los Angeles Times, 18 February

2007 < http://www.latimes.com/news/la-op-kennedy18feb18-story.html>.

Kiley, David, Tom Lowry, and Ronald Grover. “The End of TV (As You Know It).”

Bloomberg Business, 20 November 2005

<http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-11-20/the-end-of-tv-as-you-know-

it>.

Kirsch, Adam. “Why ‘Rubicon’ Is the Perfect Spy Show for the Obama Era.” New

Republic, 27 October 2010 <http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/foreign-

policy/78695/rubicon-perfect-spy-show-the-obama-era>.

Kleindorfer, Paul R., and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit,

and Risk in an Interlinked World. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall,

2009.

Krenn, Jamie L. Associations between Primetime Television Shows AND Viewers’

Mathematics Knowledge, Science Knowledge and Confidence. Dissertation.

Columbia University, 2012.

Kreps, Daniel. “Watch Andy Samberg's Riotous Emmy Opening Number and

Monologue.” Rolling Stone, 20 September 2015

<http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-andy-sambergs-riotious-emmy-

opening-number-and-monologue-20150920>.

Lacey, Stephen and Derek Paget, eds. The 'War on Terror': Post 9/11 Television Drama,

Docudrama and Documentary. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2015.

Lascala, Marisa. “FlashForward Series Premiere” (review), PopMatters, 1 October 2009

<http://www.popmatters.com/review/112412-flashforward/>.

Lavery, David. “Lost and Long-Term Television Narrative.” Electronic Book Review, 22

March 2011 < http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/long-

term>.

Lavik, Erlend. “Forward to the Past: The Strange Case of The Wire.” Relocating

Television: Television in the Digital Context. Jostein Gripsrud, ed. London:

Routledge, 2010. 76-87.

175

Leavitt, Jonathan D., and Nicholas J. S. Christenfeld. “Story Spoilers Don’t Spoil

Stories.” Psychological Science 22.9 (2011): 1152-1154.

Leavitt, Jonathan D., and Nicholas J. S. Christenfeld. “The Fluency of Spoilers: Why

Giving Away Endings Improves Stories.” Scientific Study of Literature 3.1

(2013): 93-104.

Leopold, Todd. “The New, New TV Golden Age.” CNN, 6 May 2013

<http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/showbiz/golden-age-of-tv/>.

Leverette, Marc, Brian L. Ott, and Cara Louise Buckley, eds. It's Not TV: Watching HBO

in the Post-Television Era. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Littlejohn, Janice Rhoshalle. “TV’s Showrunners Outrank Directors.” Variety, 15 August

2008 <http://variety.com/2008/scene/awards/tv-s-showrunners-outrank-directors-

1117990670/>.

Littleton, Cynthia. “FX Networks Chief John Landgraf: ‘There Is Simply Too Much

Television’.” Variety, 7 August 2015 <http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/tca-fx-

networks-john-landgraf-wall-street-1201559191/>.

Lostpedia. Accessed 30 November 2015 <http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page>.

Lotz, Amanda D. The Television Will Be Revolutionized. New York: New York

University Press, 2014.

Lotz, Amanda D., ed. Beyond Prime Time: Television Programming in the Post-Network

Era. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans.

Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Prss,

Manchester, 1984.

Mahdi, Muhsin. The Thousand and One Nights. Trans. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

Mann, Denise. “It's Not TV, It's Brand Management TV: The Collective Author(s) of the

Lost Franchise.” Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries. Vicki

Mayer, Miranda J. Banks and John T. Caldwell, eds. New York: Routledge, 2009.

99-114.

Marion, Russ, and Mary Uhl-Bien. “Complexity Theory and Al-Qaeda: Examining

Complex Leadership.” Emergence 5.1 (2003): 54-76.

176

Martin, Brett. Difficult Men. From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and

Breaking Bad: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution. London: Faber and

Faber, 2013.

Martin, George R. R. “Writing 101.” LiveJournal, 5 April 2009

<http://grrm.livejournal.com/82239.html>.

Mason, Paul. “The End of Capitalism has Begun.” The Guardian, 17 July 2015

<http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-

capitalism-begun>.

McCabe, Janet, and Kim Akass, eds. Quality TV: Contemporary American Television

and Beyond. London: I.B. Tauris, 2007.

Mcdermon, Daniel. “‘The Leftovers’ Recap: What Happened to Gladys.” ArtsBeat, 28

July 2014 <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/the-leftovers-recap-

what-happened-to-gladys/>.

McRae, Phil. “The Death of Television and the Birth of Digital Convergence:

(Re)shaping Media in the 21st Century." SIMILE: Studies in Media &

Information Literacy Education 6.2 (2006): 1-12.

Mirowsky, John, and Catherine E. Ross. “Paranoia and the Structure of Powerlessness.”

American Sociological Review (1983): 228-239.

Mittell, Jason. “Lost in a Great Story: Evaluation in Narrative Television (and Television

Studies).” Reading Lost. Roberta Pearson, ed. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009. 119-

138.

Mittell, Jason. Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New

York: New York University Press, 2015.

Mosaic Mosaic. Accessed 30 October 2015 <http://mosaicmosaic.tripod.com/>.

Mousoutzanis, Aris. “Temporality and Trauma in American Sci-Fi Television.” Time in

Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First-Century

Programming. Melissa Ames, ed. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2012.

97-109.

Muller, Christine. “Enduring Impact: The Crisis Fetish in Post-September 11 American

Television.” Reconstruction 11.2 (2011)

<http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/112/Muller_Christine.shtml>.

177

Murray, Janet Horowitz. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in

Cyberspace. New York: The Free Press, 1997.

Murray, Nancy. “Profiling in the Age of Total Information Awareness.” Race &

Class 52.2 (2010): 3-24.

Narine, Neil. “Global Trauma and the Cinematic Network Society.” Critical Studies in

Media Communication 27.3 (2010): 209-234.

Nelson, Robin. “Analysing TV Fiction: How to Study Television Drama.” Tele-Visions:

An Introduction to Studying Television. Glen Creeber, ed. London: British Film

Institute, 2006. 74 - 86.

Newcomb, Horace. “Other People’s Fictions: Cultural Appropriation, Cultural Integrity,

and International Media Strategies.” Mass Media and Free Trade: NAFTA and

the Cultural Industries. Emile G.McAnany and Kenton T. Wilkinson, eds. Austin:

University of Texas Press.1996. 92-109.

Newman, Michael Z., and Elana Levine. Legitimating Television: Media Convergence

and Cultural Status. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Nicholas, Kyle. “Post TV? The Future of Television.” Tele-visions: An Introduction to

Studying Television. Glen Creeber, ed. London: British Film Institute, 2006. 153-

168.

Nielsen Company, The. “Advertising and Audiences: State of the Media.” Nielsen, May

2014 <http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/advertising-and-

audiences-state-of-the-media.html>.

O’Neill, Billy. “About the Feuerstein Centre and Instrumental Enrichment.” Feuerstein

Training, accessed on 30 October 2015

<http://www.feuersteintraining.co.uk/about.htm>.

Obsession_inc. “Affirmational Fandom Vs. Transformational Fandom.” Obsession_inc

(blog), 1 June 2009. <http://obsession-inc.dreamwidth.org/82589.html>.

O'Reilly, Tim. What Is Web 2.0? Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, 2009.

Pacheco, Denis. “All in All It’s Just Another Conspiracy in the Wall.” Uncoolzilla, 13

December 2011 <http://deniscp.net/uncoolzilla/2011/12/13/all-in-all-its-just-

another-conspiracy-in-the-wall/>.

178

Packer, Randall and Jordan, Ken, eds. Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality. New

York: W. W. Norton. 2002.

Pape, Toni. “Figures of Time: Preemptive Narratives in Recent Television Series.”

Dissertation, Université de Montréal, 2013.

Parke, Michelle. “‘World Goin’ One Way, People Another:’ Using The Wire and Other

Popular Culture Texts to Teach College Writing.” The Pedagogy of Pop:

Theoretical and Practical Strategies for Success. Edward A. Janak and Denise F.

Blum, eds. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013. 189-203.

Parks, Lisa. “Flexible Microcasting: Gender, Generation, and Television-Internet

Convergence.” Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Lynn

Spiegel and Jan Olsson, eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 133-156.

Paskin, Willa. “The Creators of ‘Homeland’ Exorcise the Ghost of ‘24’.” The New York

Times Magazine, 26 September 2012

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/magazine/the-creators-of-homeland-

exorcise-the-ghost-of-24.html>.

Pearson, Roberta. “The Writer/Producer in American Television." The Contemporary

Television Series. Michael Hammond and Lucy Mazdon, eds. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press, 2005. 11-26.

Picarelli, Enrica. “On the Problematic Productivity of Hype: Flashforward’s Promotional

Campaign.” Besides the Screen: Moving Images Through Distribution, Promotion

and Curation. Virginia Crisp and Gabriel Menotti Gonring, eds. London:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 125-143.

Picarelli, Enrica. “Questions of Memory and National Belonging in Post-September 11

American Television.” Civiltà del Mediterraneo 23.1/2 (2013): 229-244.

Pierce, Scott D. “Last ‘Lost’ Turned Out to be Lazy Writing.” Desert News, 26 May 2010

<http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700035130/Last-Lost-turned-out-to-be-

lazy-writing.html>.

Pisters, Patricia. “The Mosaic Film: Nomadic Style And Politics In Transnational Media

Culture.” Thamyris/Intersecting: Place, Sex and Race 23.1 (2011): 175-190.

179

Plunkett, John and Jason Deans. “Kevin Spacey: Television Has Entered a New Golden

Age.” The Guardian, 22 August 2013

<http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/22/kevin-spacey-tv-golden-age>.

Powell, Jenni. “ABC’s ‘Flashforward’ ARG: What Did You See?” Tubefilter, 29 August

2009 <http://www.tubefilter.com/2009/08/28/abcs-flashforward-arg-what-did-

you-see/>.

Prigg, Mark. “Are Smart TV's Too Clever for their Own Good? Researchers Find We

Simply Want to Watch Our Favourite Shows.” Mail Online, 28 December 2012

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2254301/Are-smart-TVs-clever-

good-Research-finds-simply-want-watch-favourite-shows.html>.

Quart, Alissa. “Happy Endings: The Post-Nuclear Family according to Don Roos.” Film

Comment 41.4 (2005): 48.

Randell, Karen. “‘Now the Gloves Come Off’: The Problematic of ‘Enhanced

Interrogation Techniques’ in Battlestar Galactica.” Cinema Journal 51.1 (2011):

168-173.

“Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome.” PRNewswire, 3 November 2002

<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/remarks-by-the-president-in-

minnesota-welcome-76604167.html>.

“Remarks by the President on Strengthening Intelligence and Aviation Security.” The

White House, 7 January 2010 <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/remarks-president-strengthening-intelligence-and-aviation-security>.

Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Basic books,

2007.

Rhodes, R. A. W. “Policy Network Analysis.” The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.

Michael Moran, Martin Rein and Robert E. Goodin, eds. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006. 423-45.

Rice, Lynette. “‘The Event’ Scoop: Blair Underwood Talks about New Characters, End

to Those ‘Confusing’ Flashbacks.” Entertainment Weekly, 18 January 2011

<http://www.ew.com/article/2011/01/18/the-event-scoop-blair-underwood-talks-

about-new-characters-no-longer-confusing-people-with-flashbacks>.

180

RJAKS. “What Did You See?: My Theory as to How Flash Forward Should Have

Ended.” Telewatcher, 10 November 2011

<http://telewatcher.com/telewatching/what-did-you-see-my-theory-as-to-how-

flash-forward-should-have-ended/>.

Robertson, Colin. “Mad Men, True Detective and the Rise of the TV Auteur.” The List, 9

April 2014 <https://www.list.co.uk/article/60066-mad-men-true-detective-and-

the-rise-of-the-tv-auteur/>.

Rogin, Josh. “Top Republicans Call for Return to Cold War.” The Daily Beast, 27

February 2014 <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/27/top-

republicans-call-for-return-to-cold-war.html>.

Ross, Sharon Marie. Beyond the Box: Television and the Internet. Oxford: Blackwell,

2008.

Rumsfeld, Donald. “Positioning America’s Forces for the 21st Century.” United States

Department of Defense, 1 December 2005

<http://archive.defense.gov/home/articles/2004-09/a092304b.html>.

Rutsky, Randolph L. “Walter Benjamin and the Dispersion of Cinema.” symploke 15.1

(2007): 8-23.

Sampson, Tony D. Virality: Contagion Theory in the Age of Networks. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

Sawyer, Robert J. Flashforward. New York: Tor Books, 1999.

Schweitzer, Dahlia. “Going Viral: Cultural Panic and the Outbreak Narrative.” Paper

presented at the Cultural Studies Association Conference, Riverside, CA, May

2015.

Sconce, Jeffrey. “What If? Charting Television’s New Textual Boundaries.” Television

after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Lynn Spiegel and Jan Olsson,

eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 93-112.

Scott, Cynthia C. “The X-Files: Faith and Paranoia in America.” Strange Horizons, 9

August 2010 <http://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20100809/scott-a.shtml>.

Scott, Suzanne. “Battlestar Galactica: Fans and Ancillary Content.” How to Watch

Television. Ethan Thompson and Jason Mittell, eds. New York: New York

University Press, 2013. 320-329.

181

Shanker, Thom. “Gates Counters Putin’s Words on U.S. Power.” The New York Times,

11 February 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/11cnd-gates.html>.

Shaviro, Steven. Connected: Or What it Means to Live in The Network Society.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

Singh, John. “ABC’s Flash Forward Is Really a Parody of 9/11.” 911 Blogger, 18 May

2010 <http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-18/abc%E2%80%99s-flash-forward-

really-parody-911>.

Spiegel, Lynn. “Introduction.” Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition.

Lynn Spiegel and Jan Olsson, eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 1-34.

Staiger, Janet. “Authorship Approaches.” Authorship and Film. David A. Gerstner and

Janet Staiger, eds. New York: Routledge, 2013. 27-57.

Steiner, Tobias. “‘Flash Forward’ – an Experiment in Collective Memory Studies.” BA

assignment, Universität Hamburg, 2011.

Steiner, Tobias. “Dealing with a Nation’s Trauma: Allegories on 9/11 in Contemporary

U.S. Television Drama Narratives and the Case of ‘Homeland’.” Dissertation,

University of London, 2012.

Stuart, Sarah Clarke. Into the Looking Glass: Exploring the Worlds of Fringe. Toronto:

ECW Press, 2011.

Takacs, Stacy. Terrorism TV: Popular Entertainment in Post-9/11 America. Lawrence:

University Press of Kansas, 2012.

Tenenboim-Weinblatt, Keren. “‘Where is Jack Bauer When You Need Him?’ The Uses

of Television Drama in Mediated Political Discourse." Political Communication

26.4 (2009): 367-387.

“Terrorism: Fighting the Hydra.” The Telegraph (editorial view), 11 April 2011

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10757608/Terrori

sm-fighting-the-hydra.html>.

The Mosaic Collective. Now defunct <www.jointhemosaic.com>.

Thinker, The. “Is Lost Too Confusing?” Yahoo! Answers, accessed 30 October 2015

<https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100228190944AAI58kR>.

182

Thomas, June. “It’s Not a Fallacy to Focus on Showrunners.” Slate, 13 June 2013

<http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/06/13/showrunner_auteur_theory_it

_s_not_a_fallacy_but_a_useful_and_accurate_critical.html>.

Thompson, Ethan, “Onion News Network: Flow.” How to Watch Television. Ethan

Thompson and Jason Mittell, eds. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

281-289.

Thompson, Robert J. Television's Second Golden Age: From Hill Street Blues to ER.

Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997.

Tisdall, Simon. “Mitt Romney's Cold War Nostalgia Owes Much to the ‘Reagan

Revolution’.” The Guardian, 4 November 2012

<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/04/mitt-romney-cold-

war-nostalgia>.

Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam books, 1981.

Topel, Fred. “David Goyer on Flashforward,” CanMag, 26 August 2009

<http://www.canmag.com/nw/14619-david-goyer-flash-forward>.

Truth Hack. Now defunct <www.truthhack.com/>.

TV Tropes. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <http://tvtropes.org/>.

Tyler, Josh. “Why the Battlestar Galactica Finale Is A Huge Cop Out and It Doesn’t

Matter.” Cinema Blend, 20 March 2009

<http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Why-The-Battlestar-Galactica-Finale-

Is-A-Huge-Cop-Out-And-It-Doesn-t-Matter-16337.html>.

Vail, Jeff. A Theory of Power. Bloomington: iUniverse, 2004.

VanDerWerff, Todd. “Flashforward: The Negotiation” (review). A.V. Club, 13 May 2010

<http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/flashforward-the-negotiation-41150>.

VanDerWerff, Todd. “Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Used to Be Terrible. Now It's

Terrific.” Vox, 18 March 2015 <http://www.vox.com/2015/3/18/8250651/agents-

of-shield-review>.

VanDerWerff, Todd. “The Golden Age of TV Is Dead; Long Live the Golden Age of

TV.” A.V. Club, 20 September 2013 <http://www.avclub.com/article/the-golden-

age-of-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-golden--103129%22>.

183

Wagner, Cynthia G. “Creating a More Intelligent Future.” The Futurist 38.6 (2004): 48-

52.

Walker, Jesse. The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory. New York:Harper

Collins, 2013.

Walker, Jill. “Distributed Narrative: Telling Stories Across Networks.” Internet Research

Annual 3 (2004): 91-103.

Weiland, Jonah. “1-on-1: Talking with ‘Heroes’ Creator Tim Kring.” Comic Book

Resources, 21 September 2006

<http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=8146>.

Weiss, Joanna. “It's All Connected?” The Boston Globe, 4 March 2007

<http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2007/03/04/its_all_connected/>.

“White House Review Summary Regarding 12/25/2009 Attempted Terrorist Attack.” The

White House, 7 January 2010 <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/white-house-review-summary-regarding-12252009-attempted-terrorist-

attack>.

Wightman, Catriona. “Q&A: A Chat with Neil Jackson.” Digital Spy, 27 April 2011

<http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s56/flashforward/tubetalk/a316491/qa-a-chat-

with-neil-jackson.html>.

Wikipedia. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>.

Williams, Raymond. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London:

Routledge, 1974).

Wilson, Gavin, and Steve Nash. “Rhizomatic Narratology: Towards a Philosophy of the

Global Digital Village.” Paper presented at the Film-Philosophy Conference

2011, Liverpool John Moores University, 7 July 2011.

Wirth, John, and Jeff Melvoin, eds. Writing for Episodic TV: From Freelance to

Showrunner. Writers Guild of America, 2004

<http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/writingepisodictv.pdf>.

Woerner, Meredith. “Fringe's ARG Upsets Nature, Messes With Your Mind.” io9, 7

September 2008 <http://io9.com/5046329/fringes-arg-upsets-nature-messes-with-

your-mind/>.

184

Wollaston, Sam. “Flashforward” (review). The Guardian, 29 September 2009

<http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2009/sep/29/flashforward>.

Wollen, Peter. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1972.

Yahoo. Accessed on 30 October 2015 <https://www.yahoo.com>.

YouTube. Accessed 30 November 2015 <https://www.youtube.com/>.

Zegart, Amy B. Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2009.

Zjawinski, Sonia. “The FlashForward/Lost Connection: Conspiracy or Brilliant

Marketing?” io9, 1 January 2010 <http://io9.com/5438143/the-flashforwardlost-

connection-conspiracy-or-brilliant-marketing>.

185

Other Sources

Television

12 Monkeys. 2015-present, Syfy.

24. 2001-2010, Fox.

4400, The. 2004-2007, USA Network.

Agent Carter. 2015-present, ABC.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. 2013-present, ABC.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: Double Agent. 2015, Watch ABC.

Alias. 2001-2006, ABC.

Allegiance. 2015, NBC.

Almost Human. 2013-2014, Fox.

Alphas. 2011-2012, Syfy.

American Odyssey. 2015, NBC.

Americans, The. 2013-present, FX.

Angel. 1999-2004, The WB.

Arrested Development. 2003-2006, Fox; 2013, Netflix.

Arrow. 2012-present, The CW.

Awake. 2012, NBC.

Battlestar Galactica. 2003-2009, Sci-Fi.

Blacklist, The. 2013-present, NBC.

Blindspot. 2015-present, NBC.

Boomtown. 2002-2003, NBC.

Breaking Bad. 2008-2013, AMC.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer. 1997-2001, The WB; 2001-2003, UPN.

Caprica. 2010, Syfy.

Castle. 2009-present, ABC.

Community. 2009-2014, NBC; 2015, Yahoo! Screen.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 2000-2015, CBS.

Cult. 2013, The CW.

186

Damages. 2007-2010, FX; 2011-2012, Audience Network.

Daredevil. 2015-present, Netflix.

Daybreak. 2006, ABC; 2008, TV One.

Dead Zone, The. 2002-2007,USA Network.

Doctor Who. 1963-present, BBC One.

Dollhouse. 2009-2010, Fox.

Dragnet. 1951-1959, NBC.

Elementary. 2012-present, CBS.

Event, The. 2010-2011, NBC.

Fargo. 2014-present, FX.

Flash, The. 2014-present, The CW.

Flashforward. 2009-2010, ABC.

Following, The. 2013-2015, Fox.

Fringe. 2008-2013, Fox.

Game of Thrones. 2011-present, HBO.

Gotham. 2014-present, Fox.

Guiding Light. 1952-2009, CBS.

H+: The Digital Series. 2012-2013, Youtube.

Hannibal. 2013-2015, NBC.

Heroes. 2006-2010, NBC.

Hill Street Blues. 1981-1987, NBC.

Homeland. 2011-present, Showtime.

House of Cards. 2013-present, Netflix.

House. 2004-2012, Fox.

How I Met Your Mother. 2005-2014, CBS.

Intelligence. 2014, CBS.

Jericho. 2006-2008, CBS.

Life. 2007-2009, NBC.

Limitless. 2015-present, CBS.

Lost. 2004-2010, ABC.

Louie. 2010-present, FX.

187

Messengers, The. 2015, The CW.

Minority Report. 2015-present, Fox.

Mission: Impossible. 1966-1973, CBS.

Monk. 2002-2009, USA Network.

Odyssey 5. 2002-2004, Showtime.

Parks and Recreation. 2009-2015, NBC.

Person of Interest. 2011-present, CBS.

Prison Break. 2005-2009, Fox.

Quantico. 2015-present, ABC.

Rubicon. 2010, AMC.

Saturday Night Live. 1975-present, NBC.

Seven Days. 1998-2001, UPN.

Sherlock. 2010-present, BBC One.

Smallville. 2001-2006, The WB; 2006-2010, The CW.

Sopranos, The. 1999-2007, HBO.

Starsky and Hutch. 1975-1979, ABC.

Suburgatory. 2011-2014, ABC.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. 2008-2009, Fox.

Touch. 2012-2013, Fox.

Traveler. 2007, ABC.

Tru Calling. 2003-2005, Fox.

True Detective. 2014-present, HBO.

Wilfred. 2011-2013, FX; 2014, FXX.

Wire, The. 2002-2008, HBO.

X-Files, The. 1993-2002, Fox.

188

Film

21 Jump Street. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. USA, 2012.

Amazing Spider-Man 2, The. Mark Webb. USA, 2014.

Avengers, The. Joss Whedon. USA, 2012.

Avengers: Age of Ultron. Joss Whedon. USA, 2015.

Babel. Alejandro González Iñárritu. USA, Mexico and France, 2006.

Beautiful Mind, A. Ron Howard. USA, 2001.

Captain America: The First Avenger. Joe Johnston. USA, 2011.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Anthony and Joe Russo. USA, 2014.

Casino Royale. Martin Campbell. UK, 2006.

Next Three Days, The. Paul Haggis. USA, 2010.

Peacemaker, The. Mimi Leder. USA, 1997.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Guy Ritchie. USA, 2011.

Syriana. Stephen Gaghan. USA, 2005.

Traffic. Steven Soderbergh. USA, 2000.

Zero Dark Thirty. Kathryn Bigelow. USA, 2012.

Zodiac. David Fincher. USA, 2007.