Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
So he thinks about roots and how deep they have to grow before you become invincible. He thinks about Philip, about Eliza. There is another version of this story where that is enough.
merixcil submitted: Submitting because the ask box is so tiny!
Continuing a conversation about Bela :)
Well, it rather depends what you mean by 'in the wrong' here. I don't think Bela was necessarily 'wrong' to make the deal and have her clearly nasty, abusive parents killed. That's an issue of moral debate, of course, but personally I sympathise and don't blame her for taking the option of, uh, disposing of them when offered considering they clearly put her through a lot of suffering. BUT, after that she did a lot of stuff that I believe WAS wrong - lying and stealing and putting others in danger for the personal (selfish) gain of money and the thrill of it. THOSE actions I don't think the show SHOULD justify. Her abusive past explains them a little bit, but being abused as a kid =/= or justify becoming a criminal and neither does knowing you only have 10 years to live. So it doesn't bother me that the show criticises Bela a lot, because a lot of her behaviour requires criticism.
I think it all comes back to the perspective that Supernatural is told from - and it's a Winchester perspective. The average viewer isn't going to think to themselves 'hang on, Bela is a survivor of some really horrible abuse on her parent's part and maybe we shouldn't be outright demonising her from removing them from her life in the only way she knew how with the aid of a highly manipulative demon' and the reason that they won't see that is BECAUSE Sam and Dean don't. Sam and Dean are our principle protagonists and so they are our eyes and ears in their universe, and so the idea that Winchester morality is not the best morality within SPN verse is not one that the casual viewer is likely to get to.
Does the show outright demonise her? I never felt it was painting her as evil as all THAT... but idk, maybe that's me and because I always liked her and all!
You have a point about the casual viewer not necessarily cottoning on to the fact that Winchester morality is flawed because the Winchesters are, in effect, unreliable narrators. That's an issue that keeps coming up again and again... but... eh... I tend to LIKE the way the show is always subtly criticising Sam and Dean. I've NEVER thought the show was presenting them as out and out heroes simply because they were the principle protagonists, in fact I've always been half inclined to slap an ANTI-hero label on both of them... if casual viewers don't see that then... idk, I tend to think 'more fool them' :p I don't know if I'd want the show to start getting heavy handed in the way it deals with Sam and Dean's flaws, what I like about it is the way they toe the line so precariously between being heroic and villainous
If the show wants to make a statement that the way Sam and Dean treated Bella was wrong - they need to have Sam and Dean realise this, not just the audience. I understand that if the audience gets it then at least a point has been proven about how the Winchesters are not always right, but it's been almost five years since Bela died and since then she's really only had one mention (Season 5 - Becky mentions her) and I just don't see how her death can hold up as an example of 'where the Winchesters went wrong' if it's never addressed. You're right of course, Bela's tale is done and she won't be brought up again (probably - though imagine if some demon mentions her in passing to one of the boys and TELLS them, an off the cuff remark, and them imagine the moment of realisation for them both and them understanding that they didn't even try to help someone who didn't deserve to die and oh the angst Holly!) but I just can't help but feel that it's a glaring hole on the moral map of Supernatural that requires some filling in.Â
See this is where we diverge. I don't see the need for the show to make a statement about it anymore than it already has. The reveal about Bela's abuse, that the boys never learn, is statement enough as far as I'm concerned. It reveals that the boys aren't always right (it also, arguably, reveals the very fact that there ARE perspectives that AREN'T Sam and Dean's by presenting such a perspective that the boys never see), and as such it sows that seed of doubt in the viewers' minds. Then the show goes on to have more little moments like that, which gradually build into a bigger picture, until one day Sam is drinking demon blood or Dean is killing a kind Kitsune and you suddenly stop and look over everything trying to figure out how it got to this, and you realise the truth of it was laid out from the start, making you realise 'shit, these boys I love... they're kind of bastards!' :) So I don't consider the way Bela's tale ended as leaving a glaring hole in the moral map, it was more of a significant stop in the journey plan :p
But I do understand how you could feel otherwise. It's frustrating to think Sam and Dean's opinion/morality is being championed by some simply because they are the main characters ergo they are heroes and always in the right. Ugh, flawed thinking!
(and oh god I would love it if the boys did find out about Bela's abusive past now! Bela would become one more in the long line of 'people they have failed' that they can brood over, and that's all they can ever do because it's too late to help her now, oh angsty mcangst!)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
See, I've always had a pretty major problem with the way the boys treated Bela, because there's a whole lot of victim shaming going on there that's not very nice. Whilst her story does serve as an example of that all important fallible Winchester morality, I do feel that Supernatural needs to do more to demonstrate these failings to Sam and Dean in a way that sticks. I would be thrilled if SPN actually gave us an episode where they find out about and deal with the repercussions of Bela's past.
I would also be over the moon, but that story is so very DONE it's never even crossed my mind. Which is a shame, I'll grant you.
IS IT victim shaming, though, if we're given insight into her victim status? The whole point of the reveal, I figure, is to get the audience questioning and reassessing the Winchesters' opinion and treatment of Bela and TO criticise them for it. Does it matter that the boys themselves never learn the truth, as long as WE know it and thus can sympathise with Bela and stop shaming her? Or at least shame her less - I don't think that her past exactly makes her guiltless of crimes committed during her ten year deal.
Holly! I have a random, out of the blue, non season 8 related question. I've just looked at the 'bela talbot' tag on your blog but there was nothing there - I was wondering if you had any opinions on her?
There's a 'bela talbot' tag on my blog? I don't think I've ever used that as a tag...? Or is that what you're saying? :p
I LOVED Bela. I wish she'd stuck around, or that the writer's strike hadn't cut her storyline down so we could have seen more of her in S03. I also like that Dean and Sam never learnt the truth about her, but we did. I like being in this privileged position over the boys, and I like that it shows so very clearly how Sam and Dean can be if not outright WRONG about things/people, then at least unfairly judgemental sometimes.
Also - British! SPN needs more British women. In fact, all US shows need more British women :pÂ
Ok Holly, I know that 8x06 made you warm to Garth and gave him some backstory, but do you HONESTLY think that he hunting community would accept Garth as the new Bobby? Garth has none of Bobby's research skills (like reading every language under the sun) that made him an invaluable ally and he's proven over and over again that he's imcompetant as a hunter. It just seems really unbelievable to me that Garth could successfully fill that role, but everyone else seems to be on board with the idea...
I don't think we have to believe the hunting community necessarily DOES accept him - just the odd few hunters. He clearly doesn't have anywhere NEAR the stable, reliable set-up Bobby had if he's always on the move and keeps his phones on his person. He's certainly NOT the competent ally with super research skills Bobby was. But I have no problem accepting that he offers the basics - like being an FBI superior when a hunter needs vouching for, or offering advice on 'easy' hunts like Wendigos.
So, no, I don't think Garth does successfully fill Bobby's role, that would be totally unrealistic. But I DO think he can successfully step up and provide a LITTLE BIT of the service Bobby used to.
Tbh... I've always tended to question Bobby's role anyway. Seasons 1-4 we are told over and over and over that HUNTERS WORK ALONE and hate teaming up and that there really ISN'T a 'hunting community'... then all of a sudden Bobby is the hub of information many different hunters seem to use? There's always been some continuity issues there for me...
So if we work on the initial 'hunters prefer to work alone' premise, then I can't see Bobby's loss being SO terrible, aside for those specific few who knew him. All hunters just reverted back to business as usual before Bobby build up his operation. And so Garth stepping in an trying to re-establish another such operation? Why not? No big. Some hunters will no doubt go for it, but many won't bother. Just like I'm sure there were plenty of hunters who didn't bother with Bobby. It's not like Bobby's was a fixed and necessary role anyway.Â
