Formulas

Form is a compelling concept. It appeals to an interdisciplinary perspective and allows us to consider an object like the anthology series as a formal entity, with literary, cultural, social, transhistorical, economic implications. However, its level of abstraction forces us to integrate in the discussion on the anthology form other terms, like formula and genre - but also canon or model -, in order to outline more specifically the characteristics of the objects of this study - namely, television series. I will start with a brief presentation of the notion of formula in studies on popular culture, focusing on the U.S. market, where the anthology form had a large resonance all along the history of television. The notion of formula was notably introduced in the study of popular literature by John G. Cawelti (1969). In defining this terminology, Cawelti explains that word formula refers to

[…] a conventional system for structuring cultural products. It can be distinguished from form which is an invented system of organization. Like the distinction between convention and invention, the distinction between formula and form can be best envisaged as a continuum be-tween two poles; one pole is that of a completely conventional structure of conventions – an episode of the Lone Ranger or one of the Tarzan books comes close to this pole; the other end of the continuum is a completely original structure which orders inventions.

(Cawelti, in Hinds et al. 2006: 187)

This idea of a concrete “conventional structure”, as opposed to the abstract ordering in-stance of a form, recalls the notion of genre. Cawelti clarifies the relation between the two, by specifying that these two terms, rather than denoting two completely different things, reflect

in-stead “two phases or aspects of a complex process of literary analysis. This way of looking at the relation between formula and genre reflects the way in which popular genres develop. In most cases, a formulaic pattern will be in existence for a considerable period of time before it is con-ceived of by its creators and audience as a genre.” (Cawelti [1976] 2014: 24) This archetypical function of literary formulas with regard to genres leads us to think to the concept of formula as representative of a standardization process, rather than a purely formal patterning process. Taking the example of anthology series, anthology is a form. Adhering to this form, a series like True Detective (HBO, 2013- ) originated its own seasonal formula, through a set of “normative” rules and repetitions. It created a convention. In this creative process, once a formula is born as a cul-tural product, it might as well evolve into a genre - e.g. true crime.

Crime stories are traditionally very formulaic. It is perhaps not a casualty that the anthol-ogy form developed in close connection with this and other highly formulaic genres (like horror), which can be easily reproduced in a homogeneous collection of episodes or seasons. As Cawelti remarks, “the formula of the classical detective story can be described as a conventional way of defining and developing a particular kind of situation or situations, a pattern of action or devel-opment of this situation, a certain group of characters and the relations between them, and a set-ting or type of setset-ting appropriate to the characters and action.” (Cawelti [1976] 2014: 80) Cawelti’s formula therefore turns out to be a very helpful parameter for assessing the extent to which a product is anthological in the intent, or else which anthology series are actually formula-ic, which not and why. It is the case of semi-anthological products like police procedurals. As the scholar Todd Gitlin also noticed when observing one of the most famous legal dramas of the of the late 1950s and 1960s, “Perry Mason was Perry Mason once and for all; watching the reruns

only devotes could know from character or set whether they were watching the first or the last in the series. For commercial and production reasons which are in practice inseparable […] the reg-ular schedule prefers the repeatable formula. […]” (Gitlin 1982: 245)

Gitlin (1982) associates the word formula with a tendency to standardization of television programs which was dominating the mediascape until the 1980s, and which was not necessarily strictly connected to the concept of format - although he uses these terms sometimes almost inter-changeably in the same context. Some studies addressing media policy and literacy did in fact approach the term “format” under a less pragmatic perspective, although still acknowledging a

“grey area” of copyrights issues (Moran and Malbon 2006: 113). Lyndsay Gough, for example, defines format as “a collection of (or the sum of) the key elements and characteristics that make up the concept of a programme, giving it a unique look and feel and its broadcasting identity. It is the style, plan or arrangement of a particular show.” (Gough 2002: 26) Another blurred definition of formula, defined as “genre formula” and relatively close to the concept of format, is addition-ally found in Peter Bennett, Jerry Slater and Peter Wall, who explain: “Genre formulas provide a recipe for proven success which producers hope will guarantee future popularity in the market place.” (Bennett et al. 2005: 44-45)

To avoid any confusion and to conclude this theoretical introduction about formats, forms and formulas, I will clarify these concepts in their theoretical and methodological interrelation. If, on the one hand, format can be summed up in the primarily practical act of licensing and regulat-ing the trade of a televisual content, the notion of form, on the other hand, can be placed on the opposite side, since form is first and foremost an abstract model of systemic self-organization and patterning. More precisely, while the concept of format most often leads to a television market

analysis, the concept of form embraces a cultural analytical perspective to media industries, which I largely adopt here. Half-way it stands the useful definition of narrative formula, a term that accounts for a middle ground where both industrial and cultural dynamics intervene. In this sense, perhaps the definition proposed by the French scholar Jean-Pierre Esquenazi seems more accurate to describe this entanglement, and to bridge the gap between different sets of close and distant reading methodologies found in this research. Esquenazi notably uses the term formula as a meta-description, designating “not the script, but the machine that generates scripts, not the group of characters but the stock of models of characters, not the mise-en-scène but the definition of a framework for the mise-en-scene.” (Esquenazi 2014: 91, my translation)

Another concept, originated from the term formula, suitable to study the process of an-thologization is that of “deformulation” (Lifschutz 2015: 36) or reformulation, meaning the abili-ty of a series to detach from the initial formula only to recompose its formula anew. The notion of formula differs both theoretically and methodologically not only from that of format and from Levine’s view of form, but also from Northrop Frye’s ([1957] 2002) theorizations of genre and myth. As Cawelti outlines, if on the one hand formula refers to problems of cultural specificity, genre is perceived as being more of a universal pattern emerging across cultures (Cawelti, [1969]

2006: 188). The notion of genre, appeared in literature and successfully adopted to understand audiovisual production, along with other categories, will be explored further to account for the connection that have been established over the years between the anthology form and certain gen-res in U.S. television. Going beyond the conceptual triad of format, form, formula, the notion of genre will be observed as a form of categorization and as a social construct itself, thus providing a context for tracing a socio-cultural history of U.S. television anthologies.