Bad Fandom Behavior

A Theory as related to the Fourth Wall

Part the First

What is the fourth wall?

• The fourth wall is, in the context of theatre, the physical separation of the actors from the audience when on stage

• In the broader context of fiction it refers to the separation of the reader/watcher from the story and its characters

• However it is possible for the fourth wall to be “broken” by having characters address the audience directly or otherwise blur the line between the two

• This has appeared in various forms since ancient times and some characters’ explicit purpose in the story, for instance the Greek Chorus, has been defined by the fact that they directly address the audience

And yes that means that breaking the fourth wall is not in and of itself post-modern since as far as we can tell it came into being at about the same time fiction itself did

Which means those of you who think one thing is so much edgier and/or progressive than another else since it breaks the fourth wall can get off your high horse now

Capeesh? Good, now that we’ve taken care of that…

• With modern technology and an increased ability for fans to interact directly with the creators of certain works the fourth wall and its relationship to the audience has become progressively murky

The Theory

This slideshow will posit the theory that much of fandom’s bad behavior can be directly explained by examining their relationship to and understanding of the fourth wall or, as the case may be, by the lack thereof

Case Study 1: The Draco In Leather Pants

• As defined by TvTropes, the “Draco In Leather Pants” effect, hereafter referred to as DILP, is when

“Fandom downplays a villain's evilness, often due to his looks”

• A careful examination which characters this effect tends to be applied to reveal certain patterns, for instance– The character is male– The character is considered physically attractive– The character is portrayed by an actor who is

considered admirable

• This last point is the one we will focus on for this analysis

• Our theory is that the DILP effect is directly related to fandom’s inability or unwillingness to separate a character’s actions from that of their actor

=/=

• This is based on a desire, either conscious or unconscious, to not be perceived as rooting for the “wrong” side or being attracted to someone who is less than admirable

• Therefore, the “wrong” actions are spun to be not wrong, and have some justification that instead makes them heroic

• Which, not coincidentally, is often exactly what the villains tell themselves

• What fandom fails to realize is that it’s not only acceptable but in some cases encouraged that we like villains

• And that it’s perfectly fine to not only like a villain in spite of but because of their negative actions while also appreciating their more positive attributes

• This combination of positive and negative traits is intended as a warning, to show how good intentions can ultimately lead to negative actions and consequences

• This is tied to the concept of the Tragic Hero, whose positive or admirable qualities allow us to empathize while being aware of their ultimately self-destructive flaws

• And unlike what sensationalist media will claim people as a whole realize that negative actions, no matter how cool they are, are not meant to be imitated

• It’s when an individual shows an inability to understand this concept that it becomes cause for concern

Therefore, the DILP effect is an attempt to avoid this association by claiming the

villain is not actually a bad person and in the process downplaying or ignoring their

negative actions

Which, ironically, creates the very delusional mindset that they sought to avoid

• However, an understanding of the fourth wall allows one to realize that such mental gymnastics are not necessary

• Because fiction is not the same as reality

In conclusion

YES, YOU CAN LIKE VILLAINS

NO REALLY, YOU CAN

AND ACKNOWLEDING THEY’RE AWFUL PEOPLE DOESN’T MEAN YOU THINK ANY LESS OF THE ACTOR OR THAT YOU’RE NOT A GOOD PERSON

YOURSELF