SPN Meta on Demons, Binaries, Grace

[fannishliss]

Kalliel brings up a great point in her meta: that Supernatural has been destabilizing the human/monster binary since day one.
This is so true!  I'm not sure I can add to her essay, but I guess I'd like to try to get my own heart out there as well.

No spoilers beyond 10.02 please!

Comments

[amberdreams]

The only part of this I'd disagree with or question is this "Dean can't bear the possibility that he might tear Sam's throat out with his teeth, and he knows that the Blade can and will drive him crazy with wanting the violence. So he tries to drive Sam as far away as possible. Even abandoning Sam to his death at the hands of someone else -- Dean would still prefer that to killing Sam himself."

i actually think Dean has no special feelings for Sam right now, at all. i don't think he cares about anyone, or anything other than where it relates to himself. Hence he was going to leave Cole to slit Sam's throat, and then take pleasure in killing Cole for being (effectively) disrespectful to Dean by daring to kill Dean's brother. This Dean has no compassion, no compunction so I'm not sure he wouldn't hurt Sam, or even kill Sam right now. And that is kind of awesome, not knowing how far this Dean would go.

[fannishliss]

there are two pieces of evidence that Dean is still looking out for Sam -- first the note, which he didn't have to leave; second the way he immediately left the Black Spur as soon as he realized Sam might find him. If he didn't care at all, I don't see what his motivation would be for actively avoiding Sam

[amberdreams]

I agree, there is some restraint there, but I'm not sure what it is exactly and whether this will get eroded away the longer he goes without the blade (or with the blade??)

[fannishliss]

right??? taking the blade away before taking away the mark doesn't seem like a perfect plan???

Ideally you'd need to do everything at once -- remove blade, remove mark, and cure Dean -- but Sam's an exorcist, not a magician! :)

[manzanita_crow]

I've never seen Dean as 'an unerring moral compass'. I've always seen him as making morally dubious choices (just like Sam and everyone else). I'm just curious as why people think he's so righteous. Can anyone shed light on this for me please?

Seriously, not looking for a fight, I just really want to know.

[amberdreams]

I think maybe he used to be - and i guess there was all that thing about him being the righteous man. But he's made many errors of judgement, even before he went to hell. Remember him saying really early on how he recognised he made questionable decisions when it came to defending Sam or his Dad...

[manzanita_crow]

Hmm, see, in the early seasons I thought Sam was more moral than Dean. I mean Sam was hardly perfect either, so don't get me wrong. But then I'm European and I think our ethics are a little different. Discuss :)

[amberdreams]

I'm European too and I'd agree! LOL I was never really sure why Dean was the Righteous Man. Or John for that matter.

[manzanita_crow]

So glad we can have an adult conversation about this here :D I wouldn't dare ask elsewhere, even when I was honestly curious about other peoples' opinions

[fannishliss]

absolutely :D and I'm so glad you feel that way. :D

discussion is the spice of life :D

[fanspired]

I truly hope show is as smart as some of its viewers. I'm really enjoying the analysis you and Kalliel have been expounding.

[fannishliss]

Heh. It's not Show's job exactly to be "smart"... more that they have to keep viewers hooked. Tho I actually think Show has been rather astonishingly smart over nine seasons.... they've taken a lot of chances and dropped some hot potatoes, but they've done a better job than they might have. :D

Me and Kalliel and the rest of the Meta Tribe will do the thinky afterwards. :)

[fanspired]

I think for writers like Kripke, Gamble and Edlund, writing is more than a job.

[fannishliss]

true for sure. I've followed Edlund since the early days of the Tick comic book, and Supernatural was a beautiful fit for his talents.

For Kripke and Gamble too, they had a real love of the genre and for the characters.

But for those of us who write meta, we identify symbols and patterns and cultural resonances (for good or ill), whereas the writers are more concentrating on telling a good story that fits into an overall arc. Narrative suspense is very important to them, whereas cultural critics will focus on other things, patterns mostly.

SPN has been an amazing show for me in playing out all the things I'm most interested in: monsters, lore, mythology, heroism, roles of masculinity, social critique, theology -- and it does it all with humor and with compelling human emotions. I love it 100%. :D