Проблеми на постмодерността, Том VII, Брой 1, 2017
Postmodernism problems, Volume 7, Number 1, 2017

Transmedia Narratives: Definition and Social Transformations in theConsumption of Media Content in the Globalized World

Kalin Kalinov*

The article provides a wide theoretical analysis of the relatively new phenomenon - thetransmedia narrative. The work starts with a broader overview of the historical and social
aspects related with the narrative structures. Subsequently, it reviews the wide spectrum ofliterature outlining the very concept of “narrative”. Towards the end, the most prominent
scholar definitions of the term “transmedia narrative” are examined and analyzed. As a result, a
coherent definition is offered in order to serve as a basis for further research into thediminishing attention spans of the modern audience, the media convergence and the applicationsof user-generated content.
Key words: transmedia, definition, transmedia narrative, defining transmedia, what istransmedia.

Introduction
Historical and Social Aspects of the Narrative
Narratives have played a significant role throughout human history. Depending on the
adopted definition we could consider different starting points for the first instances of their use.
Some accept the Homeric epics Iliad and Odyssey to be among the first examples of recorded
narratives. They refer to the Homeric epic of the 8th century BC as “the oldest ancient narrative”(Herman, Jahn, & Ryan, 2004, p. 66). However, a broader definition could take us as far back as

60

the Early Bronze Age (approx. 2600 BC) and the classical Sumerian texts (e.g. The Instructionsof Shuruppak) which are considered the earliest examples of “written literature” (Grimbly, 2000,
p. 216). Or we could go even further and claim that long before the tradition of written text,
stories were told around camp fires and the oral transfer of information was in fact a narrative
form. As Zipes points out, “It is impossible to locate and study the history of stories and theevolution of genres because people began speaking and told stories thousands of years before
they learned to read, write and keep records” (Zipes, 2012, p. 4).
Regardless of the starting point, the narrative as a concept has been an integral piece forthe human civilization for thousands of years. Within this time, the narratives have evolved
alongside the technical means available to the storytellers. Probably the most important of alltechnological developments from the narrative perspective was the appearance of mass media
and particularly the printing press in 1456 (Lee, 2002). Its significance lies in the opportunity toreach large number of people with a single text/narrative which was impossible with earlier
books. They remained limited in reach due to the complicated process of their production. Fang
refers to printing as “the second information revolution” while acknowledging the fact that its
effects grew once the obstacles of limited paper supply, slow production process and mass
illiteracy were resolved (Fang, 1997).
The initial limits of the narrative form have been significantly altered with thedevelopment of technologies capable to transfer audio and video content. Thus, the narrative wasno longer constrained within a textual form and could be transmitted and received as anaudiovisual product, appealing to a larger portion of the human senses and allowing a better
immersion in the world it presents while requiring less effort on behalf of the audience. Thus, themodern narratives have a significantly wider palette of forms with which to reach their audience.
Nevertheless, their original role within our society has not changed extremely.
“There is support for the notion that narratives accurately reflect a broad-range of social
perceptions […] of storytellers …” (Salzer, 1998, p. 577).
However, the narration is not a unidirectional process and as such it has always depended
heavily on the audience and its reaction. Thus, one could argue that a functioning narrative could
reflect not only the storytellers’ perceptions but also the perceptions of their audiences. This61

statement could be supported through the wide range of academic literature investigating
different aspects of society through the prism of the narrative forms. Such examples are thepolitical (Shenhav, 2006), cultural (Zipes, 2012), psychological (Sommers, 1994) and othernarratives which play a significant role in the reflection and formation of their respective
discourses. As a result, investigating the narrative and its specifics in a particular context could
uncover societal perceptions within a group, community or a particular individual which makes it
a valuable tool for academic research.
What is “narrative”?
While the question may sound quite simple, the definition of “narrative” is severely
contested academically and has been so for many years. Broadly, the contest can be reviewed in
two main directions – scope and approach. Within the field of scope, the main question iswhether the narrative can consist of a single event or requires at least two such instances. Somenotable academics insist on the former (Barthes, 1982). An example of the later can be found in
the work of Barbara Herrnstein Smith as she states: “[…] we might conceive of narrative
discourse […] as verbal acts consisting of someone telling someone else that something
happened” (Smith, 1980, p. 232). In terms of approach, the main categories of narrative
definition can be outlined as temporal, causal, minimal and transactional (Richardson, 2000, p.
169). The temporal approach focuses on the presentation of events situated in time. The causal
stresses the causal connection between at least two such instances in order to form a narrative(Bal, 1997). The less popular notion of the minimalists suggests that each statement of an action
or event is a narrative as a result of its implication of a transition from an earlier state (Genette,1988). Last but not least, the transactional approach suggests that the narrative is a way ofreading a text and not a feature within the text itself.
An interesting example of the academic dialogue in the field can be found in theexchange between Rudrum and Ryan. In a series of dialogue articles, the two discuss the very
notion of defining a narrative as a phenomenon and whether it is in fact necessary. Rudrum
advocates the idea that “[a]s long as narratology remains tied to [a conception of narrative as
representation], and tied to a philosophy of language that foregrounds signification above andbefore questions of use and practice, it seems that a satisfactory way of defining and classifying
its subject matter will continue to elude it” (Rudrum, 2005, p. 203). Thus he stresses the62importance of the context within which a particular narrative is executed. In return, Ryanquestions the “need for a watertight definition” of the phenomenon and thus adds yet anotherviewpoint in an already wide palette of academic work (Ryan, 2006, p. 193).
Having noted the main issues facing the scholars of narratology, we have to adopt at leasta working definition of the phenomenon in order to continue our academic search towards“transmedia narratives”. Subsequently, we will look at authors like Abbott who states thefollowing: “[…] the field of narrative is so rich that it would be a mistake to become invested ina more restrictive definition that requires either more than one event or the sense of causal
connection between events” (Abbott, 2008, p. 13).
Thus, we can assume the stance of Felman and Laub: “That “something happened” initself is history; that “someone is telling someone else that something happened” is narrative”(Felman & Laub, 1991, p. 93). For the purposes of the present work we adopt the widest possible
definition of narrative constructed by Barbara Herrnstein Smith and cited above. Nevertheless, as
we move towards the realm of the “transmedia narrative”, we will quickly find that most of theacademic questions and disputes are simply inapplicable due to the nature of the phenomenon
and as a result we have a paradoxically clearer definition of the term than the one we can provide
for its main component – the “narrative”.
Defining the Transmedia Narrative
Moving towards a definition of the phenomenon presents a few threats which should be
accounted for. Most of all, the term itself and its applications are a relatively new matter for
academic investigation. Thus, the body of literature written by scholars in the field is limited.
However, the concept of transmediality of a narrative pre-dates the academic research by
centuries. Some scholars argue that a prime example in this regard is the narrative of Jesus Christ
which is in fact a multi-platform storytelling experience including books, drama and visual art(e.g. stained glass in churches) to represent the story (Pearson, 2009). If we assume this stance,then the rich history of the transmedia narrative would include other interesting instances like
Sherlock Holmes and the myths for King Arthur, for example.
“A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making
a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole. In the ideal form of transmedia
63

storytelling, each medium does what it does best […] Each franchise entry needs to be
self-contained [...]” (Jenkins, 2006, pp. 95–96).
This is perhaps the most cited definition of “transmedia narrative” available to date andwhile it has some significant advantages over other attempts to outline the phenomenon, it also
poses limitations which are not completely necessary. We should note that Jenkins never
explicitly states that this is his definition of the term, albeit its wide distribution within theacademic community. The main issue with the definition lies in the assumption that a moderntransmedia narrative could or should function in an “ideal form”. Subsequently, assuming thateach franchise entry needs to be self-contained is a possibility but should hardly be the norm. It
might even be worth arguing that the opposite will become the transmedia standard in the future.
Jenkins provides another attempt at defining the phenomenon about an year later:“Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get
dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating aunified and coordinated entertainment experience. Ideally, each medium makes its own
unique contribution to the unfolding of the story […]” (Jenkins, 2007).
The definition is mostly in line with his previous view and also looking at an ideal
situation in which the narrative functions. Additionally, the notion of systematic dispersion hints
at an inorganic positioning of the narrative elements which is opposing to the view that anarrative should be organically predisposed to a multiplatform distribution in order to be
successful on a transmedia level. Another issue is the fact that Jenkins refers to “fiction” butthere are numerous examples of non-fiction transmedia narratives that should be accounted for ina clear academic definition of the phenomenon.
Evans takes a different perspective regarding the definition of what she refers to as“contemporary transmedia television text” by outlining 3 key features: narrative, authorship andtemporalities (Evans, 2011). According to Evans, the narrative of a transmedia project is key as
it makes the world of the story so large that it is necessary to spread it over several platforms.
Other prominent researchers have supported similar arguments referring to the impossibility tocontain a narrative within a single medium (Jenkins, 2006, p. 95). However, it might be worth
arguing that the spreading over several platforms is not so much a characteristic of the narrative64

itself but rather an adaptation of the work to meet the demands of modern audiences. Regarding
the notion of authorship, Evans refers to the idea of a “unified author” behind the transmedia
narrative but this is not always the case and it severely disrupts the notion of authorship. While
creative collaborations are a standard practice in transmedia production, they cannot be
considered completely the work of a single author. For example, the Animatrix (2003) is in fact
produced and co-written by the Wachowski siblings, directors of The Matrix (1999). And while
the former plays a significant role in the transmedia mix which centers around the later, wecannot undermine the work of the 7 directors of the Animatrix, none of whom carries the
Wachowski surname. Such a stance would completely disregard the academic and practicalworks of the auteur theory which holds that a film reflects the director’s personal creative vision(Thompson & Bordwell, 2009). Last but not least, Evans notes that “within specific moments oftransmedia storytelling, the various production schedules are aligned to ensure a coherent
temporality across the various platforms involved” (Evans, 2011, p. 36).
Pratten offers two definitions of the phenomenon. One which he refers to as “traditional”
consisting of: “[…] telling a story across multiple platforms, preferably allowing audience
participation, such that each successive platform heightens the audience’ enjoyment” (Pratten,
2015, p. 2). Just as with the previous attempts, the multiple platforms are in the center of theinterpretation, however the author puts the focus towards audience participation. Subsequently,
he offers a second definition which “places the audience at the center”: “[…]taking the audienceon an emotional journey that goes from moment-to-moment” (Pratten, 2015, p. 2). Looking attransmedia storytelling as a design philosophy is an interesting perspective. However, thedefinition is too broad and could include a number of things which are not in fact transmedia
narratives, including a simple book, for example.
There is a limited range of authors who have offered definitions of their own which havenot been met with the academic acclaim of the ones mentioned above. Nevertheless, thephenomenon does not seem to be clearly defined. This complicates the work of both theacademics and practitioners in the field of transmedia narratives. Part of the problem is therefusal of scholars to stick to their own definitions and their desire to redefine the phenomenon insubsequent publications (e.g. Jenkins) or their refusal to provide a clear-cut explanation of what
is and what is not a “transmedia narrative” (e.g. Evans). In order to escape both of these65situations, in the present article we would adopt the definition provided by Kalinov andMarkova:“A transmedia narrative is a multimedia product which communicates its narrative
through a multitude of integrated media channels” (Kalinov & Markova, 2016).
In this instance “multitude” should be considered to mean “two or more”. The definition
escapes the traps of non-commitment and is clear enough. At the same time, it is also broad
enough without limiting the scope of the transmedia narrative and its applications. Idealistic
elements and audience focus are implied but cannot be a part of a clear academic definition.
Additionally, it solves some of the debates regarding the very nature of what constitutes anarrative. The minimalist approach is clearly inapplicable in a transmedia product as it requires
at least two platforms communicating the message which as a result requires at least two events.
Communicating the same event over two platforms is possible but it should be considered an
example of cross-media storytelling which is a distinctively different phenomenon. Also, theintertextuality between the channels implies at least a basic form of causal connection which
supports the widely accepted definitions of a narrative provided by Barthes, Bal and others. As aresult, using this definition not only can serve as a basis for further academic discussion but also
in solving the inherent problem of having to define the “transmedia narrative” without existenceof a wide academic consensus on the idea of “narrative” itself.
Conclusion
The transmedia narrative is a relatively new phenomenon and is not yet widely
researched. However, as it is slowly becoming the norm for reaching the audiences around theglobe, both professional and academic interest in the field would grow exponentially. As a result,
it would be beneficial for scholars to agree upon a single definition which is neutral enough inorder to allow deeper research in the future. The present article offers such a definition which
can be considered a starting point for further academic dialogue. Reaching an agreement on theframework of the phenomenon can be applied in researching wider social transformations
through the prism of the transmedia narrative like the diminishing attention span of the audience,
the media convergence and the applications of user-generated content in modern fiction andmarketing.
66

References
Abbott, P. H. (2008). The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bal, M. (1997). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Barthes, R. (1982). Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives. In S. Sontag (Ed.), A Barthes Reader (pp.
251–295). New York: Hill & Wang.
Evans, E. (2011). Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life. New York: Routledge.
Fang, I. (1997). A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions. Retrieved fromhttp://home.lu.lv/~s10178/sixrevolutions.pdf
Felman, S., & Laub, D. (1991). Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History. Oxford:
Routledge.
Genette, G. (1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Grimbly, S. (2000). Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203825464
Herman, D., Jahn, M., & Ryan, M.-L. (Eds.). (2004). Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203932896
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University
Press.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Transmedia Storytelling 101. Retrieved November 3, 2016, fromhttp://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html
Kalinov, K., & Markova, G. (2016). Transmedia Narratives and Marketing (lectures). Sofia: Sofia University “St.
Kliment Ohridski.”Lee, L. T. (2002). History and Development of Mass Communications. Journalism and Mass Communication, I, 1–
26. Retrieved from http//www.eolss-net/Eolss-sampleAllChapter.aspx
Pearson, R. (2009). Transmedia Storytelling in Historical and Theoretical Perspective. In The Ends of Television.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Pratten, R. (2015). Getting Started with Transmedia Storytelling: A Practical Guide for Beginners (2nd ed.).
Retrieved from https://www.createspace.com/5655357%5Cnhttp://www.amazon.com/Getting-StartedTransmedia-Storytelling-Practical/dp/1515339165/ It?s
Richardson, B. (2000). Recent Concepts of Narrative and the Narratives of Narrative Theory. Style, 34(2), 168–175.

67

Rudrum, D. (2005). From Narrative Representation to Narrative Use: Towards the Limits of Definition. Narrative,
13(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2005.0013
Ryan, M.-L. (2006). Semantics, Pragmatics, and Narrativity: A Response to David Rudrum. Narrative, 14(2), 188–
196. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2006.0006
Salzer, M. S. (1998). Narrative Approach To Assessing Interactions Between Society , Community , and Person.
Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)15206629(199811)26:6<569::AID-JCOP4>3.0.CO;2-Z
Shenhav, S. R. (2006). Political Narratives and Political Reality. International Political Science Review/ Revue
Internationale de Science Politique, 27(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512106064474
Smith, B. H. (1980). Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 213–236.
Sommers, M. R. (University of M. (1994). The Narrative Construction of Identity: a Relational and Network
Approach. Theory and Society, 23, 605–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992905
Thompson, K., & Bordwell, D. (2009). Film History: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Zipes, J. (2012). The Cultural Evolution of Storytelling and Fairy Tales: Human Communication and Memetics. The
Irresistible Fairy Tale, 1–20. Retrieved from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9676.pdf---------------------------------------------------------------------*

Kalin Kalinov is a PhD candidate in Crisis Communication at the Faculty of Journalism and

Mass Communication of the Sofia University. He is a lecturer in “Transmedia Narratives andMarketing” and “Communication Management.
68