Episode 206: Bad Fans Revisited
Woobies, poor little meow meows, anti-heroes, and problematic faves: in Episode 206, “Bad Fans Revisited,” Flourish and Elizabeth use a listener voicemail on investment in morally dubious fictional characters to revisit a perennial hot topic in fandom. Specifics discussed include the heightened language of performative tags, blurred lines between fiction and reality, what a dark AU can offer that a dark original story might not, and yes, Lestat de Lioncourt. Plus: Flourish lets you know how you, too, can become a Certified Villain Fucker (there’s a test!).
Show Notes
[00:00:00] As always, our intro music (and this week, our outro music as well!) is “Awel” by stefsax, used under a CC BY 3.0 license.
[00:40:00] We recorded our original “Bad Fans” episode back in 2018. Emily Nussbaum’s main bad fans piece was published in 2014, though she approached the concept multiple times from various angles. (We later had her on the podcast, where she talked about all sorts of fandom/audience things as well as her book, I Like To Watch.)
[00:02:25] Our poor little meow meow vs their terrible blorbo.
[00:07:13] Our Patrons-only Succession episode wasn’t even that long ago (2020) but it feels like a million years?? Also I guess we do now know who won the kiss from daddeeeeeeeee.
[00:15:44] Definitions for “poor little meow meow” are kind of all over the place but one thing we failed to mention is they are supposed to be *pathetic*.
[00:19:59]
[00:19:24] For those unfamiliar with the Hannibal fandom’s flower crowns, an explainer (with pictures!).
[00:23:14] The interview Elizabeth recently heard with novelist (and doctor) Abraham Verghese on NPR.
[00:24:55]
[00:28:00]
[00:31:52] Toni Morrison specifically described this as, “The little white man that sits on your shoulder and checks out everything you do or say. You sort of knock him off and you’re free.”
[00:35:34]
[00:44:55] That’s Episode 149: “The Real Character.”
[00:48:12] The book is The Method: How the Twentieth Century Learned to Act by Isaac Butler, and you can listen to him discuss the topic on Fresh Air.
[00:53:47] We talk about purity culture themes and dynamics a lot on the podcast, but two episodes specifically about the topic:
Episode 84: “Purity Culture” Episode 132: “Purity Culture 2020”
[00:56:16] x
[01:04:48]
Transcript
[Intro music]
Flourish Klink: Hi, Elizabeth!
Elizabeth Minkel: Hi, Flourish!
FK: And welcome to Fansplaining, the podcast by, for, and about fandom!
ELM: This is Episode #206, “Bad Fans Revisited.”
FK: [laughs] So we had an earlier episode called “Bad Fans,” as you might guess, which is not exactly about, like, fans doing individually bad things, but fans liking bad characters? [laughs]
ELM: It’s—OK, well, sure. So we were taking the title from, there was a famous Emily Nussbaum piece years ago, probably about a decade ago, at this point, because it was about Walter White and Don Draper and all those kind of antihero figures—
FK: Yeah. The classic— [laughs]
ELM: —from that era of television. Yeah. Well, and Tony Soprano was from an earlier era. But it was, like, when those shows were still on the air, right?
FK: Yeah, the golden—the quote-unquote “Golden Age of TV,” as people now apparently are calling it. [laughs]
ELM: Yes. Well, I mean, looking at things now… [FK makes a weary noise] You know. It feels golden-er. [laughs] More golden. And also talking about Archie Bunker, right? As this archetype of this, of saying, you know, Norman Lear created Archie Bunker to be this kind of backwards, racist, bigoted, you know, et cetera, et cetera, and then a lot of people were just like, “That guy’s great.”
FK: “Love him!”
ELM: “He’s just like me!” [FK laughs] Yeah. And so this idea of, like, oh, you know, you are a fan of a bad character, you are a fan in a bad way, because you are reading against the text, essentially, and, like, I guess taking it very literally [laughs] in that case. And so, you know, she was making an argument about antiheroes and the veneration of them, and so we took that and talked about it a little bit, and brought it more into the capital-F Fandom context, and not just kind of a…more of a broad viewer context, which is, I think, what that piece was really talking about.
FK: Right, because of course this was a perennial, [laughs] you know, discussion/debate, right? I mean, I think this was—I think I saw this in The Rec Center, indeed, that meme about, like, “My poor, misunderstood woobie—”
ELM: Oh. [laughs]
FK: “—and your evil—” [laughs] You know?
ELM: “Your terrible blorbo,” I believe it was. So, yes. Yeah, it’s—
FK: Yes. Your terrible blorbo. [laughs]
ELM: We can put that post in the—it’s the famous cartoon that’s, like, two medieval-looking, you know, sides, villages, or whatever, like, sides of a battle.
FK: That are identical.
ELM: Yeah, and they’re exactly identical, and on one side it’s like, “Our heroic cause,” and on the other side it’s like, “Their evil ways,” you know? [both laugh] And so the point is that, yeah, they’re the same. But it’s just how you frame your enemy, basically, so…
FK: Yeah.
ELM: My terrible blorbo.
FK: But we got a voicemail! That— [laughs] reawakened this.
ELM: That is why we’re talking about this again. It’s not just about feelings. But, you know, yeah, I think we did that years ago, that “Bad Fans” episode, and I was really glad to get this voicemail, because I think this conversation has really not just continued but maybe even sped up a bit, [FK does a sad woo-hoo noise] in terms of, like, what it’s OK to be a fan of, are you condoning the actions of a character, et cetera, et cetera, what does that mean about you as a fan, blah blah blah blah blah. So. [laughs] Blah blah blah blah blah, that’s what we’re gonna talk about.
FK: [laughs] All right, should we listen?
ELM: Should we listen to the voicemail? [laughs]
FK: Yeah, let’s listen.
Voicemail: Hi, Flourish and Elizabeth! This is my first time calling, so I’m a little nervous. So, after the end of Succession, I was listening to your Succession episode that was Patrons-only, just to see sort of how it would be interesting to look back on your takes and your perspectives at that point, where you had recorded it, which was, like, two seasons in. And I just had some interesting thoughts about sort of the dynamics between characters and how you guys said in the episode, you know, the Succession characters are, like, bad people, but you still can’t help but, you know, love them?
And I just think that’s an interesting dynamic that I often find in fandom, where I sometimes am drawn to these works, where the characters are all kind of terrible people, but for some weird reason those are the works I never really feel fannish about. Like, one of my favorite books is Donna Tartt’s The Secret History, but I’ve never really engaged with it in a fannish manner, even though these characters do kind of fit the mold of what I would normally—maybe, like, in a story that isn’t, like, a dark AU, like, if it was a dark AU of a book that, in that book series, that wasn’t—I would totally eat up a Secret History AU. But even then, sometimes you do find yourself really drawn to the characters.
I’m not sure if you guys have read The Secret History, I do recommend it. It’s a pretty dense read, but it’s really good. One of the main characters is Francis Abernathy, and I unironically love him, but he is a terrible person who was involved in terrible things, but he is my baby. But then you have to flip it and realize that, yeah, I guess I don’t want to be seen as maybe celebrating the actions of The Secret History characters, because as much as I adore Francis, I do kind of finish The Secret History, and I don’t really need to read more, because the ending is very…hollow, and I like that feeling, because it’s kind of what, honestly, these characters deserve, because they’re bad people—as much as I love Francis, and I think that if he had not been mixed up in all of this stuff in the book, I don’t think he would have ever done anything bad in the world, but I’m a bit of a Francis Abernathy apologist.
I was just wondering if…I think that’s just an interesting dynamic, and if it’s something that you guys have noticed. And also if it’s a generational thing, because I feel like sometimes that doesn’t carry over in fandom, because I’ve seen, like, posts with Succession hot takes like, “You guys shouldn’t be, like, engaging in fanworks of these characters, because blah blah blah, they’re all terrible people.” And I feel like, yeah, but there are so many stories over the years where it’s like, yeah, they’re bad people, but that’s kind of the point. Although, interestingly, I tend to not engage with those stories, as much as I love them, I don’t necessarily engage with them fannishly, as much as I do with other works, although I do tend to like dark AUs. [laughs] I am a slightly ashamed enjoyer of mafia and serial killer AUs. [laughs] But that’s just because I, as a person, enjoy kind of exploring, like, the dark side of human nature, and I think for me, when I get that fulfilled in a story, I don’t feel the need to seek it out with these characters and find that these works often leave me complete, like Succession.
So, thank you for listening to my rambling! I love the work you do.
FK: A rich text of a voicemail!
ELM: [laughs] Yes. Thank you very much, voicemail-leaver. This was actually two voicemails. I did cut out a little bit for time, but I think I got the full range of it. There were so many interesting parts, and I’m so grateful that you called in.
FK: Yeah, seriously. Where do you want to start?
ELM: Oh my gosh, all right. First of all, I have no idea what we said in that Succession episode, [FK laughs] it was so long ago. I couldn’t tell you.
FK: Me neither. I do think that we said that they’re all terrible people, but they do, and they do, create a fascination, and there’s nobody who’s good in all of Succession. [laughs]
ELM: Yeah. I mean, you haven’t even seen the last season.
FK: Yeah. Well, I’m assuming that that didn’t change.
ELM: So what happens in the last season of Succession is they all suddenly get super good, and you’re like, [FK laughs] “Wow, I didn’t know these people could actually be so good.” And then, um, they, like, give away all their money, and they go live simple lives.
FK: Wow.
ELM: And that’s what happens.
FK: Maybe I should watch this, you know?
ELM: Yeah. Yeah, they find Jesus—
FK: [laughs] As a future priest, I can direct people to this show.
ELM: Yeah, they—yeah. There’s, like, a lot of scenes of them talking to priests and really working through all the complicated ethical issues, and they really—
FK: I love to hear that, you know? [both laugh]
ELM: Uh, no, in fact, you know, Succession is an interesting one to think about, because I did not love the last two seasons, and part of that was because, yeah, they’re all bad people, and they continue to be bad, and that doesn’t bother me, but it starts to feel like, you know, it definitely started to feel like there was a real lack of stakes, and it’s like, “Do I want to watch—”
FK: Yeah.
ELM: “—bad people just doing the same thing over and over again?”
FK: Right.
ELM: Not necessarily. You know, I have more specific critiques of the show that are not necessary to air here, but it does make me think of, in terms of voicemail-leaver’s, you know, talk about what they want out of something that they want to spend time with or what feels complete or, et cetera, et cetera, and how the goodness or the badness of a character might affect their interest in sticking around or giving it more thought, and so that is interesting to me.
FK: Yeah, definitely. I’m also curious about this distinction that the voicemail-leaver is making between a story in which the characters are being evil, versus an AU— [laughs]
ELM: Hmmm.
FK: —in which the characters do evil things, because it’s funny that they were saying that, you know, they might be fannish about it if this were, like, a dark AU of something that was not originally dark, because in my now-elderly fandom experience, [ELM snorts] it’s usually more the opposite, right? People get into a villain, and then they write something that, like, either justifies them or cures them or, you know, just gives a deeper character study and is, like, a different framing and perspective on my terrible blorbo, right?
ELM: Yeah.
FK: Yeah, there are definitely also dark AUs that I’m familiar with, [laughs] but that’s not what I would have said as, like, the normative fandom thing. And I think that might be generational, right? [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, I mean, I think that there are younger fans…you know, I do mean younger, not just newer—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: —because I think generational in terms of, like, actual, real generations, and not just when you entered fandom or whatever.
FK: Right.
ELM: But even looking at the way Gen Z talks about media in a nonfannish way, right? And so that’s what I’m taking into account here. You know, I think there’s plenty of woobification happening, [FK laughs] right?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: You know? And softening and…you know, it’s interesting, actually, I don’t want to linger on Succession, but there’s a moment—so, anyway, here’s some spoilers for you, you don’t care, and it’s not really spoilers, but, you know, what’s his name? Roman—they’re gone to me now. I’m like— [FK laughs] It’s been a few months and I’m like, “Who are these people?” Roman, if anyone who hasn’t watched it much, Kieran Culkin’s character, right? He is, you know, obviously super fucked up, and one of his things throughout the show, like, all four seasons, is he kind of…he’s a little alt-right-y, in a kind of—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: —the way that they kind of flirt with shocking ideas, but then it’s like, “Eh, just a joke, just ironic,” you know? That kind of thing.
FK: Yeah yeah yeah. Yeah. “Of course I don’t actually think that! I’m just being, you know, provocative.”
ELM: Yeah, like, ha ha ha. Yeah, like, constantly making weird little jokes to, like, derail things, like, can’t take anything seriously, and then went and said something like, “Oh, I’m gonna shock you.” And then it’s like, “Ha ha ha,” you know? Right? And so there are moments toward the end of the fourth season where it sort of seems like, kind of mask-off a bit, right?
FK: Hmmm.
ELM: Where he’s, like, actively celebrating, you know, the election of the fascist guy, or who—you don’t actually find out—whatever. No one—who cares about—no one cares about Succession spoilers. Anyone who cares about this would’ve seen it, by this point, I feel like, right?
FK: Yes. I think that that’s absolutely true.
ELM: You know, it just—
FK: Also, I already know this, because I have been spoiled. [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, no, but I just—I feel bad that I’m, like, now saying this to, like, all our listeners.
FK: No no no, our audience understands.
ELM: Yeah. And then I saw there was a definite reaction of, like, you know, from some corners of viewership and fanhood or whatever on the internet being like, [gasps] “Oh my God!” You know? Like, “He was my little baby boy!” Right? You know? Kind of—
FK: Roman?! [laughs]
ELM: [laughs] Yeah! Like, “My little guy.” It’s like, “Oh my God, he’s being so awful right now,” you know? And it’s like—
FK: He’s an awful little guy! That’s how he is your guy! He’s an awful little guy! [laughs]
ELM: Yeah! But, like, I think that if you choose to read him as, like, just teasing, but actually is just a little baby boy, you know—
FK: Mmm.
ELM: That’s woobification, for sure, because he’s constantly telling you who he is. And again, they leave it quite vague, so you don’t actually know by the end, like, how seriously does he believe any of this—
FK: Right.
ELM: Or does he just think this is his way to—this is his way to put his stamp out in the family, is to be like, “What if I’m the one who actually—”
FK: Right.
ELM: “—believes this?” You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: And it’s unclear if he does actually believe it.
FK: Right.
ELM: It seems like actually most of them don’t believe in anything beyond their own self-interest and money. But I thought that was—I think that’s a good recent example, and I saw a lot of people, younger people, kind of taken aback by that, because they had framed him as a…as a woobie. Like, as a little baby, you know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: As a sweet little guy, right? You know? I do think that there’s a strong streak of woobification happening and, like, OK, we’re using this term, let’s make sure we agree on the definition, right? Woobification is when you take a character of any kind and kind of make them sort of a…OK, I’m really failing here. Can you define woobification?
FK: Yeah, and it’s important to distinguish, because there’s different forms of, like, justifying a character who to many people would be considered bad. Woobification is being like, “No, actually, they’re wounded, they’re little, they’re not actually doing anything that bad, they’re, you know—”
ELM: [laughs] They are little. Yeah.
FK: “They’re actually very sweet underneath, like, you know, it’s—”
ELM: OK, but it’s not just for villains, is what I’m trying to say, though.
FK: Yes!
ELM: Right?
FK: It’s not just for villains.
ELM: You can woobify the protagonist.
FK: Yes.
ELM: Just to make them, like, “Oh—”
FK: Yup.
ELM: “An innocent little baby who needs to be protected,” right?
FK: Exactly. You can do this with anybody, but the reason that I’m talking about it with villains is obviously the topic of this thing, but also to distinguish it from retelling the story from the villain’s perspective, a la Wicked, or something like that, right?
ELM: Yeah, yeah.
FK: Which is, like, that’s not woobification. That is presenting an alternate viewpoint on what the world is, and it’s not the same thing as woobification.
ELM: Right.
FK: Or—and it’s also not the same thing as redemption, which is saying, like, “Yeah, they really were awful, and they really did all these things, and now I’m going to, like, make them go through the fire,” and at the end, you’re supposed to think that they’re redeemed. That’s also a different thing.
ELM: Right.
FK: So those are three different strategies for dealing with a villian who you don’t want to continue to treat as a total villain.
ELM: Right, but redemption and, like, flipping to their perspective and maybe showing that their whole thing is more nuanced, are both, like, ostensibly, things that you could do, whether it’s a fanwork or just in a reading of a character or, like, in an actual show, that don’t [laughs] change the characterization, right? Whereas woobification is inherently a lens that gets overlaid onto a character, right? And makes them—
FK: Right.
ELM: —more innocent, more small, more vulnerable, more “ooh me, little baby,” like, actually, you know what I mean?
FK: Right. And it’s one of those things where sometimes that character then is totally distanced [laughs] from whatever happened on the screen, you know? Maybe not totally, but really pick-and-choose-y, right?
ELM: Yeah.
FK: Whereas the other ones tend to be more like, “No, we’re going to accept all of the canon, but we’re gonna explain to you why it’s fixed,” you know?
ELM: Right, right, right. OK, all right, we totally agree on this definition. Just wanted to say it, because I think it gets tossed around a lot, and I think it’s an older term, also, that’s had a resurgence, and so sometimes I think definitions can get a little fuzzy.
FK: Right.
ELM: You know, we also have terms like “poor little meow meow,” or something, [FK laughs] and things like that, and I also—
FK: Which I feel like are related, right? Yeah.
ELM: Yeah, but I also think that definitions get fuzzy on those, and people just start using them when they want to talk about their favorite character.
FK: Well, and there’s also, like, ironic uses of these, right? You can ironically refer to somebody as your “poor little meow meow.”
ELM: Yeah.
FK: But not actually do woobification of them, [laughs] right? You can be like, “Yeah, of course this genocidal horrible character is my poor little meow meow.” You know? But, like, not—
ELM: No, I mean, that’s the definition I understand of that, is, like, there is no woobification in meow meowing—
FK: Right. Right.
ELM: —because you are acknowledging their thing. But it’s like, six of one, half dozen of the other. If you’re still, like, “Oh, my poor little meow meow,” [laughs] you know? It’s like, [both laugh] OK, I don’t really understand the difference we’re doing here. You’re still talking about him like he’s a smol bean, you know? Not always. But that’s definitely something that I have encountered.
FK: Yeah, I mean, but it can be a stance that people take at certain points, right? Because that’s the other piece of this, is that you can have—your stance toward a character can vary, depending on whether you are, [laughs] writing a meta or a piece of fanfic, or just, like, talking about how much you like them, right?
ELM: Sure. Right.
FK: So I think that there’s some level on which, like, you know, whatever, like, OK, this is old now, but, like, people talking about Kylo Ren, [ELM laughs] there are obviously people who are doing, like, extreme woobification all the way through, but then there’s other people who are, like, “No, when I write fanfic, he’s horrible, but also…look at my poor little meow meow [laughs] when I post a Tumblr GIFset of him,” you know?
ELM: Yeah. Right, right, right. Yeah, absolutely. Right, yeah, and there’s, I think there’s a huge difference between, like, performative tags on Tumblr—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: —or the way people tweet or whatever, and what people do in fanworks, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: Obviously, there’s some people who are consistent between the two, but there’s a certain style of communication that is happening on social media platforms that I think…is sometimes hard to parse, because it is using these phrases, it’s using very heightened language, and it’s like, I think perhaps also often being used in a way, especially on Tumblr…mmm, whatever, this happens on a lot of platforms, too. There’s an element of, “I’m full of feeling about this character.”
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: “And I don’t actually know how to articulate it, so I’m just gonna use either, like, hyper-violent language, [FK laughs] I’m just gonna use nonsensical language—”
FK: Yeah.
ELM: “I’m just gonna call him a bunch of things,” you know?
FK: Right.
ELM: “I’m gonna use these terms,” and it’s, like, maybe because you can’t even really sort out what you feel beyond, like, [long noise expressing extreme feeling] right? [FK laughs] You know? Which is, like, [laughs] so—so I feel like I see so much of that in just sort of—I mean, I don’t know, also I do think there’s a heightened performative language element that maybe people are not—it’s just like we use LOL and we’re not actually laughing out loud too, right?
FK: Right, right.
ELM: So it’s hard to say.
FK: Yeah. You know, I kind of—this is all really making me think of another now very elderly [laughs] cut on this, which is Hannibal, which is I feel like one of the, like—
ELM: Why—stop—you’re really abusing the term—you’re elder-abusing the term right now.
FK: OK—
ELM: Elderly would be, like, “Well, in Starsky & Hutch, [FK laughs] there was this guy…” [laughs] You know?
FK: I don’t know, we’re talking about Gen Z. For them, Hannibal is elderly. [both laugh] Anyway, all I’m trying to say, though, is that I guess 10, 15 years ago, is Hannibal at this point—
ELM: Stop it. Ten years ago was 2013. When did Hannibal start? It was around that time.
FK: Yeah, I think it was around that time.
ELM: Yeah, because 15 years ago, Bryan Fuller was making, uh…what was the name of that show?
FK: Hannibal, TV series, 2013! [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, I know what time is. What is the name of the Lee Pace TV show? With the pies… Pushing Daisies.
FK: Pushing Daisies. Yeah. That’s right.
ELM: Pushing Daisies. That was 15 years ago in the career of—yes..
FK: Pushing Daisies was 15 years ago. Anyway! Point being, 10 years ago, Hannibal I think feels to me like it’s one of the central places where you had the, like—I mean, there’s very little way to—unless you—you know, you can excuse Hannibal in a lot of ways, but ultimately, he still has to be a serial killer. [laughs] You know?
ELM: Yeah.
FK: And yet there was so much, you know, between the flower crowns and all of the stuff happening there, like, there was so much, like, cute-ifying of that—
ELM: Mmm hmmm. Mmm hmmm.
FK: That was inhabiting at the same time the total embrace of that violence. So that, like, dual awareness or dual consciousness or dual way of people interacting with it feels, that feels like a perfect example to me of that.
ELM: Of what?
FK: Of the idea of, like, you know, my poor little meow meow who also murders everybody.
ELM: That’s interesting. I mean, I wonder, though, like…and we’ve had many Hannibal people on this show, and I mean, I still haven’t seen it, as a vegetarian, I don’t want to watch it.
FK: Fair enough. I mean, we’ve talked about this many times before. [laughs]
ELM: Just don’t want to see the—yes.
FK: I appreciate it.
ELM: But you watch it. You like it a lot. You know, I also wonder how many people, you know, you say, he’s a serial killer. He’s a fictional character.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: So, like, you know, you’re like, he’s a fictional serial killer.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And I’m gonna put a flower crown on his head. It’s not a documentary. You know what I mean?
FK: Yeah yeah yeah.
ELM: I do think it’s possible to hold both those things in your mind at the same time, right?
FK: Yeah. And it’s really not a documentary, [laughs] like, really really not a documentary. [both laugh]
ELM: You know what I mean? I think there is a difference between doing that and, um, getting really into, like, my fast grey son as Jeffrey Dahmer—he played Quicksilver, also, Evan Peters, and… [both laugh] which I did not see him play Jeffrey Dahmer—you know, and getting really into that and, like, putting flower crowns on Peters, like, in that—
FK: Right. Like, a real person who actually—
ELM: —context. Yes, that’s different. It’s not a documentary—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: —but it is the most famous serial—one of our most famous serial killers. We have so many.
FK: But isn’t that, like, a relational problem, right? Because there are people who are actually, like, [laughs] there are people who he actually murdered, the families of those people, you know, the people who loved them, are still around. And so isn’t part of that, like, isn’t the issue that makes that bad—well, one of the issues, I should say—but the issue that makes it different, has to do with the fact that there are real victims of that person? As opposed to a fictional character of whom there’s no real victim. There’s no actual violence that occurred.
ELM: Yeah, I mean, I don’t even, like—sure, if that’s a way to further articulate “he was a real serial killer” if you have to remind people that he had real victims.
FK: No, but—
ELM: I feel like that’s already said in the idea of—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: —he was a real serial killer, right? What does that mean? He killed real people. [laughs]
FK: I’m just trying to parse that, you know, because there’s other attitudes toward it that you could take, right? You could take the attitude, which a lot of people do, in this argument, that sort of continues to rage about what characters you’re supposed to, quote-unquote “like” or “dislike.” You can take the argument that, like, you shouldn’t put a flower crown on the head of anybody because they are a bad influence. They’re a bad—you know, they’re an expression of something bad. They’re doing something bad. And you shouldn’t, like, cosign it, right? So, like, in that regard, what is the difference between a fictional story and a real-life story that you have only heard in a documentary, or something like that, right? You know, in both cases, it’s influencing you purely as a story. You, I mean, not the people it happened to. So then, how are they different, right?
ELM: I know you’re making a hypothetical argument. I don’t think you actually believe in the influence argument, in that way.
FK: No, I don’t. [laughs] But I want to talk about it, because this seems like it underpins a lot of— [laughs]
ELM: Like, video games cause violence—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Yeah! Yeah yeah yeah. You know, it’s something that I have been thinking about a lot recently. I don’t know why, I just started thinking about this a lot, about the idea of, like, what happens in fiction and fiction as a space. I guess I was, one of the things I was thinking about is, the other day, I was listening to a novelist, Abraham Verghese, I think is how you say his name, who is, he’s a doctor and a professor of medicine.
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: Very senior, you know, medical school professor, and every, like, 10 years or something, he writes an epic novel. [FK laughs] And you’re like, “Cool. That’s cool. I— [laughs] just whenever you have the time, just write, like, this giant, sweeping, whatever.”
FK: Uh-huh.
ELM: No, I haven’t read his books at all, but it was interesting, and, like, that’s interesting to think about. You know, and he was talking—so, he had one out this year, and I haven’t read his books, and he seemed really smart and interesting, but he did say, you know, “I think that novels are like instruction for life.” Right?
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: So, that’s this phrase that gets used a lot, but I started thinking about that, and I was like, “OK, I’m not gonna outright be like, ‘No!’” You know? [FK laughs] Because I don’t think that he was saying—I have no idea. It was a quick little, you know, thing that he said. He didn’t elaborate a great deal. But I don’t think he was saying, like, “Books should be moralistic texts with guidance,” you know? [FK laughs] Because—which is a very, it’s a purity culture idea. That’s also, like, a, you know, a fascist idea, right?
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: Of what art should be. There’s this, like, graphic going around of good art versus bad art recently, you may have seen on social media—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And I hate it, because it’s like, it was literally made by a fascist, [laughs] and it was a bunch of fascist talking points about art, right?
FK: Yup.
ELM: And it was like, “Why are we sharing this and, like, tagging ourselves?”
FK: Yeah.
ELM: I don’t really understand this as an exercise. And I don’t think he was saying that at all, but I did start to think about, like, what does it mean, a novel being instruction for life? And I was thinking about it, I’m rewatching Halt and Catch Fire to write an article, and it’s often—Halt and Catch Fire is described as a very novelistic television show—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: —partly because of the way time passes in it. And thinking about how all the characters are deeply human and deeply flawed, and you’ll watch an exchange between two characters and neither of them are correct, [FK laughs] you know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And it feels so much like real life.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Right? You know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Or, like, there was an exchange, one of the characters is saying to her husband something very judgmental and I think a false read on a third character.
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: And the husband’s like, “All right, come on.” And she’s like, “No, I’m serious.” And she kind of digs in, and he’s like, “OK, you look nice today.” You know? [FK laughs] He’s just trying to, like, end the argument, and it’s great. No one feels the need to then be like, “No, actually, in reality, his intentions are pure.” Because we don’t know. In real life, we wouldn’t know—
FK: Yeah, yeah.
ELM: —what’s in his heart, right?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: You know? And so it just felt very true-to-life in the sense of, like, being able to see people, and there are no right answers—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: —because that’s reality, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: And—
FK: [laughs] Yes. Yeah, absolutely. There’s no right answers. There’s also no pure or single thing that you can do that is right. I mean, obviously there’s things that are wrong, like, you know, being a serial killer. [laughs] But, like—
ELM: Right, right. Yeah.
FK: You know, do we drink the almond milk? You know? [both laugh] Well…
ELM: Thank you, Chidi. But, you know, so it was interesting to think about this. And it’s like, is this show an instruction for life?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Yeah, I guess so, because it’s showing me characters that feel very human—
FK: Right.
ELM: —living their lives, right? And I’m not like, “Oh, Cameron did this in this scene. I’m gonna go do it too.” But something about consuming it makes me feel more human, just because of the way—you know what I mean?
FK: I think that’s really true, and I think that—I mean, I would say that also, frankly, for video games for all other forms of media, right? I am not of the viewpoint that, like, violent video games cause violence. [laughs] That’s absurd.
ELM: Yeah.
FK: But I do think—
ELM: That’s been widely studied and is—
FK: Right, it’s been disproven. It’s just not true. But I do think that there are things within video games like, I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced this, but when “Katamari Damacy” came out, which was many, many, many years ago—
ELM: I don’t know what words you just said, so no, I haven’t experienced that. Continue.
FK: OK. “Katamari Damacy” is a very classic, very weird video game, in which you are a tiny creature with a big sticky ball, and you roll the ball around the world, and it picks things up, and it gets bigger, and eventually you create the stars.
ELM: Hmmm. Hmmm.
FK: And what this game did to me was pretty soon, I was looking at everything in the world going, “I wonder how big of a katamari I would need to pick those trees up.” [ELM laughs] You know? [laughs] I was just seeing everything in the world of the way that this game’s, you know, major, you know, major game mechanic worked. And that was actually really fun, [laughs] and it was super enjoyable for those, like, when I was playing the game a lot, you know?
ELM: Yeah.
FK: And then, like, it’s faded away. But every once in a while, I look at something, and I think, “Oh. If I had a katamari, [laughs] you know? Then I could roll this up.”
ELM: Oh my God, that’s very funny.
FK: And I do think that there’s something like that, even for, like, you know, shooter video games, and for things like this, right? The affordances of the game, the things that it lets you do, shape the way that you’re thinking about the world. Not entirely, but a little bit. You know, it sort of—
ELM: Mmm hmmm.
FK: It invites you to think about the world in this way. And I think that books are like that, too. You know, reading Lolita is not necessarily going to make you a pedophile. But when I read Lolita as a young teenager, it definitely shaped my understanding of what young teenagers’ sexuality, like, what dangers that might have, or what potentials or promises, even though I was not going to go out and, like, [laughs] you know, find a Humbert Humbert, right?
ELM: Right, right, right. Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with you on all of this, and I think it’s, like, very well put, in the kind of nuances that I’m constantly trying to get at and, like, hold in my head, right? You know? The idea that we can talk about harmful depictions of things, or whatever, and it’s like, what does that mean, harmful? Right? You know? Are you saying that every single thing in a fictional text should be perfectly buttoned up and no one should ever experience…sexism or something, right? You know what I mean?
FK: Right, right. Not to mention that things that can be really good for one person can then result in something kind of harmful for another person. I’m thinking about how many conversations I have had with well-meaning older people about trans issues that are shaped by them having seen, like, a very didactic, very, you know, like, “This is what being trans means!”
ELM: Yeah. Yeah.
FK: And it’s, like, about, you know, “Oh, you have this—” You know? Right? And I’m like, “OK, well, that’s actually really helpful for some people.” There are people I know for whom the fact that an older adult has seen—not just older adult, but, like, that somebody who isn’t very familiar with trans issues, they have something now, and that’s great. But for me, you know, a person who’s nonbinary and doesn’t have any intention of getting surgery or hormone therapy at the moment, you know, that really kind of sucks sometimes, because they’re like, “You don’t count!” [laughs] and I’m like, “OK, now we have to have an entire argument about this,” right? So that was a perfectly fine piece of media that that person saw. But it can still have, like, down the line, some results that are not perfect for everybody. [laughs] And that’s fine, right? It is what it is. [laughs]
ELM: But I think that’s a tricky thing with didactic media, too, because then it presents, you know—because then people can tell they’re being given instruction.
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: They’re like, “Oh, this is the story. I didn’t know, but this is how it works? OK! I’m learning.” Right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: And I feel like we’ve gotten so, so much of that in the last 10 years, very…eagerness to rather than just tell stories about characters who are of X, Y, Z thing, instead tell the story of, like, being that thing, right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: And an interest in educating the majority population of whatever the group is, right? You know?
FK: [laughs] Right.
ELM: I always like to think about the, like, Toni Morrison quote about how, like, she’s just writing for Black people. Right? She was like, “I’m not—there’s no, like—”
FK: Right. [laughs]
ELM: There’s no magical little white person on your shoulder or whatever, just sitting there being like, “What’s that?” It’s like, “Who cares?” You know? These are not—this is not who it’s for, and they can figure it out. That was my experience of reading Toni Morrison the first time when I was in high school, and I was like, “What?” [both laugh] You know? And it was like—It’s also, like, you know, it’s, like, complicated—some complicated writing, too, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: I think that even if it was, like, stuff that I knew the references, or whatever, I still would be like, it’s prose you have to focus on, in a good way, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: But I still felt very unmoored, and I wanted to figure it out. I wanted to, like, understand the world that she was putting me in.
FK: Right.
ELM: But it didn’t need to be, like, I didn’t need a little guide on the side being like, “Hey, here’s what this means, white person.” You know what I mean?
FK: Right, right.
ELM: And I feel like we’ve really seen just a glut, like, a boom, across all kinds of media, in the last 10, 15 years of invisible, you know, of tiny little, like, white or cis or whatever, people, you know, sitting on the shoulder [FK laughs] of a lot of creators. And maybe sometimes not their fault, because there literally is one, and it’s, like—
FK: Right.
ELM: —the editor, or the television executive or whatever, being like, “I don’t get this. Explain it.”
FK: Yeah.
ELM: You know? “Have them put a line in there that says what that means.” You know what I mean?
FK: Totally. And I mean, I think that that’s—I think that this also gets to the issue of what this means when we combine it with fandom, and not just, like, liking a character internally, but expressing your enjoyment of that externally.
ELM: Yeah.
FK: Because—I don’t mean, like, the thing that you were just saying. [laughs] I mean sort of the larger conversation, which is, when you add in this issue of, not just being a fan of something internally, but, like showing your fandom for it, sort of, like, showing your allegiance to something or somebody or whatever, right? You can have, like, a really complex relationship to something that you read, because it’s, like, human and nuanced, but then when you start trying to express that to somebody else, or express that online, especially, where we have such heightened language, even if you do have a nuanced idea about it, [laughs] I feel like it just ends up getting flattened, and that’s how we then get into this question of, like, “Should you be a fan of this character?” Right?
ELM: Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely, like—because it’s beyond, you know, like, you can read a book and feel really, like, I don’t know. What’s a good example of a book? You could read Lolita and feel really, like—I haven’t read Lolita, so maybe I shouldn’t use that as an example. What’s one with a problematic protagonist? Whatever. You could read Hannibal, you know? You could read Silence of the Lambs, right? One of the Thomas Harris books, right?
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: And you could be like, “I…” Like, you could feel, deep down in your soul, like, “I am Hannibal.” Right? Or like, “Oh man, this guy’s speaking to me. [FK laughs] I love this shit.” Right? “I love it.” And maybe you’ll be like, “Whatever.” Or maybe you’ll have inner turmoil, because you’re like, “What does this say about me that I love this serial killer?” Right? [FK laughs] “Do I wanna be a serial killer?” That’s a private journey you can go on, and I’m certain, because I see people publicly talking about this, that this does eat at people, you know? They’re like, “What does this say about me?” And it’s like, “It doesn’t say you want to be a serial killer. I think you’re fine.” But when you then have to go out in public and kind of own that—
FK: Right.
ELM: Right?
FK: Right.
ELM: I feel like it’s a mess, right? You know, I think really specifically about last fall and people expressing themselves in the tags of posts about Lestat de Lioncourt, [FK laughs] and—
FK: I love that we made it this far, like, over halfway into this episode—
ELM: I was thinking about him literally the whole time. He was sitting there in the back of my mind going—
FK: I know! I was restraining myself.
ELM: “Bonjour.” [both laugh] You know? Just, just the hand-wringing, you know? The, like, “Of course I know he’s evil, but…oh my God I love him so much!” You know? And it’s like, “Oh, OK, do you need to put that first tag there?” You know? [FK laughs] Who cares? You know what I mean? And to me, it was just kind of like, I don’t know if it was, like, a fear reaction, like a self-justification, you know? There’s this kind of Twitter effect that people have now, where they feel like they need to disclaim every single little thing, so there’s no room for interpretation, so actually people understand that, like, [FK laughs] you know, they’re not a landlord just because they love, you know, drinking coffee in the garden with their husband, right? [FK laughs] But, like, it was something very strange about, like, trying to see people have this really visceral, deep-down, id-like response to Lestat—
FK: A character who’s intended for you to have that response to, by the way, right?
ELM: It’s literally pure id. If you actually read the books, like, I would strongly argue against the idea that Anne Rice woobified him. She does make him the hero, but he’s a blatantly bad guy the whole time, right? You know? He’s like—
FK: Yeah. Which, by the way, Hannibal is similar to the—in that, like, part of the point of those books is that he is seductively evil. You’re supposed to be into Hannibal. [laughs] Like Clarice!
ELM: Yeah! And that’s why the protagonist of that, and the protagonist of the show wind up with him, right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: That’s literally the point, right?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Yeah. But, like, you know, if you read Lestat on himself, yeah, he has a complex, rich, inner life. I mean, he’s a dumbass, [FK laughs] but he also thinks a lot of thoughts.
FK: Oh, he does!
ELM: And then also, he—
FK: He does. Some of them are wrong. [laughs]
ELM: He kills [laughs] people without remorse, he’s like, “I love being bad.” Like, “If I’m gonna be good at something, I’m gonna be good at being evil,” you know? And you’re like—and it’s not—there’s no mincing words, and he’s still the hero, and maybe that’s—
FK: He’s also convinced that he’s damned and really worried about it, like, there’s a whole thing. [laughs]
ELM: That’s—yeah, that’s only in one book, and that’s because I think she was reading a little too much theology, and she didn’t know how to let it all out there.
FK: She was. She was, but I’m just saying, this is one of the threads of his lovely, monstrous tapestry. [laughs]
ELM: I’m not gonna acknowledge that book, because I think it’s bad. I know it’s your favorite. So anyway…
FK: Well, uh, yeah, I mean, I’m not saying I think it’s good, but I do love it. [laughs]
ELM: I think that this idea of “what does it say about me,” right?
FK: Mmm hmmm. Yeah.
ELM: You know. Which I think is different from the original bad fans argument significantly, right? Because that was really about, like, what does this say about the text? And obviously it’s saying something about the people who are rooting for Walter White to be super misogynistic or whatever. I still haven’t seen that show either, so I’m assuming—[FK laughs] I’m just taking from what I’ve heard, you know? Or rooting for Don Draper, like, of course I’m rooting for Don—I mean, not rooting for him, but of course I am compelled by Don Draper.
FK: Right.
ELM: He’s compelling until the end when he’s not interesting because he just keeps doing the same stupid thing over and over again. But, like, you know, I mean, I know there are some people who don’t find him compelling, but I do. He’s a compellingly written character.
FK: But I think the difference here—I mean, Don Draper is getting closer to it, but even more than that, like, yeah, we’re talking here about characters who are—I mean, actually, I don’t know. All of these characters except for Archie Bunker—like, Archie Bunker is actually supposed to be the villain, but Don Draper, Walter White, all this, the point of an antihero or, you know, if it’s Hannibal or Lestat or whatever, you know, maybe antihero’s not the right word, I’m not sure what is.
ELM: Eh. Eh.
FK: But the point of these characters is about, like, you identifying and having some kind of catharsis. Like, maybe I don’t identify with Walter White in that way, [laughs] but you know, I also haven’t seen it. But maybe I would, I don’t know. You know, that’s the point, is that you’re—
ELM: You haven’t seen it?
FK: No, I haven’t.
ELM: Interesting.
FK: I’ve seen one episode, and I was like, “OK…eh.” [both laugh]
ELM: Look, maybe we should watch it at some point.
FK: Maybe! I probably should. But my point being, though, that, like, you are supposed to identify. Like, you’re not misreading the text in that you’re—I mean, you’re supposed to recognize that they’re bad, but you’re still supposed to identify with them and love them on some level, and that’s what we’re talking about fans doing in this episode, right? Is, like, actually, loving the character in the way that the text wants you to love the character. The text wants you to love Hannibal and wants you to love Lestat, even as you recognize that they’re bad. The text wants you to love Don Draper, even as you’re, like, “Oh, God you’re awful. I love you. You’re awful!” [both laugh] You know? This is a totally normative reading of the text.
ELM: Yeah, no, I think that’s absolutely right, and I think it’s interesting, this kind of idea of—I mean, and that gets you into, like, what’s the text doing, right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: But I think you’re absolutely correct. I mean, I do think there was some nuance in that article, in the original argument of, like, there’s a reductive basic reading, where you’re like, “Wow, Don Draper’s so cool!”
FK: Yes, yes yes, agreed. Agreed.
ELM: Right? Like, “Oh, he’s sleeping with so many women, that’s awesome.” Whereas if you actually watch it, you’re like, “This is not a good part of your personality.” [laughs] You know?
FK: Right, and I mean, and similarly, I have met many a goth, not recently, but you know, in the ’90s, I met many a goth, [both laugh] who was, you know, convinced that Lestat was just great, you know? [laughs] And—
ELM: He is great. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
FK: And there were no, you know, there were no moral problems with this, and you know, he’s not a bad guy. He’s fine! And we love him, because he’s—you know, and that’s also kind of reductive. It’s like being, you know, being truly seduced by the idea of, like, we do have fantasies of violently murdering people sometimes, and we do like, you know, just looking cool at everyone else’s expense and all that, right?
ELM: But what’s wrong with that, right? You know? What’s wrong—and not a reductive reading, because this is, like, these books are not complicated to understand, right? But, like, the point of the swoon scenes in Anne Rice’s work, right? Where the idea of, he, like, she lovingly describes him murdering a person.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And it’s literally called “the swoon,” right? You know?
FK: Yes.
ELM: And, like, “I pulled him into an embrace.” This, like, deeply erotic writing about murdering someone.
FK: Right.
ELM: It’s supposed to be awesome, right?
FK: [laughs] Yes.
ELM: And you’re like, “I will never be a vampire…”
FK: “But death is sex, in this context, and, like, better than.” [laughs]
ELM: Yeah. But this is so sexy, and this is not an experience I or anyone I know will ever be able to have because there are not vampires, but, like, what a cool fantasy, right? This idea of this, like, all-powerful, beautiful vampire man. And I’m literally in his head, in first-person perspective—
FK: Right.
ELM: —and seeing the world through his eyes. What’s wrong with that?
FK: I mean, I think that there could be an argument that if his philosophy is one that, like, dehumanizes other people—
ELM: It is.
FK: You know, like, in the same way as “Katamari Damacy” makes me see the world through, like, the katamari eyes, and a first-person shooter maybe makes me see the world through first-person shooter eyes—not necessarily to murder people, but just, like, “Oh, I could duck behind that thing to get cover.” Then maybe reading a book and really, really investing in a character who fundamentally dehumanizes other people is not a good idea. I’m not saying Lestat does this. I’m saying that, like, you know, this would be the argument against it, is to say that if you identify too much in that space and you get too invested in that character, then maybe you start thinking like them in certain ways. And I don’t know that that’s untrue, actually. I mean, I’m not—I don’t think it’s gonna make you go out and be a murderer. [laughs] But I do think that, like, you need a varied diet in what you’re reading, right?
ELM: Well, I think that might be an argument against certain kinds of fandom at that point, right? The idea of, like, if you are so deep in it that you’ve lost the line between reality and the fictional world you’re living in, if you’re seeing every single thing through the lens of a fictional character that was written very intentionally to be fictional, [FK laughs] then something is out of balance, you know? And then that’s a dangerous place to be in, particularly if you, I don’t know. If there are certain kinds of mental illnesses and stuff that, like, make it even harder for you to tell the difference between reality and not reality, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: Not reality. I don’t know why I said it that way. You know what I mean?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: So it’s like, I think that, not to pathologize fandom in any way, in that capacity, but if you can’t tell the difference between, “Oh, this is just for fun, and I like to pretend to be this guy.”
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: And, like, you start—if you literally cannot tell that you’re not actually that guy, then that’s not great.
FK: I mean, I think everybody would say that. And I think that you’re taking it to a very extreme place, and I obviously agree with you, in that regard. And I also obviously don’t think that that’s actually the normative way that people are doing fandom. [laughs] You know?
ELM: No, but I think the lines are blurry, right? I mean, like—
FK: Yes.
ELM: There was a moment in our voicemail that made me think of an episode we did more recently that was about the “real” character, right? Because they say in passing that they think that if Francis was in a different novel, that he wouldn’t have committed crimes, right? You know? And it’s like—
FK: Yeah, no shit, if he was in a different novel! [laughs] Yeah, yeah.
ELM: And he’s in the one novel, right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: And that’s an idea, you know, we were talking this idea of people talking about characters like they’re real.
FK: Right.
ELM: And that fandom, especially fandom now, kind of lends itself to that, the idea that they’re an actual being with a body that real harm can be done to, that exists and affects the world in a real way.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And so I think that, like, yeah, I don’t think that there’s even a sizable number of fans who are, like, “I am Hannibal, [FK laughs] and I’m gonna go do cannibalism because I can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy anymore, and I like Hannibal so much that I’m just gonna be him.” I think that’s a rare case, [FK laughs] when someone has truly lost their grip. But I do think that the way that people frame and think about fictional characters has really sort of bled into—in the opposite direction, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: It’s not that I’ve lost my grip on reality. It’s that the fiction of it—
FK: Right.
ELM: —kind of gets embodied, and then it’s really hard to say, “Oh, nope, actually, if I turn the TV off, Bucky doesn’t exist anymore,” right? I always like to pick Bucky in this example. I don’t know why. I always return to the old Winter Soldier.
FK: Right, no, I think that’s exactly right, and I think that when you, again, [laughs] I am a Certified Villain Fucker, so please, you know, take this—
ELM: How did you—was there a test? Did you do a [FK laughs] practical? Like a—
FK: It’s actually, you submit your CV, and then, uh, you know, the board gets back to you. But—
ELM: But they don’t ask you to demonstrate your skills or [FK laughs] maybe do, like, a trial run or anything like that?
FK: Oh, well, you do have to write some fanfic, you know, and you need to really illustrate your facility with woobification and with redemption and with, you know—
ELM: Sure.
FK: —turning the perspective around, and once you’ve done that—
ELM: Sure. That’s—oh, all three.
FK: I mean, my point being—
ELM: Three-point turn. [laughs]
FK: Yeah, you gotta have the range, right? You know, so speaking as a person, [laughs] who enjoys this, you know? [ELM laughs] So I don’t want to come off as someone on their high horse, you know, the author of a Reylo fanfic. But I do think that if you are getting to a place in your fandom where you feel like you’re living with a character, and people talk about it like this all the time, right?
ELM: Mmm hmmm, mmm hmmm.
FK: They talk about the character living with them in their head, and living with them in day-to-day, I do think you want to be careful who you invite in that way, you know? [laughs]
ELM: Hmmm.
FK: Again, not to do a moralist thing. Not to say that I don’t love a villain, and I do, but I think there’s a way to maintain a distance or an observation, and a way to not do that, and I think it’s really hard to know what you’re doing when you’re in it, you know? [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, yeah.
FK: So maybe I’ve tipped over sometimes, I don’t know. I hope not, but that’s part of why I think it’s important, like, I’m gonna sound like a dope right now, but it is important to have a variety of things that you do in your life that, you know, outside of fandom for this reason. [laughs]
ELM: It’s a pretty, uh, pretty dopey suggestion, Flourish. No, it’s interesting, you’re making me think about actors and, you know, obviously there’s, like, all these, in the history of acting, like, these, you know, these ideas about method and how dangerous it can be. There’s a book about method acting out recently that sounded really good. Do you know the one?
FK: Hmmm. I don’t know what it is, but I’m very interested in reading it.
ELM: It’s by Isaac Butler. I think it came out maybe last year, and it got a lot of press, so then that’s how I heard a lot of people discussing method acting—
FK: Hmmm.
ELM: —which was very interesting, and kind of the way it developed over the different schools of acting in the United States and stuff like that. And the criticisms of it and the idea that, like, it can be dangerous, especially if you’re doing, like, physical changes, right? You know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Or, like, you know, just kind of putting yourself deliberately, like, locking yourself in a really unsafe headspace.
FK: Right.
ELM: If you’re playing a fucked-up character, you know, for an extended period of time. And it’s interesting even to see, like, I can think of examples of, like, you know, by and large, British actors don’t do this, because they’re mostly, like, classically trained, right?
FK: Right.
ELM: They all go to drama school, and so they’re always looking at Americans and they’re like, “Oh my God. Stop it.” You know? [both laugh] Just—
FK: “Why are you sending me a pig’s head?” [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, but it’s like—but, you know, they’re like, “Just come—learn your lines and just come and do it. Get in the moment.” And, you know, it’s just very funny.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: But, you know, I was thinking of some, you know, British actors I like a lot who I’ve heard them talk about various projects saying, like, “This really got in my head.”
FK: Right.
ELM: Just kind of having to be this person. You know, and they weren’t even deliberately trying to do it. I’m also not saying that all British people do it that way and all American people do it this way, or whatever.
FK: Right.
ELM: But, you know, just saying that this person, this experience of having to be really isolated or really misanthropic or just, you know, a bitter person or a person with a dark secret or whatever, like, fucked me up in the course of this.
FK: Right.
ELM: And it wasn’t good, you know? And, like, they weren’t even trying to live in the head of that person, [FK laughs] but still they had to think about it a lot because it’s their job, right? You know?
FK: Yeah. Yeah.
ELM: And fans think about this stuff like it’s their job also, even though it’s not usually their literal job.
FK: Yeah. Although you saying that makes me realize that woobification is kind of almost seems like a defense mechanism against this, right? Because—
ELM: It absolutely is a defense mechanism!
FK: Right! Because when you’re woobifying somebody, you’re making them not like that. [laughs]
ELM: Right, right. You know, and you’re even kind of positioning yourself—I mean, I think of woobification often outside of the context of villains, because in my own fandom, Charles Xavier is the most frequently woobified, and ostensibly in the eyes of the text, the movies, he is supposed to be the good guy, even though I don’t think either of them are good guys, right?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: But he’s extremely woobified, sweaterboyed also, you know, all these different ways that he’s made smaller and softer and less confident and, like, more smol-beaned, because he’s a physical smol bean.
FK: Right.
ELM: And so in that context, that also turns into, like, then you have that fandom impulse to protect and to mother, you know? Maybe to parent, but often it comes out as mothering, right? But I didn’t want to make it too gendered. You know, this kind of idea of, like, “Oh, they’re so sweet, and I’m gonna protect them, right?” Like, “I’m the protection squad,” you know?
I think it happens with villains, too, but I think it’s easier to look at with, like, ostensible good guys, right? Because then it just feels like this total defanging of any complexity [FK laughs] of a human character that people tried to create, right? You know? And just this, like, fandom instinct to be like, “He’s my little guy, and I’m gonna put him in my little box and make sure that he’s always sweet!” [FK laughs] You know what I mean?
FK: I do know what you mean.
ELM: That’s weird, right? It’s supposed to be, like, a human being. Or, a mutant, in this case. [laughs]
FK: But this is also making me think about stuff like the Harry Potter Alliance, right? Which is now no longer called the Harry Potter Alliance. I don’t remember what it’s called now.
ELM: Fandom Forward, is what it’s called now.
FK: Fandom Forward. Right. I mean, it’s making me think of that too, right? Because it’s a method of…yeah, of removing nuance so that then the character becomes kind of almost just a symbol without content.
ELM: Mmm. That’s interesting. Also, you’re really coming for the Harry Potter Alliance, here. [laughs]
FK: Yeah, well, I’ve always thought this about some aspects of their work, sorry, Harry Potter Alliance, you know? [laughs] That’s not totally true. That’s not completely fair to them, because there are things that they’ve done. I mean, first of all, no one can argue with, like, they’ve done a lot of very good things.
ELM: Yeah.
FK: But the way that they used fandom sometimes feels to me like it’s really—like marrying [laughs] a symbol to a cause—poink! OK, you know?
ELM: Yeah. Yeah.
FK: And I think that the similarity to it with fandom is, it’s taking something that you do feel, like, in the way it is presented in canon, some kind of pull and draw to, and putting it into the format of a blorbo, right? [laughs] You know?
ELM: Hmmm. Mmm hmmm. Mmm hmmm.
FK: How do I interact with this thing that I feel so attracted to? I have to make it a blorbo. Which means that it has to become woobified, or I have to do X, Y, and Z about it, and if that doesn’t really fit, well, too bad. We’ve got to sort of make it [laughs] fit.
ELM: Right, you know, I think a lot of people who use the term “blorbo” would argue that they are not doing that, and I think some people aren’t.
FK: Oh, yeah! For sure.
ELM: You know, for every, like, set of hand-wringing tags I saw about Lestat, I saw people being like, “Fuck you losers. I love his crimes!” You know? [FK laughs] “I love this, like, spooky little blond bitch,” as I remember one tag in particular, right? You know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: I think there are some people who are leaning into it, but I think that there is, you know, there’s kind of the heavy hand of purity culture that is kind of—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: I mean, we’re looking at, like, this is an integral cornerstone—and, whatever, I don’t wanna—I’m not trying to, like, you know, as always, caveating using the term purity culture. It doesn’t really mean anything anymore. We’ve talked about this to death, like, we can include some links if people haven’t listened to any of those episodes, right? You know? I understand that this is a term that gets weaponized and used to shut down real critique, et cetera, et cetera. But there is a part of it that does exist and is, like, extremely moralistic, extremely fearful of thought crimes—
FK: Yeah yeah. It’s used—and ironically, the term “purity culture” is used on both sides to shut things down. It’s just used as a blunt weapon. [laughs]
ELM: Right, right. But I—you know, there is an ethos, and maybe we need a different term that’s, like, now kind of a bedrock of many parts of fandom and internet culture in general, too—
FK: Right.
ELM: —that, like, when people say puriteens, or whatever, first of all, a lot of these people aren’t teens. But the puritan element is not wrong, you know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: There’s an extreme kind of [laughs] partly calvinist, you know, like—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Puritan, literally, though, right? Streak, running through, of, like, “No dancing!” You know? [both laugh] “That’ll give us bad ideas,” you know?
FK: Uh-huh.
ELM: “If you think a thought crime, then you should go to thought jail.”
FK: Right.
ELM: “And, like, you should atone, publicly,” right?
FK: “And if you do X, you’re not saved, and you’re a bad person, because a good person would never do X.” Yeah.
ELM: Right, exactly, right? And even just thinking about it, not even doing it, right? You know?
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: This is undeniable, right? And this is a huge part of the culture now, and we’ve seen for the last couple of years, people outside of fandom spaces realizing it—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: —like on Twitter or whatever, and being like, “What is going—why are they talking like this about sex scenes?”
FK: [laughs] Right?
ELM: And it’s like, “Where have you been, bro?”
FK: “I thought fandom was about the most depraved sexual acts possible, [ELM laughs] and now they’re suggesting that no one should have sex until they’re 35? And even then, only within a two-month age gap?” [both laugh]
ELM: I mean, as you know, your brain isn’t developed until you’re, you know, 97, so…and then, it’s elder abuse after that. [laughs]
FK: And then you’re dead. [laughs]
ELM: So, like, I think this is a huge part of the culture now, and so I think that people…I get a sense that people are worried about their own reactions, because they’re taking this to heart, whether it’s something that they came up in—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: —or it’s something that they’ve just seen a lot of, and they’re like, “Oh, you know, should I feel bad for liking this?” Right? You know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: You know, or it seems like maybe you don’t feel super bad, but you are worried about this kind of hypothetical response.
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: You know, just, like, you know, you have to say, “I like pancakes, but I also—” And then another famous one, where you say, “I like pancakes,” and someone in your mentions says, “Yeah, but I like waffles.” [both laugh] And you’re like, “OK. We were talking pancakes right now.” You know?
FK: Good for you. [laughs]
ELM: So then, you have to be like, “I like pancakes. Don’t worry, it also means I like waffles. Don’t worry. Don’t worry.” You know?
FK: Right. [sighs]
ELM: So, I don’t know. Working our way back a little bit as we wrap up to the voicemail, I’m really intrigued by this idea voicemail-leaver has of the AUs give the space to have darkness that they want.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: But they don’t want to linger with the darkness in characters canonically, right? That doesn’t mean they don’t want to watch a show with bad people.
FK: Within fandom spaces. Right.
ELM: Right, but I’m saying linger, as within fandom, right? You know?
FK: Yeah yeah yeah.
ELM: Fandom being shorthand here for—
FK: Obviously, they’re lingering with The Secret History, but not in a fannish way.
ELM: Right, and I wonder if some of this does come down to that framing. And I’m not putting too much on voicemail-leaver of this idea of the characters being real, you know? And saying, well, in an AU, maybe it’s just like they’re wearing a costume for a story, you know? Like, “Oh isn’t it fun just to see…”
FK: Oh, wow. That’s a good point. [ELM laughs] That’s such a good point!
ELM: Oh, I thought I really had a thought here, right? [laughs]
FK: Yeah! You really did have a thought there. That’s a really good point. So, like, it’s a distancing mechanism, because if you feel so close to the story, and the story has to represent, like, the reality, then it’s OK to write an AU about it, because that’s not reality. Just the same way that I feel like it’s OK for me to read Hannibal and be kinda seduced by Hannibal because that’s not reality. He’s not actual, real-life Jeffrey Dahmer, and he didn’t kill anyone.
ELM: Right. Right, exactly.
FK: But this is, like, this requires an additional level of distancing.
ELM: Yeah, I think so. I mean, it makes me think about—there’s this very long story that I—both you and I have read—
FK: Oh yes.
ELM: —that is very—would require every trigger warning, except for major character death, I believe.
FK: Uhhhh…yeah. It—it’s a pit, my friends. [laughs]
ELM: Yeah, it’s a very compelling story. It is not on the internet anymore, so we can’t even link to it, but if you’re in the Cherik fandom, you know what I’m talking about. And so we both read it, because it was a very compelling story. There were moments in that story, which is, like, 600,000 words long, or whatever, where I remember pausing, and saying, “OK, this is not them.” Right? I was like, “This is not the reality. [FK laughs] This is not the real them.” You know, because part of the story, there is a significant age gap.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And I would pause and be like, “No, actually, they’re both adult men. They’re both a similar age.” [FK laughs] And I don’t even care about age gaps in that way, but I was just like, because the power differentials are so…
FK: Yeah, it was a really messed up story, yeah.
ELM: Extreme. And the story was all about these extreme power differentials. But one of the things I really love about my ship is actually they are both, they’re on the same level in a power differential.
FK: Right.
ELM: And that’s why they clash so much, right? You know?
FK: Right.
ELM: And so I would pause and say like, “OK, all right, no, no. But actually…” And then I would wanna go read some other fanfiction or write some or whatever so I could, like, restore and be like, “All right, actually, here’s what they’re really like,” right? You know? And it’s like—
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: They’re really like nothing. These are all fictional characters, right? You know?
FK: Fictional characters, yeah.
ELM: And so, like, even having that desire to do that, and still—you know, I’m not gonna say I loved reading that story, but it was very compelling.
FK: I was gonna say, you don’t say that you loved it, but on the other hand, we both definitely had the experience of, like, “It is four o’clock in the morning—
ELM: Yeah.
FK: —and I have not stopped reading, and this is a problem for my life today.” [laughs]
ELM: It was just like—it’s like, the speed at which people can read that story. Anyway, not to tease too much about a story that people cannot find online. You know, I have had that experience reading dark AUs, reading serial killer AUs. You’re kind of thrilled. You’re like, because these characters are not serial killers—
FK: Right.
ELM: —and you’re like, “Oh my God. This is really fun.” And then the story ends and you’re like, “OK, good. They’re not actually a serial killer,” right? [FK laughs] You know? And that’s really interesting, because we’re already in the fanfiction world where nothing you’re writing is actually happening, but we’re also already in the fiction world, where nothing you’re writing is actually happening.
FK: Right.
ELM: And so this is the idea of, like, holding on who you think the characters are.
FK: Right, right.
ELM: And that’s so interesting to me. And that’s such an interesting articulation from the voicemail-leaver, I think, you know?
FK: Yeah. I’m gonna have to think about that more, too. I also am interested in that, because I don’t think that that’s an experience I’ve ever had. Like, I didn’t—I mean, obviously I wouldn’t have had that reaction from the story, because I’m—although I read a fair bit of Cherik fanfic, I am not, like, emotionally invested in Cherik the way that you are. So I don’t have that same, like, investment. Like, obviously I know who they are, but I don’t have an emotional investment in them as characters. And I’m trying to think of other fandoms that I’ve been in and read stories, and I don’t know that I’ve ever had that reaction of, “Oh no, it’s not them.” You know? Like, “I need to recalibrate.” I’m gonna need to think about that.
ELM: Yeah. I’m thinking about this—I’m trying to think about this with other fandoms, too. I mean, I’ve certainly had an experience of, “Oh no, it’s not them,” because I thought they were wildly out of character. [laughs]
FK: Right! No no no, but that’s a different—that’s a different issue, right? That’s a different issue.
ELM: Right.
FK: That’s a totally different issue. Yeah, I’m gonna have to think about this some more, because, I mean, maybe it’s because I haven’t always read that many AUs?
ELM: Yeah, because I think that part of this kind of AU too is, like, a start—I think sometimes it’s not necessarily interested in explaining away, like, take Cherik, right? You know, like, dark!Charles, or whatever.
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: It’s like, do I need to know why he’s now [FK laughs] a serial killer?
FK: No you don’t! [laughs]
ELM: Not really, no. It’s just like—and so for this world, just like in any AU, you know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Do I need to know, like, you’re telling me at the start that this is who they are, and do I find it compelling? And it obviously doesn’t always hit, you know? And sometimes I’m like, “No, they would never do that.”
FK: Right.
ELM: But I think it’s interesting, because when I try to think about the opposite direction, like, “Oh, this is, like, the sweet, innocent version of them that’s much more innocent than the canon version, right? And they’re so gentle, and [FK laughs] they would never, you know, make morally dubious decisions or whatever”—which is how I read them canonically—that, to me, I’m just like, “Out of character!” I’m not like, “Oh, a fun, fluffy AU.” [FK laughs] I’m like, “Ugh, gross!” But, like, a darker AU, when they turn the dial up in that direction, I’m like, “Ooh, intriguing premise.” You know? [FK laughs] And so I wonder what that is. I mean, I think that probably gets down to human nature, like, I think that it doesn’t work in the other direction the same way.
FK: Yeah, well, or, I’m gonna offer a different option. Maybe it’s personal taste, and that’s why there’s a lot of people who do like the fluffier—you know what I mean? Maybe there’s just a category of, you know—
ELM: No, but I think the people who like a fluffier—turning the dial up in the fluffier direction just want softer stories. I’m not saying, it’s not just. I’m not trying to diminish it, right?
FK: Mmm hmmm.
ELM: They’re like, “I want nothing bad to happen in this world. I want this to be safe and fluffy.” But people say this all the time, right?
FK: Yeah, they do.
ELM: And that is not—it’s literally the opposite of turn the dial up to fucked up, because it’s not—I mean, I’m sure that, like, the hopepunkers out there might be like, “It’s transgressive to be fluffy and to have everyone survive!” or whatever.
FK: Sure.
ELM: But it’s not, right? It’s like, you know, the reason why you might read a story where your fave is now a rapist—
FK: Right.
ELM: You know, that’s like you’re pushing against something.
FK: Yeah yeah yeah.
ELM: This is all within the context of the story, right? You know? I mean, there’s a lot of people who don’t want to do that, because they’re like, “He would never,” right? But some people do say, this is—
FK: Right, but there’s also a question of, like, “Can I justify it in my head and still find him interesting? Can—”
ELM: I’m not even talking about justification. I’m talking about a pure, like, dark, interrobang character name AU, right? And you’re like, “Oh. This is what’s happening in this,” right? This is—
FK: No no, that’s what I mean, like, “Will I still be able to read this guy?” You know what I mean? “Will I still find this, like, something that I want to read and if so, why? What does that do—you know, what is that for?” I didn’t mean, like, justify his actions. I meant, like, you know—
ELM: Yeah, yeah.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Right, right. Yeah. But then there’s the safety of, like, the story ends, and you’re like, “OK.”
FK: Right.
ELM: “And now we’re back to the part where he’s not raping people, or he’s not serial killing.”
FK: Yeah, we have a classic catharsis situation, right? Yeah.
ELM: Yeah. And I think that’s an interesting part of fandom.
FK: Yeah.
ELM: And it’s interesting, because it’s so many levels down, when you’re, like, into the fanfiction space, right? Because you’re then like—
FK: Right.
ELM: It’s a fictional character, and then you’re, like, adding on a fictional layer to it, right? You know?
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Yeah, I could see, if the characters already felt, in something like Succession, would it be fun to read, like—actually, it’d be kind of funny, to read, like, Kendall the serial killer, or whatever. Like, yeah, why not? You know?
FK: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
ELM: Do I wanna do that? Roman the serial killer? When it’s, like, actually—you know, [FK laughs] that sounds kind of hilarious to me. But that also just shows, like, how you and I feel about this show, right? You know?
FK: Yeah, it’s true.
ELM: I don’t think we take it super seriously. [laughs]
FK: No.
ELM: So it’s like, yeah, that’s—
FK: Yeah.
ELM: Tom Wambsgans, secret serial kill—like—
FK: Oh—
ELM: All of his confidence is in his secret life as a serial killer?
FK: Can you imagine?
ELM: I actually love that.
FK: All right, well, now you’ve got an assignment. [laughs] I feel like—
ELM: Can you imagine me writing— [laughs]
FK: I feel like we have to wrap this up at this point, because we’re now going to the Tom Wambsgans serial killer place, so I am just going to say: Thank you, voicemail-leaver. That was an incredible voicemail. It really spurred a good conversation, I think.
ELM: Yes, thank you so much, voicemailer. I feel like this is such a big, messy topic, and, you know, I hope that we—I mean, I feel like we talked about some of the things in there, right? You know? I’m like, I don’t even know if we addressed all of it, right? You know? Because I just feel like it’s so big and complicated.
FK: Definitely. Well, there may be a “Bad Fans 3” someday.
ELM: Oh, yeah. I mean, obviously, we’d love people’s thoughts on this. Let’s start by saying that. If you have thoughts on this topic, or anything else, you can write us at fansplaining at gmail.com. Going out of order, going rogue here.
FK: Woo!
ELM: You know, this is my dark AU, where I do the business out of order. [both laugh] And so it’s fansplaining at gmail.com. Fansplaining.com there’s a form. You can enter a question there. Tumblr, there’s an ask box, very similar to the form. You can be—I was gonna say you can be anonymous, but I think Tumblr has now changed it so you can’t create anon asks without an account. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. Something was changed, so that’s not our problem to solve. Whatever. [FK laughs] You know how to use Tumblr if you know how to use it, and if you don’t, use one of the other methods. You can also call us, just like voicemail-leaver. 1-401-526-FANS. Or you can send in an audio file, like a WAV or an MP3 to fansplaining at gmail.com. We ask that you keep it under three minutes, otherwise I’m gonna have to start cutting things out, and you never know what I’ll cut out.
FK: [laughs] OK, great. And! If you wanna support us monetarily, you can do that by supporting our Patreon! Patreon.com/Fansplaining. This is how we make this podcast, and there’s lots of great rewards, from anything from $1 a month up to however many dollars you wanna give us a month. You can get a cute little enamel pin, you can get a Tiny Zine every once in a while, you can get your name read out in the credits at the end of every episode, and there are a ton of special episodes that we have recorded that you can get access to, including a new one. We are soon going to be recording a Tropefest about friendship.
ELM: Right, so this is gonna be—I don’t know what we’re gonna call it. But, like, an umbrella. So this is something that I’ve done in The Rec Center a few times, which is, like a broad umbrella for friendship fic, which includes friends-to-lovers, like, friends-with-benefits, and also, like, non-sexual and romantic friendship fic, whether it’s, like, queerplatonic relationships or any old other kinds of friendship, you know? [both laugh] I don’t know, cis-friendship? I don’t know. And so we wanna talk about, like, the different ways those kind of configurations play out, and also the, like, I don’t know, the, like, romantic and sexual shipping supremacy of a lot of parts of fanfiction culture, and what kind of space that leaves for these other sorts of friendship tropes and depictions.
FK: Absolutely. OK. So—
ELM: So, yeah. Excited to talk about that with you. This is a topic that’s a great interest of mine.
FK: I’m excited! I’m very excited about it. So, and if you don’t want to give us any money, you can also help us out by obviously, as Elizabeth said—
ELM: Wait, you said where they could do that, right?
FK: Yeah! Patreon.com/Fansplaining. I said that at the beginning.
ELM: OK, just double checking. Just double checking.
FK: All right, all right, all right. You can also, in order to help us out, just spread the word about the podcast, especially about our full transcripts, which we are very proud of and excited about. And I think that’s it!
ELM: Uh, well, I didn’t say where they could find us. Tumblr, Instagram, Bluesky…X dot com.
FK: Ugh, God. Well, there you go. There you have it, people.
ELM: Maybe not for long. Maybe not for long. That’s where you can find us. So, yeah, send us your thoughts. I’m very curious to hear people’s thoughts and feelings about this. Especially, like, that kind of messiness of how people feel about this stuff internally and how that expresses itself externally in fandom is so fascinating, so, yeah. Reply. Send us more voicemails, please.
FK: [laughs] All right.
ELM: And thank you again to this voicemail-leaver.
FK: And on that note, I’ll talk to you later, Elizabeth.
ELM: OK, bye, Flourish!
FK: Bye!
[Outro music]