media

Making No Choice In An Age Of Many

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

How do you make your media choices?  As Serdar notes in an excellent column, choices are complicated; we often have so many we play it safe.  A thousand movies present options so overwhelming we go with a sequel.  The next One Piece episode will deliver something you liked ten episodes ago.  Choice makes us flee to safety too often – and our existing technology and culture encourage it because it’s profitable.

Our media diet is poorer for this paradox – I’m tired of all the sameness even when it’s good sameness like Marvel.  Anyway, the post is excellent, go read it.

I relate to this subject as I’ve been cultivating my reading lately.  I wanted to read new works – or ones I missed – and re-read beloved books from my past to ground myself.  Thus I’m going through a delightful mix of Taoist mysticism, writing advice, informative non-fiction, novels I loved, and fiction that I selected carefully.  One week I’m reading about breath meditation, the next is re-reading Asprin’s “Another Fine Myth.”

I found this cultivation takes continuous effort.  Do I really want to read this book?  Will this book provide a benefit for me?  Have my priorities changed?  Am I the kind of person who will spend $16.00 on a fascinating translation of a short, obscure document on health practices of centuries past (answer: yes).

I’ve realized that cultivating our reading – or any media consumption – takes effort, discipline, and practice.  It’s also something no one taught us how to do – and why would we they?  People assume you pick up media selectivity somewhere, and isn’t all this choice a good thing anyway?

We’ve been thrust into a world of choice we never expected with little training to deal with it.

Sometimes I speculate, “could someone write a book or teach a class on media selectivity?”  Is there a way to get people on board with more careful media choices?  Of course, we know that would just be another work viying for attention; what are the odds someone could be the Marie Kondo of media choice?

Right now all I and my friends can do is encourage people to make choice, share our findings, and go on.  If you’re doing the same, please share – maybe we can cultivate our media diets together.  Perhaps that’s the best – or only – way.

Steven Savage

The Transformation Conundrum

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

Not a week goes by where there’s not some question of why a big company/author/etc. doesn’t do something innovative and transformative.  Usually, it’s Disney, at least as of late, but I’ve been seeing this question for years.

Why doesn’t this big company/important person who could genuinely engineer culture do so for good?

Sure we’ve seen some good, along with a lot of evil from media companies.  But they’re in a prime position to change the world for the better, and they don’t!  That’s because sometimes being big and powerful is the very thing that keeps you from changing.

Giant organizations depend on many, many things – cash flow, supply chains, media deals, etc.  Just keeping something like that running takes a lot of effort, but it also means that such organizations are risk-averse.  When your entire giant communications colossus is a huge juggling act, the first thing to do is not drop any balls.

Changing the world means not just risking dropping the balls but throwing them.

Large organizations are also distributed.  They’ve got multiple physical footprints, studios, deals, and clients.  Distribution of resources is often a key to security and stability but may also make you vulnerable due to various dependencies.  It’s hard to change the world when your world is so complex.

Stability can be stagnation.

Finally, imagine if a big media company decided to change the world and engineer a better culture – they’d probably have to work at their own destruction.  Large, monolithic organizations with a lot of power controlling culture aren’t good for long-term social and cultural health.  If they truly innovated and improved culture, the stockholders, board members, etc. might not go for the results.

Honestly, except for one or two Big Media Companies, we may be doing better than we could be due to constant activism, pushing, and some well-meaning people.

If you wonder what kind of media company landscape I’d want to see, I’d probably say “distributed network.”  Many media organizations (sometimes cooperating) and multiple distribution systems (sometimes cooperating) to allow for innovation and opportunity.  Such “best-sized” organizations could survive and prosper, but neither could seize control of too much, and the loss of one will see it replaced in time.

Perhaps someday. Until then, don’t let up on them.

Steven Savage

Seeking Appeal

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com and Steve’s Tumblr.  Find out more at my newsletter.)

Many writers harbor that dream of creating the work everyone loves.  Many writers also have the dream of creating a work that connects intimately with others.  Finally, most writers find that reconciling these – let’s call them Broad Appeal and Personal Appeal – is a nightmare in practice.

Yet some works manage to have both Broad and Personal Appeal – let us call it Universal Appeal.  Those rare movies and books are things we all treasure, for we can enjoy them by ourselves and share them with others.  Some creators break through the barrier, and we wonder why (we’re not jealous, right?).

This issue has been going around in my head for a while.  My tastes for media have evolved lately, and I’m trying to understand them.  This Broad, Personal, and Universal appeal are whirling about in my mind, so join me in an attempt to understand my thoughts.

Thoughts On Broad Appeal

Media with Broad Appeal are those works that interest many people but may not be particularly intimate.  They’re enjoyable or insightful, but most of the audience doesn’t experience that connection that drives people to obsess over or plumb a work.  We’ve all had that movie or show where your reaction is, “yeah it’s good, nice to share that with others.”

Broad Appeal is not bad.  I would argue the near-endless Marvel Films tend towards the Broad Appeal category, but most are good to extremely well-crafted.  There is a place for Broad Appeal because it lets you share the experience.

I can understand why some people focus on writing things with Broad Appeal.  It makes money and you get lots of people who like it – and both are great!  However, it seems to take effort to reach that level of Broad Appeal, or one may crave the intimacy of Personal Appeal.

Thoughts On Personal Appeal

Media with the Personal Appeal are works that connect deeply with a set of people but aren’t “for everyone.”  The right audience has a deep experience because they truly “get it.”  I’m sure you’ve had that book or comic or show where you loved it but found it impossible to share.

Personal Appeal is not exclusionary.  It’s just that you have to be the kind of person who it’s made for, who connects with it.  Some stuff just isn’t for you – something I get to with my large library of philosophy, little of which I can safely say “yeah you’ll dig THIS translation . . .”

Personal Appeal seems to be easy for some people to write – create what you like or focus on a domain of specific knowledge.  Writing things with Personal Appeal also has an intimacy that is quite enjoyable, which I can say from personal experience.  Still, an author may want to have their work have a broader audience than they have . . .

Thoughts On Universal Appeal

Universal Appeal is that rare work that appeals to a wide audience and reaches people’s depths.  Everyone (or at least a lot of people) can enjoy it and feel a deep, inspiring, life-altering connection.  It’s the work everyone talks about and will be considered classic decades or centuries down the road.  For many authors, it’s the hope – getting paid and reaching people.

There are a few works I’d put in this area.  Historically, one example is the Tao Te Ching, the “life-changing evening read” which has reached people for aeons.  More recently, Lord of the Rings fits this category – I’ve been through multiple revivals in my own lifetime.  I’m sure you have others.

Universal Appeal is a challenge.  I don’t think it can be calculated or planned.  It may be something that just happens, and creators may just have to live with that.

Our Journey

I find I rather like this taxonomy.  It’d doubtlessly oversimplified, but it gives me ways to think about works for the future.

I hope this gives you things to consider – which means I hope it has Broad Appeal . . .

Steven Savage