904 (spoilers, of course)

[citrus_java]

Good episode! Clearly a Robbie episode – rethinking the Batcave, shout outs to past events on the show, making character moments, working out the issue of Sam's room, fan shout outs, sense of wonder, broment, Charlie, POL, and just the quality of writing.

I like that the writers are making a serious effort to add female characters we'd like to the show. And I love that mostly they aren't there as love interests, though we get enough hints to interest the fic writers (I hope). It's interesting to me to watch them trying to write for an audience of women, when you're writing a show that isn't your stereotypical show for women. Trying to figure out what we want, how to make it work, whether or not to give it to us etc. As awesome women on the show go, though, to me Dorothy was a nice try, but a miss. "Strong feminine mostly normative woman making it in the men's world without too many traits" is one way of being awesome, perhaps, but kinda done.

GoT! I must revisit the drawing the awesome Leigh Lahav made for my prompt! :-)



Charlie and the books, and fanfic, eeeeee! No wonder she appreciated them having a dungeon. Wonder if Becky ever, erm, edited anything in or out. The ever-subtle Dean wants to know where he can find them. Please read them and figure out the thing with the message Sam still think you left him, Dean. And while you're at it, have a talk about the amulet, please, now.


I LOVE that they finally mentioned Sam's room. Sam not wanting to jinks it and call it a home. Love that Sam talked about it (though he changed the subject before, with Charlie). On top of what Sam said, perhaps he felt/feels like he was not gonna be around for very long, so why decorate. And that moment in the end, that look! Oh! Better than a hug! Boys, you're there! In your untalky , bondy selves, yes! Yes! YES!
Now!

Why was the slumber party in Sam's room? I get that Dean wouldn't want the it in his privast space, but why Sam's? Cause he has the good TV? What does he watch?
It was interesting to see him sitting on a chair while the others got comfy(ish) on his bed.

Braid Sam's hair, please. It's becoming a show thing. Who do you say gets to do it first?

Dean decorating – fic time! And being bummed out that he'd just cleaned the kitchen, aww, Dean! Anyway, now that Baby's moved in, Dean really lives there too. Plus, it's safer, if they're trying to avoid being found.

And another thing.
Sam: Why did Cas leave, really?
Dean: *opens his coat in a flasher move* Pudding!

By the way – Sam's the one trying to help Cas, *Sam*. Again.

Twice this episode Dean was called stupid. Sam: "You know, Dean, the ones without pictures" – ukgh. Dislike. Can it be OOC, just Zeke being a douchbag? We all know he doesn't have to do the eye thing! Crowley called Dean brainless and Sam soulless (or the other way around?). Ouch. And if Charlie's Toto, does that mean Crowley's the coward? That much might work, the way he seems to think about himself.

I really like that the writers are finally using the Bat Cave.

Comments

[darkrose-9.livejournal.com]

I was really mad at the stupid!Dean implications. Maybe the twisty turning plot, and single character pov is daunting (main reason I haven't read the books, even though I'm addicted to reading). It could be just a brothers ribbing each other thing - which I get, sibling rivalry, you'll poke at the littlest things - but compared to the prank-war of earlier seasons, it just felt demeaning, and not fun.

Charlie almost tipped the Mary-Sue scale for me this week. She is the little sister that is always written into fanfics - I love her, but really, she knows how to make bullets now? And kill a witch all by her lonesome? Her death did redeem her in my eyes though.

Sam/Cas friendship - Want. Dean needs to pull his lying head out of his ass. Other than that, I thought this was a fun episode.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

It could be just a brothers ribbing each other thing - which I get, sibling rivalry, you'll poke at the littlest things - but compared to the prank-war of earlier seasons, it just felt demeaning, and not fun.

Yes, yes. Exactly.

Sam/Cas friendship
Yes!
And perhaps oher things, too :)

[(Anonymous)]

Actually sam teasing Dean about his education, that's not a new thing. Its been a kind of staple for Sam to poke fun at Dean's level of education since season one, although the first time I really noticed it was in Croatoan. And Dean himself remarked in season five about having a "GED and a giv'em hell attitude', so I had no problem with Sam teasing Dean about that sort of thing.

What I have a problem with is "showing" Dean as stupid and that's usually the fault of the writers. Dean's not educated. He's not booksmart. What he is is canny and street-smart and I love when the writers show that. He thinks fast in a fight ad creates clever solutions to problems while on the go. It's what makes him such a great tactician and the nominal leader during most hunts or just out in the field.

Also, it is the province of yunger brothers to tease their elders. It's tradition.

[darkrose-9.livejournal.com]

I get all that, I just thought Sam could have been nicer about it, although we also know from earlier episodes that Dean enjoys reading, so it's not a stretch to assume he does have "book smarts" although more toward the libral arts than science and mathematic variety. But yeah, he's absolutely street smart - and Sam is as well. I don't think one thing excludes the other, but Dean sees it that way, and though it's only meant in fun, Sam certainly doesn't help when he makes what he thinks are throwaway comments.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

I agree, it just felt too mean.

I don't think one thing excludes the other, but Dean sees it that way

Interesting. And I agree that both can exist, and probably both Sam and Dean have boh.

Sam certainly doesn't help when he makes what he thinks are throwaway comments.

Yeah. They seem to believe they don't hurt each other when they poke fun, and that's not always true. So much of each of their identity has to do with the other, they are influenced by what the other says, to a certain degree, especially if it's somthing they're insecure or guilty or something like that, about.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

It felt particularly harsh to me, and uncalled for.

I'm not sure about the street smarts vs. book smarts, but I agree that of course I have more of a problem with Dean being written as stupid. Which happens way too often, sadly.

[applegeuse.livejournal.com]

Aw, I really liked Dorothy! She was just...I was delighted every time she was on the screen, and especially when she was on the screen with Charlie. I wanted more! :3

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

Awwww...
I wish you more :)
So many people who create awesome fanwork love her, I expect Fanon!Dorothy is going to be fantastic, like Fanon!Jess.

[balder12.livejournal.com]

By the way – Sam's the one trying to help Cas, *Sam*. Again.

Yeah, I think that's part of my gradual loss of interest in Dean/Cas. Every time Sam is all, "How's Cas??" and Dean's answer is "Meh," I ship it a little less.

Twice this episode Dean was called stupid. Sam: "You know, Dean, the ones without pictures" – ukgh. Dislike. Can it be OOC, just Zeke being a douchbag? We all know he doesn't have to do the eye thing! Crowley called Dean brainless and Sam soulless (or the other way around?). Ouch. And if Charlie's Toto, does that mean Crowley's the coward? That much might work, the way he seems to think about himself.

I always figured Sam calling Dean stupid was the equivalent of Dean calling Sam a girl/sissy/gay. They go there precisely because they know it doesn't push any buttons. Sam would never call Dean a girl because Dean is actually insecure about his masculinity, but it's okay for Dean to do it to Sam because Sam doesn't have that particular anxiety. This is contrary to popular fanon, but personally I've never gotten the sense that Dean thinks he's stupid, or that he seriously believes Sam thinks he's stupid, or that there's anything regarding this whole issue that keeps him up at night.

I would've pegged Crowley for Oz. He presents himself as great and powerful, but when you look behind the curtain he's just a pathetic little man. Maybe the cowardly lion is Kevin. He comes off as weak and scared, but when the chips are down he finds his courage.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that's part of my gradual loss of interest in Dean/Cas. Every time Sam is all, "How's Cas??" and Dean's answer is "Meh," I ship it a little less .

Ouch. Does it at least mean you ship Cas/Sam more?

This is contrary to popular fanon, but personally I've never gotten the sense that Dean thinks he's stupid, or that he seriously believes Sam thinks he's stupid, or that there's anything regarding this whole issue that keeps him up at night.


Hm.Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, I'll think about it. Interesting. He sure seems to have issue with not being a geek and with Sam going to collage, but beyond the obvious "losing Sam" anxieties, this could be more about class (which he sure seems to have issues about ) and not about brains. He described Sam being smart as a reason he should live instead of Dean, but that can certainly be class related to, beyond the obvious Sam issues... interesting...


I would've pegged Crowley for Oz. He presents himself as great and powerful, but when you look behind the curtain he's just a pathetic little man.


Hmm, good call, especially if he lost something when Sam tried to turn him human. And Kevin too.

[morganlucas41.livejournal.com]

Sam would never call Dean a girl because Dean is actually insecure about his masculinity, but it's okay for Dean to do it to Sam because Sam doesn't have that particular anxiety. This is contrary to popular fanon, but personally I've never gotten the sense that Dean thinks he's stupid, or that he seriously believes Sam thinks he's stupid, or that there's anything regarding this whole issue that keeps him up at night.

That's a really interesting point that I never thought of. I think you're right - Sam never teases Dean about his masculinity, and I agree with your reasoning of why.

But I think I disagree about Dean not thinking he's smart, though. For example, his comment last season about being a "grunt" and Sam responding that he's a genius (as well as Dean's facial expression when Sam said that). There have been other examples too over the years. I don't know. Sam's line in this ep bothered me, and though I like your explanation for it, I'm not sure I agree with it.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

his comment last season about being a "grunt" and

Hmm, good point!

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I don't read Dorothy as normative fem at all. I don't think they went strongly butch with her, but she's so independent and strongminded, really holding her own against the Men of Letters and her father, to strike out as a Hunter and a freedom fighter for Oz... with her motorcycle and her give'em Hell attitude... I thought she was fantastic.

I'm a long time fan of the Oz books (Ozma of Oz is my fave) and spn!Dorothy really takes the strongminded, adventurous little girl, lets her grow up, and gives her a great arc. Imho!

I also read a lot into Dorothy's throwaway that Ozma is "an ass". In the books, Ozma is the rightful Fairy Queen of Oz. She is an eternal girl (who genderswitched from being a boy for a long time). I definitely think that Dorothy contrasts herself as a woman of action to Ozma (who seems to be content to let freedom fighters take care of trouble in her kingdom) and to the Men of Letters (who didn't use to admit women in Dorothy's dad's day, not that she would have wanted to join.)

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

I agree that Dorothy isn't normative for her time (as far as I know), but she is pretty normative for ours. I'd love for there to be more representations of women and female characters who are awesome without being this specific trope. It's a nice one, for sure, and I love some of the characters who fit it (Starbuck, Buffy, Lorelai Gilmore - though they all got way more characterization, of course). But the notion behind the trope, that strong equals feminist, is wrong and really harmful, and mostly, I just really want more sorts of awesome women and trans* people on TV, who have seriously developed characters.

As for being fem - I wouldn't peg her as a femme, I'm just saying that according to what's normative today, she's pretty much on the nose, with an added dash of fashionable retro. Nothing wrong with that, I like her, but it would be seriously awesome to get, ever, representations of other gender expressions. My problem is not with her, but with the people who made her up.

Still, the way you describe her makes me like her way better. I knew this would happen, just like with Jess, fandom makes characters more awesome :)

I also read a lot into Dorothy's throwaway that Ozma is "an ass". In the books, Ozma is the rightful Fairy Queen of Oz. She is an eternal girl (who genderswitched from being a boy for a long time). I definitely think that Dorothy contrasts herself as a woman of action to Ozma (who seems to be content to let freedom fighters take care of trouble in her kingdom) and to the Men of Letters (who didn't use to admit women in Dorothy's dad's day, not that she would have wanted to join.)

Ooh, I love that! :D
Also - genderswitched, you say? I'd love to hear more about that1

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

There's a good summation of Ozma in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Ozma

And as much as I've always loved Ozma and Dorothy together as two awesome girl adventurers, if you read the wikipedia from Spn!Dorothy's pov, you can kind of see why Dorothy might think Ozma is an ass -- especially the part where Ozma takes the throne and many realms of her kingdom don't even realize it. :P Also, Dorothy is a grown woman, and Ozma stays forever a 14 year old girl. :P

I think we have to insist on strong women characters, and strength that comes in many iterations. I loved that Dorothy underestimated Charlie at first, thinking that she was just the boys' secretary... to me it shows that as an woman of action in the 1930s she was still way outside the norm for her day. But as the story developed Dorothy came to appreciate the kinds of things that Charlie offered. I love that Charlie fangirled Dorothy, without the writers making it more woman on woman (though, I'm still holding out hope that Charlie might run into her fairy girlfriend in Oz or one of the other fairy lands). By the end of the ep, the two women had a good partnership going, each with their own strengths, and hopefully that will continue on in Oz, where Charlie is way more out of her element.

In terms of trans characters, I liked Ms. Hudson on Elementary. She was beautifully cast and fairly well written -- I hope to see more of her. :)

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

And as much as I've always loved Ozma and Dorothy together as two awesome girl adventurers, if you read the wikipedia from Spn!Dorothy's pov, you can kind of see why Dorothy might think Ozma is an ass -- especially the part where Ozma takes the throne and many realms of her kingdom don't even realize it. :P Also, Dorothy is a grown woman, and Ozma stays forever a 14 year old girl. :P

That's interesting, thank you!
Reading about it reminded me of the plot I know from the cartoon (pardon the blasphemy :)).

I think we have to insist on strong women characters, and strength that comes in many iterations.

I agree that there are different sorts of strength, and it's important to depict them, but why must we insist on strong woman characters? Why do they have to be strong at all, and why does it need to be a central part of their characterization?

Strong women set unfair standards, we're doing to ourselves the same thing society's doing to men, and everyone should cut it out, IMO. As I understand it, originally strength was considered to be a feminist characterization, in order to prove that women can do anything men can do, perhaps even better than men. But that's living in a world developed by men, for men, and not necessarily what everybody wants. I want to have other parameters, strength is really overrated. And I want to deserve to be a person - a cool, awesome person - even when I'm weak. I don't want to put everything into proving to society that it should give me rights. And equating strength with feminism, or with being a person, is really harmful sometimes. For instance, it puts responsibility for everything on the person. "Had they been stronger, they wouldn't have had trouble with this". But not everybody can be strong. So basically, this means people who aren't strong, deserve what they get. Fuck that. Especially since a person's ability is usually not something that person has much choice about.

I want women and trans* characters who have more to them. For example, to me, one of the most beautiful, amazing things about Dean is his vulnerability, the complex emotions that shine through when he's helpless, the way he struggles and fails to disentangle himself from different ways in which his loved ones make him miserable (partial picture, of course). Where are the female characters who get that sort of characterization, and who are allowed to show such interesting, pretty vulnerability?

Or Sam, when he was dealing with his hell visions. Being crazy, dependent, and knowing it, being a person, a subject, while also being those things, was beautiful to me. Where are the female characters who can be weak and dependent and not sure what's real and what isn't, and also be people, be funny, be "ok apart from the hallucinations"? That is a sort of strength, but mostly it comes from accepting weakness. I want women to be allowed to do that.

There was a scene in Desperate Housewives (not my favorite show, but it had some really great things about it), in which Lynett falls apart over having to make costumes for the kids, something like that. It wasn't comical at all, it had a lot of empathy to it. This was an awesome person going to pieces over having to deal with what's supposedly just a few household chores - not cause she wasn't awesome, but because household chores can be really really hard to deal with. It was such an important thing to say, to me.


I loved that Dorothy underestimated Charlie at first

I liked that a lot too (though it implies secretaries aren't important). To me, it made her more interesting as a character.

But as the story developed Dorothy came to appreciate the kinds of things that Charlie offered. I love that Charlie fangirled Dorothy, without the writers making it more woman on woman

I very much agree, on both points.

In terms of trans characters, I liked Ms. Hudson on Elementary. She was beautifully cast and fairly well written -- I hope to see more of her. :)

Ooh, I never watched far enough to meet her! Sounds awesome :)

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

You sound like me in my academic career, trying to convince my fellow feminists not to overlook the transformative and revolutionary power of domesticity.
:)

I def. agree with you that there is an urge to make women heroes into men. Just to take the most basic example, the "Hero's Journey" that has been popularly defined for us by Joseph Campbell. People seem to skip over the fact that the stories he has distilled into this series of progressions are all about Men. It is literally the Hero's Journey and I'm not sure we can really just lift the template and slide it to the left and expect Women Heroes to fit their Journeys into it.

I run into this all the time when I see fen complaining "I can't stand to see character xx marry and settle down and have kids. She should want MORE." As though the lives of the huge numbers of women who marry and have kids are these vanishing points of dullness. GRRRR. There are infinite ways humans can band together, not just one man one woman, and not all relationships lead to kids, but why does the woman's story have to end if kids occur? that's insane, yet, our storytelling as a culture isn't ready to take on much beyond the youthful Man Hero's Journey.

I am 100% in agreement with you on Dean and Sam above. I am of the opinion that Supernatural has been explicitly exploring the nature of how Men are hurt by forcing them into these hypermasculine roles... excluding them from the daylight civilian sphere of women. I love the huge variety of women characters that SPN gives us... even though their characters are not explored in depth (which is why my longterm fic project is writing all the women characters of Supernatural! hello, my Dorothy, Charlie, and fairy girlfriend Big Bang of next spring!!) One of my favorite side characters of all time of SPN is Lisa Braeden's neighbor, Annette, who drowned her daughter's changeling replacement. !!!! That's the kind of risk in storytelling that SPN can take because of its nature as a genre show. Or (I am a huge fan of Ruby) giving a woman side character a two year arc during which she completely runs the show and achieves her Big Bad Goal, to the point where she willingly dies for it.

I guess too that "Strong woman character" can be read more than one way. It would be better to say "well developed woman character" because of course not every human can be strong all the time. Did you happen to catch Joss Whedon's Much Ado with Amy Acker as Beatrice? She knocked it all the way out of the park... just this amazing nuanced character of a woman making the most out of her individuality within these very tight social constraints... her sorrow about her situation ... and her rage at not being able to defend her cousin's reputation in the ways a man would. So, an AMAZING strong woman character, in a story that emphasizes all the ways she is powerless. :D (Also, I think Joss was really trying to engage some of these issues about strength in powerlessness and vulnerability in Dollhouse, but no one seemed to want to hear how that story might go.... )

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

You sound like me in my academic career, trying to convince my fellow feminists not to overlook the transformative and revolutionary power of domesticity.
:)

:D
Sounds interesting!
And I do related things in my (budding) academic career, too! *high fives*
I never know who I can just say "you know, all that second wavey stuff" to, and move on, so I try to avoid doing it, I hate it when people academic-speak to me about things I could have understood had they been put otherwise :)

People seem to skip over the fact that the stories he has distilled into this series of progressions are all about Men. It is literally the Hero's Journey and I'm not sure we can really just lift the template and slide it to the left and expect Women Heroes to fit their Journeys into it.

*nodnodnod*
I suspect they don't fit a lot of men, either.

There are infinite ways humans can band together, not just one man one woman, and not all relationships lead to kids, but why does the woman's story have to end if kids occur? that's insane, yet, our storytelling as a culture isn't ready to take on much beyond the youthful Man Hero's Journey.


I agree. I have some trouble with traditional family stories, because of my own needs and my own issues, which I want to get to see in culture too. but I very much agree that the "having children" story is very unfairly told, if at all. Romantic relationships, for instance, can be idealized and revisited, and are never considered a boring waste of a life. Why are they any more meaningful or interesting than raising a person? To me, raising someone seems like one of the scariest, most demanding, fascinating and perhaps total sorts of connection. There have to be good stories in there, adventures too. One of the things I like about SPN / SPN fanon (and another thing it weirdly has in common with Gilmore Girls - I collect those :)) is that it deals with those issues, a bit.

I am of the opinion that Supernatural has been explicitly exploring the nature of how Men are hurt by forcing them into these hypermasculine roles... excluding them from the daylight civilian sphere of women

I agree. Actually, I was amused with a thing that happened to me with the show, regarding that - literally the same week I turned in a paper claiming that Dean will probably never have a real conversation with a woman he respected, he did :)
I think it's still mostly true, about the show in general, but that made me laugh :)

You big bang sound really awesome! And your long-term project is interesting, and ambitious, wow!

Personally I'm a little ambivalent about female characters in canon. I hate how undeveloped they are, as you said, especially compared to the beautifully complex main characters. But there is potential to them, and fanfic authors often make them so much more interesting and wonderful. I've been grumbly about female character on the show as my official stand for a while, but I have to admit I'm enjoying the amazing change (imo) in them since the beginning of season 8, give or take. I adore Meg since Goodbye Stranger, and I very much like Abaddon, Charlie and Linda Tran (such a pity she didn't have a bigger role). I believe it's a result of a conscious effort to make the show less male-centered (and a less successful effort to make it less straight and white). Robbie Thompson's episodes, in particular, seem to persistently include that.

[lj is telling me to stop jabbering, so I'll cut this shorter]
One of my favorite side characters of all time of SPN is Lisa Braeden's neighbor, Annette, who drowned her daughter's changeling replacement. !!!!

Wow, I forgot all about that! Interesting!

And Ruby - the more fandom talks about her, the more amazing she seems.

Also, I think Joss was really trying to engage some of these issues about strength in powerlessness and vulnerability in Dollhouse, but no one seemed to want to hear how that story might go

Much Ado is on my short "to watch" list. Working on it. As for Dollhouse - I agree.

[bowtrunckle.livejournal.com]

Heh, the drawing! :)

I like that the writers are making a serious effort to add female characters we'd like to the show. And I love that mostly they aren't there as love interests

Agreed. It would be interesting to know if the writing team was actively trying to integrate more female characters or if it's just a matter of what services the story/MotW. I've always felt that there were a decent number of female characters in SPN, even significant female characters, it's just that our impression is that it's a overwhelmingly male dominated show based on the fact that the recurring characters tend to be male and, thus, those are the characters who we become more familiar with and invested in.

Sam: "You know, Dean, the ones without pictures" – ukgh. Dislike.

According to RT's live tweets, JP and JA switched the lines in this scene. Dean was supposed to be the one keen on reading the books. It's nice to know that it wasn't RT's intention to make a light hearted jab at Dean's book smarts (we all know that Dean is plenty smart), but, in fact, he was doing the exact opposite. TBH, when I first saw that scene, I felt that it was more "Dean-like" to be all fannish about GoT rather than Sam.

[citrusjava.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to know if the writing team was actively trying to integrate more female characters or if it's just a matter of what services the story/MotW.

Agreed. My speculation is clear, but I have been wrong before :)
But I believe that they're changing things intentionally. Dean saying fewer things that can be interpreted as misogynist, trying to add more characters of color, Sam saying a sentence and a half in Spanish, Charlie commenting several times on feminism and being called a woman of letters - I'm not saying these things are necessarily working, but there are enough of them turning up at once for me to believe they're intentional.

To me it's fascinating and disturbing that this coinsides with them getting money and a home. It's a resious shift from one form of slight male duchbagary ("bitch" and so forth associated with lower class) to another form of it (like the way Dean treated Portia), associated with middle class.

I've always felt that there were a decent number of female characters in SPN, even significant female characters, it's just that our impression is that it's a overwhelmingly male dominated show based on the fact that the recurring characters tend to be male and, thus, those are the characters who we become more familiar with and invested in.

I'd say they're also more characterized, way way more, and until Charlie, female characters on the show were generally stock characters with nothing really added. I love what fandom's done with many of them, but the way they are on the show makes me shudder.

According to RT's live tweets, JP and JA switched the lines in this scene. Dean was supposed to be the one keen on reading the books. It's nice to know that it wasn't RT's intention to make a light hearted jab at Dean's book smarts (we all know that Dean is plenty smart), but, in fact, he was doing the exact opposite.

I wonder whether Jared made that up. It sounds like something he could say. But if it was meant as a jab at Sam, it feels way less mean, to me. First of all, cause it would have been Dean deflecting, such a stupid insult probably being the first thing that came to mind to say in order to change the subject from him having read the books. And second, because towards Sam it's more clearly a ridiculous thing to Sam. For Dean, even if he doesn't have an issue with being smart, he does have an issue with class, and being illiterate is such a class stereotype... also, for some reason, had it been direct "unlike you, I do read" or just calling Dean an idiot, it wouldn't have felt as mean to me. Somehow drawing the picture of Dean not being able to read felt meaner, perhaps. IDK.

TBH, when I first saw that scene, I felt that it was more "Dean-like" to be all fannish about GoT rather than Sam.

I agree, but then it's more of a Sam thing to read...?
But mostly, I was thrilled Sam actually got some sort of characterization, ever. Though I guess it worked a bit against the scene establishing that Sam doesn't allow himself much of that.