Reading Serials: Trisha Dunleavy’s
Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform
Television
Laura Katherine Smith
Résumé
Dans cet article j’examine les deux projets qui s’entrecroisent dans le livre de Trisha Dunleavy, Complex
Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television. Le premier concerne la reconstruction historique d’un nouveau
format typiquement télévisiuel : la série complexe dramatique (« complex serial drama »), née du « American Quality Drama » aux États-Unis et dont le succès actuel doit beaucoup aux nouvelles formes de télévision (chaînes pour abonnés et dispositifs multi-plate-formes). Le second s’attache à décrire les caractéristiques de ce format à l’aide d’exemples. L’article s’ouvre sur quelques remarques sur la sérialité en tant que forme transmédiale (ou, comme le dit Kelleter, comme une forme de culture populaire) et par cet élargissement du champ on espère mieux situer l’originalité de l’approche de Dunleavy. L’article se concentre ensuite sur trois notions clé : fermeture/achèvement, ordre et temporalité, ce qui permet à la fois de mettre en lumière les points forts de l’analyse de Dunleavy et de faire surgir quelques nouvelles questions, comme par exemple : quel est le rôle de l’achèvement d’une série, étant donné le fait que la culture sérielle semble impliquer la continuation de l’expérience de l’objet sériel tant de la part des auteurs que de celle des spectateurs ?
Abstract
In this article, I explore the two main intersecting projects of Trisha Dunleavy’s book, Complex Serial
Drama and Multiplatform Television. The first entails a lineage of the development of a new and specific
form of television: “complex serial drama” out of American Quality Drama and its flourishing thanks to non-broadcast networks and the multiplatform television era. The second defines and demonstrates the characteristics of complex serial drama by way of case studies. By opening the article with some comments on seriality as a transmedial form (or, following Kelleter, as a “practice of popular culture”), I hope to locate Dunleavy’s specific contribution of the complex serial drama in television within this larger conversation around seriality. By zooming in on questions of closure, order and temporality, I highlight some specific aspects of Dunleavy’s work that I found particularly strong together with some remaining questions: namely, what is the role of closure or completeness in serials given that seriality seems to imply a continuous unfolding of material engagement on the parts of authors and viewers?
Keywords
Serial Form, Serial “Practice”
Serials have their roots in literature. In the nineteenth century, installments of narratives appeared in newspapers and magazines at regular intervals (daily, weekly, or monthly) thus creating an expectation and anticipation, a following, and an involvement amongst their readership.1 The early instances of literary serials do not, however, mean that serials are medium specific. Moreover, the manners in which serials are made and received can, have, and continue to change over time and across (new) media. Sean O’Sullivan writes that, “we might define a serial as a continuing narrative distributed in installments over time.”2 In addition to
the serial novel, radio, comic books, graphic novels, visual artworks, television, and film can all be designed and disseminated as serials; that is, in parts. In line with and yet beyond this transmediality, Frank Kelleter wrote in 2017 that he “[…] encourage[s] an understanding of seriality as a practice of popular culture, not a narrative formalism within it.”3 When considering it across media, however, seriality seems to be less suited to film, in particular, than other media. This is due to the fact that film usually produces stand-alone artworks and, as such, is built less around the installment form of serial dissemination.4 Television, on the other hand,
is conceived of as individual episodes, which culminate in seasons and “entire runs.”5
In the following pages, I explore what I consider the two main and interwoven projects of Trisha Dunleavy’s 2018 book, Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television.6 The first of these two interwoven projects
is an in-depth analysis of the development of this particular form, which Dunleavy argues “[…] owe their existence to the ambitions and imperatives of American non-broadcast networks in the early multiplatform era.”7 Second, Dunleavy proposes and unpacks six main characteristics that define “ ‘complex serial,’ ” a
term that she “first applied to American television in 2009,” and which builds upon the seminal work of Jason Mittell.8 Woven within the book’s two main focal points—the institutional lineage and defining
characteristics of a newly coined serial form—Dunleavy addresses the interconnected themes of the television industry, questions of authorship, narrative innovation, and the aesthetics and style of this television form.
In addition to outlining these two interwoven projects of Dunleavy’s work, I zoom out to the serial form itself (as briefly pointed to above) to explore how Dunleavy’s contribution (in television studies) can be appreciated within the general form or “practice” (after Kelleter) of seriality. For a broader understanding of seriality, I draw upon the work of Sean O’Sullivan and others. Second, I zoom in and look into a few of Dunleavy’s proposed characteristics of complex serial dramas, specifically those that offer room for discussion as they relate to questions of closure, order and temporality. I consider closure in terms of Dunleavy’s claim that complex serial dramas offer a “complete story from beginning to end” in light of contemporary literature that
1 See, Kelleter, Frank. “Five Ways of Looking at Popular Seriality,” in Media of Serial Narrative (Ed. Frank Kelleter), The Ohio State University, 2017, 9: One early example of the nineteenth century serial is Eugène Sue’s Les mystères de Paris (1842-43).
2O'Sullivan, Sean. "Six Elements of Serial Narrative." Narrative, vol. 27 no. 1, 2019, Project MUSE, 50. 3 Kelleter, 15. Emphasis in original.
4 In Storytelling In Film and Literature, Kristin Thompson explains that there are some notable exceptions to film as non-serial,
including: Back to the Future series, Star Wars, and The Lord of the Rings, 104-105. In “Contemporary Seriality: A Roundtable,” Sharon Marcus explains: “[…] with film, we have Thin Man films in the ‘30’s, and we have The Perils of Pauline—lots of silent film was serial,” 115. In this same article, A.O.Scott explains, “[…] one of the problems with the franchise—with serialization as it exists now in film—is that it’s trying to do something that’s not really within the highest competence of the medium,” 127.
5 Thompson, 72. I discuss Thompson’s call for the analysis of entire runs below.
6 Dunleavy, Trisha. (2018) Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television. New York and London: Routledge. 7 Ibid., 8.
8 Ibid., 2-3. See Mittell, Jason. (2015) Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New York and London:
underscores the “multiplicity” and fragmentary quality of serials.9 By order, I refer to Dunleavy’s discussion
of the manner in which crucial information is supplied to the viewer (how and when information is introduced in complex serial dramas in a linear or non-linear manner). Finally, with temporality I refer to the viewing experience of complex serial dramas which, as Dunleavy points out, involves both the possibility for an accelerated viewing (binge-watching, for example) and a slowed-down viewing (a viewing or close-reading through re-viewings). I consider this zooming out to the serial as form and/or “practice” and zooming in on a few characteristics of this particular serial form as complementary to Dunleavy’s contribution; a brief opening of, and a working with, the institutional lineage and characteristic categorization of complex serial drama that her work provides.
I. Sketching Dunleavy’s Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television
In her introduction, Dunleavy explains that, “complexity in TV drama begins with concept design, gaining impetus in the presence of an original concept and/or a distinctive viewpoint on the show’s subject.”10 Complex serials are a form of “high-end” or “quality” drama and, in particular, “American television drama”; this latter term constitutes the “meta-genre” of the “complex serial.”11 If at first overwhelming, the extensive categorization that is employed throughout Dunleavy’s book is one of its major strengths. After taking the reader through how the complex serial drama emerged out of American cable television, the form’s beginnings in quality TV, and questions of authorship, it is in Chapter 4, “Complex Serials and Narrative Innovation,” that Dunleavy identifies and expands upon the six characteristics of complex serial drama. What constitutes complex serial drama, according to Dunleavy, can be summarized as follows: 1) conceptual originality; 2) a ‘series-serial’ concept design; 3) the intertwining of the main character and the overarching narrative; 4) the morally conflicted main character who accounts for the narrative risk of these shows; 5) storytelling devices of flashbacks; and 6) the psychological investigations of the main characters.12
Dunleavy explains that complex serial drama flourishes specifically within, and moreover thanks to, non-broadcast and multiplatform television (with notable exceptions in non-broadcast television, she adds). As her title indicates, complex serial drama and multiplatform television go hand-in-hand. Chapter 1, “The Rise of Complex Serial Drama on American Cable TV” “[…] investigates the institutional context within which complex serials emerged on American cable television.”13 Herein, Dunleavy focuses on the premium cable
network, HBO: the first cable network to produce complex serial dramas. That HBO was at the forefront of the development of this type of television, Dunleavy explains, is due in part to the regulation changes that enabled HBO to air “new release theatrical features.”14 This development allowed the network to establish itself as a big player in quality television, and to differentiate itself from other networks. From this base of high-end programing, HBO (firstly and in particular) and non-broadcast television networks (in general) could take risks that enabled the development of complex serial drama. Dunleavy demonstrates that the emergence and ultimately the success of the complex serial arose on American cable television because its
9 Dunleavy, 102. See my discussion below of O’Sullivan’s “Six Elements.”
10 Ibid., 3. See, Mittell, (2015) Complex TV. In his words, Mittell’s book “explor[es] how television storytelling has changed and
what cultural practices within television technology, industry, and viewership have enabled and encouraged these transformations,” 2.
11 Dunleavy, 2.
12 Ibid., 105-106. My emphasis on “series-serial.” 13 Ibid., 17.
14 Ibid., 18-19. Dunleavy explains that in 1977 HBO challenged the “[…] FCC anti-siphoning rules governing the television release
representatives encouraged and supported the creative narrative freedom of the serial’s creators. Because certain non-broadcast platforms were less restricted by the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) than broadcast networks, Dunleavy explains that these networks were able to support the narrative risks that became one of the defining characteristics of complex serial drama.15 As case studies of early complex serial drama, Dunleavy explores HBO’s Oz (1997-2003) and The Sopranos (1999-2007).16
Not separate from non-broadcast support of narrative risk, Dunleavy analyzes how revenue strategies have extended from advertising (in the era of broadcast television) to newer modes of subscription revenue in the multiplatform television era. Dunleavy does not analyze the viewer’s experience in terms of Raymond Williams’ notion of “flow,”17 but instead her analysis of viewer experience necessarily focuses on the development of the multiplatform era, which encourages binge-watching and viewing, moreover, wherever— not only at home but on the move, and however—across multiple devices.18
In Chapter 2, “‘American Quality Drama’ and the Complex Serial,” Dunleavy elaborates upon the institutional development of the form by focusing on the emergence of complexity from its roots in “quality.” Here, the terminology employed by Dunleavy becomes itself “complex”: ‘quality drama,’ ‘quality tv,’ ‘American quality tv,’ and ‘American quality drama,’ seem to describe the same type of television. Dunleavy explains that, “[…] ‘quality TV’ originated earlier, in an alternative strain of sitcom that CBS helped establish via All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show and M*A*S*H*.”19 She bases what she calls ‘American
Quality Drama,’ (AQD) on ‘quality drama,’ a term examined in the 1990’s by Robert Thompson.20 Dunleavy
explains that AQD can be distinguished from “regular drama” based on the former’s quality component.21
The distinction between these (“quality”) terms and complex serial drama is the latter’s relation to
non-broadcast networks and the multiplatform era. Dunleavy highlights the difficulty of defining ‘quality,’ which
does not, however, prevent its use. She underscores that her analysis does “[…] not entail judgements of cultural or aesthetic value.” “Instead,” she explains, “they invoke the mix of economic, cultural and generic connotations that ‘quality drama’ attained as American television transitioned from the ‘mass audience’ orientation of its broadcast-only era to the ‘demographic thinking’ (Pearson, 2005:15) that began to influence TV drama creation during the 1980s.”22 ‘Quality’ television remains a problematic notion, however, since it
refers both to a vague definition of narrative construction and also to this “demographic thinking” underlined by Dunleavy. She furthermore notes: “[…] AQD functioned more explicitly in American broadcast television as a marker of audience value to advertisers (Feuer, 1984a; Allen, 1987) than a signifier of cultural or aesthetic merit, even if both these elements have been characteristic of this paradigm (Weissmann, 2012).”23
Dunleavy explains how these programs, and moreover, the particular characteristics they exhibit, constitute
15 Dunleavy remarks that “[…] cable dramas enjoy greater content liberties because FCC rules, whose restrictions focus on sex,
language and violence, do not apply to cable channels,” 36.
16 Dunleavy explains that following HBO, networks including (Fox-owned) FX, Showtime, and AMC, “moved first” to develop
this type of programing, 41.
17 See Thompson, 18-19: Thompson argues that early television studies were not focused on analyzing individual series but on the
“flow,” after Raymond Williams, of television programing and commercial advertising.
18 Dunleavy writes, “while complex serials have been a notably non-broadcast phenomenon, this form has been commissioned by a
range of American cable networks and is now being deployed in some of the dramas produced for IDTV networks, including Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus,” 31.
19 Ibid., 54. 20 Ibid., 43.
21 Ibid., 43, 44. “[…] Moonlighting, Twin Peaks, NYPD Blue, Boston Legal, The West Wing and House MD” are examples of “quality
drama.”
22 Ibid., 43. In The Contemporary Television Series, Michael Hammond notes that: “[…] it may be more useful to recognize that
[…] there may be some advantage in considering the texts of specific programmes for reasons which are less to do with trying to establish any certainly about their cultural value and more to do with simply trying to understand how they are put together and why they constitute a significant shift in the format of television drama,”78.
the building blocks of complex serial drama. This chapter focuses on the development of AQD, with the notable example of this paradigm in Twin Peaks and, for comparison, analyzes an early example of the complex serial drama: HBO’s Six Feet Under.
Chapter 3 deals with questions of authorship by exploring the process of writing in the writers’ room. In her discussion of authorship in complex serial drama, Dunleavy selects Breaking Bad as a case study. She explains that the creator and showrunner, Vince Gilligan, and the team of staff writers worked together to “break” the story in the writer’s room before individual writers would pen individual episodes. As Dunleavy explains, the “breaking” of the story refers to the flushing out the overarching story of the serial as well as the extensive minute details that constitute the narrative.24 One of the most interesting aspects of this chapter is Dunleavy’s unpacking of the “design” of serial complexity.25 The complexity, which sets it apart as a TV
form, resides not only in the amount of information that goes into the details of character development and narrative, but in how and when these details are disseminated to the viewer. This is executed with such precision so as to keep the “momentum” of a serial and to establish and maintain the viewer’s connection to the characters.26 As Dunleavy explains, maintaining viewer connection to the main characters of complex serial dramas presents a unique challenge since the characters are usually transgressive or morally conflicted; that is, not always the easiest characters with whom to identify.27 In this chapter, the reader gains an understanding of how “team writing” generally works without the false impression that there is one formula. Despite the fact that the complex serial dramas that Dunleavy selects for analysis are usually the idea of one main creator/originator, she explains that: “[…] the writing and creation of complex serial drama is distinctive for its blending of creator-led and collaborative authorship.”28
The final chapter, “Aesthetics and Style in Complex Serial Drama,” explores the technical aspect of television production. Due to the use of high-definition digital technologies, television, visually and aurally, is moving towards the aesthetics of film. Dunleavy argues that this is due both to technological innovation and to the convergence of multiplatform viewing possibilities across film and television.29 The debate surrounding referring to television as “cinematic” is quickly sketched by Dunleavy with some attention to the differences between television and film production based on budget and production time. Here, Dunleavy argues that complex serial dramas employ a postmodern “second-degree” aesthetics, which emphasizes a multi-layered, rather than straightforward, reading of visual storytelling. Whereas the aesthetics of naturalism or “zero-degree-style” (typical of soap operas) emphasizes dialogue or (“telling” rather than “showing”),30 and realism “[…] constructs a preferred meaning and reading on the basis of its ability to privilege particular ideas about and constructions of ‘the real’,”31 complex serials mix a “post-modern textuality” within a realist/FD
framework.32 How does this translate? “A defining feature of second-degree style (SD) […] is its capacity to
investigate as well as demonstrate the ‘relative and contingent’ nature of reality and truth (Thornham and
Purvis, 2005:155).”33 This investigation highlights the centrality of viewer engagement and the
24 Dunleavy explains: “This ‘breaking’ process determines the composition of a season and then fragments it into workable
components so that the necessary narrative details can be developed and agreed upon before script-writing proceeds,” 85.
25 “Design” is one of O’Sullivan’s six elements of serial narratives (see “Six Elements”), which will be explored below.
26 “Momentum” is one of the six elements of serials suggested by O’Sullivan (see “Six Elements”), which I will discuss here below. 27 See the section, “The Foregrounding of Morally Conflicted and Transgressive Characters” in Dunleavy’s Chapter 4.
28 Dunleavy., 161, my emphasis. 29 Ibid., 13.
30 Ibid., 135. 31 Ibid., 137. 32 Ibid., 140.
viewing/close-reading (discussed below) of the serial form. In this chapter, Dunleavy explains the interconnectedness between industry and technological developments and the narrative and aesthetic innovation of storytelling. Her analysis of the overarching narrative of the serials employed as case studies focus not only on episodes or seasons but on entire runs: what Kristin Thompson points to as a necessary strategy of investigation in contemporary television studies.34
II. Closure, Order, and Temporality in Serials
Let’s take a closer look at what is going on in terms of serial construction on the part of the writers and viewers’ viewing experience of complex serial drama by first zooming out to then zoom in. I have mentioned “design” and “momentum” above. These are two of the six elements of serial narrative that O’Sullivan’s outlines in his recent article of the same title. “Six Elements of Serial Narrative” offers a general toolkit for thinking about seriality across media and across time. Despite a clear categorization, these elements are not prescriptive in a closed sense but are rather open for use—to differing degrees—and various possibilities of (re)combination. O’Sullivan explains how he understands seriality in the following manner:
It strikes me as more responsive to the variety of ways by which serials can be dispersed to think about common ingredients that makers of narrative can select from, but are not inevitably bound by. These ingredients might be ignored, almost completely; they may be used sparingly; they may be essential features. […] None of the following terms may seem especially revolutionary; that is, in fact, the point. My purpose is to tease out what is central, rather than what is obscure.35
In addition to “design” and “momentum,” O’Sullivan proposes, “iteration”; “multiplicity”; “world-building”; and “personnel” as serial elements.36 I will not summarize O’Sullivan’s explanation of each element here but simply note that the strength of each one of them is their flexibility of form; that is, the manifold ways in which they can be employed and in which they may appear (or not) in each serial. “Iteration,” which “[i]n seriality, […] points to something whose repetitive aspect is a definitional, recognizable feature of the narrative,” is employed in divergent manners depending on the serial. Indeed, the “iteration” of a particular serial must be unique to itself as “definitional.”37 All six elements correspond to the general and the particular
decisions made by the creators of serials to, as demonstrated by the quotation of O’Sullivan above, solidly
affirm or radically break away from (or a combination of both strategies) the language of seriality. These
choices of affirmation and deconstruction correspond to what O’Sullivan calls “a Victorian energy and a Modernist energy,” respectively.38 However, this categorization, again, resists a progressive lineage from one
way of making serials then to now. These elements and their use instead offer a vocabulary to, as O’Sullivan notes, “[…] talk together about, say, a comic strip like Calvin and Hobbes, a novel like Our Mutual Friend, and a television series like The Wire.”39 In light of seriality as “a practice of popular culture”40 and as a toolkit of elements, which may be strictly or loosely employed in a myriad of manners, how might we situate
34 See Thompson, 72: she writes, “certain questions that the analyst might wish to investigate would probably necessitate looking
not just at individual programs, but at seasons as well, and ideally entire runs.” Dunleavy has explored the narrative complexity of a number of serials.
35 O’Sullivan, “Six Elements,” 51-52. Emphasis in original. 36 Ibid. 52.
37 Ibid., 53. O’Sullivan gives the example of “[…] ‘the old green cover’ in which Charles Dickens’s serials appeared […].” 38 Ibid., 62.
39 Ibid., 52-53. 40 See Kelleter, 15.
Dunleavy’s particular exploration of the emergence and definition of “complex serial drama” (on multiplatform television) within or alongside more general reflections on seriality? I consider this by reflecting upon how Dunleavy’s work engages three inter-related themes: those of closure, order, and temporality.
In outlining what defines complex serials, Dunleavy demonstrates how the form differs from more general “series” and categorizes the nuances between what she calls the “serialized series” and the “series-serial.”41
To be clear, complex serial drama is, according to Dunleavy, a series-serial: emphasis on the latter term. This categorization constitutes a shift away from the double “series/serial” terminology that has been employed in earlier contributions to television studies.42 Serials tell “a complete story from beginning to end,” while series, though they may include an overarching storyline, are also, or mainly, episodic: certain elements are both introduced and resolved within one episode.43 This definition of “serial” differs from that of Lucy Mazdon’s in that Dunleavy defines the serial as “a complete story,” while Mazdon’s definition leaves this open (see footnote 42). This understanding of serials as “a complete story” also seems to offer a stricter definition than that of O’Sullivan, specifically in terms of one of his serial elements: “multiplicity.” O’Sullivan writes: “Multiplicity, I would suggest, is what makes satisfactory closure in serials not just almost impossible but perhaps undesirable. Serials, even at their most ‘successful,’ are genetically predisposed to end messily, because multiples have the inclination to split off, rather than reunite.”44 But again, Dunleavy
is looking at one particular form of serial and its emergence in, and thanks to, one particular medium. To differentiate between “serialized series” and “series-serial,” Dunleavy offers House MD as an example of the former, since it includes both the overarching stories of its main characters and individual stories, which are both introduced and resolved in one episode, and she selects HBO’s Six Feet Under as the latter, since the show includes episodic storytelling yet its driving force is the existential experience lived by its main characters.45 O’Sullivan’s and Dunleavy’s views may converge on this example of a serial (Six Feet Under)
in terms of Dunleavy’s definitions of a “complete” story and what O’Sullivan explores as the “inevitable” quality of some serials (including this one).46 In contrast to O’Sullivan’s claim that only some serials include “inevitability,” Dunleavy contends that: “The high-end serial’s ‘overarching’ story entails unavoidable change and an inevitable end.”47 Pointing to one defining characteristic of complex serials (the adventures of a central character), Matthieu Letourneux explains that series can be both “défini” and “indéfini.” He offers an example of the former with nuance when he writes: “C’est le cas […] des aventures d’un personnage
(même si les carences sur lesquelles repose par nature tout récit laissent toujours une part d’incomplétude,
appelant de nouvelles suites).”48
41 Dunleavy, 103.
42 See, Hammond, Michael and Lucy Mazdon, Eds. (2005) The Contemporary Television Series, 9; 76. Mazdon explains, “[…] the
traditional distinctions between series (a set of television programmes having the same characters and/or settings but with different stories) and serial (a television narrative presented in a number of separate instalments which may or may not reach a conclusion) form are broken down by contemporary programming. […] Today it has become increasingly difficult to categorise them straightforwardly.” Hammond adds: “At the end of the introduction to the Histories section we suggested that the terms series and serial were difficult to usefully distinguish.”
43 Dunleavy, 102.
44 O’Sullivan, “Six Elements,” 55. 45 Dunleavy, 103. My emphasis.
46 In “The Inevitable, the Surprise, and Serial Television,” O’Sullivan writes: “Six Feet Under […] is the first show in the history of
American television to make the iterated presence of death not a puzzle to be solved (as with a procedural), not an outrage or a spectacle, but rather commonplace,” 213.
47 See O’Sullivan, “The Inevitable, the Surprise”; Dunleavy, 102.
48 Letourneux, Matthieu (2017). Fictions à la chaîne, littératures sérielles et culture médiatique. Collection Poétique. Paris: Éditions
du Seuil, 29. My English translation: “This is […] the case in the adventures of a character (even if the gaps, upon which all stories rest by nature, always leaves an element of incompleteness, calling for new sequences).”
If “serialized series” can be watched out of order due to the stand-alone nature of the episodes, what role does order play in serials, according to Dunleavy? Complex serial dramas (on multiplatform television) create the conditions for both binge-viewing and repetitive-viewing. This means that the viewer is both propelled forward by these automatic page-turners (thanks to the story’s “momentum”) and may return backward to search for clues in a close-reading of the story through the practice of re-watching.49 These forward and backward, fast and slow, viewing practices are two sides of the same coin and reflect the construction or “design” of serials. When Dunleavy explains the importance of “breaking” the story, she discusses how and
when crucial information is given to the viewers. Referring to Jostein Gripsrud’s Understanding Media Culture, Dunleavy explains the difference between the “ […] ‘fabula’, which refers to the chronological order
of events that constitute a given narrative, and the ‘syuzhet’, or the order in which these events are narrated to viewers (Gripsrud, 2002).”50 In Chapter 4’s case study of Mad Men, Dunleavy explains the critical function of the “syuzhet” which, she argues, reveals the character of Don Draper (Dick Whitman) as the embodiment of the tension between surfaces or appearances and “what lies beneath.”51
The ordering of design and the temporalities of viewing go hand-in-hand towards meaning-making. The following statement by Mittell identifies what is at stake in the narrative complexity of television: “Poetics can be defined broadly as a focus on the specific ways that texts make meaning, concerned with formal aspects of media more than issues of content or broader cultural forces—in short, the guiding question for poetics looking at a cultural text such as a television series is ‘how does this text work?’”52 It is this poetics
of meaning-making that Dunleavy explores in her discussion of narrative complexity. Dunleavy explains that: “Complex dramas are not devised to be viewed casually; instead, they offer their fullest readings and pleasures only to those willing to watch and listen closely.”53 Flashbacks, and in particular how and when they are disseminated in the serial, offer not only more information about the main character(s) but also help to influence audience attitude with regards to the transgression of characters in complex serials, according to Dunleavy.54
Letourneux’s study of serial literature furthermore helps us understand what is at stake in television, as the medium on the other side of the rupture between oral story-telling and written-storytelling.55 Letourneux explains that oral storytelling, since it is necessarily fleeting, changes with each re-telling. While hearing the “same” story multiple times is possible, the story itself, in each re-telling, will never be the same. Solidifying storytelling, therefore, is what allows for the possibility to go back and analyse the text (the written text and the visual text). This ability to review and analyze—to freeze and rewind, review or reread, also allows for the critical opening up of a text, in what Walter Benjamin understood as the task of criticism: to give an artwork an afterlife, a life beyond itself. Lev Grossman’s following statement complements the interconnectedness of complex serial dramas and multiplatform television by identifying this double-temporal (forward-and-backward) “reading” as the contemporary viewing experience:
49 Dunleavy explores the viewing practices encouraged by complex serial drama design throughout the book, in particular in Chapter
Four: “Complex Serials and Narrative Innovation.”
50 Ibid, 114.
51 Ibid., 117. Dunleavy explains that “[…] as used in complex serials, flashbacks contain details that are integral to the psychological
investigation and revelation of character, which makes them vital to understanding the overarching story that these serials tell,” 118.
52 Mittell, Complex TV, 5. My emphasis. 53 Dunleavy, 3.
54 See the section, “The Foregrounding of Morally Conflicted and Transgressive Characters” in Dunleavy’s Chapter 4. 55 See Letourneux, 80. Letourneux underscores Benjamin’s work on reproducibility, 79.
What I feel is happening is, the way we consume these episodes and movies is increasingly book-like. The hallmark of reading, especially reading in a codex format, is the massive amount of control you have over it. You take it everywhere; if you want to go back through, you can review a chapter, you can jump back and forth, you read at your own pace, you can control the speed.56
Closing Remarks
Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television finds its audience in the scholar and the student (to
which its own abstract attests). It is for those who wish to learn more about contemporary television in its various aspects; historical, technical, aesthetic, industrial, and institutional. As an educational tool, it is well structured and clearly written. Dunleavy methodologically defines, explains and contextualizes the terms she employs and creates. The use of individual serial examples, and more elaborate case studies, demonstrate how the technical vocabulary functions. The use of case studies fulfils its function not only to illustrate but to argue for the defining characteristics of complex serial drama and to distinguish it from other similar television genres. Through Dunleavy’s careful structuring of the chapters and the book as a whole, the reader follows along by building their own map of terminology and actors in the network of the complex serial drama; indeed a sort of mind-map of terminology may have been useful. Even in the case that particular sections become themselves complex, Dunleavy’s explanation of subtle but different characteristics, accompanied by various examples, strengthens the book’s argument for a particular type of quality television-drama, which builds upon Mittell’s notion of “complex TV.” All this while simultaneously keeping the reader engaged, interested and keen to apply television-studies to television-viewing.
The strength of Dunleavy’s book is also its weakness—though this is too strong a word since the author impressively outlines the complexity of the complex serial drama in a clear and convincing manner—that is, its instances of repetition. While the use of repetition serves as a helpful educational tool to assist with the retaining of the various categorizations and characteristics in a wider network of terms and actors, the repetition was, in some cases, unnecessary, particularly in some instances of description.57 That stated, these instances were few and mostly helpful in driving home Dunleavy’s points about form and characteristics. Instances of repetition allow the reader to usefully recall and retain characteristics, genres and sub-genres, contributing to the book’s contribution as an academic text in television studies.
56 Grossman, Lev., et al. “Contemporary Seriality: A Roundtable,” 119.
Bibliography
Dunleavy, Trisha. (2018) Complex Serial Drama and Multiplatform Television. New York and London: Routledge.
Grossman, Lev., Sharon Marcus, A.O. Scott, Julie Snyder. “Contemporary Seriality: A Roundtable.”
Narrative, vol. 27 no. 1, 2019, pp. 109-128. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/nar.2019.0007.
Hammond, Michael and Lucy Mazdon, Eds. (2005) The Contemporary Television Series. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
Kelleter, Frank. “Five Ways of Looking at Popular Seriality,” pp.7-34, in Media of Serial Narrative (Ed. Frank Kelleter), The Ohio State University, 2017.
Letourneux, Matthieu. (2017). Fictions à la chaîne, littératures sérielles et culture médiatique. Collection
Poétique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Mittell, Jason. (2015) Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New York and London: New York University Press.
O'Sullivan, Sean. “The Inevitable, the Surprise, and Serial Television,” pp. 204-221 in Media of Serial
Narrative (Ed. Frank Kelleter), The Ohio State University, 2017.
O'Sullivan, Sean. "Six Elements of Serial Narrative." Narrative, vol. 27 no. 1, 2019, pp. 49-64. Project
MUSE, doi:10.1353/nar.2019.0003.
Thompson, Kristin. (2003) Storytelling In Film and Television. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Laura Katherine Smith is a postdoctoral assistant and researcher in Cultural Studies at the Faculty of
Arts, University of Leuven. Laura researches 20th and 21st century art theory and visual culture. Email: laura.smith@kuleuven.be
