?

Log in

No account? Create an account
device

The Ghost of Christmas Not to Be

Posted on 2006.12.02 at 11:44

Comments:


sylvanwitch
sylvanwitch at 2008-02-02 23:03 (UTC) (Link)
I can tell that I pushed some buttons! *grins* But I enjoy your analysis. I had noticed that Show seemed to be happily forgetting all about the "rule" about exorcising demon-possessed humans rather than just killing them with their nifty new gun. I remember Bobby's horror at the fact that Dean didn't even *know* the difference between a demon and a demon-possessed human in "Devil's Trap" (which implies that there IS a difference, which rather upsets Ruby's neat theory, too...and that doesn't even get into the fact that if Casey was right about Lucifer as a hegemonic figure, then there MUST be demons that were never human to begin with, insofar as all the sources on Lucifer tell us that he's a fallen angel, and angels were never human to begin with, either, and that's per "Houses of the Holy," not to mention millennia of sources). They are rather muddying their own cosmology at this point, aren't they? Anyway, I'd also noticed that Dean didn't batt an eyelash when he discovered that Sam had killed the Crossroads Demon, or at least, he wasn't upset that Sam had killed the HOST of said demon; rather, his concerns were more pragmatic, re: the deal. I also noted that while Dean was a little put off by Sam's neat dispatch of Casey, it wasn't really because Casey was a demon-possessed human so much as it was that he'd learned to sort of like her in the time they were trapped in the cellar.

So having said all of that, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the way that they're screwing with their own mythos, and I can certainly understand how frustrating that would be to you, as you are interested in plotting that is logical and not self-contradictory.

On the other hand, I can't work up much indignation about the misogyny, which might sound sort of strange coming from a woman. As a woman, I long ago embraced Dean's fundamental disrespect for women except as sex objects, and I've been enjoying those moments when Dean finds himself on the receiving end of such objectification, which is one of the reasons that I actually like Bela. Oh, her character is contrived, and the whole "lost little girl being tough to get by" thing has been done to death, absolutely. But that she is constantly at Dean, constantly picking at his intelligence, skills, etc.? That I like. It's one of the reasons I like Missouri and Ellen so much, too. It's just that with the latter two, there's no sexual tension, whereas with Bela, there's a little Mr. and Mrs. Smith going on.

sylvanwitch
sylvanwitch at 2008-02-02 23:04 (UTC) (Link)
(Damn that buffer, anyway)

Plus, as I'm sure is obvious by now, I'm a HUGE Dean fan. Sam's okay, but Dean's the reason I watch the show. (Well, Dean and his actor, Jensen Ackles, who is, in my opinion, far better than Jared Padalecki, but that's not an opinion I voice very often in this fandom.) My attitude toward Dean's perspective on women is informed by my personist tendencies, which more or less assert that people should be responsible for themselves, and if some young thing climbs into bed with a "reality show producer" and wakes up alone and anonymous the next morning, it's her own fault for not having more sense. Of course, Show could do more to equalize the depiction of men and women, but it's not going to, and I'm okay with that. Perhaps that makes me a bad woman. Again, I identify strongly with Dean, and it has almost nothing to do with the fact that he's exactly the sort of guy I used to get myself into trouble with. Mostly it has to do with stuff that you're not interested in hearing this early in our acquaintance.

Obviously, my viewing of the show is visceral first, as in gut-level, and perhaps analytical after the fact. Rather infamously, a lit. crit. prof. of mine in grad. school noted that I was an "arch-conservative" when it came to literary theory (trust me, the ONLY time that designation has ever been used to describe me), meaning that my appreciation of said theory began and ended with Aristotle. As a lit. historian, I was able to find a comfortable niche without having to theorize everything. I'm very pragmatic in that regard. That's not to say that I don't appreciate your approach, however. I guess I'm just trying to explain why I've never really delved as deeply into the meta as you have. Maybe that makes me shallow?

Feel free to tell me to shove off, by the way. I'm really enjoying our discussions, but I don't want to be a nuisance. You strike me as the kind of person who'd tell me to go away, though, if you tired of me.

Anyway, the witch thing I'll perhaps get into another time. I've outworn my stay again.

We do agree that Kroki is very entertaining!
Previous Entry  Next Entry