“Why? I’m better now.”
“I know,” she says easily. “But I think we need to figure out why you picked Dean. What is it about him that makes you want to be him?”
He starts cracking his knuckles. He’s waiting for the day she tells him not to do it, that it’s bad for his joints, but she never says anything.
“I don’t think I’m him anymore. I know who I am. I’m me. I’m Jensen.”
“And I’m glad for it. But it’s important that you understand why you latched on to him. If we can take it apart and uncover it all, you won’t need him anymore. Remember what I said about therapy at the start?”
He shifts in his seat. “Yeah.” She had said it was like a rain barrel, and while things looked clean on the surface there was always sludge and grime that you had to stir up, clean out, and then you’d really have clean water instead of just the illusion of clean water.
“So, tell me. Tell me about Dean Winchester.”
By some laws of fandom, and in some cases, incest is inevitable.
A certain TV show premiered in September of 2005 with two main characters. For three years, these two brothers were the only constant characters. The writers made a paltry effort with attractive females that existed for half an episode and were immediately killed off, but it was clear from the beginning that the only relationship the brothers would forever keep was the one between themselves. And so, the fandom followed the path that the writers had unknowingly created: the brothers’ relationship was meant to be, and in more than a brotherly sense. The writers were shocked. The readers of this blog post, perhaps, are also shocked.
But in retrospect, from a cultural studies professor’s viewpoint, there is nothing to be shocked about. With a little understanding of a fandom‘s collective mind, one can see a pattern in the way thousand of ships are created. So I present my hypothesis on the operation of relationships within Internet societies:
By the Attention Shipping Hypothesis, there exists a character, no-screen-time < interaction(character) < already-canonically-shipped, such that interaction(character) is compatible with interaction(other character). Since interaction(character) = personality type A and interaction(character) = personality type B, and personality type A is compatible with personality type B, character and other character will be written in close context.