In ‘Defining Cult TV,’ Hills gives a definition of Cult TV, and as he describes “in different levels in a three-part model of text /inter-text / audience.” Hill’s clearly makes an evident emphasis on audience and contributes a separate definition to their efforts in constructing Cult TV.
Author Hills describes how the audience plays a central role in the making/production of some series in the third definition of cult TV. He says, “This type of arguments positions cult TV as a ‘grassroots’ phenomenon, assuming that it is created by fans rather than by media producers,” and goes even further to say, “cult TV can be neither made nor promoted as such by the media industry, but instead hinges vitally on audience take-up devotion.”
Later, Hills breaks down his definition even further to give several examples of how the process of making cults of TV programs comes about. Initially, fans that follow a certain TV program gather and find each other through ‘inter-textual networks’ that are not identifiable on a corporate or industry-led level. He also refers to Jenkins (1992: 40) about a description of the fans dependence on this inter-textual network, “Fans often find it difficult to discuss single programs except through references and comparisons to this broader network.”
Secondly, Hill’s mentions that the fans themselves use the term ‘Cult’ when describing these groups of shows that are in these networks, and the term ‘telefantasy’ is also used. Third, fans can gradually form a cult long after a TV program is over, and do not necessarily have to start out as a cult TV. Any form of "communal fan distinctiveness" such as, societies, conventions, and even fan clubs are all part of the process of making a transforming a program into a cult.
The fourth and final example that Hill’s mention is how the fans themselves create a market for the memorabilia, merchandise, and props that relate to their TV programs, long after the show is canceled.
In the final example Hills connects all these processes of making a cult to new media, and its impact of how all these components amalgamate into one central hub of information, such as the internet. Hills himself emphasized the magnitude that the role the internet has played in this process. He mentions,
“Although I would not want to exaggerate the impact of the Internet on the formation of new cult shows, by making it easier for fans to contact other like-minded devotees, the web increases the possibility of small-scale organized fandoms emerging around a wider variety of TV shows.”
Hills refers back to Jenkins statement, “fandom diversifies, it moves from cult status towards cultural mainstream, with more Internet users engaged in some form of fan activity.” Hills then goes on to argue that, “internet-enabled fans practices will no longer be set apart from broader cultural norms, practices and process.”
In conclusion, Hills ends his final words by suggesting that instead of referring to three different definitions of cult statuses, there needs to be a way to institutionalize all three of these different components of the definition since they’re are all part of the same equation. He concludes by saying,
“This would mean investigating how cult status is generated by texts placed within the institutional contexts of US and UK media industries, by producers placed within the institutional context of production companies and professional bodies, and by fans placed within the institutional contexts of organized and online fan communities… Such an approach would lead us away from celebrating cult texts for their supposed uniqueness, analyzing and defining cult TV as part of broader patterns within changing TV industries.”
In Hills final words, he explained to us readers how central and vital new media (i.e, the internet) is in the formation of modern contemporary cults. The Internet and other forms of new media have not only leveled the playing field in terms of breaking the barrier between the exchange of transparent information, but also have broken the barriers of making a more variety of competition. Since the internet is less regulated and gives the user to choose a non-corporate/industry-based product, it makes the interchange of preference and consumer choice in constant
The comments component for this post must have been switched off so my comment is placed here. Basically a well-written summary of Hills' (2004) chapter, although it would have been useful to respond in more depth to the second component of the question - perhaps moving beyond Hills (which in some respects is relatively limited in it's description of new media) to your own brief (and critical) exploration of one or more fan practices on the web. I've mentioned this to a number of students who have answered this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment