Burnt, as in trying to use logic to speculate on the progession of a story, spend time and thought in untangling a story, only to find the writers took the shortest route out of the web they wove, with the least amount of logic possible.

Even looking back over seasons 2-5, it's still unclear the logic and motives and endgame of Azazel, Alistair, Ruby, Lilith, Uriel, & Zacchariah, the conjoining, conflicting, parallel, and obtuse angle angel motives don't make sense.

Basically, I'm saying I'm not going to think about the plot of Show until Show reveals all (or as much as it will), and as such, I have to logically remove myself from the conversation. I don't understand, and I'm not going to try.

Ah, I see.

Half the point of fandom is, for me, teasing these things out. I can't imagine not wondering. But I don't invest in it--whether I'm right or I'm wrong I still spent the same amount of time doing it.

Besides, when a show goes all X-Files, everyone gets shat upon, not just those (millions and millions) who could have pulled something more sensical out of their asses.

Crowley makes sense for me, Eve singling out the boys makes sense if word travels--Samuel, not as much.

I think part of my problem (if it is one) is that I can get invested in figuring out the logic if I want to, but with TV I can never forget the meta (unlike, say, a book series, where it's not really necessary).

For example: Bringing John back would have been awesome, and made more sense than Samuel -- it would have given the boys a huge motivation to work with him, and therefore for Crowley, and if Crowley had promised to bring back Mary for *John*, think what he would have done.

But getting JDM back for recurring episodes? Certainly hasn't seemed to work so far, and who knows, maybe the show runners have reasons not to. I have hard time separating what I know are logistics from the storyline, I guess, and I'm pretty willing to accept the limitations.

Also, some of the mythology they've built around souls and angel vessels doesn't really seem untangle-able to me, so I try to apply handwavium when I can.

Unless I get a bee in my bonnet about things like heaven, since I wanted to write fic set there.

Cold PBR:

I should make it clear, though, that I LOVE to speculate and talk about it. It stays fairly theoretical for me, though, unless you go to some weird place like John abused the boys as kids, for instance.

I think I'm more invested in the characters and the overall themes than the weekly plots.

Yeah, I love speculating about the boys, and the generalities, but getting detailed about the McGuffin (although that's easy to get huffy about) and the nature of vampires and other monsters, I can't do it if I'm sure the writers care less than I do. But as long as Sam and Dean stay true, I'm good.

Amy, Peanut Butter and Relish?

But Dean would never have threatened to shoot John dead, and his venging against Samuel was one of my (fairly many) favourite moments of the season.

Then again, John! So there is that.

unless you go to some weird place like John abused the boys as kids, for instance.

Emotionally, physically, or sexually, or should I not go there?

I'm way more invested in the characters and relationships than the facty facts of the plots. Somehow, though, the monsters aren't the same level of vehicle for the emotions and psyches as in Buffy--I think Joss got that better than Kripke does. Joss never met a monster that wasn't a metaphor. But on a very real level, I think Kripke just likes monsters.

Julie, Julie, Julie. Pabst Blue Ribbon! Ash's favorite!

Emotionally, physically, or sexually, or should I not go there?

I'm going to say in any way, purposely. Although he clearly caused emotional damage.

But on a very real level, I think Kripke just likes monsters.

Me, too. Once in a while he uses them as metaphors pretty well, or at least as vehicles to explore what's going in the psyches of the boys, but not as often as Joss did.

I feel so ashamed, Amy! My beer of choice when I visit my brother since it costs all of three dollars. I am a sad excuse for a cheap beer drinker that my first thought was peanut butter and jelly.

I'm going to say in any way, purposely.

I dig that. He wasn't trying to be a prick, but fuck did he mess some shit up. Which isn't to say that abuse isn't abuse if you don't mean it. Just that he honestly thought there was a higher calling for his actions, and that he never wanted to hurt them, just make them strong.

Still, years of therapy for both kids, perhaps forever for Dean.

I know it's dangerous and often folly to apply psychological diagnoses to TV characters (at least there is going to be some mythology explanation, even if it's messy, but most writers wouldn't care to be be bound by any real life restrictions of disorders--the plot is more important), but I think John and Dean had severe emotional incest (not like that, gutter minds--it's the promotion of a child into a lot of the responsibilities of an absent spouse, with no requirement of sex at all) issues that seem to match up to what I've read about it. Sam? Sam is "merely" a kid raised by a martial monomaniac. Maybe just a few years of therapy for him.