Look up the definition of "retcon", dumbasses.

[hells_half_acre]

You know what annoys me about this fandom: The constant throwing around of the word "retcon" where it DOES NOT APPLY.

I'm not saying that Supernatural has never retconned something - actually, I recall a discussion recently (with claudiapriscus?) where someone finally was able to point out something to me that was ACTUALLY a retcon. But most of what people are calling retcons ARE NOT RETCONS.

There is a HUGE difference between CHANGING previously established canon, and ADDING to the canon that we ASSUMED we knew.

Brady is not a retcon. Did Sam ever give us a list of his college friends? Did we ever hear the story of how he met Jess? No...therefore, writing Brady into the show in S5 isn't a retcon, it it GIVING US INFORMATION WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE!

The Amulet as God-EMF is also not a retcon: Did we ever learn why Bobby told Sam that the amulet was "real special"? No. Now we know though!

The Trickster actually being the arch-angel Gabriel is not a retcon. It is the arch-angel Gabriel being damn good at pretending to be a Trickster!

Sometimes I think our knowledge of the way the writers work is detrimental to the way people interpret the show. Because we KNOW that Kripke didn't set out to have angels in the show - we know that when the Trickster was first introduced they didn't plan to make him Gabriel. But that doesn't make the the Gabester a retcon. It just means that the writers decided to add in the information after his initial introduction, and were able to do it in a way where it actually made a little bit of sense (because, seriously, what was it to the Trickster that the Winchesters kept sacrificing themselves for each other?)

Now if there had been a line where Sam and Dean did some sort of crazy Angel-test on the Trickster for no reason back in S2, and Dean announced that the Trickster was definitely not secretly an arch-angel, then Gabriel would be a retcon.

Right now, the only "retcon" I'll give lea-way on is Chuck=God (which is heavily implied but not specifically stated)...and that's JUST because they met him in S4 when Dean still had the God-EMF Amulet and it never "grew hot" - at least not to the extent that Dean noticed. 

Sigh...sorry, I get so annoyed at inconsequential things sometimes.

Also, if any of you are following the twitpics of Asylum Europe Con this weekend: I like Jim's shirt, but the grammar is incorrect and it's driving me crazy.

Comments

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Haha, indeed.

But yeah, I'm using it the common usage that implies changes to canon.

To me, shows would be pretty restricted if they got criticized every time they introduced an element that was not previously laid out chronologically.

Plus, stories would be pretty boring (not to mention predictable), if for instance they started out like this:
Sam has a girlfriend named Jessica, and a friend named Luis, and another friend named Brady who used to be straight-laced but then got into drugs or something...and Sam worries about him, but he's a good friend because he introduced Sam to Jessica, and Sam is planning to marry Jessica...but then his brother Dean shows up. Oh, and since we have to lay out all information immediately, so that we aren't accused of retconning later - why don't we also tell you that a demon bled into Sam's mouth because years before his mother had made a deal, and his mother was a Hunter, oh, and in the future Dean's going to travel back in time and...

I mean, really, what are these people expecting? Some of the things that they're accusing of being retcons are actually good story telling! Who cares whether the writers had the idea for these story elements from the beginning or came up with them later? If they fit in with canon and contribute to the intricacy of the overall story-arc, then it's all good.


Ugh...um...sorry about that. That rants not directed at you, obviously.

[claudiapriscus.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. I have no problems with the "adding to previously established canon" type of retroactive continuity. If it adds to the story, I'm all for it. I mean, man, I think "In the Beginning" was probably the best instance of it in the series. Yeah, some did argue that there were a ton of plotholes and that it didn't exactly made sense, but in my book, it added substantial significance to storylines already in place. Even the Trickster/Gabriel one works for me, because while maybe not as seemless, it works for "Mystery Spot". You watch it again with that in mind, and it still works. And more importantly: it adds new layers of meaning.

[hells-half-acre.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. I loved the added meaning that Trickster/Gabriel gave the previous shows...and it doesn't necessarily add anything to "Tall Tales", but it does add a hell of a lot to "Mystery Spot."

As you said, there's nothing wrong with "adding to previously established canon" retroactive continuity - which is why it really annoys me when people throw around the word "retcon" likes its a bad thing.