Which is obviously not new information, it never is, but framing a persona here as a tool to manipulate your audience rather than as armour to distance or protect yourself from your audience is slightly more interesting to me. And to manipulate, as Burns says in the above video, isn’t inherently a negative thing. One thing about Dan’s mental health video that really stood out to me is how he waited to make it until he personally was in a better, healthier place, in contrast to other people who choose to show the ongoing process of dealing with mental health struggles, sometimes including and focusing on the low points
as they’re happening (people like Dodie/Tomska to start). And there’s no judgement in that observation because everybody needs to do only what they’re comfortable with, be as open as they’re comfortable with, and weigh out their own pros/cons of the net benefit of whichever path they choose. But that was a choice he made: to discuss his journey as one of overcoming something- while still being clear that it’s a continual process etc, but the bulk of it was him looking back at the worst of it and using his experience and struggle to give hope to the viewer (“you too can get better even if you’re currently very low as I
was and have
been”). The manipulation there is to not dwell on or wallow in the worst of what he went through, but to serve as an example of how it can get better. Which is great, but there’s a clear line there limiting how close he will allow the viewer to get. And that's interesting because while it’s such an intimate and personal thing to share, he was mainly sharing it in hindsight; he’s not somebody who will ever cry to the camera about what a low day or period of time he’s going through, he’ll only discuss it (if he discusses it at all) as something in the past that he’s now (largely) overcome. Which personally just made me more aware of the distance between him and the viewer, rather than feeling any closer. WHICH IS FINE, I’m not saying that is a better or worse path than Tomska explaining in great detail how he’s feeling on his meds or whatever that specific week. This is an unfinished train of thought, because I guess it is a kind of armour to only frame your worst moments as a narrative with a happy or uplifting ending with hope, rather than as a daily nuisance to endure that sometimes overwhelmingly wears you down and that’s just the way it is (that day, or just in general). Again, no judgement in the comparison, I’m just interested in the differences in what is considered ‘intimate’ or ‘openness’ between different creators and their viewers/fandoms.
Along with that, I’ve been thinking about the Dan-as-martyr thing too, and how it’s framed negatively. I’m wondering if there’s really a fine line between being a martyr (in the sarcastic internet sense, let’s not make it weirder than necessary) and being hashtag-relatable.
Martyr: a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration.
To relate: to establish a social or sympathetic relationship with a person or thing.
The common theme between the two is
to sympathize, and I think the fine line comes in when considering how that sympathy comes about in the viewer. Naturally finding something relatable, to sympathize with it, to relate, is fine, but relatability gets the stain of perceived martyrdom when the sympathy is
too clearly what is desired from the viewer. It’s us observing Dan being naturally awkward, or otherwise failing in some way, and sympathizing/relating to that vs. Dan telling us in all his exaggerated YT-persona glory about how awkward he is, or this encounter was, and asking us,
telling us, to feel his pain and to
please be entertained by it. It’s the unnatural fit of Entertainment via Real Person: expecting to be entertained by somebody you feel like you know and getting too much Persona along with it, seeing the seams we are supposed to be blind to that bind together the script and the reality. Basically, sometimes he just comes off as trying too hard and the viewer wonders why he’s trying so hard when all he needs to do is talk to a camera. The unnatural is supposed to look natural and we'd rather not be aware of the effort it takes to hide the seams.
The draw of early YT was that it was a place for young people who felt displaced from what was considered “normal” - the outsiders, the losers, the you-know-whats - to connect with each other. And it does still serve that purpose today, but the platform has become so much bigger, and so sickeningly commercial, and with it, so have the most successful of those past-outsiders. That's
why they're successful, because they chose to grow with, and adapt to, the changes of the platform. And so the success that Dan has found can (to some) seem at odds with his personality still being so similar to his past self- those comments (
plenty just before his mental health vid came out) of why should he have anything to complain about since he’s rich and attractive and has a ride or die by his side. That (sometimes-not-) unspoken expectation that anxiety/depression, self-image issues, self-doubt, or
whatever, are things that one is at some point supposed to just get over, or even more damagingly, to “grow out” of. So some kid in 2009 deciding to share their life with the internet, with an intentional focus on sharing the bad - the so-called failures of dropping out of uni, for example, or getting fired - and broadcasting it for the entertainment of others who may have gone through similar experiences (so those who also 'fail' at being the kind of person they think they should be, or are expected to be) should be “grown up” by 2018, right? Well, Dan
is grown up, but not
out of every single thing that shaped who danisnotonfire started out as and then became over the years, and not out of every form of insecurity that drove him to seek the community of YT in the first place. And what he does has always been performative, that's the nature of the platform, so if that's the main distinction between being a martyr and just being relatable (how clearly something is perceived as being a performance looking for reaction, rather than being, idk, a casual chat?), I don't think much has changed apart from the commercialization
around what he does, which maybe brings the performative nature into a clearer light?
Dan’s intent from the beginning was to put a spotlight on his failures as a means to find success, and maybe more importantly
connection (self-proclaimed internet cult leader after all), in entertaining others. He intended to be laughed at and/or with by holding up his flaws for ridicule. And he was successful. Maybe another perceivable disconnect is the change in his intent over the years, while still producing the same kind of content. Young, insecure, lonely Dan looking for connection through his failures vs. older, more secure, less lonely Dan maintaining a brand through self-deprecation. The “failures” that he focuses on now are smaller scale and less life-changing than they were when he was a teenager, and the underlying motivation for his “relate to me and suffer with me” brand have changed with him (because he found connection and belonging a long time ago, what he's looking for
now through his work is something different), but
he’s not a different person. His self-deprecation and semi-nihilistic view of the world are not just an invention for his ~persona~, they are part of him. I know no one was necessarily making the argument that those qualities are completely fake, but I just keep seeing the idea that he should drop his self-deprecation and ~negativity since he’s rebranded and opened up about his mental health, as if those things should entirely change his core personality. And his persona is just an exaggerated version of
parts of his personality that he thinks will be (because they always have been) the most entertaining:
I’ll always be that depressing, self-deprecating, distressed dude named Dan expressing myself on the internet, and I appreciate you watching
my heart always melts.
All men do is lie.
