I tried to take a more literary approach towards something that disrupts its canon, but I came up short. I thought about a lot of crossover episodes that seemed violating like when they did the whole Scandal/How to Get Away With Murder thing for the fans. Granted it worked, and now I’ve watched Scandal. Also, the “Uncle Grandpa” episode from Steven Universe was super annoying to me, but it is a children’s show and I probably shouldn’t complain about it. What I realized, instead, is that there are a lot of shows that break their canon of probability in ways that work- you may have already guessed which one I’m going with.
The Living Handbook of Narratology explores the foundation of possible worlds: “The foundation of PW theory is the idea that reality—conceived as the sum of the imaginable rather than as the sum of what exists physically—is a universe composed of a plurality of distinct worlds. This universe is hierarchically structured by the opposition of one element, which functions as the center of the system, to all the other members of the set” (Kripke 1963). This concept is important to consider in conjunction with the idea of breaking the canon of probability. In fact, I think particularly with television breaking the canon is more difficult because the control is in the hands of the narrator(s) who is/are arguable in these situations. The multiple narrators in television include producers, directors, actors, writers, the camera proper, as well as the constructed characters. Broad City consistently defies conventions by having the two creators of the show insert their own constructs of themselves. Abbi Jacobsen portrays her construct Abbi Abrams and Ilana Glazer embodies her character Ilana Wexler. In season four episode four, an episode written by Abbi Jacobsen, Abbi and Ilana deconstruct the canon of probability and subvert the Broad City universe and storyworld.
The episode I’m referring to is called “Mushrooms.” If you are unsure where this is going, I think now is a good time to reference Professor Richard Doyle (Penn State University) who, I will argue, led the way in breaking ground for academics to incorporate the study of psychedelics with the study of rhetoric. Amazon includes the following in its description of Doyle’s Darwin’s Pharmacy:“Psychedelic plants seduce us to interact with them, building an ongoing interdependence: rhetoric as evolutionary mechanism.” Also of note is the following passage from his introduction: “But if it is easy enough to say we must ‘recognize the plant as an autonomous power,’ even a superpower, we must somehow do the more difficult work necessary to inhabit this space where plants present a paradoxical and uncanny ‘autonomy’ when are most directly and unmistakably linked to them” (Doyle 7). Doyle suggests that there is already a consubstantiation between plants and the environment perpetuated by them. His book isn’t for everyone, but the points he makes are inadvertently mirrored by Abbi and Ilana in this episode of Broad City.
I think these ideas are why I was hesitant to comment on the episode as breaking the canon of probability. And, I think to more critically understand how it disrupts the canon is by looking at the change in style or, perhaps, change in worlds. Ilana (Wexler, in this case) creates a concoction of psychedelic mushrooms and yogurt, which the women eat and then have a few “are you feeling it yet” moments. As the women sink deeper into the effect, the show shifts from physical, realistic looking constructs to cartoon versions of the women and the world they now perceive. The dimensions of cartoon world are easier to push than the constraints of human bodies, and this shift is immediately made apparent. Cartoon worlds can break boundaries, which we have seen in shows like South Park and Big Mouth. The freedom of cartoon world becomes a source of empowerment for the Broad City episode, which is why even though the episode defies the canon in some sense, in other ways it serves to embolden the show’s message. The women wander around a psychedelic dreamscape:
As they wander we are given some of the following gems:
- Ilana on giving birth: “A person pussy-poops another person.”
- Abbi: “Then I realized that I don’t have permanent mono. I’m just a little allergic to almond milk!”
- Ilana: “Turns out she was convicted of arson, but now she’s a crossfit trainer.”
And, of course, the cucumber/pickle thing, which was a classic trope in 2017:
If you’ve watched the show, it’s fair to suggest that Abbi and Ilana would have conversations like these without the influence of mushrooms. This idea leads me to the following question(s): Are the psychedelic mushrooms a character all their own (I think Doyle might suggest this idea), do the mushrooms lead to the creation of new characters, or do they subvert the already existing characters who consume them? These very thoughts suggest a direct implication of breaking the canon of probability because if the show had not shifted worlds we would (likely) not be questioning the characters' motivations.
So, while the canon of probability is disrupted by the Broad City storyworld, we may argue that the canon is maintained by the still viable actions of its characters.The Living Handbook of Narratology discussion of Character raises the following problem: “Even though there is currently a broad consensus that character can best be described as an entity forming part of the storyworld, the ontological status of this world and its entities remains unclear.” This episode is unique in that the world’s canon can be disrupted while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of its characters (it is their motives that are under consideration, not the delivery of their actions). The Living Handbook references Fotis Jannidis in addressing the issue of Character and composition of storyworld: “...from the perspective of the neo-hermeneutical theory of literary communication, the text is an intentional object and character is a mental model created by an hypothetical historical model reader. This approach incorporates a number of insights into text processing, but focuses on the text” (Jannidis 2004). This solution subverts the argument that “Mushrooms” maintains its canon of probability because the characters are always already constructs who can be reconstructed or deconstructed in ways the narrator decides. I guess, in the end, these ideas raise the question that if a narrator is the mode of decision making, can a canon even be violated?
Another component to this episode are the repercussions of disrupting the canon of the show’s world. The conflict of the episode comes into play when Abbi receives a message from her boss asking her to bring macarons to a party she throws for her wife. Abbi and Ilana are determined to follow through and arrive to the boss’s house transitioning back to their physical forms. Abbi struggles to maintain the appearance of sobriety, and she is quickly called out. While her boss is forgiving, when Abbi accidentally kills her cat, she fires Abbi. Meanwhile, Ilana is offered the opportunity for her dream threesome, she begins overthinking and struggles to well...perform. The violation of the storyworld, the actions of the characters, and the variations of narration(s) bridge the story together in a way that allows it to succeed in its intentions while distorting the canon of probability.
Comments
Post a Comment