since I've been tempted to get into it three times in the past 24 hours
I really dislike feeling like this is necessary because (a) it is tedious as fuck and (b) I am a strong proponent of the idea that authorial intent is of little to no value in discussing a text. (It’s kind of surreal having this conversation around a narrative which went out of its way to challenge the idea that the voice of the author should ( Read more... )
Comments 22
But, I'm here to wave my pom poms in regards to your POINT B. Here's a way I get folks to come out swinging on that because I, too, vehemently hold to it. I've learned that those who do, tend to be educated in the arts and those who don't, aren't. *ducks* We are TAUGHT this truism, this jumping off point in deconstruction of all the Arts, when we pursue a Liberal Higher Education. It's not an arguable point at all and you will be roundly mocked by professor and peer alike if you posit anything in regards to the author's intent, unless you do so in order to further the argument, with this ploy, of how a piece of Art is born, a sort of genealogical map, if you will. This is why I laugh at JKR.
Reply
I've learned that those who do, tend to be educated in the arts and those who don't, aren't. *ducks*
ahahaha, I am not. Like, at all. I stopped taking English as soon as I finished my high school requirements and that was over a decade ago. I do think I had all this out in a similar way during law school, though, in the originalism vs living document argument in constitutional law.
unless you do so in order to further the argument, with this ploy, of how a piece of Art is born, a sort of genealogical map, if you willYeah, I think I see what you're saying. I do sometimes think it's interesting to pick out how certain aspects of the author come through in a piece of work, but those conversations tend to lead ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
In a general sense, I do think this (replacing "Dean" with "fandom in general") and a combination of character bleed did lead to Padalecki's statements. Doesn't make them any less disappointing and irresponsible, of course.
Reply
YES. Partly because I love Sam as he is, but also - and this is pretty much why I am less upset on the Doylist level about nobody having Sam's back on this* - I think it's irresponsible to show this kind of abuse as being too easy to get over, as being something all the people around him see so easily. If Sam could just shake it off and readily articulate the problem and stand up for himself...I kind of think that would belittle what Dean's been putting him through.
*This is something I'm slightly more concerned about, because you do generally need some character or other to at least obliquely make a point, but given the way the season overall was NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT OBLIQUE, I can deal.
In a general sense, I do think this (replacing "Dean" with "fandom in general") and a combination of character bleed did lead to Padalecki's statements. Doesn't make them any less disappointing and irresponsible, of course. Agreed. It is very disappointing, though I do at least have ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I don't know if I should say thanks or sorry?! But IMO this goes to show why it's such a chillingly realistic portrayal of an abusive relationship - one that doesn't start out bad, one that isn't clear-cut, at least, not for a very long time. I think the fact that the show's stopped pulling its punches and let the problems here become undeniable is a really good sign.
the possession was merely a means to an ends - getting Dean to say yes to the Mark
I don't think there's anything that could "merely" get Dean to the point of taking the Mark, though? Dean became a demon. He is, by choice, the ( ... )
Reply
Ha, no need to be sorry. The season itself has lead me to seeing the relationship differently. It's perhaps why it's been such a difficult one for me.
And I meant to comment on your post about demon Dean. I thought that was excellent also. It's easy to see how everything Dean has done has lead to this one moment. It makes sense (another thing that's frustrated me this season is the seeming lack of sense), But. Your posts give it some sense and I suppose whether it's intended or not it doesn't matter.
And good point about Hannibal. It would be easier to work in a structure that already exists. Much more difficult when they have no idea when the series will end, nor who it will actually end. Though I am under the impression (probably from stuff I have read) that Carver had a 3 year story arc in mind so this one might bring it altogether.
Reply
Thanks! I actually do think that the quasi-theological aspect to Dean's transition is probably an example of stuff that's unconscious but consistent all the same? There hasn't been stuff directly said this season that expressly raises the issue in the way there's been so much about the possession, I'm not sure anyone said "we're going to explore the concept of mortal sin," but enough data points map so well onto an identifiable construct that I feel pretty confident saying it's part of the narrative.
Reply
Reply
I was disappointed in reading JP's statements at JIB. However, in his defense I think it mostly comes from (1) the tweets he gets begging for the brothers relationship to come back and (2) he doesn't know where the writers are going to take this. I can't believe he doesn't see the abuse (it's hard to miss unless you close your eyes). I wasn't surprised at JA's comments as I read an interview earlier where he described Sam as being self-centered. But he said nothing about Dean's problems, so he feeds the Dean fanatics. I lost all respect for him after that.
Their attitude about this is extremely disappointing and I don't excuse it, of course.
I was disappointed after the finale because it seemed they backed off the possession story by not allowing Dean to actually apologize and making Sam say "I lied" because the context was so ambiguous to me. I'm not sure if that was in relation to the whole season or ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment