During the whole semester, I have been trying very hard to organize what I have read. The more effort I put into thinking, the more eager I want to get an answer upon this question: who are you in this technologized world? I think people have already critized technology very much in the past decades. However, this is an issue that is so much related to Zizek. Zizek believes that people are aware of what it is going on in our life but still have to live the way it is. When Jenkins has voiced so many points that we can criticize, he actually draws our attention to how much the scholars and internet usuers/technology fans are walking in the same direction in contemporary world. Since there isn't a way to flee away, why shouldn't we just think about the positive side of the commercialized technology, Jenkins hints. We can abuse information, and make fun of the media products feeded to us by the industry and government.
However, can't Jenkins and others notice that we are at the same time directed by the topics provided by the industry and government during the process of desigining our "abusement"? How can people raise up a discussion on the topics that are "invisible" in the public sphere that are created by media?
While going to so many "cool" websites, I can't express how much I appreciate the neat and tranditional websites that are still existing on the internet. Didn't we notice that the revenge or creativity that are taken as convergence culture by Jenkins, at the same time, reduce the power of the "real" language or words? How much can people express ourselves as clear as our ancesors do now and in the future? This question might be answered very well by the comment on the cover of his book that Henry Jenkins really shares some commonality with McLuhan. He is so much focusing on the power of technology medium instead of the tranditional means of rhetoric in the society. But as we all know, the tranditional means, are still very important in influencing our thoughts and behaviors.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Free Labor? (Chinese Subtitles Translation Team)
August 9, 2006
Chinese Tech Buffs Slake Thirst for U.S. TV Shows
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
SHANGHAI, Aug. 8 — For the past year and a half, said Ding Chengtai, a recent university graduate, friends have wondered why he seems to have disappeared.
Mr. Ding, 23, an Internet technology expert for a large Chinese bank, chuckled at the thought. He has kept himself in virtual seclusion during his off hours, consumed with American television programs like “Lost,” “C.S.I.” and “Close to Home.”
He is no ordinary fan, though; none of the shows he watches can be seen on Chinese television. Instead, he spends night after night creating Chinese subtitles for American sitcoms and dramas for a mushrooming audience of Chinese viewers who download them from the Internet free through services like BitTorrent.
What is most remarkable about the effort, which involves dozens of people working in teams all over China, is that it is entirely voluntary. Mr. Ding’s group, which goes by the name Fengruan, is locked in fierce competition with a handful of similar outfits that share the same ambition: making American popular culture available in near-real time free to Chinese audiences, dodging Chinese censors and American copyright lawyers.
“We’ve set a goal of producing 40 TV shows a week, which basically means all of the shows produced by Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC,” Mr. Ding said, fairly bubbling about the project.
“What this means,” he said, “is that when the Americans broadcast shows, we will translate them. Our speed surpasses all the other groups in China, and our goal is to be the best American transcription service in the world.”
To a person, the adapters say they are willing to devote long hours to this effort out of a love for American popular culture. Many, including Mr. Ding, say they learned English by obsessively watching American movies and television programs.
Others say they pick up useful knowledge about everything from changing fashion and mores to medical science.
“It provides cultural background relating to every aspect of our lives: politics, history and human culture,” Mr. Ding said. “These are the things that make American TV special. When I first started watching ‘Friends,’ I found the show was full of information about American history and showed how America had rapidly developed. It’s more interesting than textbooks or other ways of learning.”
On an Internet forum about the downloaded television shows, a poster who used the name Plum Blossom put it another way.
“After watching these shows for some time, I felt the attitudes of some of the characters were beginning to influence me,” the poster wrote. “It’s hard to describe, but I think I learned a way of life from some of them. They are good at simplifying complex problems, which I think has something to do with American culture.”
Rendering American slang into Chinese is a special challenge. In an episode of “Sex and the City,” the line “I thought you two would hit it off” became “I thought you two would generate electricity together.” From “Prison Break,” the warning “Preparation can only take you so far” turned into: “People can only try to do things. It’s God’s will that ensures success.”
Whatever the programs say about American culture, translation efforts like these have received a boost from conditions particular to this country.
China combines a fast-growing population of more than 123 million Internet users, most with access to broadband service, with a stultifying television culture. The state-owned national network, CCTV, has 16 broadcast channels, but they vary little in their mixture of endless historical dramas, tepid soap operas and copycat game shows.
In an e-mail interview, a fan of American television shows who goes by the name of Happyidea and who asked not to be further identified gave this assessment of the Chinese programming: “Our own actors are not bad. Those responsible for making Chinese TV shows pathetic are the directors, screenwriters, editors and the people doing the lighting, music, special effects and makeup. There are bits of poor quality in every aspect, and it adds up to total trash.”
A longstanding practice of strict censorship that affects all Chinese media — and covers not only politics, but sexuality, violence and other subjects that form the grist of American entertainment — also drives audiences toward alternatives like downloadable television shows. And there are sharp limits on the number of American programs and Hollywood movies that can be broadcast or screened in theaters here.
Chinese authorities have long maintained strict limits on the portrayal of sexuality and, to a slightly lesser extent, violence for broadcast television.
Downloaded American television programs may have escaped those limits because, for now at least, they interest a relatively narrow segment of the population. Most viewers are college students, recent graduates and urban sophisticates who take the trouble to watch the shows on their personal computers.
Permitting the downloads may also serve as a sort of safety valve for an audience that is already accustomed to things foreign and would resent the censors’ limits.
China imported only 20 foreign movies last year, 16 of them American. American programs are similarly scarce on Chinese television.
“CCTV-8 aired ‘Desperate Housewives’ and we made a point of watching it,” said Jin Bo, 25, an English teacher and member of YDY, a leading rival to Fengruan. “I thought, Oh my God, the dubbing, the translation, why is it all so bad? It lost what made the original show wonderful, and the ratings were extremely low.”
For example, Mr. Jin said, “They would start the show at 10 p.m. and run three episodes back to back. Moreover, to adapt the program to fit the so-called situation of our country, words were eliminated or had their meanings altered. For example, the scene where Andrew reveals his homosexuality was cut.”
The rival television translation groups, by contrast, take great pride in their work, basing their translations on closed-caption transcripts in English that along with the programs themselves are typically captured on computers by collaborators in the United States and sent to China by Internet.
Strict hierarchies exist in each of the translation groups, with translators being promoted not simply for speed, which is vital, but for their faithfulness to the original material.
Official efforts to control the market for popular culture and the shows’ contents have long had the effect of encouraging piracy. Cheap DVD copies of newly released American movies have been sold on street corners throughout China for years. Recent attempts to crack down on these sales, at the insistence of the United States, have coincided with the boom in television and movie downloading, which could eventually make DVD piracy obsolete.
Representatives of American television networks said they were counting on new Chinese legislation to stop the translation and downloading of their programs.
“We are aware that because of their popularity, several Fox programs are particular targets of theft and unauthorized broadcast in territories around the world,” Teri Everett, a Fox spokeswoman, said by e-mail.
“It’s an ongoing effort, and one that will be greatly aided in China once the Chinese Internet regulations are finalized, which will clarify a number of issues relating to the enforcement of content providers’ rights on the Internet.”
Members of the translation groups are aware that their efforts may be considered a violation of copyright laws in other countries, but most view it as a mere technicality because they charge nothing for their efforts and make no profits, adhering to Chinese law.
China Warns on Spying
By The New York Times
BEIJING, Aug. 8 — China has executed a senior official convicted of spying for Taiwan and distributed a video of his trial as a deterrent to other civil servants, according to reports on government Web sites.
The official, Tong Daning, was a department head at China’s $26 billion national pension fund, the National Council for Social Security Fund.
Chinese Tech Buffs Slake Thirst for U.S. TV Shows
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
SHANGHAI, Aug. 8 — For the past year and a half, said Ding Chengtai, a recent university graduate, friends have wondered why he seems to have disappeared.
Mr. Ding, 23, an Internet technology expert for a large Chinese bank, chuckled at the thought. He has kept himself in virtual seclusion during his off hours, consumed with American television programs like “Lost,” “C.S.I.” and “Close to Home.”
He is no ordinary fan, though; none of the shows he watches can be seen on Chinese television. Instead, he spends night after night creating Chinese subtitles for American sitcoms and dramas for a mushrooming audience of Chinese viewers who download them from the Internet free through services like BitTorrent.
What is most remarkable about the effort, which involves dozens of people working in teams all over China, is that it is entirely voluntary. Mr. Ding’s group, which goes by the name Fengruan, is locked in fierce competition with a handful of similar outfits that share the same ambition: making American popular culture available in near-real time free to Chinese audiences, dodging Chinese censors and American copyright lawyers.
“We’ve set a goal of producing 40 TV shows a week, which basically means all of the shows produced by Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC,” Mr. Ding said, fairly bubbling about the project.
“What this means,” he said, “is that when the Americans broadcast shows, we will translate them. Our speed surpasses all the other groups in China, and our goal is to be the best American transcription service in the world.”
To a person, the adapters say they are willing to devote long hours to this effort out of a love for American popular culture. Many, including Mr. Ding, say they learned English by obsessively watching American movies and television programs.
Others say they pick up useful knowledge about everything from changing fashion and mores to medical science.
“It provides cultural background relating to every aspect of our lives: politics, history and human culture,” Mr. Ding said. “These are the things that make American TV special. When I first started watching ‘Friends,’ I found the show was full of information about American history and showed how America had rapidly developed. It’s more interesting than textbooks or other ways of learning.”
On an Internet forum about the downloaded television shows, a poster who used the name Plum Blossom put it another way.
“After watching these shows for some time, I felt the attitudes of some of the characters were beginning to influence me,” the poster wrote. “It’s hard to describe, but I think I learned a way of life from some of them. They are good at simplifying complex problems, which I think has something to do with American culture.”
Rendering American slang into Chinese is a special challenge. In an episode of “Sex and the City,” the line “I thought you two would hit it off” became “I thought you two would generate electricity together.” From “Prison Break,” the warning “Preparation can only take you so far” turned into: “People can only try to do things. It’s God’s will that ensures success.”
Whatever the programs say about American culture, translation efforts like these have received a boost from conditions particular to this country.
China combines a fast-growing population of more than 123 million Internet users, most with access to broadband service, with a stultifying television culture. The state-owned national network, CCTV, has 16 broadcast channels, but they vary little in their mixture of endless historical dramas, tepid soap operas and copycat game shows.
In an e-mail interview, a fan of American television shows who goes by the name of Happyidea and who asked not to be further identified gave this assessment of the Chinese programming: “Our own actors are not bad. Those responsible for making Chinese TV shows pathetic are the directors, screenwriters, editors and the people doing the lighting, music, special effects and makeup. There are bits of poor quality in every aspect, and it adds up to total trash.”
A longstanding practice of strict censorship that affects all Chinese media — and covers not only politics, but sexuality, violence and other subjects that form the grist of American entertainment — also drives audiences toward alternatives like downloadable television shows. And there are sharp limits on the number of American programs and Hollywood movies that can be broadcast or screened in theaters here.
Chinese authorities have long maintained strict limits on the portrayal of sexuality and, to a slightly lesser extent, violence for broadcast television.
Downloaded American television programs may have escaped those limits because, for now at least, they interest a relatively narrow segment of the population. Most viewers are college students, recent graduates and urban sophisticates who take the trouble to watch the shows on their personal computers.
Permitting the downloads may also serve as a sort of safety valve for an audience that is already accustomed to things foreign and would resent the censors’ limits.
China imported only 20 foreign movies last year, 16 of them American. American programs are similarly scarce on Chinese television.
“CCTV-8 aired ‘Desperate Housewives’ and we made a point of watching it,” said Jin Bo, 25, an English teacher and member of YDY, a leading rival to Fengruan. “I thought, Oh my God, the dubbing, the translation, why is it all so bad? It lost what made the original show wonderful, and the ratings were extremely low.”
For example, Mr. Jin said, “They would start the show at 10 p.m. and run three episodes back to back. Moreover, to adapt the program to fit the so-called situation of our country, words were eliminated or had their meanings altered. For example, the scene where Andrew reveals his homosexuality was cut.”
The rival television translation groups, by contrast, take great pride in their work, basing their translations on closed-caption transcripts in English that along with the programs themselves are typically captured on computers by collaborators in the United States and sent to China by Internet.
Strict hierarchies exist in each of the translation groups, with translators being promoted not simply for speed, which is vital, but for their faithfulness to the original material.
Official efforts to control the market for popular culture and the shows’ contents have long had the effect of encouraging piracy. Cheap DVD copies of newly released American movies have been sold on street corners throughout China for years. Recent attempts to crack down on these sales, at the insistence of the United States, have coincided with the boom in television and movie downloading, which could eventually make DVD piracy obsolete.
Representatives of American television networks said they were counting on new Chinese legislation to stop the translation and downloading of their programs.
“We are aware that because of their popularity, several Fox programs are particular targets of theft and unauthorized broadcast in territories around the world,” Teri Everett, a Fox spokeswoman, said by e-mail.
“It’s an ongoing effort, and one that will be greatly aided in China once the Chinese Internet regulations are finalized, which will clarify a number of issues relating to the enforcement of content providers’ rights on the Internet.”
Members of the translation groups are aware that their efforts may be considered a violation of copyright laws in other countries, but most view it as a mere technicality because they charge nothing for their efforts and make no profits, adhering to Chinese law.
China Warns on Spying
By The New York Times
BEIJING, Aug. 8 — China has executed a senior official convicted of spying for Taiwan and distributed a video of his trial as a deterrent to other civil servants, according to reports on government Web sites.
The official, Tong Daning, was a department head at China’s $26 billion national pension fund, the National Council for Social Security Fund.
No Matter What, Jenkins is needed
No matter what kind of opinion people have on Jenkins' argument about internet and collective intelligence, his study provides a different but exciting perspective from which we can examine and understand the internet culture better. The convergence culture is there, no matter it is the technological convergence or intellectual convergence, the line in between matters and people is blurred. It is another way to think about the fluid identity of people and the relationships in between different media technologies. The old and new technologies are combined, such as most newspapers have their own websites, the readers of the newspapers might are also the visitors of the according websites. But I didn't see, how Jenkins eveluates how much that the different media technologies are convergencing both horizontally and chronically? Are there the compraratively stable groups of people who are still the "loyal" users of certain media without paying attention to the new technology.
While Jenkins is celebrating the revolutionay and productive work of internet fans, how much did he know about the "new stereotypes" shaped by the internet fans at the same time, reinforced the circulation of certain media products? For example, like what John Dewey argued about democracy, conversation is always necessary and affective in promoting democracy. Does the exposure to numerous amount of information reinforce the oldness or reproduce the newness?
While Jenkins is celebrating the revolutionay and productive work of internet fans, how much did he know about the "new stereotypes" shaped by the internet fans at the same time, reinforced the circulation of certain media products? For example, like what John Dewey argued about democracy, conversation is always necessary and affective in promoting democracy. Does the exposure to numerous amount of information reinforce the oldness or reproduce the newness?
Diagnosing Fan Communities
Quick Lacan take on class discussion:
A. sublimate stuff with the real- the reality Jenkins strives for is unity, a harmonious way of finally eliminating antagonism and achieving fullness. His project is not driven by omnicensence as the real, but that the real is harmony in this system. Fantasies of fullness are essential to the function of systems. On page 26 the crisis rules argument is important, the structure of the community is created by deliberation.
B. run from the real, Zizek's account of wakings from dreams in Sublime Object is the reaction of fan community members running from the real, when too much accurate information would hit the community it would be come painful. Nominally the subject is seen as chasing the real, here the subject wakes to escape from the real. The story of ChillOne is the example of this. He got too good and delivered the real, this is clearly not in his clinical practice.
C. there is no therepy here, you just need to get more knowledge and become your own therapist.
A. sublimate stuff with the real- the reality Jenkins strives for is unity, a harmonious way of finally eliminating antagonism and achieving fullness. His project is not driven by omnicensence as the real, but that the real is harmony in this system. Fantasies of fullness are essential to the function of systems. On page 26 the crisis rules argument is important, the structure of the community is created by deliberation.
B. run from the real, Zizek's account of wakings from dreams in Sublime Object is the reaction of fan community members running from the real, when too much accurate information would hit the community it would be come painful. Nominally the subject is seen as chasing the real, here the subject wakes to escape from the real. The story of ChillOne is the example of this. He got too good and delivered the real, this is clearly not in his clinical practice.
C. there is no therepy here, you just need to get more knowledge and become your own therapist.
Surviving the Logic of Capital
Jenkins brings attention to some of the relationships between producer and consumer that we previously talked about earlier in the semester, although something tells me for him it is unintentional. Jenkins seems to be concerned with the constitution of a knowledge community or collective intelligence, but his discussion, in a few ways, is reminiscent of prior ones concerning free labor and (the ever-present) logic of capital.
I wouldn’t say that Jenkins is commending people like Wezzie and Dan’s abilities to hunt down info to spoil – for Jenkins it still isn’t the spoilage that is the focus but rather the communal effort that must grow around this common enterprise. However, he does seem remiss for not acknowledging how capital is operating here – it’s free labor to its fullest! Dan and Wezzie “have built up contacts with travel agencies, government officials, film bureaus, tourism directors, and resort operators,” along with cultivating a relationship with the owner of a satellite communications company. On the one hand there is the argument, although it’s a weak one, that this isn’t labor at all and participants in this type of scavenger hunt derive entertainment value out of it, which I’m sure they do. It must be seen as free labor though because the difficulty in obtaining information about Survivor directly increases the mystique that Mark Burnett acknowledges is one of the factors that make his show popular. The workers are maintaining the (social) factory.
Jenkins also seems to fail to turn a more critical eye to the fact that producers of survivor admit that these spoiler discussion boards serve as “the best marketing research you can get.” The practices of consumers that are documented in Jenkins’ book are consistent with the argument that there is a logic of capital and that it does have the ability to not just push aside resistance but subsume and use it. “Liberating” technologies such as TiVo and even the Internet in general are shown to be used for and not against capital. Whereas once TiVo’s ability to skip commercials was touted as a function of autonomy and choice, it is now a tool used to play the clue-games built into some shows. Whereas the internet is still, by some, touted as a tool for building communities, capital co-opts these communities for market research.
I wouldn’t say that Jenkins is commending people like Wezzie and Dan’s abilities to hunt down info to spoil – for Jenkins it still isn’t the spoilage that is the focus but rather the communal effort that must grow around this common enterprise. However, he does seem remiss for not acknowledging how capital is operating here – it’s free labor to its fullest! Dan and Wezzie “have built up contacts with travel agencies, government officials, film bureaus, tourism directors, and resort operators,” along with cultivating a relationship with the owner of a satellite communications company. On the one hand there is the argument, although it’s a weak one, that this isn’t labor at all and participants in this type of scavenger hunt derive entertainment value out of it, which I’m sure they do. It must be seen as free labor though because the difficulty in obtaining information about Survivor directly increases the mystique that Mark Burnett acknowledges is one of the factors that make his show popular. The workers are maintaining the (social) factory.
Jenkins also seems to fail to turn a more critical eye to the fact that producers of survivor admit that these spoiler discussion boards serve as “the best marketing research you can get.” The practices of consumers that are documented in Jenkins’ book are consistent with the argument that there is a logic of capital and that it does have the ability to not just push aside resistance but subsume and use it. “Liberating” technologies such as TiVo and even the Internet in general are shown to be used for and not against capital. Whereas once TiVo’s ability to skip commercials was touted as a function of autonomy and choice, it is now a tool used to play the clue-games built into some shows. Whereas the internet is still, by some, touted as a tool for building communities, capital co-opts these communities for market research.
All in the (loyal) family
I wonder if I can fit the following story into Jenkin's "can't we all just get along" theory of participatory-convergence culture.
I have a friend who almost lost her job for making fun of American Idol (or the fans of American Idol, it's hard to tell which, and it may not even matter).
It all started when the brother (who worked with my friend) of American Idol contestant Ace Young had a viewing party at a hotel bar in Denver. The party was attended by family, friends, and co-workers, who were encouraged to wear Ace Young promotional t-shirts and scream his name for the Fox News cameras that showed up to report on this important news event.
Apparently, my friend was outed (by an unknown informant) to be souring the whole spirit of the event when she parodied the enthusiasm of the party attendees by screaming in an apparently mocking tone, "I love you Ace. I want to have your babies." Things like that. This got back to a Vice-President of the company (a fan of the show), who wasn't there at the time.
In the following weeks, an email was sent to employees informing them that Ace would be showing up at the office to express his thanks for the support he received. My friend didn't get this, but the VP sent her a cryptic email that said she didn't want "trouble" from her. Then she was told to come into the VP's office, where she was reprimanded for what she had done at the (non-company sponsored) party. She was also informed that she would be in further trouble if she got up to any more "shenanigans" when Ace showed up. The VP actually used the word shenanigans.
Word got around the office about this meeting, and many co-workers were upset about the VP's actions. However, the Idol fans would constantly strike up conversations with my friend, wanting her to make witty and critical comments about the show and Ace. She had to tell them that she was not allowed to talk about the show, apparently, or to engage in shenanigans of any sort in relation to the show.
How would Jenkins interpret this? Inspirational consumerism comes to mind, and clearly there is some emotional capital attached to this moral imperative to police the actions of non-fans. But this is not quite in the direction that Jenkins sees as the important functions of participatory culture. It's quite clear that he wants to set up an antagonism between producers and consumers that tilts the scales toward the latter with the weight of participation. In this story, the power of the consumer is clearly not directed toward the program.
Power is clearly underdeveloped in Jenkins' work, and this degrades his ideas at every turn. Collective intelligence as an alternative source of media power is the hinge on which "the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact" (p. 2). I think this view of power is a reductive Foucaultian response (in the vein of some of Fiske's more non-critical cultural studies) to a reductive Marxism. Media have power quite above the fray of producers and consumers -- a symbolic power that legitimates, calls shots, orders logic, defines categories of thought and social existence, sets rules, etc.
Jenkins' smile
It is seemingly easy to make Jenkins our whipping post. When I read these chapters I was reminded of the story Mark told us about running into Jenkins at conferences. Mark alluded to the fact that although he may slam Jenkins' work, Jenkins still is quite nice and smiles at conferences. Why is he still smiling at Mark?
The important point is to not forget what Jenkins' role is (and what he envisions his role to be) in the "new" economy.
Jenkins plays the part of the wily consultant. If you have ever met a consultant or have been one yourself, you might now that they think industrialists and CEOs are quite dumb. They just don't get it. And this is why industry and corporations must pay them the big bucks because consultants like Jenkins get it. The consultants and marketing gurus are the Merlins of our day. They are the keepers of the secret. They claim to understand how this whole information economy thing works and (most importantly) how to adapt to the changes so that you and your business can make $$$$$$$$.
So - my useful thing from Jenkins is, true to his wily consultant spirit, he does not envision corporations as monolithic. If they were, they would not need help from consultants like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)