...and I thought "complicated television" sounded like an oxymoron.

I think one of the best points Mittell makes in outlining the possibility/importance/work of narratively complex television is that it tends to be the exception and not the rule.  Mittell is wise to note that “complexity has not overtaken conventional forms within the majority of television programming today—there are still many more conventional sitcoms and dramas on-air than complex narratives” (29).  Nontraditional television programming exists, but there isn’t enough of a presence to say that it’s become the new dominant mode of television storytelling.  For Mittell, “even though this mode represents neither the majority of television nor its most popular programs …a sufficiently widespread number of programs work against conventional narrative practices using an innovated cluster of narrational techniques to justify such analysis” (29-30).  Although this type of programming has yet to replace the reality show or the formulaic sitcom narrative, there is enough of it out there to warrant further investigation.  Mittel also makes the important concession that “complexity and value are not mutually guaranteed” (30).  This means that an increased level of narrative complexity does not necessarily make a better television show.  Mittell avoids a simplistic praise of complex television, admitting that it takes more than a complicated mode of storytelling to make a ‘good’ TV show.

Mittell also makes it a point to explore the incentives discovered by networks to offer complex/nontraditional programming.  Although this kind of programming could potentially alienate some viewers and go against the imperative to aim for mass appeal, Mittell observes that “networks and channels have grown to recognize that that a consistent cult following of a small but dedicated audience can suffice to make a show economically viable” (31).  Freed from the demands to satisfy the majority of the general television audience and reach, capture, and maintain the largest possible audience, networks have an avenue/incentive to provide shows that break from the established norms of TV narrative.  The smaller audiences drawn in by complex programs can even be beneficial.  Mittel acknowledges that “many complex programs expressly appeal to a boutique audience of more upscale educated viewers who typically avoid television …needless to say, an audience comprised of viewers who watch little other television is particularly valued by advertisers” (31).  Although complex TV programming offers something more to a potentially more sophisticated viewer, the motivation is the same.  Smaller audiences are acceptable if they are composed of the kinds of viewers that advertisers aim to reach.

When Mittell cites Steven Johnson, I was reminded of Elsaesser’s take on complex film narratives.  Johnson “claims that this form of complexity offered viewers a ‘cognitive workout’ that increases problem-solving and observational skills—whether or not this argument can be empirically substantiated, there is no doubt that this brand of television storytelling encourages audiences to become more actively engaged and offers a broader range of rewards and pleasures than most conventional programming” (32).  This active engagement basically hopes to create and cater to slightly better/more adaptable/more sophisticated consumers and employees.  It doesn’t seem like complex TV ever really has much of an interest in challenging the TV medium beyond its embrace of traditional narrative techniques.  It appears to be a move to legitimize the medium.