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... )
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 some hope that it was out of ignorance and not malice. Frankly, his and Ackles' attitude is the one thing I do really look askance at the PTBs for allowing.
Reply
Leave a comment