Dark Fandoms: an Introduction and Case Study

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Dark Fandoms: An Introduction and Case Study

Ryan Broll

To cite this article: Ryan Broll (2020) Dark Fandoms: An Introduction and Case Study, Deviant Behavior, 41:6, 792-804, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1596453 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1596453

Published online: 26 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 610

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20 DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 2020, VOL. 41, NO. 6, 792–804 https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1596453

Dark Fandoms: An Introduction and Case Study

Ryan Broll University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY There is a deep and persistent cultural fascination with the macabre – public Received 15 June 2018 executions, true crime books, slasher films, and sites of violence attract large Accepted 2 October 2018 audiences. Although serial and mass murderers increasingly achieve fame, little attention has focused on their fans. Thus, this paper introduces the concept of dark fandoms, or communities of fans of those who have perpetrated heinous acts, and draws attention to Columbiners as one example of a dark fandom. An analysis of more than 700 threaded discussion posts from an online Reddit community reveals that the Columbiner dark fandom discussed their favorite characters from the shooting, proposed fan theories about the incident, and considered the Columbine shooting’s legacy. The implications of these findings for studies of other dark fandoms is discussed.

In the early morning hours of April 20, 1999, 17-year-old Dylan Klebold, a senior at Columbine High School, shouted, “Bye,” to his mother who was just waking. Sue Klebold assumed that Dylan was leaving for his bowling class, but he would, in fact, skip all of his morning classes. In the early afternoon, Sue learned that Dylan and his friend Eric Harris had killed 13 students and staff at their school and injured 24 others before taking their own lives in what was at the time the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school1 (Klebold 2016). In the two decades since the shooting at Columbine High School much has been written about the perpetrators, the incident, and the myriad of school safety measures implemented in its aftermath (e.g., Addington 2009; Crepeau-Hobson, Filaccio, and Gottfried 2005;Muschertand Peguero 2010). The current study diverges from past Columbine-related research in that it focuses not on the shooting or related policy developments, but rather on those who celebrate the perpetrators. In her memoir, AMother’s Reckoning, Sue Klebold (2016)describedher surprise at the celebratory fan mail and telephone messages describing her son as a hero that she began receiving after the shooting. Today, these so-called “Columbiners”2 converge in several online communities (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018). Harris and Klebold are not conventional stars. Although we have a complex relationship with celebrities (Holmes and Redmond 2006; Redmond 2006) and are often captivated by the “burnt-out star” and other damaged celebrities who somehow seem more like the rest of us (Dyer 1998; Grieveson 2002;Redmond2006), fame is hegemonically defined as a positive achievement (Schmid 2006). To be sure, some celebrities remain so deviant that they will never be emblazoned on billboards and their fans

CONTACT Ryan Broll [email protected] Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada The author wishes to thank Laura Huey for her helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper and participants of the 2018 Faculty Writing Retreat at the University of Guelph for their encouragement and feedback. 1The shooting at Columbine High School remained the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school for nearly 20 years until it was surpassed by the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (McCarthy, 2018). 2Among fans of school shootings, the term “Columbiners” is contested – some perceive it as a generic term to refer to fans of any school shooting, whereas others ascribe it negative connotations and associate it with a “superficial knowledge of school shootings and a fan-like attitude” (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018: 203). While I acknowledge this debate, for parsimony I use the term to refer broadly to fans of the shooting at Columbine High School. © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 793 are not welcome in the mainstream of American culture (Schmid 2005).Harris,Klebold,and Columbiners fall within this latter category. Nevertheless, death and violence occupy prominent positions in American culture and it should not be surprising that those who propagate evil achieve a measure of celebrity. In 1992, The Silence of the Lambs, centered on the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, garnered five major Academy Awards (Schmid 2006) and tabloid-like news constructions of random violence (Best 1999) and the “faceless predator criminal” (Surette 1994) are ubiquitous. Serial and mass murderers inspire both fear and attraction and have one of the surest paths to celebrity status as the media attempts to give a face to these faceless criminals (Schmid 2006). At the same time, every year thousands of dark tourists flock to the sites of executions, assassinations, and confinement (Brown 2009; Lennon and Foley 2000; Wilson 2008). Previous scholars have identified the existence of fans of mass murderers. Schmid (2005) acknowledged fans of non-fictional serial killers and discussed murderabilia – items connected to serial or mass murderers, like locks of their hair, bricks from their homes, or trading cards (see also, Jarvis 2007) – but his analysis largely focused on fans of the fictional serialkillerHannibalLecter. Similarly, others have studied fans of Dexter Morgan, the fictional police-blood-spatter-analyst-by-day-and-serial-killer-by- night (Donnelly 2012; Gregoriou 2012). Fewer scholars have studied fans of non-fictional mass murderers, although Columbiners are emphasized among those that have (Paton 2012; Paton and Figeac 2015; Raitanen and Oksanen 2018; Raitanen, Sandberg, and Oksanen 2017). However, these studies portray fans of non-fictional mass murderers as anomalies and are largely disconnected from broader literatures in fan studies, the celebrification (Driessens 2013) of mass and serial murderers, and a broad cultural interest in death and darkness. The current study aims to bridge literatures on fan studies, celebrity, and darkness to better understand fan communities devoted to those who have committed heinous acts through the concept of dark fandoms. Then, drawing upon Columbiners as a case study of one dark fandom, I analyze more than 700 threaded discussion posts from an online Reddit community devoted to the shooting at Columbine High School to delineate Columbiners’ expressions of their fandom. The results suggest that Columbiners express their fandom much in the same way as more conventional fans might: by discussing relevant characters, proposing fan theories, and debating the legacy of the shooting and shooters. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for other studies of dark fandoms.

Dark tourism and the celebrification of murder

A cultural fascination with torture, death, and despair has long existed. In Discipline and Punish,Foucault (1995) describes the gruesome public execution by drawing and quartering of Robert-François Damiens for his attempted assassination of King Louis XV of France in 1757. Indeed, public executions drew large crowds throughout the Puritan era and were intended to signal the consequences of non-compliance with social norms (Schmid 2005). A century later, the earliest developments in film drew attention to death: one of the first phonographic recordings was a reading of H. H. Holmes’s confession, while the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots was the subject of one of the first kinetoscopes (Schmid 2005). Contemporary media continue to emphasize crime and violence (Schmid 2005), and every year thousands of dark tourists combine these mediated experiences with in-person visits to sites of violence and suffering (Brown 2009; Farmaki 2013; Lennon and Foley 2000; Wilson 2008; Wilson et al. 2017). Decommissioned prisons and prison museums permit ordinary citizens the opportunity to “share” spaces with the criminal other and, sometimes, (in)famous inmates (Ferguson and Madill 2017)or“celebrity prisoners” (Wilson 2004). In fact, prison museums readily identify notorious criminals who were held there to increase demand (Farmaki 2013; Wilson 2008). Similarly, the locales in which serial killers operate are popular tourist destinations with enterprising groups offering sightseeing tours, photo opportunities, and souvenirs (Gibson 2006). The popularity of dark tourism accentuates the draw of the celebrity criminal and the celebrification of murder more generally. Although fame continues to be defined largely as a meritorious 794 R. BROLL achievement (Holmes and Redmond 2006; Schmid 2006), its ‘entry fee’ has lowered considerably in recent decades with the rise of reality television and the internet (Redmond 2006). As a result, now “the famous are often the visible, rather than the talented” (Schmid 2006: 297). When the entry point to fame is simply being known, notoriety becomes synonymous with celebrity and crime is no longer a barrier to fame (Braudy 1997; Caputi 1990; Parnaby and Sacco 2004; Schmid 2006). Declining editorial standards have contributed to media reports that emphasize the lives of celebrity criminals3 (Schmid 2006), while increased competition within the media market has led to a greater focus on rare but sensational criminal events that attract larger audiences4 (Duwe 2000). A consequence of this transformation in reporting has been a growing cultural fascination with what may be described as objectively objectional celebrities: mass and serial murderers (Duwe 2000; Schmid 2006). The mass media is not solely responsible for the increasing interest in mass and serial murderers. The true crime industry, a genre that offers deep insights into the lives, motives, and actions of murderers, has further contributed to the celebrification of those who commit heinous acts. As a genre, true crime has grown considerably since the mid-twentieth century (Murley 2008). Indeed, since the publication of Capote’s(1967) In Cold Blood, true crime has been “the phoenix of popular culture genres” (Schmid 2005: 175) unwavering in its popularity and perennially topping best-seller lists (Browder 2006). As a result, mass and serial murderers now routinely become household names. For example, Ann Rule’s(1980) bestseller, The Stranger Beside Me, contributed to the construction of Ted Bundy as, arguably, the world’s most well-known serial killer (Schmid 2005). Moreover,

people like Ed Gein, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dhamer, Aileen Wuornos – these are primal socio-psychopathic American icons, whose stories have granted them the kind of cultural capital usually given only to celebrities…True crime was instrumental in securing for such people a place in an American celebrity culture of infamy. (Murley 2008:5) In Natural Born Celebrities,Schmid’s(2005) treatise on the celebrification of murder, the rise of the celebrity serial killer is outlined. Alongside the role of the media and true crime, Schmid draws attention to cultural and social constructs that have elevated murderers to celebrities. By understanding critical societal tensions (Soothill 1993) and our often complex and troubled relationship with celebrities, we can begin to understand how an appreciation for “American culture’s ultimate deviant” may develop (Schmid 2005: 25). Like Haggerty (2009), Schmid (2005) argues that mass and serial murderers neatly combine two central tenets of modernity: stardom and violence. Therefore, as the “exemplary” modern celebrity (Schmid 2005: 24), mass and serial murderers economically draw attention to both monstrosity and celebrity in a way that makes their visibility inevitable and that satisfies our cultural fascination with death (see also, Holmes and Redmond 2006; Schmid 2006).

Conventional and dark fandoms

A fan “is enraptured by a particular media object” and invests energy into interacting with the focus of their interest (Booth 2017: 19). Some fan communities, or fandoms, are well-known and have entered popular lexicon. Perhaps the most well-known, fans of Star Trek, or Trekkies/Trekkers, experience their fandom as a sort of religion (Jindra 1994). Beatlemania stands as one of the largest fan movements of all time (Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs 1992) and music fandoms, more generally, are known for their fervor (Duffett 2014). Most recently, HBO’s acclaimed fantasy adaption Game of Thrones has been ranked as having the most devoted of all fans across popular culture (Adalian et al. 2012). Once perceived as a fringe activity, fandoms are no longer confined to conventions and

3There is increasing concern that the media’s reporting on serial killers – and their celebrification of murder – increase the likelihood of future attacks. As a result, experts have called upon the media to stop publicizing the names of mass killers while still reporting other details of the offense (Lankford and Madfis 2018). 4To support his assertion that media accounts of mass murderers are selected with a profit motive in mind, Duwe (2000) points out that fewer than one-fourth of mass murderers receive national news coverage, and even fewer receive attention across a variety of media platforms. Only the most sensational offenders and events are emphasized. DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 795 fanzines. Rather, “today, with many such communities’ migration to the internet, the thousands of fan discussion groups, websites, and mailing lists populating the Web are only eclipsed in presence by pornography” (Gray, Sandvoss, and Harrington 2007: 7). Concerned with the activities of communities of fans who congregate online, studies of ‘digital fandoms’ aim to understand the organization and activities of online fan communities as a mechanism for better understanding digital culture (Booth 2017). Notwithstanding their increasing presence and acceptability, not all digital fandoms have exited the underground. Although mass and serial murderers are recognized as celebrities, their fans remain a deeply deviant subculture. For example, following media reports about murderabilia, eBay prohibited its sale and lesser-known websites received a barrage of negative comments (Schmid 2005). Still, fans of mass or serial murderers exist. While discussing the celebrification of serial killers, Schmid (2005) posited that “the fame of serial killers in contemporary American culture is due partly to the way they inspire feelings of fascination, perhaps even admiration, as well as revulsion in many people” (Schmid 2005: 109). Further, Schmid (2005: 112) argued that “it must be acknowledged that serial killers, much like film stars, do have fans and this suggests the possibility that the existence of celebrity serial killers is indeed partly a result of the way in which consumers ‘identify’ with these killers in the sense of wanting to be or think like them.” Dark fandoms are thus communities of fans who identify with or otherwise celebrate those who have committed heinous acts, such as mass or serial murderers. These communities usually form online (see also, Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka 2014; Paton 2012; Paton and Figeac 2015). The notion of dark fandoms proposed here diverges from Schmid (2005) in three central ways. First, Schmid primarily focuses on how individual fans celebrate “idols of destruction.” In contrast, I aim to draw attention to communities of fans with a shared interest in those who have committed heinous acts. Related, although members of dark fandoms may be true crime aficionados5 – indeed, true crime may be a primary means of increasing one’s knowledge about the focus of his or her fandom – reading true crime works is a solitary exercise. Dark fandoms are collectives within which fans come together to share their fascination with their subject matter. Second, although Schmid acknowledges fans of non-fictional serial killers, his analysis focuses on fans of fictional murderers. Others have studied fans of the popular Showtime television series Dexter (2006–2013) in which the protagonist, Dexter Morgan, was a blood spatter analyst for the fictional Miami Metro Police Department who moonlit as a serial killer (Donnelly 2012; Gregoriou 2012). However, it is possible that fans of Hollywood stars’ depictions of fictional murderers differ from fans of those who have truly harmed others (Schmid 2005). Dark fandoms focus on fans of non-fictional persons. Third, Schmid (2005), a priori, supposes that fans wish to be or be like those they identify with. Although copycats exist, some evidence suggests that they likely represent a small proportion of fandom members (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018). Surely, most fans of Sherlock Holmes do not wish to become detectives and not all fans of Buffy endeavor to hunt vampires. In fictional contexts, such assertions seem silly. Yet, when one considers fans of non-fictional murderers there is a more eminent concern.6 Nevertheless, rather than taking fans’ violence as a given, I suggest that this is an empirical question. Members of dark fandoms may or may not be violent – they may be fans out of curiosity, identification with the murderer’s background, or any other reason. Few studies have examined online communities of fans of real mass or serial murderers; those that have focus on fans of school shooters. Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka (2014) identified Columbiners’ participation in a YouTube community as early as 2012. Similarly, Paton and Figeac

5In her study of female true crime readers, Browder (2006) found that most were also involved in several online fan groups. 6Although most fans of non-fictional murderers express non-violent interests (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018), media reports suggest that some have violent tendencies. For example, three Columbiners were implicated in a failed plot to carry out a shooting at a Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada shopping mall in 2015 (The Canadian Press 2018), and the perpetrator of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was known to have participated in an online Columbiner community (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018). 796 R. BROLL

(2015) observed fan tributes in digital shrines on YouTube after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Virginia Tech. Paton (2012) suggested that participation in school shooting fandoms allows teenagers to question normative social structures. Raitanen, Sandberg, and Oksanen (2017) identified bullying victimization as a common developmental theme drawing fans to school shooters. In the most detailed study of online fandoms devoted to school shooters, Raitanen and Oksanen (2018) observed fan communities on Tumblr, DeviantArt, and YouTube and conducted online interviews with 22 community participants. Although their findings drew heavily on the results of their interviews, Raitanen and Oksanen suggested that fans often located, edited, and shared materials related to school shootings. Moreover, Raitanen and Oksanen (2018) categorized fans of school shootings into four fluid groups: researchers7 who search for and share information about shootings and shooters, fangirls who are often teenage girls and express a romantic or sexual interest in select shooters, Columbiners, and copycats. While past studies of fan communities devoted to non-fictional mass murderers are insightful, they typically draw attention to the surprising existence of these deviant subcultures. Furthermore, these studies have overlooked broader cultural interests in death and darkness. Thus, while Raitanen and colleagues (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018; Raitanen, Sandberg, and Oksanen 2017) refer to individuals with a “deep interest” in school shooters, I intentionally locate these communities within broader conceptualizations of fandoms and draw attention to the celebrification of dark topics. Therefore, rather than being seen as anomalies, these communities represent a natural progression of a cultural interest in dark artifacts and actors.

Methods

Given the prominence of the shooting at Columbine High School in past studies of fans of non- fictional mass murderers and to fans of school shootings (Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka 2014; Raitanen and Oksanen 2018), the current study draws upon Columbiners as a case study of one dark fandom. In addition, previous research on fans of school shooters has centered on YouTube (Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka 2014; Paton and Figeac 2015; Raitanen and Oksanen 2018) and Tumblr (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018). Since the norms of social networking sites differ (Waugh 2017), to add some further depth to this literature I thus examine Columbiners’ expressions of their fandom on the popular website Reddit. The self-proclaimed “front page of the internet,” Reddit is divided into topic-based ‘subreddits.’ This study focuses on the r/Columbine subreddit, which boasted more than 3,000 members (“subscribers”) at the time of writing. The r/Columbine subreddit describes itself as comprised of “people who are morbidly curious and want to find out as much as they can about this event. This is a common phenomenon with macabre topics such as serial killers, conspiracies, and even spree shooters” and “people who are sad, depressed, angry, and hurting. These people come here to live vicariously through Eric and Dylan.” Following past studies of communications within online groups (e.g., Huey, Nhan, and Broll 2013; Malesky and Ennis 2004; Nhan, Huey, and Broll 2017; Van Hout and Bingham 2013b, 2013a), threaded discussion analysis was used to explore expressions of fandom within the r/Columbine subreddit. The current study includes an analysis of all posts made to the subreddit between February 1, 2017 and April 30, 2017. This period was intentionally selected because it includes April 20, the anniversary of the shooting at Columbine High School. Altogether, 99 posts were made in this three-month period comprising 736 unique threaded comments. Each threaded discussion post was coded using inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). Thematic analysis is a systematic but flexible method that allows for the identification of

7“Researchers” of mass murderers have long been acknowledged. For example, writing about Jack the Ripper’s unknown identity, Caputi (1990: 3) reported that “this evocative anonymity has been a source for much of the Ripper lore as self-proclaimed ‘Ripperologists’ and ‘Ripperophiles’ continually sift over the known information, proposing improbable and often highly romanticized possible identities.” DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 797 common themes. Data analysis began by reading and re-reading each comment to identify pre- liminary themes. Next, I systematically coded each threaded discussion post in a line-by-line open coding manner before I employed focused coding to collate thematic categories and sub-themes. These themes were then reviewed to ensure they reflected the data. Finally, the themes were refined and re-categorized until expressions of fandom within the r/Columbine subreddit were clear. This process was iterative and non-linear, and previous steps were returned to when necessary.

Results

Columbiners, or fans of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, represent a prominent example of a dark fandom. As an anonymous online community, few personal details are known about Columbiners on Reddit. Nevertheless, community members’ posts occasionally alluded to characteristics that permit some understanding of the diversity of the fandom. Community members are male and female and comprise a broad age spectrum. For example, some are currently in school and recently learned of the shooting via research projects; others noted being in kindergarten or first grade and in high school when the shooting occurred (i.e., they are approximately in their mid-20s to late-30s today). Moreover, not all Columbiners are American – at least one member of this dark fandom described the impact of the shooting on their schooling experiences in the U.K. Based upon their posts, many members of the Columbiner dark fandom on Reddit fall within Raitanen and Oksanen’s(2018) “researcher” ideal type. Several community members described learning some details about the shooting and then “falling down the rabbit hole.” As they became more enraptured by the shooting, they sought out others with similar interests online. Recognizing the deviant qualities of their fandom, community members occasionally questioned whether their “morbid curiosity” is dangerous, to which others would quickly reply with comments like, “The topic has fascinated thousands for a long time,” and, “If you don’t FEEL an urge to kill or harm you should be fine.” Indeed, although community members sympathized with Harris and Klebold, overt support for violence or the shooters violated community norms. For instance, when one user posted fanart of Klebold with the caption “R.I.P. boys” on the anniversary of the shooting, another replied, “Honor the victims, don’t glorify the shooters.”

The characters The Columbiner dark fandom on Reddit distinguished between Klebold, a sympathetic, misguided, antihero in the Columbine narrative and Harris, the evil, psychopathic mastermind. Community members acknowledged that Klebold’s actions resulted in a significant loss of life, but they were attributed to his mental health struggles – especially suicidal ideation – and Harris’s influence. Both Harris and Klebold kept journals that detailed their plans for the shooting (what they referred to as “NBK”) intermingled with their internal thoughts and struggles. As one community member commented, “The diaries do give insight into what they were thinking, or what they wanted people to think they were thinking. And they make most people believe Dylan was an unfortunate person who had a lot of issues and got mixed up with the wrong person.”8 Community members described Klebold as a depressed romantic. His journal entries revealed a crush on an unnamed female classmate, but that he was too shy to speak to her (see also, Klebold 2016). These entries led to some speculation that Klebold may not have participated in “NBK” if he had pursued a relationship with his crush. As one community member articulated,

With Dylan, so much of his experience was that of a normal, awkward kid in high school. Albeit with some more anger issues. He was so obsessed with one girl in his journal and he never even talked to her. It’s kinda sad. Maybe if he had a bit more confidence and something happened, he may have backed out of NBK.

8Where necessary, community members’ posts are lightly edited to improve readability. To maintain their confidentiality, usernames and the exact date of posts are excluded. 798 R. BROLL

Others questioned whether a partner would have been sufficient to overcome Klebold’s mental health struggles. Much like his inability to pursue a relationship, they speculated that Klebold may have wanted to commit suicide but was unable to act on his desires. Therefore, participating in the shooting may have appealed to him because it concluded with a suicide pact with Harris. One community member summarized this perspective, positing that “Dylan wanted to die and went along with the plan as it ended up with his goal being fulfilled, death.” Further mitigating Klebold’s blameworthiness, there was some discussion of the failures of others – especially his parents – to recognize his struggles and there was a belief that he would regret his actions today: “I think Dylan would have a little regret.” Unlike Klebold, Harris was depicted as a psychopathic villain. Again, drawing evidence from his journals, one community member remarked, “If you read through the journals […]it’s clearly evident that Eric was not only a psychopath, but also embodied characteristics of anti-social personality disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.” Further drawing attention to his heinous- ness, another community member suggested that “Eric possessed hatred and disgust for most all human beings and considered himself to be far superior to others in every way.” Given these traits, community members hypothesized that Harris was destined to become an infamous murderer. For instance, one community member suggested, “I could picture him being the type that just turns into a straight up serial killer on the run for years. Making a game of it like the Zodiac killer.” Although both perpetrators discussed the shooting in their journals and on home videos (known as “the basement tapes”), community members nonetheless largely agreed that Harris orchestrated the shooting and manipulated Klebold’s suicidal ideation. One poster simply said, “I am thoroughly in the Eric-was-evil-and-was-the-reason-this-all-happened camp.” Another community member added, “Eric for sure manipulated everything. Dylan wanted to commit suicide for years.” Drawing a clearer contrast between the two perpetrators, another community member suggested, “I still think Dylan wanted to die and Eric wanted to kill.”

Fan theories Reminiscent of how fans of television shows may hypothesize about the outcome of plotlines and how fans of sports teams may speculate about the likelihood of high profile acquisitions, members of the Columbiner dark fandom offered many of their own fan theories. Community members agreed that if their plan had been fully realized, Harris and Klebold would have killed far more students and staff members. One poster summarized their plan in the following way:

Let’s also not forget that the school shooting element of the tragedy was plan B. The Columbine Massacre was designed to be a bombing. Eric and Dylan were to detonate two propane bombs in the cafeteria, killing an estimated 800+ students. They were then going to pick off remaining students and faculty as they ran to escape the aftermath. When the bombs failed to detonate, they called an audible and charged the entrance. Therefore, community members offered several theories about why the bombs failed to detonate. Reflecting Klebold’s antihero status, a popular theory suggested that he somehow secretively sabotaged the explosives to save some lives:

I have a crazy theory that Dylan […] really didn’t want to hurt 100’s of people but maybe just a couple. Dylan on that morning of April 20th 1999 when he woke up. He decided he wanted to die but didn’t want too many people to get hurt. So, he tampered with the major bombs and made sure they wouldn’t go off when the timers ran out. Dylan did take several lives that day but the one thing people will never know is that he saved hundreds. Another community member agreed, replying that “Just going on gut feeling, I think your theory holds water.” Other community members posited that Klebold was too intelligent to build bombs that did not detonate. As one member suggested, “Dylan was a really smart kid. I’m not an expert in what they were doing. But I was just assuming there was a way to make the bombs duds or malfunction.” DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 799

To be sure, more causalities were likely if the bombs detonated. Nevertheless, community members hypothesized other reasons why the perpetrators did not kill more students and staff at Columbine High School. One community member queried why their rampage ended when the perpetrators allegedly had ammunition left: “That’s something that I’ve never really understood. Why didn’t they kill more people? […] They could have kept going if they truly wanted to. They had a decent amount of shotgun shells left and there were multiple people that were spared or simply ignored by Eric & Dylan.” Members of the Columbiner dark fandom offered at least three explana- tions for the comparatively low number of causalities: injury, boredom, and power. First, some community members proposed that the recoil from Harris’s shotgun broke his nose, which brought an early end to the perpetrators’ rampage. They suggested that, perhaps, Harris was in pain or his injury undermined his excitement for his murderous plot. One community member theorized, “I feel like the shock and pain of that ‘brought him back to reality’ of a sort, took him out of that adrenaline rush and simultaneously distracted him from any thrill that was left.” Although some community members agreed with this theory, others questioned why a minor injury would dissuade a plan that was destined to end in suicide. Placing themselves in the scenario, a commenter suggested, “Me, I wouldn’t care, I would think. If I knew I was going to die soon anyways.” Another community member suggested that “although plausible, it seems a little fishy to me. Besides, he’d been planning it for years. Arrests, groundings, and counseling didn’t stop him. Why would a broken nose?” Second, some community members posited that Harris and Klebold likely became bored and dispirited after the bombs failed to detonate. Articulating this perspective, one commenter noted, “It’s also important to remember that their killing spree roughly lasted 90+ minutes and fear, anxiety, and uncertainty most likely had set in […] not to mention the adrenaline drop.” Distinguishing between the emotions of serial and mass murderers, another community member added, “Serial killers tend to spike when they kill, then have a cool off period. With a mass shooter it happens all at once and then once the high is lost, it must feel boring.” Third, perhaps the most popular theory proposed that Harris and Klebold reveled in ‘playing God.’ According to this theory, Harris and Klebold actively chose to kill some people and spare others in order to demonstrate their power. When one community member asked why “Eric and Dylan didn’t blow [another student’s] head off,” another replied, “It was the power of being able to choose who lives and who dies. It made them feel God-like.” Another community member agreed with this assertion: “That is actually the best reason why they let people go. That is now my belief.” Still another added, “They liked to have full control and pick and choose who lives and who dies. The answer is more simple than some can believe.”

The legacy of columbine Members of the Columbiner community on Reddit also expressed their fandom through discussions about the cultural legacy of the actors and the act. The impact of the shooting at Columbine High School on school safety policies and procedures was commented on in several discussion threads. Although it was not the first school shooting, the narrative around school shootings shifted in the aftermath of Columbine (Newman 2004:ix). In a lengthy post drawing upon their own elementary school experiences and lamenting stricter policies, one community member explained that

it completely changed public schools. […] They started taking threats very seriously, regardless of how obviously hollow they were. […] Kids would get in trouble for doing or having anything remotely like a gun. You’re using a stick on the playground as a gun? Suspended. Man, it sounds so dumb when I talk about it now, but that’s exactly what it was like. Other community members reported that after the shooting at Columbine High School their own schools required that they use transparent backpacks and tuck in their shirts so that it would be more difficult to conceal a weapon. Community members also discussed the implementation of 800 R. BROLL active-shooter drills. For example, one member recalled having “fire and tornado drills when I was little. Then in first or second grade (after Columbine) we started active shooter drills.” Another community member noted that post-Columbine school safety measures extended beyond the US: “This was the same for my Primary and Secondary schools here in the UK. Went to Primary school on a fancy dress day as a soldier, had a toy gun and was sent home immediately.” Much of the discussion of the incident’s legacy centered on the media’s coverage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and subsequent (and hypothetical future) film adaptations. First, community members drew attention to the media’s coverage of the shooting in April 1999 and commented on the persistence of inaccuracies presented in early coverage. According to one community member, “Columbine has been considered ground zero for school shootings, simply based on the infamy…again, propagated by the media.” The media cited music, dress (the “Trench Coat Mafia”), and bullying as reasons for the shooting. Summarizing the community’s sentiment, one commenter explained, “There was a lot of misinformation and theories that were thrown around in the wake of the massacre and it turned into a media firestorm and really infected the culture.” Another community member concurred: “Columbine and the myths surrounding it still dominate the conversation around mass shootings and/or shooting sprees. It’s fascinating and terrifying.” Second, the legacy of the shooters and shooting was highlighted in lengthy discussions of their immortalization in film. Members of the Columbiner dark fandom generally lamented existing films related to the incident. I’m Not Ashamed, a 2016 biographical drama film developed by a Christian organization and based, in part, on the journals of the first victim, Rachel Scott, was especially unpopular within this community. In the film, Scott and a friend are the first victims shot by Harris and Klebold. As she lays on the ground wounded, Harris approaches Scott and asks her if she still believes in God. When she replies that she does, Harris shoots her again. Community members were most upset that the shooting was portrayed as being religiously motivated. Discussing filmmakers, one community member lamented, “They can’t make [details of the incident] up like they did with Rachel’s movie. We need accurate information.” Another commenter suggested, “that movie is nothing but a cash grab made by her parents to profit off of dead kids.” Still another critiqued the film by referring to it as “a big load of Christian propaganda.” Other discussions were future-oriented and emphasized a shared desire for a feature film to focus on Harris and Klebold. As one community member said, “I just wish we could get a good E&D [Eric and Dylan] movie that accurately follows them.” In response, a commenter asked, “Do you think someone will ever make a real, nonfiction big-screen adaptation of NBK? […]I’m talking about an actual film from Eric and Dylan’s perspective. Do you think America’s ready for it?” Community members disagreed about whether such a film was likely, with some alleging that Harris and Klebold joked in the basement tapes about who would direct a film about them in. Still, to much fanfare one community member offered their vision for such a film:

A movie that is divided so that 50% of it shows the optimism, happiness, fun, and euphoria of a senior-year high-school student (his grades, his plans for the future, his passions) and the other 50% that shows the pessimism, problems, anger, and depression of the perpetrators (perhaps 25% for Dylan and his personal motives, alcoholism, depression, loneliness…and 25% for Eric and his personal motives, revenge, psychological/ social issues…and of course their mutual bonding and a few good experiences overshadowed with their issues) all of that would eventually culminate on the 20th April in Columbine. The end scene could be the victim’s emotional last moment before they get fatally shot. In response, another member of the Columbiner dark fandom wrote, “The way you just describe[d] it, I would go to the premiere.”

Discussion

There is a long-held and deep-seated cultural fascination with the macabre. From early colonial literature and the origins of moving pictures to contemporary true crime novels and slasher films, we are seemingly enraptured by violence and death (Murley 2008; Schmid 2005). Beyond media objects, DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 801 we are similarly fascinated by dark artifacts and actors, and every year thousands of dark tourists flock to sites of tragedy and torture (Brown 2009; Lennon and Foley 2000; Wilson 2008; Wilson et al. 2017). Furthermore, as fame has transitioned from a meritorious achievement to simple visibility murderers have come to achieve celebrity status (Braudy 1997; Caputi 1990; Holmes and Redmond 2006; Parnaby and Sacco 2004; Redmond 2006; Schmid 2005, 2006). The celebrification of murder (e.g., Schmid 2005) and fans of fictional murderers, like Hannibal Lecter and Dexter Morgan (Donnelly 2012;Gregoriou2012;Schmid2005), have been studied; however, despite some attention from the news media (Hess 2015;Rosenberg2018; The Canadian Press 2018), little is known about fans of non-fictional mass or serial murderers. Indeed, only a handful of studies have acknowledged the existence of such fans or studied their interactions in mediated contexts (Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka 2014;Paton2012; Paton and Figeac 2015; Raitanen and Oksanen 2018;Raitanen, Sandberg, and Oksanen 2017). While these studies are important in drawing attention to an under- studied community, they remain disconnected from broader literatures on fandoms and a larger cultural fascination with darkness. The purpose of this study was to introduce the concept of dark fandoms, or communities of fans who identify with or celebrate those who have committed heinous acts, such as mass or serial murderers. These communities often form online (Oksanen, Hawdon, and Pekka 2014; Paton 2012; Paton and Figeac 2015) where those with deviant interests can congregate without regard for geographic boundaries (Maratea and Kavanaugh 2012) and can be seen as extensions of the celebrification of murder and a longstanding cultural interest in death and violence. Then, Columbiners were highlighted as one example of a dark fandom and expressions of their fandom on the social website Reddit were examined over a three-month period. Although I draw attention to Columbiners, dark fandoms do not exclusively focus on school shooters. Members of the Columbiner dark fandom expressed their fandom in three ways similar to more conventional fan communities (e.g., Booth 2017; Costello and Moore 2007). First, community members focused their attention on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two central characters of the shooting at Columbine High School. Unlike Raitanen and Oskanen (2018), who described both shooters as antiheroes, community members mirrored Langman’s(2015) characterization of Klebold as a suicidal misguided antihero and Harris as a maniacal villain. These representations may reflect the relatability of the shooters. Simply put, Harris was unrelatable – he was evil and psychopathic. Thus, although Harris was a mastermind of destruction, he was not thought of as an “idol of destruction” (Schmid 2005). Conversely, Klebold was relatable – he was a shy, awkward teenager with a small circle of friends. Compared to Harris’s evil, Klebold’s traits are familiar to many. This suggests that although mass murderers may achieve notoriety, not all are equally likely to attract fans. Second, community members proposedanddebatedfantheoriesabout the incident. Notable theories centered on why the bombs failed to detonate and why there were not more causalities. Some speculated that Klebold, as the antihero, somehow tampered with the bombs to save (some) lives. Others theorized that injuries, boredom, or, most popularly, a desire to ‘play God’ contributed to fewer casualties than may have been possible. Upon analyzing their journals, Langman (2015) similarly concluded that Harris and Klebold felt superior and godlike. For example, Harris wrote, “I would love to be the ultimate judge and say if a person lives or dies – be godlike” (Langman 2015: 19). While markedly more morbid, these discussions resembled the ways in which fans of television programs may theorize about the outcomes of plotlines or sports fans debate which moves their favorite team will make to improve their fortunes. Third, considerable discussion was devoted to the cultural legacy of the shooting and shooters. To be sure, the shooting itself contributed to sweeping policy reforms aimed at improving school safety (Addington 2009; Crepeau-Hobson, Filaccio, and Gottfried 2005; Muschert and Peguero 2010). Community members recognized these changes, and some shared their personal experiences with them. Other commenters drew attention to the media’s coverage of the shooting, and especially factual inaccuracies that have persisted. Still others discussed dramatic representations of the shooting and shooters. Films focused on the victims were often criticized for their perceived poor 802 R. BROLL portrayals of the perpetrators’ motives, while a yearning for a future feature film legitimizing Harris and Klebold as “idols of destruction” (Schmid 2005) was apparent. Notwithstanding these findings, three limitations should be considered. First, a case study approach does not permit generalizability. Future studies should examine Columbiner dark fandoms on other social networking websites and online forums. Furthermore, research should move beyond fans of school shootings to examine other dark fandoms including those focused on serial and mass killers given their prominence (Schmid 2005). Second, data were collected from a limited temporal period. Although this period yielded more than 700 unique posts and was selected to include the anniversary of the shooting at Columbine High School, it is possible that expressions of fandom differ over time. More longitudinal studies would add further depth to understandings of dark fandoms. Third, since it relied on community members posts to a publicly accessible website, the current study was unable to assess what attracts these participants to dark fandoms. Indeed, only one known study included personal contact with members of such communities (Raitanen and Oksanen 2018). Future research should seek to elaborate on this central question. Given a broad and longstanding cultural interest in death, violence, and dark actors and artifacts, the emergence of dark fandoms should not be seen as a surprise. These communities allow those with a shared interest in those who have committed heinous acts, like mass or serial murderers, to collectively share their interests, and the growth of the internet has surely contributed to their formation. The results of this study suggest that the Columbiner dark fandom expresses themselves in ways similar to more conventional fandoms, albeit in a more deviant and morbid manner. However, the extent to which members of dark fandoms are similar to fans of fictional serial killers, express violent tendencies, have other deviant interests, or have internalized deviant identities is unknown. Future research ought to address these and other questions to better understand the emergence and growth of dark fandoms.

Notes on contributor

Ryan Broll, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Guelph. His research focuses on bullying and cyberbullying, victimization, and resilience, with an emphasis on the causes and consequences of youthful deviance.

ORCID

Ryan Broll http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2168-7051

References

Adalian, Josef, Marc Bernardin, Kyle Buchanan, Pete Chianca, Amanda Dobbins, Jesse David Fox, Margaret Lyons, Denise Martin, Jennifer Vineyard, and Ross Ruediger. 2012 October 15. “The 25 Most Devoted Fan Bases.” Vulture. Addington, Lynn A. 2009. “Cops and Cameras: Public School Security as a Policy Response to Columbine.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 (10):1426–46. doi: 10.1177/0002764209332556 Best, Joel. 1999. Random Violence: How We Talk about New Crimes and New Victims. Berkeley: University of California Press. Booth, Paul. 2017. Digital Fandom 2.0: New Media Studies. Second. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Braudy, Leo. 1997. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Browder, Laura. 2006. “Dystopian Romance: True Crime and the Female Reader.” The Journal of Popular Culture 39 (6):928–53. doi: 10.1111/jpcu.2006.39.issue-6 Brown, Michelle. 2009. The Culture of Punishment: Prison, Society, and Spectacle. New York, N.Y: New York University Press. Capote, Truman. 1967. In Cold Blood: A True Account of A Multiple Murder and Its Consequences. New York, NY: New American Library. DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 803

Caputi, Jane. 1990. “The New Founding Fathers: The Lore and Lure of the Serial Killer in Contemporary Culture.” Journal of American Culture 13 (3):1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-734X.1990.1303_1.x Costello, Victor and Barbara Moore. 2007. “Cultural Outlaws: An Examination of Audience Activity and Online Television Fandom.” Television & New Media 8 (2):124–43. doi: 10.1177/1527476406299112 Crepeau-Hobson, M. F., M. Filaccio, and L. Gottfried. 2005. “Violence Prevention after Columbine: A Survey of High School Mental Health Professionals.” Children & Schools 27 (3):157–65. doi: 10.1093/cs/27.3.157 Donnelly, Ashley M. 2012. “The New American Hero: Dexter, Serial Killer for the Masses.” The Journal of Popular Culture 45 (1):15–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5931.2011.00908.x Driessens, Olivier. 2013. “The Celebritization of Society and Culture: Understanding the Structural Dynamics of Celebrity Culture.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 16 (6):641–57. doi: 10.1177/1367877912459140 Duffett, Mark, ed 2014. Popular Music Fandom: Identities, Roles and Practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Duwe, Grant. 2000. “Body-Count Journalism: The Presentation of Mass Murder in the News Media.” Homicide Studies 4 (4):364–99. doi: 10.1177/1088767900004004004 Dyer, Richard. 1998. Stars. London: BFI Pub. Ehrenreich, Barbara, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs. 1992. “Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun.” Pp. 84–106.” in Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, edited by L. A. Lewis. New York, NY: Routledge. Farmaki, Anna. 2013. “Dark Tourism Revisited: A Supply/Demand Conceptualisation.” International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 7 (3):281–92. doi: 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0030 Ferguson, Matthew and Devon Madill. 2017. “From Shame to Fame: ‘Celebrity’ Prisoners and Canadian Prison Museums.” Pp. 415–34 in The Palgrave Handbook of Prison Tourism, edited by J. Z. Wilson, S. Hodgkinson, J. Piche, and K. Walby. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison,2nd., Vintage Books ed. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Gibson, Dirk C. 2006. “The Relationship between Serial Murder and the American Tourism Industry.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 20 (1):45–60. doi: 10.1300/J073v20n01_04 Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington. 2007. “Introduction: Why Study Fans?” Pp. 1–16 in Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, edited by J. Gray, C. Sandvoss, and C. L. Harrington. New York: New York University Press, Gregoriou, Christiana. 2012. “‘Times like These, I Wish There Was a Real Dexter’: Unpacking Serial Murder Ideologies and Metaphors from TV’s Dexter Internet Forum.” Language and Literature 21 (3):274–85. doi: 10.1177/ 0963947012444223 Grieveson, Lee. 2002. “Stars and Audiences in Early American Cinema.” Screening the Past, 14. (http://www.screen ingthepast.com/2014/12/stars-and-audiences-in-early-american-cinema/). Haggerty, Kevin D. 2009. “Modern Serial Killers.” Crime, Media, Culture 5 (2):168–87. doi: 10.1177/1741659009335714 Hess, Amanda. 2015 July 22. “Diehard Holmies: What Happens When James Holmes Fangirls Grow Up.” Slate. Holmes, Su and Sean Redmond. 2006. “Introduction: Understanding Celebrity Culture.” Pp. 1–16 in Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture, edited by S. Holmes and S. Redmond. London: Routledge, Huey, Laura, Johnny Nhan, and Ryan Broll. 2013. “‘Uppity Civilians’ and ‘Cyber-Vigilantes’: The Role of the General Public in Policing Cyber-Crime.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 13 (1):81 –97. doi: 10.1177/1748895812448086 Jarvis, Brian. 2007. “Monsters Inc.: Serial Killers and Consumer Culture.” Crime, Media, Culture 3 (3):326–44. doi: 10.1177/1741659007082469 Jindra, Michael. 1994. “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon.” Sociology of Religion 55 (1):27–51. doi: 10.2307/3712174 Klebold, Sue. 2016. A Mother’s Reckoning: Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. Langman, Peter F. 2015. School Shooters: Understanding High School, College, and Adult Perpetrators. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lankford, Adam and Eric Madfis. 2018. “Media Coverage of Mass Killers: Content, Consequences, and Solutions.” American Behavioral Scientist 62 (2):151–62. doi: 10.1177/0002764218763476 Lennon, John and Malcolm Foley. 2000. Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster. New York, NY: Continuum. Malesky, L.Alvin and Liam Ennis. 2004. “Supportive Distortions: An Analysis of Posts on a Pedophile Internet Message Board.” Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling 24 (2):92–100. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1874.2004. tb00185.x Maratea, R. J. and Philip R. Kavanaugh. 2012. “Deviant Identity in Online Contexts: New Directives in the Study of a Classic Concept.” Sociology Compass 6 (2):102–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00438.x McCarthy, John. 2008. “Florida School Shooting: Worst School Shootings in U.S. History.” Naples Daily News, February 15. Murley, Jean. 2008. The Rise of True Crime: Twentieth Century Murder and American Popular Culture. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 804 R. BROLL

Muschert, Glenn W. and Anthony A. Peguero. 2010. “The Columbine Effect and School Antiviolence Policies.” Pp. 117–48 in New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment, edited by M. Peyrot and S. L. Burns. Bingley, UK: Emerald, Newman, Katherine S., ed 2004. Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York: Basic Books. Nhan, Johnny, Laura Huey, and Ryan Broll. 2017. “Digilantism: An Analysis of Crowdsourcing and the Boston Marathon Bombings.” British Journal of Criminology 57 (2):341–61. Oksanen, Atte, James Hawdon, and Räsänen. Pekka. 2014. “Glamorizing Rampage Online: School Shooting Fan Communities on YouTube.” Technology in Society 39:55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.08.001 Parnaby, Patrick F. and Vincent F. Sacco. 2004. “Fame and Strain: The Contributions of Mertonian Deviance Theory to an Understanding of the Relationship between Celebrity and Deviant Behavior.” Deviant Behavior 25 (1):1–26. doi: 10.1080/01639620490253992 Paton, Nathalie. 2012. “Media Participation of School Shooters and Their Fans, Navigating between Self-Distinction and Imitation to Achieve Individuation.” Pp. 203–29 in School Shootings, Mediatized Violence in a Global Age, edited by G. W. Muschert and J. Sumiala. Bingley, UK: Emerald, Paton, Nathalie and Julien Figeac. 2015. “Muddled Boundaries of Digital Shrines.” Popular Communication 13 (4):251–71. doi: 10.1080/15405702.2015.1019072 Press, The Canadian. 2018 April 16. “Halifax Mall Plotters Admired Columbine Killers, Court Document Reveals.” CTV News. Raitanen, Jenni and Atte Oksanen. 2018. “Global Online Subculture Surrounding School Shootings.” American Behavioral Scientist 62 (2):195–209. doi: 10.1177/0002764218755835 Raitanen, Jenni, Sveinung Sandberg, and Atte Oksanen. 2017 . “The Bullying-School Shooting Nexus: Bridging Master Narratives of Mass Violence with Personal Narratives of Social Exclusion.” Deviant Behavior:1–14. Redmond, Sean. 2006. “Intimate Fame Everywhere.” Pp. 27–44 in Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture, edited by S. Holmes and S. Redmond. London: Routledge, Rosenberg, Eli. 2018 March 29. “The Parkland Shooting Suspect Has Fans, and They’re Sending Him Letters and Money.” The Washington Post. Rule, Ann. 1980. The Stranger beside Me. New York, NY: Norton. Schmid, David. 2005. Natural Born Celebrities: Serial Killers in American Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Schmid, David. 2006. “Idols of Destruction: Celebrity and the Serial Killer.” Pp. 295–310 in Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture, edited by S. Homes and S. Redmond. London: Routledge, Soothill, Keith. 1993. “The Serial Killer Industry.” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 4 (2):341–54. doi: 10.1080/ 09585189308407983 Surette, Ray. 1994. “Predator Criminals as Media Icons.” Pp. 131–58 in Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime: Studies in Newsmaking Criminology, edited by G. Barak. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Van Hout, Marie Claire and Tim Bingham. 2013a. “‘Silk Road’, the Virtual Drug Marketplace: A Single Case Study of User Experiences.” International Journal of Drug Policy 24 (5):385–91. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.01.005 Van Hout, Marie Claire and Tim Bingham. 2013b. “‘Surfing the Silk Road’: A Study of Users’ Experiences.” International Journal of Drug Policy 24 (6):524–29. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.08.011 Waugh, Amanda. 2017. “Teen Nerdfighters: An Exploration of Engagement in a Complex Fan Community.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 54 (1):821–23. doi: 10.1002/ pra2.2017.14505401171 Wilson, Jacqueline Z. 2008. Prison: Cultural Memory and Dark Tourism. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Wilson, Jacqueline Z., Sarah Hodgkinson, Justin Piché, and Kevin Walby, eds 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of Prison Tourism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wilson, Jacqueline Zara. 2004. “Dark Tourism and the Celebrity Prisoner: Front and Back Regions in Representations of an Australian Historical Prison.” Journal of Australian Studies 28 (82):1–13. doi: 10.1080/14443050409387951