ananke-xiii

[ananke-xiii]

don't read if you plan to watch mr robot (and you totally should)

tyrell breaking in elliot's house in the second to last episode of mr robot s1 still biggest "omg" and downright quite scary moment of the show. like, i'm rewatching it so i already know stuff but that moment is shot and played SO WELL it's still shocking and eerie even if you actualy knew it was gonna happen.

[ananke-xiii]

SPNGirl-on-Girl Polls: Round 2 Poll 3

VOTE FOR THE GIRL THAT MAKES YOU GAYER

[ananke-xiii]

Father John who art not (in heaven).

I’m my previous post I’ve said that John isn’t treated by the narrative as a “real” character because he’s an archetype that must stay as such for the story to work. I’ve also compared John to a character that can be found in romances vs Sam and Dean to characters in novels.

I wanted to clarify a few things. The first is that considering a TV series as a continuous story, a book, if you will, that you can turn the pages of is not something new but it’s definitely a way more possible approach to TV storytelling than it was twenty or even ten years ago. Personally, I haven’t watched Supernatural while it aired but have watched it over a few months with some binge-watching moments. And I wasn’t even engaged with its fandom then and didn’t actually care about looking for extra info about the series. I just watched it as if I had picked up a random book from a bookshop shelf and had started reading it.

I’m saying all this because I’m aware that my statement is something that can only be said in retrospect because it’s not like the dozens and dozens of people working on the show for over a decade were like: we will never and must never make John a “real” character!!! mwahahaha *evil laugh*.

I'm also aware that writing for TV is also fundamentally different from writing for the publication of one’s own work. For instance, it’s quite clear that John as a character was limited by the availability of the actor who played him. Hence, a solid reason as to why, overall, John feels the way he does, aka frankly underdeveloped, is because of the actor’s contracts conflict with other shows. Or, perhaps, it was because it was John who was supposed to die in the pilot and his death was always something the show was more interested in than his actual characterization. Or maybe, maybe, it’s because Supernatural is a show that, originally, was way more invested in its atmospheres, its environments, the road, the rural American landscapes, the diners, bars and motels and their culture. Or, possibly, its because writers are just creatives, underpaid workers and ultimately just people so they cannot be crucified for what may or may not be mistakes (superficial characterization is not necessarily bad characterization) because they will inevitably happen (I'm so OVER the current obession for "the perfect", "the best" TV show. Give me solid storytelling and I'm good, this craziness over plot holes or mistakes is so boring). I think I could go on but I feel like I’ve made myself clear: the factual reasons behind certain choices in a TV series don’t depend solely on its creator(s) but most of the times they must be negotiated and sometimes those choices and their consequences span over years.

Don’t get me wrong, I love this stuff! I love knowing these details because I love spilling the T. But the reasons behind certain choices don’t negate the fact that (the majority of) these choices were made in the first place and were made with a certain degree of awareness (aka let's all please assume that people at least know how to do their job). And this is what I actually find interesting because this is what I got when I watched the show the way I just told you. Whether people like it or not, Supernatural (like basically loads of other TV series) is not Kripke era, is not about actors’ availability or writers' job security issues. Its current state is that of a finished story that you can pick up on your streaming device whenever and wherever you want. And as such I'm treating it.

The second thing is that I’ve compared John Winchester and his sons to, respectively, a romance and a novel for two main reasons:

The three of them are all characters of a series of books, of a TV show, of a theatrical piece, of God’s favourite more-or-less scripted reality television and, lastly, of the actual TV show we’ve watched thanks to the series’ last scene where the actors break characters to thank the audience and we see the whole behind-the-scene crew complete with cameras and microphones. The characters being “real vs fictional” is therefore a significant theme that I can’t ignore;

Since the dawn of what’s been called “The Golden Age of TV”, there have been people who have compared TV shows to novels. I vaguely remember a New York Times article from my university days where a journalist compared “quality TV” to the complexities of Henry James’ novels. Now this is funny because James himself had to write “The Art of Fiction” not only to argue for the legitimacy of the novel as a form of “Art” but also to defend it against the judging, moralistic gaze of the “Protestant communities”.

What does this have to do with John? Well, it’s a reminder that, as much as we love/hate them, these characters are fictional, meaning that they all serve a specific function that may or may not allow us to understand something about ourselves and/or the world we live in (or, worse, (un)intentionally indoctrinate us with targeted propaganda in order to make us see the world in a certain way). Which also means that judging these characters as if they’re real people will certainly make for an interesting debate but this debate will eventually say more about ourselves, the way we see the world and our lived, real experiences than about the “reality” and the “interpretative correctness” of those characters (conversely, it can be an interesting debate about what kind of message the usage of these characters seem to direct at us and/or how this message has changed through time).

Moreover, it’s a reminder that this kind of debate is not new and it’s not symptomatic of any media literacy crisis. Like, at all. Judging characters through moral lenses has been a constant since the “birth” of the novel in western cultures by virtue of this type of narrative fiction being closely associated with individualism, period/place-specific morals and general Christianity (among many other things). And if the TV shows are the new novels, well… it goes without saying that characters in TV shows could also undergo the same treatment. Some things have changed but, on some levels, we’re still living in the spirit of the XIXth century when it comes to works of fiction and our moralistic approach to them.

I feel like I had to write this whole huuuuugeeeee prologue because John Winchester is a character unquestionably connected to parental neglect and abuse and here I am saying that he might have been a “great” character. I don’t think I should state the obvious but, as per above, I also feel the need to say that I’m 100% not justifying his actions. I’m, however, trying to understand them, if it’s even possible. Because here’s my crux: when it comes to the motivations of John’s actions the show is either too vague or too excessive. Unsurprisingly, both approaches end up in the same way: John Winchester, as a character, is not real. For instance, Time for John means nothing in the show: 22 (TWENTY-TWO) years after the horrible events of November 2nd and he’s still mentally in that burning house in Lawrence, Kansas. Being in his late twenties is the same as being in his late forties. Having two small kids is the same as having two fully grown-up sons. John and his revenge are absolutely monolithic and unperturbed by the passing of Time. So, as I’ve said, this makes me think that his role in the story is to incarnate an archetype or, to be more precise, to embody an ideology: God, homeland, family.

One way to interpret Supernatural is to see it as an idea (two brothers on the road) conveying a specific ideal (disobedience, rebellion and freedom) against an ideology (the above mentioned “God, homeland, family”). So, of course, John Winchester must be a character we cannot empathize with and, therefore, cannot know too much about. The more “real” John gets, the less “ideological” he’d seem. I’ve actually argued that, as far as both themes and characterization are concerned, John is more God than God himself.

The primary reason as to why this is essential to the story is because SPN is John’s sons’ story, not his. And in his sons’ story they both have quite distinctive opinions and memories of him. As a consequence, when it comes to John as a character, not a symbol, Sam and Dean are not reliable narrators. This doesn’t invalidate the neglect and the abuse they both had to go through. It simply means that I cannot take them as my primary source if I want to understand John as a character. And I kinda want to since this is the Book of John.

The thing is that, when it comes to motivations, I don’t think we’re really given the tools to understand why John acts the way he does. The faults in his parental inadequacy are ascribed to his inconsolable grief as a widower and that’s it. On one hand, on the surface these seems like big motivations but, without more details, they end up feeling quite… empty or, rather, more mythical than believable. As a viewer I have to accept this at face value and never question it nor ask questions about it. On the other hand, Mary’s death not only made him aware that “evil” is real but that it was after them, it had specifically targeted them. And, I mean, sure the way he’s handled this “discovery” is questionable but also… he wasn’t… wrong? The story itself proved him right and I wonder what face he’d made if he got to live and find out that, actually, it was God himself who was obsessed with his sons.

So. John and God. Let’s talk about them.

There’s an autobiographical book that’s quite renowned in Italy (they even made a movie about it) that’s called “Padre Padrone”, translated into English as “Master Father” or “My Father My Master”. It’s the story of the author’s emancipation from his domineering father who forced him to work with/for him, live in isolation and stay analphabet until he was 20 years old. In the book/life of the author, the author/character is eventually able to get a degree in Glottology, leave his “fatherland” (interestingly via military service) and start living his own life/working on his own. Since this is the author’s story, we see the author’s father the same way as he saw him: a patriarchal, domineering, unfathomable character rather than a real person. We have zero insights into the father’s life, why he behaves the way he does, what motivates him. His abusive behavior is part of a sort of mythical, unperturbed, “ancient” tradition which we simply have to accept so that we can also taste the likewise mythical rebellion of the son. And this is okay because, much like SPN, the first step in the stories of sons and daughters must take into account the image they have of their parents rather than the parents as they were.

I think John Winchester as a character got the same treatment as the father in “Padre Padrone”. It’s also the reason why I don’t think John is an Absent Father, why I don’t think John is like God/Chuck and why I got interested in John as a character: if I stick to themes and motifs I’m definitely inclined to see the similitudes but if I analyze John and God as characters in the show I come to the conclusion that Chuck was telling Dean the truth when he told him not to confuse him with his dad. John and Chuck, as characters, are not the same even though they both represent aspects of the Father archetype.

More than an absent father John, much like Chuck, is for me a little too present in his sons’ lives. If they were in the “natural” world without the “super”, he’d be the single dad who has no choice but to leave his kids alone a lot because he has to go to work and because he has no support system. As far as the “he’s emotionally absent” argument goes, I actually think he’s worse than that. He knows that his kids have, obviously, needs, desires, feelings etc. and he walks all over them. He even admits that to Dean and, also, you know, the Adam of it all. He acts like a “dad” (not like a Father) with him so it’s not like he’s actually so closed off in his grief that he doesn’t see his sons. It’s not like he can’t but more like he doesn’t want to. He sees them and he imposes his will and his needs on them because “father knows best”.  

The way I see it, John is actually way too involved in his sons’ lives to the point that, to me, it almost feels like he treats them as captives. So, more than absent, John is a domineering, overly-present father/master. But John has two families and three sons: with Adam he was technically an absent father but that was because Kate Milligan didn’t want him in her and her son’s life. When Adam asked her to see his father she eventually agreed to it and John was partially and briefly in their lives. He tried to make the time spent with them count. He wanted to create memories with and for Adam. So, as far as Adam’s concerned, John is indeed an absent dad who later becomes a light, temporary presence in his life.

On the other hand, Chuck also has two families: the angels and the Winchesters (well, humanity in general but Sam and Dean in particular). Towards the first he’s indeed an absent father (or, rather, maker) because he does leave them. He doesn’t even need to be domineering with them because the angels are so enamored with the idea of him that they’d do anything for him. It’s his absence that actually starts spreading seeds of dissent and discontent among the angels because they feel deprived of their source of love. However, towards Sam and Dean, he’s a rather stable presence, perhaps just like John, a little too present because he also treats them as basically captives of his story. However, unlike John, he’s not actually present nor technically absent: he’s rather invisible. The other character who’s an actual absent father, albeit against his will, in the story is John’s father, Henry.

As we can see, John and Chuck are thematically similar because they represent the pervasiveness and systematic control of patriarchy over every aspect of the (super)natural world but, from a character perspective, they’re not the same.

The differences are even more striking if I analyze John-as-God and Chuck-as-God. Who between the two is a more faithful representation of the monotheistic God of Abrahamic religions? Who’s actually eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent and personal, sole creator of the universe? My answer would be John. In the end, John’s journal is forever while God’s power can be passed on/taken away. Chuck can be God and not-God while John cannot but be Sam and Dean’s father (and Mary's husband). As a character he’s presented as eternal (he doesn’t change through time), omnipotent (over his sons whose only power over him is to try and leave him) omniscient (father knows best), transcendent and personal (he’s there and not there “really” there at the same time), he’s the creator of the story’s universe because it all starts when he goes missing, not when Mary dies (although Mary's death is the beginning of Sam and Dean's story). On the surface, John seems inaccessible like an ascetic, a "pleasureless dullard", someone unable or unwilling to enjoy Life. Put a pin in these words because I'll come back to them later on in this series.

So, to me, while John is not a “real” character, he’s the “real” monotheistic God of the story. Chuck, on the other hand, is, as I’ve said, still part of the patriarchal structure but, as a character, he’s more like a Greek deity, a Zeus or maybe even Apollo. He’s very much concerned with his family but more in the “Leave me alone” sense than the “I need my family to be under my protection and sight” way of John. He goes as he pleases and he’s rather unhappy both with Heaven and earth so I can’t honestly say that he’s attached to a specific homeland. He interferes with humanity, apparently has sex with humans and enjoys earthly things. He likes to sing, play the guitar and he’s obsessed with writing his own story over and over again. He has favorites (not only Dean but Rowena and Crowley too, plus being “the favorite” is a whole thing among angels) and people he not-so secretly can’t stand (Castiel, Amara to some degrees).

He’s capricious, prone to anger and has dethroned his sister/equal/mother who wanted to consume him and locked her away in the Cage/Tartarus. He likes to play the roles of prophet and professional writer of genre fiction/comic books/autobiographical novels. In “Fanfiction” he’s not so subtly compared to Calliope, the Muse of epic poetry. As a matter of fact, he’s obsessed with epic as a genre. He likes Sam because he’s "Promethen" but he also wants him dead. The Bible is one of his books but he treats it more like a container of stories, “the classics”, that he can re-ash rather than the holy text of His Word. Talking about His Word, he edits, omits, cancels and asks for opinions (editors Metatron and Becky forever in my heart) and he’s generally dissatisfied with/ doubtful about his work as he can’t get the ending he wants. "Supernatural", his book series, is genre fiction elevated to the status of "Gospel". Everything about Chuck-as-God feels parodic and desecrating, from his pen-name, based on two of the show's actual writers, to his demise, since he literally gets demoted from God/Author to human/character.

But if John is like God but isn’t like Chuck/God… then… “who is like God?”. Which means: “Who is like John?”. Who incarnates the “God, homeland, family” ideology? Well, who but our one and only Michael (and his demonic counterpart Azazel), the other character in Supernatural who, much like John, is just… not “real” (and, apparently, can't ever be).

I’ll talk about John and Michael later on. Thank you for reading this far <3.

[ananke-xiii]

General question to reblog and tell me in the tags;

You go into a used bookstore - what are the two sections you head to first?

[ananke-xiii]

sometimes you just want to look at the qing dynasty jadeite cabbage again

[ananke-xiii]

@julietford-kateshephard you're not alone!!! shannon nation shall rise hahahah

big apologies from 2024 to Shannon Rutherford.

2004 didn't diserve you.

(her panic attacks when she had to translate Rousseau's words from French into English... ICONIC. I get you girl. Been there, been there *anxiety approaches*. You had the absolutely worst task ever on that fucking island but you still slayed, they didn't deserve you)

[ananke-xiii]

Honestly, I feel like this place would be so much better for everyone if people engaged. Fellow introverts, don't panic--I definitely don't mean forcing ourselves to have personal conversations or endure small talk over DMs!

But maybe consider following back people who share your fandom. (I'm blessed to be in the Lost fandom, which seems much more welcoming than most, but I've talked to other people here who are shocked by how few people ever follow back--someone I recently spoke to followed over 650 blogs and tried hard to engage and be supportive, only to have just three of those 650 people follow back). Hit the 'like' button on a meta that someone clearly spent time writing. Totally not talking about my own Shannon Rutherford meta that everyone ignored because that would be petulant and immature lol . Reblog a gifset that someone poured their heart into. Write "congratulations!" on someone's link to a finished fic they're proud of even if they're not writing about your favorite ship. These things take less than three seconds but truly make someone's day! Many of us work or attend classes from home and barely interact with humans, so even a simple "like" is reminding someone that they're seen, that they matter, that you know they exist. It makes a difference!

Instead, people here often feel like they're just shouting at themselves, with no one else bothering to listen or offer any positive feedback, and god knows our current culture has enough an isolation and loneliness epidemic as it is. If no one offers even a supportive 'like' on posts, it's no wonder that so many blogs here deactivate.

Please know that I'm not intending to scold anyone, "police" how people interact or tell anyone how to treat fellow fans. I'm just offering my observation that if more people took a mere 2-3 seconds to somehow acknowledge a few more posts a day, this place might feel like more of a community and less like a bunch of isolated individuals who eagerly share art, writing, insights and thoughts that end up wholly ignored!

[ananke-xiii]

A perfect Creation, with its symmetry untainted, would have led to matter and antimatter in precise balance and a mutual annihilation when in the very next instant they recombined: a precisely symmetrical universe would have vanished as soon as it happened. The current theory is that Creation was barely completed before something interceded; the perfection where the essence of every atom of substance had been counterbalanced by a precise antipartner was lost forever. This act degraded the symmetry between matter and antimatter, with the result that after the great annihilation, a small proportion of the matter was left over. Those remnants are what have formed us and everything around us as far as we can see. We are the material rump of what must have been an even grander Creation.

Frank Close, Lucifer's Legacy: The Meaning of Asymmetry

[ananke-xiii]

[ananke-xiii]

Writing game: post the last sentence you wrote then tag someone for every word in the sentence. tagged by @4c-aperture :D

this is from a little something I was writing where Kelly Kline is alive and, reluctantly, she loses her game of thrones-style political play against Sam (it's a whole story in the story) and is therefore "forced" to leave her cozy cabin and move in the bunker with Jack (who's initially a baby, sorry people but my girl had to live, he doesn't stay as such for long, though) Sam, Cas, Dean and Mary (there is no Apocalypse World in my book). She isn't happy about it 'cause she hates the bunker, she hates these strangers but, more importantly, she hates Dean and his "Cas, Cas, Cas" with a passion. Because she's jeeeeelllyyyyyy. In the scene where this last sentence is from, she's having a bitch sesh with Eileen (Eileen's also alive in my world, just consider all women always alive in my stuff) because life with men in enclosed, underground, smelly places isn't easy and because I love gossip so I'll always find a way to insert it in the stuff I write.

"I’d call him “Tiel” just to spite him [Dean] if it didn’t sound so dumb".

I haven't touched this thing in weeks and now I feel guilty because it wasn't as bad as I thought!

I'm not tagging anyone because it's time for my mutuals to come forward if they want to share something with me! So you're ALL tagged! Heheheh.

[ananke-xiii]

NRPI: There is No-John Winchester.

In order to describe John Winchester as a character I’ve used 5 precise adjectives: absent, missing, lacking, pathetic and quixotic. I want to leave the first three aside for now and focus on the last two.

John is pathetic in the full sense of the word: he causes feelings of sadness and sympathy but he’s also so inadequate that it’s very difficult to respect him. Of course, the first meaning pertains to him being a widower and the second to him being a father. Widower and father being the only two features of John Winchester that the story deems are necessary enough for us to understand him as a character. This interests me for various reasons, the primary one being that John is, according to Supernatural, not real. He's not "just a man". When he’s a father he’s exclusively a father and when he’s a widower he’s exclusively a widower. Which means 1. that he’s been conceived more like an archetype rather than a “real” character and, more importantly, 2. that he must stay as such. There's simply no space for John as a "real" character in Supernatural, despite the fact that John is arguably one of the two most important characters in Supernatural, excluding Sam and Dean (the other one being Mary).

John is quixotic in the literary sense of the word, meaning that he’s like Don Quixote. Much like our Don, John goes mad and becomes a knight errant. His Dulcinea is Mary, his wife, whose death has spurred both his madness and his action. He starts travelling around the USA in his car (Rocinante) with his two sons (Sancho Panza) and established their “family business” while looking for the demon responsible for Mary’s death. Unlike our Don, the adventures John finds himself in are very real, as a matter of fact his descent into madness was instigated by the burning (I’ve got a very dark sense of humor, pardon me) discovery that monsters are, in fact, not characters for bedtime stories but very much real, that there is a world beneath our world where “the lore” is not fiction but reality, that there are, indeed, “things that go bump in the night”. John’s windmills are ferocious and real giants.

Now you can see that there’s something that’s not adding up here: John is a character in a story who’s not “real”, but who only represents a certain idea of fatherhood, while the core of his own story is the discovery that demons are not “ideas” of evil but are real, living entities that aren’t confined to bedtime stories but that are up and about in the world. One could almost say that much like Don Quixote imagined the world as he would’ve liked it to be, the world in Supernatural imagines John as the story needs him to be (and to stay like that).

In other words, John, as far as Supernatural is concerned, is a case of NRPI: a non-real person involved.

Little, aside: I wasn’t there for the “superwholock” era but I wish I could’ve lived a “supersucceverance” era where we could’ve explored the themes of family, tradition, continuation vs separation, bodily autonomy, self-determination, business culture (and more) in three different shows: one where the fictional is real, the second where the real is fictional and the third where there’s a mix of the two. I know this is wishful thinking but let’s all close our eyes and imagine it “for 9 seconds” (quote).

In case you haven’t watched “Succession” an NRPI is a case “in which the victims were sex workers or migrant workers at foreign ports, which the company (Waystar Royco) used to clear itself of any legal liability”. More broadly, it’s the way the Roys divide the world into: real people (them and people like them who may be respected/engaged with) and not-real people (people who are not like them and who can, therefore, be used by them).

To me, this is how Supernatural thinks of John as a character: he’s not a real person, therefore he can be used by the narrative as it pleases it. Now, I’ve said elsewhere that this is part of what I think is the show biggest strength/flaw, aka its obsessive focus on Sam and Dean and Dean and Sam only, that this happens to other characters as well and that this is Sam and Dean’s story and in their story John is pretty much just a (very awful) father. However, there are tiny bits in the show when John is allowed to be more than that and what I personally find in these bits is very yummy. Hence my current hyperfixation and why I’m dipping my toe in characterization.

Ngl, if Supernatural were a novel (and it actually is, in a meta way, lol), I’d be tempted to see John Winchester as the “real” embodiment of its being a genre fiction, while his sons, the main characters, embody the “serious” side of the novel, why it can be considered literary fiction.

To be frank with you: John is a romance character, while Sam and Dean are novel characters. John’s the beach read, while (Sam and) Dean are Tolstoy. You get what I’m saying?

To quote Northrop Frye:

The essential difference between novel and romance lies in the conception of characterization. The romancer does not attempt to create “real people” so much as stylized figures which expand into psychological archetypes. It is in the romance that we find Jung’s libido, anima, and shadow reflected in the hero, heroine, and villain respectively. That is why romance so often radiates a glow of subjective intensity that the novel lacks, and why a suggestion of allegory is constantly creeping in around its fringes. Certain elements of character are released in the romance which make it naturally a more revolutionary form than the novel. The novelist deals with personality, with characters wearing their personae or social masks. He needs the framework of a stable society, and many of our best novelists have been conventional to the verge of fussiness. The romancer deals with individuality, with characters in vacuo idealized by reverie, and, however conservative he may be, something nihilistic and untamable is likely to keep breaking out of his pages.

I’ve written that John is a character written in absentia, but I think that I also like “in vacuo” because… who, apart from a father and a widower, is John Winchester? There is an emptiness around him as a character that attracts me and, like I said, “I want to go to there” (quote). I want to take romance seriously.

Let’s see what I’ll find!

[ananke-xiii]

Meditation Denying Everything

by Katie Peterson

Because it is a pearly evening I am sitting in the window reading a book I have read before. Branches emphasize their heft and sway over their shadows. Some kind of extra firmament, an ear over the earth's ear, extra, as language is to prayer. Narratives of elsewhere: in the eye inside my eye that vision makes when you tell it to when you shut your eyes so hard they hurt you get more vista and less twist of road, and then you're looking at a valley you named yourself and irrigated yourself, full of bitterroot, magnolia in the clefts of rock, sage, at last a harvest, a desert that belongs to you —

The trick to renunciation is starting now. The secret of detachment is having already given up, a transcript of speech whose cadences are lost, the human need for a body to fill in all your body's deficiencies, those clefts and dents already given up, the narrative of a life completely altered in the retrospect that knowledge brings and so discredited the point of memory utterly lost. That piece of land has always been suitable for a house. That nest has never been ready for eight baby birds who, top-heavy, frightened their own branch and home and scared themselves completely and remarkably away.

Do you hear that? It's the wind negotiating the spine of one leaf it cannot decide whether to raise a fragment of an inch.

Duncan writes as a reader struggles with a strong sentence, I struggle at certain unmistakable times with what's furtive and most right. When people marry they finish their names. I am still listening for mine to begin. My spine wants a bicycle to order its work, a red bicycle, a hill into a heart of a city that holds something I want.

The pattern of the air around that leaf is like someone tracing my ribcage with his index finger and then walking away. Who can blame us for wanting other worlds, but shall we take them, or let them come to us? Is the spirit just an ear more like a mouth that bites the air and turns it into blood?

A voice in the next room goes to sleep. Sleep moves in the branches of the oak become a rootless mass unsung by skeleton or name or height. My friend who says she does not believe in Paradise believes in rest: I believe that, or more likely I like to think of her, the way she held my name in her small mouth, as she held her own name. I like to think of anyone who on a night like this would reach towards my ribcage and trace it delicately and walk away.

[ananke-xiii]

Ugo Palchetti, ‘Serpenti��, “Modern Decorative Art”, Vol. 1, 1910 Source

[ananke-xiii]

cant dm my mutuals like a normal person so i have to think of ridiculous things to post so i can maybe get an Interaction from them passivestyle

[ananke-xiii]

ghostfacers effect yes but let's not forget that uriel would never speak in english with cas. lucifer and cas scene in s5? also in enochian. michael and cas in s15? same. you'll never take this hc away from me.

[ananke-xiii]

I know that Mom’s dead, and I know that she’s not coming back. Okay, I hear what you’re saying, I just wish…