# Is it okay to break the 4th wall in a book?



## Ptolemy (Oct 9, 2016)

This thought may have appeared to me through pure intellectualism or because its 2 AM.

My question is it acceptable to break the 4th wall in a book? Or would the book have to focus around the breaking of the 4th wall? 

It may have been done before but I think a main character who actually knows he/she is in a book and makes casual comments about it with the secondary characters having no idea what they are talking about has kind of peaked my interest.

I know graphic novels and movies do this, Deadpool and Archie are two examples, where they know they are in this medium and make jokes about it but it doesn't add to their powers/the plot. I don't know but I think if someone could/has pulled this off I would be reading that book to no end.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 9, 2016)

That sounds an interesting concept, and one that sounds like fun to try.  I imagine it would be difficult to pull off and do well.
The image that it conjures up for me is where a character in the Star Trek holosuite becomes aware of their situation - as happens on several occasions.


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 9, 2016)

It's more common in comedy.  For example, in the movie _Blazing Saddles_ the characters, during a brawl, break out of their Wild West setting and emerge onto the sets of other films, where they continue to fight each other.

In narrative fiction, Gene Wolfe does this a number of times.  The clearest example is in _The Last Thrilling Wonder Story_ from a collection called _Endangered Species_, in which a pulp science fiction character not only knows he's in a story, but has a dialogue with the author.

It is, however, a complete deal-breaker for some readers.  Breaking the fourth wall is like writing narrative fiction in the present tense ---- you've got to accept that it will create a strongly aversive reaction in some people and therefore will cost you a proportion of your audience.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 9, 2016)

I can't remember the title,  but there is a Woody Allen movie where the heroine goes to see the same film again and again, until one of the characters notices her and walks off the screen to join her.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 9, 2016)

Purple Rose of Cairo. Great film


----------



## Ultraroel (Oct 10, 2016)

I dont think I'd enjoy that much. It messes with immersion and also makes me care less about the story. I think


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 10, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> This thought may have appeared to me through pure intellectualism or because its 2 AM.
> 
> My question is it acceptable to break the 4th wall in a book? Or would the book have to focus around the breaking of the 4th wall?
> 
> ...



Kurt Vonnegut does this to great effect. He's frequently a character in his own books; other characters in the book are writers that break their own 4th wall and meet up with their creations at a clambake. Stephen King does it too, more as an in joke or easter egg for his regular readers though, rather than as a literary device. I love it. Lemony Snicket and "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - there's barely a fourth wall at all, unless it's somewhere behind the reader.


----------



## JustRob (Oct 10, 2016)

To my mind the best Star Trek example is the Next Generation episode "Ship in a bottle" where at the end Picard talks about the possibility that they are all inside a simulation, so Barclay tests this by giving the order "End program." He is relieved when apparently nothing happens, but the final surreal joke is of course that that is exactly when the programme does end for real, not that he would know anything about it.

The looniest part of Blazing Saddles is where, having broken out into the studios in reality, they go into a cinema to watch the end of the film.

An equally bizarre scene is in Space Balls, where the baddies are looking at the film rushes to find out where the goodies have gone, but accidentally see themselves, i.e. the backs of their own heads in real time, instead and look round at the camera in confusion.

Another variation is Michael Ende's book _The Neverending Story _where the story and its world are progressively deconstructed and have to be reconstructed by the reader, or at least the surrogate reader that he has provided.

In a later, as yet very incomplete, novel in my trilogy the fourth wall is reversed in that two of the characters believe there to be an entity who is controlling their actions and thoughts but suspect that they have themselves created it rather than the opposite. They call this being "The Professor", which is the traditional title for the puppeteer in a Punch and Judy show. The young man has just proposed marriage to the woman, but she refuses to give her answer until she is sure that the Professor isn't making the decision for her. As the concept of free will is visited several times throughout the trilogy I found this very touching and still don't know which of us actually made the decision in the end. In fact when writing a story which revolves around the ideas of identity, free will and reality one can't really see how the idea of a fourth wall is relevant. My website describes at length the problems that I've had with that as my writing seems to have leaked into my real life over time. As the fourth wall and whether it is broken is irrelevant in my story I wouldn't say that the story focuses on the fourth wall in any way, rather that it denies that the wall has any substance to break. So I must say in answer to the question in the OP that, yes, I consider it acceptable if one can be subtle about it. End program.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 10, 2016)

Kurt vunnegurt's technique is on the 4th wall maybe and here's my explanation. In slaughterhouse five, by kurt vunnergort. You see the excecution from beginning to end. He is writing a diary. What that becomes is the 4th wall technique. It surprises you constantly. And the end is a shocker. It is nothing new but you may need to study people such as him is my take on this to pull it off correctly.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 10, 2016)

Yes, so long as it's in tone with the rest of the book.


----------



## Ptolemy (Oct 10, 2016)

Bishop said:


> Yes, so long as it's in tone with the rest of the book.


Yes I realize it would be out of taste to just do it out of the blue, but it would be an interesting thought to switch it up in a serious book


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 10, 2016)

I suppose you could sumit up by saying you can do anything so long as you do it well. Doing it well has to be by your own standards,literary criticism is filled with a history of people slating stuff that was later hailed as near genius.If you want to do it, and think you can do it, you have the two best reasons an author can have for writing; getting widely read and approved of comes much further down the list at the writing stage.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Oct 10, 2016)

The thing is, breaking the wall is a gimmick. Nothing wrong with gimmicks, as long as we keep in mind that the novelty must both compensate for the intrusion and loss of reality, and hopefully, provide a net gain in entertainment. So one thing to ask, before using any gimmick is if it will still have that novelty, if it's been done before (and well).


----------



## JustRob (Oct 11, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> Yes I realize it would be out of taste to just do it out of the blue, but it would be an interesting thought to switch it up in a serious book



Many people quite seriously wonder about who the author of their fate is. In serious books characters may talk to God, the alleged author of all things, and in one very well read and evidently serious book God is mentioned as talking back, one aspect of Him even becoming embodied in human form. Isn't that tantamount to breaking the fourth wall if the Bible was itself inspired, if not actually written, by God? I cite this simply as a literary example and it does not reflect my own beliefs necessarily.

Religion associates our reality with another reality at a higher level and religious texts are considered to be serious books. In that respect WF is our very own Mount Olympus, isn't it? Well, let's face it, those Greek gods were a pretty weird bunch as well, but they seem to have been taken seriously by their followers.

Perhaps in what you might consider to be a serious book any encounters across the fourth wall should have an element of doubt about their interpretation. By subtle use of misunderstandings and remarkable coincidences one could create an apparent situation which could be read as breaking the fourth wall without there being any direct evidence that it actually happened. It is definitely something worth playing with.

P.S.
There seem to be people around who think of themselves as the hand of God, so perhaps there are also ones who think they are authors of reality. If anyone did claim to be the author of someone else's experiences, then they'd probably want him to be locked up. That could easily happen in a story, couldn't it, a character being pestered by someone claiming to be the author of his fate?


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 11, 2016)

William Goldman breaks the fourth wall in his romp of a novel, _The Princess Bride_—one of my favorite books. But, honestly, I always skim over those fourth-wall breaks, as I find they interrupt the flow of the narrative too much, pulling me out of the story. It's the one major flaw, to me, in an otherwise fantastic novel.

So, for me at least, fourth-wall breaks are better skipped over than read. If I _have_ to, I'll read them grudgingly, then let out a sigh of relief when they're done. The only impact the technique tends to have on me is to get me thinking: _Okay, dear author, I get it: you're clever. Now can we get back to the story, please?_ :roll:


----------



## JustRob (Oct 11, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> So, for me at least, fourth-wall breaks are better skipped over than read. If I _have_ to, I'll read them grudgingly, then let out a sigh of relief when they're done. The only impact the technique tends to have on me is to get me thinking: _Okay, dear author, I get it: you're clever. Now can we get back to the story, please?_ :roll:



I would agree with that aspect of it. Anything that reminds the reader that the author exists is to be avoided. In fact ideally the reader should be experiencing the story without even being conscious of the fact that he or she is reading written words. That is true immersion. That is why I have mentioned in my posts here that the device must be used _subtly, _perhaps not breaking the wall but just cracking it a little, and as with all of the text it must contribute to moving the story along. Then those who prefer not to think about the existence of an author, or indeed any greater reality than that within the story, but remain completely immersed in the fiction, can take the ambiguous events at face value within the fictional context alone. The time for recognising the author's skill is at the end of the story upon returning to reality. 

The story alone ought to hold the reader spellbound and the author should not break the wall if that will break the spell as well.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 11, 2016)

It depends what you want to do. There are times when you wish to maintain the entrancement from start to finish. There may be other scenarios, a break between sections for example. Good things toconsider when deciding if it is appropriate.


----------



## Grub-r (Oct 11, 2016)

JustRob said:


> An equally bizarre scene is in Space Balls, where the baddies are looking at the film rushes to find out where the goodies have gone, but accidentally see themselves, i.e. the backs of their own heads in real time, instead and look round at the camera in confusion.



One of the best scenes in a movie full of great scenes


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 11, 2016)

I like to be immersed in the story, such as caring about characters that don't really exist. So I don't like anything that takes me out of that. Such as the author talking to me as reader. Yes, many authors do that, but I never like it.


----------

