Radiolab is a podcast that explores different stories weekly usually centered around scientific or philosophical themes. They find topics each week, and they inform about the topic through telling a story about the topic. This week the main topic was eels. The story of eels is the discovery and progression of the science about eels. One of the most interesting narrative choices they made is about three fourths of the way through the podcast the podcast started to sound like a normal Youtube video where they went fishing for eels. During the part there was narration over it. Then narration felt like a substitute for the visuals that we were missing. This podcast sounds very casual and having the podcast transition to a video really helps to bring the listener into the podcast and fully engage in the story that they are telling. It’s as if they are transitioning from telling you the story to showing you the story. I think this also helps to show that the story tellers are engaged and invested in the story and this helps the listener to invest into the story too. The sound effects in the episode really help to build wonder and mystery. At one point in the podcast the narrator says the “in the Sargasso Sea…” and then there was a twinkling wonderous noise. I think that this also helps to create the atmosphere of mystery that the eel scientists in the 1800s felt as they were exploring the science of eel reproduction. As we’re listening to the podcast is felt like we are learning more about eels with the scientists. This week also seems to have more guests than they usually have they brought on two marine scientists that are studying eels to tell the story. This choice to bring on guests helps me feel more connected to the hosts of the podcast because I’m going with them on this journey and if I have a question, they almost always ask it for me. The humor in this podcast is also very entertaining. At one point one of the scientists says, “forget the coca cola recipe the real mystery in this world is eel sex we have no idea how it happens”. I personally don’t care about eels and everything that I learned in this podcast is completely useless to me, but I wanted to learn more about eels. The humor and the way they transition from narration to normal conversation between them and normal storytelling are so seamless that the whole time I’m fully engaged in the story and their conversation. They had a lot of voices speaking throughout the entire story but it never felt cluttered they always spoke one at a time there wasn’t a point where I felt overwhelmed at all they are very careful with their pacing they don’t shove a lot of information in your face. Another thing I noticed is when there is a person narrating or telling the story the other people are not completely silent, but they lower their volume so that I’s mumbling in the background. When they do this it feels a lot like I’m sitting in a coffeeshop and they’re just telling me a story
537
Radiolab – “Silky Love”
I thought this was a very interesting review of Radiolab! Switching between podcast and YouTube video was something I found intriguing, as well as having narration over it to really drill that in. I completely agree with you about transitioning from storytelling to showing the story instead! It really hooks you in and this podcast sounds very unique! In my podcast review of Bear Brooks, this was not a pattern in the narrative, so I think it’s pretty intriguing.
The sound effects really do help build up the story and keep listeners engaged! In my podcast review of Bear Brooks, the sound/music stopping abruptly really showed just how serious the situation was and created suspense to keep the listeners interested. I think it is pretty similar to what you say, about how the sound effects build wonder and mystery with the twinkling sound. Music and sound effects really play a big part in creating the atmosphere of the podcast!
Interviews are so important to a podcast because it really helps the listener understand the story more and helps us relate, so I completely agree with you when you say that we are learning with the scientists as they go. In my podcast blog, I mentioned that the interviews helped the listener try to piece together the mystery along with the narrator so that we can be fully engaged. I think that’s pretty similar to what you mention about feeling more connected to the hosts, because we’re going through this with them. Pacing is also very important because we don’t want a bunch of information shoved in our faces, and I think in both of our podcasts, the pacing was just right. My narrator talked over interviews every now and then to help the listener understand better, and I believe it was similar for you too.
I really like your analogy about the coffee shop and being told a story, too! The narrative choices in different podcasts are similar, but they are executed differently, which I find to be so interesting! Humor was a very important factor in your podcast to keep listeners engaged, while mystery/suspense were very important factors in my podcast. Great analysis of Radiolab!
Word Count: 366
To be honest, I think you did an excellent job describing the structure of the podcast and the way the audience is involved in the conversation, and it felt different than something like Serial or Criminal. Personally, I agree. RadioLab seemed interesting in the sense of the constant switching between podcast conversation to YouTube videos, which you don’t see a lot. For example, in my podcast Serial, I did have the constant information thrown at me, however, it was more storytelling I didn’t feel involved, it wasn’t inclusive, however, I like it that way. I prefer more factual, nonfiction-based stories that teach morals, in this case it was research – seems like its not typical to both of our tastes.
In addition, I do agree with you on the sound effects, and how the comments on certain aspects like “eels having sex,” etc. add to the atmosphere of the podcast are engaging. However, I also feel that it can also feel confusing or as a waste of time for the audience. In Serial, I was introduced to interviews that Sarah Koenig had done with victims, prosecutors, and they helped fill in the gaps and build credibility on what she was saying. These are important because they can either add more background to the story or give more in-sight to things that are happening. They help piece situations together, like in my podcast, my victim as arrested – but for what reason? Later, Koenig describes the accidental assault on the police officer, and how even the police officer recognized it – but the prosecutors still called it a felony. Such things show the mishaps, and the wrongdoings in situations – which help the audience feel more connected and comprehend the situation more. However, I was also able to hear the thoughts that Sarah was having, which helped make the story interesting for me – I was able to easily map out what the issues were and how everything had played out. For yours, it seems like the research is present, you feel inclusive, but the subject may seem out of focus. Yes, occasionally they talk about the eels, and reproduction, but like you said it seems like you’re sitting in a coffee shop – which personally for me takes away from the story. I like to hear the story undistracted, full of facts, opinions and thought – not distractions.
Finally, I don’t feel like RadioLabs is the podcast for me, especially topics like Eels, but I was definitely intrigued by your description and account of the podcast. It seemed unique and inclusive – which some audience members may like – varies from my taste though. Good analysis!
Word Count: 437
By: Jaskaran Johal