.png)
This was a piece I wrote my final year of undergrad which aimed to further explore and analyze one of the most meticulously maintained — and fascinating — celebrity personas to have ever graced the public eye. While it is still at best only a very thin dissection, I hope you take pleasure and gain insight from what I have to say.
—
All actors practice their craft on-screen and off — the whole notion of their celebrity status is based around constant adoration and idolization. They must work to mold and maintain a desirable persona in the public eye, one that’s uniquely theirs and separate from the roles they play on the big screen. It is only when they are in the privacy of their own homes and family that they are allowed a moment’s rest to be themselves without any monitoring whatsoever. Joan Crawford is one of the strongest examples of a celebrity who mastered ordinary performance. It has always been a truth that one needs to be a sociable person to fully embrace the celebrity status — and Joan, unlike some of her contemporaries, was such a person. She always spoke highly of her fans and arrived at every interview prepared and full of aplomb. Never was she pretentious or rude in public. She was the ultimate professional, always playing down her fame giving all credit to her fans.
“I was born in front of a camera and really don’t know anything else,” Joan Crawford famously wrote in her 1962 autobiography ‘A Portrait of Joan.’ By the time of her passing in 1977, the great Hollywood legend had made nearly 100 films over a fruitful career that spanned half a century. To the public, she was more than just an actress — she was a beloved movie star, a glamour icon, and a friend. No celebrity to date has harbored such an intimate relationship with their fans: Crawford would personally respond to each piece of fan mail sent her way. It’s estimated that she sent out nearly nine million letters over the course of her career. To this day, she retains a large fan base, and continues to draw in new fans thanks to her paradoxical charm: though regal and beautiful, she was also humble, kind, and relatable to many. She achieved the two antecedents of celebrity authenticity proposed by Moulard and her colleagues: rarity and stability. She was an unusually charming celebrity, but also stable as a person and member of society. What’s particularly intriguing about Joan, however, was that her entire persona — public and private — was a carefully contrived image. To put it another way, she came to Hollywood under a different name and image, only to take on an entire new identity that she’d forever keep. She took on a role and played it for life, always careful to stay in character even outside of the public gaze.
Joan Crawford was born Lucille Fay LeSueur on March 23rd, 1906 in San Antonio, Texas. Her father, Thomas LeSueur, abandoned the family when she was only a few months old. Her mother, Anna Johnson, favored her older brother, Hal, and routinely ignored her daughter for the duration of her youth. Little Lucille, who went by “Billie,” endured physical and emotional abuse from various father figures that drifted in and out of her life. She left home to work and live at various boarding schools until she was a teenager. As she’d later openly tell audiences, she never made it past the fifth grade. Billie found her escape through dancing and theater, and at the age of eighteen left home to tour on a dancing troupe. She was discovered twice — first by JJ Shubert, who landed her on Broadway, and then by an MGM casting agent. On Christmas Day of 1924, Lucille LeSueur received a telegram from MGM saying she’d been signed to a five year contract at $75 dollars a week and was to depart for California immediately.
She only had a bit role in one film before the studio decided they didn’t like her name. Thus, they put out a contest in a magazine asking for readers to “rename” Lucille — and that is how Joan Crawford came to be. From then on, she was billed as “Joan Crawford” and began to slowly but surely rise in fame, eventually landing a breakthrough role as a dancing flapper in 1928’s Our Dancing Daughters. By 1932, she was an established star who dominated the box office and set the trends of the 1930s. She lost weight, mastered the art of makeup, and transformed herself from a poor, southern girl into the most beautiful and glamorous actress in Hollywood. She would perfect and continue to maintain this image her entire life — always ready for the camera, dressed to the nines, engaging with every fan that she could. Joan Crawford mastered the art of celebrity like no other, and it is for this reason that I want to examine just how she did so. Conversation analysis, or CA, through old interviews provide a window of insight. This researcher notes the importance of CA: “The central sociological insight of CA is that it is through conversation that we conduct the ordinary, and perhaps extraordinary, affairs of our lives.” I intend to examine various interviews that Joan gave throughout her career and extract these ordinary occurrences. Thus, the specific question I want to answer is how did Joan Crawford achieve her celebrity persona in interviews?
It is important to approach Joan, her status as celebrity, and the role of the media from a non-contemporary view in order to best analyze and interpret her words. Hollywood today is a far cry from the Hollywood of Joan’s prime — celebrity coverage was considerably more conservative than it is today. With the rise of global social media in the 1990s, we saw a shift to extreme interest in the personal and private lives of celebrities, and scandal became the new and popular basis for gossip columns. Such was not always the case. Most magazine features on celebrities were innocuous interviews, often informative but never invasive. There was no open talk of any affairs, family drama, or other personal troubles that might affect a celebrity’s public image. That being said, of course, the paparazzi still swarmed in frenzied packs and fans still flooded airports.
As a large follower of pop culture, celebrity performance has always caught my attention. Of course, performances vary greatly — some people became infamous for saying the wrong thing, or for projecting a certain attitude. I wasn’t interested in how celebrity personas could go wrong so much as I was interested in decoding the personas that were highly enamored, like Joan’s. I wanted to see how Joan achieved this mystic celebrity allure — thus, she became my natural choice of a subject for this paper. Thus, I built heavily off of research on celebrity representation in the media by Tolson. Using Geri Halliwell as his key example, Tolson explores several facets I’ve decided to incorporate into my own analysis of Joan: that of ordinary performance, and that of the authentic celebrity. Using data from ten different interviews, I intend to list, show, and explain several of Crawford’s techniques and how they fit into research regarding the celebrity performance.
I have compiled and transcribed ten different interview segments – five television and five radio – in order to specifically assess her varied techniques. These interviews cover a frame of about thirty-six years: the earliest one is from 1947, and the latest from 1973. The occasion for many of these interviews is promotional and have to do with the release of a film. However, I tried to isolate specific segments in which Crawford specifically addresses herself, her fans, or her public image in order to maintain a common and continuous theme to work off of. Not every segment will be used in this analysis in order due to limits on length. Hosts range from prominent television icons such as David Frost or Merv Griffin to relatively unknown local radio reporters. Because I am focusing on Joan rather than the host, I wasn’t too concerned with researching the hosts or programs beyond their air date and topic. Thus, I turned to research on persona and celebrity performance for a foundation. Horton and Wohl present a good overview about the intrigue of persona: “The spectacular fact about such personae is that they can claim and achieve an intimacy with what are literally crowds of strangers, and this intimacy, even if it is an imitation and a shadow of what is ordinarily meant by that word, is extremely influential with, and satisfying for, the great numbers who willingly receive it and share in it.” (Horton and Wohl).
Bolstered by the data I’ve taken alongside formidable research articles which analyze and explore footing techniques as well as celebrity performance, I will propose my question in three parts. The latter half of this essay will be entirely devoted to the content found in the data and how it contributes to Crawford’s robust celebrity persona that she cultivated for interviews. Persona, as defined by Kim Bauer in her research, “describes the wider practice of constructing and constituting forms of public identity with celebrities providing some of the most visible, performative and pedagogic examples of the practice” (Bauer). To better understand Crawford is to better understand not only her words, but her choice of words, her pauses, her tone of voice. All of these things will be taken into careful consideration as we delve further. Joan Crawford was able to achieve her celebrity persona in interviews by presenting herself as a hardworking, relatable woman who resonates with her fans, consistently using humor to engage with her varied audiences, and by acknowledging her celebrity status but also downplaying it in order to promote a more humble, relatable image. While one method would most likely be effective enough, I’m more interested in seeing how Crawford made use of all three to create and control a perfect, nuanced image of herself.
In her last public appearance in 1973, Joan took the stage at the city town hall in New York. Immediately, she was introduced to her audience by the interviewer with all three of her names. The exchange went as follows:
IE: There was a Lucille LeSueur, and there was a Billie Cassin, and then suddenly there was a Joan Crawford. Could you face the evolution?
JC: All I know is I’m here!
Audience: laughter
IE: You were always on top of the trends, in fact you started most of them, when flappers were in vogue, you were the definitive one, and you did more for eyebrows, lips and shoulders than anyone else in the world! I’m sure that’s your own individuality, but ah- do you give credit to anyone else for – for helping with the Crawford image?
JC: Adrian. He has had–
Audience: applause
JC: –And everyone I ever worked with, really.
IE: Is there a designer whose replaced Adrian in your life?
JC: No, to each his own.
“There was a Lucille LeSueur, and there was a Billie Cassin, and then suddenly there was a Joan Crawford. Could you face the evolution?” he asks, and we can see here that by listing all her aliases that he’s trying to frame Crawford as a sort of deity who transcended from her days as a common woman. Crawford refutes every single one of these monikers, instead opting to answer with a simple “All I know is I’m here!” By doing so, she creates a more open and approachable image of herself — she’s not Joan, she’s not Billie, but she’s there in the moment, open and ready to speak to all her fans. In fact, by avoiding the use of her name, she’s just another woman, a person people can relate to, an example of Tolson’s ordinary performance. Once again, we see the interviewer trying to take hold of the agenda again in lines 3-4: He sets up the expectation that Joan is a self made woman who will take all the credit for herself, but she subverts that once more in lines 5-7 by answering “Adrian [her designer] … and everyone I ever worked with, really.” Again, she credits her success to typically invisible and non-credited folk, like designers, directors, and stylists.
In a 1950 interview promoting her film The Damned Don’t Cry, Joan takes charge of the agenda immediately to present herself in a casual and relatable light. Mike, the interviewer, introduces her in line 1 as “a charming and gracious lady, and one of Hollywood’s brightest stars.” Persona, referenced earlier and described as “the publicisation of the self” by Marshall is immediately brought into play. We can see how Joan, in a matter of a few lines, changes the dynamic from a formal one to a friendly, informal one:
Mike: Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is Mike Sarsman, a behind the scenes reporter in Hollywood with a most pleasant surprise in store!
Mike: It’s our pleasure to have as our guest at this interview a charming and gracious lady, and one of Hollywood’s brightest stars.
Mike: Miss Joan Crawford recently has completed “The Damned Don’t Cry” for Warner Brothers and has managed to find some time from her many activities to, ah, spare a few moments for this interview.
Mike: Welcome to our microphone, Ms. Crawford.
Joan Crawford: Hello again, Mike.
Mike: Ms. Crawford, there’s one th-
JC: (interrupting) Why don’t you call me Joan?
JC: All my friends do.
A couple lines later, Mike welcomes her formally with “Ms.Crawford;” Joan responds with a very informal “Hello again, Mike,” suggesting they have been acquainted and that no such formalities are necessary. Mike does not pick up on the hint, and once again goes to start a sentence with “Ms.Crawford,” where Joan then takes charge by interrupting “Why don’t you call me Joan? All my friends do.” This interjection is done in a friendly yet firm manner, suggesting that Joan wants to make Mike comfortable and at ease with her. She wants him to talk to her as if she were an equal, and not a celebrity — and by doing so, she establishes herself as a more relatable presence to regular listeners.
In another interview from 1964, Crawford also presents herself as an ordinary celebrity when engaging in tilted discourse with the interviewer. He opens the segment with both praise for Crawford as well as critiques on the Hollywood machine itself, as we see here:
BM: Now Miss Crawford, Hollywood has a…. a reputation as a, uh, a destroyer of people.
How did you manage to emerge with .. your reputation untarnished, ehh … in fact, enhanced, and uh, the great lady of Hollywood.
JC: Well, I think any city or community or town can be destructive if you want it to, and if you let it.
And certainly an industry like ours, that, uh, that so many people just fall out, and uh, you just never hear from them again, because of their desire to be a great star, and come off and they just disappear and never want to see anyone because they’re ashamed they didn’t make it.
And that is the destructive part of the person, not the city.
Uh … how I emerged, I don’t know, except that I grew, and grew, and grew, and I try to grow in each experience I have, and, uh try to give my job something because it has given me so much.
BM: Was it … uh … one of your tenets in the beginning to avoid the, uh, so called, uh high life of Hollywood? The wild living.
JC: Well, I ….. (pause) that’s a difficult-uh-question, uh, I, I don’t consider the wildlife of Hollywood, i think there’s a tremendous, a tremendous, uh,desire in all the young kids that go out there, like I know when I first went out there, I uh, didn’t have enough to do, and I loved dancing, so I went dancing every night, and that’s how I got the reputation of.. Of uh, being the Charleston Queen and this and that, and I just had to dance, and I had all this excess energy.
But there were no wild parties or wild life, I was at the coconut grove or …. excuse me, the restaurants out there that had very fine reputations.
I just had to get rid of that energy and dance!
BM: This is part then of the legend of Hollywood, not the fact
JC: It is a legend indeed.
He asks her directly in line 1, “How did you manage to emerge … in fact, enhanced, and uh, the great lady of Hollywood,” bestowing a title of praise onto her. Joan, in response, does not accept his title and instead subverts his expectations by going on to defend Hollywood: in line 3, she states “Well, I think any city or community or town can be destructive if you want it to, and if you let it.” She then shifts the responsibility onto the individual, by concluding in lines 4-5 “because they’re ashamed they didn’t make it… and that is the destructive part of the person, not the city.” When she finally addresses his initial question in line 6, Crawford responds, and she pauses, hesitates, and mumbles several times throughout this sentence. Instead of simply responding with “I emerged through my talent,” or a similar expected answer, Crawford gives what is a very modest, and human answer. She talks about her growth in broad terms in such a way that said growth could be attributed to any other profession. This puts her on an even level with non-celebrities. In fact, Crawford tends to emphasize on the career of acting, rather than the glamour of the lifestyle itself.
When questioned by the interviewer regarding her participation in the “wild life of Hollywood,” Crawford once again defends her industry, refuting the existence of a wild life. In lines 8-9 she gives her own personal experience. Several interesting things are to be noted from this excerpt — foremost that Crawford alludes to herself indirectly as a “young kid who loved dancing.” She puts herself in normal terms and presents this ordinary appearance of her first days in the industry. When she goes to recall her title of ‘The Charleston Queen,” Crawford pauses and immediately adds, “and this and that,” before switching her footing back to the topic of dance itself. From this, we can see she is uncomfortable wearing the title, thanks to her pause and quick shift. The notoriety, to her, is far less important than the activity itself, which again speaks to a humble and relatable facet of her public personality. She has no motive to dominate the conversation, nor does she want to boast her accolades. For her, she wants to communicate her passions, her beliefs, and the other facets of her personality that make her a human being and not a celebrity. Of course, to do too much of this would err badly on the part of her celebrity image — but Crawford, ever the professional, had found a way to acknowledge and embrace her status while remaining thankful and humble all the same.
Her stature as a Hollywood actress grew over the years of her successful film career,, and with it her public reputation. The one thing besides her acting that she was widely renowned for was her chic and stylish sense of fashion. She brought a new look with every decade, to revitalize her image and keep herself current. She was revered by many for her fanciful style, and would often use this as a device to acknowledge her fame in interviews, as her fans always associated her with glamour. Here, in a 1947 radio interview with Louella Parsons, Joan skillfully demonstrates her ability to present herself as a glamorous icon, but also as a typical person.
11:00 LP: But now, Joan, not all girls can become glamour girls like you–
JC: No, yes they can Louella!
Believe me, if starting with nothing the way I did I’ve become the kind of — mm, well, uh, assembly job that’s tagged glamour, then any girl can do it.
LP: Maybe you better explain what you think glamour is, Joan.
JC: In my opinion, it’s, it’s discipline. Discipline and applied art.
LP: I think … it’s an inner glow, too.
Don’t you Joan?
JC: Mhm.
You’re quite right. But that inner glow comes from discipline, too!
The sheer force of not letting yourself be sloppy or lazy, of learning and growing!
LP: I gather the applied art is all the tricks of appearance.
JC: Mm, oh honey every trick in the book.
Makeup and hairdos and posture and diction and clothes and — well, maybe I should say the works!
LP: laughter Maybe you should say the sly old feminine line!
JC: Mrs. Parsons, you are very, very sharp!
But that nearly proves my point.
I say to the girls who are just starting out, if you have the capacity to be a career woman, you can be a careerist and a woman, too.
I wanna say it’s wrong, however, if any woman neglects her children or her home for her work.
But if you start working early enough, you’ll learn how to have all three, and that way your life will be always exciting.
Louella, the host, challenges Joan immediately in line 1, and Joan instantly snatches the agenda from her in lines 2-3 by interjecting with a vehement “No,” comma for emphasis, “yes they can Louella!,” rejecting Louella’s tilt and firmly asserting her own opinion, which once again is an example of ordinary performance. Louella then challenges her to define glamour, and Joan acquiesces.Here, we see a strong example of Goffman’s research on change of footing. As the speaker, she takes on the role of the author, animator, and principal here: by starting with the use of “in my opinion,” in line 5, she signifies the principal is her own. She then goes on to state her definition: “ it’s discipline — discipline and applied art.” By affirming it’s her own opinion, she asserts her authority as a glamorous figure and proceeds to define what successful glamour is in her own terms.
What’s really interesting, though, is that her definition of glamour is not superficial, nor is it unreachable. When Joan elaborates in lines 9-10, she attributes glamour and the inner glow to discipline.“ Her use of “yourself” here is a change of footing noting that she’s directly addressing the audience as opposed to the interviewer, and the message that follows is a very relatable one. In other words, she’s saying that glamour is for everyone, so long as you’re a hard worker. In line 18, Louella quips “I gather the applied art is all the tricks of appearance,” and Joan in return enthusiastically attributes her image to other things in the last two lines. She shows eagerness to explain that half of her glamour is an illusion of sorts, comprised of little different parts. She changes her footing with “well” and instead of continued elaboration, groups any other facets into “the works.” By doing so, Crawford attributes her glamorous image not to herself, but to common practices that any person can engage in. There is subtle mastery in how Joan balances her normality with her celebrity, and she further achieves said balance by consistently having genuine interaction with her audience and fan base.
As referenced earlier, Joan Crawford sent an estimated nine million letters to fans over the course of her career. Later in her life, it was not uncommon for Crawford to personally phone fans and invite them over to her apartment for lunch. Her love and understanding of her audience is one of the strongest elements of her celebrity persona, and this affection is greatly and visibly displayed throughout her interviews. Crawford achieves this by offering both direct praise toward her fans and through the use of interactive, relatable humor.
On an episode of the Merv Griffin show, Joan demonstrates this praise in the following brief excerpt:
MG: Cause you — your life looks so glamorous.
Every time I see you, if it’s on television, at the opening of a premiere or … or … the newspapers, or motion pictures.
Is it that glamorous, Joan?
Or is it a lot of hard work?
JC: It’s fantastic, it’s hard work, but I wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world.
MG: Great.
JC: (gestures to audience) Because of you.
Audience: APPLAUSE
Merv Griffin asks in regards to her demanding career: “Is it that glamorous, Joan? Or is it a lot of hard work?” Joan goes on to respond in line 5 “It’s fantastic, it’s hard work, but I wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world.” Merv begins to interject with a “great,” but Crawford finishes her sentiment by addressing the audience directly: “because of you.” Joan manages to both answer his question and inform her fans that they mean just as much to her as her entire career.
Returning to the Town Hall excerpt from 1973, Joan is later directly challenged on her celebrity image by the interviewer.
IE: Joan, you were the ultimate movie star — a –by that I mean you care about your public, you couldn’t possibly be the girl next door. But don’t you sometimes feel like saying “to hell with it” and just letting go?
JC: Nn-nn.
Audience: laughs
JC: I just love people.
IE: Well, —
JC: Thank you all
IE: –it’s obviously assured. I think most everyone who knows you, and those that don’t consider you the most thoughtful of women. You answer letters immediately, you send personal notes on special occasions —
Audience: APPLAUSE
IE– You keep in touch with your friends, and fans — how do you find time for all that in your busy schedule?
JC: You don’t find time, you make time.
He assigns her an image by giving her lofty titles and alludes to her as the “ultimate movie star” and “not possibly the girl next door.” He then cuts to the chase, asking if Joan ever wants to “let go.” What Joan does in response is interesting not only because she refutes him, but because she uses a discourse marker. Research on discourse markers done by o’Keefe shows that discourse markers indicate a more informal and intimate way of communicating. “Nn-nn,” she says, prompting laughter from the audience, “I just love people,” she continues in line 3, thus linking her desire to project a celebrity image to her desire to make her fans happy. To this, after Joan thanks the applauding audience, the interviewer sets up a tilted question in lines 6-8 in an interesting way. He compliments Joan on being thoughtful, but also phrases the follow-up question in a way that sets up an expectation that Joan is too carried away with her career to give her fans proper attention.. Not missing a beat and subverting the expectation, Joan responds: “You don’t find time, you make time.” By swapping the word “find” for “make,” Joan shows that she prioritizes her fans over other things in her life.
There’s quite a few strengths that humor possesses in terms of conveying one’s image. Says Norrick, “Our everyday talk thrives on all kinds of stories, especially humorous ones. In exchanging anecdotes about our personal lives, we present personal identities for ratification by the other participants in the conversation.” In a 1970 interview with David Frost, Joan uses humor to appeal and resonate with the audience. There is also the use of a para-confession, a technique discussed by Barry King that is often used by celebrities to foster a sense of intimacy with the audience. Joan does this by confessing to being a compulsive housekeeper, as seen below, and relates it to one of her film roles:
JC: Yes, I’m a compulsive housekeeper.
I played Harriet Craig once.
And I was ready for the role.
DF: (laughter): What’s the – what’s your favorite role?
JC: Pork chops. (laughs)
I thought you were going to say what was my favorite-
DF: (interjecting): laughs
JC: — recipe?
DF: Eggroll(?) No, all-
JC: (interjecting) No, pork chops!
In line 4, when Frost asks what her favorite role is, Joan excitedly answers with “Pork chops,” followed by laughter. Not only does she answer unexpectedly, but the answer she gives, pork chops, conjures a homey feeling that one typically would not associate with a movie star. A bit later in the segment, she discusses her favorite role and how it came to be. Because the following excerpt is long, I’ve divided it up into the two main parts I want to focus on. In reference to her role in Mildred Pierce, Crawford cracks some self deprecating humor:
JC: pause Well, I think God has his hand on my shoulder, because (pauses) … Mr. Mike Curtiz hated me.
(pause) He wanted Barbara Stanwyck, he wanted no part of me, he said ‘I don’t want those big, broad shoulders.
Here, Crawford frames herself as unfavorable to Curtiz and thus lowers her star studded reputation. She name drops Barbara Stanwyck, another popular movie star, and proceeds to poke fun at her own distinctive shoulders in a bout of self-deprecating humor. In other words, she’s painting Stanwyck as the movie star, and herself as the awkward, big shouldered last resort, and evokes sympathy through humor. She continues the trend a few lines later, drawing the story to a close with another joke:
So Mike Curtiz said, ‘I hate those big shoulders. I hate them. I hate them.’
JC: (pause) So one day while we were rehearsing, he hated me so much he said “I hate you!” and he tore the dress off me — and thank god I had a bra on
Audience: laughs
JC: –um (pause). He said, ‘my God they’re hers!’
Audience (laughs)
JC: Not these (points at chest), these! (points at shoulders) (laughs with audience)
In this excerpt, Joan manages to portray herself as being in a powerless position and as a victim of Curtiz’ anger. While this evokes sympathy, she also throw in another touch of humor regarding her shoulder, to let her audience know that she’s humble, forgiving, and able to laugh things off. Joan pokes fun at not only her shoulders, but her breasts. She’s not afraid to make fun of herself, and invites the audience to laugh with her.
Joan Crawford is a skilled and adaptable speaker, able to come across as relatable and likable in different interviews ranging from formal to casual. She depicts herself as an ordinary, hard-working person who takes her career very seriously — quite the opposite of what one would expect from a wealthy, glamorous icon. All the while, she manages to successfully hold the duality of being an ordinary celebrity: she doesn’t reject praise and openly talks about her fashion, but at the same time she stays humble. She acknowledges her audiences both directly and indirectly, giving them credit for her career, and then uses humor to present herself as funny, relatable, and non-pretentious. Looking at specific examples of her interactions with a variety of different hosts on two different mediums has allowed me to trace specific examples of these techniques. Even despite the fact that she was a star of the past, Joan Crawford stands as a thorough example of how a celebrity successfully achieves and presents an ordinary, authentic, and unique persona in media interviews — and her example can be studied and followed in order to better understand the art of celebrity performance.
Works Cited
Tolson, A.V. (2001) ’Being yourself’: the pursuit of authentic celebrity. Discourse Studies, 3 (4), pp. 443-457.
Goffman, Erving. “Footing.” Semiotica 25.1-2 (1979): 1-30.
O’keeffe, A. N. N. E. Investigating media discourse. Routledge, 2006.
Heritage, John, and Paul Drew. “Talk at work.” Interaction in institutional settings, Cambridge (1992).
Glenn, P. (2011). Neal R. Norrick and Delia Chiaro (eds), Humor in Interaction. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(2), 366-374.
Donald and R. Richard Wohl (1956): ‘Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance’, Psychiatry 19: 215-29
Marshall, P. D. (2014). Persona studies: Mapping the proliferation of the public self. Journalism, 15(2), 153-170.
Barbour, K., 2015. ‘Persona as method: exploring celebrity and the public self through persona studies’, Celebrity Studies vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 288–305.
King, Barry. “Stardom, celebrity and the para-confession.” Social semiotics 18.2 (2008): 115-132.
Moulard, J. G., Garrity, C. P. and Rice, D. H. (2015), What Makes a Human Brand Authentic? Identifying the Antecedents of Celebrity Authenticity. Psychol. Mark., 32: 173–186.
Comentarios