Interactive Audience~?

I ~35

6
InteraCtive Audiences ?
The "COllectiveI telligence" of

the convergence culture argument emerged in two other essays, "The ~and the Poachers: Cultura onvergence in a ~3igital Age," in Phillipe Le Guern, ed., Les cuItes mddiatiques: culture an et oeuvres cultes (Rennes, France: Presses universitaires d~ Rennes, zooz), gence and Partmpator~ Cultur~e," m Dared Tborburn and~k, ms, -~-d~~ethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics o~ Transition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2oo3). (I sbould acknowledge that there are significant terminological sbifts and rethinking between these three essays,)

Media Tans

" If Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten" representbd my first public airing of the ideas in TextuaI Poachers. "Interactive Audiences?, was_my fir)t_.~ttempt tg lav O alization o andom t~a~ would shape Convergence,Culture. The goal I set for myself with "Inter~ we Audiences was to wrgte about fans w~thout once ment~omng Mt-: chel de Certeau. We should change our theory every five thousand miles just like we change oil in our cars. New injections improve performance and keep us from Clogging up the system. I am growing number of younger scholars writing about fans, many still ate primarily in relation to the paradigms from the late zj z99os. There are so many other ~ When my friend Gbristopher Weaver handed me a copy Levys :~ollective Intelligence, I realized that this approach addressed ~d trouble talking about in Textual Poacher --specifically the social dimensions of fan communities. L~ e~,~_~gave us a Way of thinking about--in terms of resistance ~-~: ~/ ype or dress rehearsal for the way ~ope~ate in the ~~s ws~on of "collective intelligence" as an utopia "~not something that grows inevitably from the new configura-~ tion of technologies but rather something we must work toward am fight to achieve. Fandom is onezof~se spaces where ing how to live and collaborate within a knowledge community. We ~re try~ u t roug pay patterns of interaction that wi~soon penetrate~ every other aspect of our lives. L~, in short, gives Usa mo~ fa.n-based politics. Intgractme Audiences. first appeared in Dan Harries, ed.; The New M~diff Book (London:: British Film Institute, 2002). Some dimensions of

."Youve got three seconds. !mpress me." An advertisement ~or Applebox Productions depicts the new youth consumer:his scraggly dishwater blonde hair hangs down into his glaring eyes, his chin is thrust out, this mouth is turned down into a chai- lenging sneer, and his finger posed over th6 remote. One ~alse move and hell zap us. Hes yotmg, male, and in control. No longer a couch po:taro; he determines what, when, and how he watches media. He is a media consumer, perhaps even a media ~an, but he is also ~imedia producer, distributor, publicist, and critic. Hes the poster child ~or the new The advertisement takes for granted ~vhat cultural studies researchers struggled to establish throughout the r98~s eflces were active, critically a~vare, and discr~m~-" ~a~-~i~-~dver~eni~t~o-~s~~a~-_tffpp~~as dev~I0ped neV~ ways to overcome his resistance and bring advertising m~ssages to this scowlteen~ attention. The interactive audience is not autonomous;it still Operates atongside powerful media industries... Iffthe current media-environment makes visible the~once in-~isible work of m~dia~ spectatorship, it is wrong to assttme that.we are somehow. being liberated through improved meflia technologies, Rather than :talking a~b~ut interactive technologies, v~e. should document the interacfions:thar occur~ among media consttmers, between media consttmers and ~edih i:exts; and between media consumers and media producers. participatory c~t tile intersecfion:.be-

tools and ~eehnologies enable consumers to archive,annOtatei~appropriate~ and.recirculate media~content;

x36 I Interactive Audiences? "

InteractivdAudiences.~ I I37

~d range of subcultures promote Do-It-Yourself (DIY) mesa pro~~ ~on, a ~sco~se that shapes how consumers flare : . ~ose tec~ulogies; and ~ econo~c ~ends: favor~g ; ~om~ates enco~age ~e flow of i~ages, ideas, across mNtiple media chapels and dem~d more active modes of spe~atorsNp. : N ~s essay, I wN t~ to describe how these t~ee ~ends have Ntered the way me~a~on~mers relate to eac~ o~er, ~ducers. M do~g so, I hope to move beyond ~e eider-or lo~ ~udience resear&~reNsing to~see mesa cons~ers as eider totally autonomous from or totally mMerable to dus~ies. I~ss~e N~t~wer~ conglomerates ~~~ as they enter dienees~ ~e~ga~g ~eater power and autonomy as ~ey ent(r into ~e new Imowledge cul~e. The Mteracdve an~e~ce is.more than a m~kefing concept and less than "se~otic

tions), and self-organized groups (such as the virma! communities of the. Web). He links the emergefice of the new knowledge space to the bi~enkdo~vn of geographic constraints on communication, of the declining loyalty of individuals to organized groups, and of the diminished power of nation:states to command the exclusive loyalty of their citizens. The new knowledge commmlities wii! be voluntary, temporary, and tacticaI affiliations, defined through common intellecmal enterprises and emOtional-investments. Members may shift froin one community to another as their interests and needs change, and they may b~long to more than .one community at the: same time. Yet, they ,are held together through the. mumai production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge. As Levy explains;. the members of a thinking community search, inscribe, connect, congult, explore .... Not only does the cosmopedia make available tO the cbllective intellect all Of the pertinent knowledge available to it at a igivenmoment,.but it also serves as.a site of collective disc~ssinn, negotiatidn, and.development .... Unanswered questions will create tension . 2 withih osmopedic space, indicating regions where invention and innovati0n:are reqnlred: ~ Online fan communities might well be some Of the most fully realized ~e -orgamzmg groups ocused ~,response to various artifacts oh.con

COllective Intelligence In .Collective Intact, Pierre LeW offers a compelling vision of the neW~ce~ or what he calls."the cosmopedia," that might emerge as citizens more ~lly realize the poten~w, media environment. Rejecting technological or economic determinism, LeW sees contemporary society as canght in a transitional moment, the outcome forming existing smtcmres of knowledge .and power. Hi~ book might .best be read as a form of critical utopianism framing a vision for the future ""an achievable utonia"~ offering an ethical yardstick for conzemporary developments. Levy explores how th~ "deterritorialization" of ~nowledge, brought about by the ability of the ~ ~Siti~id many-to-many communication, ,.might enable-broadhr parncipation in decision-making, new modes of citizenship, and commumty, and the reciprocal exchange of information. Levy draws a prodtictire distinction between 6rganic. social groups (families,-clans, tribes), organized social groups Inations,~instimtions~ religinns,-and.corpora-

~-~-po~y po~mmumtms laave Long ,detme~

~-~berships t~ongh~at~fities rather than IocaIities; Fandoms were vi~tual commumtles, maagmed and ~flnagining" commumnes, long be-. fore theintroduction of networkedcomputers.z The history of science fiction- random might ilhistrate:how knowledge commtmifics emerged. Hugo Gernsbecl~, the pulp magazine~efilto~,who.has been credited ~vith h~lping to define science fiction as a distinctive genre in the xgzos and zg~os~ was ~lso:~i:maior advocate o ~adio asa 1~arficipatory medium~ Gem~beck saw science fiction~ as ~ means of fostering pop~ar.,aware~ hess of contemporary ~cientific brenkthrot~ghs at a moment of acceleating technological development: ~The ,letter column, of Gernsbecl~ Astounding Stories became ,a: forum where laypeople could debate entifictheories and asse~:rtew technologies, Using the published, aft: dresses, earl~science-ficfion fans formed a~, informal postal ~etwork;i

Interactive:Audiences? circulating letters and amateur publications. Later, conventions facilitated the face-to-face Contact between fans from across the country and around the world. Many of the most significant science fiction writers. emerged fr6m random-. Given this history, every reader was understood to be a potential writer, and many fans aspired.to break into professIonal publication; fan ideas influenced commercially distributed works at a ttme when science fiction was still tmdetstood predorninantly as~ a mlcro-geure aimed at::a small but passionate niche market. The fan~ issued Hugo Award (named after Gernsbeck) remains the most valued recognition a science fiction writer can receive. This reciprocity among readers, writers, and editors set expectations as science fiction spread into film and television. Star Trek fans were, from the start, an activist audience, lobbying to keep its s6ries on the air and later advo(ating specific changes in the program content to better reflect its own agendas. Yet, if fans were the primary readers for literary science fiction, they were only a small fraction of the audi,ence for network television. Fans became, in John Tullochs words, a "powerless elite," unable to after7"7~-e series content but actively, reshapin grassroots media, production.4 Star Trek random, in turn, was a.~m~del _for other fan commnmt~es to c~ea-~-e forums or debating interpretations, networks for circulating creative works, and channels for lobbying the ~-7-~ Fans were early ado ters of digital te~es. Within the scientific and military institutions where the Internet was ilrst intt0ducedl science fiction-h~s.long been a fiter~tnre, of choice,s Conse~tuently, the slang and social practices employed on the early hnlle6n boards were often, directly modeled on science fiction random. Mailing,lists that focuse~ on fan.topics took their place alongside discussions of technological or scientific issues. In many ways, cyberspace is random writ large: .. The reconstit~tinn of these fandoms as digital enclaves did:not come without; strenuous efforts to overcome the often overtly hostile :reception fan women received from the early Internets. predominantly male populatiom Operatlng?outside:of those.technical institutions, many female fans lacked computer access and technica~ literacy. Heated deb#tes erupted at conventions as fans.were~angered, at being left behind when " Old fan friends moved online. At the~same time, as Sue Clerc notes~ fan communities helped many women make the~ transition to cybersp~ --t~group ~ t at va ued members leaJ:ned to use the new~ technolo-~ gies, since "for them, there is litrle benefit to ne~ access unless many of

Interactive Audiences? [ x39

their friends have it."~ Fan women routed around male hostility, developing Web communities "that combine the intimacy of small g~6ups with a support network similar to the kind fan women create offdine." Discussion lists, mailing groups, Web rings, and chatrooms each enabled fan communication. ~has discussed the important functions of talk within online soap random: "Fans share knowledge of the shows h{~ because the genre demands it. Any soap has broadcast more material than any single fan caia remember.~rm each othe~-grg~~nts they may have missed. The fan community pools its knowledge because no single fan can know everything necessary to fully appreciate the series. Levy distinguishes between shared knowledge (which would refer-to irdormation known by all members of a community) and collective intelligence (which describes kn6wledge available to all members of a community). Gollective intelligence expands a communitys productive capacity because it flees individual members from. the limitations of their memory and enables the group to act upon a broader range of expertise. As LeW writes, within a knowledge comanunity, "no one knows everything, everyone knows something~ all knowledge resides in humanity."s Baym argues: A large group of fans can do what even the most committed single fan . cannot: accumulate, retain, and continually recirculate unprecedented amounts of relevant information... : [}qet list] participants collabora-; tively provide all With the resources to get more story from the material, enhancing many members soap readings and pleasures.~ Soap ta~k, Baym,notes, allows people to "show off for one another" their various competencies while making individual expertise .more broadlT~ available. Fans are motivated by epistemaphilia~not simply a pleasure in- knowing but a pleasure in, exchanging knowledge. Baym argues that fans see the exchange of speculations and evaluations of soaps asa means of "comparing~ refining, and negotiating underStandings of their socioemofional environment."x Matthew Hills__has criticized audience researchers for th~ ation with fans meamng p~ff uct~-t~e expense of consideration of their affective investments ~--~-iT Bayrns term "socioembtional" sug~-aX[iances. Yet, as gests, meanmgs are not some abstracted form of ~parated from Our pleasures and:desires, isolated fromfaixdoms social bonds.

I4o I Interactive Audiences?

Interactive Audiences~ I I4I

When fans talk abon~ meaningba! encounters with tex~s, they are dea~; scribing what they fe4i as much as what they think .... Fan specul~a~, fi6ns may, on the surface, :seem to be simply a deciphering of the aired material, but increasifigly speculation involves fans in the production new fantasies, broadekaing the field of meanings that circulate around the primary text .... -----A~-~a~ his ideal of "coflective inteLligance" with t~ 1an maage of the "hive mind," where individualvoices are suppressed. ----at rom eman mg co Ornfity, the new knowledge culture is enlivened by multiple way~ o~ knowing. This collective eScchange of knowl-; edgecannot be fully c6ntained by previous sources ofpower-~-" "bureau= cratic hierarchies (based on static forms of writing), media monarchies (surfing the television ~and media systems), and "international ecohomic networks (based on the telephune and real-time technologies"~th~t pended on maintaining fight control bver theflow of information. The dynamic, coflecfive, and reciprocal nature of these exchanges under- mfixes traditional forms of expertise and destabilizes attempts to establish a scriptural econ6my in which some meanings are more valuable than othersJ2 The old commodi~ space Was defined through various forms bf contexmalization, including the alienation of labor, th9 uprooting of images from larger cukural traditions so that they can circulate as cornmodities,. the demographic fragmentation of the audience, the disciplining 0f~knowledge, and the disconnect between media producers and consum&s. The new iifformati~nvolves multiple and tmstable forms of rec~~:.The value of any bit of information in-~ "-&eases through social ~interaction. Commodities are a limited good and thei~ie~change ~ecessarLly creates ~)Yanacts inequalitiesFBut meaning is ashared and constantly renewable resource and its circulation can cre~ ateiand revitalize social ties:. If old forms of expertise operated through is01afed disdpllnes, th~ new collective intelligence is a patchwork woven together fi:om many sources as members pool what they know,creating somethifig much moreipowerful than the sum o~ its parts. .

~U)Comp;~t~r~ Changed Pdhd6m

For~:Levy, the introduction of,hi~ networked computing consti..__rated andpistem01ogieal turnlfig.p0int in the development of collective

intelllgence. K bandom was akeady a knowledge culture well before the Internet, then how did.transplanting its practices into the digatal erxv ronmant alter the fan community? The new digital environment creases the speed ofban, communication, resulting in what Matthew Hills calls "iust in time bandom."is If fans once traded ideas through ~they now see the postal service as too slow "--"snai~ mail" --to satisfy their expectations of immediate response. ,Hills explaiffs, "The practices of fand0m have become increasingly enmeshed with the rhythms and temporalities of broadcasting, so that fans now go online to discuss new episodes immediately after the epis0des transmission time or even during ad~breaks perh~ips in~ orde,r, to demonslxate the tlmeliness and responsiveness of, their devotion. 14 Where fans might have raced to the phone to talk to a dose friend, theycan now access a much broader range of perspectives by going online: . This expectation of timeliness complicates the global expansion of the fan community, with time lags in~~-~-e distribution of aural goods across national markets h~mg full participation fro~tll ~am month~ or even years later. International fans often complain that they are additionally disadvantaged because their Rrst~fime experience of the episodes is~earning too much ;from the online discussions. The digital media also alters the scope of communication, Fandoms centering on Asian po__pular culture, such as Japanese ardme 0r,Hong Kung action f/tiffs, powerfully exploit the In~er~-~ach. Japanese fans collaborate.with Amerinan consumers to insure the tmder ,~round circulation of these cultural products and to explain cultural ~,un pro ucaon "stories.~s Anime fans reg~anslate and post tim sched~nle,of Japanese television so.thatintertiafional fans can identify and negotiate access to interesting programs. American fans have learned Japanese, often teaching each other outside of a formal educational context~ in:order to participate in grassr0ots,pr0jects to subtitle anlme films or .to,,,translate manga (comics). Concerned about different.national e~pectations regarding what kinds of animation are appropriate for, children) anime fans have organized their own ratings groups. This is a new cosmopolitanism--knowledge sharing on a global,scale. , " ~, A~ the c6mmunity enlarges and reaction time shortens, fandom becomes muchinor~effective, as a plaffbrm f,o~:consumei: a~vis,_m, Fans can quickly mobilize, grassroots efforts to save programs or protest

I4z ! Intera~tiv~ Audiences?

tmpopnlar developments. New fandoms emerge rapidly on the Web--in some cases before media products actually reach the market. As earl participants spread news about emergent fandoms, supporters quickly develop the infrastructure for supporting critical dialogue, producing annotated program guides, providing regular production updates, arid creating original fan ~tories and artwork. The result has been an enormous prolifet~ition of fan Web sites and discussion lists .... As random diversifies, i~ moves from cult status toward the cultural mainstream, with more Internet users en~g~g~d in some form of fan activity. ~s increased visibility and cultural centrality has. beena mixed blessing for a community used to speaking from the margins. The spe~d and frequency of communication may intensify the social bonds within the fan community. I~ns inhabited a "week-end only world," seeing eachiother in large numbers only a few times a year -g~r~~6~, fans may .interact daily, if not-hourly, on~fflNme. ~Geo_grgpNi@d fans can feel much more connected to the fan community:and home-ridden f~ns enjoy a nev~ level of acceptance. Yet, fandoms expanded scope can leave fans feeling alienated from the expanding numbers of strangers entering their community. This rapid expansion outraces any effort to socialize new members; For example, fandom has long maintained an ~thical norm against producin~ erotica about real people rather than fictional characters. As newer fans have discovered fan fiction online, they have not always known or accepted this prohil~o there is a grooving body of fan erotica dealing with ~elebrities. Such stories become a dividing point between older fans committed to traditional norms and the newer online fans .who have asserted their rights to redefine random on their own terms. Online fan discussion lists often bring together groups who functioned more or less iantonomously offiine and have radically differ4nt responses to?he aired material~Flame wars erupt as their:taken-forgranted interpretive:and evaluative norms rub against each other. In some cases, fans call negotiate these.conflicts by pulling to a metaleval and exploring the basisforthe different interpretations~ More often, the groups splinter into narrower interests, pushing some participants from public debates into smaller and more private mailing lists. Levy describes a pedagogical process through which a knowledge community develops a set of ethical standards and~ arriculat~ ~n a scale~s gl~al village, fandoms often have difficult!! arriving:at suck a consensus. ~While early accotmts

of fandom stressed its communltarian ideals, more recent studies have stressed recurring conflicts..Andre MacDonald has described fando~ in terms of various disptues--between male and female fans~ between fans with different assumptions about the desired degree of closeness of the producers and stars, between fans who seek to police the production of certain fantasies and fans who assert their freedom from such constraints,~between different .generations of fans, and so forth)7 MacDonald depicts a community Whose utopian aspirations are constantly being tested against unequal experiences, levels of expertise, access to performers and community resources, control Over community institutions, and degrees of investment in fan traditions and norms. Moreover, .as Nancy Baym suggests, the desire to avoid such conflicts can result in an artificial consensus that shuts down the desired play with alternative meanings.~8 Levy seemingly assumes a perfect balance between mechanisms for producing knowledge and for sustaining affiliations. Yet; MacDonald and Baym suggest a constant tension betwean these two goals, which can reach a crisis as list memberships have expanded alongside the exponential growth of net subscribers .... Networked computing has also transformed fan production. Web publication of fan fiction, for example, has .almost entirely displaced printed zincs. Fanzines arose as the most efficieut means of circulating ~an wnting[~Fan editors charged only the costs of reproduction, seeing zincs as a vehicle for distributing stories and not as a source of income. In some fand0ms, circuits developed for loaning individual!y photocopied stories. In other cases, readers and editOrS came tosee zincs as aesthetic artifacts, insisting on high-quality reproduction and glossy color covers. Fans have.increasingly turned to the ~eb to lower the cost~ of production and to expand their reading public. Fans are also developing.archives of older zinc stories; helping to connect ne~ver fans with their history... Digital technologies have also enablEd-new forms of fan"cuitural pro:ZT. fan ffc~o--om. ~d now digital art may go to auction at cons ( venti0ns): alongside ilinstrations done in pen and ink, colored pencil, or oil. For a time, mp~s o~uld be readily downloaded alongside commercial favorites through Napster... Fan artists have been part of the much larger history of a~mateur film and video production. George Lucas and :SteVen Spielberg ~ ~ateur filmmakers :as teenagers, producing low-budget horro~

x44 .1 Intera~tiwAk?li~nces? or science llctiou movies. Star Wars, m turn, has inspired Super 8 fil~ makers since its release in i?he early x97os. Some B~itish fan clubs pr.~o~,~ duced uriginal episodes of Doctor Who, sometimes filming in the sam~ gravel quarries as the orig~s the videncasset~e recorder be~) came more widely ~vallable, fans re-edited series footage into rfiusie videos, using populdr music to encapsulate the often-tmarticulated emo~i tioas of favorite characters.20 As fan video makers.have become sophisticated; some )fan artists.have produced whole new storylines by. patching together original dialogue. The World Wide Web is a powerful distribution chaunel ~vere once home movies a surprising degree of public visibility. Publicity materials surfac~ while these amateur films are still in production; most of the films boast lavish movie posters; and many of ~hem include downloadable trailcrs to attract would-be viewers impatient with download times. Star Wa~s fans were among the first to embrace these new technologies~ more than three hundred We~ ~hese fans exploited the various.merchandise surrounding this blockbuster film franchise for raw materials to their homegrown movies:.. : These fhn filmmakcrs have used home computers to duiplicare effects Lucasfilm had spent a fortune to achieve sevcral decades. earlier; many fan films create their own light saber ot space battles ....

Mteractive Audiences? I r45 Creative activity, he suggests, will shift from the production of texts the regulation of meanings toward the development of a dyne:talc environment, "a collective event thgt implies the recipients, transforms ~nterpreters into actors, enables interpretation.to.enter the loop with ,collective action."2~ Room ~or participation and improvisation are being built into new media franchises: Kurt Lancaster, for example, has examined how commercial works (including computer, role-playing, and card games) sttrrounding the cult science ~flction series Babylon 5 facilitate a diverse range of fan performances, allowing fans~tu immerse themselves in the fantasy tmiverse.24 . . . Cult works were once discovered; now they are being consciously produced, designed to provoke fan interactions. The p~rodncers of Xena: Warrior Princess~ for example, were fully aware that some fans wanted ~~e as lesbian:lovers and thus began to consciunsly~weave "snbtext" into the episodes.~ As Levy explains, "The recipients of the open *york are invtred to-d-t~-~fie blanks,~choose among possible meanings, confront the divergences among their interpretations."2s To be marketabie the new cultural works .will have to provoke and "reward collective meaning .production through elaborate back stories, umesolved enigmas, excess information, and extratextual expansions of the program universe.2s .The past decade has .seen a marked increase in the serialization o~ American television, the emergence of more complex,appeals to program history, and the development of more intricate story arcs and cliffh~ngers. To some degree, these aesthetic shifts can be linked to new reception practices enabled by the home archiving of videos, net discussion li~ts, and Web program guides. These near technologies provide, the information infrastructure, necessary to sustain a richer form of television content, while these programs reward the enhanced competencies, of fan communities. ~. ~are increasingly kno2gg]~g.efl.~ abog~.thir fan c~unifie~s often soliciting their support through networked comput~n.5 producer J~ctively courted the science fiction fun community long before his .propose~ proved for pro uc . " to demonstrate its ~ans lobbied 10cal stations to purchase the syndicated series.. The series prOducer, known affectionately by his user name~ .JMS, went online dally~ responding to .questions about his complex and richly developed.narrative. Kurt Lancaster estima!tes tlxat~JMS may have .made more than x,7oo posts to the fan commtmity,--:~g~et~es.acfive~y

Kno~!edge CultureMeets Commodity Culture.

Levy distinguishes, b~tween four potential sources of power=-nomadic mobility, control-ovhf tertitou, ownershipover commodities, and masterly over knowledg+~--and s~ggests a comple:~ set of intcractions and negotiations betweeh them..The emergent knowledge cultures.never fully escape the influence of the commodity culture, any more than commodiv/culture can totally :funcfion outside the constraints of. territoriality. Butdmov~ledge cultures will, he predicts, gradually alter the ways thai. commodity culture operates. Nowhere is that transition clearer than within the culture industries, where the commodities that circtflar~ become resburces for the production of meaning~ "The distinctions be~,veeh authors and readers, producers and spectators, creators arid ineerpretafions :will blend to form a reading-writing confLnumn, which will.exte?ad from th~ i~i~tchine and network desigfiers to the filtimgte recipient, +achI~elping to sustaln the activities of the others.,,2z .

146 [ InteractweAudtences.

Interactive Audiences.~ I i47 ible various forms of fan participation and production, then these legal battles demonstrate the power still vested in media o~vnership. ~" The horizontal integration of the entertainment industry--and the emergent logic of synergy~depends on the circulation of intellectual propertieg across media outlets,s Transmedia promotion presumes a more active spectator who can and will follow these media flows, Such marketing strategies promote a sense of. affiliation with and immersion in fictional worlds. The media industry exploits these intense feelings through the marketing~ of ancillary goods, from T-shirts to games, with promises of enabling a deeper level: of involvement with the program content, ~However, attempts to regulate intellectual property undercut the economic logic of media convergence, sending fans contradictory messages about how they are supposed to respond to commercial culture.sl . ., Often, the conflict boils down to an issue of who is authorized to speak for a series, as when a Fox television executive justified the dosing of Simpsons fan sites by saying: ."We have an official Web site with network approved content and these people: dont work for us." It is perhaps symptomatic of this highly charged legal cultttre that ~andom.com~ a company created to support fan cormnunity activities and:thwart !!cyberbullying~" almost immediately began issuing "cease and desist" letters to other sites that used the term "random." Ultimately,-fandom~com was forced to back~ down~ but only after it had totally undercut its claims to be "by and~for fans? i Levy sees industry panic over interactive audiences as short-sighted: "By:preventing the knowledge space from becoming autonomous, they deprive the circuits of cormnodity space ~ . . of an extraordinary source of energy., The knowledge culture, he suggests, serves as the "invisible and intangible engine" for the circulation and exchange of commodities.sz The online book dealer Amazomcom has linked bookselling to the,fostering, of online book culture. Readers are encouraged :to.post critical responses to specific works or to compile lists of their:favorite book~.: Their associates program creates u,powerful niche marketing system: Amazon patrons are offered royalties for every sale made on the basis of Iiflks from their sites. Similarly, the sports network ESPN sponsors a :fantasy baseball league; a :role-playing activity in, which sports fans form reams, trade players, and score points based onthe real-world performance of~varions athletes:: Shch activities give an incentive for viewers tO tune into ESPN for up-to=the-minute statistics;ss .Atrempts to link consumers directly into the production and mar-

engaging in flame wars with individual fans as well as conducting What he saw as a continuing seminar on the production of geure television.27 While JMS sought to be more accessible to fans~ he ound it difficult.to shed his authority or escape a legal and economic system designed,: in part, to protect corporate interests from audience appropriation. His lawyers warned himthat he would have to leave the group if there Was danger that he would be exposed to fan speculations that might hold him hostage to potential plagiarism suits. Such restrictions reimpose the hierarchy of commodity culture over the irdormai reciprocality of the knowledge culture. -: While JMS is perhaps tmique in the degree of his exposure to fans, other producers have shown a similar awareness of online fan dis~ course. For example~ when the WB Network post olL~d the Season hale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the wake of the C~o~-tinvade a notokious public call~ o oootleg mat puppy aria eastrll~ute it via the Web to American viewers, Fans, in turn, rallied to Whedons defense when the religious -right larmched a leffer-writing campaign against the introdhcti0n of a lesbian relationship !involving series regulars.2s By contrasts.SurvDor producer Mark Bumetr engaged in an active disinformatiofi campaign to thwart audience efforts to predict the winner of its million~dollar competition, btaTing false leads in the oft~cial Web site awaiting di~ covery by fun hackers. When hingtime World Wrestling Federation ah~ nanncer Jerry Lawler Was fired, he brought his side of his disputes with Vinced~cMah0n directly to online fans. Some of these producers sought to deceive, others to inform the. fan ~ommunity, but each showed:an awareness of how online discourse refrained the reception context for television programs... : ~ ~ For many media producers, who still operate within the old logic of the commodi~T culture, random over t..___.._heir intellectual~he efforts of the recording industry to dismantle Napster. dhmonstrated that the traditional media companies were prepared to spend massive: sums in legal action against new forms of grassroots distribution. The recording industry explicitly framg_d the ~aseas achance to."educate" the public about corporate intellectual property rights and thus avoid future ~piracy."29 Television producers, film studios, and book publishers have been equally aggressive in issuing "cease and desist,: letters to fan,Web sites that .transcribe program dial0gue~or reproduce Unauthorized images. If new media has mad~ vis-

Interactivg Audiences? I ~49

keting of media content axe variously described as marketmgfl relartonship marketing," or "v~al marketing" creasingly promoted as the model for how to sell goods, cultural and otherwise, in ma interactive environment. Jupiter Communications notes that 57 percent ot: consumers visit a new site based on wur& of mouth.z~ As one noted industry guide explains, "Marketing in an interactive world is a colla~orafive process with:the marketer helping the consumer to buy and the consumer helping the marketer to sell"as Researchers are nding that fundom and other knowledge communities foster a s~nse of passionate Mfiliafion or brand loyalty that insures the longevity of par* titular product.line~ s6 In viral marketing, such affiliations he-Come selfreplicating as marketers create.content that consumers want to circulate actively .am.ong their friends. Even unauthorized and vaguely subversi;ce appropnataons can.!spread advertising messages, as occurred through ~ Internet spoofs oft!ie Budweiser whazznp, commercials..:...: "~ " " , ..... Bulldiug brand 16yalty requires more: than simply coopting grassroo?~ activities back into the commodity culture; Successful media producers are becoming more iadept at monitoring and serving audience interests~ The _g{~mes indus_.~~ itself as marketing interactive experi~ ences rather.than. Commoditie, ~een ea_g_er to :broaden ~r participation alid.strengthen, the sense of affiliation players feel towards ~has integrated won - e tar ars garners intomulfiplaye~ on~ me aeslgn team for the development of their massively line game. A Web page~:was created early in the design process.and ideas[[under iConsiderafion Were posted for fan feedback. KurtSqul}~ describes =the benefit~ of this ,particinatory~s~ ~wh0 are ordinarily left out of ~he design process, can bring their . expertise using products to the conversation, and help ensure more usable productg: This ends up saving money for the designers;wh6 can ~ spend le~s. energy in user/custumer, support. And, bf course, this pr0cless results iwmore Usable products, which benetlts everyone."~Taam~ companies often c, ireul~~a~v.a#~eeking i~tmleash ~the~ c~:eative potential of their consumers; In so~ne cases~ fan, __designed "roods" or gam~ worlds (such as. Counterstrike) have integrated into the commer~ses. Maxis~ the company that mare ages~the Sims:franehise~ encourages-the grassroots ]production ~md.t~ad~ :ing df[YsIdns" (flew~character ider~tities); ]~rops, and architectural struc totes, even progr~g code. Sims-cteatur Will Wright refers to his product as a %andbox".or "~ollhouse,"viewing it more as ~n author-

ing environment where consumers ~can play out their own stories than

as a, "hard-rails" game..UltimateIy, Wright predicts, two-thJirds bf 3ims content will come from consumers,ss
~ It remains to be seen, however, whether these new corporate strategies of collaboration and consultation with the emerging knowledge

communities will displace the legal structures of the old commodity

culture,. How far will media companies be willing to go to remain in

charge of their content or to surf theinfurmafion.flow? In an age of broadband delivery, will television producers see fans less as copyright
infringers and more as active associates and niche marketers? Will

global media moguls collaborate with grassroots communities, such as the anime fans, to insure that their products.get visible in the lucrative
American market? :

F~bm Jammers to Bloggers ,

,.

In Ms zg~3essay "Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing and Sniping in the Empire of Sigfls," Mark Defy documented emerging tactics of grassroots resistance ("media hacking ir~urmational w~fare, terror-art and guerilla semiotics") to "an ever more intrnsive, instrumental technocultare whose operant mode is the manufacture of consent through the manipiflation of symbols."4q In dfizens band (CB) radio.slang, the term *j~mmin~" ~efers to efforts to "introduce noises into the .signal as it.passes from .transmitter to receiver." Culture jammers, refused to.,be ,passive shopper~{?, and insisted on their right to insert 0.1ternafive ideas into the:meme-stream., . . . Derys essay~*ecords an important juncture in the history of DIY media. Over the past several decades, emerging technoi0gies--ranging from the photocopier to the home computer and the video~ cassette recorder--have gra~ted, viewers, greatdr control ove~ media ~Iows, ,enabled activis{cS to reshape and :recirculate media content, lowered the costs of productions, and paved the way for .new grassroots networks. Recognizing that their revolution would not be televised, the ,r96os counteranltare:created an alternative media cui~e, using everything from rock to under~onnd newspapers, from poster, art to people s radio, to comm nicate outside the corporately controlled media, and in the process, student leaders .proposed theories-of, participatory culyure that would influence subsequent act!vists.:The D][Y aesthetic got a second wind in the

x5o I Interactive Audiences? 198os as punk rocke~s, queer activists, and third-wave feminists. others, embraced photocopied zines, Stickers, buttons, and T-shirts a~ vehicles for cultural and political expression.41 These group ognized the radical potential of Videotape for embraced the "digital revolution" as an extension of earlier movements toward media demockacy.42 Many of the groups Defy describes, such as Adbusters, ACT LIp, Negativeland, The Barbie Liberation Army, Paper Tiger Televisions affd the Electronic Disttffbance Community, would happily embrade "culture jammer" baronet. Yet~ DeW Overreached in describing of DIY media as "j~mming~" These new technologies would supp0kt and sustain a range of different cultural and political projects, some overtly oppositional, :others more celebratory, yet desire to participate within, rather than simply consume, media. CUltare jammers want to opt out of media consumption and promote a purely negative and reactive conception of popular culture. Fans, onthe Other hand, :see unrealized potentials in popular culture and want tO broaden ~audience participatinn~ Fancuiture i r~iptive~ affecfiVe.more than ideologlcal~ and collabbrative rather thart confrontationhL C~Iture jammers :want to "jam" the dominant,media; while poacbers~want to appropriate their cout~nt~ imagining a mtre democratic, responsive; and divers~ Style of popular calture~ Jammers want to destioy media power, while pohChets want a share of it. , ~The territory mapped by this egsay ends at the edge of the eleCtroniC frontie~! Derzy wrote, expressing optimism about theemerging politi2 cal:andctilVaral power grassroots media activists might enjo~,.in a con~ text where media flows are multidirectional.43 Yet, he also cautinns thaf the media industries lwill find alternative means of marginalizing ~ud disenfranchising citizen participation .... Retuxning to this same terrain at the end of the decade, it is clear that new media technologies have profoundly altered the relatinns between mediaproducers and consumers. Both culture jammers and fans have gained greater visibflity~ as [hey have deployed. the Web for commuuity..bullding,: intellectual change; cultural distribution)~ and media activism:. Some sectors Of the media induStrieshave embraced active andie~ces as an extension their:marketing power, have sought greater feedback from, :their fans, and have.incorporated viewer-generated cohtent:into their :design proc~ essex., Other*~ectorx ~have sought to contain or silence the emerging knowledge Culture. ~, :.. The ~ld rhettric of opposition and cooptation

InteractiveAudiences? I zSI assumed a world where consumers had little direct power to shape media content and where there were enormous barriers to entry into ~he marketpJace, whereas the new digital environment expands their power to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media products .... Levy describes a ~vorld where grassroots commimicatinn is not a momentary disruption of the corporate signal but the routine way that the new media system operates: "Until now we have only reappropriated speech in the service of revolutionary movements, crises, cures, exceptional acts of creation. What would a normal, calm, established appropriation of speech be like? ,,44 Perhaps, rather than talking about culture jammers, we might speak of bloggers. The term "blog" is short for "Web log~" a new form o persoiaal and subcultural expression invoiving summarizing and linking to other sites. In some cases, bloggers actively deconstruct pernicious claims or poke fun ,at other sites; in other cases~ they form temporary tactical alliances with other bioggers or with media producers to insure that important messages, get more widely circulated. These bloggars have become important grassroots inte?mediaries-~-facilitators, not jammers, of the signal flow.. Blogging describes a corrtmunicatinn process; : not an ideological position.. .... " ~.AS Levy Writes: The new proletariat will only free itself by uniting, by decategorizing itself, by forming alliances with those whose Work is. similar to its own . (ofice again, neariy everyone), by bringing to the foreground th6 activities they have been practicing in shadow, by assuming responsibility --globally, centrally, ekplicifly~for the production of collective intelligence,~s

Bloggers take knowledge in their own hands, enabling succe~sfui navigation within and between these emerging knowledge,cultures. One can s~e such behavior as cooptation into commodity~culture insofar as it sometimes collaborates ~vith corporate interests, but:one can also see it as increasing the diversity of media culture, providing opportunities for greater incinsiveness, and making commodity culture more responsive . to consumers. In an era marked both by the expanded.corporate reach of the commodity culture and .the emerging importance of grassroots knowledge cultures, consumer power may: now be best exercised by bl0ggingrather than jamming medin signals;~. :,

158 I Notes to Chapter5 with the "average Twin Peaks fan," the respondents offered descriptions that stressed their own ~xcepfional qualifies, particularly their intellectual abilities: The average .Turn Peaksfan is intelligent, odd, quirky, o~er analytical and does not watda ~ull House or 2~amily Matters. Twin Peaks required a great den! of patience and inte!ligence ~ watch... and the average American has neither in abundance. / Fairly intellectual.., also creative. /

Notes to Chapter 6 I z59. of the other citizens and cites ~he rule med~a pla~s in providing the social, cement betyceen these scattered populations. Levy (Collective InteIIigev~e, 15) introdnces the concept of an "imaging commtmlty" to describe how a sense of iation emerges from an active process of seff-de~nifion and reciprocal knowledge traasfe~ 3. A inIIer account of Gernsbecks role in the development of science fi~tion random can be found in An&ew Ross, Strange Weather: Culture, Science and Technology in the Age of Limits (New York: Verso, 193~). For a fialier account of contemporary literary SF random, see Camille Bacon-Smith, Science Fiction Culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvanig Press, zooo). 4. John Tulloch and Hemy Jenkins, Science Fiction Audiences:. Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek (London: Rout/edge, 1995). 5- Sherry Turkle, The Second Selfi Computers and the Human Spirit (New York: Touchstone, 1984), provides some glimpse of the centrality o science fiction in that early hacker culture, as does my study of Star Trek fans at M1T in Talloch and Jenkins, Science Fiction Audiences, 6. Susan J. Clerc, "Estrogen Brigades and Big Tits Threads: Media Fandom Ouline and Off," in Wired Women: ~ender and New Realities-in Cyberspace, ed. Lynn Che.tney and Elizabeth Reba Weise (Seattle: Se~il, i396). 7. Nancy Baym, "Talking about Soaps: Communication Practices in a Computer-Mediated Cultttre," in Theorizing Pandora: Fans, Subculture, and Iden~ ti~ ed. Cheryl Harris and Ali~on Alexander (New York: H.ampton Press, z998)~. 8. Lew,. Collective Intelligence, zo. 9~ Bhym, "T~,kfug about Soaps,". x15-16. ~o. Ibid.o zz7. zx..Matthew FfiJ!s, Fan Cultures (London: Rout/edge, zooz). 1. For a useful discussion of the ways that the net ih challenging traditional forms of expertise, see: Peter Walsh, "That Withered Paradigm: The Web, the Expert and the Information Hegemonyf htrp:l/media-in-transition.nfit.edu. ~ x3~ HJJls, Fa~ Cultures, 78-79.. 14. !bid. x5. For an overview of anime and its fans; see Susan J. !ff~pier~ Anime from Akira to Princess Mo~onoke: Experiencing C3ntemporary ]apandse Animation {New York: Palgrave, ~oo1). i6. The phrase "week-end only *~zgrld" is discussed in the concfudln~ chapter of Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Cultus~,(New, York: Rout!edge, 1991), 17. AndreMcDonald, "Uncez?~ain Utopia: Science Picdon Media tTandom and. Computet-Mediat~d:Commut~ication,~ in. ~heorizing:Fandom: Fdm, Subculture, and Identity, ed. ~heryl Harris and AlisOn Alexander (New York: HamjPton Press, 1998).

Exactly th~ saade core audience for Star Tre , Who ahd Masterpiece Tbea~e. ~ ~ . ./ col!ege-educated in the i/berYl arts, like jaz~ mad Thai food. A strange and ~onderfi~l person with en personality-~-alts that ma~e him or her relate to ~e weirdness 0.6 the show. Probably a fan of Star Trek, Pickbt Fences. Probably doesnt even watch a lot of TV. Mos~ people f~und it took tzo~o mu~h thought to stay involved in th~ ~how. For fusta,nce, But/e/veryone and ~ister didnt the the show They ing bluri 9f iron.yes.both my/mother I know who likes like show is abo@e areboth average intelligenq~. To them TP ~as just an annoyingly confiasaverage mtellig~n~e, t/ /. Here,. the programrs ~ceptional qualifies, the demands it made on the specratorN: activity, allow~dns to. assert their own inteilectual:stiperiority to the bulk o! the viewing pu~.Iic, stressing traits that are, ~rtlcular!,y valued within the computer net subiulture. TwlnPeaks, theyexpl~ined, was. not a show for pas~ sive.pe6ple." M/tiny cited the fact that the ~rogram did not sustain strong;tatmg~ and was/Aanc~]!ed as ewdence of theRr discrimJ~aating taste and departure from the ~tfltural mmnstreams: "!-leaven forbid that Ameticafis ~ about

Y ing"

1. pierre Levy, Collective Intelligence:.Mankinds Emerging World-in Cyberspace (Cambridge: Perseus, 19~7), zi7. ~ z. The phrase "imagined community" comes from Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflebtions on the Origin and Spread ~f Nationalism (N~w ,::York: Verso; 1991). Anderson 9rg~es thaf we feel strong affiliations with nafi6~states even though~th~y ar~ too,~lArge, for us f0 havre p~ts0~al-contacts with all

Notes to Chapter 6
I8. Nancy Baym, Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom and Online Community (New York: Corwin, 1999)~ 19. Stephen Duncombe, Notes from Underground: Zincs and the Politics of Alternative Culture (New York: Verso, 1997). zo. For a fuller discussion of fan video practices, see Textual Poachers. For a larger context on amateur media prodnction, see Patricia R. Zimmermann, Reel Families: A Social History of Amateur Film (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995). . . zL Henry Jenkins, Quentin Tarantinos Star Wars? Digital Cinema, Media Convergence and Participatory Culture," in Dfilm, ed. Ba~ Cheerer and Nick Constant (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, zz. Levy, Collective Imellig~nce, izL 4. Kurt Lancaster, Interacting with Babylon S: Fan Performances in a Media Universe (Austin:University of Texas Press, zooi). z5. Levy, Collective Intelligence, iz5. 16. Amelie Hastie; "Proliferating Television in the Market and in the Know," paper presented at the "Consnle-ing Passions" conference, Bristol, UK, July 27. Lancaster, Interacting with Babylon 5, 16. See also Alan Wexelblat, "An Auteur in the Age of the Internet," in Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture, ed. :Herccy Jenkins, Tara McPherson, and Jmae Shattuc (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 18. Allison McCracken, "Bronzers for a Smut-lilled Environment: Reading Fans Reading Sexual Identity at Buffy.com," paper presented ar the "Consoleing Passions" conference, Bristol, UK, Jnly 6, zooi.. 19~~ David Spitz, .~Contested Codes:~ Toward a Social History of Napster" (Masters thesis, Comparative Media Studies Program, MIT, June :3o. See, for example,,Eileen Meehan, "Holy Comrriodity Fetish, Batman!~!:. The Political Economy of a Political Intertexe, in The Many Lives of the,Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media, ed. Roberta Pearson and William Uricchio (New York: Roufledge~ 199i). 31. This formnlatio~ of the issue was inspired by Sara Gwenliian Jones, "Conflicts of Interest? The Folkloric and Legal Status of Cult TV Characters in Online Fan Culture," paper presented at the Society for Cinema Studies Cor~erence, Washington, DC, May 16, zoox. 31. Levy, Collective Intelligence, 137. 33. For example, see Amy Jo IGm, Community Building on the We~: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities (Berkeley: Peachpit Press, ooo). 34- Jupiter Communication, as cited in "Just Exactly What Is Viral Marketing?" http:marketsherpa.co.uk.

Notes to Chapter
35- Don Peppers, "Introduction," In Seth Godon, Permissions,Marketing: Turning Strangers into Friends, and Friends into Customers (New Y~rk: Siinon and Schuster, i999), 36. Robert V. Kozinets, "Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Treks Culture of Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research (June zoo~:): http://www.j ournuls.uchicago.edu/J CBJj otttualL 37. See, for example, EIizabed~ Kolbert, "Pimps and Dragons: How-an Online World Survived a Social Breakdown," New Yorker, May zSi zooL 38. Kurt Squire, "Wars Galaxies: A Case Study in Participatory Design," Joystick ~or, www.joystickxoI.org, forthcom~lg. 39. Personal interview, April zooL 4o. Mark Dery, Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing and Sniping in the Empire of Signs (Open Magazine Pamphlet Series, i993), http://web.nwe.uil.edu] ~mlaffey/cnlt~am Lhtml. For elaboration on the concept of culture jamming, see also Gareth Branwyn, Jamming the Media: A Citizens Guide for Reclaiming the Tools of Communication (San Francisco: Chronicle, i997); and David Cox, "Notes on Cnlture Jamming," ht~p:www.syntac.net/hoax/manifestJ/notes.php. 4x. For a useful overview of media activism in this period, see Douglas Rushkoff, Media Virus! Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture (New York: Ballatuine, 4z. Philip Hayward, "Situathag Cyberspace: The Popnlarizatinn of Virtual Reality," in Future Visions: New Technologies of the Screen, ed. Philip Haywood and Tana Wollen (London: British Film Institute). 43. Dery, Culture Jamming. ~4. Levy, Collectiim Intelligence, ~71. 45. Ibid.,
NOTES TO CHAPTER ~

z. Todd Gitlin~ Media Unlimited: How the Torrent o~~ages and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives (New York: Metropolitan, zoO. z). , z. Jeff Yang, Dina Gan, Terry Hong, and the Staff of A. Magazine, eds., Eastern Stunddrd Time: A Guide to Asian I~fl~dnce on American Culturefrom Astro Boy to Zen Buddhism (Boston: H, gughron Mifllm, i997). : 3. For the most thorough disc~ssi~)n of the~:Bert and Bin Laden story, see http://www.lindqvlstcom]index~.~pt~?katlD=T&l~g=eng&incl=bert.php. 4. Grant McCracken, Peaitude, published online as a work in progress at http:/lwww.cultur eby.coin~il~ooks/plenit/cxc_trilogy_plenitude.hwnl. 5. Henry ~eukinsiConvergdnce Culture: Where Old and New Medi~ Collide ~ (New yo~;Y~ork Udiversity Press,:zo06).