Talk:Fourth wall/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Fourth wall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page rewritten and sourced

Okay 9 months ago I made a post here outline the problems and ways forward. None of the issues were rectified - in fact the addition of non-notable and unsourced examples of breaking the fourth wall increased. In an attempt to rectify matters I've stubified the page - saving the history and definition of the term and sourcing what I can. Please read WP:NOT - wikipedia articles are not lists of statistics (in this case which game/movie/play/book/tv-show breaks the fourth wall and how). Only notable examples of the fourth wall (and it being broken) can be added to this page (as per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N). If you want to reinstate removed material make sure you can source it and integrate it properly in accordance with WP:WEIGHT--Cailil ^talk 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And thus the article is rendered virtually useless. This is why I no longer edit WIkipedia. You need examples in order to explain what is meant here, and the use of notable shows -- and the notability of the shows is established by their respective articles -- to give examples is a necessity. I'm not saying the article needs to be a complete list, though I disagree with WP:NOT on this because there are many articles that are basically just statistics and no one cares, but there needs to be a few examples. Unfortunately this topic is an example of anti-pop culture bias on Wikipedia. Show me an Encyclopedia Brittanica volume that writes about this and I'll make cheese for you. At the very least keep in the Shakespeare plays. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do this? Its now boring, provides no context, and is in no way interesting. If people want a definition, they will read a dictionary. ConfusingJazz 20:44, 8 August, 2009

These were policy based changes - please read the above linked policies for further explanation--Cailil ^talk 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This properly done version has been restored as it was the last version of this article to actually have any sources. The example list is trivia and WP:OR and didn't belong in either version. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete the example section, It will only reappear at a later time.

Instead of unconstructive editing to this page, either suggest that the "examples" section be placed under a new article of "examples of breaking Fourth Wall" or allow it to be edited to include referencing instead of just deleting it, that is not the solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliric (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was already tagged as having unsourced material. Opportunity was given to source it, but none has been forthcoming. If you have sources, great! restore the material - but with citations. Otherwise, proper process for challenge and removal was followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.57.163 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of examples has now been removed, but not deleted. A new category page has been created which now hosts the list of examples. I also added a clear link indicator to the page as the place to go for examples of breaking the fourth wall.Damiwh2 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The example list has been removed, yet again. It is entirely unreferenced and its removal is more than appropriate. The "category" created from that list is also up for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Wayne's World? It's so important! (not to forget Malcolm in the Middle, too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.93.69 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a bit about Eric Wareheim, Tim Heidecker and Zach Galifianakis in the re-written examples section? There's some heavy use of it in The Tim and Eric Awesome Show. 99.238.210.109 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Walls

What about the first, second, and third walls? What do they mean? --TangoFett (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the three "walls" of the stage or scene in a traditional drama set in say a home or office. Where there would be a "fourth wall", if it were a real event occurring, is instead what looks out to the audience. However traditionally the characters act as if there is a "fourth wall" so do not speak directly to the audience or give indications they're not in reality. Hence "breaking the fourth wall" presumably means removing this "invisible wall." (Granted some homes or rooms are oddly shaped so may have five walls or six or, in the case of rounded rooms, arguably one or none. Still I assume they're thinking the standard "four wall room")--T. Anthony (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. See Box_set_(theatre) for more on the other 3 walls--Cailil ^talk 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An exapmle of breaking the "fourth wall" is the frequent narrative monologues featured in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_Bueller's_Day_Off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.89.64 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the fourth wall is also frequently used in Magnum p.i. TV show. But not only with the narrative monologues but also with very distinctive looks to the camera. Some very nice examples can be seen on Youtube, search "magnum breaking 4th wall".

It is said that the first three walls are Length, Width and Height but it is only a theory. The fourth wall is reality.--SupaSoap101 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifth wall

Just a point about Fifth wall. Is this really the best page for it? Would it be better integrated into Theatre (into a new section on 'theatre criticism' or 'theatre studies') or Literary criticism? I'm quite dubious about the weight given because it is a very new term in drama/theatre studies and is potentially given too much weight here. Also the end of the paragraph, from "in fiction..." on, is highly suspect as OR--Cailil ^talk 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing seems kinda suspect, but as it seems to have multiple uses, I'm inclined to leave it here for now, more is done to see if it is really a valid term. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. I was only able to find one other source on it - and that was through google scholar. Personally I'd be inclined to break it up into 3 (send the bits on puppet theatre to Puppet theatre and the rest to theatre (that article needs a theatre studies section) and dump the rest if nothing is done <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>with it in the next month or so--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The weight given to it does seem somewhat excessive - I would support seeing if it's appropriate for inclusion on the other pages you mentioned. It might not really merit more than a brief mention in those articles, but there's definitely some references in support of that. The text on it here really does need to be slimmed down, though. modargo (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a fairly straight merger, though I slimmed it down quite a bit. As it is, this article is also very small and really could likely be merged elsewhere as it is currently more of a definition than necessary article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cailil, I agree with your concern that the material after "in fiction..." is highly suspect. I recall you nominated the "Fifth wall" article for deletion because of concerns over the veracity of this material. Before the "Fifth wall" article was merged here, I did a substantial clean-up of it. In fact, the entire "Fifth wall" section here now before the "in fiction..." part was written by me based on sourced claims that came out of the deletion discussion. I also eliminated the unsourced claims, but they were restored after the merge. I would support your suggestion to dump those claims in a month or so if they are still unsourced.142.68.41.124 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I nominated Fifth wall for deletion - perhaps I !voted in its AFD - I don't remember it anyway. But yeah I think we can go ahead and delete the "in fiction" stuff.--Cailil ^talk 02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cailil, as to the suggestion in your first line and AnmaFinotera's second reply (at 00:48), I would support merging the entire "Fourth wall" article into the "Theatre" article, as it is a term that comes from that world.142.68.41.124 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem merging this page to another article however I think a straight merge to Theatre would be a bit hasty. Perhaps we should consider whether it should go to Realism_(theatre) or Naturalism_(theatre) - both of which have as much of a cliam to this as the Theatre parent article. Or perhaps we should merge 'Realsm', 'Naturalism', 'box-set' and 'fourth wall' articles back into theatre? What does anyone else think?--Cailil ^talk 02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging all of them into the Theatre article, as they are each short and deal with different aspects of theatre. But there is no rush. Maybe others have alternative suggestions. It might also be worth asking this question on the discussion page for Theatre. (PS - My IP seems to have changed since my last comment, but I made the comments signed by "142.68.41.124" above.) 99.192.65.81 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A sad revamp & article life support

Sadly, this article died over the course of a month. It had actual sections and a lead and life to it but has become a sad stub of its former self where a topic with a different name than the article has heavy weight. It's not new for listings on TV/Movie instances to be left unsourced and is possible sometimes unless we have some public domain video clip to show... otherwise we'd be deleting thousands of articles and details out of entertainment industry-related articles. If this is the start of a crusade to clean up all mentions of TV shows and movies from all articles without a specific reference, then go for it.

From what I can tell the following "adjustments" have occurred since early December:

Rather pointless edit warring
Content from talk page removed several times inappropriately.
Edits from User:99.192.91.46 were wrongfully classified as vandalism-- not our definition of it. Not intentionally disruptive, and with defense given a consensus the user had themselves claimed exists but isn't documented anywhere.
Edit summary provided for talk page content removal implies revenge as the motive and absolutely should not have been removed in the first place.
Talk page was "archived" on 21 December without any link given to where the archive is.
Talk page was "archived" including still-active discussions and posts not even a day old.
Examples were split out into a category page.
No "List of" page was ever discussed as a reasonable alternative? Categories are collections of articles and require constant upkeep when "List of"s as articles function in a normal fashion.
Category page deleted per a CfD.
CfD comments were almost unanimous on deletion, but a lot per "why a category?" which would have been fixed by a rename or comments made from users who didn't look into the history of where that information had come from originally. Nominator was very selective in how rationale was worded to avoid this.

End result:

Information contained that had moved with the split was pushed out of existence on non-vital policy concerns mentioned and hasty actions taken at every step in the process. 8 days is not a long call to action for an article with such low traffic, and efforts to improve the article should be taken first.
Article gives a vibe of WP:OWN status if history is reviewed both overall and in detail, with others having been bullied out.

Ok, that's the old stuff. How about new stuff? I'm going to have to question the sources listed with the Fifth wall section as none of it can actually be verified. Now show of text supporting, article names(?), proof of existence, or even what kind of media it is. Since the mentions in the article aren't direct quotes we're operating on good faith that it's not someone's WP:OR that accidentally ended up published somewhere. In other words, WP:PROVEIT. With seemingly nothing but a few loose definitions and no notability of the term mentioned, I intend to re-insert the old "examples" section. This would be consistent with the amazingly low standard of verification within Fifth wall and would show AGF on all sides. Really, without any proof on the existence of the sources used to say nothing of even a theoretical way of verifying what they say, they're but WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It's not impossible to have one's cake of eliminated content and eat personal additions at the same time when they suffer the same ailment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 January 2010

The talk page archive is sitting right there at the top and very plain to see, nor in looking back to I see where anyone archived an on-going discussion. Removal of talk page remarks from a blocked IP evading the block is allowed. A list of is not appropriate nor necessary per WP:NOT and WP:OR, the same as the category. The example list should remain out and I fully agree with the multiple others on its removal. You're basically saying you will deliberately go against consensus, which is disruptive and counter-Wikipedia community. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen, first WP:NOT is the opposite of a "non-vital" policy, as is WP:NOR. The fact that you think these policies can and should be ignored is concerning. Second, the list of examples issue was not an 8 day event. It has been on-going since at least July 2009. Third the other issues you have raised are not within the ambit of this talk page (see WP:TPG) and indeed the tone you have expressed them in is contrary to another core policy WP:AGF. It might be worth your while to revive WP:5.
Your arguments about Fifth wall are echoes of those other people have already made. However the concept of the fifth wall can be sourced (try using google scholar to get a lead on academic articles and books like these [1] [2] both of these are in my university library - so I'm sure if you search you could find them too). My perspective on it is that info on 'Fifth wall' belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia. That discussion has been opened (above) but it is a totally separate issue from the list of examples--Cailil ^talk 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum I also just want to address some of the allegations of bad faith made directly by Datheisen. First the discussion that was 'one day old' was a note by AnmaFinotera to point out in a months old conversation that the issue was not notable. Second the link to the archive is on the top of the page just like every other talk page archive is linked. Third, the point you make about 'revenge' is a personal attack as it implies maliciousness on AnmaFinotera part, whereas in fact the Ip was incorrect about my nominating the page for deletion and on their policy points. On top of that the comment was ad hominem and an utterly inappropriate post for this page (see WP:TPG)
Finally beware of WP:KETTLE - you claim there is an ownership issue here? For months reliably sourced information was being reverted by IPs who in violation of the core principles of this site (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE) were reinstating a list of examples (WP:NOT) creating an environment where editing could not take place because they refused meaningful dialogue and reverted edits out of hand - that's the WP:OWN issue here Datheisen.
Finally this article is now a stub - but is a properly sourced and written stub. It is once again an encyclopedic article rather than a list of non-notable examples--Cailil ^talk 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen, You say: "I'm going to have to question the sources listed with the Fifth wall section as none of it can actually be verified." It all can be verified. There are six citations. One is a hyperlink, which if you click on it instantly verifies the source. Four of the other five can be found using google books. The final one can be found using google, which takes you to the QUT website and verifies its existence.

"Since the mentions in the article aren't direct quotes..." Actually, two of them are direct quotes. And, as just mentioned, the others are findable online for verification that they are faithful reports of the sources. I should also mention that Wikipedia does not require that sources be available online for them to count as legitimate. So long as libraries and print books still exist, citations to them are findable and verifiable, just not quite so instantly.

"With seemingly nothing but a few loose definitions and no notability of the term mentioned, I intend to re-insert the old 'examples' section." That would be a bad move. First, if the loose definitions given really are not notable, then that is grounds for deletion, not grounds for restoring something to replace it. Second, restoring the list of examples is to restore a list that had no sources of any kind offered to support its legitimacy as a definition. So substituting would be going from (at worst) the loose and non-noatable to (at best) the not true and unsupported by any references of any kind.

"It's not impossible to have one's cake of eliminated content and eat personal additions at the same time when they suffer the same ailment." True, but that is not the story here. This new version with actual sources to back up its claims is superior to the one that had no sources of any kind to back up anything.

I don't think the term "fifth wall" is notable enough to have an article at all or even be a subsection of an article, so I would be happy with total deletion of it. But if it is going to exist anywhere, then it has to exist in a reliably sourced form. The current version at least has the virtue of giving verifiable sources for the claims that are made about the term. The old one just reeked of stuff someone just made up. 142.68.51.146 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Many fair points, and I basically just want consistency in standards. Google Books is well and good, but WP:CITE and related policy and pump discussions are pretty persistent on requiring page numbers so it can be verified. The reference list is spot-on with page numbering and even the optional ISBN at the top of the list, but not a single book source under the Fifth Wall section is cited properly. My WP:PROVEIT stance stands, without at least page numbers. The URL citation is particularly misplaced-- it's not even the website being sources. It's a book, and the page is a preview of a non-vetted review of a book. It's 2 steps removed from citing a known reliable source. In other words, all of the citations are in peril, but I'm not doubting that any can't be fixed up.

If all the previous content was removed as inappropriately or unreferenced OR, this is no different. Either the lower standard of questionably-referenced but good faith mentions of ideas is included, or excluded, depending on which philosophy school one subscribes to. Not here to randomly confuse things, so I'm really sorry on any sense of bite~y tone. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Datheisen perhaps you misread what I posted above but even if you did you have put forward a straw man argument. As I said my university has these books and I'm sure if you looked you could find them yourself. Your PROVEIT point is wikilawyering. These practices (wikilawyering and straw man argument) are considered tendentious and disruptive--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If your concern is that the citations given are incomplete and you know what a proper, complete citation would look like, then pop the information into google and get the complete info and fix them. Let me help with the first one: Shakespeare, language and the stage is a book co-edited by Lynette Hunter and Peter Lichtenfels. The quote in the article comes from page 1, from the "Introduction" written by the two editors. The book is copyrighted 2005 by Arden Shakespeare, an imprint of Thompson Learning (in London England). The book lists two ISBN numbers and they are: ISBN-10: 1-90427-149-9 and ISBN-13: 978-1-90427-149-9. That should be more than enough information to format a proper citation. The others will be as easy to complete.

No "lower standard" of completely unreferenced and completely fabricated mentions is being endorsed by anyone. This section as it is now is VERY different from the former version of the article. There is a world of difference between an improperly formatted citation that actually exists and no citation of any kind at all. 99.192.69.82 (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Article was butchered

Going into the history it looks like this article is just a shell of what it was several months ago. The earlier versions had some rich, in-depth perspectives on the fourth wall technique. I'm kind of pissed that someone butchered this article instead of blending the earlier content and trimming the fat and that I have to look at the history versions to get insight into this subject. If anyone wants to revert the article, this is one example where I'm all in favor of it. -68.94.145.49 (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the policies that govern content on this site (WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE). Its up to the person add material to wikipedia to prove its relevance using sources and by weighting the content appropriately. Also be aware that this is not a forum and comments that are off-topic, or that are either uncivil or personally directed will be removed per our policy for use of talk pages--Cailil ^talk 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, an article on the fourth wall that doesn't even mention Bertold Brecht can't possibly be worth reading. Another long-gone founding Wikipedian, formerly known as Ortolan88 65.96.202.28 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I always respecte3d ortolan88's work. i agree about the importance of brecht. But Wikipedia's standards for verifiability have developed greatly in the past years. The result creates some restrictions on editors but I think ultimately lead to better articles. We just need to be more careful about sourcing material and being clear about attribution of the views being presented. I hope more people can contribute to this article but carefully to comply with our core content policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to you SLRubenstein, but I no longer contribute because of the rise of the prigs. I contributed before -- 8000 edits, or whatever, all by hand, all substantive -- fought the good fight against Helga and TMC, even created the style book so that articles would have some visual consistency, but taking rote repeating of what appeared in some book simply does not work with liberal arts subjects. Now there are ten people running around sticking little whine tags on everything, when they're not deleting everything, basically undermining the Wikipedia, to every one who is trying to improve the information available to the reader. It would have been better to have lived with the reputation of Wikipedia and worked hard to improve the contents than to have gone to the current model of removing and undermining content. Basically, I quit contributing because I don't like being angry all the time. Best of luck to all, Tom Parmenter, Ortolan88. 65.96.202.28 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS - If you check, you'll see I still do markup corrections anonymously, but no more substance from me. I sometimes wish I had stumbled upon about.com first.

Hi Tom. The number of Wikipedians has swollen. We hoped that more Wikipedians wouldinclude more people like you (and more people like Cailil) who not only know things but who know how to go to libraries and research things they do not know. Unfortunately, most of the new Wikipedians are as you say people who whine and add these tags ... OR they are people who have no idea ho to do research, do google scholar searches at best or just copy whatever they saw on a TV documentary the night before. And it is because of these people who add so much crappy content that we need these policies. Anyway, this is a discussion that does not belong on this page but somehere else. And I do not know where. Wikipedia has lost good public discussion sites or forums. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to the article because I remembered how wonderful it was and wanted to check a few points. Imagine my dismay. Tom 65.96.202.28 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If the people working on this article knew about Brecht and alienation, why did they take it out? If they didn't know about it, what are they doing here? Fortunately/unfortunately the Brecht article doesn't link here, although it must have once. Tom 65.96.202.28 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some earlier versions of the article that had a lot more substance:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_wall&oldid=325158819
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_wall&oldid=21078778-70.233.135.122 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article was butchered. Perhaps there were too many single sentence examples from popular culture, but why were they all deleted? After reading the sourcing guideline docs it's unclear to me when something can be it's own source--for example, the picture from Funny Games seems to verify itself well (it is from Funny Games and he is breaking the fourth wall). In any case, I think most people trying to find out information about the Fourth Wall would find the current article much less helpful than some earlier versions. Ledzipline (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

There appears to be very little on the Fourth Wall in popular culture. I would add a small section for it myself, but I fear I wouldn't be able to set it up correctly and do it justice. I only bring it up because a large group of people will come to this page at some point or another looking for popular usage, such as on television or the internet, and they'll end up grievously confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgamehunter (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A good example would be The Twilight Zone, Hitchcock, and countless talk shows, particularly comedy talk shows, where the host normally addresses the audience with opening gags. NERVUN (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think pantomine would also be an example because there is always audience input e.g. 'its behind you!'.--mezza (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Al's Diner in Happy Days could be said to contain the proverbial fourth wall where the dinning booths would have been up against the fourth wall and the viewer is privy to the players private conversations. Similarly, when Mork & Mindy became an item and exchanged a kiss, the audience would ooh or ahh & Mork would throw a line eg "Take a Polaroid, it'll last longer!" directly at the audience. Bob Hale Jnr's 'Skipper' on Gilligan's Island & before that Oliver Hardy of Laurel & Hardy fame would look to the audience when ever there was a mishap etc. Don Addams Maxwell Smart every once in a while would give a slight glance to the audience and Wile E. Coyote's only friend was the audience/observer. Maddie & Dave from "Moonlighting" TV series started out with a nod or wink to the Audience (Maddie says something smutty which Dave densely doesn't get and Maddie looks to the audience saying "They know what I meant!" while Dave looks and winks to the Audience.) Although, this back fired on the series when whole episodes were narrations to the audience and viewers became jaded to the concept.

The Twilight Zone was actually narrating to the audience in the same way a Shakespearean player would confide in the audience while Ferris Bueller's Day Off, we the audience are actually along for the ride, which I think is a differant kind of fourth wall... Timelord2067 (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nearly forgot - Buggs Bunny tells a shaggy monster to "Look out there!" to which the monster screams "People!" (we, the audience) and runs away through countless backdrops of back walls... Timelord2067 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also not to forget, the Looney Tunes also have many episodes where they make the audience think the show is over but then the characters will yell at the viewer and say the show isn't over yet. --SupaSoap101 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Eye contact

There was a time when actors were told not to look at the camera. This was very difficult and required self-discipline. When an actor looks at the camera, the fourth wall is broken. Now, as Cole Porter said, "anything goes."Lestrade (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

In Literature

The core concept of the fourth wall is clearly the breaking of the convention that the audience aren't there, that the story-world is all that 'really' exists. Exactly the same convention-breaking is possible in literature, and it can have various effects - not least effective parody. This is the point of the /* In Literature */ section, and it seems worthy of mention: 1) it's a close analogy to what happens in theatre 2) serious critics like Barnett in the Guardian use it. I suggest that far from being 'trivia', this is directly relevant, and illuminates the topic of the article clearly and concisely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

All very well, but the single example given is trivial. And Barnett's use of the term here adds nothing. No objection if you've got some decent examples, but this section just demeans what analysis there is. Ironman1104 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, what it does add is proof that critics like Barnett use 'Fourth Wall' about literature, in just the same way that others use it more literally about theatre; and the metaphoric usage in literature names a striking phenomenon of rule-breakingly direct communication between author and reader. Hmm, 'Reader, I married him' - well, there's an example from indisputably fine literature. And Carl Sagan discusses the way a writer can 'talk' directly inside the reader's head, I think he says "Hello" in one of his books, which surprised me at the time. As for demeaning, Tolkien's work is big enough to stand a bit of parody, and Harvard Lampoon is serious enough to be able to make real points with humour. But I think you're right, the literature section needs some more examples. Will see what I can rustle up.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Jane Eyre written in the first person - ie for a real reader? So not really an example. BTW Francis Urquhart in 'House of Cards' is a good general example. Dunno if the original Dobbs novel took the same shape. Ironman1104 (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, why don't you add that? I've added Jane Eyre and Tristram Shandy. They are certainly 'first person' in the way they are narrated, but Jane is not Charlotte Brontë, and Tristram certainly isn't Sterne, so I'd say there's no doubt both are talking through the wall. The nature of what is real or really the author speaking in 1st person is far beyond my lit crit abilities! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, to put the claim that Jane Eyre or Tristram Shandy break the fourth wall without a source to support the claim is original research, and thus they should not be included. Secondly, I don't think either are examples of breaking the fourth wall, since a book told by a narrator (whether 1st person or 3rd person) already assumes an audience being told the story. So specific references to that audience breaks no wall at all. The audience is being continuously addressed in virtually all books. So I am even more reluctant to allow claims that specific novels break the fourth wall without a citable source saying it.

Thirdly, since the claim that Bored of the Rings breaks the fourth wall is made by a citable source, it can remain in the article to help explain how the term has, at least on this one occasion, been used regarding a book. But I wonder how common it is for the term to be used about books. Barnett, by the way, is surely wrong about calling this example one of breaking the fourth wall. When characters in a play break the fourth wall they, at least for a moment, acknowledge that there is an audience present when the actor is otherwise pretending that there is a wall (or a field, or an ocean, or just about anything else other than an audience). So for a novel to break the fourth wall it would have to be when a character who is otherwise unaware that the events happening are a story being told to someone, at least for a moment, acknowledges that fact. Frito is not doing that in the quotation given and the narrators of Jane Eyre and Tristram Shandy know throughout that they are talking to an audience, so there is no wall to break.

It would be nice to have an example that more clearly is wall breaking and one that comes from a more well-known piece of literature than Bored of the Rings, but since it does meet Wikipedia's citability rules I suppose it should stay. 99.192.74.63 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you (99.192.74.63) feel able to agree that Barnett is a reputable source. I am puzzled by your insistence that making a character speak directly to 'Reader' isn't talking through the wall - given that Jane has been living in her book-world for the preceding 37 chapters! - but glad again to agree that we should be able to find examples of critics saying so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jane Eyre is a 1st person narrative. Throughout the book it is "I this" and "I that". Who is Jane addressing? Is she addressing her audience by speaking or by writing to them? Is she addressing people she knows or a more general audience? In most books with a 1st person narrator none of these questions are ever specifically answered. But Bronte is actually quite explicit in answering these questions. Jane directly addresses the reader as "reader" many times in the book. Chapter 10 begins with the sentence, "Hitherto I have recorded in detail the events of my insignificant existence: to the first ten years of my life I have given almost as many chapters." Chapter 11 begins with "A new chapter in a novel is something like a new scene in a play; and when I draw up the curtain this time, reader, you must fancy you see a room in the George Inn at Millcote...." Jane Eyre is writing a book for any and all readers that describes her experiences. There is no wall being breached because there is no wall to begin with. 99.192.74.63 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining - at least I can see where you are coming from. I believe you are being much stricter in your definition of 4th wall than a large section of the Internet, certainly on blogs, so perhaps the phrase is shifting its meaning. As for Jane, I think the ambiguity in who she's speaking to is exactly a wall, which is explicitly breached when CB chooses, but I understand that's not a WP-able opinion. BTW why don't you log on? It would be nice to know who I'm talking to...Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"I believe you are being much stricter in your definition of 4th wall than a large section of the Internet, certainly on blogs...." A large section of the Internet, including blogs, is loaded down with bullshit, so I would not be surprised if there are many people online who, not understanding what the "fourth wall' is come up with nonsense "examples" of breaking it. "BTW why don't you log on? It would be nice to know who I'm talking to." Logging on would not tell you anything more than you already know about me, just as I know nothing about you even though you are logged on (I assume "Chiswick Chap" is not your real name.) 99.192.74.63 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I crossed a line there, many apologies, I'll seriously try not to do that again. There is indeed much uninformed opinion on blogs and the like, but also earnest discussion of the arts, and I suppose my point is simply that when many people habitually use a term in a certain way, that does become part of its meaning, whether people like me deplore it or not. ('Negative feedback', for instance, was and still is a term for a beneficial process in engineering; but the popular meaning, while very different, is now something a good dictionary must define.) So I was hinting that WP may on occasion need to do the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

tv usage

I think there should be a tv or maybe perhaps a movie usage section I perfect example would be Malcolm in the Middle where Malcolm continuously does a fourth wall especially in the beginning of an episode — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Not George's back porch monologues on the Burns & Allen Show? Well, gee, have it your way. (Both are examples of trivia and should be omitted. I don't see the need for examples (trivia) at all, since when you start listing them, everyone wants his favorite show, movie, play, painting, and book included.) 76.253.72.116 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Eric

Breaking the 4th wall without audience interaction?

What about the usage of "breaking the fourth wall" to mean lampshading the storytelling means; like gags involving the captions, or characters stepping out of the set to complain about the events with the director, or graphics novel characters peeking past the frames etc? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question... I think that the graphics characters peeking past frames is a more general thing, but similar... don't know what to call it, and wary of straying into OR. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

In one of the Sylvester Stallone films his character is asked - Who do you think you are - Rambo? (going from memory). What is the term for this? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dobie Gillis

Article currently [3] reads in part On Television, breaking the fourth wall is rare,... and gives one example, but of a rather obscure show, which to me gives the article a bias, and would lead to the inaccurate impression that the technique is rarer than it in fact is. A far better example IMO is one I added, but this has been reverted [4] with the comment Unsourced addition. Also, the page is not a list, so all examples are not needed or desired. So let's discuss.

Despite the lack of a source, I think the Dobie Gillis example improves the article. A similar unsourced statement occurs in the article on the program, at The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis; Anyone who has ever seen the first season (available on DVD) can verify that it's true (in fact from memory, in at least one episode there is even more fourth-wall breaking, as further such segments are embedded in the show). So while unsourced, it's easily verified. The problem is not verifiability so much as that it might be considered OR.

The rationale that all examples are not needed or desired is ridiculous (sorry if that's harsh, but it is)... two examples hardly make it a list.

Comments? I'll try to find some sources when I have a little time, but it's an excellent example of the technique, and a shame to leave it out. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrewa, first, there is some history on this page you should be aware of. It was at one time being treated as a list of any and all examples that anyone could think of that they thought broke the fourth wall, almost none of them with citations to verify. It was decided that this was not encyclopedic so the page was edited down to being a description of what the "fourth wall" is and with only a bare minimum of examples merely as illustrations. From time to time people pop in to the page to add new examples, usually without a citation at all and with no indication that they think the example helps as an illustration, but just because it is an example they know of or a show they like. So it is with that background that I removed your addition and made the comment I did in the edit summary.

You say "it's an excellent example of the technique, and a shame to leave it out." I can't comment on the first part of your claim (because I don't know the show at all) but I disagree with the second part. There will be many excellent examples left out simply because the page is not a list. (My personal favourite is It's Garry Shandling's Show, a show whose premise is based on breaking the fourth wall.) Examples should not be added just because they happen to be good ones, but because they are needed to illustrate the idea to someone who might not understand it fully from the prose description. They only play a role of support on a page like this.

Further to that, I would suggest that using a television show that has not been on the air for 50 years and most readers of the article are likely to have never seen does not make as strong as an illustration as a current show like Mrs. Brown's Boys. The addition of another current show with House of Cards, which was just added, would also be a better illustration than Dobie Gillis for the same reason (although a citation should be added to verify the claim about that show, too). I find it hard to believe that someone could read the article as it is now and still not understand what "breaking the fourth wall" in television means. As such, there is no need for further illustration. The job of illustrating has been done. If the page were like a person explaining the concept to you in a conversation, this is the point where the person would cut you off and say "Ok, I get it now. I don't need any more examples."

You mention the line in the article that says "On Television, breaking the fourth wall is rare," and I agree that this might be a problem. But the problem is that (1) there is no citation for the claim, so it might just be WP:OR and, (2) it is not really clear what "rare" really means here, so the problem of a false mage of how rare it is might be given. But even giving ten examples won't solve that problem, since one might think that those are the only ten that exist and conclude (falesly) that it is more rare than it is. So maybe the line "On Television, breaking the fourth wall is rare," should be removed. 99.192.78.229 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.55.252)

Sorry to be so long-winded here, but I was just thinking about House of Cards again and recalling that the direct addresses to the audience are modeled on Shakespeare's Richard III and his asides to the audience, so using this as an example might not be the best as an illustration as it seems to conflate the aside with breaking the fourth wall. So I'm going to remove the House of Cards reference for now. Maybe that could be discussed in a separate section if there seems reason to re-add it. 99.192.78.229 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.55.252)

Sixth wall?

In this film - The Beloved (2011 film) - a now-older character (Catherine Deneuve) meets and talks to the character who is playing her as a young woman (Ludivine Sagnier). It's about seven minutes before the end of the film. What would that situation be called? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If a character at one age meets and has a conversation with herself at a different age it's called time travel. 99.192.83.36 (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Like!

-- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New category based on Fourth wall?

Should we create a new category for works of fiction that break the fourth wall? For example: Category:Fiction that break the fourth wall

—017Bluefield (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deadpool (film)

Quote: "Fourth-wall break inside a fourth-wall break. That's like 16 walls."[5] Can we include this? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)