The Evolution of Pride and Prejudice through Digitization

The Evolution of Pride and Prejudice

I chose this topic because the story Pride and Prejudice has existed long before the internet, and so it is easy see the many changes it has undergone. In fact, one could say that digitization is what has allowed it to survive for so long as one of the most popular romance stories today. The "thesis" of my site could be that without digitization, Pride and Prejudice would not have the same appeal to us. In fact, it would probably not even be popular. Why? Without digitization, we wouldn't have all of the movies which are so much easier to follow than the book in today's world, nor would we have the modernized versions of the story that pull in even more fans.

Here are some possibilities for the pages that I have come up with:

1. The Home/Introductory/Welcome Page

An introduction to the topic. Explains what the site is about and has a few catchy images that would somehow show the evolution that Pride and Prejudice has undergone over time, especially since digitization.

2. How it began 

 
It began a novel, 
and then ...


Stages of Evolution: 

Read aloud in homes. Made into a six-hour-long movie. Made into shorter, modernized movies whether set in Jane Austen's time period or in modern society. Made into a YouTube series where the videos are much shorter.

  

3. The Simplification of Language

With all of these changes from paper to digitization, the language of Pride and Prejudice has changed greatly. One of key reasons why Pride and Prejudice is so popular today is because avid Pride and Prejudice fans who could understand the complex dialogue and subtle humor of the book wanted to share it with everyone else so that they could also enjoy it, but in simple language that they could understand (and, lets face it, the more people you can reach, the more money you will make). People have translated the complicated, "old" language from the book with its enormous vocabulary into language that most people will understand today. The modernized films and YouTube segments have especially helped people to more fully grasp the concepts in the story, but many modernized books and even graphic novels have also been written, making it even easier for modern women to relate the themes in the story to their own lives. (The authors of modern adaptations practically do it for them.)

4. Time

Another change that has made P&P more accessible is the time required to read, view, or enjoy it. Before, people had to read the whole book in all its complexity. Later, they could watch a six-hour-long movie. Now, people can watch much shorter movies and even YouTube segments 2-5 minutes long. This change reflects how much society has changed. Either people have much less "free time" to read books, or their attention spans have greatly shortened, which is one of the possible effects of digitization and the internet. It is likely that it is both. Whatever the case may be, however, it is clear that shorter time=greater accessibility to everyone, which has contributed to the popularity of Pride and Prejudice. Had it never been digitized and stayed a book, much fewer people would be familiar with the story. (Probably chiefly English Lit majors, and those are disappearing as it is.)

5. Mr. Darcy:  How His Name Has Become a Title for "The Perfect Man." 

I have dozens of memes to prove it. But all joking aside, the digitization of Pride and Prejudice has allowed Mr. Darcy's supposed "Perfect Man-ness" to evolve from what it was considered to be in Jane Austen's time to what it has become now. I will have to do some further studying on what the consensus on Mr. Darcy back in Jane Austen's day was. He may not have even been seen as a "perfect man." After all, the book reveals that he has many flaws along with his strengths. Nowadays, the name "Mr. Darcy" is a term widely used to refer to an ideal man, but how has that happened over time? I'll show in this page that  digitization is to blame.

6. Pride and Prejudice Mashups

The melding of Pride and Prejudice characters, plot-lines, and themes with other stories and genres has also added to its popularity, and it has allowed the fans of P&P to keep the spirit of the story alive. They no longer have to be mere readers or viewers of the story--now they can be participants in the story that they cherish so much. This has also contributed to the evolution of Pride and Prejudice, introducing new ways to look at the characters, themes, and story-line. Although people aren't able to contact Jane Austen online, fans can communicate with other fans through the internet and continue to explore new elements in their favorite classic novel. Fans using their creativity to portray the characters of Pride and Prejudice in various different mediums also contributes to the overall popularity of P&P.

(it would be wise to show a Pinterest board full of P&P here, in addition to the following images.)

   

All Hail or Down With King Copyright? (I will take this opportunity to publicize my favorite show, because I’m a fan, and that’s what fans do)

A few years ago, preluding the fiftieth anniversary of BBC show Doctor Who, a fan created a montage (“Doctor Who: The First Question – 50^th Anniversary Trailer”) celebrating the show’s history. It’s brilliant. The extended version got over a million views. It had to be removed due to copyright, so the creator put it on another account, and it’s stayed thus far. But I suppose it was so popular the BBC didn’t want viewers to think it was official. There’s loads of other fan-made videos, and they’ve been left in peace. Some viewers commented that the BBC should have been thankful for the publicity.

The creator said the video was a love-letter to the show.  I think about pre-Internet, when fans had the options of sending an actual letter of admiration to an actor, band, ect. or create a collage of pictures in their closet, secretly, to not embarrass themselves (was that really a thing?) But now, it’s awesome that these love letters aren’t passive. They’re not secretive. They make up, like Baym says, a community. I like what Ethan Kaplan said about community: “The label promotes, distributes and develops artists while the fans support them underneath” (Baym, 41).  Even if fandoms start out as a means to share a common interest, these videos, fanfiction, two-second gifs popping up again and again on Tumblr, are all both drawing in and tightening the community. I think some producers hope the community will grow into a kingdom, with all the fans subservient, but that’s not the way fandoms work.

I understand why some people wouldn’t want fans taking over their image. I bet that can get pretty awkward, even rude. But I see it this way. Once something is posted on the Internet, it has the potential to grow. Growing, whether artists like Usher or Prince like it or not, doesn’t just mean “getting bigger.” It means being added to. Of course, people who are rude, who bash artists just because they feel like bashing someone, ought to be tossed into the dungeons (but since we’ve decided fandoms are communities, not kingdoms, that’s not likely). It’s also not fair that, like Baym says, fans “prefer to maintain independence” (32) while the artist allows himself to be pulled apart, examined, and pieced back in sometimes grotesque forms. Is there no control?

Well. Copyright is control. But then we have to ask where to draw the line, because certainly not every fan-made piece means harm. And some people engage in mocking their idols because they love them so much (think HISHE or Honest Trailer, YouTube channels that nitpick movie gaps and faults but ends up highlighting how awesome those movies are).

The Internet has allowed for so much publicity. My last blog post mentioned how a YouTuber can gain enough fans solely through YouTube that a huge crowd will jump at the chance to meet that person. I think one of the reasons people do is they feel like they can participate almost on the same level as the YouTuber. I wouldn’t go as far as to agree with Baym’s statement that fans need to be seen as equals (42), but certainly the sense of community is stronger when a person is able to communicate to his fans through a blog or a video, rather than through more indirect means, like an interview in a magazine. We feel like we know that personal on a personal level—well, as personal as you can get between a script and a screen. Overall, I agree with Baym that the Internet has changed the relationship between artists and fans for the better. Maybe if I were famous, I’d feel differently, but from a fan’s point of view, being able to connect with people over the same interest is half of the experience.

Fandom Buried Paul

Where else are the lines between producer and consumer blurred as much as they are in fandom? The internet has led to some crazy cultural advances, and I feel as though the endless collaborative opportunities is one of them. The article stated, “Fans need to be seen as collaborators and equals” and I couldn’t agree more. Without one, there is no other. Fans and artists are created in each other’s image, especially now in the digital age.

Baym’s article did a great job outlining what online fandoms seek to accomplish. To reiterate, fandoms seek to:

• ·      Share feeling
• ·      Build social identity
• ·      Pool collective intelligence
• ·      Interpret collectively

Growing up, I was endlessly fascinated by Beatles fandom. To be specific, sixth grade me was obsessed with Beatles conspiracy theories. I spent an inordinate amount of time online examining clues that led to the possibility of Paul’s death, exploring potential arcane symbology on the front of Abbey Road, and trying to get the “magic-eye” effect to work on the cover of Magical Mystery Tour so I could call the number that appeared and, purportedly, listen to a voice message left by John mere hours before his death.

It’s all preposterous, now that I think of it, but these interactions at a young age shaped my online identity in many ways. I grew accustomed to these online communities and learned to navigate them. Of course, the subject matter was probably a little dodgy for a sixth-grader in his elementary school computer lab to be looking at during free time, but I only got kicked out once.

Now that we’re well into the internet age, I’m still heavily involved with online fandoms. Certainly, the forms detailed in Baym’s slightly outdated article have changed, but the principles remain the same. To be honest, it seems as though I spend more time on discussion forums than actually engaging with the source material, but that seems to be a critical aspect of fandom. I use fandoms to enrich my experience with a work, whether it’s a piece of music, a book, tv show, video game or whatever. Fan communities have really enriched my interactions with things I find interesting.

Scouring grimy forums for info back in the day was a blast, don’t get me wrong, but now it seems as though accessing info and interacting with like-minded fans is so much easier. In fact, most of my interactions are localized around Reddit, which allows me to combine nearly all of my interests into vibrant sub-communities. It’s an incredible resource and takes the hassle out of finding a discussion. Of course, the more in-depth discussions require a little digging, but sites like Reddit offer a jumping-off point for most fandoms.

Some might say that fandoms detract from individual interpretations of a work, but I think that’s just nonsense. Communication is an essential part of being human, and the more voices and brains we can get on a topic the better. Plus, if we somehow find out if the current "Paul McCartney" is just an actor, my life can finally have some validation. 

The Hater's Gonna Hate (hate hate hate hate)

"The internet has transformed what it means to be a music fan." ~ Nancy Baym, "Online Community and Fandom"

How did people ever get famous before the internet?
 
I was very young when cassette tapes were still in use. The music industry then switched to using CD's and then gradually to a purely digital format which, I would agree, changed the culture of the music industry. It was a lot more effort to be a fan back then. You had to physically meet with other fans and exchange information and franchise that you had gathered from various pre-internet sources. It's is hard for me to comprehend how much time devout fans sacrificed for certain bands back in the day. While I was reading Baym's article, she was talking about how it took years to accumulate all of the information, music, and other "stuff" from any given band. Does anyone else agree with me that bands had to be pretty amazing to become famous at all back then? It seems as though today it's so much easier to get famous, and so perhaps there is less skill required to do so. Or maybe it's just the opposite in today's world; fame in the music (or any other) industry may be much more competitive today than ever before due to the widespread availability of the tools needed to make music and share it.

Whichever the case, it is unquestionable that it is much simpler to be a "fan" in today's world. You can find any song you want on the internet. The information for any artist is available for everyone, and you can connect easily with other fans through forums. Franchise is advertised on the internet and can be shipped to you so that you never even have to go to a concert to get a T-shirt for a band. The things you would have had to accumulate through years of devoted fanhood can be found with the click of the button if you are able to find the right website, even music that you can download for free.

But I wonder ... has this new culture of fandom been more hurtful to the music industry or the individual artists involved? Nancy Baym claims that despite the negative side-effects of the fan industry, the benefits are mostly positive. Because fans can so easily share what they love about certain bands with others, fans are multiplied every day, even if some illegal downloading happens along the way. I would agree--fans generally help more than they do harm. However, there is something else that seems to have been born with the new culture of internet fandom: haters.

You've seen them. There are entire articles on the internet and in magazines dedicated to tearing down a certain artist or celebrity. It may have been around before the internet as "gossip," but it seems to be more prevalent now more than ever. People probably write them less because of how passionate they feel about hating on a certain celebrity and more because they know that it will attract many readers who will be drawn in by a title that bashes on someone who they admire or at least have heard about.

It's so annoying. Whenever I see articles like that, I just feel like slapping someone. Or look the people responsible in the eyes and say, "Get a life." They are literally earning money by criticizing others, often taking what they say out of context and making harsh judgements about them. Can you really ever make a judgement about anyone you have never met or tried to get to know before in your life? 

Taylor Swift seems to be one of the hardest-hit. If I were her, I would be seriously affected by this, but she at least appears to understand that "the hater's gonna hate." 

I was not expecting to rant about this pet peeve of mine in this post, but it seems to tie in with the theme of Baym's article. Fandom has grown and changed ever since the internet has become widely-used, so it's only logical that the opposite has also taken place--there are also more "haters." Their influence does seem to have at least a minor effect on how many fans a group can accumulate. However, there seems to be little or nothing to be done about it. It's the same case with the fans. Trying to control it is impossible. 

Or is it? How do artists go about dealing with that?

The Queen, Obsession, and Toast

Once, I was obsessed with the Queen of England. (Elizabeth II. You know, the one that’s alive.) Like, SO obsessed. I was eleven or twelve, and I spent a LOT of time in the biography section of my local library, checking out every book possible on the woman, watching documentaries, learning royal customs, wondering if our pedigrees cross at some point many generations back…(they don’t, by the way.) Did you know she has a major obsession with hats? Seriously, the woman has a hat for every outfit, and she has a billion outfits.

             

The thing is, when I was in the throes of royal obsession, I did it quietly, by myself. Well, sometimes I’d talk to my mom about it, so that she could be in on my life, but mostly, it was me. And that was just fine. As an extremely private person, I felt like I could feel an appropriate amount of ardor for a total stranger without uncomfortably invading their privacy, or divulging any secrets of my own.

             

Maybe if I actually lived in England, there’d be some other people to joy in the fandom of the Queen. But if that were the case, I would probably find something else to obsess over.

             

The idea of Fandom in general is really off putting to me. If I were in the shoes of one of these musicians, I’d be thoroughly freaked out if people were constantly discussing me, everything about me, everything I did, and so forth. Like I said: Extremely. Private. The whole thing just makes me slightly uncomfortable.

             

Be that as it may, I can see how the internet has effected the way people choose to geek out over their personal idols – especially in the music industry. My father-in-law was a Deadhead, and at the age of 70, he still wears T-shirts from his band following days.

             

The thing I found curious about this new-age “relationship between fans and the people and things around whom they organize” was how dependent a person’s success is on their fans.

“The flip side of fans’ increased power is a loss of control amongst those who’ve been able to control music production, distribution, and coverage….Getting control back is not an option. That’s just not going to happen. So the question is how you can build relationships with these fandoms that are mutually supportive. They do this best when bands and labels have to do their part to make that work.”

Can you imagine if the livelihood of the Queen of England relied on whether or not people liked her? Set aside that she’s a figurehead monarch who comes from old money. Fine, bad analogy. Can you imagine if your own personal livelihood, your success in your chosen career, relied on fans? Regardless if you are the most passionate, amazing, ingenious artist on the face of this good green earth – if you don’t have a good following, you’re toast.

Beetoven! He’s a good example. The man was outright mean, they say. Just a grumpy pants, and deaf to boot. But he was talented as all get out, and people respected him for it. Even now, long after he’s gone, his music lives on. What if he’d had to have a fandom based on his personal character rather than his actual talent? Isn’t that exactly what fandoms are like now?

“Fans need to be seen as collaborators and equals.”

Really? I don’t think they actually NEED to be seen as anything other than overly obsessive. I understand that the internet, it’s so easy to connect over things we love, and if we really love it we’ll support it. It’s super great, and helps people get on in the world. But we also connect over things we don’t love. And if something we don’t love is the attitude of the base player in such-n-such band then that thing we don’t love so much? It’s toast.

Maybe I don’t get it. I just see fans as invaders of personal space, and I have a very large personal space bubble that I do not want invaded.

I guess I’ll just have do my best to never become interesting. Or famous.