I don't think that Kripke has any responsibility other than to tell the best story he can, so the network can make money from the advertisers. (Whether he's doing that or not is a question best left for another day.)

I do think his depiction of fans tends to focus on the behaviors least comprehensible to an outside audience, and the least flattering.

So I don't think the character in the comic should blame Kripke for problems in her marriage, that there are problems in her marriage isn't unrelated to the whole societal attitude about women's sexuality, creativity, online relationships, the uses of sexual fantasy, and so forth.

All that said, I still think the comic was well-done, and I have great sympathy for that position even if it doesn't really hold up under critical analysis.

The comments seem to be chastising Kripke for being irresponsible, and the cartoon's author seems to be on board with that. It mystifies me.

I'd love to know what someone non-fannish and not fandom-adjacent makes of those episodes, but it's not like I know anyone to ask.

The cartoon came across as melodramatic to me. I agree that Kripke is the least of that woman's problems.

I'd love to know what someone non-fannish and not fandom-adjacent makes of those episodes, but it's not like I know anyone to ask.

My sampling of one thought it was hilarious, and wondered where they got the idea of people writing about them doing it.

(My other non-fannish sample for the show counts as adjacent, because he knows I'm fannish and that I write fanfiction.)

The comments seem to be chastising Kripke for being irresponsible, and the cartoon's author seems to be on board with that. It mystifies me.

That's the part I don't get. A sex-negative patriarchy is at fault for any situation in real life resembling that. And while I have sympathy for someone finding herself in that situation, I have basically *no* sympathy for an argument that it's irresponsible to break the fourth wall because some oppressive dillweed in the SNP might have a lightbulb moment and get pissed.

I gotta agree with Plei and ita.

I think the comic treats being an SPN fan as being wrong from the get go, far more than the show ever has, with the whole "Yeah, but it's Supernatural" foot rubbing weirdness.

Also, using the artist's own words (from the comment), she is "irritated at SPN for being a poor community citizen" and thinks "Kripke is a bad fangirl".

Umm. Kripke is not a "fellow fan", and isn't suggesting he should be tearing down the 4th wall from the other side?

If Kripke & Co. had singled out a specific real fan and used her actual fannish identity, I'd see it as lines being crossed. But they're featuring fictional people, and not in a negative judgey way like Sorkin did. If people are embarrassed by their hobbies and surrounded by people who are unsupportive about them, the cure is to find new hobbies or more supportive people to surround themselves with.

It's not like anyone is being forced to put on Spock ears, y'know?

Well, there was that one time...

What happens at Star Trek Experience Las Vegas stays in Star Trek Experience Las Vegas, Perkins.

oops.

Sorry

I'd love to know what someone non-fannish and not fandom-adjacent makes of those episodes, but it's not like I know anyone to ask.

My single data point thinks that the convention episode is hysterical. My other single datapoint thought that the episode "Yellow Fever" (in which Dean was afraid of everything) was her favorite.

... so, yeah, not very fannish in their responses.

Our two data points agree about the convention episode, apparently. I'm not sure I recall my data point's reaction to Yellow Fever, but I acutely disliked the episode and probably tried to avoid discussing it.

(My gaming-fannish data point thought the convention episode was one of the best things ever. Like me, he was, I believe, having Acute Flashbacks.)