Re: 4th Season Lost - The Other Woman - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY

Dimensional Traveler sent the following on 3/9/2008 10:32 PM:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Jim Gysin" <jimgysin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:NaXAj.293504$MJ6.280321@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Neil Harrington sent the following on 3/8/2008 5:09 PM:
>>>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>>> Neil Harrington sent the following on 3/8/2008 6:20 AM:
>>>>>> tdciago wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 5:00?pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It seems like gobbledegook because it is gobbledegook.
>>>>>>> Good grief. I think it's time to tear that page off your
>>>>>>> word-a-day calendar.
>>>>>> Maybe it's time I made a macro so I wouldn't have to keep typing
>>>>>> it out. It is practically impossible to discuss this show in any
>>>>>> sort of depth without the word "gobbledegook" or some other word
>>>>>> meaning gobbledegook. This is largely a gobbledegook-based show
>>>>>> with enriched gobbledegook added. In order to watch the show
>>>>>> contentedly you have to have a high gobbledegook tolerance. The
>>>>>> writers apparently have taken Advanced Gobbledegook 401 and
>>>>>> passed with high marks.
>>>>>>>> What do any of those
>>>>>>>> have to do with anything? Knowing that Annie gave Ben a doll as
>>>>>>>> a child enhances your understanding of the situation how,
>>>>>>>> exactly?
>>>>>>> The producers have already said that Annie is of "seismic"
>>>>>>> im****tance to the story.
>>>>>> So how does *that* enhance your understanding of the show?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't give a flying fargle what "the producers have already
>>>>>> said." If it's im****tant or has any relevance to the story, it
>>>>>> should be in the show itself as we all see it on TV.
>>>>> Why do you assume that "the show" is (or should be) limited to
>>>>> what's on TV?
>>>> Because it's a TV show.
>>> TV and TV programming have evolved a lot since their introduction,
>>> and they continues to evolve.  As others have pointed out, there are
>>> many programs these days that offer supplementary (or the same)
>>> information via other media.  For example, you call Lost a "TV
>>> show," but I probably watch over half of the episodes online.  So am
>>> I watching a "TV show" when I do that?
>> Sure. I sometimes watch previous episodes online too. It's still a TV
>> show.
>> If you make an MP3 recording of a radio program, it's still the same
>> radio program. You've only changed the method of storage and
>> delivery. Same thing with TV shows, as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>>>> In this day and age of expanding media outlets, I tend to
>>>>> think that "the show" is whatever combination of outlets the
>>>>> producers choose to use, just as long as they make it possible for
>>>>> the audience to easily access the needed information, and as long
>>>>> as they make it clear that the needed information is elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having the producers explain or elaborate on the
>>>>>> story outside of the show itself is as bad as it would be for an
>>>>>> author to write a book and then spend a lot of time explaining it
>>>>>> orally to the readers.
>>>>> In both cases, it's im****tant to make a distinction between whether
>>>>> the additional information is critical to the story or whether it
>>>>> merely complements a story that can stand on its own.
>>>> So the other "media outlets" are something like Cliffs Notes?
>>> CN explain an experience; these other outlets enhance it.
>> Those are very similar functions, obviously. Explanation is a kind of
>> enhancement.
>>
>>
>>> Or, as in the case of my viewing eps online, provide a different
>>> avenue for obtaining the same content.
>> But that's the point: there's no objection when it is in fact "the
>> same content." It's when different avenues provide audiences with
>> *different* content that the objection arises.
>>
> Especially when that different content is necessary to understand what
is 
> shown in the television broadcast.

But it's not.  It may provide a deeper understanding, but it's not 
necessary.

> That's what started this whole 
> discussion, people saying that in order to understand what some
character 
> was doing you have to listen to the producer's podcasts, etc.

If that were happening, it would be wrong.  But I would suggest that 
you're using "understand" where "gain a deeper understanding of" would 
be more appropriate.

-- 
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI