Greetings, salutations, and so on, and so forth. Trending this week in the WRIT2300 blog -- podcast topics!
I spent a lot of time flipping and flopping my brain cells over what I wanted to talk about in my podcast. The trouble with being generally and genuinely interested in generally everything I stumble across is that it makes narrowing down a topic particularly difficult. As luck would have it, however, I was struck by the cleaning bug this weekend and in my mad tidy-up frenzy stumbled across an absurdly large pile of old Metro newspapers. Specifically, twenty of them: one for each installment of the month-long short story published by Canadian author Douglas Coupland, "TEMP."
Coupland prefaced his serial story with an introductory article outlining some pretty lofty claims to fame: that he was, in effect, attempting something entirely new and experimental with this short story, something keyed-in to the particular needs and interests of an increasingly-ADHD audience."No longer sure if fiction is keeping pace with life and how we live it," Coupland claims to be inventing an entirely new literary mode, which he glibly calls "depeche fiction ... written so that it accumulates in your brain over time, and then, just like alien eggs, it suddenly hatches and makes your brain say, 'Hey!'" Intrigued, I started reading the story and ... personally, I just didn't get it. The story didn't strike me as particularly new or experimental, or even particularly interesting, in either form or content -- frankly, I thought Charles Dickens did it better with his own serialized novel Great Expectations. Then again, maybe I'm just missing something -- maybe it would be worth delving deep into the history of serialized fiction, and the evolution of fiction in general, before I boldly state that Coupland's "TEMP" tanked.
In effect, the question I'm asking is: "Is Coupland right when he says that conventional fiction isn't keeping pace with the 'extreme present tense'? And if he is, does his own story "TEMP" really stand a model for the new face of fiction?"
In terms of format, I was really impressed by CBC's Spark podcast -- specifically #236 on daily rituals and creativity. I thought the introduction was particularly inspired, with the catchy music, the sound bytes from what sounded like various interviews or call-ins, the gradual fading of the music -- but without letting it disappear completely, so that it kept the "pulse" of the show going. I liked that they created a narrative hook using sound effects, narration and dialogue to build the scene of counting coffee beans, and the natural segue into the interview with Mason Currey. I also liked the dynamic between the hosts of Lexicon Valley -- I think that having that kind of active dialogue between multiple individuals is what drives a good podcast. A single voice becomes monotonous, unless you really work to break up the monotony with sound effects, music, etc. This is why I thought the Freakonomics podcast was particularly well-produced, because they make good use of sound effects and the like to keep the show from becoming stagnant.
For my podcast, I plan to work in a few quick interviews with some experts in the literary field -- a York professor, perhaps a "second opinion" on Coupland's story from another student. I also have a friend in mind as a co-host for the show. If I can get a handle on the technology, I'd also like to work in music and sound effects throughout the podcast.
To be honest, I've already had a long time to let this topic percolate in my brain, as I initially planned to write an article about it, so I didn't really have to resort to writing sites to narrow it down. I did, however, spend a fair amount of time jumping between podcasts, taking notes on different elements I liked or didn't like, to help form a mental image of how I want to present the information. Thus, the best tip I can give is a little test I often use on myself: if I can't summarize the fundamental thesis in a single, articulate sentence, then it's still too broad.
No comments:
Post a Comment