So You're a Nerd

1) this book is so incredibly beautifully written, absolutely smitten with Jackson’s humor and lovely prose.

First, I feel that while he didn't adapt the story he was clearly inspired by it, which I can respect. Seeing someone else's work, and then creating something new out of it - that's not bad at all. In fact I think it's beautifully human. Can the branding (for lack of the better term) be misleading for book purists? Sure, and that's fair. But I think something amazing came out of Mike Flanagan's inspiration and I would not wish it away.

Secondly, yes you are completely right that the show and book are completely different; however I don't think that lessens the story of the show at all. It is still brilliantly written with a wonderful, poignant message that stands perfectly well on its own, without comparing it to the book. They're very very different, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I absolutely love Shirley Jackson's writing, and while I appreciate the tragedy of her original book I also appreciate a story that has hope in it. Each, book and show, gives me something different to think about and reflect on and are both examples, to me, of powerful storytelling.

The book is VERY clear about its portrayal of family and the family unit. Hill House is enormous, and probably would be referred to as a Manor or a Hall- but it is only ever referred to as a House, a thing that should be a Home for a family, but is fundamentally poisonous. Every family that wound up in its jaws was ripped to pieces. Hugh Crain, the guy who built Hill House, whose name is only one letter off from Cain, is heavily implied to have been abusing his daughters. Flanagan turns him into the perfect family man.

Every single one of our characters similarly has a volatile relationship with their family. Eleanor only ends up in Hill House at all because she was left to care for her mother by herself for eleven years, leaving her worn down to nothing with no life built of her own. Her sister and her family now resent her needing their support after her mother’s death, and it’s this mutual resentment that spurns her into Hill House and why she ultimately succumbed to it.

Theodora, who is just Theodora—we are never given her last name. So thoroughly has she cut her family out of her life, they don’t even get carried around as her surname.

Luke is a member of the family that owns Hill House. We are only given small glimpses into his relationship with his aunt, but she doesn’t hesitate to send him to live in Hill House for the duration of the experiment, despite knowing the danger of the house. and at the end of the book it’s noted that his aunt is “happy to know he has left the country.” Luke is also a character archetype i have dubbed “the charming tar pit.” he seems like an overall decent guy except he is explicitly, in the text, looking for a wife to be his mother.

Finally, Dr Montague and his wife are pretty obviously on the rocks. His wife is extremely dismissive of him and his own experiences, and has almost completely replaced him with Arthur (they even share a room together while Dr Montague sleeps alone.)

It sounds like - and correct me if I'm wrong - the show bothers you because the main message of Jackson's book is of tragedy whereas Flanagan's message was of hope, and by inverting the themes it feels like a betrayal of her work. Which is a totally fair opinion. But that's what this comes down to, just a difference in the interpretation of these stories and that's fine. I really like your insights into the book, but to me (and others) the show has a very powerful story, despite not following the book's message as you described it. It seems like Flanagan wanted to turn Jackson's story of depression, hopeless and tragedy into a story of healing, forgiveness, and hope. It's perfectly okay you don't like that. I guess I just wanted you to see that Flanagan's story carries a lot of meaning for others, regardless of the adaptation of the source material.

1) this book is so incredibly beautifully written, absolutely smitten with Jackson’s humor and lovely prose.

First, I feel that while he didn't adapt the story he was clearly inspired by it, which I can respect. Seeing someone else's work, and then creating something new out of it - that's not bad at all. In fact I think it's beautifully human. Can the branding (for lack of the better term) be misleading for book purists? Sure, and that's fair. But I think something amazing came out of Mike Flanagan's inspiration and I would not wish it away.

Secondly, yes you are completely right that the show and book are completely different; however I don't think that lessens the story of the show at all. It is still brilliantly written with a wonderful, poignant message that stands perfectly well on its own, without comparing it to the book. They're very very different, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I absolutely love Shirley Jackson's writing, and while I appreciate the tragedy of her original book I also appreciate a story that has hope in it. Each, book and show, gives me something different to think about and reflect on and are both examples, to me, of powerful storytelling.

‘Ruby Tears’

It isn't canon.

The love confession wasn't reciprocated by Dean, per the script, Jensen, writers, even Misha has admitted that. There can't be a relationship when only one side feels that way.

Destiel can't be canon because Dean isn't in love with Cas. No matter what people have said in fanfic, no matter how much explicit fan art they create, the canon is that Dean is a straight man who hunts monsters, not marries them. The debate over if Castiel can even feel or understand love is a whole other question, but Dean's position already rules it.

Dean saw Cas as a brother in arms, someone he fought battles with, not a lover. He states multiple times that he is straight and he only ever shows interest in women. He's also only into humans. Human women. Castiel as we knew him in Jimmy's body isn't a woman, and even if he wasn't in a male vessel he's still not a human. Cas could be wearing the bustiest Asian beauty Dean's ever seen, but that won't make him Dean's type.

The evidence that is used to say it's canon is based on things like coloured lights or what Dean's eating. Most of it the evidence is made from compilations of clips or gifs by people who aren't able to have real discussions about the show because they haven't actually watched it. These gifs of "loving looks" are often poorly chosen, since they accidentally include times that Dean was looking at Sam. See what I mean about them not having watched the show?

There are people who have been told to skip the first three seasons because it's only worth watching Supernatural for Destiel. Even Misha has told people to do this, but he also makes money from shippers which is why he panders so much. The show was about two brothers, and the main draw is always going to be the two brothers. Destiel gives him an in, a way to get attention on himself.

So, no. Destiel isn't canon.