Tune in, Log on: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community


Nancy K. Baym

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • New Media Cultures

    Series Editor: Steve Jones

    New Media Cultures critically examines emerging social formations arising from and surrounding new technologies of communication. It focuses on the processes, products, and narratives that intersect with these technologies. An emphasis of the series is on the Internet and computer-mediated communication, particularly as those technologies are implicated in the relationships among individuals, social groups, modern and postmodern ways of knowing, and public and private life. Books in the series demonstrate interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological analyses, and highlight the relevance of intertwining history, theory, lived experience, and critical study to provide an understanding of new media and contemporary culture.

    Books in this series …

    Exploring Technology and Social Space J. Macgregor Wise

    CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community edited by Steven G. Jones

    Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community Nancy K. Baym


    View Copyright Page


    This book is the end result of nearly a decade of work that many people have influenced and inspired along the way. Rex Clark introduced me to the social worlds of the Internet in 1990. When I wrote my first paper on this subject in 1991, Nina Baym and Peggy Miller saw immediately that this was “my project.” Many people on the rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s.) newsgroup who read that paper encouraged me to pursue the work. Despite my doubts, I figured that when your mom, your dissertation director, and your respondents all want you to keep at it, they probably are right. They were, and I am grateful for their guidance. Many people gave helpful comments including Peggy Miller, Barbara O'Keefe, Ellen Wartella, Cheris Kramarae, Henry Jenkins, Larry Grossberg, Mary Ellen Brown, Robert Sanders, Brenda Danet, and several anonymous reviewers. Julie Snow, Susan Barnett-Lawrence, Rex Clark, Yves Clemmen, Carine Melkom-Mardorossian, and Christine Levecq all have made face-to-face soap viewing much more fun over the years. Stan Kerr of the University of Illinois and Lyle Kipp helped with computing accounts and programming. Mark Huglen helped to code data. In addition to opening my eyes to the Net and watching my soaps, Rex Clark wrote the database I used to handle all these data and had countless conversations about the research with me. Our beautiful son, Zane, kept my priorities obvious. My editor and friend, Steve Jones, deserves extra special thanks for patiently remaining convinced that there was a good book here, for working to amplify my voice rather than inserting his own, and for being the only editor out there who is as big a Nick Rudd fan as I am. I never would have written this book without his unwavering encouragement. Thanks also go to Margaret Seawell and Renée Piernot at Sage Publications. The quotations from Liccardo's (1996) and Susman's (1997) articles in Chapter 1 are excerpted from Soap Opera Weekly. Thanks go to Mimi Torchin, editor-in-chief of that fine magazine, for this and her general encouragement (despite her qualms about the Net). Ann Limongello at ABC found photographs of the characters for me to use. Many thanks also go to the colleagues and students at the University of Illinois and Wayne State University who have helped to make my career a pleasure.

    Some of the ideas and paragraphs in this book have appeared previously in earlier articles published in the Journal of Folklore Research (1993), the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (1995), and Research on Language and Social Interaction (1996) as well as the following books: The Cultures of Computing (1995) edited by Leigh Star, Cyber-Society (1995) and CyberSociety 2.0 (1998) edited by Steve Jones, and Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subcultures, and Identity (1998) edited by Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander.

    Dozens of people from r.a.t.s. and rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc have generously participated in this study and provided ongoing excitement and encouragement. This book is for them. I hope I have done them justice.

  • Appendix A: Surveys

    Survey 1 (Posted to the Newsgroup in the Winter of 1991)
    • How do we “define” rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s.)?
    • How does r.a.t.s. compare to other newsgroups on Usenet or to soap groups on Prodigy, GEnie, or any others?
    • What are the r.a.t.s. standards of netiquette? How did you learn them?
    • How do we think of the people who post to r.a.t.s.? (obviously, not as housewives with their hair in curlers eating bon-bons!)
    • What do you consider your relationship(s) (if any) with people on the Net to be? Do you e-mail with other r.a.t.s. people?
    • What makes a r.a.t.s. posting or poster successful? Which ones do you like best and why?
    • How do the rest of you read r.a.t.s.? Where? How often?
    • Does your involvement with this group influence the way in which you watch the show? Which things you notice? Which characters you like? Other influences (like some people have said, the Net keeps them watching even when the soap gets dull)?
    • Does the form or content of the show influence the way in which you read r.a.t.s.? For example, how (if ever) does the show make you want to read or post? Or, make you not want to read r.a.t.s. or post?

    I am also curious as to the age range on r.a.t.s., the jobs we hold, and how long you have watched your soaps and read r.a.t.s. If there are other important things I have neglected, please share your thoughts.

    Survey 2 (Posted to the Newsgroup in the Fall of 1993)
    • How do you describe rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s.) to people who do not know what it is?
    • Why do you read and/or post to r.a.t.s.?
    • If you are a lurker, what are the reasons why you do not post?
    Survey 3 (Posted to the Newsgroup in the Spring of 1998)
    • When did you first begin reading rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s.) or rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc (r.a.t.s.a.)?
    • What do you like most about r.a.t.s.a.?
    • What do you like least about r.a.t.s.a.?
    • In the time that you have been reading r.a.t.s. and/or r.a.t.s.a., what do you think are the most noticeable or important changes that have happened in the newsgroup?
    • What do you think are some of the reasons why r.a.t.s.a. has changed as it has?
    • In the time that you have been reading r.a.t.s. and/or r.a.t.s.a., what has remained the same?
    • What do you think are some of the reasons why these aspects of the group have remained more stable over time?
    • How has this group been changed by the World Wide Web?
    • Do you maintain or visit Web sites related to this newsgroup? If so, please describe how your soap newsgroup and soap Web use are related.
    • What types of relationships do you feel you have with other people who participate in this group?
    • How well do you think the term “community” fits this group now? Please explain why.
    • How do you think you would have answered Question 11 when you first got to know this group?
    • How (if at all) do you think participation in this newsgroup affects your offline life?
    • Do you have any other thoughts on this newsgroup, now or over time, that you would like me to consider?
    • What is your age?
    • What is your gender?
    • What is your occupation?
    Survey 3 (Version e-mailed Directly to Current and Former Participants in the Spring of 1998)
    • When did you first begin reading rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s.) or rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc (r.a.t.s.a.)?
    • If you no longer read r.a.t.s.a., when and why did you stop?
    • What do/did you like most about r.a.t.s.(a.)?
    • What do/did you like least about r.a.t.s.(a.)?
    • In the time that you read/have been reading r.a.t.s. and/or r.a.t.s.a., what do you think are the most noticeable or important changes that have happened in the newsgroup?
    • What do you think are some of the reasons why r.a.t.s.a. changed as it has?
    • In the time that you read/have been reading r.a.t.s. and/or r.a.t.s.a., what has remained the same?
    • What do you think are some of the reasons why these aspects of the group remained more stable over time?
    • If you have been reading since the advent of the World Wide Web, how do you think this group has been changed by the Web?
    • Do you maintain or visit Web sites related to this newsgroup? If so, please describe how your soap newsgroup and soap Web use are related.
    • What types of relationships do you feel you have with other people who participate in this group?
    • If you no longer read the group, have you maintained any relationships with people from the group? What types of relationships (if any) do you consider these to be?
    • If you still are participating in r.a.t.s.a., how well do you think the term “community” fits this group now? Please explain why.
    • How do you think you would have answered Question 13 when you first got to know this group?
    • If you are not participating in r.a.t.s.a. anymore, how would you have answered Question 13 at the time you stopped?
    • How (if at all) do you think participation in this newsgroup affects/affected your offline life?
    • Do you have any other thoughts on this newsgroup, now or over time, that you would like me to consider?
    • What is your age?
    • What is your gender?
    • What is your occupation?

    Appendix B: Genre Analysis


    To assess which genres were named in the subject line, I sampled 2 complete weeks of posts discussing All My Children (AMC). Drawing on a range of 41 weeks, I selected the week with the most traffic and the week with the least traffic from the weeks for which I had every single post. By selecting the 2 weeks with the broadest range, I expected to be able to see what genres appeared each week and also to gain preliminary insights into which genres contributed to the considerable difference in quantity between the 2 weeks. In the light week (ended September 7, 1992), there were 110 messages posted about AMC. In the heavy week (ended October 19, 1992), there were 280 messages about AMC. For each week, I looked at the subject lines, searching for indicants of category that were used by more than one person (either within the 2-week spans or elsewhere in the corpus). Because of the decision to look for genres open to more than one participant, the genre of FAQ (frequently asked questions) was excluded. I also calculated the number of responses to posts in each genre, recognizing that a response to a post within a genre might not itself be within that genre. For both sets of these categorizations, I calculated the number of posts in each genre, the number of lines in each genre, the average length of a post in each genre, and the percentage of the total posts and lines accounted for by each genre in each week. Despite the search for difference, the 2 weeks were proportionately nearly identical; only 3 of 14 categories differed by more than 5% of the total posts between the 2 weeks, and even those differences remained slight. Therefore, I combined the 2 weeks' results.

    Categories of Genre

    These were the categories of genre. Their frequencies are tabulated in the table that follows.

    Trivia. Trivia posts use the term “trivia” in the subject lines. These are posts that raised questions from AMC history in game form.

    Unlurkings. Unlurkings, marked by the use of the terms “unlurking,” “unlurk,” and “lurker” in the subject lines, are posts in which new or rare posters introduce themselves to the group.

    Sightings. Sightings, marked as such in the subject lines, are reports of having seen current or former soap opera actors in other contexts.

    Spoilers. Spoilers, indicated with the word “spoiler” in the subject lines, involved the sharing of previews culled from magazines, sightings, and other computer networks.

    Updates. Updates, marked by “update” and the shows' dates in the subject lines, are retellings of daily episodes.

    Tangents. Tangents, marked by “TAN” in the subject lines, are a default category into which falls all discussions no longer directly related to the soap operas.

    New threads. New threads are posts that first raise topics related to the soap opera. Subject lines usually identify the topics by character or characters (e.g., “AMC: Tad/Ted”) but can contain any of a range of components. The category of new threads includes many individual genres such as “predictions” (which guess at the shows' futures) and “comments” (which offer evaluations of the shows). None of these more precise genre titles is employed consistently in subject lines.

    TABLE B Genres of All My Children Posts

    Appendix C: Analysis of Agreements and Disagreements

    Coding Procedures

    I narrowed the data to a coherent but manageable subset by analyzing all the disagreements and agreements in the discussion of one story line on the soap opera All My Children (AMC). That story line was mentioned in 524 messages. An agreement initially was defined as any post that was explicitly responsive to a prior message and that took the same position as that message (although agreements could, and often did, go beyond stating that shared position). Disagreements were defined as those posts that were explicitly responsive to other messages and took positions incompatible with the prior messages. Disagreements were not necessarily directly contradictory but stated positions that could not logically be held if one held the prior positions.

    In all but one case, agreements and disagreements were explicitly linked to prior messages through embedded quotations. Such quotations contained automatically generated reference lines indicating the prior writers and usually were edited down to the particular section to which the posts responded. These quotations with reference lines were used in all of the disagreements and in all but one of the agreements (which was linked through the phrase “as others have pointed out”). Thus, there could be no question that the authors of these messages were oriented to the prior turns. Although these posts also might have done more than agreed or disagreed, because they directly referenced and either affirmed or contradicted prior turns, they were considered to be agreements or disagreements. This is consistent with the notion that messages are multifunctional and that a single segment can involve multiple activities (O'Keefe, 1988).

    A trained coder and I began by independently coding all of the messages about this story line as involving either agreement, disagreement, or neither. Disagreements between coders were resolved through discussion. The very few cases in which we could not agree on a post's status as agreement or disagreement resulted from ambiguous similarity or dissimilarity between the prior and posted positions. Those messages were not counted as agreements or disagreements. Of the 524 messages, most (77%) were categorized as “neither.” Of the remaining 121 messages, 70 (58%) were coded as agreements and 51 (42%) as disagreements. Thus, agreements constituted 13% of the total story line corpus, and disagreements constituted just under 10%.

    Because posts often cover many topics, the disagreement and agreement responses often were only part of the posts. As in Mulkay (1985, 1986), the analyses presented here look only at the paragraphs immediately relevant to the topic of disagreement and agreement. I analyzed those sections of posts in which participants agreed or disagreed with previous positions, including all those components of speech that positioned messages as agreements or disagreements and those that framed these activities. Whereas this move pulls these responses from the full messages, it situates them in the temporal thread of talk in which they were embedded.

    I developed a detailed coding scheme for these 121 segments by analyzing them repeatedly to determine which features appeared in multiple messages, a process that involved continual turning from data to categorical scheme, the latter being refined with subsequent rereadings of the former. The resulting scheme had 17 categories, 2 of which (quotation with reference and reference to another's talk) I have already discussed as methods of demonstrating explicit linkage to previous messages. The remaining 15 were: expression of the need to respond, other ways of linking to a prior message, explicit indication of agreement or disagreement, assertion that affirmed or contradicted the prior message, partial agreement, qualifier, elaboration, provision of reasoning, expression of gratitude to the previous poster, apology, explicit acknowledgment of the other's position, use of the other's name, smiley face(s), framing as nonoffensive, and a catch-all “other” category. I will elaborate on these categories in a moment.

    Once this scheme had been generated, the agreements and disagreements were coded for each feature separately by each coder. Messages were coded for the presence or absence of each component rather than for quantity or sequential ordering (although at times sequences were apparent). There were several differences in our initial codings. To some extent, this was due to misunderstandings about the definitions of the categories. In other cases, this resulted from difficulties in distinguishing among categories (this was especially true of separating reasoning from elaboration). In some cases, the problems stemmed from focusing on different agreement or disagreement responses within the same posts. However, despite our initial divergences, we were able to resolve our coding differences remarkably easily, and there were no cases in which we still disagreed after discussing the logic of our choices. Although this categorical scheme is not the only way in which one could analyze the message components of these posts, it did account for nearly all of the agreement- or disagreement-relevant segments. Only 8 messages contained a message component categorized as “other.”

    Message Components of Agreements and Disagreements
    • Expression of the need to respond: Phrases such as “I had to reply to your post” that framed the author's post as necessary
    • Other ways of linking to a prior message: References to prior talk such as “we've talked about this already”
    • Explicit indication of agreement or disagreement: Use of the phrase “I agree” and strong agreement tokens such as “indeed” and “you said it,” or use of the word “disagree” or its synonyms and disagreement tokens such as “but”
    • Assertion that confirms or contradicts the prior message: Assessment that affirms or contradicts the claim of the quoted message; considered an indicator of the presence of agreement or disagreement
    • Partial agreement: Phrases such as “I thought so too” followed by disagreement tokens such as “but” and “though” or phrases such as “at the same time” positioning what followed as disagreement
    • Qualifier: “I think that,” “that's only my opinion,” and other phrases that lessened the extent to which the speaker could be held accountable for the veracity of a post's content (Goffman, 1981)
    • Elaboration: Extension of the talk from the immediate agreement or disagreement to a new but related angle or topic; operationalized as anything that made more sense as the second half of the sentence “I agree with the quoted utterance and …” than as the second half of the sentence “I agree with the quoted utterance because …”
    • Provision of reasoning: Presentation of a rationale to support the writer's perspective; operationalized as anything that made more sense as the second half of the sentence “I agree with the quoted utterance because …” than as the second half of the sentence “I agree with the quoted utterance and …”
    • Expression of gratitude to the previous poster: Phrases such as “thank you for your post”
    • Apology: Use of the phrase “I'm sorry”
    • Explicit acknowledgment of the other's position: Phrases such as “I see your point” and “I know what you mean.”
    • Use of the other's name: Using the first name of the quoted poster
    • Smiley face(s): Socioemotional cue built out of punctuation marks—usually a colon, a hyphen, and a right parenthesis:-)
    • Framing as nonoffensive: Explicitly framing the post as nonconfrontational (e.g., “no offense”)
    Topics of Agreements and Disagreements

    Many of the agreements and disagreements dealt with more than one topic simultaneously. A total of 71 agreements and disagreements involved only one topic, 25 involved two topics, 20 involved three topics, 4 involved four topics, and 1 involved five topics.

    Factual Topics
    • Narrative events: Retellings of what happened on the show
    • Sighting: Posts about seeing a soap opera actor in another role or at a personal appearance
    Interpretive Topics
    • Character psyches: Interpreting the meaning of characters' behavior
    • Realism: Assessing how (un)realistic the show's events are
    • Emotional reaction: Explicitly sharing one's own emotional responses to the show's events
    • Story line suggestions: Projected story lines that the posters would like to see, which might or might not be what the posters think actually will happen
    • Story line worth: Evaluating the story line as a whole
    • Ideological messages: Evaluating the social value of the representations constructed in the story text
    • Character worth: Evaluating the overall quality of individual characters
    • Genre preference: Evaluating normatively what a soap opera should show using the posters' own pleasures as the criteria
    • Dialogue: Assessing the quality of the writing of the show
    • Story line influence: Assessing what other stories might have influenced the soap opera writers in constructing the story line
    • Actor appearance: Evaluating how the actors look
    • Crossover: The crossover between AMC and Loving
    • Soap quality: Assessing the quality of the soap opera Loving
    • Directing: Assessing the quality of AMC's directing
    • Actor input: The extent to which the actor had creative input into the writing of the character
    • Sets: The use and reuse of sets, in particular, a recognizable cabin used earlier
    • Narrative device: Whether or not one needed an invitation to attend a party on a soap opera (one does not)
    TABLE C Frequency of Topics in Disagreements and Agreements
    ActivitiesTotal Posts and Percentage
    Narrative events13(11)
    Character psyche53(44)
    Emotional reaction20(17)
    Story line suggestion15(12)
    Story line worth14(12)
    Ideological worth13(11)
    Character worth13(11)
    Genre preference7(6)
    Story line influence3(2)
    Actor appearance3(2)
    Soap crossover2(2)
    Soap quality2(2)
    Actor influence1(1)
    Narrative device1(1)
    NOTE: Percentages are in parentheses. Percentages total more than 100 because they indicate what proportions of the agreements and disagreements addressed each topic. Several of the messages contained more than one topic and, therefore, are counted more than once.


    Adams, R. (1992). Total traffic through uunet for the last 2 weeks, news.lists. (Internet newsgroup)
    Allen, R. C. (1983). On reading soaps: A semiotic primer. In E. A.Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 97–108). Los Angeles: American Film Institute.
    Allen, R. C. (1985). Speaking of soap operas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
    Anderson, J. A. (1996). The pragmatics of audience in research and theory. In J.Hay, L.Grossberg, & E.Wartella (Eds.), The audience and its landscape. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. New York: Routledge.
    Ang, I. (1989). Wanted: Audiences—On the politics of empirical audience studies. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 56–78). New York: Routledge.
    Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203321454
    Arnheim, R. (1944). The world of the daytime serial. In P. F.Lazarsfeld & F. N.Stanton (Eds.), Radio research (pp. 34–85). New York: Duel, Sloan, & Pearce.
    Babrow, A. S. (1987). Student motives for watching soap operas. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31, 309–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838158709386666
    Babrow, A. S. (1989). An expectancy-value analysis of the student soap opera audience. Communication Research, 16, 155–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365089016002001
    Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language, 18(2), 118–141.
    Basso, E. B. (1992). Contextualization in Kalapalo narratives. In A.Duranti & C.Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 253–270). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Bauman, R. (1975). Verbal art as performance. American Anthropologist, 77, 290–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00030
    Bauman, R. (1992). Contextualization, tradition, and the dialogue of genres: Icelandic legends of the kraftaskald. In A.Duranti & C.Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 125–146). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Baym, N. (1995). American women writers and the work of history 1790–1860. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    Baym, N. K. (1993). Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside a computer-mediated fan culture. Journal of Folklore Research, 30(2/3), 143–176.
    Baym, N. K. (1995). The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2). Available on Internet:
    Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreement and disagreement in a computer-mediated group. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 315–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2
    Blumenthal, D. (1997). Women and soap opera: A cultural feminist perspective. New York: Praeger.
    Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    Brown, M. E. (1994). Soap opera and women's talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Brown, M. E., & Barwick, L. (1986). Fables and endless genealogies: Soap opera and women's culture. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Screen Studies Association, Sydney.
    Brunsdon, C. (1983). Notes on a soap opera. In E. A.Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 76–83). Frederick, MD: University Publications of America.
    Brunsdon, C. (1989). Text and audience. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 116–129). New York: Routledge.
    Cantor, M. G., & Pingree, S. (1983). The soap opera. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Carpenter, T. (1983, September 6). Reach out and access someone. The Village Voice, pp. 9–11.
    Castleman, C. (1982). Getting up: Subway graffiti in New York. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625510
    Cherny, L. (1995). The MUD register: Conversational modes of action in a text-based virtual reality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
    Cherny, L., & Weise, E. R. (Eds.). (1996). Wired women. Seattle, WA: Seal.
    Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203327562
    Clerc, S. (1996). Estrogen brigades and “Big Tits” threads: Media fandom online and off. In L.Cherny & E. R.Weise (Eds.), Wired women (pp. 73–97). Seattle, WA: Seal.
    Cody, M. J., Wendt, P., Dunn, D., Pierson, J., Ott, J., & Pratt, L. (1997, May). Friendship formation and creating communities on the Internet: Reaching out to the senior population. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
    Compesi, R. J. (1980). Gratifications of daytime TV serial viewers. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 155–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700126
    Connery, B. A. (1997). IMHO: Authority and egalitarian rhetoric in the virtual coffeehouse. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 161–180). New York: Routledge.
    Contractor, N. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: Adaptive structuration theory and self-organizing systems theory. Human Communication Research, 19, 528–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00312.x
    Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M.Jablin, L. L.Putnam, K. H.Roberts, & L. W.Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational computing: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Danet, B. (1993). Books, letters, documents: The changing materiality of texts in late print culture. Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    Dannefer, W. D., & Poushinsky, N. (1977). Language and community: CB in perspective. Journal of Communication, 27(3), 122–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb02136.x
    Doheny-Farina, S. (1996). The wired neighborhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Duranti, A. (1988). Ethnography of speaking: Toward a linguistics of the praxis. In F. P.Newmeyer (Ed.), Language: the socio-cultural context (pp. 210–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Ebben, M. (1993, October). Women on the Net: An exploratory study of gender dynamics on the soc.women computer network. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Tempe, AZ.
    Edmundson, M., & Rounds, D. (1973). The soaps: Daytime serials of radio and TV. New York: Stein & Day.
    Erol's. (1997, September 16–17). Usenet statistics. Available on Internet: http://thereisnocabal.news.erols.com/feedinfo.
    Fernback, J. (1997). The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In S. G.Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture (pp. 36–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250303
    Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. New York: Methuen.
    Gaskins, S., Miller, P. J., & Corsaro, W. A. (1992). Theoretical and methodological perspectives in the interpretive study of children. In W. A.Corsaro & P. J.Miller (Eds.), Interpretive approaches to children's socialization (pp. 5–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Geraghty, C. (1991). Women and soap opera. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A.Duranti & C.Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229–252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Gurak, L. J. (1997). Persuasion and privacy in cyberspace: The online protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Harrington, C. L., & Bielby, D. D. (1995). Soap fans: Pursuing pleasure and making meaning in everyday life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    Hay, J., Grossberg, L., & Wartella, E. (Eds.). (1996). The audience and its landscape. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Hayward, J. P. (1997). Consuming pleasures: Active audiences and serial fictions. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
    Healy, D. (1997). Cyberspace and place: The Internet as middle landscape on the electronic frontier. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 55–71). New York: Routledge.
    Hellerstein, L. N. (1985). The social use of electronic communication at a major university. Computers and the Social Sciences, 1, 191–197.
    Herring, S. (1994). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M.Bucholtz, A. C.Liang, L.Sutton, & C.Hines (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278–293). Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group.
    Herring, S. (1996). Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication. In C.Ess (Ed.), Philosophical approaches to computer-mediated communication (pp. 115–145). Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F.Lazarsfeld & F. N.Stanton (Eds.), Radio research (pp. 3–33). New York: Duel, Sloan, & Pearce.
    Hobson, D. (1982). Crossroads: The drama of soap opera. London: Methuen.
    Hobson, D. (1989). Soap operas at work. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 150–167). New York: Routledge.
    Hobson, D. (1990). Women audiences and the workplace. In M. E.Brown (Ed.), Television and women's culture (pp. 71–74). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). The whole is less than the sum of its parts: A critical review of research on computer-assisted groups. In R.Guzzo & E.Salas (Eds.), Team decision and teamperformance in organizations (pp. 46–68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Hymes, D. (1975). Folklore's nature and the sun's myth. Journal of American Folklore, 88, 345–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/538651
    Hymes, D. (1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J.Gumperz & D.Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of speaking (pp. 35–71). New York: Basil Blackwell.
    Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory cultures. London: Routledge.
    Jensen, J. (1992). Fandom as pathology: The consequences of characterization. In L.Lewis (Ed.), The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media (pp. 9–29). London: Routledge.
    Jensen, J., & Pauly, J. (1997). Imagining the audience: Losses and gains in cultural studies. In M.Ferguson & P.Golding (Eds.), Cultural studies in question (pp. 155–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Joe, S. K. (1997, May). Socioemotional use of CMC: Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
    Kalcik, S. (1985). Women's handles and the performance of identity in the CB community. In R. A.Jordan & S. J.Kalcik (Eds.), Women's folklore, women's culture (pp. 99–108). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Kamberelis, G., & Scott, K. D. (1992). Other people's voices: The coarticulation of texts and subjectivities. Linguistics and Education, 4, 359–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898%2892%2990008-K
    Kielwasser, A. P., & Wolf, M. A. (1989). The appeal of soap opera: An analysis of process and quality in dramatic serial gratifications. Journal of Popular Culture, 23(2), 111–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1989.00111.x
    Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspect of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
    Kilguss, A. F. (1977). Therapeutic use of a soap opera discussion group with psychiatric inpatients. Clinical Social Work Journal, 5, 525–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02143601
    Kramarae, C., & Taylor, H. J. (1993). Women and men on electronic networks: A conversation or a monologue? In H. J.Taylor, C.Kramarae, & M.Ebben (Eds.), Women, information technology, scholarship (pp. 52–61). Urbana, IL: Center for Advanced Study.
    Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduced social involvement and psychological well-being? Preliminary draft. Available on Internet: http://homenet.andrew.cmu.edu/progress/HN.impact.10.htm.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    Lemish, D. (1985). Soap opera viewing in college: A naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 275–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838158509386585
    Lewis, L. (Ed.). (1992). The adoring audience. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203181539
    Liccardo, L. (1996, April 30). Who really watches the daytime soaps?Soap Opera Weekly, pp. 36–38.
    Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1989). On the critical abilities of television viewers. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 204–222). New York: Routledge.
    Livingstone, S. M. (1989). Interpretive viewers and structured programs: The implicit representation of soap opera characters. Communication Research, 16, 25–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365089016001002
    Livingstone, S. M. (1990). Interpreting a television narrative: How different viewers see a story. Journal of Communication, 40(1), 72–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02252.x
    Lockard, J. (1997). Progressive politics, electronic individualism, and the myth of virtual community. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 219–232). New York: Routledge.
    Mabry, E. (1997). Framing flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the Net. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Available on Internet:
    Macdonald, F. (1979). Don't touch that dial. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
    McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on Usenet. In S. G.Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-mediated community and communication (pp. 90–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    McRae, S. (1997). Flesh made word: Sex, text, and the virtual body. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 73–86). New York: Routledge.
    Miller, P. J. (1994). Narrative practices: Their role in socialization and self-construction. In U.Neisser & R.Fivush (Eds.), The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative (pp. 158–179). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752858.010
    Miller, P. J., & Goodnow, J. J. (1995). Cultural practices: Toward an integration of culture and development. In J. J.Goodnow, P. J.Miller, & F.Kessel (Eds.), Cultural practices as contexts for development (New Directions for Child Development, No. 67, pp. 5–20). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
    Miller, P. J., & Hoogstra, L. (1992). Language as tool in the socialization and apprehension of cultural meanings. In T.Schwartz, G.White, & C.Lutz (Eds.), New directions in psychological anthropology (pp. 83–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Miller, P., & Mintz, J. (1993). Instantiating culture: Socialization through narrative practices. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
    Mnookin, J. L. (1996). Virtual(ly) law: The emergence of law in LambdaMOO. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(1). Available on Internet:
    Modleski, T. (1983). The rhythms of reception: Daytime television and women's work. In E. A.Kaplan (Ed.), Regarding television (pp. 67–84). Los Angeles: American Film Institute.
    Modleski, T. (1984). Loving with a vengeance: Mass produced fantasies for women. New York: Muntheun.
    Moores, S. (1993). Interpreting audiences: The ethnography of media consumption. London: Sage.
    Morley, D. (1989). Changing paradigms in audience studies. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 16–43). New York: Routledge.
    Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text, 5, 201–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.201
    Mulkay, M. (1986). Conversations and texts. Human Studies, 9, 303–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00148133
    Mulkay, M. (1988). On humour: Its nature and its place in modern society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    Myers, D. (1987a). “Anonymity is part of the magic”: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 251–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00988989
    Myers, D. (1987b). A new environment for communication play: On-line play. In G. A.Fine (Ed.), Meaningful play, playful meaning (pp. 231–245). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
    Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: The most popular art. New York: Anchor.
    Nguyen, D. T., & Alexander, J. (1996). The coming of cyberspacetime and the end of the polity. In R.Shields (Ed.), Cultures of Internet: Virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies (pp. 99–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Nightingale, V. (1996). Studying audiences: The shock of the real. London: Routledge.
    Nilsen, D. L. F. (1993). Humor scholarship: A research bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
    Nixon, A. E. (1970). Coming of age in Sudsville. Television Quarterly, 9, 61–70.
    Nochimson, M. (1992). No end to her: Soap opera and the female subject. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376159
    Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Oring, E. (1992). Jokes and their relations. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
    Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500010811
    Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humour seriously. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203380154
    Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x
    Perse, E., & Rubin, R. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research, 16, 59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365089016001003
    Phelps, A. H. L. (1833). The female student: Or, lectures to young ladies, comprising outlines and applications of the different branches of female education, for the use of female schools, and private libraries (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York: Leavitt, Lord. (Originally published in 1826)
    Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Porter, D. (Ed.). (1997). Internet culture. New York: Routledge.
    Press, A. L. (1996). Towards a qualitative methodology of audience study: Using ethnography to study the popular culture audience. In J.Hay, L.Grossberg, & E.Wartella (Eds.), The audience and its landscape. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Radway, J. A. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature (
    2nd ed.
    ). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    Raymond, E. S. (Ed.). (1991). The new hacker's dictionary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Reid, B. (1993). Top 40 newsgroups in order by traffic volume, news.lists. (Internet newsgroup)
    Reid, E. M. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet relay chat. Unpublished thesis, University of Melbourne.
    Reid, E. M. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. In S. G.Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 164–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Rheingold, H. (1993). Virtual communities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Rice, R. E. (1989). Issues and concepts in research on computer-mediated communication systems. In J. A.Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 12, pp. 436–476). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Robins, K. (1995). Cyberspace and the world we live in. In M.Featherstone & R.Burrows (Eds.), Cyberspace/cyberbodies/cyberpunk: Cultures of technological embodiment (pp. 135–156). London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250198
    Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Rouverol, J. (1984). Writing for the soaps. Cincinnati, OH: Writers Digest Books.
    Rubin, A. M. (1985). Uses of daytime television soap operas by college students. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 241–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838158509386583
    Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x
    Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., & Kelley, M. (1996). Gender language style in group composition in Internet discussion groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3). Available on Internet:
    Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115
    Seiter, E., Borchers, H., Kreutzner, G., & Warth, E. (1989). “Don't treat us like we're so stupid and naive”: Towards an ethnography of soap opera viewers. In E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, & E.Warth (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 223–247). New York: Routledge.
    Selfe, C., & Meyer, P. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8, 163–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088391008002002
    Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London: Sage.
    Smith, C. B., McLaughlin, M. L., & Osborne, K. K. (1997). Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Available on Internet:
    Stivale, C. J. (1997). Spam: Heteroglossia and harassment in cyberspace. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 133–144). New York: Routledge.
    Stone, A. R. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Stratton, J. (1997). Cyberspace and the globalization of culture. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 253–276). New York: Routledge.
    Susman, L. (1997, July 29). Why soaps get no respect. Soap Opera Weekly, pp. 12–14.
    Sutton, L. (1994). Using USENET: Gender, power, and silence in electronic discourse. In S.Gahl, A.Dolbey, & C.Johnsons (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 506–520). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    Tepper, M. (1997). Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In D.Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 39–54). New York: Routledge.
    http://tile.net. (1997, September 17). Internet newsgroup. Available on Internet: http://tile.net/news.
    Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    Viewing notes. (1998, September 8). Soap Opera Weekly, p. 10.
    Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
    Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x
    Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S.Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Whetmore, E. J., & Kielwasser, A. P. (1983). The soap opera audience speaks: A preliminary report. Journal of American Culture, 6, 110–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1983.0603_110.x
    Williams, C. T. (1992). “It's time for my story”: Oral culture in a technological era—Towards a methodology for soap opera audiences. In S.Frentz (Ed.), Staying tuned: Contemporary soap opera criticism (pp. 69–88). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

    About the Author

    Nancy K. Baym is Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas, where she teaches courses in computer-mediated communication and interpersonal communication. She earned her doctorate in speech communications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1994.

    • Loading...
Back to Top