#which isnt great for the penultimate episode

[master-missysversion]

Yknow while it has some good moments I think It Takes You Away is probably the weakest episode in series 11, and it's a shame because I do genuienly really love Orphan 55, also written by Ed Hime, it's one of my favourites. But I'm never really that excited for it takes you away

[mamusings]

Supernatural Season 3 thoughts

At the end of this season I was left thinking maybe I just dont understand the show. Maybe I'm reading it against the grain. Or I dont like what its actually saying and trying really hard to fit it into something else. Its infuriating.

The clear main season challenge is how to save Dean. Underneath that is the worrying question of is Sam still 100% pure Sam.

The opening episode is clever in that it does two very necessary things. The first is it demotes the boys standing again. The show needs them as downtrodden outsiders for the narrative to work, so all that regard we were seeing in s2 is pesky. And it's a slick move to use them opening the cage as a reason for hunters to look down on them. That way we still appreciate them as the audience, but have a convincing reason why they arent held in similar regard by their peers.

The second is necessary thing is the switch from a hunting paradigm into a war one. It's a shift in scale that requires different qualities and strategies and it gives the boys something to struggle with. Episode one achieved that smoothly by having the released demons be different. So we are going to need more than book research to know what to do.

The war footing also changes the moral compass in a way that many viewers see as an inconsistency, but I think actually isnt one. With hunting the idea is to lose no innocent lives. In war, it's about weighing up potential losses. It's a new calculus and the key episodes in this season struggle with it. Jus in Bello and No Rest for the Wicked are both centred on this difficulty and I think in both cases are intended as instances in which the boys get it wrong. That feels like a hard one to call, but I think each time the show is actually saying that by not making the harder, less black and white decision, we end up with a less favourable outcome (more casualties and Dean dies).

In terms of the brothers and their relationship we get to see Dean go uber Dean for the opening episodes. It's fun, but sort of frustrating in a way that's seems intentional because it reflects Sam's frustration with him. It lasts until Sam pleads with him to be his brother again in Fresh Blood. After that we get to see Dean be scared. And both of them trying to deal with the prospect of his death and the options for preventing it.

More subtly we see Sam be scared of losing Dean. We see him trying to prepare for life without him. Trying to be more like Dean. Its ambivalent because we wonder whether what we are seeing is a darker Sam - remember we arent clear on the is Sam ok question. The fact that the spector of a dark Sam is raised by him emulating some of Dean's traits puts the family thing in perspective. Fresh Blood highlights again the weakness of 'anything for my family' as a moral baseline - because everyone is someone's family. The vampire is looking to found family and is mourning his own family. It echoes season 1 in that Dean killed Azazels family. Bedtime Stories shows the need to let go of family. When we arent focused on the Winchesters, Supernatural seems to take care to show that "family above all else' needs to be approached cautiously.

While we are on the subject of moral compasses it's worth noting that this season has several moments considering what the value of life is given that Dean's life is running out. The penultimate episode shows us Dean isnt willing to do anything to stay alive. But Dean's wallowing in pleasure also falls short for him. Lisa is introduced to indicate he wants more than hook ups. Bella introduces the question of whether hunting is about more than vengeance or thrills. Her character is an interesting Dean parallel. They are both joyfully amoral in quite different ways, linked to problematic childhoods, with hellhounds coming to collect. What this highlights is a desire to be and do good in Dean, that Bella lacks.

From a more series perspective what's most interesting is the introduction of a more complicated universe. Demons may come in different flavours, if Ruby is to be believed, and that's still a dilemma at this stage. Alongside that we meet a number of creatures for whom we have sympathy, as well as a human going to great lengths to explain away acts that are undoubtedly evil (the Frankenstein doc who only carves up people cos he needs the parts but it's ok cis he only kills when it's necessary..). The message seems to be that good and evil isnt about humans and non-human. But even when it comes to what you do and why you do it, the lines get tangled up and it's hard to know what's right. More than that, moving onto a war footing, Sam is alert to the need to go beyond the hunting approach. He sees the need to find allies, seek information. He knows its slippery and dangerous, he doesn't trust Ruby (certainly not yet) but he understands that without her he can't make any headway against the newly released demons as he has no way of knowing what they are after. It's a big departure and one that marks him out as a leader in my view. But it makes everything very murky.

So it feels jarring by the end to have Dean falling back into the hunter rules he got from his Father. Dean even calls it a 'black and white' approach. Its Dean's choice how to do this one and Sam rightly backs him. But it's a step back. Just as it's a step back that Dean declares that "the only person who can save me is me" to which Sam is reduced to tacking on a solitary "and me"

So we seem to have left behind the moral of solidarity I took as the point of s2. I was left thinking I have to totally misunderstood this show? But I think the fact that Dean loses and dies is supposed to show us that this approach is not enough. And by the time we get to Swan Song I think that's confirmed.

The solutions in Swan Song are all in the grey area. The message seems to be that its about choice. Sam chooses to try to save the world. Dean chooses to love him through it even when Sam is transformed into something Dean has been trained to hate and to kill. Its emphatically not about brotherly love or bromance in the sense of doing anything for each other. Sam chooses to save the world not for Dean, but because he is responsible for letting Lucifer out and he is the only one who can do it. Note also that its this episode gives us the big line that family doesnt end in blood from Bobby. So it's not that Sam and Dean are brothers that's key here. Nor is the point that they love each other. The point is that they are brotherly in their love for each other in the sense that their love for gives them solidarity and support. They support each other to do the right thing, not anything. Without that Supernatural may be entertaining and/or cool, but it would be vacuous.

.

[butchniqabi]

(editor's note: when i refer to fairy tales and folktales just assume i mean those of western literary canon, mostly from europe and (white) america, unless i specify otherwise)

(second editor's note: tbh im kinda just talking and start rambling after a while. enjoy)

ive been watching this every year since it aired 8 years ago and i still find little details in the story even now...wow! the power of storytelling! in all fairness though the first 5 years i didnt have captions so that has contributed a bit to it. didnt realize til today that before the title card fades out there is a sound of a train whistle, which is absolutely loud enough to hear even if youre underwater (<- lives close to train tracks).

i just love how it embraces the fairy taleness of it, the begginning just throws you into this world and because of the stories we read and the tropes at play as an audience we make certain assumptions about what happened just minutes before the show begins. two children lost in the woods trying to get home...you already have a certain idea of what happened (went to fetch something specific, tried to take a shortcut, trying to reach somewhere important, etc) and it isnt until the second episode that the narrative starts to break down a little bit with wirt saying "do you have a phone?" and "maybe we can find someone to give us a ride home." all "classic" fairy tales, while usually nonspecific about time period, are assumed to have taken place at decent amount of time prior to being written down. many stories that can be classified as contemporary fairy tales, we rarely consider fairy tales! and since over the garden wall centers around americana, it is already much more "modern" than the Well Know fairy tales of western canon.

so, we have that subversion of expectations wrt our assumptions about the narrative, and as we get to the penultimate episode we realize just how close the story actually takes place (my guess has always been 90s but im unsure if the creators have ever said exactly) and so it takes on the label of "contemporary fairy tale" in a (imo) really unique way! by having modern kids enter the strange, terrifying, and curiously morbid world that embodies aspects of american culture, its folktales (and fairy tales), and how deeply, incredibly unsettling and alienating that world is. greg's "dream" which is manufactured by the beast to manipulate him, is not surprisingly reminiscent of the Great American Fairy Tale wizard of oz and also of cartoons from the 20s-40s. both of these, in traditional american fashion, are ubiquitous for their "creepy" elements, horrifying (sometimes only speculative) implications, and of "ruined childhood"-esque urban legends, rumors of death, devil worship, and much much more (for more info, i suggest finding the "weird side" of youtube). most if not all fairy tales, of which Woz and many cartoons qualify as, involve death in some fashion and otgw definitely embraces that. even if its not as explicit as the pottsfield episode, there is always a sort of undercurrent of momemto mori...ghosts, bones to sort, edelwood, freezing water, keeping a lantern alight. death is pervasive in american storytelling (though honestly, where in the world isnt it?) especially when manifest destiny went into full swing and people "moved" west to further colonize the continent. there was the death in displacement, in the expansion of slavery, and in the deaths of people who took the california, oregon, or (heaven forbid) mormon trails. if memory serves, and dont come for me if the statistic is off i havent done in depth research on westward expansion in a while, the average death rate was something along the lines of 15 deaths per mile. people traveled at most about 20 miles a day, so feel free to do some math. it should be noted however that records were, as the french say, complete shit and the exact number of deaths of black and indigenous people along with white settlers is unknown.

as the Great Pioneers created towns all across the west that begun with little to no resources, death toll was unsurprisingly high. many people moved out west after the discovery of gold at sutter's mill in california in 1848, sparking the largest migration in american history (how's that for some historical accuracy?) and with it followed lots of death, crime, and the addition of folklore to american canon. but this information is only a little detour.

otgw is based primarily on new england, which has a long history of their own legends and mysteries and is probably primarily known for the salem witch trials, hosting many a british loyalist, and being the setting of stephen king novels. witches, vampires, pet semetaries, and puritans have haunted the area for centuries (though pet semetary only for a few decades). regarding puritans specifically, the story of lorna and auntie whispers definitely depicts (and then subverts) thee good ole Protestant Work Ethic, in which laboring brings you closer to god and salvation, with the catch being that only those predestined to be saved will be saved, but you must work hard regardless to make up for your wickedness. auntie whispers very plainly states that lorna is wicked and Must keep busy and clean and labor and work in order to suppress her evil nature. of course lorna is actually inhabited by a demon, but through a more compassionate and loving method she is freed. she is Saved not through punishment but love and friendship and the small community she creates with wirt and greg, which notably opposes what most puritan communities did to those who were deemed wicked and sinful. win for subversion of narratives.

okay now that all of that is out of the way, time to get into some major complaints and gripes i have with the show. what is ultimately incredibly disappointing to me is that greg and wirt are white! many fairy tales, folklore, urban legends, and "cryptids" come from directly from black and indigenous people (with a few notably coming from racialized immigrant communities) and are either stripped of their origins or bastardized into racist, whitewashed depictions. common figures and creatures seen in American Canon: the lone ranger, br'er rabbit, "bigfoot"*, and sacagawea are either stripped from their origins or warped to fit a whitewashed narrative. while many black and indigenous stories (both folktale and history) will retain their backgrounds and be told accurately, in the hands of white america they become racist, demeaning, and can act as insults or pejoratives (john henry being used in context of sexualized racism, the "there are two wolves inside you" becoming a meme, pocahontas being used in the context of sexualized racism and misogyny, and much much more...). white americana is the manifestation of all of america's bigotry and most importantly white supremacy! having the same narrative being navigated by black and/or indigenous children would be far more impactful in terms of the outright criticism and alienating feel of american fairy tales, folktales, and history.

so many common tales of white america are entrenched in colonialism and racism, even when not explicitly stated (ESPECIALLY when not explicitly stated). johnny appleseed planted hundreds of apple trees in orchards (on stolen land), honest abe never lies (except when he "abolished" slavery for everyone except his allies), george washington never exploited his power (except for all the people he owned). the fear, alienation in a place that is familiar, and threat of being disappeared into the landscape itself can be better understood by black and indigenous people and our relationship to america and its landscape, both physical and cultural. interestingly, with regards to this, there is a story i read a while ago where when a man is threatened to be sold to another plantation his wife (or mother? an important woman in his life nonetheless) transforms him into a tree, which allows him to stay close to his family, until unfortunately he is cut down. i sincerely doubt the edelwood trees were intentionally inspired by that story (unless the creators read "the conjure woman" at some point in their lives), but the comparison that could have been made is a tragic missed opportunity.

many historical figures who became folk legends and heroes, especially in the southwest, were infamous and often brutal racists. calamity jane, jesse james, "wild bill" hickok, and buffalo bill** just to name a few. canonized as living legends of america, venerated as the patron saints of the tamèd wild west, the heroes and legends in america can never be truly separated from race. with otgw having an almost exclusively white cast on screen (and off screen...) it feels like a disappointingly huge missed opportunity and shows what the creators constitute as "americana" 😳.

i have talked so damn much and a lot of it isnt even really centered on otgw...i would apologize but i love talking about stories and narratives. lemme know your thoughts or if you have any takeaways from this bc i would love to hear some other perspectives 👁

*here is a post listing many appropriated native spirits commonly labeled "cryptids" with good and insightful commentary by justin

**do not send me an essay about how he was Actually anti-racist and pro-suffrage and all that. "buffalo bill" was created and canonized for killing indigenous people and buffalo, perhaps william fredrick cody is the man you say, but the legend of him is not. and yes this distinction is important.

watching otgw with my mommy. will post analysis later hehe :3

[fuckyeahjamieandclaire]

This week, a Twitter exchange between the writers' account for a popular TV show, its lead star, and the series' fans received some attention. The latest episode of the show — the sixth of its third season — depicted a long-awaited reunion between its star-crossed protagonists, and fans had things to say about how the scene had deviated from the original source material (the books on which the show is based). Tweets flew between fans and the show's writers, then the star himself stepped in to explain why he'd enacted the scene the way he did, and finally, the writer of the original books retweeted it all, to settle the matter.

Welcome to the world of Outlander.

In the Golden Age of Peak TV, small screen series — Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, Sherlock, to name just a few — have gone on to become global phenomenons, and inspire devoted fan followings (Orphan Black) in a way that would make Hollywood envious. Outlander has fans who're a little more invested than most — and the show, which premiered in August 2014, deserves every bit of the fandom.

The story so far

For those who haven't seen Outlander (it streams in India on Netflix; a new episode goes up every Monday night), here's a quick lowdown:

Based on the Outlander novels by American author Diana Gabaldon — the first was published in 1991; the series comprises eight books so far, with a ninth on its way — the story spans the genres of historical fiction, sci-fi, adventure, fantasy and romance. It begins just after World War II, when English nurse Claire Randall disappears in Scotland while on a second honeymoon there with her husband, a historian called Frank Randall. Frank and the authorities search high and low for Claire; what they do not know, is that Claire has slipped through a time portal while visiting a mysterious stone circle (a small-scale Stonehenge) in a place called Craigh na Dun, and inadvertently travelled 200 years into the past. Having hurtled into the year 1743, Claire finds herself navigating the social mores of 18th century Scotland (at a troubled point in its history), and also a passionate marriage with a Highlander called Jamie Fraser.

Showrunner Ronald D Moore has stuck pretty closely to Galabaldon's books in his screen adaptation. So Outlander's season 1 followed the happenings of the eponymous book 1 (nearly) to the letter: Claire's tumble through time, establishing herself as a healer of some repute, marriage with Jamie, and their run-ins with a sadistic captain in the British Army, Jack Randall (an ancestor of Frank's). Season 2 (based on book 2 — A Dragonfly in Amber) saw them escape to France and get embroiled in the court politics of King Louis XV there, before returning to Scotland. The larger narrative arc for both these seasons — covering a span of about three years — is the Jacobite rebellion brewing in Scotland at the time, with several of the clans declaring support for Prince Charles Stuart's uprising against the English king George II. Knowing as she does that the revolt will lead to the destruction of the Scottish clans, Claire works with Jamie to stymie it.

[Spoilers ahead]

The end of season 2 saw Jamie send a pregnant Claire back through the stones at Craigh na Dun, to the future; he believes he will die in the battle of Culloden, where the Jacobite rebellion was crushed by the English. Claire returns to the 1940s, to Frank; they move to America where Claire trains as a surgeon and they raise her child together. Twenty years later, after Frank's death, Claire revisits Scotland, and happens to discover that Jamie was not, in fact, among the men who were killed at Culloden. A painstaking search over several months with help from a historian friend helps Claire track Jamie down — from years of hiding in a cave near his ancestral home, to several more in prison, then as an indentured servant on parole, and finally as a printer in Edinburgh (with a profitable side business in smuggling fine liquor). Her daughter is all grown up, and has (after some disbelief) accepted her mother's time travelling past, so Claire decides to go through the stones, once again, and reconnect with Jamie.

It was this reunion — dubbed 'the print shop scene' by fans, because it takes place in Jamie's print shop — that caused the recent Twitter eruption. In Diana Gabaldon's third book (titled Voyager, the chapter is called 'A. Malcom', as is episode six of season 3) Jamie breaks down after Claire shows him photographs of their daughter Brianna. In the show, actor Sam Heughan preferred to take a more restrained approach, and while he depicts a man in the grip of great emotion, didn't actually break into tears. With Heughan, the writers and Gabaldon herself all presenting their points of view, the fandom seems to have been appeased, for now.

The story now

Outlander stars Caitriona Balfe as Claire Beauchamp/Randall/Fraser, Sam Heughan as Jamie Fraser, and Tobias Menzies as Frank Randall/Captain Jack Randall. Balfe is a wonderful Claire, playing her with all the gutsy gumption the character demands. Claire has been called many things — the female character Game of Thrones should have had, a true feminist heroine etc — and Balfe brings all of that strength into her portrayal. Tobias Menzies is a revelation: both his roles, as the sensitive/disappointed Frank Randall and the utterly villainous Jack Randall are so finely etched, you wonder why the Game of Thrones showrunners decided to waste his prodigious talent by casting him as the wishy-washy Lord Edmure Tully. The supporting cast also boasts several gifted actors — and yet, Sam Heughan towers above them all (figuratively, and literally considering he stands at about 6'3"). Over much of season 1, Heughan played Jamie Fraser with a carefree insouciance, although there were flashes of intensity that promised greater depths. Then, over the last two episodes of the season, came what for most fans was an Outlander rubicon — the depiction of Jamie's rape by Captain Jack Randall. Menzies was pitch perfect, but Heughan's performance was something else altogether. The violence was brutal — but not gratuitous, the scene stark — yet oddly intimate; it won rave reviews for showing the aftermath of rape, and survivors' state of mind. (It was also a winning argument for why we need more women directors on big-ticket TV shows, but more on that later.)

While Outlander, for the most part, is told through Claire's perspective, it does delve into Jamie's frame of mind as well, on occasion. Those occasions give Heughan a chance to shine. Season 3, especially, has offered many of those. As a fugitive from the law, then a prisoner, and 'lowly' servant, this Jamie Fraser is a far cry from the devil-may-care lad we first knew, and Heughan invests the weight of all these life experiences into his portrayal. Much has been written of how the characters were not aged in a very physically obvious way, even though the story has taken a leap of 20 years, but there are subtle changes that do make a marked difference — the way Heughan moves, or the air of reserve, of sorrow held in check that wasn't present in his portrayal earlier.

Filming for season 4 is currently under-way, and season three is only at its halfway point, which means fans have a fair bit more of Outlander to look forward to. With the story moving away from Scotland, as the reunited Jamie and Claire set off for fresh adventures in France, the West Indies, and finally America (by the end of book 3), there's quite some exciting ground to cover.

Outlander and the female gaze

Feminism may seem like an odd thing to bring up in connection with a TV show about time travel and Scottish history, and yet, that's among the most discussed things about this series. The obvious way in which Outlander is feminist is in its heroine, of course. As a nurse and later, surgeon, Claire is in her element — whether she's in 18th century Scotland, or 20th century Boston. Season 1 saw her grapple with patriarchy and superstition — all while she plotted with Jamie to save the Highland clans. Sure, she gets into situations where Jamie needs to rescue her — but she's no damsel-in-distress, and saves Jamie's life just as often. Then again, it isn't that we haven't seen strong female protagonists like Claire in popular culture.

Outlander's feminism comes from its adoption of the female gaze — not just because the story is written by a woman, but also in the way women directors have shot crucial episodes. Game of Thrones has often been criticised for its lack of female directors; Outlander, by contrast, shows you what women bring to a scene when they're placed behind the camera. So season 1 had critical episodes being shot by Anna Foerster (Underworld: Blood Wars, White House Down) — the season finale and the penultimate one (Jamie's rape and torture at the hands of Jack Randall) and also Jamie and Claire's wedding episode. The wedding episode offers a case study in the difference between how men and women film sex — how male and female actors (and nudity) are portrayed depending on who's behind the camera. Season 3 again features three women directors on its roster — Norma Bailey (who shot the print shop reunion episode), Jennifer Getzinger and Charlotte Brandström.

Some may argue that the reverse of what we see in other shows has happened with Outlander — it's the male lead (Sam Heughan) who is now objectified. However, the appreciation for his Greek Scottish god looks has also been balanced with the acclaim for his histrionics.

Those Outlander-Game of Thrones comparisons

That they feature well-known actors from the UK, are based on sprawling epic historical/fantasy sagas by immensely popular American writers, are inspired by aspects of the UK's history, have gorgeous music (Bear McCreary's score for Outlander is as good as Ramin Djawadi's for Game of Thrones) and are produced by premium networks make Game of Thrones and Outlander comparisons common. Of course, they're vastly different — and those oft-listed similarities are superficial at best. Still, fans of one show will find much to love in the other.

As Game of Thrones heads to its finale season in 2018, there's going to be a big, fantasy epic-sized hole in our pop culture lives. Outlander — with its well-entrenched fan base and potential to grow bigger — could be poised to fill that gap.