#only for that same narrative to deny the existence of any romance repeatedly

[antirepurp]

i think some folks may need to have the word "queerbaiting" revoked from their vocabulary until they learn what it means. perhaps

#soda offers you a can #i would not make anyone watch bbc sherlock bc im not a monster but that show defines queerbaiting at every turn #two characters having a deep and meaningful relationship is not queerbaiting by itself #it requires the narrative to set them up in a very particular way where you're forced to read them as romantic #only for that same narrative to deny the existence of any romance repeatedly #bbc sherlock deliberately leads the audience to believe there's romantic tension between sherlock and john #from side characters etc repeatedly assuming they are a couple to some Very deliberate scenes #that would immediately be painted as obvious romance if one of them was a woman #however it also insists on the heterosexuality of both john and sherlock by setting the former up with several girlfriends #and turning irene adler into a quirky little crush for sherlock (who also cures her of being a lesbian i guess) #and obviously john gets a wife but she must be killed off so the homosexual tension between john and sherlock can resume #and we can keep guessing if they end up together or not #they won't. but the writing very deliberately lead the audience to believe this #that's like. shit the defines queerbaiting #it's not Real Human People not telling the world they're queer #and it's not two characters having a relationship that's got more depth than a kiddie pool #sorry. new pet peeve unlocked. or old one rediscovered im not sure

[roo-bastmoon]

Why does JK not smiling mean he got beef w. JIMIN we saw him hanging out with him that same night and relatively recently like damn maybe the other person in the picture was the problem if there even was one did anyone think of that but people so biased they leap for any excuse to downplay that jm and jk love each other they lose the ability to think rationally and the specific type of love is less relevant than the fact that it exist in some form we have literally seen them repeatedly choosing to be together when they didn't have to for multiple years. It makes no sense to push a narrative that they dont like each other when there's ample evidence they think highly of each other and enjoy spending time with one another and no one needs to read romance into anything but to deny that they are even friends is suspicious and obviously not in good faith. I'd be willing to think it's people having a case of the regular Ole "they hate each other and they'll admit it when they breakup" thoughts if any other relationship got picked apart with the same scrutiny as jikook but they don't and we see them hanging out off work enough times that it's safe to say they aren't forced to be in each other's presence I'm really gonna need the people who think they're platonic to just let them be. They're the only ones people ask to constantly put themselves on display to prove something.

Agreed on all counts.

Also, I don't want to throw Bang PD under the bus, but, like, there are two other people in that photo... and hundreds of people not on camera... that could have been upsetting Jungkook. Look, he could have had to fart. He could have remembered he left the stove on. He could just have been tired in that moment. We don't know. We just don't know. Let's not assume "Hates Jimin" is the reason for anything. Literally everyone who knows Jimin gushes about what an angel he is, and that's been consistent for a decade.

[mittensmorgul]

I'm still having a hard time understanding your definition of "canon relationship". Endgame material? Essentially happy? Featured in many episodes? I think most people simply consider "canon" = "it happened in the show/book/film". And Sam and Eileen have canonically had feeling for each other, on screen. What those feelings were and how much they may have been manipulated by Chuck, neither seems sure, but it doesn't make them any less of a thing that noticeably happened. Therefore canon.

When you need a semantic debate to somehow validate your favored ship, and you feel the need to debate semantics with a stranger on the internet in order to “win” and be proven “correct” in some way, we’ve all lost, friendo.

You’re absolutely right, with your definition of “canon.” It’s what has actually happened, in the case of Supernatural, on screen in the show itself. That’s not up for debate. You’re trying to introduce a strawman into this conversation.

I’m attempting to define, from a watsonian perspective, which means from WITHIN THE NARRATIVE, how the CHARACTERS THEMSELVES would describe their relationship. You’re giving me the doylist perspective, from outside the narrative, the fact that Sam and Eileen have a relationship of any kind-- romantic or otherwise-- in canon.

You’re attempting to conflate the two things, for the sake of winning an argument on the internet.

By your definition, Dean and Cas are canon, too. Which, I mean... they are, but that’s not the debate here, and it adds nothing to the fact that Eileen herself, in canon, has stated that she doesn’t feel her relationship with Sam is even real.

Yes, it happened in canon, but that’s not the whole story, either.

I mean, let’s use a completely non-shippy example here, to hopefully illustrate why “but they’re canon! it happened in canon!” is... an entirely irrelevant point in context. Let’s look at a canonical friendship to illustrate the point.

Canonically, Garth has tried to kill Sam. That happened, in canon. Garth wolfed out and attacked Sam. Sounds awful, right? Should we lose all sympathy for Garth? Should we believe that he did that of his own free will, and is an “evil” character now, because that very much did happen in canon? Or are we supposed to use our brains and understand that Garth literally did not have a choice, because he was acting under a form of mind control, being puppeted by Michael into attacking Sam? Are we supposed to have a better understanding of what actually happened in context, and correctly see this as “Michael tried to use a trusted character to harm Sam, playing on their preexisting friendship/relationship in order to lure Sam in to his trap, and using Sam’s trust and friendship with that character to harm him?”

Mary has canonically tried to kill Sam and Dean (in 12.03). Are we to assume that she obviously hates them and wanted them dead? Because canonically her actions would say we should! She tried to hurt them! Oh, but... she was possessed by a ghost, and wasn’t in control of her own actions... maybe we actually need to think about what that means... maybe Mary herself doesn’t actually want to kill her own sons...

Or if you’re a Mary hater and are willing to think the worst of her, how about the canonical fact that Dean has tried to kill Sam. That Dean has canonically told Sam that he wished he were dead? There you have it, Dean canonically has said “your life sucked the life out of my life” to him. Dean canonically rejected any sort of care for Sam. Are we supposed to take that at face value, just because it happened in canon? Or are we supposed to understand that Dean was a demon, and Honestly. >.>

Cas canonically kissed Meg that one time. Obviously they’re canon, right? What, they’re not? Oh, right, Dean even lampshaded the fact with the “give you an hour with Meg first” comment, to which Cas replied “Why would I want that?” Does a kiss make a couple “canon?” What does that even mean? “going canon” is a practically useless term in cases like that. The goalposts for what any one person would consider qualifies a romantic couple as “canon” are eternally shifting all over the field.

Let’s be better than that, and instead understand that we’re all talking about our individual interpretations of the same canon. We’re just seeing different things, because we are different people with different experiences and understandings of the characters and the overarching narrative.

I have repeatedly explained my understanding of Sam and Eileen’s relationship as canon itself has defined it. I have explained that my understanding of the relationship they had, offscreen and undefined by canon, between 11.11 and 12.17 has shifted dramatically since Eileen’s return in 15.06. I had, before this season, been willing to HEADCANON that Sam and Eileen could’ve had an established offscreen relationship based on the nature of their relationship we saw onscreen in 12.17. It was cute! It was exciting thinking that Sam had grown so close to someone!

It was... proven in s15 that the offscreen relationship we’d all headcanoned in s12 was... nothing more than a happy headcanon, and had not actually happened! THAT is what I mean when I have talked about what is ~not~ canon about their relationship. Let’s be very clear about that, because 

(gif source)

So, the debate over what is canon or what is not canon, to me personally, is an entirely useless conversation. Dean canonically hates chick flick movies. Also, he canonically loves chick flick movies. Sam canonically does not like bacon (15.06), and yet he canonically made a huge pile of bacon with Eileen in 15.07, but then was back to eating salad by the next episode. You can point at a lot of things that are “canon” to try and prove your point. To whatever end, or for whatever motive you may have in attempting to do so. That’s called “cherry picking.” (pay special attention to the section on Confirmation Bias) You have to be aware of what exactly canon is showing us as a whole, though, for it to have any actual meaning. 

At this point, after 15.09, Eileen has canonically chosen not to pursue a relationship with Sam, after she was canonically manipulated by an outside force into attempting to pursue a relationship with Sam.

She could, in canon, return to pursue a relationship with Sam! I am not here to speculate on that! It could happen! But it would be based in their canonical history, that is almost entirely muddied by Chuck’s interference in their relationship to this point. That is literal, actual canon!

But they had a cute relationship in 12.17! Chuck didn’t make them do that!

I have not denied that! That is obvious! But I’m not going to ignore everything that happened in s15 that has been (in canon! again!) defined as “not real.” As “not their own choice.” And I’m not going to suggest we just handwave the canonical fact that Eileen feels used, feels violated, by how Chuck attempted to manipulate her into seducing Sam, despite their canonical past interactions.

I mean, Sam carried out a two season canonical romance arc with Ruby. Their relationship is canon. He canonically had feelings for her, trusted her, fully engaged in the relationship with her. That’s not up for debate, but the in-canon CONTEXT of their relationship was a lie, you know? She lied to him for two years, with a specific goal in doing so. She manipulated him into all of that to free Lucifer from the cage. The fact that their relationship is canon is entirely irrelevant to any ANALYSIS of said relationship, and understanding it in context, and what it means for the characters.

So when you apply the context to Sam and Eileen’s relationship as it stands in s15, the fact it ~exists~ isn’t up for debate. The fact that they canonically interacted in a flirtatious fashion on screen, the fact they did anything together on screen isn’t up for debate. The reason WHY Eileen engaged in any of this, though, is also not up for debate. Chuck made it all happen, from the moment her ghost appeared in the bunker to the moment she told Sam she needed to leave, all of that is under a pall of Chuck’s influence. That... is also canon.

So anon, what do YOU mean when you say “they’re canon.” Do you mean they have established a mutually consensual romantic relationship? (because if so, then they are NOT canon) Do you mean “they have interacted in a way that can be interpreted as insinuating there is romantic interest between them?” Because I could give you that one. They definitely have potential in the future. Do you mean “They kissed on screen!” Because heck, what does that even mean?

Sam’s canonically kissed a lot of people! Jessica Moore! Lori Sorenson! Sarah Blake! Jo (well, he was possessed by Meg at the time, so does this one count? Their mouths touched...)! Madison the werewolf! Ruby! Amelia Richardson! Dr. Roberts! Amy Pond! Becky (though he was under a love spell for that one, so does that count? from how skeeved the entire fandom has always been by that one... even if Becky thought they had real feelings for each other “deep down,” does anyone think Sam actually consented to any of that?)! Annie Hawkins (self-reported by Sam, and we take his word for it)! That woman who propositioned his body while he’d been body swapped with Gary, so does that even count because only Sam’s body was used there? or did they even actually do anything beyond tying Sam’s body occupied by Gary to a bed and getting out the flail...)! And if we’re going meta, then Genevieve Padalecki in the French Mistake!universe! That hippie chick soulless sam had sex with when Dean was abducted by “aliens” that one time! and speaking of soulless sam, the hooker he was with in 6.03, and the apparent string of women he was with that we only learned about tangentially via 6.13!

Does that mean Sam has a canonical relationship with all of these women? YES. But... like... you can’t look at this list (which is probably not even complete) and suggest that all of these relationships are of equal canonical import, or that they are equivalent in emotional weight for Sam as a character. That’s... idiotic, frankly.

So, to me, the discussion of “what is canon” is like... irrelevant to anything I’m actually here for. The actual understanding of what the canonical relationship MEANS and how it informs character is what is actually important to me.

So please stop trying to undercut an actual discussion of canon with a semantics strawman. Thanks.

#spn 15.09 #logical fallacies #wank adjacent #just in case... #and in case anyone missed it the previous dozen times i've said it #you do not need to convince me of your personal read on canon to feel valid #you have my support anon #i totally support your right to see whatever you want in canon #and to assign whatever emotional import you wish to your experience of canon #please have the same respect for how *I* see it #Anonymous