Identificación de aspectos críticos en la PTAP

Daniel Bryan’s storyline exemplifies the Reality Era of narrative audience address. The Reality Era is defined by an address to both an authorial audience and a narrative audience of “smarts.” Like during the Entertainment Era, the implied author of WWE Creative addressed the authorial audience as smart fans in on the scripted nature of wrestling. From his first moments in WWE, Daniel Bryan’s story was addressed to a smart authorial audience. WWE signed Bryan in 2009 along with a group of other independent wrestlers to launch a new program called NXT, a reality-television based show in which wrestlers would compete to become WWE Superstars. This show candidly described the training process behind the staged production of wrestling, and openly admitted that the contestants were engaging in scripted activities. The “rookies” as WWE called them were paired with established WWE “Superstars” as mentors to teach them how to perform in WWE. Upon his elimination from the show, Bryan addressed a smart narrative audience, saying, “Daniel Bryan never wrestled on the independent circuit…Daniel Bryan might be done. But Bryan Danielson, God knows what’s gonna’ happen to him.” This quote defies the

notion that the in-ring personas and feuds are legitimate.19 Thus, Bryan’s eventual role on the main WWE roster was already implicated in a smart fan understanding of the production process behind the creation of wrestling narratives. The Daniel Bryan storyline, though, also fit the Reality Era in that it was crafted for a narrative audience of smarts.

Daniel Bryan’s feud with The Authority likewise addressed the narrative audience as smarts because it turned away from a narrative based on competitive prowess to one hinging on being a marketable star. The feud took place within the diegetic storyworld of the narrative and played out for the narrative audience, and marked a switch from Bryan’s battle with Cena, which largely conformed to the diegetic logic of wrestling as a competitive sport. On the RAW episode the night after SummerSlam, Daniel Bryan confronted Stephanie McMahon about her husband’s

role in “screwing” him out of the WWE Heavyweight Title.20 _{Initially, Bryan’s rant seems to fit}

within the logic of kayfabe because his character drew on the logic of winning fairly as the criteria for success. However, within this same confrontation, Stephanie turns away from this kayfabe-type logic to a Reality Era address to the narrative audience.

In her response to Daniel Bryan, Stephanie McMahon puts forward marketing criteria as an alternative to competitive prowess for determining success within the wrestling narrative. Stephanie McMahon defended her husband’s actions, explaining that Triple H cost Bryan the title because Bryan did not fit the mold of a WWE superstar who could be the public face of the company. McMahon further clarified that meant that he was not “WWE Championship

material,” equating the role of “face of the company” with the championship that heretofore was

19 _{Daniel Bryan and Craig Tello, Yes! My Improbably Journey to the Main Event of WrestleMania (New York: St.} Martin’s Press, 2015), 172. In his autobiography, Danielson claims that Vince McMahon was initially angry at Bryan trying to “plug” his independent career and made him redo the interview, but also that McMahon aired the original interview with the comment intact.

20 _{In the storyline, Triple H attacked Bryan from behind soon after Bryan won the championship from John Cena in} the main event of SummerSlam. This allowed longtime star Randy Orton to “cash-in” his contract for a title match

understood to indicate the best competitive fighter. As evidence for her assertion that Bryan could not be the face of the company, McMahon stated, “You’re like what? Five foot, eight? Maybe two hundred pounds? And, well, we can’t all be supermodels.” While saying the last sentence, McMahon gestured with her hand to her face, indicating that Bryan’s facial features were unappealing. McMahon’s comments place favorable cosmetic looks as a requisite for success in the wrestling business, running contrary to the prior “mark” logic that the toughest fighters were the top stars. Daniel Bryan beat the champion, but because he did not look the part, he was not fit to be the top star of the company. By forwarding marketability standards as

indicators of success, Stephanie McMahon addressed the narrative audience as smarts. In addressing the narrative audience as smarts, the Daniel Bryan storyline foregrounded the production of wrestling narrative within the diegetic storyworld of wrestling.

Taking a cue from CM Punk’s “pipe bomb” promo, WWE crafted a self-reflexive story involving Daniel Bryan in which the creation of wrestling narratives became the story of the feud. In so doing, WWE again addressed the narrative audience as judges of production content, a relatively more powerful position. As noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle broadly defined two types of audiences: the passive audience of the observer and the active audience of the judge who must render a decision.21 _{James Kastely argues that the latter type of audience is “more}

likely to be a watchful audience and to challenge understandings that run counter to its interests.”22 _{During both the Kayfabe Era and the Entertainment Eras, WWE addressed the}

narrative audience as passive consumers of content. In the last chapter I argued that WWE, perhaps inadvertently, addressed the audience as the judge who must render a decision in the

21 _{See note 1.}

22 _{James L. Kastely, Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition: From Plato to Postmodernism (New Haven, CT: Yale} University Press, 1997), 12.

pipe bomb promo. The Daniel Bryan storyline similarly addresses the narrative audience as judges of content by foregrounding production in the diegetic narrative. But this time, as we will see, the fans took up the invitation from the narrative to engage in active judgment through participatory behaviors.

In the lead up to Bryan winning WWE Heavyweight Title at SummerSlam in August 2013, WWE centered the narrative about the match around whether Bryan was worthy of a main event push at such an important show. On screen, WWE owner Vince McMahon spoke to fans as fellow arbiters by explaining why he believed Bryan was not fit to be a top star.23 On-screen COO Triple H, however, defended Bryan against McMahon in the storyline. McMahon’s

hesitance at accepting Bryan as a top star centered on Bryan’s look, that he was too small and not attractive. The story thereby foregrounded the production process by portraying Vince as making creative decisions based on cosmetic reasons rather than the wrestlers’ ability to beat others in the ring. Further, this story played on the common fan critique that McMahon would only push performers who fit a particular look, regardless of fan support. Thus, the build to SummerSlam

positioned Daniel Bryan as a representative of an alternative narrative direction similar to the role Punk played in the pipe bomb promo. The narrative audience was asked to support or reject Bryan as a top contender based on their judgment of the best creative direction for wrestling narrative.

The feud between Daniel Bryan and The Authority in the aftermath of SummerSlam

further foregrounded production and addressed the narrative audience as active judges. Bryan won the title at SummerSlam, defeating John Cena cleanly via pinfall. However, minutes later, Triple H turned on Bryan, leaving him prone for Randy Orton to take the title from him. The next day, Bryan confronted Triple H’s wife Stephanie McMahon about her husband’s actions. In

23 _{Bryan and Tello, Yes!, 258.}

her defense of Triple H’s actions, Stephanie McMahon introduced a phrase that The Authority repeated throughout their storyline feud with Daniel Bryan. Stephanie McMahon explained to Bryan and the fans that The Authority, in promoting Randy Orton as the face of the company, were simply doing “what’s best for business.” The Authority repeatedly said that holding Bryan back from the top spot in the company made sense because it was “best for business.” This phrase focused the story on the production of the wrestling narrative and prompted the fans to make a judgment on if that was actually best for business. Because Stephanie McMahon and Triple H played heel characters, the narrative encouraged fans to support Daniel Bryan, and in so doing oppose the creative direction of the implied authors of WWE Creative that held him back. Of course, WWE sought to commodify the judgment in favor of Bryan like they had done successfully with Punk, but key difference in the narrative audience address influenced fans to react with more active participatory behaviors than they had in response to the pipe bomb promo. One of the key differences involved the portrayal of authorship embodied by the narrator

characters in the Daniel Bryan storyline.