#that audience knowledge is NOT character knowledge

[mimicofmodes]

I saw a post going around about costube historians analyzing period film costumes for accuracy and it kind of got under my skin, so I'm sitting down and writing ... not exactly a response to it, but a discussion of the topic.

(It would be a direct response except that I don't actually watch costube, because quite frankly I can't watch/listen to people discuss things I already know. And I don't want to be like "they don't do X!" when maybe they really do X and I'm just not aware. But a lot of the complaints hit the same points that have been brought up against fashion historians for reviewing costumes for decades. I would also note that I have looked into specific videos where there were claims of terrible costuber behavior and watched them and found nothing.)

If you're going to analyze a period film's costuming in any way, you should still interact with the historical aspect to some degree. If you want to talk about the use of bold stripes in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, for instance, and you don't mention that they were in style during the period the film appears to be set in, it's kind of weird.

Likewise, yes, if you're critiquing primarily from the angle of historical accuracy, you should also engage to at least some extent with the reasoning behind the inaccuracy. If a reviewer doesn't do so at all, then yes, their review is probably not as good as it could be.

People pointing out an inaccuracy (or many inaccuracies) are not inherently scolding the costume designer. Even if their tone is something other than sweet. Sometimes they are scolding other people involved in the production, like the director who mandated a particular costume, or just a general notion of TPTB. Usually they are divorcing the art from the artist, though, and just reviewing the costuming from their particular viewpoint and knowledge base for a likeminded audience.

Sometimes, yes, they are complaining directly about the costume designer. This is not a crime. Some costume designers (for instance, Sandy Powell) have an incredible grasp on fashion history and excellent taste when it comes to diverging from it. Others simply don't have as in-depth of an understanding and make design decisions sometimes based on stereotypes and myths. Some costume designers will explain their decisions in interviews or blog posts and make it clear that they didn't make a truly informed decision about accuracy because they didn't know enough about the period. It's important for both sides of the equation to stop painting the other with too broad of a brush ("ivory-tower elitists who have no idea of a production's needs or budget" vs. "costumers who know how to sew but not how to do historical research").

If you're allowed to complain about a writer or a director or an actor doing something you don't like in a movie, you're also allowed to complain about a costume designer. You're allowed to have aesthetic preferences, and even to talk about them without hedging every five seconds to make it clear that others can disagree, although some of this is beneficial with any critique. Why would it be otherwise?

This seems really obvious to me, but maybe it's not? But "they costumed that female actor in an anachronistically sexy way because sex sells" is a feminist issue. The assumption that women's bodies should be sites of less-clothed allure while men's should attract by being more covered (with more layers than in modern dress, with cravats, etc.) is sexist. Complaints about female characters being costumed inaccurately are often being made along these lines, and pointing out that the producers insisted on it or something does not mean it's suddenly unproblematic that every female character deemed fuckable has to have low necklines at all times and modern shiny hair.

It's true that fiction isn't non-fiction and shouldn't be taken that way, but it's also demonstrably true that viewers do take cliches in film aesthetics as accurate when they see them enough times. People cite Scarlett O'Hara's 18" waist. They believe there were no bright colors before the 1920s and that women couldn't have put their hair up unless they were wealthy. These beliefs have consequences when it comes to public perceptions of history, and if films perpetuate them it's perfectly reasonable to point out that they support ideas about e.g. gender roles that trads express today.

It's also simply funny when a film's hair or costuming or makeup is supposed to evoke a lack of artifice but actually requires quite a bit of artifice because people don't naturally have perfect hair and skin and so on.

If you don't like reviews of period films that focus on the accuracy of the costuming, maybe ... don't watch/read reviews by fashion historians and historical costumers? At least unless they're vetted for you by someone who doesn't mind that?

[starryalpacasstuff]

LITBC ep 3 & 4: When they're homophobic but you love them

It took me a while to finally watch the third and fourth episodes because it's been diwali season, but having finally watched them I think I can quite confidently say that this part will probably end up as my favourite of the four. I've been having a really hard time trying to figure out how to express my feelings about this episode, because frankly I'm not even sure what those feelings are myself.

I think, surprisingly enough, this section actually hit me harder in the show than it did in the book. The book definitely had more teeth to it and felt far darker than the show, and this may seem counterintuitive, but I think it was because the show continues to be more grounded in the present that the story that it felt more visceral. As a few people have already noted, in the book the reader not only follows only Young's perspective, but there's also Young's bitter hindsight that colours his retelling of the story. Even when he acknowledges how enamoured he used to be with Hyung, it's again accompanied by his resentful commentary. In contrast, with the show we experience Go Young's emotions right along with him: love, confusion, disappointment, desperation, heartbreak, and everything in between. And as @lurkingshan notes here, this makes it all the more brutal when it all comes crashing down. Something else is that, while these episodes did not afford Go Young's mother and Young-soo the same sympathy the previous episodes did for Mi Ae and Nam Gyu, it's true that the wider lens and absence of Young's bitter monologue helped me, as the audience—how do I say this—see the two characters as their own people rather than just characters in Go Young's story. It emphasizes the greyness of morality in the characters. Young-soo is no doubt a bastard, but he's also a product of the environment he was raised in, and everything about him is a cry for help; help he will not accept. And Go Young's mother is an overbearing religious zealot who, when she realized that she couldn't 'fix' her son, resolved to pretend as though her son wasn't gay for the rest of her life; a social contract I am intimately familiar with. But she's also a single mother who braved a patriarchal society to bring up her son and she loves him in ways she will never express to him. The grey morality of the characters allows the audience to see why Go Young loved them and in turn, feel their loss along with him. I feel incomprehensibly sad when I think of the way both characters ruined their relationships with Go Young because they couldn't (wouldn't?) understand. Because he loved them, even though they were homophobic, but their relationships could never be the same after he knew.

Being constantly surrounded by homophobia is suffocating and exhausting, and it's something I know well. Even when it's not being discussed, sometimes just the knowledge of the way the people around you all hate 'people like you' can be incredibly overwhelming; it weighs you down. Go Young having to work through the complexities of loving people who were homophobic, people who hated an integral part of him felt so real to me because it's real life for me. Him going back to Young-soo over and over again even when he was rapidly becoming aware of Young-soo's beliefs. The quiet way in which both mother and son skirt around his sexuality. His brief happiness when he sees the scrapbook his mother made, and the photo that she returned to him. I'm just repeating the same words over and over now but the emotions felt so visceral; it made me feel seen. Go Young seemed so tired whenever he was around his mother and I don't think I need to say anything about how Young-soo's parting words affected him. It's something that hit way too close to home for me; that dawning realization that even more of your world stands against a core part of you than you'd thought, and that you love it anyways.

[mozzygan]

the wall between us

redraw of this illustration series i made back in 2019. i'd say i've improved lol.

[captaincrazycreative]

I love that Celia went to the Jonah Magnus school of

"Giving vague and ominous hints towards your big mysterious twist backstory."

"Lets just say i have a...complicated immigration status."

GIRL YOU ARE NOT SUBTLE

[notbecauseofvictories]

More than anything in this world, I hate the fact that if you leave your apartment and go do things, it makes you a happier more interesting person. I know I make this exact text post every two or three months, I have done for literal years, and yet every. single. time. it surprises and frustrates delights frustrates delights makes me feel some sort of way.

[ixkhor-and-ambroxia]

Hey #GreekMythology tumblr, I want ya’lls help on something :).

So, I’ve been thinking about starting this massive project. Like, would take years and years work of writing and research and sheerly finding the time and motivation for. And as I was thinking about the specifics, I thought: why not bring others into it as well? Because as much as I am interested in a lot of Greek Mythology, there are things that are simply not my interests and might cause writers block and my goal for the project would to be as fun as possible. So, here we are.

What is the project exactly? Well, hopefully, it’ll be a long Ao3 series/fic focusing on the individual perspectives of various figures/events in Greek Mythology arranged in (semi/good enough) chronological order. I personally intend to write for Poseidon in his/my version of the Titanomachy and (maybe) some events that follow, if you want a little bit of an idea on what I’m talking about.

The limits on this are almost completely free, all that I ask are that each of your submissions are one POV only (and by that I mean your main subject’s POV). Why do I say this? I say this because that is what I want this project to look like. It doesn’t matter if it’s First, Second, or Third POV along with all the other variants of those three, my main focus is on the individual experiences of these individuals. Kind of like character studies, if you know what I mean. I’m intending for it to be mostly formal but I will absolutely accept crack admissions that I will probably put into its own series to Separate the Vibes for whoever comes by :).

Ultimately, this is a completely open-ended project that has absolutely no deadline. I’m about to go to bed so I can’t go into too much detail, but if you want to DM me or send any asks, I am completely okay with that and we’ll all flesh out the specifics we go :).

What is my overall purpose? Not only is this project made for my own individual purposes of learning more about the gods and other Greek Mythology writers, but it’s also the chance to spread the word of other writers. I know how hard it is to get specific audiences, especially when you’re shy, so this is a chance for your work to be stumbled upon. Each post on the eventual Ao3 fic will include your socials, how to find you, and your other general works on either ao3, tumblr, wattpad, or other :)

Can you participate even without socials or a tumblr page? Yes you absolutely can :). My asks will always be open to anons and I will do my best to give credit when I eventually post everything :). If you want to post multiple submissions or simply just want a trackable (between works) name to your writing, just sign something at the end. It could be a name, it could be a potential username, I don’t mind at all :)).

How do I submit things? Well, the best way would be to DM me :). I have a personal writing email separate from most things that would be perfect to either share a google docs with or to just send a copy-and-pasted copy of it. Otherwise, I take asks. None of them will be posted unless asked or we’re ready to so it’ll be safe to just drop them off in! It’s also where I take questions :).

Any other things to note? I’d really appreciate some other moderators and editors :). There’d only be like two or three of each and we’d have to know each other decently well before officially starting, but some help would be appreciated! Also, I’d like to keep a working ‘spreadsheet’ of who’s working on what just for people to see what’s going on :). Maybe some people can collaborate or it’ll encourage those niche writers to write :). A third thing is that most questionable stuff is accepted. I’d personally rather not handle all those things other than posting it so it might be a while until I can officially accept (consensual and/or graphic) ✨spicy stuff✨ but, other than that, I’ll take any of it (also, it’s Greek Mythology, almost all of it already happened). If someone’s willing to take over the ✨spicy stuff✨ then please DM me so we can work out the details and see if it’s a nice fit :)

Honestly, that all should be it. The main point is that I’m trying to start up a long-term project on Tumblr and Ao3 about what is essentially Greek Mythology character studies that not only allows for mass communication across a wide audience, but also (hopefully) gets some recognition for the smaller writers :). Feel free to DM me or send me asks with questions but for now, I shall sleep

Tagging: @bluebellstudio @thirteen-deaths-later @0lympian-c0uncil @happyk44 @h0bg0blin-meat @sworeontheriverstyx @deathlessathanasia @gotstabbedbyapen. Sorry if I tagged you and you want nothing to do with it, I just wanted to get it out there /pos /gen

[jupitermelichios]

so you've probably seen the news that riverdale ended with the main 4 in an actual, canonical, poly relationship

and that's amazing for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that the number of canon poly relationships on tv are miniscule and also it brings the number of canonically straight main cast members down to 1. Ethel is legitimately the show's token straight representation. love that for her

but to get the full impact of that news, you really also need to know that in order for the polycule to form:

Jughead's transdimensional angel girlfriend has to destroy multiple other timelines to create a new stable timeline for the polycule to live in. timelines destroyed include the one where jughead is immortal and trapped forever in a bunker underneath riverdale, and one where tony and fangs's magical timetravelling gay baby is fighting an evil wizard for control of a train full of evil ghosts

Jughead's magical transdimensional angel girlfriend then returns to the newly created main timeline, and restores the main cast's memories of all the other timelines, which she does by forcing them to watch the show riverdale. That is not a joke or a metaphor she even goes to the trouble to bring a colour tv back to the 1950s so they can watch in colour, except for Clay and Julian, because they did not exist in any of the previous timelines and they're sad about it and refuse to watch a show they're not in.

(Well, Julian technically did exist in the original timeline, but only as a ghost possessing a haunted doll, which doesn't really count)

(Also for some reason as well as the main cast, she makes dilton doily watch it, despite his only contributions to the show being a) dying as a human sacrifice in the og timeline, b) trying to blow up the planet and then dying because of it in the rivervale timeline, and c) gay kevin telling people he has the biggest dick in the 1950s tlmeline, and honestly, I feel like it would be kinder to just not show him any of that)

(ethel does not get to watch riverdale, because she did the only sensible thing any riverdale character has ever done and fucked off to a normal town to have an actual life, because as well as being the token straight character, she's also the token sane one)

After watching Riverdale, all of the main cast except Jughead and Betty decide it sucks and they hate it, and ask tabby to rewipe their memories and only give them the cute bits and not all the serial killers and shit, because the writers have run out of time for subtle metaphors and they weren't sure the audience had fully grasped that the entirely last season of the show is a weird metacommentary on the criticisms people have of the show riverdale so they're just straight up going to have archie andrews look straight to camera and say that the show should have been more like the comics

also I have no idea how only showing them the happy bits works, because that removes 90% of the entire plot so I assume they just have a bunch of completely out of context sex scenes and meals at the diner and nothing else. possibly also some musical numbers, idk if I'd count those as happy memories personally

Betty and Jug chose to keep their memories of the Gargoyle King and Betty's 2 long-lost secret gay serial killer brothers because they're edgy (and also because the writers are annoyed at all the people who say the show should be more like the comics, so they have the smartest characters say they liked the actually and everyone else is being a wimp about all the serial killers, because again, we have run out of time for subtlety)

Having had his memories restored, Jug's like "oh hi tabitha, my secret transdimensional angel girlfriend, I haven't seen you for months, I've really missed you. I'm so glad you're you're back. i love you so much"

And she responds by telling him that she'd chosen to write herself out of the timeline when she fixed in, and she has to return to the great big diner in the sky (not a joke, heaven is a diner in the riverdale universe and, it is heavily implied, also in our universe, so that's something to look forward to), so she freezes time halfway through kissing him and just nopes out of time and space. which is also how I would handle all break ups if I had angel powers tbh

since jug is now single, and all 4 of them just got multiple timeline's worth of fucking one another mainlined straight into their brains, the main 4 decide to all start dating

(they are probably inspired to do this in part by betty's sister, who in the new timeline is a burlesque performer who's stage name is Polly Amorous)

As far as I can tell from the last episode, they tell gay kevin about this and literally no one else, for reasons known only to themselves

also genuinely can't tell if this was the writers wanting a poly relationship for them, or if they just couldn't be bothered with the internet slap fights that would have followed them picking individual monogomous ships to be endgame

they also, hilariously, refuse to say that archie and jug are dating, I assume due to network restrictions, despite archie being canonically bi at this point, so betty's just like 'well sometimes I go to veronica's and we fuck, and the boys do... something we're not going to talk about'

the final episode of the show is a flash forward where as a now old betty is dying, jughead's ghost shows her memories of their teens, in which it's reveal that she has just straight up forgotten about being in a poly relationship

literally she looks at her teen self and is like "wow, I seem weirdly close to veroica jughead and archie" and Jug's ghost has to be like "because we were dating. how do you not remember that we were dating? what the hell? did I mean nothing to you?!"

also old betty specifically seeks out reggie and is like "hey you know how me and you dated, and you and veronica were together for years in multiple timelines, and you archie keep declaring your undying love for one another and nearly fucking, well we're all dating and we specifically decided not to invite you, sucks to be you" and walks away and I have no idea why she did it. justice for reggie

anyway RIP to the greatest television show ever made, it was so gay and so deranged and so meta, and there really will never be anything quite like it again

[ncrthernl1ghts]

live footage of me scrolling through the a.colyte tags and seeing the coldest takes known to man this this morning

[caeslxys]

"I’ve seen a lot of people say that the Hells will side with the gods and I don’t think I agree. Especially as Imogen has been scolded and villainized over and over for daring to try and save her mother—who herself has been seen by some as an irredeemable evil in spite of her drive being the exact same—her family—but when it’s the Gods it’s justified? When it’s the Gods, it’s sympathetic? Too sympathetic to criticize further than “they’re family”?"

good meta op, but i'm slightly confused about this part. are you talking of the fandom here or the narrative? because from what i've seen and remember, imogen has definitely been scolded or villanized as you say, by the fandom, but has she been treated that way by the hells or anyone else? i guess keyleth comes to mind, but apart from that, the hells seemed supportive of her wanting to reach out and reconcile with her mom.

Prefacing what i'm sure will be an overly long mostly tangent: you obviously do not have to agree with my interpretations of any scene I'm about to bring up and if you don't sick cool please do not make it a problem

A bit of both, to be honest! The use of the word “villainizing” was definitely more geared toward fandom response, but Imogen has absolutely been scolded—or maybe shamed is the better word—in campaign several times! Yes by Keyleth threatening her in front of them all just for being ruidusborn and related to Liliana, but also by Orym in particular several times.

Which is not to say that Orym doesn’t want Imogen to save her mother—obviously he does!—but it has definitely been more than once that he has shut down her grief and her processing her relationship with her mother by inserting his own grief over it, notably in the immediate aftermath of Ruidus and convo with Liliana.

(Which, yes, he immediately apologized for, but I do find it interesting that Imogen got shit from fandom for her response in the scene I'm about to bring up in episode 49 for EVER but no one was allowed to criticize Orym's response as impulsive and insensitive there and he notably was not disassociating or being actively manipulated. Just think it's interesting!)

And while it wasn’t nearly so livid in it’s delivery, that moment in 49 where she was just trying to process seeing her mother and speaking with her and being presented with the idea of peace for the first time in her life was delivered (though you could argue this wasn’t his intent; honestly I don’t think it was, but—) in a way that immediately had her plummeting into self-deprecating apologies for being effectively manipulated. I’ve actually written a bit before about how I find the youth of his grief making it more volatile in comparison to the rest of the hells’ grief deeply compelling as a thematic beat!

That’s a bit of a tangent just bc I find specifically the dynamic between Orym/Imogen/Liliana to be a very compelling one lmao but even in the Uthodurn arc with Chetney insight checking her to see if she was telling the truth or not about her intentions with her mother. Or Fearne bringing up to Orym (also back in 49) the question of what they planned to do with/to her if she turned. It's not that I think, necessarily, that those were ill intentioned but they were coming from a place of, at best, mistrust specifically because of her connection to Liliana. Really only Ashton and Laudna—and FCG, funnily enough—have not in some way taken her grief and yearning and turned against her when it comes to placing their trust in her (whether she was aware they did so or not), which of course speaks to a certain interpretation they had of her character at the time.

And, also, this has obviously since changed and most of them mostly understand where she’s coming from now—especially Orym!—but it doesn’t make the fact that it happened any less true!

[cardentist]

between jay marble hornets and jon magnus archives I think a lot of people really do just take offense to characters in horror movies being People and not action heroes

paranoia and fear are considered character flaws (stupidity or cowardice or a lack of humanity). they're supposed to strong enough to survive but anything they do for survival has to be Socially Acceptable.

you can't have a horror protagonist be Smart without also being paranoid, otherwise it's not good horror. asking a character to always make the right decisions and always know when they're in danger but Also holding them accountable when they're distrustful of the characters that You know are safe is silly.

sometimes not being crazy murdered means doing a little stalking. wanting to live when you know For Sure that there's someone (or something) out there that is completely willing to kill you means choosing Survival over social convention

[gender-euphowrya]

the thing about the michael bay skibidi movie is it's gonna be such a huge fucking flop gkfjfkd

[sincetheducksleft]

"Proshai, Livushka": Arcs or the lack thereof as a major theme of The Sopranos

One thing that's straight up insane about The Sopranos is how a narrative show can expose the insufficiency of narrative to explain our lives. I think Christopher's story is probably the most obvious example, but you see it with every single character, including Tony.

In "Proshai, Livushka" we see Tony rewatching an old mobster movie again and again, and we know that he saw the whole story every time, but the piece of the story that we get to see and our corresponding understanding of Tony's character changes over the course of the episode.

Meaning that Tony's arc in this episode, or the overall arc of the episode, may be less a true transformation of Tony himself than a transformation of what the audience knows of him. In fact, we are the ones who are changed by this episode, and from Tony's perspective he has no arc at all.

Which is sort of perfect, because here if there ever was one is a story with no "arc."

An "arc" (in the context of screenwriting, which is the context in which it was introduced to this show) is what gives meaning to the whole story. It's the narrative satisfaction, the profound feeling, the purpose, the message, the thing that makes the movie feel like it amounted to something and it was worth your time.

In the wake of his grief, Tony isn't obsessed with just any mobster movie, he's obsessed with a movie full of broad stereotypes and simple messages that amounts to a cliched, simplistic mother figure losing her son. It's the tragedy of a mother's profound grief that gives tragedy to the death of the son and makes the movie worth your time.

It's a contrast to Livia's obsession with mothers who kill their children, and its an extension of his comment to Melfi that he deserves to die. And you realize when the son character dies that Tony is wishing it was him in the coffin. Not because he's suicidal, but because he's just that desperate for a sense of meaning. For a story that has an arc.

And then you realize in the final scene, when it's not the mother's grief but the mother's love that brings him to tears, that he knows it wouldn't work. His death would have no arc, no profundity, no purpose. Because Livia never loved him the way a mother figure should.

His story isn't written in broad caricatures and it has no divine mother's love at the center of it giving divinity and meaning to everything else. Losing himself in a movie is the closest he'll ever get to putting some kind of arc or meaning or sense to that relationship.

And if real life has no arc, then at what point does it become worth your time? Or, like Livia and Robert Frost said, is every moment of our lives surrounded and defined only by the big nothing?

[aerithisms]

i still have so many questions about the ff7 remake story. why did aerith even have knowledge of the future in remake to begin with? from a watsonion perspective, why does she lose that knowledge after the end of remake when sephiroth doesn't? (i'm fully aware the doylist reason is that having a character who knows the future would totally break the plot but i'm still curious if there's more to what they were doing with aerith's remake character or if this is it). what was her motivation to encourage the party to fight the whispers in the original game when she knew the party would defeat sephiroth in the end if events followed fate? was it simply that she wanted the chance to live? because that makes me want to lie down and cry!!!!

[shallowseeker]

You know what's crazy ( ⊙_◎) ? Literally everybody and their momma said to Dean that Cas is in love with him, But at the same time we kinda have just as much saying Cas doesn't have feelings for him. Most iconically Naomi (which honestly slay for her),Pamela kind of , and just as much blaming dean for cas's "downfall", Ishm, Uriel, Hael. Demons knowing abt it.

Would love to know abt your theories on how they know that Cas was specifically in love than deep friendship

Hello! I hope you don't mind me adding your second part to this:

Pt2 I got kind of more to say but sent too quickly, anyways! Like angels can understand emotion especially the ones more in control, angels have felt before, Lucifer and anna and other fallen angels so it's not like it's a new concept and that cas was unique in that matter but yea curious on why you think the angels knew cas was specifically in love

///

This is a lovely ask, and I struggled to do it justice all week and I...just can't. So my answer will run the gamut of all the vibes. I hope you don't mind! :D

Biggest giveaway?

Cas's default is -> he's a big dick

The theorem: As Cas is to Sam (read: mean), Cas is to most everyone else.

Support: Cas was by Ishim's definition, "the angel's angel," he exemplified everything warrior-angels should be. In the words of Naomi: "swift, brutal, no hesitation."

Behavior: Sam is Cas's friend, but Cas is also kind of a dick to Sam. He gets annoyed with Sam, even pretty late in the series, especially when Dean's not around (when Dean went to AU world, Cas was abrupt with Sam, rolling his eyes and making lil digs, especially when they're interacting with Gabriel). And well, the crux of my argument is that think that's actually his default with all angels/people.

Dude was stationed with Uriel. At one time, they were the biggest assholes in the garrison, okay?

This default serves to highlight the ones he's gentle with:

The list of the people Cas "babies" is vanishingly small (Dean, Meg, Samandriel, Claire, Hannah, Charlie maybe, Jack, Mary, and eventually Rowena, only occasionally Sam). He's much meaner with his actual friends, and almost all of his close friends are a little mean.

That's my fun answer, anyway. :-D

My serious answer is, however, a little contrarian...I hope you don't mind, but I wanted a little variety today. I'm not gonna support all this with text like I usually do, but it's one of the things I'm going to focus on in my next rewatch. Maybe!

TLDR for below; I don't think a lot of people really knew. We confuse misrepresentative-innuendo and conceptualized-loyalty for “romantic” understanding at our own risk.

///

I don't think everyone and their mother actually knows that Cas is in romantic love with Dean

Or at least...not in the capacity that certain phrases are emphasized in fanon.

That's not to say I don't think some characters suspect. I do.

But I think some of the soldier-angels shriek moreso over shifting loyalties and perceptions of corruption. They perceive the shifting of Cas's loyalty to the human family as corruption and abandonment.

In fact, I think Cas bedding down with his human family could be a sore spot for the angels in particular; it's like God abandoning them for humans all over again. I'm not so sure they view that abandonment as romantic...only that Dean is the root of the problem.

TLDR; I think most recognize it as devotion, but I don't think it's well-parsed, especially for the soldier-angels. I think their assumptions run the gambit, from fealty to devotion to fanatical, and I can easily, easily see them viewing Cas's allegiance to Jack with the same kind of unhinged grief.

//

In the world of SPN, I think much of the romantic and sexual needling comes down to warring power dynamics and simple verbal sparring/one-upmanship

Characters will do anything to get the upper hand and feel in control in a dicey situation, and those barbs often come in the form of misrepresenting, diminishing, and disrespecting other characters' relationships, whether those are relationships with their parents, siblings, friends, comrades, or other loved ones.

In SPN, we get numerous equal-opportunity jokes about sexual attractions, incest, love, affection, weakness, etc etc etc.

TLDR; I think the one-off innuendos are often not a real commentary on the truth of any relationship but simply...disrespect.

//

Some examples to consider:

Balthazar - Often held up as proof that Bal thinks Castiel is "in love with Dean," I don't think Bal's line "The one in the dirty trenchcoat who's in love with you" means much at all. I actually think Balthazar's one of the least cognizant of parsing the complexities and differences between romantic/filial/friendly/etc emotion. (He's also a gloriously morally gray dude, our first meeting with him is him taking possession of a child's soul, after all.)

I mean, sure we got Balthazar saying Cas "is in love with you (Dean)", but we also got him calling Cas Sam's boyfriend. Either my man Balthy does not parse the complexities of relationships, or he's just...simply being disrespectful and diminishing Cas's relationships to his human fam in any way he can. It's about the one-upmanship in the conversing.

I don't see a of of compelling evidence that even angels like Balthazar parse Castiel's emotions on anything more than a superficial level.

///

Hael - "When Castiel first laid a hand on you, he was lost!" I tend to file this one under assumptions of fealty and mission-oriented devotion. Yes, they fear Dean has a corrupting effect. But you could argue the same about Jack. That when Cas laid a hand on Kelly's stomach, he was lost—became a terrible weapon laid at the feet of the child instead of Heaven.

So, I'm not sure that the desperate bleating of warrior-angels can be conceptualized as romantic. I think it's far more likely to be mission-oriented. They want Cas to have devotion to The Authoritarian Company/War Machine and they perceive Cas's "new" human-oriented locus of morality as Needy Little New Family.

It's the same way authoritarian governments seek to sunder "blue-collar" soldiers from their families, purposely stationing them away from their hometowns so their loyalty is divided and dehumanization of the enemy gets easier, too.

A war machine like Heaven wages an overwhelming, all-encompassing war. The British Men of Letters and Hell are big war systems, too. American hunting is a medium war, their guerilla tactics and case-by-case approach a smaller scale, still. A family is an even littler one. (Kelly Kline's name, in fact, means "little war.")

///

Crowley - In season 10, we get Crowley needling Cas about burning through his grace to "save his boyfriend," but he also jokingly calls Sam "Dean's wife."

At core, it's disrespectful teasing, seeking to misrepresent, to get a reaction, to have power in the conversation. That's kind of Crowley's MO. Just because Crowley says something sexual doesn't mean we make the assumption that it's true. People that are verbally sparring, and especially men that are in a tense power dynamic, talk like this all the damn time, especially when we're mixing social classes. It can get real crass and real mean...real fast.

It doesn't mean it's meaningless in the context of being revelatory. Crowley and Rowena both desperately want to be included in any social group they can worm their way into, and quite badly, so there's often real emotion hidden within their barbs.

My point is you have to consider the source and speech patterns of that character before taking that ball and runnin' it downfield.

///

Innuendo, innuendo...

Another example is Zachariah's "erotically codependent line" with regard to his brothers. This barb has the sole purpose of invoking a class stereotype to make Adam lose hope and respect for his "lower class" bros. It's literally the classist "hurp-durp-Alabammer-cousin-fuckers" trope.

I personally tend to take innuendo primarily for what it is: incessant, pathetic barking.

In general, I take the demons' words with a grain of salt. They're always coming from the weak position and always hurling as much innuendo as they can to undermine and disrespect any relationship.

Even the demon Cas sits with in season 14 who says, "How'd you lose Dean? I thought you were joined at the everything," is just a crass attempt to have power when conversing. He could just as easily have made this comment about Jack or Mary or Claire and landed the same with respect to have a tonal upper hand.

Strategically, they don't have to assume Cas is in love to recognize the weakness of caring. They can say anything ugly about any person he appears to care about.

And very generally speaking, innuendo is typically lobbed from a weak/insecure position. The saying goes:

"The louder the bark, the weaker the bite."

Take for example, my man Crowley and my homegirl Rowena--almost always coming at a situation from the weak position. Crowley lobs barbs, innuendo, and faux-affection left and right. (So do other "scrappy" characters, like Dean, Rowena, Bela, every demon, Balthazar, etc)

Generally, we see this speech pattern emerge from Hell-oriented characters, which makes perfect sense, as Hell is the bottom "rung" of society, and Hell-oriented characters and witches often have the weakest social currency. These characters've got the biggest chips on their shoulders!

///

Mary vs Dean's speech patterns

Despite their similar natures, this is a big, very fascinating personality diff between Mary and Dean Winchester. Mary prefers to attack from the stoic strong position (more like Cas, Sam, etc), and she rarely mouths off. Dean is more drippingly sexual and "mouthy" because he's used to being IN the weak position. (Mary had a stabler homelife, we can suppose, at least when it comes to this.)

"You're the bottom in the relationship!" Crowley barks at Cas in season 6. Meanwhie, Cas isn't even threatened, thinking to himself quietly in TMWWBK, "I was stronger and smarter than him." Not threatened in the slightest. It bites Crowley in the ass eventually too, "You like to bend 'em over quick, don't you?" he laments at the beginning of season 7.

Likewise, Cas too gets more verbal when he's coming from the weak position with other angels. Take for example Michael in season 15, "In the worlds of a friend, you had a whole oak tree shoved up your ass." Cas rarely engages in this kind of false bravado, preferring to keep his aces up his sleeve. But with Michael, he is definitely coming from a strategical weak position with a goal in mind: goading Michael to act.

Goaders and Goad-ees

There are exceptions to the rule, like when you get sadists such as Alistair, Lucifer into the mix. I think more often than not, the goaders and the goad-ees reveal structural weak-strong dynamics.

I'd even argue that Lucifer's volatility keeps him in an emotionally vulnerable position in perpetuity. He's almost always trying to get reactions from those around him because he "needs love, he had a jakced childhood." We see this with Cas, and the effectiveness of his gray-rocking with Lucy. In season 12, getting a reaction from Cas becomes a stand-in for getting a reaction from Chuck.

///

So, that's my opinion.

I think most of the screeching and barbs are mostly power dynamics in action, not proof of knowledge per se and certainly not proof of understanding the nature of how deep Cas's feelings go

Are there exceptions? Sure.

A few of them, like Anna and Samandriel and Hannah, seem aware of Castiel's "too much heart" but I'm not super convinced that they conceptualized this as being about Dean in particular so much as about being who Cas is as a person with respect to his past rebellions.

Uriel knew something was up, I think, but it's hard to tell if his needling was more disrespectful like Balthazar's or not.

Naomi knew something was different for sure. Interestingly, she seemed aware of both Dean's and Cas's feelings, which makes sense as her work is in intel.

On that note, I think it’s interesting that the ones who truly conceptualize Cas's feelings tend to also recognize Dean's. Very few truly "knowledgeable" characters see one side in a vacuum.

I'm not sure that Ishim contextualized love outside of obsession, but he was jealous and seemed particularly jealous that Dean appeared to return the feelings, "That's what I thought." implies that.

I think of all the characters, Lucifer knew. He's got one of the higest cognitive empathies in the show. He knows it so well, he doesn't even need to resort to innuendo to tease them about it. (See the simple, effective: "CAS!") Same with AU Michael. Like Naomi, they seem to know and acknowledge both sets of feelings.

///

Close family and friends

Beyond the scope of this, but I think a lot of the fam n' friends knew what was up to some degree, but that didn't typically come out in the form of disrespect or teasing once they knew about it for real, especially characters like Bobby, Mary, etc. Eventually Rowena, Crowley, Ketch etc probably could tell something was up.

Now, are soldier-to-soldier relationships life-of-death kinda intense? Yes. Because of this, I think some neurodivergent characters that are more "cerebral" when it come to emotions (*cough* Sam) could be a little slow on the uptake. :-)

[variousqueerthings]

every once in awhile hawkeye will talk way too calmly about killing himself and I am fascinated by how that interacts with the laughtrack

[strqyr]

i'm scouring through the lost fable and the phrase "hearts of men are easily swayed" becomes infinitely funnier when you realize it basically just means "salem gets others to ditch the brother gods."

salem unites three kingdoms with promises of the powers of their creators to perfect their own design and bunch of other stuff to attack the gods? the hearts of men are easily swayed.

salem comes up with an idea to become the new gods of the world and create a paradise the old gods could not, and ozma goes along with it? the hearts of men are easily swayed.

and i'm like. maybe i should have realized this sooner but when just about every single action salem has taken since the day she first met the god of light has been in defiance of the gods + what she says to cinder in the final word—"In pursuit of a new world"—...maybe, just maybe, the lost fable has been shoving what salem's current plan entails in our faces this whole time.

just a tiny bit.