According to Fraser (The Golden Bough), Samhain is one of the four major Celtic fire festivals; it's the end of the year and the beginning of the next. It's not doom and death, it's passage into the new year. On the day of the dead, when the year too dies...

Right, but it's also the time of the year when people believe(d) that the veil between the worlds was breached. People welcomed their own dead, but disguised themselves in costumes, because they were afraid of any evil spirits that might be about.

Which is another problem I had with Castiel. Angels are emissaries and servants of God. They are a different order of being than humans and they don't, I think, have free will--or at least not the way we understand it. Free will is what makes us human, what makes us valuable--that we can choose evil as well as good. Castiel having doubts makes no sense to me.

OTOH, according to legend Lucifer was an angel who revolted, and you can't do that without doubts either.

I don't know about doubts, but you can't rebel without free will. You also cannot love withtout it. I've seen a lot of people mention that they think angels don't have free will, but that's never been my understanding. Like you, I interpret the Biblical version of angels to say they're of a totally different order. And it seems natural to me that their "faith" would be different, because the Bible seems to indicate they experience God more fully than humans do; that they're working on a different set of facts. So, if they have free will and use it to rebel against God, it seems to me it would be a more serious type of rebellion.

I don't think Castiel's doubts are doubts that God exists, and they may not even be regarding whether or not God is just. It seems to me that God (in the Supernatural 'verse) may operate on a need to know basis. I think Castiel is struggling because he doesn't know whether he's doing right or wrong. I don't know if I'm explaining any of this well, but I thought it was important when he told the Winchesters that angels are not omniscient.

Supernatural's angels seem like human soldiers in an earthly war, in a way. In war, a soldier doesn't know the Commander-in-Chief's and the Joint-Chiefs' and the Generals' entire plan. They have their assignments. They complete them. Castiel admits he doesn't know which order Dean was supposed give (smite the town, or save the town). He just prayed that Dean would try to save the town. Meanwhile, his very confident colleague is all for smiting the town. I think the doubts he's having center around his actions.

(Someone on the flist said she started to get into and fall for SPN when she realized that it was a tragedy. The more I think about it, the more she seems to be right.)

I think so too, but I am soft and want Kripke to soften it at the end, and not end it like a proper tragedy should end, because I'm immature and like happy endings.

I refrain from comment on my own maturity (because my inner jury is still out on that). I don't expect happy endings, and in most cases I think the reality of tragedy appeals more. But every once in a while, I want to believe in an earned positive resolution.

I think Castiel is struggling because he doesn't know whether he's doing right or wrong. I don't know if I'm explaining any of this well, but I thought it was important when he told the Winchesters that angels are not omniscient.

I totally agree with you, Cindy. It's just that this concept, that the angels have the same kind of doubts and uncertainties that humans do, and that they express them the same way--that interferes with my understanding of angels, based on 30-something years of active Catholicism and too much reading.

I do agree that the Rebellion of Lucifer pretty much presumes that angels have some form of free will, and I guess we have to go with that interpretation for the purposes of the show. But I still have a desire to see angels as terrifying beings full of majesty and power and righteousness, who are not human. Once you show them hunched over on their knees on a park bench, confessing to doubts and uncertainties, they lose some of their majesty.

With the way the angels are behaving, and the "testing" of Dean and Sam, I'm having massive Bab5 foreshadowing here. I hope Kripke et al. can pull it off.

Consuela I'm not sure if God's messengers are racist and carry the baggage of that word in this show, but more specist. I don't think we can draw a parallel to racism with Uriel referring to humans as mud monkeys. A person can refer to birds as "rats with wings" or hate snakes, and it not be a moral judgment.

I didn't think Castiel was becoming human by his comments any more than we anthropomorphize our pets or laptops. (what?) I still think of him as a righteous being emphasized with his statements to Dean at the end of the second episode. We just may get to see deeper into his complexities than we will get to see with Uriel.

Cindy is me, only articulate and shit.

I don't expect happy endings, and in most cases I think the reality of tragedy appeals more. But every once in a while, I want to believe in an earned positive resolution.

I am hoping for this as well, Beverly. In fact, I'm hoping this is a tragicomedy with all the switches from serious to comedy. It would allow a switch at the end, the softening, and ultimately, if not happy, a non tragic ending.

Again, I think a lot of this stems from the nature of the alternate universe. As Plei pointed out, Supernatural does NOT for the most part directly use classic mythology. It's source is both classic and contemporary horror, popular culture and urban myths in general. Also as I've said before that explains, though does not excuse, its gender and race issues. It's sources are deeply racist and sexist. It would take a real effort to avoid that creeping into the stories: an effort that really ought to have been made, but which someone only slightly clueless about such things might fail to make.

But I also think the world being a fundamentally unfair and tragic place may spring from the deeper sources. The idea of a fundamentally just universe where injustice in life is made up for in the next one is comparatively new. In mythologies where the living, the dead, gods, demons and spirits all interact in this life, where there is no real separation between this life and the next, there is very little room for justice or fairness. People laughed when Jimmy Carter said "Life isn't fair" not because anyone disagreed, but because he was stating the bleeding obvious. If the supernatural intervenes on a day-to-day basis, then it isn't fair either. (Even karma looked at closely is more about consequences than justice, especially in its older versions.)

I won't say the idea of an ultimately just universe requires dualism, a separation between the supernatural and material worlds, because sophisticated pagans do manage to reconcile closeness between the natural and supernatural with the idea of justice. But in general, TANJ and cosmic justice are a lot easier to reconcile in a world where the natural and supernatural are separate, especially where the realm of the dead has little contact with the realm of the living. A world where supernatural evils are free to do both physical and spiritual harm is far harder to reconcile with the moral core of, say, Christianity, than a universe which shows no signs of supernatural intervention in day-to-day life.

Consuela I'm not sure if God's messengers are racist and carry the baggage of that word in this show, but more specist. I don't think we can draw a parallel to racism with Uriel referring to humans as mud monkeys. A person can refer to birds as "rats with wings" or hate snakes, and it not be a moral judgment.

Austin, I'm working on the recap, and I mentioned specism, but I do think there's a parallel to be drawn. I think that's what it's there for, but I keep coming this close to blowing my whole recap over here, so I'ma shutting up. Next week Demian will be back on the job and I can talk like a fangirl, again.

A world where supernatural evils are free to do both physical and spiritual harm is far harder to reconcile with the moral core of, say, Christianity, than a universe which shows no signs of supernatural intervention in day-to-day life.

Actually, it's not, because Christianity sees this is a fallen world, but that's a really long conversation and I'd go way too far off topic. Plus, it would take thought and I'm not up to the strain of actually thinking.

But I still have a desire to see angels as terrifying beings full of majesty and power and righteousness, who are not human. Once you show them hunched over on their knees on a park bench, confessing to doubts and uncertainties, they lose some of their majesty.

I know what you mean. And they started out that way -- with Castial's visage burning out the psychic's eyes, and the shadows of wings, and the "I'm the one who gripped you tight and raised you from perdition." The Castiel actor has done a good job of seeming very "other" but if they keep writing him like a vulnerable Winchester cousin, that's going to go away.

Cindy, it might be an interesting topic sometime, but "fallen" is different from "the devil has an active day to day role". I will note that many of the longer lived Christian churches are very suspicious of superstition, of believe in elves. The Catholic church though it apparently believes in demonic possession is still very suspicious of claims of it, and considers it rare. I suspect such continued recognition is a concession, that a large part of it would like to completely deny it. And note that I did not say that day-to-day supernatural is impossible to reconcile - merely that it is more difficult than a secular world.

I do think C.S. Lewis took this view: note that in the Screwtape letters, the demon acted almost entirely through the promptings of the human heart and intellect, and did not directly appear and start arguing with the human or offering supernatural goodies. In the 'that hideous strength' series, the return of the active supernatural was seen as a special circumstance, something that had faded with the coming of Christ, and there were all sorts of reasons why even non-demonic supernatural entities were unhealthy for humans to deal with. There a whole "the great Pan is dead" theme in Christianity especially, which kind of emphasizes the uneasiness of reconciling Christianity with petty gods and spirits (and extensive direct demonic intervention). (And I think this is true of judiasism and Islam as well.)

I know what you mean. And they started out that way -- with Castial's visage burning out the psychic's eyes, and the shadows of wings, and the "I'm the one who gripped you tight and raised you from perdition." The Castiel actor has done a good job of seeming very "other" but if they keep writing him like a vulnerable Winchester cousin, that's going to go away.

I think we tend to anthropomorphize the angels as much as the writers. I think the writers will continue to write Uriel having less layers and more puffing of the chest. Castiel, will seem like a vunlnerable Winchester cousin to us, but will actually be an other worldly being working through experiences that he hasn't been exposed to in 2000 years. He might have stayed as episode one Eye-burner, the place where Uriel is, but Castiel has now had more experience with earth and is processing all the information. He still has the power to rain fire and brimstone, but he is learning, which may appear to us as softening.

I have no idea how the two angel characters will develop, but that is where I'm placing my bets.

Castiel will seem like a vulnerable Winchester cousin to us, but will actually be an otherworldly being working through experiences that he hasn't been exposed to in 2000 years. He might have stayed as episode one Eye-burner, the place where Uriel is, but Castiel has now had more experience with earth and is processing all the information. He still has the power to rain fire and brimstone, but he is learning, which may appear to us as softening.

This. Plus I think their jobs and their personalities--okay, let me start again. I posit, for I'm not sure I actually think this, that each angel was chosen or created to do the job heaven needs him(it) to do. Chosen because of certain tendencies of character and personality perhaps, or created *with* those tendencies *for* that job. Further, that millenia in that job has entrenched and reinforced those tendencies. Or, if each angel began his work as a blank slate, his personality and character has been molded by the job he does.

Uriel is a cleaner. He cleans up the mess, eradicates the evidence, and sterilizes the site when necessary. He is implacable and does not waffle over orders or extenuating circumstances. He guards the gate, he refuses entry, he escorts the dead to destinations other than heaven (Wikipedia, archangels).

Castiel (who is not named in any mythos as an archangel, but who I assume is one, because of the "iel" suffix of his name, like Gabriel, Raphael, Michael, etc.) is a warrior (as is Michael), a defender of heaven and earth against Lucifer and the legions of hell. As a defender of men, he has come into contact--not necessarily conflict--with humans, even if it was 2,000 years ago.

Uriel's contact with mankind has been all denial and punishment. He views humans as lesser, as pollutants, as beings to be banished from heaven, except for the blessed few allowed entry.

Castiel defends humanity, as well as heaven, and it would be understandable for him to have curiosity as to why humans are valuable. Intellectually and by personality, Castiel is more equable in his view of humanity, and willing to explore the value to heaven they possess. This wish to learn, coupled with his extended experience in a human body, among humans, would influence him, I think, as Austin says.

The discussion on this episode (and people's reactions to a certain aspect of said ep) gave me a plot bunny that simply would not leave me alone.

Many thanks are due to Bev, who did a speedy beta-read and helped me tighten things up considerably.

Lapsus Linguae