Good fourth walls make good neighbors

Meta
Title:	Good fourth walls make good neighbors
Creator:	counteragent
Date(s):	Jan 9, 2010
Medium:	online
Fandom:	Supernatural
Topic:
External Links:	available here
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Good fourth walls make good neighbors is a meta essay about fandom and the Fourth Wall in the form of a comic strip. It was created by counteragent shortly after season five of Supernatural aired an episode which featured Becky, a female fan of the TV show, writing and posting Wincest fiction.

the first panel of the comic is a title card. The text that appears on the computer screen to the left asks: "what's the worse fannish sin?" The answer, according to the comic is outing. This has led some fans to remark that the showrunner Kripke was being a 'bad fangirl' by mentioning fandom, fanfic and Wincest. Or as one fan commented: " Hear that, Kripke? Do you see what you've done?" Another semini-jokingly suggested that fans "...should post this on a billboard outside of Kripke's house. Metaphorically, of course, because we wouldn't want to out him as a Wincester to his neighbors."

The comic strip shows a mother with a young baby writing fanfic and then watching the episode with her husband. Because the episode's Supernatural fan focused on Wincest, the husband suspects that his wife had also been writing Wincest. He angrily confronts her. Exactly what is said is not shown, but the husband storms out of the house and the wife collapses in tears. It ends with her child crying in the background and her making the following post to her blog: "This will be my last entry for the foreseeable future." She has been, according to the comic outed by the breakdown of the Fourth Wall.

The comic title references a Robert Frost poem "Mending Walls" describing how he and a neighbor ritualistically repair and replace stones in the wall that separates their two properties.

"Were walls and fences instrumental in the retention and renewal of human relationships is a question central to "Mending Wall." The answers the poem presents us with are somewhat less than clear-cut. This is so, at least partly, because Frost has purposely and purposefully left out of his poem a piece of important information. One key to the poet's omission lies in the final lines of the poem.

. . . I see him there , Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. He moves in darkness as it seems to me, Not of woods only and the shade of trees. He will not go behind his father's saying, And he likes having thought of it so well He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

In these lines the poet moves back through time, beyond his own earlier questioning of the possible reasons for continuing the annual repair of those now apparently useless boundaries, to an earlier, darker age. Indeed, his neighbor seems to be moving in a "darkness" that is, suggestively, "not of woods only and the shade of trees." To the poet he is now "like an old-stone savage armed." Even on New England farms in this century the ways of the savage continue, it would seem, no matter how transformed, no matter how radically attenuated."

Creator's Comments

Author's summary: "Luckily, this is fiction. For now."

"... I am deeply annoyed at SPN for treating me so poorly.... I don't feel like enjoying lj in all its glory is my right or anything (I believe you and I discussed that I'd probably be pretty irritated if my husband had similar habits)--but I SURE AS HELL don't think SPN has the right to represent a culture it doesn't understand so cavalierly and therefore take away my option of presenting my online activities in context or not at all."

Reactions/Reviews

The comic was listed on metafandom and fandomnews and drew considerable public comment. The original post is now locked, however some of the discussion is included below as the post and the comments were public at the time. Comments are cited anonymously unless with permission of the person commenting.

"I thought this was worth recording since it showed up on metafandom's delicious account (and thus will be on the next post) as meta, which is rare for fanworks. One could argue that being a comic ABOUT fanfic rather a comic which IS fanfic it's off topic for this comm but as the mod I'm going to let it slide :) It doesn't speak to my experience since I don't like SPN, don't write anything very controversial, and have a husband who would at worst spork my hypothetical porn for implausibility. But I think it captures the experience of fans who do have to worry about this sort of thing pretty well, and I like the innovative usage of the fancomic medium for meta."

"..Lovely thinky meta and really well presented I love the way the dark colors emphasize the mood...." and "....I didn't think this was hilarious as others did, I thought it was extremely sad. And pretty brilliant. But mostly sad. The sense of sadness creeps through in the colors - blue, black and purple, like a bruise. Very well done."

"I think that this comic provides a thoughtful and provocative response to the SPN PTB's choice to put fandom in the limelight through Becky, a Wincest-writing Samgirl. Fandom's response was very mixed, from 'OMG how dare they?' to 'cool! we're on TV!'. I think that counteragent did a good job portraying what the nay-sayers fear (and I include myself in this)- being outed is a scary thing that doesn't always go well. Also, the illustrations are gorgeous."

"I'm with others that this is sad and terrifying (as well as beautiful and brilliant)--I think it captures so much in such a small space. The strain that women are under (the baby, but could be anything: the job, money, whatever); the pleasure they get online; what it means to have that pleasure and the fear of losing that pleasure and being condemned to--I mean, that moment where she's sagged outside the crying baby's door. It HURTS. She's so TRAPPED, boxed in by that door. In that way, its about Supernatural, but its really not at all about SPN; its about how hard it is sometimes for women to steal pleasure for themselves."

"I have to admit I enjoyed TPTB's pokes at fandom in "The Monster at the End of this Book" and "Sympathy for the Devil." That said, many fans were upset at Kripke breaking the 4th wall and outing SPN fandom on the show. This comic shows one reason, with gut-wrenching simplicity, why many fans in fandom just cannot afford to be outed. Not just in SPN fandom either; it's applicable to every fandom. I'm very lucky that Mr. Topaz accepts, even encourages, my fannishness. I also know it's a luxury, one that I sometimes have taken for granted. Not anymore."

"...I guess I don't understand how this is equivalent to outing a fan. I'm apparently in the minority, but the episode in question does not name names, it merely hints at the existence of wincest. To me, the leap in the comic from "you spend time online related to SPN" to "you must therefore be a wincest writer" is flimsy."

"I can relate to this comic so, so much. If any of my family knew what I read, or found some of the things I've written, I'd be disowned/divorced in no time. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. And I don't even write anything explicit. Just the fact that some of it is m/m would be enough."

"I totally agree that outing fans is bad news, but. The consequence here should be "I lost my job" not "I lost my family." I spend hours almost every day doing fannish things. That's a really big secret to keep from a significant other. Frankly if you're keeping secrets that big from your husband, your marriage is already fucked up, and Kripke is not to blame for your judgemental husband and crying baby.

A gay male fan friend of mine once compared his experience of coming out as a fan to his experience of coming out as a gay man, and I think the parallel drawn is accurate. Both fall under the umbrella of "sexual deviance" -- that is to say, having views of sex and sexuality that do not align themselves with the views of conventional society. If your family rejects you for being a sexual deviant because you are not heterosexual, or because you are into BDSM, or because you have a personal inclination towards risque, essentially harmless internet fiction, then your family is dysfunctional. Kripke is not to blame for your family's dysfunction.

I am offended by this comic because by using the example of familial rejection it implies familial rejection is an acceptable consequence: You don't want to be outed, because then your husband might find out what a freak you are.

The true crime of fannish outing is the invasion of privacy, hence the true consequence of fannish outing is having one's private business broadcast in a public sector. One's relationship with ones spouse falls into the private sector, thus this comic implies that fannishness is unsuitable even for the private sector; that fannishness carries with it an inherent unsuitability.

You are undermining your own message."

"..... Let's imagine that you leave home and choose a partner who is ALSO opposed to queerness, and you never tell him about your queerness either for fear of his anger. WTF? Would that be just the price you pay for being queer? NO. It would be a weird, anomalous situation -- like the one in the comic. What I and others are taking issue with is specifically the portrayal of an abusive ROMANTIC relationship as "the unavoidable reality."

"Ah. If your relationship requires a certain level of secrecy for both parties to be happy, it's nonfunctional, and you should be ready to lose it? Someone who deliberately throws a spanner in the works is not at fault at all?

I don't have to advocate keeping big secrets from spouses...in order to understand that not everyone's relationship is based on Total Honesty, and some people really would be happier *not knowing* what their partner does or thinks in their spare time.

There's a difference between "don't want to be outed because husband will know what a freak I am," and "don't want to be outed because husband, who is a good and loving man despite his occasional bouts of misogyny and boneheadedness, will *think* I'm a freak, and there'll be a lot of yelling and stomping and dammit, I don't want to sleep alone for a month and a half while my friends explain to his friends that yes, I'm allowed to have sexual thoughts of my own that aren't related to him and that doesn't mean I'm a pervert or cheating on him."

Forcing people into a "come out or lie outright" situation is a jerk move; Kripke gets some blame for a potentially triggering that. And "disfunctional" or not--a family that's raising a healthy child with two loving parents doesn't deserve to have its coping methods scrambled."

"Your gay incest erotica is a choice you're making and you are presumably willing to deal with the consequences that might come from it, or you wouldn't be taking part in it. Kripke is not forcing you to write it. Your bubble of action is bumping into his bubble of realty and he has every right to comment on it. That doesn't mean anyone *deserves* to have a marriage torn apart but that doesn't mean he's to *blame* for it either.

"I'm more concerned with the abusive husband depicted. She needs counceling for that, not for liking a show, or for her show being meta."

"In responses to this piece of artwork, I keep seeing one thing and not seeing another thing which I want to address, even beyond whether Supernatural outed fans. The thing I keep seeing is that this is obviously an unhealthy, abusive relationship because the wife has to rub her husband's feet to get him to watch the show with her. That's not what I took away from it at all; instead, I took away a loving, teasing exchange where they give each other things each like, not that the husband was forcing the wife to rub his feet in order for him to watch the show. (I'm not sure I'm being clear describing this, but I saw it much more as one of those private jokes, a Sure I'll do this but you owe me type of joke which my friends and family and I do all the time in a loving, fun way.)

The thing I don't see (and would love to read about if anyone has seen it) is the idea that maybe the husband isn't mad so much because the wife is writing queer incest on the internet but is upset because she's been lying to him (and possibly all their family and friends) about it. And yes, I know there are people who don't share their fannish activities with their friends and family and coworkers, etc., because they can't or won't or other things or combinations of reasons, but I do think that the husband finding out that his wife has been lying to him about something that (we can assume) brings her such great joy would be a shock to him.

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much that all the analysis I've seen paints the husband as this evil, dominating person who is forbidding her to do what she wants and that's not what I took away from it at all. I understand what the piece was trying to do (comment on what Supernatural did) but I am bothered by the way only one analysis is really being addressed."

"Personally I think if someone who has promised to love you for the rest of your life decides that your casual hobby was worth judging you over he qualifies as emotionally abusive.

"I guess the major problem I have with the message is, well, twofold. One, showrunners are not "fellow-fans," and two, I think for the concept of "outing" to apply, something has to be a secret in the first place. Only a few very close fandom friends know my full legal name, and yeah, I'd consider it a breach of trust if they broadcast it. But if my legal name were actually Frolicndetour, well, I can't expect people to keep private what I post publicly on the internet. If that makes sense. Slashfic is posted publicly on the internet; that's how TPTB know about it; for them to comment on what we put out in public is not a breach of trust, any more than our commenting on (including by parody) what they put out in public is. And with things like the OTW and AO3 geared toward gaining more public acceptance for fanfic, it's become pretty much inevitable.

So, I think the woman in your comic was pretty naive to think that she could tell her husband she's in Supernatural fandom - which I gather she must have for him to make the connection - and expect that he'll never get wind of what that can entail. It's not a fair expectation in this day and age, IMO.

Anyway, thanks for posting such an obviously thought-provoking piece!"

"What intrigues me most about various reactions is the idea that there has to be a single “villain” of the story. Do I have to pick?

Let me unpack that a little. As to Kripke (here, “Kripke” will stand for “the forces that get SPN to TV in the form it has”): No, I don’t think he has an obligation not to speak about/back to fandom. It's not Fight Club and it's not his Fight Club anyway. Yes, I do think he executed his portrayal of fangirls very badly, in line with SPN’s general problems with women, sexuality, and women’s sexuality. And we can totally call him on it! I’ve seen lots of fans debate issues of power, appropriation, othering, and so on in our own works; just because SPN’s creative forces are unlikely to listen to criticism in this vein is no reason to exempt SPN....

Unsurprisingly, this is messy! Because one thing that might happen when a man sees a portrayal of female fans’ sexual desire, and connects that to his wife’s fandom, is that he will conclude that her sexual desire is focused elsewhere: she doesn’t want him, she wants them. And, bonus, her wanting is ridiculous! His wife would rather have this ridiculous fantasy than the real him! The problem I have with the portrayal is different than the problem he has, and his problem may well be bound up with patriarchal assumptions, but it also strikes me as well within normal human range for people in apparently/default monogamous relationships.

So she feels outed.

On to the husband as villain: What fascinates me about this work is how people feed their own experiences into it (I think this is something that visual works are even more subject to than textual ones, so we were having reactions to the images that were hard to articulate in conventional meta terms); I’ve even seen people who commented that they imagined the existence of panels that weren’t present when they looked back.

Is the husband an abusive/worthless/controlling whatever? Well, he might be. The fact that they had nice interactions before the fight, in which he gave in to her desire to watch SPN, tells us nothing about whether he’s abusive etc. except that he’s not a monster 100% of the time. Likewise, his freakout over what being a fangirl means—all that time she spends on the internet, desiring other men—suggests to me that he is capable of freaking out. If you judged me by the worst thing I said in the heat of passion, especially if I was in a fight about some underlying issue like how much emotional energy my partner was supposed to be devoting to me, well, I hate to think how that would end.

So she freaks out too. In my own version of the story, they both calm down later. Multiple readings!

There’s a lot I haven’t even touched on—it’s a rich and possibly contradictory work. I haven’t talked about the baby, the expectations that mothers will devote libidinal energy first to children and then to men and never to themselves, the emotional effects of exhaustion in the first months of childrearing, the extent to which you do need to attend to others’ needs as well as your own, and the outlet that fandom provides just not to think about all that stuff. (I also haven’t talked about the reaction that essentially casts the woman as the villain of the piece for not dumping the guy/getting herself knocked up by a man who’d get angry over her investment in fandom/etc., because I am not prepared to react calmly to that. SPN blames enough women already for their choices and circumstances for my taste, thanks.)"

".... I actually think the title already shows the ambiguity and complexity. At the end of Frost's poem, we are actually left uncertain whether good walls really do or do not good neighbors make. And so to me the title never read as clearly as breaking the fourth wall's evil. It read much more as there are good and bad ways to break down walls...and as you so astutely pointed out, Becky's representation fed right into the issues that are already complicating women's fannish hobbies a lot of times... "

"I think that the woman fan is portrayed as grotesque and unmoored from reality, while the men fans get to be heroes. The men's activities are defended as valid with big speeches at the end and bravery and adventure, and women remain just weirdly sexually obsessive with no attempt made to justify their obsession. Men want to be heroes; women want to fuck them, and even though Becky is the only fan in the room who knows the truth, she's consistently shown as delusional. Not to mention that when Kripke wanted to do a story where (men) fans got to be heroes, suddenly the entire gender of the fanbase changed - prior to that, the fanbase was portrayed as female. And all this comes in a show where women are consistently devalued - so it's like he treats the women badly on the show, and then reaches out to fan activities and tells us that we're grotesque for engaging in them. In other words, I saw his treatment of LARPing and the fact that the men ultimately got to be heroes as much more affectionate than his treatment of women's activities."

"It was a fascinating and thought-provoking comic strip, and I have to say I found the husband in it pretty disturbing/controlling. I don't outright 'blame' the woman for being with him - I'm confused, though, confused as to why she is in a relationship with someone she is ashamed to reveal a fundamental part of her desiring self to. I want someone to talk to me about why she might be doing this. I'm aware that I have some kind of privilege on this issue, having been raised by a strong, eccentric, independent woman who taught me that relationships are between equals and controlling or shaming behaviour is unnacceptable - as a consequence I've only ever dated men who were at least tolerant, at best enthusiastic about my fannish activities (bear in mind I'm only 23, haven't dated that many ;) ). I'm distressed by the number of women who feel this sort of thing could happen to them - that if they were 'outed' something terrible would happen. I understand we are socially conditioned to feel ashamed of certain aspects of ourselves (I'm mixed race) - but we also have minds and critical faculties and the ability to challenge those assumptions, not get ourselves into situations that reinforce them. As to the depiction of Becky. I think it could have been better, but it also could have been worse. She's articulate, can organize, is fun, and crucially - she's enjoying her life. If she gets killed, I'm going to be very angry, but I dare hope she won't be. And I too enjoyed how much she discomfited the male characters. Kudos to the actress on that."

"This is absolutely wonderful. It speaks to the fears of so many fans - including one person I knew who did leave fandom because of this. The panels with 'oh my God' wrapped along the bottom are a wonderful evocation of that panicked moment - and the body language and composition of the panel after the fight, with her body curled round itself, is perfect. Utterly heart-wrenching."

"For these reasons, I am now fairly unshamable. Moreover, I’m starting to feel like shame is…a mistaken response. Like, remember counteragentRN’s comic strip Fourth Walls Make Good Neighbours when the couple see the episode where Becky is writing Wincest, and the husband infers, rightly or wrongly, that ‘that’ is what his wife does on the internet, and he storms out and leaves her with the baby? I know there are mitigating political factors at work here, but what I feel emotionally is, ‘Why the fuck are you married to that asshole?’ Guess what, women have imaginations and sex drives. Now that response is informed by the fact that as a fan I know very well that incest fic in SPN isn’t ‘just porn’, but often complex, beautiful, painful, and when composed by people like drvsillaRN or candle_beckRNgenerally so fucking good it makes me want to burn everything I’ve ever written and cry into a pillow for a while. But EVEN IF IT WAS JUST PORN, I would still think she shouldn’t be married to such a controlling prick, and should take control of her own life."

"Counteragent, cuando subio a su blog el comic, reconocio en los comentarios que el comic era melodramitico, pero que era una posibilidad real para muchas fans en cuyas casas no conocen sus actividades online y que podrian sufrir por ello. La mayor parte de los comentarios al mismo describe como la mayor parte tiene suerte de que no haya nadie a quien le importe negativamente lo que hacen en Internet, mientras que reconocen al mismo tiempo que la posibilidad planteada es real tanto en pareja como en el trabajo. En la lectura que se desprende de los comentarios, al analizar el comic, tambien se puede observar una preocupacion general por perder un modo de expresion (principalmente de su sexualidad) y por ser condenadas por sus gustos. Ademas, se sefiala la presion que sufren las mujeres por diversos motivos (casa, maridos, nifios, trabajo, dinero ... ) y como pueden perder el placer que obtienen online y como el comic muestra el temor a perder ese placer.

Ademas, hay fans que muestran su preocupacion por cOmo un creador utiliza la cultura de las fans, en concreto el fandom slash, que lo consideran un "refugio" para muchas mujeres que quieren expresar su sexualidad.

En esta misma linea comenta la propia autora (en respuesta a uno de los comentarios) que no cree que en Supernatural tengan el derecho de representar una cultura que no entiende tan despreocupadamente y, por lo tanto, quitandoles a las fans la opcion de representar sus actividades online en el contexto adecuado, o de no representarias en absoluto si asi lo eligen. En este caso, no se trata de una traicion sobre el contenido del texto base, sino que el texto base hace referencia a las fans de un modo que estas veo como una traicion. En este ejemplo podemos ver no solo como las fans critican artisticamente una "traicion " por parte de los productores, sino que reclaman su derecho a expresarse por si mismas y a representarse a si mismas, ademas de elegir si quieren o no que otras personas sepan de sus actividades online.

En el episodio tambien se incluian referencias humoristicas a los creadores de la serie, pero cuando los productores de Supernatural se den de ellos mismos, lo hacen desde una posicion de poder. El coste no es el mismo para los guionistas (que no tienen nada que perder), que para los fans. EI episodio no hace sino reforzar el poder de los productores y recordar a los fans que solo pueden recibir lo que los creadores quieran ofrecer."

Google translate: Counteragent recognized in the comments that her comic was melodramatic, but it was a real possibility for many fans whose homes do not know about their online activities and that they could suffer. Most of the commentators describe themselves as lucky that no one who would negatively care what they do on the Internet, while at the same time recognizing that the possibility posed is real both in the home and in the workplace. In the reading that emerges from the reviews, to analyze the comic, you can also see a general concern for losing a mode of expression (especially their sexuality) and being condemned for their tastes. In addition, it is pointed out that the pressure suffered by women for various reasons (house, husbands, children, work, money ...) and women can miss the pleasure they get online and how the comic shows the fear of losing that pleasure. In addition, there are fans who show their concern for how a Creator uses the culture of fans, specifically the slash fandom, which consider it a "haven" for many women who want to express their sexuality.

In this same line the author herself says (in response to one review) that she does not believe that the Supernatural creators have the right to represent a culture that they do not understood so carelessly and, in doing so, they are taking away the fans' option to represent their online activities in context, or not to represent at all if they so choose. In this case, it is not treachery based on the content of the base text, but in the way that the basic text refers to the fans in a way that that they see this as a betrayal. In this example we can see not only as fans criticize artistically a 'betrayal' by the producers, but claim their right to express themselves and represent if same, plus the right to choose whether or not they want other people know about their online activities.

While the episode also included humoristic references to the creators of the series, but when the producers of Supernatural mention themselves, they do so from a position of power. The cost is not the same for the writers (who have nothing to lose) for the fans. The episode only reinforces the power of the producers and remind fans that can only receive what the creators want to offer.

"There is a dark side to the breaking of the fourth wall in this way. What happens if Becky is read literally by outsiders to the fan community, those in real-life relationships with fans? To anyone with a basic knowledge of fandom, she is obviously hyperbolic, but fandom is a proportionally small segment of the television audience. In a thought-provoking and disturbing comic strip posted in the LiveJournal community Supernaturalart by Counteragent, a man storms angrily out of the marital home after viewing the scene in which Becky is writing Wincest (note 1) and inferring that "this" is what his wife and the mother of his baby does online (January 9, 2010). This could be read as a warning against the presentation of Becky as potentially damaging to the real-life female fan....

.... For some people, fandom is a refuge, a space where they can explore facets of themselves not sanctioned by official culture, where anonymity provides security and they need not fear jeopardizing their off-line situation. It could be argued that it was not the place of Kripke and his writers to present a character who may cause risks for female viewers in less privileged situations than themselves, who are economically and emotionally dependent on structures in which it is necessary to keep part of themselves hidden.....

....But the comic strip also problematizes the situation in which such risks arise, demonstrating just how disruptive Becky is to the masculinist, heterosexual narratives our society operates on. We might ask who the villain of the piece is. Is it Kripke for the act of exposure? The husband for his narrow-minded overreaction to a joke he doesn't understand? The wife for marrying into, and having a child in, a repressive situation where she must hide a fundamental part of herself? All are possible candidates. In my reading, though, the problem is the discourse according to which this marriage operates, in which the husband is so threatened and angered by the possibility of his wife having an imagination and a sex drive. The strip highlights how far we still have to go in terms of the equality of women in the cultural sphere, as does the author's note: "Luckily, this is fiction. For now." Fandom being a relatively accepting and open-minded community, the strip serves as a reminder of the vast gap between our ideals and day-to-day life under culture's dominant discourses."

"[The comic] seems like a warning against marrying an asshole, not about the evils of outing fans" and "I'm glad Supernatural helped that woman get away from her creepy and controlling boyfriend."