The impact of Orality, Media and Culture in Pontypool's Plague
First, how can we apply Innis' understanding
of orality and speech to the performance of Grant Mazzy, the host of the radio
show in Pontypool?
Second, think about the plague of Pontypool
in terms of Harold Innis’ analysis of ancient empires and media forms. Is the
vector of infection of the language virus in Pontypool an example of time bias
or space bias?
I will be attempting to answer both these questions together since I feel they are closely related.
While talking about orality and speech, Harold
Innis mentions how orality is based on culture. He also mentions that “the
characteristics of media will influence the type of empire that employs them.”
So, speech as a form of communication influences the environment in which it
works. With this in mind, let’s remember that traditions were passed down
orally through generations.
In the case of Pontypool, the host, Grant Mazzy,
discovers that viruses are being transmitted through language and media
channels. This demonstrates the power of media and the consequences it may have
on many people in the show. We can hear the tension and virus gradually rising,
spreading, and wreaking havoc. And this is an excellent example of how orality
and speech can have a significant impact on society through mediatization.
According to Harold Innis, culture and infrastructure work together to create media. He also mentions that orality and speech are culturally based and that technological advancements in communication channels may be considered infrastructure. We can make sense of the Pontypool show and how we, as listeners, tend to trust everything we hear merely from the audio based on Innis' understanding of these two components. It could be a good example of how people have taken the spoken word as truth throughout history, and how orality is known to spread at a much faster rate through digital communication channels, reaching the masses.
In terms of whether
the Pontypool Plague is a time-biased or space-biased medium, I believe it is
space-biased. Harold Innis discusses how space-biased media can be portable,
and the radio broadcast is an excellent example of how merely audio can effortlessly
move across vast expanses of space.
Hi there, great blog post!
ReplyDeleteI agree, radio would be considered a space-biased medium due to its light-weight, portable, and efficient nature which, in the case of Pontypool, allowed for the widespread dissemination of the language virus. In contrast, if the language virus was etched into the walls using hieroglyphs, only local individuals who can read and understand them would be infected, minimizing the impact of the virus significantly. Another example of this is clay tokens, only those given the clay touched with the etching of the language virus would become infected. Through the orality and widespread acceptance of radio broadcasting, the language virus was able to quickly and effectively spread in Pontypool.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Carol, I find your perspective in analyzing the case of Pontypool from the relationship between orality and culture is unique! This perspective makes good use of Innis’s argument and goes further than just focusing on the effect of orality and speech. It shows oral tradition is formed by time and culture. We can easily notice the powerful role of oral communication in Pontypool, but sometimes people might wonder why the public was influenced so easily. A similar example is in another of our readings, in which the New York Times was concerned about the naivety of the public because they were led by Welles’ broadcast easily. I think this view places too much blame on the audience because it somewhat neglects the longevity of oral tradition.
ReplyDelete