Thinky thoughts on episode reactions

[ash48]

On Fandom Reactions and Reacting. And why the request to "...just stop watching" is difficult.

Please note that this is not in response to any one person's comment. My husband said it to me recently and it got me thinking. Also, I started writing up a disclaimer for my reaction posts and realised I had some things I wanted to say about negativity and episode reactions. I've also been tussling with Twitter and trying to figure out how to successfully "play" over there.



After episode 10.09 ended I went on a verbal tirade around the house and my husband copped most of it. After carrying on a treat he stopped me and said "why don't you just stop watching it then?" (rather too hopefully I might add!). I looked at him and said "Are you mad? How could I do that? You can see how passionate I still am. I wouldn't be ranting like this if I could simply walk away. I still ADORE these characters and I am still heavily invested in their story" (I'm sure he thinks I'm mad, but loves me anyway…*g*).

The thing is, I've also seen this reaction from fans to fans. I understand the sentiment and appreciate how frustrating it must be for fans who have nothing but praise for an episode to then read a heap of negativity about it. It must seem strange that fans could watch a show that they have negative feelings for.

Unfortunately, the option to simply "stop watching" is not that simple. In fact, I'd say the very nature of how difficult it is, is the reason why negative comments and reactions exist. I know that for me, the only reason I will be negative about the show is because I can't (and don't want to) tear myself away from it. I WANT the show to keep me engaged and be everything I love about it. I WANT it to live up to my expectations and be of a high standard. It's when it doesn't do those things that I will find myself reacting negatively to it.

Much of that negatively comes about because of the pain that is felt when the show lets you down. It's about loving it with all your heart but seeing things in it that annoy you or you think are just plain stupid. It might even be a way of trying to let go. Being negative and posting about it could be a way of doing some self convincing…this is why I should let go. Kind of like death throes. I admire the fan who can suddenly cut ties and not spend years lamenting it. I am intrigued by fans who say "I haven't watched the last few episodes and I really don't care". That, for me, is a sign that the passion has gone and therefore the ability to cut ties completely is so much easier. The day I don't care if I miss and episode will be the day I truly know the passion is fading. Just because I am angry at an episode (or permanently pissed at Carver) should not mean I should stop watching or stop sharing my feelings on it (not that I've directly been accused of this).

Having said that, I don't consider myself really that negative. In fact, I'd say that I'm pretty positive most of the time. Of all my reviews this season the latest episode is the only one I've been annoyed with. I've rated most episodes either "awesome" or "pretty good", so being critical on ONE episode in a season does not make me some sort of a "bad" or disloyal fan. It makes me a frustrated fan who needs an outlet. I've always seen fandom as a place to be able to discuss all elements of the show - be them positive or negative.

I think it's possible to be a loyal "good" fan AND be critical about the show. I don't mean out and out character bashing or stomping all over someone else's squee. Nor do I mean sending hate to the writers or jumping hatefully on someone's tweet/comment because you disagree with them. I mean being able to say "man, that sucked" or saying "what's happening to my show?!" without the backlash.

Which brings me to another area that I've been wanting thinking about lately.

I try very hard to not dump negativity on other people's journals but it gets trickier on places like Twitter and Tumblr. On LJ we have a space that we can create cut-texts to hide content. Followers can decide whether to click on your thoughts and read what you have to say and by doing so take responsibility for what they are about to read, but on Twitter they can't make that choice (unless blacklisting tags, but I'm not sure that's very successful).

I have realised that posting random (negative) thoughts on Twitter is problematic. There are people who just don't want to see that. I have been trying lately not to dump negativity on Twitter because I am conscious that some of my followers just don't want to see it. I know I could accept losing them as followers and I probably need to toughen up in that regard - but the connections I have with many of those people are more important to me than using it as an outlet for my frustration. The problem with Twitter is that it is SO easy to just jump on and post a random thought that pops into your head. It takes a lot of strength (for me) to NOT do that, so I've made a choice to stop visiting there as much as I was. My problem is, I don't really have an outlet for random frustrations, observations or even squee anymore. I don't see LJ as a great place for one off random comments and twitter means that you're likely to offend someone. I suppose it's about control and not giving into the feeling of needing to shout things out to the world. But damn it, sometimes I just want to post random observations or worries or excitement about stuff without the fear of pissing someone off. Unfortunately I have the kind of personality that worries about being at odds with people I've met in fandom.

Mostly this is about saying that criticising the show, the writers, the show runner etc. does not automatically make you a disloyal or bad fan. I think it makes you a fan who, for whatever reason, still wants to be involved with the show and the fandom but needs the freedom to complain about it or perhaps make fun of it, or find a way to enjoy it despite it's failings. I find in many cases the complaining ends up being a way to reconcile problematic aspects of the show in order to move on. That's my personal experience of it anyway.

On the flip side, I think positivity has to be utterly respected also. Nothing is better than having a positive reaction to an episode. I love seeing people's positive reactions to ones I feel negative about. If I'm feeling positive about an episode I tend to avoid, or skip past negative ones and accept that we each view things differently. I'm always thrilled to come off of an episode full of joy and usually I don't care if there are others who are negative about it. Over the years I've come to trust my initial reaction to an episode. If it didn't work for whatever reason I will be true to that. If I felt squeeful (even when others didn't) I will be happy that I was lucky enough to experience it the way I did. We are all different and even though we may never see eye to eye, I think it might be possible to respect each others reactions. No matter what they are.

Comments

[fanspired]

Some of this is very familiar to me. A lot of the time I don't talk about the show because I don't want to rain on others' parades, but sometimes I feel very isolated in my frustration. People I used to vent to have stopped watching, for a while now. But I, too, have felt better about s10 on the whole although, like you, I was underwhelmed with 10.09.

And speaking of that why the hell would Sam have left Dean alone with 4 gangsters and waited all that time in the car, anyway? They'd have both kept everyone covered while Cas got the girl out and then backed out together, surely? (sorry, just had to get that off my chest :P)

[ash48.livejournal.com]

A lot of the time I don't talk about the show because I don't want to rain on others' parades,

I am conscious of that too. Not so much on LJ, but definitely on twitter.

And speaking of that why the hell would Sam have left Dean alone with 4 gangsters and waited all that time in the car, anyway?

Did you see that the director confirmed that Sam thought Dean was right behind him and didn't realise until he for to the car that Dean wasn't there? I have typed up my review for the episode (will post tomorrow) and mention there how clunky that scene is. I think we have to believe that Sam didn't know Dean was still in there and it all happened so quickly that Sam didn't have time to react until it was too late. Essentially, narratively, Sam needed to be out of the way. It had nothing to do with his arc (or any sort of failure on his part), but purely Dean needed his moment so the mark could take over.

[fanspired]

Sam had time to walk over to the car, get into the car, sit in the car while Cas talked to Claire and hugged her. All that time Sam never noticed Dean wasn't with him? No. A rookie cop would have been hauled over for backing up his partner so poorly, never mind Sam-I've-got-your-back-I'm-conscious-of-my-brother's-every-movement-Winchester. Just the fact that the director felt he had to expalin the scene that way demonstrates that he didn't make it work on screen.

You know, what's probably at the core of everything that frustrates me about the show is its willingness to sacrifice character, internal logic and even plain common sense for the sake of plot mechanics. Demons can be felled with one punch, brother-hunters who were good enough to defeat heaven, hell, Lucifer and God suddenly turn into incompetent rookies, and an angel who can search 'everywhere' in the blink of an eye can apparently be rendered helpless by a girl jumping into a car and driving off. It's lazy writing (and directing). There's a lack of willingness to put in the hard yards it takes to justify a plot properly and make it work.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

*nods*. Yep. Very clunky. If it were any normal scene Sam would have stuck with dean until he came out or kept checking over his shoulder. I honestly don't think Sam was a consideration (as in being true to his character) - it was purely about allowing Dean to have the space to kill all those people.

[fanspired]

You know, I think it's all about two schools of thought in drama. Kripke revealed his priority when he made the immortal statement: it's all about their relationship, the apocalypse was just an excuse. His writing ethos was that everything serves character. And you could see that in the way every episode revealed and developed something about the characters; every monster was a metaphor for their relationship issues, and every episode built on the last. That's what made it epic drama. Carver's ethos is clearly the reverse of that. His priority is that everything should serve plot, and set button-pushing dramatic moments. Character, continuity, logic are simply not prioritized, by policy. And that policy clearly works for the majority of viewers. It's frustrating for those of us who belong to the old school, but so long as remains a successful formula, it isn't going to change.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. It is problematic. I only notice it because I can deeply about the characters and feel that their actions reflect their characters. We can see what Sam did here and think "but he just wouldn't do that" (or, as other have said, it IS what Sam would do and he's a bad brother for leaving Dean behind). For any other show I probably wouldnt care (and I suspect to the casual viewer it wouldn't even be a consideration) but this show is completely different. I totally agree that Carver uses his characters to fit into the plot and not the other way around. Time and again we've seen dumbed down boys in order to get to the climax of the story. Knocked out, tied up so the evil monster can explain why he's so evil - or to give one character the chance to do something that will create tension. It's a formula that is wearing quite thin.

[fanspired]

Agreed. And because Sam and Dean were once three-dimensional, fully realized characters, what they were is still real to me and one of the reasons I get wound up is I see them being blamed for what bad writing makes them do.

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

This, so very much.

[fanspired]

*quietly shakes your hand*

[fanspired]

[And to those who have said that, I would point out that it was a bad tactical decision on both brothers' parts (Dean told Sam to go) that was not only OOC for both of them, but would have been unthinkable for any competent persons in their position. One simply wouldn't leave one person to cover three villains, knowing there's a fourth upstairs who could come back into play any time. If they'd ever been that sloppy they simply wouldn't have survived so long.

And that's before we get into the standard working practice Sam and Dean had for years of Dean confronting the enemy while Sam stood just behind him covering his back - the physical fact that invariably backed up the oft repeated phrase "I've got your back". (Writers, directors and actors alike all cared about those minute details once). That was so instinctual it didn't need saying, and they would only deviate from it out of necessity. In this case there was no necessity for Sam to leave to accompany Cas. Cas had Claire covered.

And all of that is assuming we don't ask the question why anyone needed to cover anyone when they had an angel there who could have knocked everyone out with a wave of his hand.

Just saying :P

Bad brother my arse. There were no brothers in that scene, just poorly executed plot devices.

Yeah, sorry. I know I'm preaching to the choir here. Just venting :)

[percysowner.livejournal.com]

Oddly the thing that bothers me is the fact that Cas is an angel that suddenly couldn't do ANYTHING in the situation. I may not like changing the dynamics of the brothers to make the plot work, but this has been happening since Carver came on board, so I'm used to it. But they went through all the hoopda holler about Cas getting new grace, so he's a powered up angel again and then he doesn't use them so that Sam and Dean can be dragged into his Claire drama and that can get Dean to go on a killing spree. And THEN, he drags Claire back into the house so she can see the slaughter? Angels are supposed to be able to find anyone who doesn't have sigils carved into their bones. The can teleport at will. But Cas has to get Sam and Dean to find Claire and then can't get her out of danger? He has to use the car?

I don't even care much about Cas but talk about rewriting canon to move the plot! The rewrote how Cas functions to make this thing work. I guess I should just take it like I took Reapers are suddenly really angels and werewolves can control when they turn, and vampire eat people's bodies even after they are dead and it's suddenly dead man's blood in that body. ARRG!!

[fanspired]

Absolutely! On every single one of those points. Castiel's powers come and go on a whim and it bugs the hell out of me. A soul could go nuts counting all the holes in the swiss cheese. Like I was saying to Ash, Carver isn't even aiming for consistency - in any respect. But for me it is the character inconsistencies that bother me most, especially when I see brother bashing based on stuff I know would never have happened in the original canon.