116<strong>Comunicar</strong>, <strong>39</strong>, XX, 201224 to 29 age group finds it hard to identify with them.Fiction does not tend to serve as a reference as theinterviewees cope with their day-to-day problems.However, even though some of the plots are not veryrealistic, there are youngsters of all ages who try toextrapolate the ideas from the fiction to their own reality,a more marked trend among critical viewers. Infact, the sentimental relationships and entertainment ofthe main characters are the representations that theparticipants in the focus groups wanted to imitate themost often. Some youngsters also identified with theattitude and actions of the characters, contextualisedaccording to their own experience.4. Conclusions and discussionTelevision fiction is the macro-genre preferred bythe interviewees, especially the females, whose greaterloyalty to their favourite programmes is coherentwith their preference for dramatic shows (mainly soapoperas). Conversely, the males’ inclination for comedycorresponds to the much more discontinuous nature ofmale viewing. On the other hand, the social class ofthe participants in the focus groups did not seem toinfluence their television viewing, nor did their origin(local or foreign). Generally speaking, the intervieweescan be classified into the four groups proposed byMillwood and Gatfield (2002) according to theirreception patterns and attitude towards the programmes:• Fanatics: they are deeply enthusiastic about televisionfiction and follow it regularly, usually withoutquestioning it.• Ironic: they like television fiction, but they experiencecontradictory feelings, which sometimes leadthem to adopt a critical attitude towards the programmes.• Non-committed: they are attracted by televisionfiction but only follow it sporadically when seeking an«easy» form of entertainment.• Dismissive: these viewers are full of prejudicesagainst television fiction and never or almost neverwatch it.Females’ loyalty to their favourite fiction showspartly contradicts much of the spontaneity that Morleyattributed to female viewing in 1986 and reveals thefact that the most casual planning and viewing are linkednot to viewers’ gender but to programme genre.More familiar topics and typically Spanish humourare among the most highly valued aspects, as well asthe characters’ problems and controversial themes(Tufte, 2007). However, even though some intervieweeswere disdainful of Spanish fiction (compared tothat of the US), others appreciated its greater familiarityand recognised that it had a certain didactic value.Thus, the enthusiasm shown by adolescents andyoung adults for the Catalan show «Polseres vermelles»,a drama featuring a group of children and adolescentshospitalised for serious illnesses, reveals theeducational potential of fanfiction in adolescents’ personaldevelopment, as noted by authors like RebeccaW. Black (2008).The youngsters expressed their preference for thecharacters who are their age (Harwood, 1997). Howe -ver, self-assured characters, as well as those who arerebels and ambivalent, aroused greater interest thanthe others, an indication of a possible cathartic identificationaimed at reconciling the similarities betweenthe characters and the viewer with the extraordinarynature of the narrative, as noted by Gripsrud, followingJauss (Gripsrud, 2005). Nonetheless, the ironicinterviewees clearly understand that the characters arestereotypes and that their experiences do not resemblethose of real youngsters (Spence, 1995), while thefanatics believe that the general features of the characterstend to be realistic (in the emotional sense of theconcept as defined by Ien Ang in 1985). The desire toimitate the most admired characters 4 , as well as thesimilarities between the ways these characters speakand the viewers’ speech patterns, also bring the lattercloser to the fiction and reveal the constant process ofmutual feedback induced by television viewing (GalánFajardo & del Pino, 2010; Lacalle & al., 2011).The interviewees’ preferences reaffirm the in -fluence of gender in television viewing (Lemish, 2004;McMillin & Fisherkeller, 2008), since the females prefergood-looking characters, while the males tend toprefer the unusual ones, or «geeks» even though thedispersion of male tastes makes it difficult to generalise.In any event, both appreciate the image of eternal adolescenceprojected in fiction by the young characters,who spend most of their time between recreation andsentimental and sexual relations (Bragg & Buckingham,2004).The interviewees of all ages, especially the females,preferred to watch fiction by themselves due totheir divergent tastes with their parents. This thusrevalidates the relationship between family roles andtelevision viewing noted by and Morley (1986),Silverstone (1994) and Lull (1990), except that in single-parentfamilies headed by mothers (more numerousin the analysis sample than single-parent familiesheaded by men), the mother now controls the maintelevision set. Contrary to what Bragg and Buckingham(2004) claim, youngsters who tend to watch television© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293 • Pages 111-118
117with their family rarely comment on the more delicatetopics (mainly related to sex) with their parents. Nordid the focus groups provide any indication of possiblecloser inter-generational ties in families, which theseBritish authors claims characterises television viewingshared among the different household members.However, the socialising nature of television fictioncan be seen in the interviewees’ enthusiasm at talkingabout their favourite programmes, mainly withtheir peers, which dovetails with the results of thestudy by Thornham and Purvis (2005). This enthusiasmsuggests that, as Modlesky (1979) noted, someviewers may regard television fiction as a kind of ex -tension of their family, a «second family» that enablesthem to create a «fantasy community» boosted todayby the rising use of forums and social networks to commenton them. The ease with which the majority ofthe interviewees speak about fiction also reaffirms its«therapeutic» nature and its role as a catalyst of socialrelations (Madill & Goldemeir, 2003), to such an extentthat social use or interaction (Rubin, 1985) seems to beone of the main reasons driving youngsters to consumefiction.Youngsters also find fiction to be a way of evadingtheir problems and everyday duties. This function hasbeen systematically recognised by Cultural Studiesresearchers ever since the pioneering analysis of theseries «Crossroads» performed by Hobson in 1982,which was revalidated in more recent studies(McMillin & Fisherkeller, 2008). Hence the fanaticsrecognise the addictive nature of fiction, as noted byauthors like Millwood and Gatfield (2002), which isonly fostered by the rising hybridisation of formats characteristicof today’s television production in an environmentof extreme competitiveness.The interviewees are perfectly aware of the determinationsto which the different television genres andformats are subjected, something which seems to boostthe viewing pleasure of ironic viewers, as Buckin gham(1987) noted. However, while the fanatics prefer theplots to be surprising with unexpected twists, the ironicviewers prefer to guess at the ending and even anticipatethe programme’s conclusion. The ironic view ersalso particularly appreciate the hybridisation and innovationof the subjects covered, as well as the technicalquality (narrative structure) and technology (specialeffects and the look of the programmes) of the shows.Fanatics, on the other hand, mainly care about thetopics and the characters.Favourite characters, climaxes and gags are themost persistent memories, which vary substantiallyaccording to the interviewees’ degree of involvement.In contrast to this, however, the structure of the storyand even many of the subjects dealt with in the episodeor chapter of the programme watched seem to bequickly relegated to oblivion, which reveals the importanceof selective memory in the processes of interpretation,and possibly the limited nature of the effects oftelevision fiction. There are interviewees of all ageswho try to extrapolate the elements of the story to theireveryday lives. However, it does not seem that any ofthe interviewees believe that their real life and fictitiouslife are an inseparable whole, which is what is claimedby Yolanda Montero based on the results of her studyon the Tele5 children’s series, «Al salir de clase» (AfterSchool; Montero, 2006).Notes1 See the report by A. Lenhart, K. Purcell, A. Smith & K. Zickuhr(2010). Social Media and Young Adults, written for The PewInternet and American Life Project in 2010. Online: (www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx)(14-12-2011).2 According to the «Informe Anual de los Contenidos Digitales enEspaña 2010» (Annual Report of Digital Contents in Spain 2010) byred.es, the decline in the download model in favour of streaming inrecent years is due to the change in mindset, primarily among theyoungest viewers, who view the reception of contents as a servicewithout the need to have ownership of these contents.(www.red.es/media/registrados/201011/1290073066269.pdf?aceptacion=230ed621b2afb25bab3692b9b951e2c6) (02-12-2011).3 The «Annual Report of Digital Contents in Spain 2010» by red.esalso notes that convenience is the reason that drives most web-basedconsumers of television and film fiction. (www.red.es/media/registrados/201011/1290073066269.pdf?aceptacion=230ed621b2afb25bab3692b9b951e2c6) (02-12-2011).4 We could cite, for example, the success of «El armario de la tele»(The TV Wardrobe), the shop that commercialises the clothingworn by television characters. (www.elarmariodelatele.com) (09-12-2011).SupportThe competitive project «The Social Construction of Women inTelevision fiction: Representations, Viewing and Interactions viaWeb 2.0», 2010-11, was subsidised by the Institut Català de lesDones. This part of the study was developed by Charo Lacalle(director) and researchers Mariluz Sánchez and Lucía Trabajo.Contr ibutors included Ana Cano, Beatriz Gómez and Nuria Simelio.ReferencesANG, I. (1985). Watching Dallas. Soap Opera and the Melo dra -matic Imagination. London (UK): Methuen.BAYM, N. (2000). Tune In, Log on. Soaps, Fandom, and OnlineCom munity. London (UK): Sage Publications.BLACK, R.W. (2008). Adolescents and Online Fanfiction. NewYork (US): Peter Lang.BRAGG, S. & BUCKINGHAM, D. (2004). Embarrassment, Educationand Erotics: the Sexual Politics of Family Viewing. European Jour -nal of Cultural Studies, 7(4), 441-459.BRUNSDON, C. (2000). The Feminist, the Housewife, and the Soap<strong>Comunicar</strong>, <strong>39</strong>, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293 • Pages 111-118
- Page 2 and 3:
© COMUNICAR, 39; XXLATIN AMERICAN
- Page 4 and 5:
4Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012C O N T E N
- Page 6 and 7:
6Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Submission
- Page 8 and 9:
8Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012EditorialTh
- Page 10 and 11:
10Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Introducti
- Page 12 and 13:
12Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012All these
- Page 14 and 15:
14Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012civic part
- Page 16 and 17:
16Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 18 and 19:
18Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012ponsible u
- Page 20 and 21:
20Comunicar, 39, XX, 20122.3.3. Cas
- Page 22 and 23:
22Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012best pract
- Page 24 and 25:
24Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
- Page 26 and 27:
26Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 28 and 29:
28Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012tors for a
- Page 30 and 31:
30Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012This compe
- Page 32 and 33:
32Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Croce, 200
- Page 34 and 35:
34Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
- Page 36 and 37:
36Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 38 and 39:
38Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012the approp
- Page 40 and 41:
40Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Table 3: I
- Page 42 and 43:
42Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012racy could
- Page 44 and 45:
44Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
- Page 46 and 47:
46Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 48 and 49:
48Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012data, the
- Page 50 and 51:
50Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012habits of
- Page 52 and 53:
52Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Acknowledg
- Page 54 and 55:
54Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 56 and 57:
56Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012and the ne
- Page 58 and 59:
58Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012interest i
- Page 60 and 61:
60Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012land, medi
- Page 62 and 63:
62Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012more than
- Page 64 and 65:
64Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
- Page 66 and 67: 66Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 68 and 69: 68Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Internet.
- Page 70 and 71: 70Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012basic feat
- Page 72 and 73: 72Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010(www.cy
- Page 74 and 75: 74Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 76 and 77: 76Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012country an
- Page 78 and 79: 78Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012was precis
- Page 80 and 81: 80Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012end, not a
- Page 82 and 83: 82Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
- Page 84 and 85: 84Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012media thro
- Page 86 and 87: 86Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012tegies for
- Page 88 and 89: 88Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012researcher
- Page 90 and 91: 90Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
- Page 92 and 93: 92Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. The imp
- Page 94 and 95: 94Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012literacy i
- Page 96 and 97: 96Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Finally, t
- Page 98 and 99: 98Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012them. The
- Page 100 and 101: 100Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 102 and 103: 102Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012«What ma
- Page 104 and 105: 104Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012categoriz
- Page 106 and 107: 106Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121) Being
- Page 108 and 109: 108Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012aprendiza
- Page 110 and 111: 110Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 112 and 113: 112Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 114 and 115: 114Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Antena3,
- Page 118 and 119: 118Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Opera. Lo
- Page 120 and 121: 120Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 122 and 123: 122Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012hypertext
- Page 124 and 125: 124Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 1.
- Page 126 and 127: 126Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012needs, gr
- Page 128 and 129: 128Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 130 and 131: 130Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 132 and 133: 132Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121999; Sac
- Page 134 and 135: 134Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012• Analy
- Page 136 and 137: 136Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012young; pa
- Page 138 and 139: 138Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 140 and 141: 140Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 142 and 143: 142Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121, and co
- Page 144 and 145: 144Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 5.
- Page 146 and 147: 146Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012can be de
- Page 148 and 149: 148Comunicar, 39, XX, 20129.6. Focu
- Page 150 and 151: 150Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 152 and 153: 152Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 154 and 155: 154Comunicar, 39, XX, 20122010), sp
- Page 156 and 157: 156Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012media use
- Page 158 and 159: 158Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012QAYYUM, M
- Page 160 and 161: 160Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 162 and 163: 162Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012variety o
- Page 164 and 165: 164Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 1.
- Page 166 and 167:
166Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012contribut
- Page 168 and 169:
168Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 170 and 171:
170Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 172 and 173:
172Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012meanings:
- Page 174 and 175:
174Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012This comp
- Page 176 and 177:
176Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Reference
- Page 178 and 179:
178Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 180 and 181:
180Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012eating ha
- Page 182 and 183:
182Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012shows tha
- Page 184 and 185:
184Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
- Page 186 and 187:
186Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 188 and 189:
188Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012famous).
- Page 190 and 191:
190Comunicar, 39, XX, 20123.2.3. Th
- Page 192 and 193:
192Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012BIRESSI,
- Page 194 and 195:
194Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
- Page 196 and 197:
196Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Table 1.
- Page 198 and 199:
198Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Graph 3.
- Page 200 and 201:
200Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012In one of