I don't know about the rest of your argument, haven't really thought it through but your comments on choice struck me.
I always read BtVS and Angel as functions of free will. Firefly as well, actually. Pretty much the whole of Jossverse, to me, is about free will and blurring boundaries and the reiteration of the need for people to keep choosing to do the right/good thing. Buffy, for example, has to choose to be the slayer, be responsible, live up to her calling. The whole idea of the soul, for Angel, is this abstract thing that allows him to choose to be good. After all, one good fuck, and he can ditch the pesky thing but Angel chooses to remain thus, instead of reverting back to Angelus. I won't even get into the crew of Serenity because Mal elaborates the point rather well in his hero-speech.
What I'm about to say has bothered me considerably on a very meta level; so much so in fact that were it not for the fact that I watch SPN more for carnal reasons than for intellectual ones, it would have turned me off the show completely. It seems to me that SPN barely addresses issues of free will and choice beyond a superficial and cursory acknowledgement. I am aware that the primary emotional conflict of the text is born from Sam's choice to walk away from the hunt. Which kind of makes my former statement sound a bit ridiculous but I feel like that even that choice masks something else. Some sort of instinctive move on the part of the character rather than a thoughtout, morally induced decision.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the text is very weak when it comes to setting up its ideology. There's these two brothers and they hunt things. The why's and wherefore's are often only mentioned in a cursory manner. I find it aggravating because I want to know what drives Dean, what he believes in, what his 'ideology' is. My consolation, along with watching the pretty, is that the second season is spending more time fleshing out these things. Even though I don't necessarily agree with your reading of the episode, Bloodlust definitely was a good example. It asked some pertinent questions, introduced conflict into the whole hunting evil scheme and started giving the characters layers that went beyond their relationship with each other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-02 07:21 pm (UTC)I always read BtVS and Angel as functions of free will. Firefly as well, actually. Pretty much the whole of Jossverse, to me, is about free will and blurring boundaries and the reiteration of the need for people to keep choosing to do the right/good thing. Buffy, for example, has to choose to be the slayer, be responsible, live up to her calling. The whole idea of the soul, for Angel, is this abstract thing that allows him to choose to be good. After all, one good fuck, and he can ditch the pesky thing but Angel chooses to remain thus, instead of reverting back to Angelus. I won't even get into the crew of Serenity because Mal elaborates the point rather well in his hero-speech.
What I'm about to say has bothered me considerably on a very meta level; so much so in fact that were it not for the fact that I watch SPN more for carnal reasons than for intellectual ones, it would have turned me off the show completely. It seems to me that SPN barely addresses issues of free will and choice beyond a superficial and cursory acknowledgement. I am aware that the primary emotional conflict of the text is born from Sam's choice to walk away from the hunt. Which kind of makes my former statement sound a bit ridiculous but I feel like that even that choice masks something else. Some sort of instinctive move on the part of the character rather than a thoughtout, morally induced decision.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the text is very weak when it comes to setting up its ideology. There's these two brothers and they hunt things. The why's and wherefore's are often only mentioned in a cursory manner. I find it aggravating because I want to know what drives Dean, what he believes in, what his 'ideology' is. My consolation, along with watching the pretty, is that the second season is spending more time fleshing out these things. Even though I don't necessarily agree with your reading of the episode, Bloodlust definitely was a good example. It asked some pertinent questions, introduced conflict into the whole hunting evil scheme and started giving the characters layers that went beyond their relationship with each other.
I'll go ahead and credit Ben Edlund with that.