1.
Sarah
Rayner
A
dissertation
submitted
in
partial
fulfilment
for
the
degree
of
Bachelor
of
Arts
with
Honours
in
Communication
Studies
at
the
University
of
Otago,
Dunedin,
New
Zealand
9th
October
2015
2.
3. i
Abstract
In
the
world
of
television,
social
media
has
become
of
the
utmost
importance
in
both
creating
and
maintaining
producers’
/
showrunners’
relationship
with
fans.
In
this
dissertation
I
will
analyse
the
role
of
the
television
showrunner,
critic,
and
fan
on
Twitter,
and
the
dynamic
interplay
that
exist
between
each
group.
To
demonstrate
the
relationship
between
these
groups
I
will
use
Pierre
Lévy’s
work
on
molar
and
molecular
technologies,
as
organised
and
self-‐
organised
groups,
respectively.
While
Twitter
itself
can
be
seen
as
a
molecular
technology
due
to
its
allowing
tweeters
a
voice
–
the
dynamic
usage
of
the
platform
by
television
networks
and
showrunners
has
both
maintained
and
changed
past
interactions
in
terms
of
power
and
the
knowledge
economy.
Twitter
has
also
allowed
for
a
‘collective
intelligence’
to
exist
in
the
television
world.
Here,
fans,
creators
and
critics
can
compound
their
knowledge
to
create
new
reliances
and
interplays
between
each
other.
To
employ
Lévy’s
theory,
I
will
use
textual
analysis
of
Twitter
feeds
responding
to
three
different
shows,:
The
Mindy
Project,
Arrow,
and
The
Good
Wife.
By
examining
both
tweets
by
and
between
showrunners,
critics
and
fans
of
each
programme,
the
relationship
between
molar
and
molecular
political
groups
will
be
expanded.
My
work
aims
to
show
that
while
Twitter
is
a
molecular
medium
used
by
the
masses,
it
has
both
empowered
and
disenfranchised
molar
groups
as
television
programmes
have
less
control
over
their
audience.
Critics
and
fandoms
subvert
the
restrictive
control
of
network
and
television
boundaries,
but
are
still
creating
chatter
and
advertising
for
the
programme
they
love
or
‘love
to
hate.’
4. ii
Acknowledgements
First,
I
want
to
extend
my
gratitude
to
my
advisor,
Rosemary
Overell.
Thank
you
so
much
for
helping
me
navigate
this
dissertation
and
spotting
my
mistakes!
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
Holly
Randell-‐Moon
for
her
help
all
year.
MFCO
Honours
grads,
thank
you
for
making
this
year
so
much
fun.
To
my
flatmates,
your
support
has
been
amazing
and
thanks
for
dealing
with
my
weird
sleeping
hours.
To
my
parents,
thank
you
for
taking
all
my
stressed
out
calls
and
providing
constant
support.
Also,
shout
out
to
Pierre
Lévy
for
retweeting
me—a
highlight
of
my
dissertation
work.
#LiveLikeAlly
5. iii
Table
of
Contents
ABSTRACT
.........................................................................................................................................
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
................................................................................................................
II
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
..................................................................................................................
III
LIST
OF
FIGURES
............................................................................................................................
IV
INTRODUCTION
..............................................................................................................................
1
CHAPTER
1:
TWITTER’S
MOLAR
AND
MOLECULAR
DISPARITY
....................................
6
1.1
PIERRE
LÉVY’S
‘HUMAN
COMMUNITIES’
....................................................................................................
6
1.2
JENKINS
AND
FAN
COMMUNITIES
..............................................................................................................
12
1.3
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................................................................
17
CHAPTER
2:
A
LOOKING
GLASS
INTO
THE
MINDY
PROJECT
WRITERS’
ROOM
.........
18
2.1:
“I
HONESTLY
BELIEVE
MINDY
IS
MY
SPIRIT
ANIMAL”—@TALIAUALIITIA
.......................................
18
2.2:
“I
WROTE
A
TOM
BRADY
JOKE
IN
MY
SCRIPT”-‐-‐@MINDYKALING
......................................................
25
2.3:
#FULLSEASONFORMINDY
.........................................................................................................................
33
2.4
“@MINDYKALING
THAT’S
SO
JOHNNY
DRAMA”-‐-‐@EMILYNUSSBAUM
...............................................
37
2.5
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................................................................
40
CHAPTER
3:
A
COLLISION
OF
COMICS
&
TELEVISION
WITH
ARROW
..........................
42
3.1
“BEWARE!!!
DON’T
LET
THE
GUGGENTROLL
SCHMOOZ
YOU!!”—@ANNADIEK
...............................
42
3.2
“I
FREAKED
OUT,
I’M
NOT
WATCHING
IT
AGAIN”
–@MARIAINBADMOOD
..........................................
50
3.3
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................................................................
57
CHAPTER
4:
‘HIGH-‐BROW’
RESPECTABILITY
ON
THE
GOOD
WIFE
..............................
58
4.1
“NOT
SOMETHING
LIKE
NCIS”—ROBERT
KING
....................................................................................
58
4.2
“GET
THIS
HORRIBLE
CHARACTER
OFF
THE
DAMN
SHOW!”
—@DENATCHKA
.................................
61
4.3
“OMG
OMG
NOOOOO
WILL
GARDNER”—@AIRINIE_K
...............................................................
65
4.4
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................................................................
70
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................................................
72
REFERENCE
LIST
...........................................................................................................................
74
7. 1
Introduction
According
to
Highfield,
Harrington
&
Bruns
(2013),
Twitter
is
a
technology
of
fandom.
This
is
because
Twitter
allows
for
easy
access
and
communication
between
fans
and
with
the
textual
object
of
their
affection,
but
also
allows
for
users
to
give
more
in
depth
commentary
than
was
previously
able.
The
social
network
can
be
seen
as
a
backchannel
to
television
and
other
streaming
audiovisual
media,
as
it
allows
users
a
space
to
offer
their
own
running
commentary
on
a
shared
media
text
as
the
event
unfolds
live
(p.
315).
Some
users
are
even
famous
for
‘live-‐
tweeting’
a
programme
during
a
show’s
broadcast.
Other
users
regard
their
fellow
fans’
commentary
valuable,
witty
or
intelligent.
While
Highfield
and
his
colleagues
look
mainly
at
live
events
(specifically
Eurovision)
for
their
case
study,
the
insights
that
they
have
on
Twitter
and
its
uses
for
fandoms
and
television
are
relevant
to
the
broader
uses
of
Twitter
and
scripted
television.
Twitter
allows
users
a
space
for
‘live’,
relatively
unmediated,
communal
discussion
of
television
programmes
and
an
engagement
with
others.
If
lucky
enough,
they
may
also
see
their
comments
become
part
of
the
broadcast
itself.
Both
@users
and
#hashtags
allow
users
to
tweet
into
the
broadcast
to
see
these
tweets
displayed,
with
directions
to
do
so
being
placed
in
the
bottom
of
the
screen
i.e.
How
to
Get
Away
with
Murder
has
#htgawm
on
the
bottom
right
hand
corner.
Hashtags
like
these
also
allow
the
user
to
reach
outside
their
follower-‐base
and
into
a
broader
community
of
users,
by
either
searching
or
following
the
hashtag—something
that
works
particularly
well
for
live
events.
However,
Highfield,
Harrington
and
Bruns
point
out
that
“the
network
of
Twitter
users
which
is
formed
from
this
shared
communicative
practice
must
be
understood
as
separate
from
follower/followee
networks.
At
the
8. 2
same
time,
the
two
network
layers
overlap:
tweets
marked
with
a
specific
hashtag
will
be
visible
both
to
the
user’s
established
followers,
and
to
anyone
else
following
the
hashtag
conversation”
(2013,
p.
316-‐17).
Twitter
has
become
an
important
part
of
the
‘audiencing’
process
described
by
Fiske
(2013)
in
terms
of
television.
It
allows
producers
access
to
the
‘quality
of
audience
engagement’
rather
than
just
the
sheer
‘quantity
of
viewers’
(p.
317).
Television
theorists
like
Gray
and
Lotz
are
quick
to
point
out
that
“television
is
neither
‘beating’
nor
‘losing’
to
new
media
in
some
sort
of
cosmic
clash
of
technology;
rather
television
is
an
intrinsic
part
of
‘new’
media”
(p.
318).
While
most
tweeting
can
be
considered
a
‘live’
opinion,
events
on
television
allow
users
to
connect
automatically
and
create
more
viewers
based
around
sensationalism—
something
that
would
not
be
as
easily
seen
in
the
movie
theatre,
where
using
a
phone
or
other
technology
is
taboo.
Social
media
can
be
seen,
not
as
a
rival
technology
to
television,
but
as
something
that
supports
a
raft
of
supplementary
or
complementary
activities,
especially
when
it
intrigues
or
forces
viewers
to
change
the
channel.
This
is
especially
evident
in
live
viewing
of
scripted
network
television
‘events,’
where
a
new
fandom
is
created
for
a
singular
movie.
A
recent
example
of
this
sort
of
‘event
TV’
is
Sharknado,
a
Syfy
network
production
that
had
millions
of
live
views
and
tweets
despite
(or
maybe
due
to)
it
being
kitschy
or
‘low
quality.’
The
fans
flocked
together
mainly
to
take
the
movie
to
task
for
its
inaccuracies,
leading
to
a
whole
franchise
of
Sharknado
movies
and
numerous
pop
culture
references.
This
type
of
movie
wouldn’t
usually
be
seen
as
popular,
but
with
an
active
voice
and
response
on
Twitter,
new
viewers
were
brought
to
the
network
and
Syfy
directly
benefited
from
social
media.
However,
just
because
the
‘event’
was
tweeted
about
numerous
9. 3
times
does
not
mean
those
tweets
directly
translated
into
ratings,
as
a
Nielsen
study
found
(Kafka
2013).
In
fact,
the
study
found
that
Twitter
only
caused
statistically
“significant
changes”
29
percent
of
the
time
(Kafka
2013).
As
part
of
the
live-‐tweeting
trend
and
use
of
hashtags,
broadcasters
are
able
to
combat
fragmentation
of
audiences
for
specific
programming
across
a
range
of
platforms
and
viewing
modes
(p.
335).
However,
while
the
network
may
see
themself
as
in
control,
fan
communities
on
Twitter
are
also
able
to
gain
greater
visibility,
perhaps
even
taking
over
a
hashtag.
Such
moments
undermine
Twitter’s
utility
as
a
general
backchannel
for
the
live
event.
There
are
also
fandom
specific
hashtags,
mainly
related
to
either
a
specific
narrative
event
or
coupling—or
even
a
negative
response—that
allows
for
the
viewers
to
wrest
control
of
how
the
television
programme
is
represented
on
Twitter.
Fandoms
have
even
used
Twitter
hashtags
to
‘save’
shows
which
have
been
cancelled
through
the
creation
and
harnessing
of
trending
hashtags.
I
will
discuss
this
later,
in
Chapter
Two,
in
relation
to
The
Mindy
Project.
Here,
timed
Twitter
‘meet-‐ups’
were
organised
by
fans
to
get
the
show
trending
as
a
way
to
boost
the
programme’s
chances
for
renewal.
This
can
be
seen
as
part
of
the
new
mediated
wave
of
fandom;
where
previously
fans
would
write
into
a
network
begging
for
the
show
to
be
saved
and
showing
audience
support,1
now
they
take
to
Twitter.
However,
just
because
a
vocal
fan
group
is
taking
to
Twitter
to
make
demands
(for
example,
more
screen
time
for
an
actor
in
a
drama
pilot)
does
not
mean
that
such
choices
will
be
popular
with
the
wider
audiences
(Highfield
et
al
2013,
p.336).
There
are
such
diverse
fandoms
and
sub-‐fandoms
present
on,
and
constituted
by
1
For
example,
previously,
shows
like
Veronica
Mars
even
had
fans
sending
in
Mars
chocolate
bars,
similar
to
the
Chuck
fandom
putting
notes
into
the
Subway
customer
service
boxes,
to
make
a
statement
about
both
the
dedication
and
the
network
of
fans
of
the
show.
10. 4
social
media
that
their
response
does
not
always
gain
clout
with
showrunners
and
producers.
When
a
show’s
hashtag
trends,
the
programme’s
fandom
may
be
powerful,
but
this
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
fandom
mediated
by
Twitter
is
united—particularly
when
concerning
certain
couplings
or
plot
twists.
Twitter
provides
a
platform
for
fannish
self-‐awareness
and
a
certain
self-‐determination
of
fans
as
fans.
A
fan
is
able
to
choose
to
be
a
fan
on
Twitter,
and
identify
with
the
label,
by
creating
accounts
and
icons
that
support
a
television
programme.
Twitter
and
other
social
media
are
used
to
establish
and
maintain
communities
of
fandom,
to
exchange
fan
knowledge,
and
to
plan
fan
activities.
However,
while
these
activities
are
directed
at
other
stakeholders
in
fandom,
such
as
broadcasters
and
programmers,
they
also
point
to
an
understanding
of,
and
an
attempt
to
realize,
opportunities
to
‘game’
the
system
of
the
media
industry
to
generate
conditions
which
support
and
favour
the
object
of
the
fans’
interest.
There
is
a
give
and
take
here
that
is
part
of
the
knowledge
economy,
which
Lévy
discusses,
and
I
will
explore
next.
These
interactions
showcase
that
power
is
not
solely
held
within
either
group,
as
both
need
each
other
to
be
sustained.
My
dissertation
will
explore
how
fans,
showrunners
and
critics
use
Twitter,
and
the
interactions
between
these
groups.
Using
textual
analysis,
I
will
employ
Pierre
Lévy’s
work
on
collective
intelligence
and
organisation
of
governance,
particularly
at
the
molar
and
molecular
level
to
illustrate
how
each
group
fits
into
the
system.
Twitter,
as
a
social
media,
allows
for
new
interactions
that
would
not
previously
exist
in
a
fandom.
I
will
follow
three
Twitter
fandoms—The
Good
Wife,
Arrow,
and
The
Mindy
Project—to
showcase
how
each
group
of
showrunners
and
fans
interact
differently
depending
on
the
environment
and
accessibility
of
the
show’s
producers.
Critics
then
help
to
enforce
the
parameters
of
what
is
acceptable
11. 5
or
not,
and
draw
distinction
as
a
‘legitimate’
fan
that
has
more
authority
in
their
opinion
than
others.
12. 6
Chapter
1:
Twitter’s
molar
and
molecular
disparity
Twitter
is
a
network
of
possibilities,
where
interactions
can
be
unexpected
yet
predictable.
Followers
are
able
to
gain
insight
into
the
projected
self
of
the
Twitter
user,
and
create
a
dialogue
that
may
be
unobtainable
in
real
life.
In
this
chapter
I
will
explain
how
the
Twitter
network
works
in
relation
to
fandoms,
and
introduce
how
Pierre
Lévy’s
work
on
molar
and
molecular
technologies
can
be
used
as
a
framework
for
these
engagements.
Expanding
on
this
I
will
look
at
the
organised
and
self-‐organised
groups
that
exist
as
political
technologies,
creating
a
framework
for
social
network
interactions
and
a
new
wave
of
communication
that
both
empowers
and
dissuades
the
everyday
fan.
Lévy’s
ideas
of
knowledge
and
commodity
culture
will
also
be
examined
in
their
construction
of
power.
I
will
then
explore
these
ideas
in
regard
to
Henry
Jenkins’
work
on
interactive
audiences,
and
the
relationship
that
fan
communities
have
with
television
programmes.
1.1
Pierre
Lévy’s
‘Human
Communities’
Henry
Jenkins
looks
at
how
‘interactive
fandoms’
intersect
with
online
technology
in
his
book
Fans,
Bloggers,
and
Gamers,
during
a
time
when
the
‘digital’
was
only
just
emerging
(2006,
p.
136).
In
the
present,
social
media
has
allowed
for
more
new
interactive
fandoms
to
exist
than
ever
before,
bearing
out
Jenkins’
predictions.
His
work
on
interactive
fandoms
is
built
upon
the
modes
of
citizenship
that
Pierre
Lévy
presents
as
part
of
his
theories
on
technology,
which
will
be
the
focus
of
this
dissertation.
Pierre
Lévy’s
theory
on
technology
and
the
‘knowledge
space’,
or
what
he
calls
‘the
cosmopedia’,
illustrates
the
complicated
networks
that
envelope
fandoms
and
television
programme
creators.
Lévy
sees
technology
changing
from
the
13. 7
molar
to
the
molecular.
‘Molar’
technology
blindly
manages
objects
in
bulk,
while
‘molecular’
technology
is
managed
and
controlled
to
a
finer
level
of
detail,
avoiding
mass
production
(1997,
p.
42).
While
he
looks
at
these
technologies
in
terms
of
the
control
of
life,
matter
and
information,
the
most
important
part
of
his
research
concerning
this
dissertation
is
how
political
technologies
take
advantage
of
this
approach.
This
helps
to
provide
a
framework
to
organise
and
legitimate
communities,
and
constructs
how
our
organization
of
social
groups
change
as
technology
grants
new
interactions
and
subversions
between
social
classes.
Molecular
technologies
help
to
showcase
how
social
media
has
allowed
for
the
advancement
from
molar
to
molecular.
Molar
technologies
are
seen
as
“bulk
operations
requiring
heat
or
cold,
with
age-‐old
processes
that
indistinctly
targeted
entire
populations,
and
slow
to
reorganise
because
of
indiscriminate
methods
of
selection
and
mixing”
(Lévy
1997,
p.
50).
Molecular
technologies,
however,
are
seen
as
operating
on
the
micro
level
and
at
ambient
temperature,
as
part
of
our
evolution
towards
“targeted,
precise,
rapid,
economic,
qualitative,
discrete,
calculated,
and
carefully
implemented
at
a
specific
moment
in
time,
while
closely
following
the
continuous
evolution
of
goals
and
situations”
(Lévy
1997,
p.50).
We
can
see
this
theory
as
referring
to
our
apparent
social
evolution
from
basic
human
interactions
that
limit
with
who
we
can
communicate
with,
to
communication
that
subverts
social
structures,
allowing
the
user
to
talk
to
anyone,
anywhere.
Technologies
such
as
Twitter
showcase
a
movement
towards
a
new
molecular.
They
are
highly
specialized
and
targeted,
while
allowing
for
new
interactions
and
conduct.
These
ideas
can
be
expanded
to
Lévy’s
thoughts
on
political
groups,
especially
with
the
advancement
of
cyberspace.
According
to
Lévy,
the
“possibility
14. 8
of
cyberspace
allows
us
to
envisage
forms
of
economic
and
social
organization
based
on
collective
intelligence
and
the
enhancement
of
humanity
in
all
its
variety”
(1997,
p.
51).
This
extension
of
social
interaction
and
relations
has
not
been
fully
realized
at
the
point
of
Lévy’s
work
here,
but
is
something
that
we
can
see
is
playing
out
in
the
current
day.
Lévy
sees
that
there
are
three
main
ideal
types
among
the
variety
of
political
technologies,
which
provide
the
framework
for
this
dissertation.
Families,
clans,
and
tribes
are
organic
groups,
and
for
this
dissertation
are
not
relevant
to
the
organization
of
Twitter
and
social
media.
Organic
groups
are
best
seen
in
‘real
life’
communication,
whereas
social
media
allows
for
new
interactions
between
and
within
other
groups
to
flourish.
Nations,
institutions,
religions,
large
corporations,
as
well
as
the
revolutionary
“masses”
are
organised
groups,
which
undergo
a
process
of
transcendence
or
exteriority
in
forming
and
maintaining
themselves
(1997,
p.
51).
Then,
self-‐organised,
or
molecular,
groups
realize
the
ideal
of
direct
democracy
within
very
large
communities
in
the
process
of
mutation
and
deterritorialization
(1997,
p.
51).
Lévy’s
‘organic
groups’
could
be
more
applied
to
Facebook
or
Instagram,
where
family
and
friends
are
much
more
important—as
opposed
to
Twitter
where
a
more
wide-‐ranging
or
generalised
fandom
community
is
present.
With
a
technology
that
doesn’t
allow
for
every
user
to
know
each
name
and
comprehend
what
is
being
done
as
a
group,
‘organised’
groups
gain
prominence
as
part
of
molar
technology
on
Twitter
(1997,
p.52).
These
groups
are
run
bureaucratically—
where
organised
groups
that
exist
in
the
real
world
carry
over
their
power
into
molecular
technology—a
top
down
system
extending
from
the
real
world
into
cyberspace.
15. 9
As
I
will
examine
in
this
dissertation,
when
it
comes
to
television
and
Twitter,
the
showrunners
and
writers
hold
the
positions
of
power
at
the
molar
level
as
the
‘point
leaders’
of
their
programme.
They
are
the
clearly
the
‘organised’
group.
‘Self-‐organised’
groups
provide
an
advancement
of
molecular
technologies
and
create
a
new
system
that
can
‘”develop
and
redevelop
their
projects
and
resources,
reorganizing
in
real
time”
(1997,
p.
53).
These
groups
show
advancement
from
the
previous
organised
structure
and
allow
for
a
new
wave
of
citizen
empowerment.
Twitter
allows
for
this
new
mode
of
direct
democracy
to
take
place,
where
any
ordinary
band
of
citizens
can
rise
up
and
take
hold
of
a
movement
or
create
a
new
order
that
places
the
power
away
from
only
the
molar.
In
the
case
of
this
study,
‘self-‐organised’
groups
are
represented
by
the
fandoms,
where
new
organization
has
allowed
for
larger
groups
and
sub-‐groups
of
active
users
that
can
both
celebrate
and
disseminate
the
work
of
the
molar
(in
this
case
television
showrunners).
Within
this
structure,
we
also
need
to
account
for
the
television
critic—a
recognised
figure
that
has
power
and
sway
in
the
arts
community
but
fails
to
have
the
creative
prominence
or
larger
recognition
assigned
to
showrunners.
Pierre
Lévy’s
ideas
on
political
technologies
fails
to
see
a
direct
place
for
critics,
and
is
best
seen
as
a
‘lesser’
organised
group
that
is
somewhat
self-‐organised,
while
still
existing
in
the
world
of
molar
technologies
as
part
of
the
mass
management
of
society.
The
role
of
the
critic
is
a
complicated
one
in
correlation
to
fandoms
and
television
creators,
giving
both
re-‐affirmation
and
critique
to
both
groups.2
The
social
organization
of
Twitter
allows
us
to
see
how
the
advancement
of
cyberspace
has
allowed
Lévy’s
vision
of
the
new
molecular
world
2
This
will
be
further
explored
in
further
detail
in
chapter
four.
16. 10
to
take
place.
However,
molar
organised
groups
can
still
take
advantage
of
this
technology
and
reaffirm
their
place
in
society.
This
creates
a
new
power
dynamic
that
questions
who’s
‘really’
in
charge,
with
either
molar
or
molecular
groups
holding
power
at
different
times.
Through
all
of
these
manifestations
we
can
see
another
development
that
Lévy
dubs:
‘collective
intelligence.’
This
refers
to
the
knowledge
available
to
all
members
of
a
community,
as
opposed
to
shared
knowledge,
which
refers
to
information
known
by
all
members
of
a
community.
He
describes
his
vision
of
‘collective
intelligence’
as
an
‘achievable
utopia’—not
something
that
grows
inevitably
from
the
new
configuration
of
technologies
but
rather
something
we
must
work
toward
and
fight
to
achieve
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
134).
In
terms
of
the
fandom
and
Twitter,
it
allows
all
of
the
groups
spoken
of
here
(showrunners,
fans
and
critics)
to
band
together
in
their
knowledge
to
both
influence
and
create
a
collective
bank
of
information
surrounding
a
television
programme.
This
serves
to
benefit
all
groups
and
showcases
the
benefit
of
molecular
technology
for
all
of
Lévy’s
political
groups
as
advancement
passes
by
the
old
world
order.
Another
key
point
of
Lévy’s
theory
is
his
view
on
sources
of
power.
There
are
four
potential
sources—nomadic
mobility,
control
over
territory,
ownership
over
commodities,
and
mastery
over
knowledge
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
144).
In
relation
to
my
dissertation,
it
can
be
seen
that
the
emergent
knowledge
cultures
(the
fandom)
never
fully
escape
the
influence
of
commodity
culture
(the
television
programme),
any
more
than
commodity
culture
can
totally
function
outside
the
constraints
of
its
medium.
Knowledge
cultures,
like
those
on
Twitter,
instead
alter
the
way
that
commodity
culture
operates.
Within
the
culture
industries,
commodities
that
circulate
become
resources
for
the
production
of
meaning:
17. 11
The
distinctions
between
authors
and
readers,
producers
and
spectators,
creators
and
interpretations
will
blend
to
form
a
reading-‐writing
continuum,
which
will
extend
from
the
machine
and
network
designers
to
the
ultimate
recipient,
each
helping
to
sustain
the
activities
of
the
others
(Lévy
1997,
p.
121).
Creative
activity
will
shift
from
the
production
of
text
or
regulation
of
meaning
toward
the
development
of
a
dynamic
environment.
Lévy
sees
that
an
artist
will
now
construct
an
environment
that
involves
its
recipients
as
part
of
a
new
system
of
communication
and
production.
Interpreters
of
the
artist’s
medium
become
actors,
and
their
interpretation
enters
‘the
loop’
with
collective
action
as
part
of
a
communal
event
(Lévy
1997,
p.
123).
Twitter,
in
this
case,
allows
for
knowledge
cultures
to
alter
the
commodity
culture
and
create
a
loop
‘with
collective
action’.
Power
here
is
dynamic:
while
commodity
culture
will
always
be
a
part
of
the
knowledge
communities,
with
molecular
technology
it
becomes
more
dynamic
and
less
one-‐sided.
In
Lévy’s
world,
idealized
communitarianism
takes
place
as
molecular
technology
advances
and
organised
groups
are
broken
down.
However
with
the
case
of
Twitter,
knowledge
culture
exists
under
that
of
the
commodity
making
room
for
subversions.
Twitter
allows
for
discussion
and
interpretations
that
admit
the
fan’s
entrance
to
the
loop
of
creative
interpretation,
and
to
have
a
relationship
with
the
programme
and
showrunners.
Within
the
television
industry,
there
has
been
panic
over
interactive
audiences
and
their
ability
to
act
independently
from
a
television
programme.
Lévy
sees
this
as
shortsighted:
“By
preventing
the
knowledge
space
from
becoming
autonomous,
they
deprive
the
circuits
of
commodity
space
…
of
an
extraordinary
source
of
energy.”
The
knowledge
culture
serves
as
the
“invisible
and
intangible
engine”
for
the
circulation
and
exchange
of
commodities
(Lévy
1997,
p.
237)
Part
18. 12
of
the
worry
is
over
legal
issues,
where
a
programme
producer
may
feel
they
have
rights
to
their
content
and
that
their
‘fandom’
is
taking
advantage
of
them.
This
can
be
seen
by
the
show
Mad
Men,
where
the
show’s
creators
were
concerned
about
a
parody
Twitter
account
and
its
legality.
Showrunner
Matt
Weiner
explains
his
position:
I
will
say
that
we
owe
a
lot
to
Twitter
at
Mad
Men,
it
kind
of
happened
[…]
in
the
advertising
business
when
it
began,
and
one
of
the
earliest
developments
on
the
show,
which
was
confusing
to
us,
was
that
all
these
people
on
Twitter,
[…]
adopting
the
personalities
of
the
characters
and
AMC’s
first
reaction
was
“we
own
these
characters!”
[…]
They
were
going
to
have
a
lawsuit
to
stop
people,
you’re
laughing
about
it,
but
it’s
intellectual
property
which
I
know
nobody
cares
about,
and
then
suddenly
the
realization
happened,
[…]
we
were
like,
this
is
a
boatload
of
free
publicity
and
an
investment
from
the
audience
where
there
is
a
direct
conversation,
[…]
that’s
how
I
even
heard
about
Twitter.
To
this
day,
some
of
the
funniest
things
that
have
ever
been
written
about
the
show
have
been
[…],
I
don’t
know
if
you
have
seen
this,
is
Don
Draper,
there’s
a
thing
who’s
getting
faxes
and
things,
and
in
terms
of
its
relationship
with
the
show,
I
don’t
participate
in
it,
and
I’m
a
little
bit
troubled
by
those
who
don’t
pay
full
attention
to
the
show,
but
I’ve
learned
to
let
go
of
that.
(Variety
2015)
Lévy’s
work
calls
for
a
relationship
that
forgoes
these
sorts
of
legal
issues,
and
instead,
as
shown
by
Mad
Men,
becomes
a
dynamic
of
creation
and
interpretation.
The
programme
grows
and
becomes
a
part
of
the
fandom
as
well
as
the
creators,
giving
new
life
to
the
fandom
and
showrunners
as
they
form
a
new
relationship
based
on
molecular
fluidity
rather
than
molar
rigidity.
1.2
Jenkins
and
Fan
Communities
According
to
Henry
Jenkins,
online
fan
communities
may
be
the
some
of
the
most
fully
realized
versions
of
Lévy’s
‘cosmopedia’,
or
knowledge
space:
expansive
19. 13
self-‐organizing
groups
focused
around
the
collective
production,
debate,
and
circulation
of
meanings,
interpretations,
and
fantasies
in
response
to
various
artefacts
of
contemporary
popular
culture
(2006,
p.
137).
Unlike
Pierre
Lévy’s
‘organised’
groups,
fandoms
have
long
been
virtual
communities
(“imagined”
and
“imagining”
communities),
defining
their
memberships
through
affinities
rather
than
localities
(2006,
p.137).
Jenkins
credits
science
fiction
fandoms
as
seminal
in
the
emergence
of
these
knowledge
communities.
Early
science
fiction
fans
formed
an
informal
postal
network
circulating
letters
and
amateur
publications.
Conventions
then
allowed
for
face-‐to-‐face
interactions
between
fans
from
across
the
country
or
the
world.
The
science
fiction
fandom
was
unique
at
the
time
for
the
participants
desire
to
break
into
the
writing
world
through
fan
influenced,
commercially
distributed,
work
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
138).
This
type
of
interaction
has
spread
to
the
world
of
the
present
day
fan,
where
fans
of
comedy,
drama
and
other
genres
have
created
fan
work
to
extend
the
‘world’
of
the
programme
to
new
and
alternate
storylines.
Twitter,
Tumblr
and
other
platforms
allow
fans
to
‘publish’
their
work
without
necessary
authority,
showcasing
the
power
of
molecular
technology
as
the
masses
gain
equal
opportunity.
Jenkins
uses
his
work
to
illustrate
how
fans
were
the
first
adopters
of
digital
technologies.
Within
the
scientific
and
military
institutions
where
the
Internet
was
first
introduced,
science
fiction
has
long
been
a
literature
of
choice
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
138).
Accordingly,
slang
and
social
practices
on
early
online
message
boards
were
modelled
on
the
sci-‐fi
fandom,
and
mailing
lists
that
focused
on
fan
topics
took
their
place
alongside
discussions
of
technological
or
scientific
issues
(Jenkins
2006).
From
this,
Jenkins
sees
that
cyberspace
can
be
‘fandom
writ
large’
(2006,
p.
138).
Social
media
has
20. 14
extended
this
concept,
as
cyberspace
grows
to
create
an
all-‐encompassing
social
fandom
with
overlapping
fannish
communities
within
the
space.
The
media
can
be
seen
as
a
molar
technology,
reproducing
the
same
message
to
the
masses,
while
digital
technology
allows
for
this
to
become
fluid
and
showcase
opinions
that
create
‘fandoms’
(Lévy
1997,
p.
47).
The
Internet
breaks
down
the
media
and
allows
for
new
meanings
and
ways
of
order
that
could
not
previously
exist,
or
previously
existed
as
a
subversion
of
molar
control.
Fandoms
allow
for
the
bonding
of
mass
citizens
into
self-‐organised
groups
to
subvert
the
power
structure
and
create
‘power’
outside
of
what
molar
groups,
in
this
case
showrunners
and
critics,
possess.
The
reconstitution
of
these
fandoms
as
digital
enclaves
does
not
change
all
elements
of
the
group,
particularly
in
relation
to
the
digital
divide
and
gender
politics.
Jenkins
notes
that
women
were
left
behind
as
they
lacked
computer
access
and
technical
literacy
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
139).
Heated
debates
also
occurred
at
conventions
as
fans
were
angered
at
being
left
behind
when
old
fan
friends
moved
online.
Yet,
as
with
multiple
fan
communities,
some
insured
that
valued
members
learned
to
use
the
new
technologies,
since
“for
them,
there
is
little
benefit
to
net
access
unless
many
of
their
friends
have
it”
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
139).
The
introduction
of
high-‐speed
networked
computing
constituted
an
epistemological
turning
point
in
the
development
of
Lévy’s
collective
intelligence.
The
fandom
was
already
a
knowledge
culture
well
before
the
Internet,
and
the
digital
environment
only
served
to
increase
the
speed
resulting
in
what
Matthew
Hills
calls
“just
in
time
fandom”
(op.
cit.
in
Jenkins
2006,
p.
141).
While
Jenkins
talks
of
the
fandom
going
online
right
after
an
episode
has
aired,
technology
like
Twitter
allows
for
the
fandom
to
broadcast
their
reactions
live.
This
creates
a
real-‐
21. 15
time
representation
of
fans’
emotions
throughout
the
broadcast.
However,
this
also
doesn’t
take
into
account
digital
streaming
platforms,
which
allow
the
viewer
to
watch
an
episode
at
any
time.
Fan
communities
then
overlap
timelines
and
views
as
data
can
be
both
reanalysed
or
postponed—as
many
viewers
did
watching
The
Good
Wife
explored
in
Section
4.3.
Jenkins’
work
illustrates
that
fandoms
have
moved
beyond
calling
a
close
friend
to
discuss
an
episode,
to
going
online
to
both
share
experiences
with
multiple
other
fans
and
access
a
broader
range
of
perspectives.
As
the
fandom
expands
globally,
fandom
becomes
much
more
effective
as
a
platform
for
consumer
activism.
As
will
be
explored
through
The
Mindy
Project
in
Chapter
3,
fans
can
organise
to
save
a
show
and
create
an
infrastructure
for
“supporting
critical
dialogue,
producing
annotated
programme
guides,
providing
regular
production
updates,
and
creating
original
fan
stories
and
artwork”
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
142).
All
of
this
has
made
the
fandoms
part
of
the
mainstream
rather
than
subculture,
with
more
Internet
users
engaged
in
some
form
of
fan
activity.
Previous
to
molecular
technologies,
dramatic
programmes
like
The
Good
Wife
would
only
have
dedicated
viewers
rather
than
‘fans’,
as
fans
were
mainly
part
of
‘cult’
science
fiction
television.
With
social
media
and
digital
technologies,
fandoms
have
increased
to
genres
outside
of
science
fiction.
Jenkins
states
that
increased
visibility
and
cultural
centrality
has
been
a
mixed
blessing
for
a
community
used
to
speaking
from
the
margins.
The
speed
and
frequency
of
communication
has
allowed
for
a
new
intensity
in
the
social
bonds
within
the
fan
community,
yet
with
new
members
easily
joining
the
‘community’,
fans
may
feel
ostracized
as
it
rapidly
expands.
Online
fan
discussions
also
have
problems
when
new
members
join,
as
“groups
who
functioned
more
or
less
autonomously
offline
have
radically
different
responses
to
the
aired
material”
22. 16
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
142).
A
show
like
Arrow
exemplifies
this
with
splintering
factions
between
‘shippers’
and
dedicated
comic
book
readers,
as
will
be
explored
in
Section
3.2.
As
more
public
debates
are
created,
the
groups
can
splinter
and
create
tensions,
especially
when
considering
the
divisiveness
of
plot
points
like
‘love
triangles.’
Jenkins
work
about
interactive
audiences
looks
at
scholars
like
Andre
MacDonald
and
Nancy
Baym
to
contrast
the
ideas
of
Pierre
Lévy,
with
both
suggesting
a
constant
tension
between
producing
knowledge
and
sustaining
affiliations.
Lévy’s
‘global
village’
imagines
a
process
through
which
a
knowledge
community
develops
a
set
of
ethical
standards
and
articulates
mutual
goals.
Jenkins
sees
that
fandoms
often
have
difficulty
arriving
at
any
type
of
consensus
due
to
the
democratised
nature
of
molecular
technology.
Utopian
aspirations
are
seen
as
constantly
being
tested
against
unequal
experiences,
levels
of
expertise,
access
to
performers
and
community
resources,
control
over
community
institutions,
and
the
degree
of
investment
in
fan
traditions
and
norms
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
143).
The
desire
to
avoid
such
conflicts
can
lead
to
an
artificial
consensus
that
shuts
down
the
desired
play
with
alternative
meanings.
His
theory
sees
that
expanded
membership
lessens
the
cohesiveness
of
the
fandom,
almost
disempowering
the
movement.
With
the
power
that
fans
have
today
in
the
television
world,
it
begs
the
question
of
how
divisive
fan
disagreements
can
get.
As
long
as
they
do
not
destroy
the
fandom
and,
rather,
shed
new
light
on
creative
content,
any
argument
can
be
seen
as
constructive
exploration.
Artificial
consensus
exists,
but
the
uniqueness
of
the
fandom
and
of
social
media
is
that
opinions
can
still
be
spread
even
without
an
‘agreement,’
whether
independently
or
in
small
factions.
Twitter
has
allowed
for
new
ideas
to
come
to
light
that
may
23. 17
not
be
considered
in
the
majority,
but
are
still
able
to
exist
as
part
of
the
dynamic
network
that
is
the
Internet.
1.3
Conclusion
This
chapter
has
illustrated
the
ways
in
which
Pierre
Lévy’s
theory
of
knowledge
space
applies
to
television
and
social
media,
primarily
Twitter.
The
first
section
focuses
primarily
on
Lévy’s
theory
of
molar
and
molecular
technologies
in
the
knowledge
space.
I
have
also
looked
at
the
ways
in
which
political
technologies
are
constituted
into
organised,
self-‐organised
and
organic
groups,
which
is
the
backbone
of
my
dissertation.
Jenkins
work
is
then
looked
at
in
terms
of
fandoms
in
combination
with
Lévy,
to
provide
both
a
critique
and
an
analysis
of
the
development
of
fans.
Using
the
explained
theory,
I
will
apply
the
concepts
to
The
Mindy
Project,
Arrow,
and
The
Good
Wife
in
the
next
chapters,
respectively.
24. 18
Chapter
2:
A
Looking
Glass
into
The
Mindy
Project
Writers’
Room
Mindy
Kaling’s
self-‐created
programme
The
Mindy
Project
(TMP)
exemplifies
how
Twitter
can
be
used
by
showrunners
to
connect
and
benefit
from
fans,
to
create
a
shared
knowledge
economy
around
the
show.
Kaling
built
her
programme
out
of
her
use
of
Twitter.
Her
firm
grasp
of
the
medium
serves
to
benefit
the
show.
Using
Lévy’s
work,
I
understand
Kaling
and
her
group
of
writers
as
operating
at
a
highly
molecular,
organised
level.
They
create
a
new
wave
of
interconnectivity
for
her
fanbase
to
watch.
With
this,
we
can
also
see
how
her
fans
might
subvert
the
usual
lines
between
organised
and
self-‐organised
groups,
as
new
interactions
between
fans
and
writers
emerge
as
part
of
Twitter’s
interconnectivity.
Kaling’s
use
of
Twitter
provides
a
strong
example
of
the
molar
position
of
fandoms,
by
showcasing
how
social
media
can
create
a
fan-‐base
and
grow
through
proper
usage
as
a
molecular
technology.
While
there
are
different
levels
of
power
perpetuated
by
molar
and
molecular
operations,
the
overall
effect
of
Twitter
showcases
that
there
can
be
new
molecular
interactions
between
the
two.
I
explore
this
through
a
textual
analysis
of
the
employment
of
hashtags
by
fans
to
pressure
networks
to
‘save’
the
show
from
cancellation.
The
chapter
will
also
explore
the
relationship
that
The
Mindy
Project
has
with
television
critics,
and
how
these
writers
fit
in
to
the
molar
portion
of
Pierre
Lévy’s
work.
2.1:
“I
honestly
believe
Mindy
is
my
spirit
animal”—@taliaualiitia
Mindy
Kaling
began
as
a
comedy
and
television
writer.
Her
first
major
job
was
for
The
Office,
where
she
wrote
and
acted.
While
doing
this,
she
created
her
25. 19
own
blog
and
connected
with
fans
(mainly
young
women)
of
The
Office
and
her
previous
comedic
work.
The
blog
allowed
her
to
connect
with
fans
on
topics
like
fashion
and
pop
culture,
rather
than
just
sharing
her
comedy
and
thoughts
on
The
Office.
However,
with
the
rise
of
Twitter,
Kaling
became
one
of
the
early
users
of
the
social
media
site.
Kaling
didn’t
“join
Twitter
to
hawk
her
stuff,
but
rather
she
was
just
coming
up
with
jokes
and
too
lazy
to
find
a
notebook”
(Karpel
2012).
During
her
time
at
The
Office,
Kaling’s
social
media
followers
were
vastly
greater
than
those
of
the
lead
actors
on
the
show.
Steve
Carell,
the
lead
actor,
had
650,000
followers
during
its
airing,
Kaling,
on
the
other
hand,
had
1.8
million
(Karpel
2012).
Most
of
this
can
be
seen
as
part
of
her
dedicated
engagement
with
the
medium,
where
she
employs
@mentions
and
multiple
tweets
a
day
to
keep
her
followers
both
entertained
and
connected.
She
also
uses
Twitter
to
build
her
identity
as
a
comedy
writer,
rather
than
a
‘celebrity’—a
subjectivity
that
she
frames
as
different,
or
opposed
to
‘comedy
writer’:
People
don’t
want
to
listen
to
a
celebrity
tweeting
about
their
charities
and
shows.
That’s
why
comedy
writers
do
well—we
put
out
little
funny
ideas.
(Karpel
2012)
Rather
than
seeing
herself
as
above
the
fray
as
a
‘celebrity’
in
the
molar,
organised
group,
she
relates
herself
to
the
norm
of
the
rest
of
her
followers,
by
trying
to
relate
to
them
on
a
comedic
rather
than
privileged
level.
However,
showrunners
are
becoming
increasingly
well
known
as
the
‘new
age
of
television’
occurs,
creating
a
new
wave
of
what
we
consider
to
be
‘celebrity’
and
fame.
The
‘new
age
of
television’
refers
to
the
high-‐quality,
scripted
content
of
American
television
programming
recognised
internationally,
also
referred
to
as
the
‘Golden
Age
of
Television’
(Carr
2014).
While
there
is
certainly
a
public
obsession
with
26. 20
celebrity
and
celebrity
culture,
there
is
a
necessity
to
still
appeal
to
the
ordinary
fan
and
give
them
a
sense
that
they
are
accessing
the
authentic
self.
I
should
mention
here
that
when
referring
to
celebrity,
I
am
looking
at
the
noun
meaning
‘a
famous
person’.
There
is
a
binary
quality:
you
are
either
a
celebrity,
or
you
are
not
(Marwick
&
Boyd
2011,
p.
140).
This
is
part
of
the
molar
technology
of
Lévy’s
theory,
where
the
molar
group
is
elevated
and
set
apart
from
molecular.
The
celebrity
is
part
of
the
molar,
and
will
always
be
set
apart
from
the
rest
of
the
population,
because
they
are
‘famous.’
While
the
showrunner
and
writer
are
not
necessarily
considered
part
of
the
‘celebrity’
sphere,
they
are
still
set
apart
from
ordinary
viewers,
as
they
are
part
of
Hollywood.
Mindy
Kaling
faces
a
particularly
unique
situation
where
she
is
both
the
showrunner
and
lead
actor
of
her
show,
so
a
‘celebrity’
status
becomes
unavoidable
as
she
is
thrust
into
the
limelight.
While
she
did
not
consider
herself
to
be
part
of
the
celebrity
sphere
and
more
of
a
comedy
writer
at
the
time,
her
style
has
changed,
as
has
her
tweeting
with
more
reference
to
both
other
‘celebrities’
and
products.
However,
her
personality
as
a
comedy
writer
on
Twitter
has
remained
the
same
and
kept
her
appeal
as
a
role
model
to
young
women.
Since
she
already
had
a
fan
base,
it
was
much
more
about
extending
it
as
a
part
of
the
show
rather
than
having
to
create
a
social
media
account
like
the
showrunners
of
Arrow
who
I
will
describe
in
Chapter
3.
Mindy’s
interaction
with
her
fans
demonstrates
how
molar
and
molecular
groups
collide
using
social
media.
Kaling
will
frequently
respond
to
her
fans
(Figure
2.1).
A
key
aspect
on
Twitter
feeds
of
organised
groups
is
conversations
between
fans
that
tag
other
users
in
the
conversation.
In
Figure
2.1,
two
girls
converse
/
tweet
about
Mindy
Kaling
and
bonding
online,
using
the
@MindyKaling
Twitter
username
to
get
Kaling’s
attention.
Kaling,
having
seen
this,
replies
by
27. 21
tagging
both
of
the
girls
and
responding
‘baes’
with
a
heart
emoji.
This
speaks
to
the
appreciation
she
has
for
her
fans
in
response
to
their
feeling
that
Kaling
is
a
‘spirit
animal’
with
which
with
they
identify.
While
Kaling
gets
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
tags
in
these
types
of
conversations,
it
becomes
obvious
when
looking
at
her
feed
that
she
makes
a
conscientious
effort
to
respond
to
her
fans.
These
fans
then
have
a
higher
placement
in
the
fandom
as
they
have
had
direct
response
to
their
praise,
rather
than
it
just
being
one-‐sided.
Jenkins
uses
this
in
his
work
on
fandoms,
where
there
are
‘elite’
members
of
the
fandom
that
have
a
privileged
position
over
others
(Jenkins
2006,
p.
138).
With
more
knowledge
on
production
or
more
conversations
with
actors
and
producers,
the
fan
becomes
more
valuable
overall
to
the
fandom.
Figure
2.1
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/603785753194176512
28. 22
Similarly,
Figure
2.2
shows
how
dedicated
the
fandom
is
to
both
Mindy
Kaling
and
her
show.
These
tweeters
create
artwork
and
share
it
on
Twitter
to
demonstrate
their
dedication.
This
sort
of
activity
is
common
in
most
fandoms,
especially
in
the
Arrow
fandom
where
illustrations
play
a
key
part
in
the
comic
book
world
(explored
in
3.1).
The
fandom
seems
to
have
a
direct
relationship
with
Mindy
Kaling,
both
as
the
actor,
showrunner
and
comedy
writer.
She
becomes
more
of
a
personality
than
an
individual
worker,
and
showcases
the
complicated
relationship
that
showrunners
have
as
part
of
the
‘molar’
world.
Molarity
here
does
not
allow
for
the
showrunner
to
remain
independently
a
showrunner,
but
to
create
dialogue
with
the
fans
while
asserting
their
dominance
as
the
show’s
creator.
Her
power
is
demonstrated
through
her
loyal
band
of
followers
both
pre-‐
and
post-‐television
programme,
creating
an
interesting
example
of
how
fandom
works
through
social
media.
Twitter
allows
for
connections
between
showrunners,
stars
and
fans
in
a
way
that
previously
would
not
have
been
fathomable.
Even
social
media
sites
like
Facebook
or
Tumblr
do
not
allow
for
this
close
of
communication.
@MissChris423
shares
her
love
for
Mindy
(in
Figure
2.2)
through
fan
artwork,
which
takes
place
in
the
physical
world
of
self-‐organised
fan
groups—and
outside
of
molar
creative
control.
29. 23
Figure
2.2
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/601940437767589888
Fans
are
also
able
to
access
details
regarding
the
production
schedule
and
daily
events
that
occur
on
set
via
Twitter.
While
this
will
be
explored
in
more
depth
in
section
2.2,
it
is
important
to
note
that
Kaling
tweets
out
certain
spoilers,
or
information
regarding
the
set
and
responses
to
fan
questions.
As
seen
in
Figure
2.3,
Kaling
has
tweeted
out
the
roster
for
those
shooting
on
set
on
the
first
day
back
of
season
4.
It
gives
fans
a
chance
to
see
who
will
be
on
set,
especially
when
there
are
potentially
fan
favourite
characters
or
guest
stars.3.
However
with
one
of
the
main
characters,
Danny,
not
on
the
call
sheet,
fans
questioned
what
his
role
was
on
set
that
day.
Kaling
was
quick
to
assure
that
both
he
and
Jeremy,
another
character,
started
the
next
day.
This
sort
of
immediacy
that
molecular
technology
3
In
the
case
of
Figure
2.3,
Mark
and
Jay
Duplass
sometimes
guest
star
as
the
midwives
who
work
in
the
office
above
the
main
characters.
30. 24
provides
the
fandom
allows
for
them
to
be
more
powerful
and
request
information
out
of
the
molar
group
rather
than
stuck
just
receiving
information.
Figure
2.3
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/625686927367213056
As
I
will
explore
in
the
next
section,
these
types
of
interactions
are
part
of
a
larger
network
of
relations
between
the
writers
and
staff
of
The
Mindy
Project.
The
fan
does
not
have
to
rely
only
on
the
showrunner
to
release
information
on
the
television
show,
as
both
the
other
writers
on
the
show
and
many
of
its
stars
participate
in
social
media.
However,
set-‐ups
like
live
tweeting
give
the
fans
direct
participation
in
an
event
and
a
connection
with
the
writers,
as
well
as
an
ability
to
learn
backstage
information.
As
I
will
explore
in
section
2.2,
this
can
even
apply
to
the
‘inside
jokes’
of
the
writer’s
room,
where
the
fan
can
both
become
an
observer,
participant
and
commentator.
31. 25
2.2:
“I
wrote
a
Tom
Brady
joke
in
my
script”-‐-‐@mindykaling
One
of
the
most
interesting
parts
of
TMP’s
interactions
with
Twitter
is
the
access
to
constant
communication
between
Kaling
and
her
writers.
It
has
become
more
common
today
for
television
writers
and
showrunners
to
be
on
Twitter.
Usually
they
live-‐tweet
an
episode
or
give
spoilers
about
the
creative
process.
What
The
Mindy
Project
does
differently
is
that
it
brings
fans
into
the
squabbles
or
gossip
that
occurs
in
(and
out)
of
writing
and
production.
The
fan
becomes
both
a
witness
and
part
of
the
conversation,
rather
than
an
outsider
with
a
link
only
to
the
finished
product.
The
term
‘link’
refers
to
the
different
means
of
access
to
the
television
program,
whether
viewed
live
or
online
by
a
number
of
different
sources.
The
Twitter
relationship
between
fans
and
producers
showcases
the
ways
in
which
molecular
technology
can
be
used
by
showrunners
and
other
molar
groups
to
create
dialogue
with
fans
and
validate
their
place
in
the
larger
community.
While
the
fandom
may
not
be
a
part
of
the
writer’s
room,
their
ability
to
participate
as
a
Twitter
commentator
or
spectator
allows
them
entrance
into
the
previously
closed
off
molar
group
of
the
show’s
producers.
The
fan
may
not
have
the
same
social
or
political
rank
as
the
showrunner
or
programme
writer,
but
they
can
gain
status
in
the
fan
community
through
their
access
to
the
programme’s
process
and
its
participants.
Certain
fans
may
even
become
known
to
the
writers
/
producers
individually,
rather
than
as
just
part
of
the
self-‐organised
group
of
TMP
fans
on
Twitter.
The
Mindy
Project
allows
the
fan
to
see
‘through
the
looking
glass’
and
be
part
of
the
inside
jokes
that
exist
in
writing
and
production.
This
is
especially
evident
during
live
tweeting,
when
both
stars
and
writers
participate
in
the
commentating
process.
32. 26
Mindy
Kaling,
as
the
showrunner
and
star,
will
live
tweet
titbits
about
the
show
as
it
airs,
as
seen
in
Figure
2.4.
In
this
instance
she
is
tweeting
about
The
Mindy
Project
finale,
as
indicated
by
#MindyFinale.
She
gives
fans
and
viewers
an
insight
into
the
dramatic
scene
of
the
episode
when
Danny
refers
to
his
mother
as
‘mommy’
in
an
emotional
rant.
Kaling
is
quick
to
point
out
that
it
was
at
her
writer’s
suggestion
that
the
line
was
added,
giving
creative
ownership
specifically
to
him
rather
than
the
show
in
general.
This
tweet
shows
both
the
struggle
that
occurred
in
the
filming
of
the
scene
as
well
as
@davidstassen’s
sensibility
on
set
as
a
writer
under
pressure.
The
number
of
favourites
and
retweets
displayed
in
Figure
2.4
shows
the
level
of
appreciation
that
fans
have
for
her
insight.
Figure
2.4
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/580548707306901506
Ike
Barinholtz,
another
writer
on
the
show,
is
often
tweeted
to
and
about
by
Kaling,
and
their
relationship
is
presented
as
an
amusing
aspect
of
production.
Barinholtz
is
a
writer,
producer
and
co-‐star
on
the
show
like
Kaling,
although
she
is
his
boss.
Due
to
all
of
the
time
they
spend
together,
they
have
a
rapport
on
Twitter
that
fans
witness
and
to
which
fans
can
sometimes
respond.
As
shown
in
Figure
2.5,
during
Kaling’s
live
tweeting
of
the
episode
she
makes
reference
to
Ike’s
breaking
during
the
scene.
A
conversation
occurs
as
part
of
this,
and
can
be
seen
as
the
organised
group
from
Lévy’s
theory
communicating
amongst
themselves
on
33. 27
a
molecular
technology,
for
the
observance
of
both
molar
and
molecular
groups.
The
self-‐organised
groups
may
congregate
on
social
media,
but
it
is
the
organised
groups
that
take
advantage
to
spread
their
message,
or
in
this
case
entertain
the
viewers.
Figure
2.5
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/562807234015821825
Figure
2.6
also
showcases
a
comedic
bit
that
the
writers
and
stars
live-‐
tweeted
during
the
episode.
Barinholtz
first
tweeted
in
the
example
under
the
#TMPlivetweet
tag,
referencing
the
scenes
between
Mindy
Kaling’s
and
(guest
star)
Lee
Pace’s
characters.
Many
of
the
live
tweets
done
by
the
writers
and
actors
are
jokes
or
sarcastic
remarks.
This
sort
of
banter
brings
the
fan
into
the
intimate
group
of
those
working
on
the
show;
to
feel
a
part
of
what
has
been
created.
The
knowledge
culture
here
blends
the
two
groups,
creating
a
new
dialogue
and
space
outside
the
show.
With
the
conversation
then
going
on
to
Mindy
Kaling
and
‘Rob,’
an
editor
for
the
show,
there
is
a
dialogue
created
around
a
situational
element.
While
certain
fans
then
later
commented
on
this
discussion,
the
main
contributors
are
related
to
the
show,
rather
than
the
observers.
It
is
one
of
the
singular
times
34. 28
that
I
found
someone
outside
of
the
acting
and
writing
staff
commenting
on
dialogue
between
the
staff.
Usually,
it
is
just
writers
teasing
each
other
and
occasionally
the
actors,
but
having
editing
staff
involved
here
is
relevant
and
showcases
the
wider
circle
of
workers
that
exist
to
make
the
show.
It
also
gives
that
staff
member
a
greater
prominence
to
the
fandom—although
in
this
case
it
doesn’t
look
like
that
happened
with
only
one
favourite
and
no
retweets.
The
editor,
outside
of
the
‘in
group’
of
the
writers
and
actors,
can
be
seen
as
part
of
the
molecular
group
even
though
he
is
part
of
the
production
of
the
show.
To
be
part
of
the
molar
group,
it
is
necessary
to
have
a
large
amount
of
followers
on
Twitter,
or
at
least
a
large
amount
commenting
on
what
is
said.
Those
who
may
be
related
to
the
‘famous’
but
do
not
necessarily
have
a
large
amount
of
followers
loose
their
right
to
claim
a
membership
as
part
of
Lévy’s
organised
group.
The
fan
has
more
power
here
than
the
editor,
as
the
fan
gets
more
retweets
or
favourites
than
the
editor.
They
also
have
a
community
in
which
there
is
more
support,
whereas
aside
from
the
closely
grouped
writers
and
actors
there
is
little
connection
outside
of
the
group
for
the
editor.
Figure
2.6
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/555192942709993472
35. 29
These
types
of
‘inside
jokes’
often
occur
during
the
live
tweeting
of
the
episode.
There
is
also
a
similar
discourse
during
the
tweeted
chats
between
the
writers
during
and
after
writing
sessions.
This
is
particularly
unique
to
The
Mindy
Project,
where
the
writing
staff
is
close-‐knit
and
frequently
takes
trips
or
attends
events
together.
Each
writer
has
their
own
Twitter
persona,
and
creates
a
discourse
for
the
fan
to
explore,
serving
as
a
bigger
part
of
the
show’s
creative
world
and
allowing
the
fan
to
see
‘behind
the
scenes’.
The
group
has
its
own
‘collective
intelligence’
as
their
dialogue
builds
a
community.
The
fans
become
invested
and
watch
the
interactions
on
Twitter,
Instagram
and
Facebook,
becoming
fans
of
the
individual
showrunners,
writers
and
stars
rather
than
just
the
show
and
characters.
While
these
writers
may
not
be
celebrities,
at
least
in
the
common
sense
(aside
from
Mindy
Kaling),
they
are
a
respected
and
sometimes
idolized
part
of
the
creative
process—especially
by
fans.
The
amount
of
interactions
on
social
media
helps
to
build
their
presence,
especially
with
Kaling
constantly
tweeting
both
to,
and
about,
the
writers.
For
instance,
in
Figure
2.7,
there
is
a
running
joke
both
in
the
show
and
outside
of
it
that
Mindy
does
not
know
much,
if
anything,
about
sports.
A
number
of
her
writers
and
producers
are
sports
fans,
and
often
talk
about
football
around
her.
So
for
her
to
have
written
a
joke
about
football
is
unprecedented,
as
seen
in
Figure
2.7.
36. 30
Figure
2.7
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/628598315609821185
David
Stassen,
often
called
‘Sassy
Stassen’
by
the
fans,
often
tweets
back
and
forth
with
Kaling
and
the
other
writers
(Tumblr,
2014).
His
relationship
with
the
other
writers
and
set
is
followed
by
the
fans,
as
he
works
both
in
the
writers’
room
and
as
a
producer.
He
serves
here
as
a
subset
of
the
molar
group
(as
a
writer)
while
Twitter
users
follow
his
actions
regarding
the
show.
This
provides
the
fans
with
multiple
means
to
see
spoilers
of
the
show,
especially
when
pictures
of
set
are
shown
on
his
Twitter
and
Instagram
feeds.
Fans
will
often
go
on
to
the
pictures
that
have
been
taken
in
the
writers’
room
to
see
images
of
the
writers’
board
for
potential
spoilers.
This
got
to
be
such
a
problem
at
the
beginning
of
the
third
season
that
Kaling,
Stassen
and
other
writers
had
to
blur
the
background
of
their
pictures
so
details
would
not
be
released
early
(Tumblr,
2015).
Henry
Jenkins
saw
this
type
of
accessibility
as
a
possible
problem,
as
creators
feel
their
creative
37. 31
control
slip
and
the
final
product
spoiled.
The
use
of
molecular
technology
complicates
the
relationship
that
creators
can
have
with
their
fans,
when
their
work
is
spread
easier
than
ever
before—especially
when
it
hasn’t
even
been
released
yet.
Part
of
the
problem
for
molar
groups
is
to
figure
out
how
to
use
molecular
technology
for
their
benefit,
rather
than
just
to
the
benefit
of
the
fandom.
It
is
one
thing
to
be
generating
buzz
and
having
an
invested
fandom,
but
when
your
creative
product
is
accessed
or
released
earlier
than
intended
it
undermines
where
organised
and
self-‐organised
groups
sit
in
Lévy’s
spectrum.
The
fandom
is
able
to
use
molecular
technology
for
their
ultimate
benefit
for
creative
spoilers,
but
ultimately
ruin
the
creative
process
for
themselves
and
the
molar.
Figure
2.8
https://Twitter.com/mindykaling/status/628628370868334593
Other
writers
who
are
also
part
of
the
creative
process
get
a
distinct
voice
on
Twitter,
particularly
in
their
interactions
with
Kaling.
Most
of
the
time
it
seems
38. 32
like
these
interactions
could
take
place
by
text
or
in
person,
but
it
seems
that
part
of
the
intention
is
to
both
pander
to,
and
include,
the
fans
in
their
intensity.
This
can
be
seen
in
Figure
2.8,
where
Jack
Burditt
wants
to
get
some
snacks
from
Kaling,
and
turns
the
conversation
into
‘creative’
ideas
for
which
to
‘break’,
or
start
writing
the
next
episode.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
molar
groups
like
@CitiBikeNYC
seize
on
these
types
of
conversation
for
free
promotion,
almost
using
a
more
powerful
organised
group
to
promote
their
brand.
Frequently
these
types
of
organizations
will
comment
on
conversations
that
mention
the
group,
but
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
they
are
often
not
seen
any
more
so
than
the
fandom.
An
organization
like
Citi
Bike
will
not
be
included
to
the
extent
of
the
fan,
who
is
more
likely
to
be
retweeted,
included,
or
favourited
as
part
of
the
conversation.
Part
of
this
seems
to
be
a
mutual
recognition
and
acknowledgement
between
the
creators
and
writers
of
a
show
and
the
fandom:
one
cannot
exist
without
the
other.
While
it
may
be
‘fun’
to
have
a
molar
organization
comment
on
a
post,
ultimately
there
is
no
real
benefit
to
viewing
numbers
of
dedication
of
fans.
In
this
case,
it
almost
seems
that
the
molecular
group
of
self-‐organised
fans
have
the
most
power
on
Twitter,
because
they
are
to
whom
those
in
a
‘molar’
position
are
communicating,
and
for
whom
they
are
creating
their
product.
Power,
here,
refers
to
Lévy’s
views
on
the
knowledge
space,
where
ultimately
it
is
those
who
know
the
most
about
the
television
programme
that
are
rewarded.
These
types
of
interactions
between
writers
are
becoming
more
prominent
as
television
executives
put
pressure
on
programmes
to
use
social
media.
It
is
taking
place,
although
differently,
with
the
showrunners
of
Arrow,
as
will
be
explored
in
Chapter
3.
One
of
the
main
differences
with
TMP
is
that
all
of
its
writers
are
‘comedians,’
appearing
funnier
or
more
amusing
than
those
on
a
drama
