Statics vs. Dynamics
I had a while to stew about the season opener of Chuck, and put some words down about it. It's got spoilers, so yeah. It's also got a some lit crit, so if you want to get to the bitch, just go to the last paragraph.
The novel is a static medium. It is an author’s words put down to speak across time and space. [1] It does not change, it is immutable. Television is a dynamic medium. Pictures change and flash, characters come and go and age before your eyes. And yet it seems that the novel is used more for dynamic stories, while television gives us static stories.
TV begat the sit-com, the narrative form wherein we know that every week, Steve Urkel will do something to upset the status quo, and then Carleton will do something to further complicate that on the B-plot, Topanga will have some sort of hippie message to portray, and in the end, Danny Tanner will sit his kids down and reveal everything is a-ok so long as you have family. In fact, just about every “episodic” form is this way. From Soap Opera to Police Procedurals to Sci-Fi Investigators, there’s the “Problem of the Week” that gets resolved in however long the show runs. And by next episode, everything will be back to normal, except for during Sweeps, when a problem might require two episodes to fully explain. But after that, the bully remains the bully; sexually-frustrated-single-woman-looking-for-love is still trying to find Mr. Right; and goofy loser guy remains goofy loser guy. Every single week, day in day out. So while the actors are changing, growing older or frustrated with being the same person every week, the characters remain the same.
In book series, to contrast, characters do age, do grow older, and do change from their original station. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga truly illustrates this. Miles Vorkosigan goes from being a teenaged flunkout from the Imperial Military to mercenary leader to secret agent to the equivalent of the Attorney General and Inspector General combined. And Miles changes. He learns life’s little lessons about the boons of failures and the costs of success, he learns what family means, he learns, he learns, he learns.
This is not to say that there are not dynamic TV shows or static book series. The James Bond novels seem to have Bond statically fighting spies, while Babylon 5 had an overarching story with a definite end in mind. But in novels, change seems inevitable, while for TV, Status Quo is God.
All this leads me to my main point, bitching about Chuck’s season premier. I thought for the life of me, we were going to see Chuck actually change and go beyond the tired BuyMore/Morgan subplots. And I thought we were going to quit the whole fucking “Will they or won’t they” with Chuck and Sarah. Especially since Bryce was dead. Only it looks like Brandon Routh is being brought in to be Bryce 2.0 from the Trailers. So all the change I was hoping for, of actually seeing someone grow, that the Season 2 ending promised, was essentially nullified in these episodes. I mean, what the fuck? I just hope they can wring out another season of tech support jokes while they move us back into the place where we were at the end of last season. And I hope show creators Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak have an end game in mind, and aren’t trying to play it out as long as they can. Lost, I’m looking at you.
[1] This is from a pre-New Criticism point of view. I know the whole “Death of the Author” argument, and there’s something to it, but look, I’m working on being more concise, not more pedantic.
The novel is a static medium. It is an author’s words put down to speak across time and space. [1] It does not change, it is immutable. Television is a dynamic medium. Pictures change and flash, characters come and go and age before your eyes. And yet it seems that the novel is used more for dynamic stories, while television gives us static stories.
TV begat the sit-com, the narrative form wherein we know that every week, Steve Urkel will do something to upset the status quo, and then Carleton will do something to further complicate that on the B-plot, Topanga will have some sort of hippie message to portray, and in the end, Danny Tanner will sit his kids down and reveal everything is a-ok so long as you have family. In fact, just about every “episodic” form is this way. From Soap Opera to Police Procedurals to Sci-Fi Investigators, there’s the “Problem of the Week” that gets resolved in however long the show runs. And by next episode, everything will be back to normal, except for during Sweeps, when a problem might require two episodes to fully explain. But after that, the bully remains the bully; sexually-frustrated-single-woman-looking-for-love is still trying to find Mr. Right; and goofy loser guy remains goofy loser guy. Every single week, day in day out. So while the actors are changing, growing older or frustrated with being the same person every week, the characters remain the same.
In book series, to contrast, characters do age, do grow older, and do change from their original station. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga truly illustrates this. Miles Vorkosigan goes from being a teenaged flunkout from the Imperial Military to mercenary leader to secret agent to the equivalent of the Attorney General and Inspector General combined. And Miles changes. He learns life’s little lessons about the boons of failures and the costs of success, he learns what family means, he learns, he learns, he learns.
This is not to say that there are not dynamic TV shows or static book series. The James Bond novels seem to have Bond statically fighting spies, while Babylon 5 had an overarching story with a definite end in mind. But in novels, change seems inevitable, while for TV, Status Quo is God.
All this leads me to my main point, bitching about Chuck’s season premier. I thought for the life of me, we were going to see Chuck actually change and go beyond the tired BuyMore/Morgan subplots. And I thought we were going to quit the whole fucking “Will they or won’t they” with Chuck and Sarah. Especially since Bryce was dead. Only it looks like Brandon Routh is being brought in to be Bryce 2.0 from the Trailers. So all the change I was hoping for, of actually seeing someone grow, that the Season 2 ending promised, was essentially nullified in these episodes. I mean, what the fuck? I just hope they can wring out another season of tech support jokes while they move us back into the place where we were at the end of last season. And I hope show creators Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak have an end game in mind, and aren’t trying to play it out as long as they can. Lost, I’m looking at you.
[1] This is from a pre-New Criticism point of view. I know the whole “Death of the Author” argument, and there’s something to it, but look, I’m working on being more concise, not more pedantic.