quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see what the big deal is about lonelygirl15...

Agreed.
I had never heard of her before last week.
Even now, I don't feel any need to check her vids out.

That's 'cause you're happily married, ArkanGL.
The draw must be for the pervs.

Didn't look at any of her vids either.

It's not the perv factor, Fashpo, because I don't really care to see the vids, either.

quote:

It's not the perv factor, Fashpo, because I don't really care to see the vids, either.

LOL

True, but I think the discussion and the phenom is more interesting than the footage.

Shevchyk, looking at your livejournal post, I have to disagree with the proposition that the medium here is not all that interesting or important. The assumptions and reactions of the viewers are heavily influenced by the medium.

Although there have been many examples of deliberately scripted blogs and web videos, for the most part people still believe, initially, that anything they find on blogger or youtube is the product of a "real" person telling some version of the truth (when it's not just a recording of something off TV). These assumptions are wrong, but it's going to take a while to change them, and it might even be worth while considering if we want to change them.

What if the word "documentary" had never been associated with supposedly factual reportage, but had been allowed to drift until it could, without too much problem, be replaced with "advertisment" in any given situation? This is what is happening, or what may happen, to blogs and web video. If there is a strong enough backlash against lonelygirl15 because she is "fake" we may find media companies more reluctant to use these methods in the future, if not, we'll just get more of it until assumptions change to match. I wouldn't make any predictions, but I think it is an interesting question in the development of this medium: are we going to continue to expect (video) blogs to be real, or are those attitudes going to change, possibly destroying what made blogs interesting in the first place?

quote:

If there is a strong enough backlash against lonelygirl15 because she is "fake" we may find media companies more reluctant to use these methods in the future, if not, we'll just get more of it until assumptions change to match.

Oh, we will get more of it, rest asured. The simple fact of the press coverage this has received assures that. The thing is, though, it is very unlikely much of it will fool anyone. The curve on media savvy is pretty steep these days anyway, and most of the media companies are really bad at making anything that look authentic.

Colin, this is where my interest lies - the subject of perceived truths.

I find the backlash against Lonelygirl15 at once both [intellectually] fascinating and yet strange. The medium tells a story, and we, the viewing audience, cling to it, to find out what happens next.

Why should the veracity of the story presented through the medium be at all of any relevance? If the story is of strong enough quality, then surely that attractor would override any need for the viewer to develop any concerns over the truth of the thing?

Or are viewers left feeling as though they'd been tricked someone, been involved in some kind of elaborate emotional con?

In short, I ask the following question: Why is truth at all relevant with regards to the enjoyment of the given product?

I can't find an answer that satisfies me. Yet.

quote:

are viewers left feeling as though they'd been tricked someone, been involved in some kind of elaborate emotional con?

I think that pretty much nails it on the head.

Why do some movies or TV shows have "based on a true story" plastered on them? Because it lends emotional impact to a story if we know that it wasn't just made up, that these things actually happened. It also helps the viewers/readers identify with the characters, since they are "real" people.

When it is revealed that what was presented as a true story is actually a fiction, that makes people feel like they have been manipulated, lied to without the implicit agreement that comes from watching a TV show or a movie, or picking a book out of the fiction section.

This isn't unique to blogs by any stretch of the imagination. Do you remember the (minor) controversy over that book A Million Little Pieces? There would have been no issue if the author had never tried to pass it off as fact. Contrast this with, say, Life of Pi which internally presents a story told as fact, but is sold as fiction. (Life of Pi can even be interpreted as a mediation on the part lying tells in storytelling.) No controversy, but ambiguity, and very entertaining. The difference is, I think, in whether the reader has given the author permission to lie to them.

(Argh. I meant to say "are viewers left feeling as though they'd been tricked somehow", not "someone")


While reading your comments, I was reminded of a comment made by George Orwell regarding Salvador Dali's autobiography, as something that was "simply a strip-tease act conducted in pink limelight."

So much of what Dali wrote in his autobiography was bunk, or fabricated. But to many it didn't matter because it was so damn entertaining and amusing, from what I recall. This fascinating necessity for truth in the things that viewers/readers enjoy. Why should it matter? Viewers enjoyed the videos of Lonelygirl15 because she told stories that captivated them. Though those stories were not ultimately non-fiction, viewers still cared. They wanted to know what was going to happen next.

Though I have not read (nor heard of) those texts you'd mentioned, Life of Pi sounds not unlike Eco's The Name of the Rose, Byatt's Possession or Goldman's Princess Bride (I shall say no more for fear of spoiling anything for those who've not read those novels). Yet in spite of all those things - isn't the authentic emotional reaction of the participant more important than the nature of the thing to which the receiver is reacting?

You suggest that readers/viewers who discover that Lonleygirl15's videos weren't organically made were somehow left feeling violated, having participated in a con; the social contract has been violated. With regards to storytelling, I cannot see what role this ambiguous, ethereal social contract has at all. Neil Gaiman has said that "Stories may well be lies, but they are good lies that say true things."

I fear my thoughts are still fragmented, due to being midway through understanding this situation, and I do apologise for that. (Man, over the counter drugs like Drixoral Cold & Allergy do not help. The box lies by omission when it does not say 'May cause drowsiness and leave you feeling as though you've just swum your way to the bottom of a bottle of Black Label Whiskey')

Much better if the it's done _The Siamese Twin_ style and the mystery is revealed but revealed incorrectly and the viewer can figure out the real solution. That way they don't feel duped but interactive.

Audiences do love lies though as long as they are in on them. An example: I was watching VH1 and there was a bit on Survivor, _the Grandma of Lies_ where Johnny Rotten set up a lie that supposedly the producer and none of the characters knew about. The audience loved it because they were in on the lie and the characters were not. Candid camera, punked and now ellened are good examples too.

And no doubt there are plenty of people who like lonelygirl15 even after she was revealed, for the entertainment the story provides. The people who feel cheated will probably tell you they liked it more because they thought it was real. Aside from the simple resentment of being duped I think the answer to your question about what role the perception of truth plays is that it makes a difference to how the audience reacts. Some people find things sold as truth more compelling (and, indeed, pretending a lie is a truth is one of the tools of a story teller). When a fake is revealed, they are disappointed and they lose interest in the story-- the story itself wasn't actually compelling enough to begin with.

If you're asking why some people find truth (or based-on-the-truth) more compelling than fiction, well, I could make up a story about survival instincts and the importance of paying attention to the things you think are true, but I don't really know. That's just the way it is.

"When a fake is revealed, they are disappointed and they lose interest in the story-- the story itself wasn't actually compelling enough to begin with."

That's odd, don't you think? I don't know why that happens, nor what the explanation for it. Voyeurism? A projection of some inner need for perceived understanding and intimacy?

How odd.

quote:

Originally posted by Shevchyk:
"When a fake is revealed, they are disappointed and they lose interest in the story-- the story itself wasn't actually compelling enough to begin with."

That's odd, don't you think? I don't know why that happens, nor what the explanation for it. Voyeurism? A projection of some inner need for perceived understanding and intimacy?

How odd.

I don't think it's odd. It's not voyeurism. It's empathy. Reality TV hooks people because it's really going on somewhere and if the cameras were pointing in a different direction it could be you. It's the primary reason for watching: what would I do or say in this situation? It may be illusory but there is always that possibility that anything could happen next. And real people are complicated and unpredictable, so that 'anything' will have real consquences. It matters. And we like to think that we're interesting/quickthinking/cool enough to deal with those consequences if it were us in front of the camera.

No fictional drama matters in the same way because whatever makes the story move WILL happen. It's fiction.

I think the unplanned nature of "as-it-happens" stories (like lonelygirl15 pretended to be) is also part of the appeal. Nobody knows what's going to happen next, not even the writer, and there's no guarantees, like there are in fiction, of certain outcomes (happy ending, guy gets the girl, partner who talks about retiring next week bites it in next scene).

Curb Your Enthusiasm with Larry David is limited script Ad-Lib so it is close to as real as most reality TV. A friend of mine hated Curb Your Enthusiasm until she found that out. Now she is fascinated by the show.

Sentinel: You did not by correlation mean to suggest that with fiction, readers could not ask "What would I do next" ?

Nope Shevchyk - I think it becomes a different question.

In a fictional situation your responses are limited only by your imagination. No moral or physical rules apply. Plus, reading a book you have all the time in the world to think about what you might do were you in the protagonist's shoes.

Watching Big Brother or any other reality show you are responding to the protagonists second by second as you would were they in the same room. Yes, a really well written book does the same thing, but you still know somewhere in the back of your mind that the ending was/is fixed forever; you are merely uncovering it. I know people who never read fiction because what's the point? The story is just something somebody made up!

Documentaries and diaries versus dramas and sit-coms. It's like live music versus recorded music. Why go to a gig when you have the CDs memorized? Because you want to experience that music being created in front of you. The performers feed off the audience and you become part of the performance. Improvisation, chance alterations, revised versions and variations, live music is literally living music that can never be made in quite the same way twice. Unlike a CD that will always be the same. See what I mean?

And yet, interestingly, somehow, despite the myriad journals out there on the net, lonelygirl15 managed to attract viewers in a way that no other "journal" preceeding it has.

I like your explanation. As someone who doesn't frequent concerts, and doesn't watch reality shows, I'm of the mind that perhaps I'm not quite as tapped into the modern geist (as such).

Interestingly, I happened to have come across Max Barry's comments on this subject today, and he offered the following thought:

"This is what makes it marketing, not storytelling. Storytelling doesn’t abuse its audience. Without the bit at the start that says, “This is made up,” it’s not storytelling; it’s just lying.

Every fiction writer in history has probably been annoyed by how much more power a “true story” seems to have. But that’s the deal we make: we admit up front that our tale isn’t true, then we desperately try to make it as authentic as possible. Doing it the other way around—claiming to have a true story and filling it with fiction—that just pisses me off. Storytelling? A new art form? Give me a break. When you agree to the deal, then you can be storytellers. Until then, you’re marketers."

Yet, the argument has been made that one of the reasons why lonelygirl15 successfully captivated her audience, one of her "hooks," was that there was a sense of some kind of story emerging in the videos, of there being some kind of direction in the videos.

I haven't watched them (my low-bandwidth status would make such an attempt maddening and frustrating), but I wonder: WERE the lonelygirl15 videos an example of a new form of storytelling? Or is Barry correct?

I concur with your statement, Sentinel, as it makes sense, but what of this storytelling argument?

(Or am I just being a wanker?)

Max Barry's comments confuse me because they seem to run three or four things together, so I'm not really sure what it is you're asking anymore...

I will give X my attention unless/until the point where it's getting more from me than it's giving to me. I suppose you'd differentiate marketing from storytelling by that test: which of us has more to gain?

I followed the link at the beginning of the thread. I only watched about 90 seconds of one episode because as usual it was a pretty girl objectifying herself and in what way is that unlike most of what passes for entertainment on tv these days?

What was immediately apparent just from those 90 seconds was:
Lonelygirl15 is a very clever choice of name because right away there are story implications. When you see this attractive, winsome, girl you wonder why she would describe herself that way. Instant intrigue, must watch more to see what the deal is, what or who is she looking for, maybe I'm what she's looking for, what's with the boy behind her, etc etc. It all seems casually thrown together but it's set up to make you ask questions and keep watching for answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Shevchyk:
Yet, the argument has been made that one of the reasons why lonelygirl15 successfully captivated her audience, one of her "hooks," was that there was a sense of some kind of story emerging in the videos, of there being some kind of direction in the videos.

If I was a fifteen year old myspace user that unspoken sex promise would be all the reason I needed to keep watching. So what's new here? Nothing really. Same hooks as always.

Keep watching the skies, Shevchyk...