So, I was Netflix-binging this weekend, because I may be a loser with minimal social life, and I found the show “The Frankenstein Chronicles.” Of course, I am already on Season 2 after only maybe 2-3 weekdays and each episode is almost an hour long, which confirms that I am indeed a loser with minimal social life. However, that is not the point!
The point is that “The Frankenstein Chronicles” is clearly inspired by the famous book “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley. The show is a murder-mystery, but parts of the mystery has already been solved by the audience if they have read the original source material. As this was required reading for me in high school, it means that I can spare some of my intention from certain main plot points. Instead, I focus on the sub-plot and the world of London in the 1800’s that the show has meticulously built. I can focus on the money-driven politics, the sub-par medicine, and the overwhelming fear of God that seems soaked into the bones of multiple characters. It is a LOT to take in and there are not many explanations for certain things, which is why I am glad that I am already familiar with the story of The Creature and Mary Shelley. If I was not, I would most likely get easily lost and miss some fascinating details.
Which leads me to wonder if I can the Gee reading to this, because while I am not applying real-life situations to a text or vice versa, I am clearly expected to know certain things while watching this show. I need to know that electricity, dead bodies, and the pain/fear/curiosity surrounding death are going to be heavily involved. I need to know that the chances of the dead being brought back to life are relatively high, but it is unsure how high exactly. I need to know that the church, fear of God, and the terror of trespassing onto sacred ground is definitely going to be a theme. If I didn’t understand some of that, I would miss half of the allusions and lose interest after maybe 2 episodes.
Does this mean that the Gee reading can be applied to this? Or would Henry Jenkins “How Text Becomes Real” suit my analysis better?
Your analysis reminds me of my time spent with the new Netflix original, Altered Carbon. This show is clearly reminiscent of other sci-fi classics such as Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell, and asks many of the questions that these movies have done as well. If I was not aware of the questions about what makes a person a person that are archetypal in these types of films, then I would be confused by Altered Carbon. The show does not necessarily require knowledge of these films, but doing so gives more context and shows how much Altered Carbon improves upon the formula. In general, I agree with your position and hope that my example shows yet another way in which context manners.
I think that in your case, your previous knowledge furthers your appreciation of the context via understanding allusions. For me, my appreciation has to do with how Altered Carbon has improved upon the status quo.
You bring up a really interesting point, as in general, how much do fantasy and sci-fi authors depend on a base level knowledge of their audience? They can only assume the audience knows so much, and yet many shows/books/etc fail to address what the audience doesn’t know. The biggest reason a sci-fi or fantasy piece of media flops is the failure to world build in a successful manner, blocking the audience from applying their previous knowledge to the fantastical.