Uriel said that only angels can kill angels. Apart from Dean, what non-angels have we seen kill members of the Heavenly Host? Was the original idea that angel swords didn't exist, but now that they do, they fill the angel quota of that equation?
Meg, the leviathan inside of Edgar (not by using an angel blade though), and I'm not sure whether Sam has or not (aside from his unsuccessful attempt on Castiel).
If I were going to tidy up the Supernaturalverse, I'd give Balthazar's sword power over atropos because it's in his hands, and not put the power in the sword itself. I think that's tidier and more respectful.
I'd definitely have preferred it that way, with the swords just being an outward manifestation of the individual angel's power/aggression rather than a handy trinket anyone could pick up, use, and melt down for making bullets. Unfortunately, that ship sailed in Season 5.
Dean's tally is Zachariah, the angel from the season opener...who else? I can't think of any that Sam has killed, but then again, I'm also blanking on
melt down for making bullets
God, I hate this the most. Remember when the Colt was special??? Poppy bullets irritated me as well. Could they just have hit her with a poppy stick? Stabbed her with a knife that had been used to slice bagels? They're...they're productising magic in a way I don't think serves the story (I feel like Charlie now).
Remember when we wondered what Dean not being blinded by Zach's death meant? Well, I wondered, anyway. Now I think it's just coincidence.
Unfortunately, that ship sailed in Season 5.
I could even wrap my head around a "pagan" god with a Christian tool killing an angel--they're only angels, after all. Like, on some level, there are supernatural creatures with supernatural powers that go mano a mano, and angels have their strength and their smiting and their time and space travelling, and Kali has her cleansing fire, and etc, etc, those powers go up against each other. And then there are charmed objects which exploit weaknesses, but not necessarily things that mortals can wield.
Of all the episodes whose canon I want to ignore, good lord, it's Hammer Of The Gods. Not only because of what it made canon, but also because of what it revealed about the writers' though processes.
UNDO IT, UNDO IT.
I felt Dorothy was pretty strongly coded as queer in the episode, from her mode of dress to her way of moving.
I felt Dorothy was pretty strongly coded as queer in the episode, from her mode of dress to her way of moving.
nods
I choose to believe that the Witch of the North's kiss wasn't just a chaste peck on the forehead.
Well, if there were ever a good character to choose for giving the gay audience a nod, Dorothy would be it...
I felt Dorothy was pretty strongly coded as queer in the episode, from her mode of dress to her way of moving
If she were straight, how would you dress her, and how would you change her way of moving? To me, she was an Amelia Earhart vintage adventuress clone (which I don't mean in a bad way, or think that Earhart being gay affects), because I can't think of another way for her to look, and, well, I know more straight women than gay who move like her. As code goes, it's too subtle for me.
if there were ever a good character to choose for giving the gay audience a nod, Dorothy would be it...
That's the only code I saw.
I never understood where the "friends of Dorothy" thing came from.
Dorothy read pretty simply as "kickass" to me.
I never understood where the "friends of Dorothy" thing came from.
I'd heard it was a Judy Garland thing. The friends I have that used that term to describe themselves were big fans, and I assumed it was a result of her iconic status in the community (I have no idea if it still persists--this was in the early 90s).
Oh! I didn't even think to connect it to Judy Garland. Duh.
And, because it's Halloween, I feel the need to randomly shout, "Astronaut!"
If she were straight, how would you dress her, and how would you change her way of moving? To me, she was an Amelia Earhart vintage adventuress clone (which I don't mean in a bad way, or think that Earhart being gay affects), because I can't think of another way for her to look, and, well, I know more straight women than gay who move like her. As code goes, it's too subtle for me.
It's hard to explain without copying the text of every lesbians-in-film textbook in my collection, unfortunately. Suffice it to say that she hits all the "this character is queer, but we're not allowed to say that flat-out" checkboxes. Mannish attire, mannish stride, mannish profession, lingering looks at the female form...
