Hi! What do you make of the scriptwriters' decision to make John's final words to Dean at 2.01 practically the same as YED!John's at the end of season 1 -words that actually outed him as possessed? it's something that consumes me lmao

Oh this is a great question, ty!! I didn’t even realize just how close the YED's lines in 1x22 are to John’s words in 2x01 until I went back to the transcripts – because you’re right, the wording in these two moments has some key similarities.

From 1x22:

JOHN Mad? I’m proud of you. You know, Sam and I, we can get pretty obsessed. But you – you watch out for this family. You always have.

From 2x01:

JOHN You shouldn't have had to say that to me, I should have been saying that to you. You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me. You did that, and you didn't complain, not once. I just want you to know that I am so proud of you. DEAN This really you talking? JOHN Yeah. Yeah, it's really me. DEAN Why are you saying this stuff? JOHN [JOHN comes closer, puts a hand on DEAN'S shoulder.] I want you to watch out for Sammy, okay? DEAN Yeah, dad, you know I will. You're scaring me. JOHN Don't be scared, Dean. [JOHN leans over and whispers something into DEAN'S ear. DEAN pulls back in shock, processing. JOHN leaves, and DEAN stares after him.]

My general take on your question would be: the YED / YED possessing John are both metaphors related to John’s control over and abuse of Dean and Sam. There’s John, their real father, and then the YED, the evil demon controlling him. For John to then use the YED’s words intertwines the good dad and abusive monster together. Where's the clear, dividing line between them?

Particularly for early seasons, and somewhat also in later seasons, I find one of the most interesting reads around possession to be as a metaphor for characters feeling “controlled” by suppressed or repressed emotions as well as revealing of hidden thoughts, feelings, and impulses. Think of Sam being possessed by Dr. Ellicott in 1x10: he’s literally possessed by a vengeful ghost, metaphorically possessed by his resentment and anger against Dean. Particularly around the YED, I see John’s possession as revealing of abuse. I want to cite amonitrate as I believe the first spot where I saw the ‘possession as metaphorical of abuse’ metaphor clearly laid out (and applicable to more than just 1x22: possession as a metaphor for abuse, “it wasn’t really them” as the heart of the metaphor, how it fits into how victim can react to abuse), and it’s definitely an idea / interpretation that I've seen others in fandom argue for, too. For ex, I stumbled on a more recent meta the other day making the case for a similar read: “#like actually. the metaphoric demon as the manifestation of john’s grief and increased substance abuse and the angry man he becomes #is sooo compelling to me #and the demon as a figurative persona that dean places on his dad to distance him when he’s like this from the good dad in his mind.” If John is literally possessed by the YED in 1x22, then metaphorically he’s possessed by his own “inner demons”: his obsession, his anger, his contempt towards what he sees as the “weakness” of Dean’s loyalty to him & Sam, and his respect for what he sees as the "strength" of Sam's rebellion and fighting back against him. For me, the YED hurting Dean and John taking back ‘control’ before he kills Dean feels screamingly metaphorical for domestic violence, and particularly as a revelation about physical abuse that was hidden from Sam, given the theme of Sam learning more about Dean over the course of season 1.

If the YED scene in 1x22 is about, among other things, hidden physical abuse, then the scene between Dean and John in 2x01 is about emotional abuse. John using the YED’s same wording is foreshadowing for the audience: if John sounds like ‘the demon,’ should we be wary? But isn't this the ‘real’ John? So what could John have told or asked of Dean here...? As we learn midway through season 2, what John told Dean was not good, not at all. John says he put too much on Dean’s shoulders, made Dean take care of him and Sam, and gave Dean too much responsibility when he was too young, essentially describing his parentification of Dean without explicitly naming it. Then John goes on to reenact that exact same dysfunctional family dynamic in asking Dean to save Sam or kill him, putting the responsibility on Dean to protect Sam’s humanity and make sure Sam makes the ‘right’ choices while not revealing anything to Sam about his possible 'destiny'. John should have had this conversation with Sam, or possibly Sam and Dean together, but definitely not Dean alone. Instead, it's the same emotional abuse from Dean and Sam's childhood recreated in their adulthood; Dean is made responsible for Sam, his safety, and his actions, while Sam is left in the dark about supernatural happenings that directly involve him. John might not be possessed in 2x01, but he's hurting his children as the YED did in 1x22, just in a different but still horrible way.

10 pasos, para establecer una rutina de vida saludable. Sin gastarte ni un euro.

Foto de rishikesh yogpeeth en Unsplash 10 Pasos para transformar tu estilo de vida y alcanzar una salud óptima Hola, Cualquier día de la semana es bueno para comenzar un cambio o meta personal. Sin embargo, el domingo para mí, es el mejor día. Ya que la mayoría de las veces uno lo tiene libre y dispone de tiempo para poder descansar, reflexionar, sobre sí misma, el momento que está viviendo,…

View On WordPress

Shipping is fun and all but I swear every single time someone makes a comment, whether as a joke or in a legitimate analysis, about there being "no other explanation" for a pair's interactions, I lose just a bit more of my sanity

Like, no, you guys don't get it. Romance is not about the Amount of devotion, it's about the COLOR. the FLAVOR of it all. a character can be just as devoted to their platonic friend as they are to their romantic partner, and they don't love either of them more, just differently.

But because the majority of people still have it stuck in their minds that romance exists on the highest tier of love, I'm stuck seeing endless takes that boil down to "these two care about each other too much for it to NOT be romantic" as if that's the core determining factor to how literally any of this works

In conclusion: stop telling me that I don't understand the story if I don't interpret the leads as romantic, I am TIRED

“Bruce is emotionally incompetent and can’t step outside his own morality” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Dick is extremely stubborn and thinks he’s right all the time” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Jason has hypocritical tendencies” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“ Tim is entitled and doesn’t think about people when seeking results, and often acts uncaring” yeah it’s a character flaw.

“Damian is rude and bratty” yeah, it’s a character flaw.

Also, some people may not even regard everything listed above as flaws.

Having negative traits allows incredible flexibility within your characters, what makes them intriguing, what makes them easy to relate to. If you want to write people, then write people. But they can’t be good and clean all the time.

mountain man etho confirmed

You know what I realize that people underestimate with Pride & Prejudice is the strategic importance of Jane.

Because like, I recently saw Charlotte and Elizabeth contrasted as the former being pragmatic and the latter holding out for a love match, because she's younger and prettier and thinks she can afford it, and that is very much not what's happening.

The Charlotte take is correct, but the Elizabeth is all wrong. Lizzie doesn't insist on a love match. That's serendipitous and rather unexpected. She wants, exactly as Mr. Bennet says, someone she can respect. Contempt won't do. Mr. Bennet puts it in weirdly sexist terms like he's trying to avoid acknowledging what he did to himself by marrying a self-absorbed idiot, but it's still true. That's what Elizabeth is shooting for: a marriage that won't make her unhappy.

She's grown up watching how miserable her parents make one another; she's not willing to sign up for a lifetime of being bitter and lonely in her own home.

I think she is very aware, in refusing Mr. Collins, that it's reasonably unlikely that anyone she actually respects is going to want her, with her few accomplishments and her lack of property. That she is turning down security and the chance keep the house she grew up in, and all she gets in return may be spinsterhood.

But, crucially, she has absolute faith in Jane.

The bit about teaching Jane's daughters to embroider badly? That's a joke, but it's also a serious potential life plan. Jane is the best creature in the world, and a beauty; there's no chance at all she won't get married to someone worthwhile.

(Bingley mucks this up by breaking Jane's heart, but her prospects remain reasonable if their mother would lay off!)

And if Elizabeth can't replicate that feat, then there's also no doubt in her mind that Jane will let her live in her house as a dependent as long as she likes, and never let it be made shameful or awful to be that impoverished spinster aunt. It will be okay never to be married at all, because she has her sister, whom she trusts absolutely to succeed and to protect her.

And if something eventually happens to Jane's family and they can't keep her anymore, she can throw herself upon the mercy of the Gardeners, who have money and like her very much, and are likewise good people. She has a support network--not a perfect or impregnable one, but it exists. It gives her realistic options.

Spinsterhood was a very dangerous choice; there are reasons you would go to considerable lengths not to risk it.

But Elizabeth has Jane, and her pride, and an understanding of what marrying someone who will make you miserable costs.

That's part of the thesis of the book, I would say! Recurring Austen thought. How important it is not to marry someone who will make you, specifically, unhappy.

She would rather be a dependent of people she likes and trusts than of someone she doesn't, even if the latter is formally considered more secure; she would rather live in a happy, reasonable household as an extra than be the mistress of her own home, but that home is full of Mr. Collins and her mother.

This is a calculation she's making consciously! She's not counting on a better marriage coming along. She just feels the most likely bad outcome from refusing Mr. Collins is still much better than the certain outcome of accepting him. Which is being stuck with Mr. Collins forever.

Elizabeth is also being pragmatic. Austen also endorses her choice, for the person she is and the concerns she has. She's just picking different trade-offs than Charlotte.

Elizabeth's flaw is not in her own priorities; she doesn't make a reckless choice and get lucky. But in being unable to accept that Charlotte's are different, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Charlotte.

Because realistically, when your marriage is your whole family and career forever, and you only get to pick the ones that offer themselves to you, when you are legally bound to the status of dependent, you're always going to be making some trade-offs.

😂 Even the unrealistically ideal dream scenario of wealthy handsome clever ethical Mr. Darcy still asks you to undergo personal growth, accommodate someone else's communication style, and eat a little crow.

there is something unique and deeply special about monkey d luffy as a protagonist. he’s overwhelmingly ADORED by the fandom. he’s consistently the most or at least top 3 most popular characters in the whole series. peoples takes about him are gushingly positive. and that’s… really uncommon.

a LOT of fandoms i’ve witnessed or been in have a tendency to favor characters other than the main character. especially in anime. the main characters are often written as a blank slate for readers/watchers to project onto, but that makes them not as interesting and so they don’t get the fan attention.

but luffy is so far from that. and he’s ALWAYS been this way. we love him so much. he’s the heart of the story and the heart of the fandom in every single way. and i think that speaks to how well-written he is as a character. he’s fun and charming and complex and interesting and he makes us laugh and cry and cheer and hope and love. he’s able to inspire so much joy in people, both in his world but also in this one. and i think that’s really special. i feel so grateful to have found this story that means so much to me, and i’m so grateful that luffy exists.

i'm just going to go ahead and make this its own post. when kirk teases spock he is SO GENTLE. "why mister spock are you feeling emotion?" and he lets spock do the vulcan equivalent of giggling and kicking his feet and going "haha nooo silly i'm a VULCAN i don't do that!!" and kirk's like "oh my apologies mister spock of COURSE not" and then they make consensual loving eyecontact with one another while smiling. when BONES senses blood in the water (spock having an emotion) he will grab spock by the scruff of his fucking neck and shake until dead. like a dog with a squirrel.

expanding a little bit on my ‘i could write a tag essay’ from this post abt Sam & Lucifer in 5x22. @synesindri​ thanks for the prompting :)

the script describing Sam “enjoying” every minute of Lucifer killing the demons makes me think how some meta resists the idea that Sam was angry or hubristic or violently vengeful in Kripke’s era when doing so, imo, makes Sam overall a much less interesting character and diminishes his connection to Lucifer and Sam & Lucifer being narrative foils.

Sam taking back control from Lucifer in “Swan Song” has such a weight to it because Sam and Lucifer are alike. one read of it is Lucifer as symbolic of / metaphorical for Sam’s anger & resentment (as Michael is symbolic of / metaphorical for Dean’s uncritical loyalty & obedience), which is why Sam breaking Lucifer’s possession is such a triumphant character moment. Sam won against his ‘inner demons’ (altho I guess it’s technically his ‘inner angels,’ heh).

there’s a narrative role-switching that happens w/ Sam & Dean from early to later seasons that kind of works for me, kind of doesn’t. Sam starts out as the angry, resentful & revenge-driven bro, and then Dean becomes the angry, resentful & revenge-driven one. I just wish the writing had kept more of Sam’s darker edges around instead of dropping them.

one example that’s top of mind b/c I’m working on a Mark of Cain meta is how Dean’s corruption by the Mark is framed as him “enjoying” the violence he’s committing, and how that fits so well with Sam “enjoying” Lucifer’s violence in 5x22. Sam literally has the experience of being ‘possessed’ by his anger and need for revenge and overcoming that!! but Sam trying so hard to save Dean from the Mark isn’t framed thru that lens. it’s much more about Sam’s faith in Dean and how Dean saved him so now Sam wants to save Dean, which isn’t technically wrong within the story, per se, but imo kind of a weird framing for the Apocalypse arc. I mean, wasn’t “Swan Song” ultimately about Sam and Dean both saving each other and in doing so saving the world?

also all of this is also why Lucifer/Michael :: Sam/Dean >>> Abel/Cain :: Sam/Dean.

[shows up at your door at 2AM] hey can we go through that last D&D session scene by scene and discuss the symbolism and the narrative themes and their implications, and how each character has grown and evolved? But in a normal way?

Katya / Goncharov

I am feeling fine and perfectly normal about them. :)))))))

happy birthday. you are so, so loved

More thoughts on Alastor and why I don't think he's actually outdated:

I totally understand why many thoughts are going in the direction of him disliking Vox and TV as a whole because it is the technology that more or less replaced radio in the public eye, but I also think that we (so far, as of episode 4) have never really been given any evidence that he dislikes TV on principle rather than because he dislikes Vox and Vox is TV. Like, yes, he maintains a very dated aesthetic and does things like call TV "picture shows."

But also.

He throws around phrases like, "And now he's pissy, that's the tea!" and speaks with a permanent transatlantic accent (commonly used for TV and radio during his era but not actually naturally-occuring) at literally all times. This guy is not clueless - he's putting on airs. He knows modern lingo and he uses it comfortably and naturally.

There's a fanfic that, to save my life, I cannot remember the name of, where Angel Dust asks Alastor something to the tune of, "So what I'm getting out of this conversation is that you know it's called a cell phone and you just talk like you've never seen one on purpose?" and Alastor responds with, "Naturally!" that I think hit the nail on the head.

Especially when Alastor's anachronisms are so pointed. He calls Vox's TV show a "video podcast," which, 1) a podcast is a pretty modern term for him to know, originating at some point in the early 2000s and 2) deliberately reframes Vox's entire thing in terms of an audio format. It's not television. It's a podcast (a form of audio media that originated in the desire to download online radio broadcasts) with some video tacked on, he guesses.

Anyway, the tl;dr is that while I'm sure Alastor prefers his own era, I don't think Alastor is actually outdated, I think he's being fucking annoying on purpose.

Look at him. Look at his smug knifecat face. Bastardous. I love him.

ETA: The fanfic I mentioned is Anguish of the Marrow!

I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker.

[First] Prev <–-> Next