by Cory Barker
Here, user misspam attempts to warn the community that many of the posts in the comment section contain spoilers. misspam also muses whether or not the site’s reviews are done in the best possible manner for a binge series. However, misspam’s comment is met with both sarcastic and pragmatic responses—both of which demonstrate the opinion that it is the responsibility of the individual to either keep up (or ahead) of Vulture’s reviews, or to simply not read the article. As such, it is clear that Vulture’s reviews represent a continually evolving space of rhetorical vernacular. In this space, both the writer and users express their opinions as to the best practices when reviewing and discussing a series free from traditional television temporality. Consequently, the variety of responses signifies the unsettled nature of this vernacular space. The consequences of the site’s decision to impose a temporality on viewers are a point of tension, and negotiated within the comment section. Moreover, these comments also engage with the discussion of whether or not the onus is on the individual, the community, or the publication itself to avoid spoiling details for others.
Finally, some commenters exhibit frustration with either other posters or the rhetorical vernacular confines of the comment sections. In one such comment, user dgoings writes, “Nobody cares if you binged watched. If it doesn’t have to do with the episode that is being RECAPPED keep it to yourselves.” While this comment demonstrates anger toward other users who are commenting on episodes beyond the ones being reviewed, many other individuals are undeterred. A large portion of commenters expressed excitement in discussing future episodes of the series, despite the fact that the particular review was read by users who had viewed highly varying numbers of episodes.
Additionally, the comment sections of Vulture further demonstrate user negotiation of the disrupted temporality of the communal television experience. These continuous commenter interactions form what Hauser observes as “the dramaturgy of vernacular exchange offers deep insight into the rhetorical performance of a movement that is missed on studies focused exclusively on the formal rhetoric of leaders.”29 In the rhetorical communities of these comment sections, users must navigate emerging rules of acceptable vernacular and dialogue. There are attempts by the community (via both Vulture’s review structure and user comments) to create order out of the temporal chaos inspired by Netflix’s all-at-once distribution strategy, but individual commenters nevertheless fail to conform to these expectations. While some are apologetic in their transgressions, others openly question the wisdom of reviewing OITNB in the same methodical manner as regularly scheduled television.
An examination of Grantland gives insight into the mindset of writers and editors who are forced to recalibrate their coverage of Netflix programming. For media criticism, this new distribution strategy represents “radically new ways of thinking about human symbolic activity moved beyond the podium to the streets where the micro-practices of moment-by-moment interactions contribute not only to the organic character of the culture but become a significant source of rhetorically salient meaning and influence.”30 In this way, writers must try to reestablish a regular temporality to streaming content distribution, a medium that eschews this—or any—kind of structure.
Grantland addressed Netflix’s Arrested Development new season by reviewing two episodes each week. Despite the potential for binge-watching, the site imposed a weekly schedule that mostly approximates the typical once-a-week episodic distribution schedule. In the review of the first episode of season four of Arrested Development, Ana Marie Cox writes, “Did you binge all weekend on the new Arrested Development episodes? To each his own. We’re going to slow it down a little. Two episodes per week, one at a time. It’s what Mitch would want.”31 Here, “Mitch” refers to Arrested Development creator Mitch Hurwitz, who before the Netflix release, stated that
I’m really doing everything I can to put out that misconception that it can be watched in any order. Although I really did have that ambition at one point…. Not only will the episodes be available at the same time on Netflix, but they also cover the same period of time in the characters’ lives. So it seemed like, yeah, you should be able to jump in in any order and see George Michael’s episode and then maybe Buster’s episode, if you want [but] I pretty quickly realized everything here is about the order of telling the stories, that there will be shows where you find out a little bit of information and then later shows where you revisit the scene and you find out more information…. I thought, okay, this may not be up for debate.32
Hurwitz also responded to a question about binge-watching the series, stating, “No one should binge-watch” because “you’ll get tired.” With the creator’s firm perspective on how viewers should experience his series in mind, Grantland imposed a semi-regular schedule on its readership. Though viewers are able to feast at will on series, it could, potentially, come at the cost of the more traditional communal aspects of television viewing. The idea of a community of viewers watching simultaneously has an innate and engrained power for American viewers, a power that Hurwitz and Grantland urged viewers to remember when watching Arrested Development. (It is also worth noting here that publications like Grantland prefer the normal distribution model because it enables them to publish individual episodic reviews that extend the window for web traffic and clicks across a longer period of time.)
Navigating Spoilers
Viewers who fail to watch television programs quickly after their air date or release are opening themselves to the possibility that major events will be prematurely revealed, or “spoiled” for them as they peruse social media. In the comment section of The A.V. Club, users quickly adopted the vernacular rhetoric of spoiler etiquette. For most users, this community consideration involved beginning their comment with some use of the word “SPOILERS” in all capital letters. This acts as an unmistakable warning sign for others who are not as far along in the series, and encourages them not to read the post, lest they incur the risk of having a major plot point revealed. When this etiquette was not followed, users were quick to voice displeasure at these vernacular transgressions.
YO MOMA…cuz im secure like t: Ok, where is everyone. I was going to start into episode 10, but I’m afraid my parents will hear the overtly sexual content, so … it’ll have to wait for tomorrow.
I’m really, really loving it. I think I could partly attribute this to the “marathon high” though. I can’t really remember what happens in any one episode.
EDIT: Really sorry for the spoilers. The review for the first six seemed pretty dormant. Again, sorry.
MylesMcNutt: I hate to be that guy, but I’m going to—based on the fact I saw your spoiler and wished I hadn’t—suggest perhaps editing that out. I’d rather not have a thread discussing future plot details in any specific detail, especially not anything tied to major character developments.
I get you want to talk about where you are. I wish I could say that these reviews could move at the same pace. But for now, the full season review might need to be the spot for that, if you can be a bit patient.
In this interaction, user YO MOMA is publically chided for not following the developing rules of conversation in the site’s comment section. As demonstrated by the edited comment, s/he apologizes for this transgression multiple times, and in an attempt to make amends, has removed the egregious spoiler from the comment. This interaction exemplifies Hauser and McClellan’s notion that “we enact vernacular performances that either uphold the status quo or blatantly disregard it. Such performances necessarily impact larger understandings of how to interact with strangers.”33 In this virtual community the rules of vernacular interaction are upheld much in the same way they would be in face-to-face conversation. Though this is just one selected example of such an interaction, similar online exchanges occur regularly.
Finally, users employed either the aforementioned spoiler notifications or some form thereof to cultivate ethos, or credibility. Many began their post with a line suc
h as “I am only three episodes in” or “Just finished the whole series” in order to mark their post as ahead of The A.V. Club’s review structure. Ultimately, this strategy was replicated in the future reviews of OITNB on The A.V. Club’s website, as it serves as context for readers. Hauser postulates that these “pragmatic functions, such as temporal references, could indicate a time not captured by the literal meaning of the words but by their context.”34 As commenters exercise their desire to become part of this new communal television discussion, it is critical that they adopt the vernacular of their discourse community and ensure their comments contain an awareness of the context of both spoilers and the differing viewing patterns of others.
Cultivation of Online Ethos
In digital spaces, the credibility of an individual is often impossible to discern. While writers have the ability to reveal their identity (and by extension their credentials), users who post to comment sections are not afforded this rhetorical appeal. However, in the examined websites, users were able to quickly develop strategies to cultivate ethos in order to persuade fellow commenters. An investigation of the comment sections of The A.V. Club’s reviews of season four of Arrested Development further understanding of the way that these interactions are spaces for the creation of rhetoric. Hauser’s vernacular rhetoric “widens the scope of rhetoric to include instances of vernacular exchange, direct attention to collective reasoning processes as they are disclosed in vernacular exchanges, locate public opinion and processes of creating common understanding, and regards the dialogue of vernacular talk as a significant way by which public opinion is developed.”35 The creation of vernacular rhetoric is apparent in the following selected comments and exchanges from The A.V. Club.
Many comments on Arrested Development reviews focus on viewer disappointment when watching the early episodes of the series. Responding to concerns of viewers who had only watched the first few episodes, commenters on the site’s first Arrested Development review worked to influence the opinions of others and convince them to give the series another chance, as exemplified by the following exchange:
Tim Lieder: I thought so too. It was also a big part of why I didn’t like the first episode—because even though I agree with the writers of this column that Michael is just as crazy and as self-centered as the rest of the Bluth clan, I think it’s much funnier when his insanity is just below the surface and he has that veneer of straight man.
Then I saw all the episodes and started rewatching the show. Now it’s hilarious.
ButlerWhoGooglesThings: Knowing where everything is going makes these two episodes much better. I’m not saying they were terrible as stand-alone episodes, but just that they are improved with context.
George Sr. in the “sweat and squeeze” con was a perfect character moment and Michael getting voted out was as strong a scene as anything they’ve ever done.
These comments exemplify Hauser’s assertion that vernacular rhetoric helps sway public opinion. Commenters who want others to continue watching the series first commiserate through an initial and shared disappointment. They then encourage their peers to continue watching by stating their pleasure with the progression of the season, often by foreshadowing some of the particularly appealing humorous situations.
Additionally, through mention of their progression through the Arrested Development season, commenters are able to cultivate comment section ethos:
Tearinitup Drifter: Not sure if this helps, but the stuff at college is happening six months prior to the events in the opening scenes in episode one (I think…). I’ve only seen these two episodes.
spicoli323: Having seen almost the whole season … you are correct about this.
MothaF_NDixon: Having seen 10 episodes now, these earlier episodes certainly “age” well after you get more info and scenes that come later. I’ll definitely be rewatching this again, as it appears it may be as enjoyable as the first watch but for completely different reasons.
In this interaction, the replies begin with users couching their statement with “Having seen.” This notification creates a hierarchy of understanding and credibility when it comes to comments on Arrested Development. Moreover, the use of similar language demonstrates the way that vernacular rhetoric in this particular public space is quickly adopted by others, eager to give order to the chaos of the disrupted temporarily of the communal television experience.
An examination of the Vulture comment section demonstrates a continuation of themes found in the comments of The A.V. Club. However, unlike the reviews structure of The A.V. Club, Vulture’s reviewers released 15 reviews (one for each episode of season four of Arrested Development) all on the same day, with promises of more in-depth recaps in the coming weeks. Thus, the site was able to satisfy fans demanding immediate spaces of discourse without imposing a more traditional weekly or bi-weekly limitation.
In these spaces, commenters continued to display forms of encouragement for fellow viewers, supplemented through an ethos generated from their progression through the series. Interacting with critic and fellow commenter Matt Zoller Seitz, johnnyb0731 wrote,
I’m glad that you enjoyed the season. I watched it all on Sunday and while I thought the first two episodes were slowish I loved the season after that. I think it took some adjusting to the difference in structures and how the jokes were going to be set up and layered together. I’ve been very surprised to see the negative reactions by a lot of the critics because I think that the show came back better than I could have dreamed it would.
Here, the user is able to establish their credibility by stating that s/he not only watched the entirety of season four, but also did so in a single day. Though the comment is directed at creating dialogue with a particular user, johnnyb0731 acknowledges widespread community concerns that the series “starts slowly,” which helps encourage those hesitant to continue to keep watching. This encouragement continues with an interaction between two users in the site’s review of the first episode:
AaronKT: I didn’t much care for this episode the first time around. It took me a few episodes to get into it. But having watched them all and rewatching episode 1, I giggled all the way through this episode. If anything this season is even more dense then it used to be…. Showstealer pro trail version was the best gag this episode.
backinstolaf: @AaronKT Yes, once you watch the whole season and start rewatching you catch a lot of small things that make it so much better!!
Yet again, it is clear that many users desire a space to discuss the series in its entirety. However, interaction with one another is difficult, as there is potential for spoilers or lack of frame of reference, as some commenters may not have yet watched the entire series. As such, how many episodes an individual has watched becomes an important qualifier and self-identifier in this vernacular community.
Overall, these adaptations by both writers and commenters represent the rudimentary stage of the post-temporal television world. Nevertheless, it appears that adjustments by entertainment publications to Netflix and other streaming services will only continue. The unsettled nature of time and viewer participation creates a myriad of problems for writers and audiences alike, who now have no frame of reference as to the progress that others have made in their favorite programs. Taken together, “studies of vernacular rhetoric offer news about the ways in which ongoing social discourse serves as a mode of influence on what people think and do.”36 By examining the interaction between commenters and critics in these online discourse communities, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the formation of vernacular rhetoric. Ultimately, these examinations illuminate the ongoing negotiation of temporality and the communal television experience created by Netflix’s release model.
Conclusion
This essay’s examination of audience and critic responses to Netflix’s distribution practices provides insight to the negotiated rhetorical vernacular of the new communal television viewing experience. The traditional communal
television experience is predicated upon temporal confines created by a regular episode release schedule. With the advent of the Internet as a space for communal discussion, this audience regulation was reinforced, as audience members were able to take part in regularly scheduled discussions with more users than ever before. However, Netflix’s practices have disrupted not only the temporality of the longstanding distribution model, but also the communal experience of discussion. While this essay examines some of these developing reactions, it should be noted that these sites, reviews, Netflix series, and comments are merely a fraction of the dialogue that continues to regularly occur online. Nevertheless, these interactions represent new developments regarding the changing temporality of communal television and the concomitant communal television experience.
When taken in the context of the history of television, Netflix’s all-at-once distribution strategy is still in its nascent stages. It seems clear the Netflix as a brand and content producer understands audience in ways never before realized. Networks under traditional television model are at an inherent disadvantage compared to online streaming services that have access to enormous amounts of consumer data. Conversely, Netflix has been able to leverage this advantage in order to grow in popularity and release near guaranteed hit programs. Traditional television, meanwhile, continues a long-established haphazard model for new releases, while Netflix is able to gather data about the programs people are watching in new and efficient ways. Recent data claims that 35 percent of all U.S. consumers ages 13 to 54 state that they use Netflix at least once a month.37 Subscribers watch an average of five series and four movies a week.38 In essence, “Netflix doesn’t know merely what we’re watching, but when, where and with what kind of device we’re watching. It keeps a record of every time we pause the action—or rewind, or fast-forward—and how many of us abandon a show entirely after watching for a few minutes.”39