On a Good Day, You Get to Kill a Whore: Narrative Misogyny and Female Audiences in Supernatural

University of Mississippi University of Mississippi

eGrove eGrove

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2011

On a Good Day, You Get to Kill a Whore: Narrative Misogyny and On a Good Day, You Get to Kill a Whore: Narrative Misogyny and

Female Audiences in Supernatural Female Audiences in Supernatural

Jordan Richard

Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd

Part of the Sociology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Richard, Jordan, "On a Good Day, You Get to Kill a Whore: Narrative Misogyny and Female Audiences in

Supernatural" (2011).

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

. 245.

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/245

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information,

please contact [email protected].

“ON A GOOD DAY, YOU GET TO KILL A WHORE”:

NARRATIVE MISOGYNY AND FEMALE AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT IN

SUPERNATURAL

A Thesis Submitted

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Sociology

The University of Mississippi

Jordan Richard

May 2011

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I attempt to analyze the function of gender messages in media texts and the

engagement of audiences with these messages. I adopt an interdisciplinary approach, applying

theoretical and methodological concepts from both film studies and audience studies, in order to

develop a new model through which to study media texts and fans. I apply this model to an

analysis of female characters in the television program Supernatural and to self-identified female

fans of Supernatural. Throughout the paper, I contend that such an interdisciplinary model is

necessary for understanding media texts and audiences, and I conclude that media fans act as

academics in their reading and interpretation of media texts.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………ii

Chapter I: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….1

Chapter II: Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………..4

Chapter III: Methods……………………………………………………………………………..20

Chapter IV: Findings……………………………………………………………………………..33

Chapter V: Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...50

Chapter VI: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………72

List of References...……………………………………………………………………………...82

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….92

I. INTRODUCTION

Two men sit on a dark sidewalk, commiserating about absent fathers. One, miserable,

asks the other, “How do you manage it?” To which his friend replies, “On a good day, you get to

kill a whore.”

This exchange, heard in the Supernatural season five episode, “99 Problems”, written by

Julie Siege, is not between two villains or a pair of murderous antagonists. It is between two of

the series’ principal characters, two heroes, and is, presumably, meant to be humorous. Context

is clarifying, here, as the “whore” in question is the biblical Whore of Babylon, but there is a

sense of casual misogyny in it that cannot be ignored.

Watching “99 Problems”, as a fan, in April of 2010, I heard the sentence “On a good day,

you get to kill a whore” come out of my hero’s mouth, and my jaw hit the floor, too shocked to

be angry. That moment of offhanded, violent sexism soured what was otherwise an excellent

episode, and it underscored what I had come to see as a persistent and unsettling problem in my

favorite television show.

If we understand gender to be defined primarily through actions and interactions (West &

Zimmerman, 1987), then we must consider that the average American watches 153 hours of

television every month (Nielson quarterly report, 2009), and that much of that television

programming is likely to involve gendered interactions of some kind. An understanding of how

gender is constructed within media texts, therefore, is crucial to an understanding of how gender

functions in a mediated society. However, I contend that an examination of gendered media is

incomplete without a corresponding examination of how audiences receive and interpret that

media. It is with this understanding that I have undertaken a feminist analysis of the television

program Supernatural and of the engagement practices of Supernatural fans.

This study was designed with the intent to address two questions. First, how does

Supernatural, as a media text, construct gendered interactions and, specifically, represent female

characters? To approach the first question, I conducted a content analysis of the first five seasons

of Supernatural, with emphasis on the first two seasons. I found that the deaths of female

characters were likely to be portrayed in radically different ways than the deaths of male

characters, and that representations of women within the narrative typically fell into the

categories of “women as victims”, “women as objects”, and “women as props”. I believe my

findings support an assessment of Supernatural as basically, if latently, misogynistic.

My second question, then, is how do women viewing Supernatural engage with the

program’s gender ideology and representations of women? To address this question, I submitted

a written, online survey to self-identified fans of Supernatural, asking questions about their

viewing habits and what aspects of the program they liked and disliked. I received responses

from 94 fans, the vast majority of whom were women, and their reactions and opinions varied

widely. There was generally little consensus on the subject of female characters, and comments

on female characters ranged from excitedly supportive to actively violent. A number of female

respondents said that they related closely to the male characters, without mention of female

characters. Despite its sexist ideology, fans said that they continued to watch Supernatural

because of its content and suggested a strong sense of visceral engagement, as well as extensive

boundary work within the fan community. Ultimately, I found fans’ readings of the program to

by complex and highly contextualized, and that they are actively interpreting media messages

according to their own understandings and ideologies, rather than simply receiving those

messages.

Since its inception in the 1930s, commercial television has played an important role in

shaping Western culture, disseminating images and ideas to the general population in ways

previously unachievable through radio or print media. Media texts are in a position to both

reinforce and challenge existing ideologies of the dominant culture, and audiences are, through

their engagement with those texts, in a position to do the same. Through my analysis of

Supernatural and its surrounding fan base, I hope to contribute to the understanding of exactly

how media texts perform this process of challenge and reinforcement, specifically with regard to

gender roles and representations. I also hope to develop a working theory with regard to the

mental tactics used by audiences in their engagement with those texts.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

For this study, I have employed an inter-disciplinary theoretical foundation, drawing on

both film analysis and audience studies. Because Supernatural fits, ostensibly, into the “horror”

genre, I have chosen to focus on film studies literature dealing with presentations of women in

horror films, a large portion of which employs a psychoanalytic approach to genre constructions

of gender.

Barbara Creed (1996), for instance, uses Julia Kristeva’s notion of ‘abjection’ to discuss

the concept of the “monstrous-feminine” in horror films and how boundary violation is used

cinematically to evoke both horror and fascination. For Kristeva, the process of subjectivity is

threatened by anything that crosses or transcends barriers, especially physical barriers. The

disruption of boundaries causes physical disgust and distress, a response Kristeva calls abjection.

(Mansfield, 2000). Drawing on Kristeva’s own readings of horror in literature (Creed, 1996),

Creed enumerates those things which cause simultaneous revulsion and attraction in films,

saying:

definitions of the monstrous as constructed in the modern horror text are grounded in

ancient religious and historical notions of abjection – particularly in relation to the

following religious “abominations”: sexual immorality and perversions; corporeal

alteration, decay, and death; human sacrifice; murder; the corpse; bodily wastes; the

feminine body; and incest (1996: 37).

Creed calls up various tropes common to the genre, conjuring images of the corpse, the

reanimated and ethereal dead, werewolves, and the preponderance of blood, vomit, organs, and

other internal bodily fluids and parts. All of these, Creed says, are symbols of abjection and are

employed by filmmakers in the interest of creating that disgusted enthrallment which Kristeva

claims necessarily accompanies confrontation by the abject.

Of particular interest to Creed, however, is Kristeva’s description of the abject mother

and the recurring appearance of this idea within the horror genre. According to Kristeva, the

child’s attempt to break away from maternal authority and to enter the paternal system of order

makes the mother abject. Creed offers examples of films, such as Psycho and Carrie, in which

the attachment of a possessive mother is positioned as the ultimate cause of the ensuing violence.

She also discusses the film The Exorcist as a narrative in which the male order, represented by

the figure of the priest, is pitted against feminine/satanic disorder as represented by a female

body which is violated both physically - as it is rotting - and “spiritually” - as it is possessed by a

demonic force.

Creed summons the image of the female victim in slasher films and the threat this image

presents to male viewers, saying, “Woman’s body is slashed and mutilated, not only to signify

her own castrated state, but also the possibility of castration for the male” (1996: 44). In this

way, she says that “the horror film brings about a confrontation with the abject in order… to

eject the abject and redraw the boundaries between human and nonhuman” (Creed, 1996. p. 46).

Creed concludes her discussion with an analysis of the film Alien which, she says,

presents a “complex representation of the monstrous-feminine in terms of the maternal figure as

perceived within a patriarchal ideology” (1996: 47) and illustrates the continuous conflict

between maternal authority and paternal law. This conflict is at the very center of Kristeva’s idea

of abjection, since it is that which exists outside the symbolic male order – the feminine body –

that is the most abject.

Linda Williams (1996) employs psychoanalysis of horror films to a different end,

focusing on the use of the “gaze” and viewer identification. In most genre films, Williams says,

there is no perspective with which female audiences can identify, allowing the male gaze – the

perspective of male characters and, by extension, male viewers – to dominate the narrative.

Through this “frustration” of the female gaze, male desire is able to persist unchallenged.

Williams goes so far as to say that “the woman’s gaze is punished… by narrative processes that

transform curiosity and desire into masochistic fantasy” (1996: 17), thus subverting any form of

feminine pro-activity to the dominating pleasures of male viewers.

In privileging the male gaze, the female audience vanishes entirely from consideration.

The data in my study, drawn almost entirely from female viewers, indicates that Williams’

understanding of the exclusive cinematic gaze is not viable. Specifically, Williams’ approach

precludes the possibility that female viewers might identify with male characters, a tendency

which appeared frequently in my findings.

Adam Knee (1996) expands the notion of the gaze and constructions of gender to

examine the films of Dario Argento, discussing Argento’s use and exaggeration of genre tropes

to overturn traditional gender ideologies. According to Knee, Argento’s films foreground notions

of gender in order to question them. Argento presents female victims in order to highlight the

victimization of women in the horror genre, and in the media in general. In addition, he includes

male victims, portrays as many female protagonists as male, and often includes villains which

confound static concepts of gender.

In the film Opera, Knee says, the female gaze becomes identified with the gaze of the

male killer as the captive woman is forced to watch a series of horrific murders carried out for

her benefit. Similarly, in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, the male protagonist becomes

obsessed with solving a murder which he witnesses, helplessly, from behind a glass door.

In both of these films and, Knee argues, in Argento’s films in general, what the characters

–and, subsequently, the audience – think they see is very often contrary to the narrative reality.

In this way, Argento is able to subvert the audiences certainty and assumptions. Knee says, “As

visual and auditory perceptions and memories are thrown into doubt, so are assumptions about

gender, about sexuality, and about sanity – assumptions about what constitutes a norm, what

constitutes the identities of those around us” (1996: 224). Thus, according to Knee, Argento uses

the conventions of a genre which is notorious for its violent misogyny to undermine hegemonic

constructions of gender, sexuality, and power dynamics.

Unlike Creed and Williams, Knee acknowledges the possibility of resistance within

media texts. That is, rather than viewing gender in terms of abjection or exclusion, Knee suggests

that the format and tropes of genre narratives themselves may be playfully subverted to reject

dominant interpretations. What is most interesting about Knee’s approach is the possibility of its

application in interpreting the work of filmmakers other than Argento and, indeed, genres other

than horror. In what ways might the broader conventions of film be used as a medium for

resistance?

Although the psychoanalytic approach is predominant in feminist readings of horror

films, it is not the only framework for analysis, and, according to Cynthia A. Freeland (2004),

this approach is often lacking in film analysis. Freeland outlines her objections to the use of

psychoanalysis in understanding horror cinema, pointing out, first and foremost, that

psychoanalysis is not generally well regarded within the discipline of psychology. She adds that

it is only useful as an aide to reading the texts themselves, and then only for certain texts, going

on to say that the abjection approach, as employed by Creed, is too broad to provide a truly

relevant context for analysis.

Freeland’s second objection is simply that psychoanalytic readers of films tend to rely on

the frameworks of Lacan and Kristeva to the exclusion, even, of other psychoanalytic

approaches, such as those of Irigaray and Cavell. Third, she claims that psychoanalysis is too

reductive, providing only a one-dimensional understanding of a single aspect or scene of a film,

neglecting even narrative context and often missing the point of the text as a whole. Fourth,

Freeland says, these readings rely upon assumptions about gender and gender differences which

are culturally based and potentially problematic, and that such assumptions tend to gloss over or

ignore other distinctions such as class, race, age, sexuality, and so on. The fifth objection

Freeland raises is that psychoanalytic approaches are disproportionately common within feminist

film theory, and she proposes that other strains of feminist theory, such as feminist frameworks

centering on new technologies or even radical Marxist feminism, may be more useful in this

regard. Finally, she says that psychoanalysis is not necessarily useful for understanding viewers,

even if it does presumably provide insight into the texts.

Having thus deconstructed the psychoanalytic approach, Freeland refers to other possible

tactics for feminist readings of horror. She suggests that a feminist reading should undertake to

reveal the gender ideologies of a given text. She points to Tania Modleski’s “The Terror of

Pleasure: The Contemporary Horror Film and Postmodern Theory” (1986), which views horror

as attacking the feminine via deconstruction of “feminine” cultural elements, as an example of a

critical approach that differs from Freeland’s. Freeland also refers to Noëll Carroll (1990), who

applies a different theoretical understanding, for the concept of “rhetorical strategies, such as the

elicitation of audience presumptions in completing gaps in the story” (2004: 753). Freeland

recommends the work of psychoanalytic theorist Luce Irigaray (1985) as a means of conducting

psychoanalytic feminist analysis while also deconstructing the traditional assumptions of the

psychoanalytic approach through critiques of Lacan and Kristeva.

Freeland then proposes her own alternative framework for reading horror films, saying,

“a promising feminist approach to cinematic horror should be historically aware and also broad

and open enough to work for all [the] varieties of horror” (2004: 751). In order to accomplish

this, she suggests that films should be examined in two ways: “extra-filmic” and “intra-filmic”.

The “extra-filmic” analysis centers on the context, reception, and production aspects of horror

films. Specifically, Freeland asks that the reader consider women’s experiences in the production

of horror, how audiences read and respond to horror texts, and the historical and cultural contexts

surrounding them. By contrast, the “intra-filmic” approach focuses on “films as artifacts”,

examining specific elements of the film, representations of women and monsters, and narrative

and cinematic structure in order to uncover gender ideologies.

Freeland’s discussion is primarily concerned with the “intra-filmic” approach, and she

provides specific questions to guide the reader in this analysis such as “How do the film’s

structures of narrative, point of view, and plot construction operate in effecting a depiction of

gender roles and relations?” and “What are the film’s implicit rhetorical presuppositions about

natural gender roles and relations?” (2004: 753). She encourages readers to consider both what is

shown and what is not shown, to avoid assumptions about gender and focus instead on the

ideology of a given text, to look at actual depictions of women and not search for deep,

psychoanalytic readings.

It is worth noting that these and other analyses of gender in the horror genre (Clover,

1992; Grant, 1984; Conlon, 1992) are concerned exclusively with cinematic horror and give no

consideration to genre television. A notable exception to this neglect is the series Buffy the

Vampire Slayer, which has received a great deal of attention from feminist media scholars

(Douglas, 2010; Driver, 2007; Early, 2004; Karras, 2002; Owen, 1999), though these studies do

not situate Buffy within the context of the horror genre. This repositioning is understandable

since Buffy, and indeed Supernatural, might arguably be classified as “urban fantasy”.

I believe

that the episodic nature of Supernatural, as well as its use of traditional horror tropes, will

provide a rich and diverse variety of content for analysis.

Though I will refer to elements of the psychoanalytic approach in my reading of

Supernatural, specifically Kristeva’s abjection and the question of the male gaze, I do, for the

most part, agree with Freeland’s criticisms and intend to rely most heavily on her proposed

alternative framework. I will, however, give equal attention to both the “extra-filmic” and “intra-

filmic” aspects of the series, as I will be examining the fans’ understandings of the program’s

gender ideology along with the construction of that ideology within the narrative. Freeland’s

framework includes extra-filmic analysis primarily as a means of understanding the text. My

Wikipedia classifies both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural as “fantasy” and “horror”. The Internet

Movie Database classifies Supernatural as “horror”, but not Buffy.

work, on the other hand, focuses on both intra- and extra-filmic considerations as a means of

understanding how the text and the audience interact in terms of gender.

Focusing strictly on gender within the text itself provides only a partial view of how

Supernatural’s representations of women function as concepts and does not address the

implications of those representations for a gendered audience. I propose that, in order to fully

understand the workings of gender in Supernatural, or in any other television program, we must

also consider the ways in which audiences respond to and engage with gender on television, not

only in terms of explicit opinions, but also in the reading tactics and communal practices of

devoted viewers. To that end, I have employed literature on the subject of viewer engagement in

both classic cinema and contemporary television.

Traditional audience studies see the audience as “vulnerable” or “easily influenced and

open to persuasion” (Adorno, 1991; Barker, 1997; Hoggart, 1957; Wertham, 1955; all cited in

Brooker & Jermyn, eds, 2003). Brooker and Jermyn suggest that studies which propagate the

“vulnerable audience” model are based in conventional wisdom, rather than empirical research.

This model reinforces and justifies institutional control over media, and, by claiming that

audiences have no agency, theorists actively restrict what agency might actually exist. In

“Culture Industry Reconsidered”, T.W. Adorno (1991) argues that audiences are not entities in

themselves, but rather “an object of calculation; an appendage of the machinery” (1991: 55)

which produces media culture. The “culture industry”, Adorno says, reinforces pre-existing

“mass” mentalities, leaving no room for the challenge of those mentalities either within the

system of production or by audiences. He asserts that “true culture” is inherently meaningful and

resistant, though what he means by “true” is unclear, and that the products of mass culture are

necessarily incapable of acquiring meaning or expressing resistance. In Adorno’s understanding,

the message of the culture industry is that of conformity in and of itself, and the concepts it

“hammers into human beings… remain unquestioned, unanlysed, and undialectically

presupposed” (1991: 59). Adorno’s model of audience consumption assumes that there is no

space in which viewers may resist or reinterpret the meanings of media text, and, moreover, that

viewers have no desire to actively engage cultural messages, even if they could.

Though it is important to consider traditional understandings of cultural consumption as a

foundation of contemporary audience studies, existing data on audience engagement (Hills,

2004; Jenkins, 1992; Jenkins, 1995; Radway, 2003; this study) undermines the vulnerable

audience model completely. Rather than blind, mindless consumption, viewers approach media

texts as objects of scrutiny, employing critical tactics in their reading and interpretation of those

texts. In order to understand how media messages function in a social context, we must first

reject entirely the construct of the unquestioning audience and replace it with a theoretical

standpoint which affords the viewer, at the very least, the possibility of active engagement with

the media text.

In her book, Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender, Sexuality, and Spectatorship in

Classic Horror Cinema (1996), Rhonda Berenstein deals issues of gendered audiences in horror

films of the 1930s. She addresses both the positioning of female characters in relation to male

heroes and monsters and the relationship of the spectator to the on-screen horrors. In the third

chapter, “Horror for Sale: The Marketing and Reception of Classic Horror Cinema”, Berenstein

discusses constructions of gender performance in promotional material.

She says that marketing for classic horror films encouraged horror spectatorship as an

arena in which viewers could play out – possibly exaggerated forms of – conventional gender

dynamics. Specifically, the advertising suggested that “horror movies provide women with a

socially sanctioned reason to grab on to their boyfriends” (1996: 60), showing that, even as

spectators, men are given the opportunity to play the “hero” in comforting their girlfriends, the

terrified victims. In this way, spectatorship was presented as an aspect of gender performance.

Berenstein also addresses the perspectives of film critics with regard to gendered

audiences of horror cinema. She found that, when the critics remarked upon gender at all, they

expressed one of three opinions. Some critics suggested that both men and women were equally

frightened by the film, though often with the caveat, consistent with much of the marketing, that

male viewers would feign bravado and disguise their fear. Other film reviews expressed

unmitigated surprise that women enjoyed horror films at all. Still others concluded that men and

women simply enjoyed different aspects of the films. Berenstein found the assumption that men

and women enjoyed different aspects was also reflected in marketing. The 1931 film Dracula,

for instance, was marketed as a romance in order to draw in a female audience. A 1933 study on

the film-viewing habits of children, however, found that girls preferred mysteries while boys

enjoyed war movies. Neither group, the study said, liked romance films (Charman, 1933).

Likewise, a 1930 article on female film attendance suggested that women attended and enjoyed

films whether they contained romance or not (Aaronson, 1930).

Regardless of evidence undermining that assumption that women were drawn to films

with romance, Berenstein says, the romantic slant of publicity aimed at women persisted. This

assumption and subsequent tendencies in promotion are also found in contemporary marketing

and media reviews. A recent New York Times review (Bellafante, 2011) of the HBO series Game

of Thrones, adapted from a series of fantasy novels by George R.R. Martin (1996), sparked a

backlash from female fantasy readers (Eleni, 2011; Forum post, 2011; Hill, 2011; Ratcliffe,

2011) when the Times critic suggested that Game of Thrones’ explicit sexual content was “tossed

in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive

would watch otherwise” (Bellafante, 2011). The Times review, written by a woman, ran just a

day after MSNBC Today ran another review of Game of Thrones titled “Geek girls power

viewership for sci-fi/fantasy TV” (Young, 2011). The aggressive response of fans and the

marked difference between the Times and Today reviews illustrate the continued disconnect

between conventional assumptions about female viewership and the actual practices of female

audiences, as well as discontinuity within structures of mainstream media news.

Berenstein also refers to the use of the female scream, not only as a trope in the films

themselves, but also as a promotional performance. She says, “the sound of a woman’s scream

promoted fear, guaranteed the genre’s effectiveness, and linked female gender behavior to an

overwrought performance” (1996: 73). Marketers also used the response of female audience

members to judge the effectiveness of the films, specifically in inciting fear. It is worth noting

that the marketing for Supernatural, though it is considered a “horror” series, does not attempt to

invoke elements of terror. Rather, the series is promoted on the CW through brief clips of

upcoming episodes, usually depicting moments of humor or emotional drama.

Janice Radway’s (2003) study of women reading romance novels deals more specifically

with women-as-audience, particularly with motivations for reading. Radway finds that, for the

women in her study, a significant source of the pleasure derived from reading romance novels is

the act of reading, not only - or necessarily - the texts themselves. The women she spoke to

characterized their own reading as an “escape”, a way in which to “diversify the pace and

character of their habitual existence” (2003: 222).

Radway – and the women – also remark upon the semi-clandestine nature of reading

romance fiction. The women refer to their reading as a “guilty pleasure”, an activity which their

husbands consider to be “hedonistic” or foolish. According to Radway, the men’s disapproval

stems from the feeling that reading takes their wives’ attentions away from their family and

themselves. However, the women are quick to suggest that the escape they seek is from

responsibilities, not family. Radway characterizes the act of reading romance as “a special gift a

woman gives herself” (2003: 223), an act which acquires significant personal meaning for the

readers despite the fact that their desire for pleasure in escape is not culturally validated.

Though my methods and approach differ radically from Radway’s, I found some of her

concepts useful in my analysis. Specifically, the act of reading as an element of visceral

engagement and the understanding of fan activities as clandestine play significant roles in my

discussion of fans’ reasons for watching Supernatural.

In his discussion of women writing Star Trek fan fiction, Henry Jenkins (1995) focuses

on the active engagement of female audiences with the media text. Fan fiction, a popular practice

among media fans, is defined as “a fictional account written by a fan of a show, movie, book, or

video game to explore themes and ideas that will not or cannot be explored via the originating

medium” (Dictionary.com). Jenkins discusses the ways in which fan writing allows fans, in this

case specifically female fans, to engage with and rewrite the source text. Fan fiction allows

writers to focus on character relationships and to draw attention to minor – often female –

characters. It also gives them an opportunity to “explore erotic aspects of texts which could not

be directly represented on television” (1995: 197). Finally, fan writing offers a space in which to

expand the series timeline and to allow the “universes” of various programs to interact.

Jenkins points out that most fan writers are women. This is of particular interest in the

case of Star Trek, he suggests, since the egalitarian ideology of the program gives lip service to

gender equality, but the narrative itself portrays traditional gender relations. In this way, “Star

Trek thus offered a potential or a ‘philosophy’ of gender equality which did not often translate

into on-screen images of female characters being treated equally” (1995: 198). In the original

pitch for the series, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry fought to cast a woman in the role of

first officer aboard the Enterprise, but the network producers denied this request. Instead, the

ship’s first officer, now rewritten as the alien Mr. Spock, was famously portrayed by Leonard

Nimoy, and the female members of the crew were cast in subordinate positions, as nurses or

glorified radio operators, wearing miniskirts and often defined by their sexuality. The only

female characters shown to be in positions of authority, Jenkins says, are aliens.

Star Trek, Jenkins says, “invited female fans to think of themselves as active contributors

to the utopian future, yet offered them little substantive representation within the program

episodes” (1995: 199). Fan writing, on the other hand, provides female fans with a space in

which to rework conceptions of gender identity, challenging in fictional form the politics of

subordination and gender roles.

Christine Scodari’s (2003) study of female fans of the science fiction programs Stargate:

SG-1 and Farscape deals directly with the responses of those fans to the show’s female

characters. For her analysis, Scodari relies upon fan fiction and fan comments and discussions in

publications and online. Scodari argues that these seemingly resistive fan practices can lead to

the reinforcement of other harmful practices and that fan solidarity can be disrupted by other

statuses such as race, age, and so on. The act of reappropriation, Scodari suggests, is not resistive

in and of itself, and the content of fan texts may not be resistive at all. She adds that, even in

cases where the content is non-hegemonic, this does not necessarily represent a resistive mindset.

Scodari found female fans to be generally antagonistic toward female characters. She

proposed that a reason for this may be that fans view female characters as competition for the

male protagonist’s affections, saying that “slash” fan fiction, stories which describe a romantic or

sexual relationship between two male characters, removes this competition. She also claims that

“Mary Sue” fan fiction, stories in which a – usually poorly written, overly perfect – female

character features as a fictional stand-in for the author, are written for the same reason.

The hegemonic motivations of producers seeking a male audience, Scodari says, are

reinforced by female fans’ activities which exclude female characters, so that even fans’

proposed resistive activities can reinforce hegemonic structures of sexuality. She says that

“[fans] want to like and the writers want to be like the show’s male heroes” (2003: 123. Italics

original). She suggests that female fans’ dislike of female characters is related to fans’

attachment to other male characters and says that fans who offer slash fiction as resistive are

reinforcing continued marginalization of female characters.

In asserting that “[fans] want to like and the writers want to be like the show’s male

heroes”, Scodari is making a number of assumptions that need to be addressed: that the writers

are uniformly heterosexual males, that female fans are uniformly heterosexual, that identification

with characters is privileged over attraction to characters, and that female fans cannot identify

with male characters. First, a brief glance at the writing credits for both Stargate: SG-1 and

Farscape eliminates the assumption that all of the series writers are male, and, though I cannot

speak to the sexuality of the writing staff, with 48 writers between them, it is statistically

unlikely that all of the writers are heterosexual. Second, though Scodari’s data suggests that the

series’ fans are predominantly heterosexual, white women, her statement that “[fans] want to

like… the show’s male heroes” not only assumes necessary attraction to male characters, it also

precludes entirely the possibility that female fans of any sexual orientation might be attracted to

female characters. Third, Scodari implicitly assumes that having a character perspective with

which to identify is inherently preferable to experiencing attraction to a character. This

assumption also underlies work concerned with the male gaze (Knee, 1996; Williams, 1996) and,

through its unquestioned persistence, serves to marginalize the experiential importance of female

sexuality in viewership. Perhaps there are times at which female viewers prefer to appreciate the

visceral appeal of characters, rather than seeking to position themselves subjectively within the

narrative. Finally, and most importantly, Scodari assumes that viewers can only identify with

characters whose gender expression matches their own, that female viewers can only identify

with female characters, male viewers with male characters, and so on. By contrast, female

respondents in my survey frequently said that they identified with or “related to” male characters

in Supernatural, undercutting assumptions about gender restrictions in the narrative gaze.

Though Scodari’s topic is directly relevant to my interests, my research approach differs

greatly from hers, as do my findings. While Scodari relies on fan magazines and forum posts, my

data comes from questionnaires addressing fans directly. Though antagonism toward female

characters is not entirely absent, it does not characterize the majority of female fans’ responses in

my study. On the contrary, a number of female respondents in my study expressed varying

degrees of displeasure with the narrative’s treatment of female characters and with extra-filmic

aspects of characterization, rather than with the characters themselves. Unlike those in Scodari’s

study, my respondents did not, at any point, frame female characters as sexual rivals. I would

suggest, moreover, the possibility of an overlap between the fans in Scodari’s study and mine,

since at least four of my respondents also said that they were fans of Stargate: SG-1.

If the theoretical structure of film and media studies suffers through its neglect of the

audience, then audience studies also suffers through its failure to address the content of media

texts. A thorough understanding of audience engagement requires that the audiences under

scrutiny not be removed from the context of the textual content with which they are interacting,

just as a thorough understanding of ideologies within media texts is not possible without

considering how those ideologies are received and interpreted by readers. Through an inter-

disciplinary theoretical approach which builds on Freeland’s analytical framework and

incorporates principals of audience studies via Radway and Jenkins, this study seeks to correct

the imbalance between intra- and extra-filmic analysis and thus to construct a more complex,

contextualized model of how media texts and media audiences interact.

III. METHODS

In order to create a thorough, complex understanding of how gender functions in media

texts, it is necessary to examine not only the text itself, but also the readings of that text by

gendered audiences. This requires that research be conducted with two questions operating under

an overarching query. Given that my larger question pertains to the workings of gender in

Supernatural, I must first ask how Supernatural, as a narrative, constructs gender and, second,

how audiences receive and interpret gender within Supernatural. Freeland’s framework for

reading horror films provides a theoretical foundation from which to approach these very

questions. By focusing on both the “intra-filmic” elements – those found within the text itself –

and the “extra-filmic” elements – those relating to the text’s production, context, and reception –

I attempted to assess the function and meaning of gender in Supernatural. Through content

analysis, I addressed the gendered intra-filmic elements in the text, and I approached the extra-

filmic aspects through a survey of Supernatural fans.

A. Case Selection

Supernatural premiered on the WB Television Network in September of 2005. It

followed the popular mother-daughter comedy Gilmore Girls, which had previously featured

Supernatural star Jared Padalecki. Other popular programming on the network at the time

included teen drama One Tree Hill, long-running family drama 7

Heaven, Superman tie-in

Smallville, and sitcom Reba, starring country music singer Reba McEntire. The WB had first

gained commercial success in 1997 when it launched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which it carried

for five seasons. It is important to make note of the CW’s broadcast history and similar

programming on other networks in order to situate Supernatural in the context of its home

network and of contemporary genre television.

Created and run by Eric Kripke, Supernatural centers on the adventures of the

Winchester brothers, played by Padalecki and Smallville alum Jensen Ackles, as they travel

around the United States fighting all manner of magical, mythical, and paranormal monsters.

Sam and Dean Winchester, Padalecki and Ackles, respectively, were raised by their ex-marine

father, John, to be monster “hunters”. John himself pursued the life of a hunter seeking revenge

for the death of his wife, Mary, who was killed by a demon named Azazel. In the first season of

the series, the brothers are looking for their father, who has gone missing, and also discover clues

to suggest that the demon who killed their mother has plans for Sam. Though Azazel himself is

not seen in this season, the brothers encounter his “daughter”, Meg Masters, a demon who

attempts to manipulate and trap them. They exorcise the demon, with the help of another hunter

named Bobby Singer, and the real Meg, the young woman being possessed, dies, having been

brutally beaten. The brothers are reunited with their father at the end of the first season.

However, at the beginning of the second season, John sacrifices himself to Azazel in exchange

for Dean’s life.

In 2006, the WB merged with United Paramount Network (UPN) to form the CW

Television Network. The CW retained Supernatural as part of its prime time line-up, moving the

John and Mary Winchester are played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Samantha Smith. Meg Masters is played by

Nicki Aycox. Bobby Singer is played by Jim Beaver.

series from Tuesday to Thursday nights where it competed with CBS’s CSI, ABC’s Grey’s

Anatomy, and Fox’s The O.C. (Owen, 2007). That same year, NBC launched the science fiction

drama Heroes on Monday nights. Through the first season, Supernatural saw a significant

increase in male viewer demographics (WB Press Release, 2005), though the audience continued

to consist primarily of women.

Season two follows Sam and Dean as they attempt to uncover Azazel’s true plans and

eventually stop him. Season two also introduces a number of recurring characters, including

Ellen and Jo Harvelle, a mother and daughter who run a roadhouse for hunters. Also introduced

in this season are Gordon Walker, a hunter who comes to believe that Sam is a monster, and FBI

Agent Victor Henriksen, who intends to bring the brothers to justice. It is worth noting that both

of these characters are Black men and are, up to this point, the only recurring characters of color

in the series. They are also both killed in the third season.

A subplot introduced in season one and developed in season two deals with “psychic

kids”, young men and women who, the brothers learn, have been given special powers by Azazel

in preparation for a coming war between demons and humans. Sam, himself one of the chosen,

has visions of the future, and, through the season, he and Dean meet Ava Wilson, who also has

visions, and Andrew Gallagher, who can control people’s minds. These two characters reappear

at the end of season two, along with Sam and other “psychic kids”, to compete in a battle royale

set up by Azazel. All are killed except Sam and a young Black soldier named Jake Talley, who

fatally stabs Sam just as Dean and Bobby arrive. Dean offers his soul to a demon in exchange for

Sam’s life. The demon makes the deal and tells Dean he has one year to live. The brothers, with

Ellen and Jo Harvelle are played by Samantha Ferris and Alona Tal. Gordon Walker is played by Sterling K. Brown,

and Victor Henriksen is played by Charles Malik Whitfield.

Bobby and Ellen, kill both Jake and Azazel and succeed in closing a gate to hell opened by the

antagonists.

Despite a ratings drop in the second season, Supernatural was renewed for a third season

(Downey, 2007) and returned in 2007. That year also saw the premier of CBS’s short-lived

paranormal romance Moonlight and the Sci Fi Channel’s The Dresden Files, based on the series

of urban fantasy books by Jim Butcher. Science fiction series Terminator: The Sarah Connor

Chronicles also appeared mid-season on Fox.

In season three, the brothers attempt to save Dean from hell by finding and destroying

Lilith, the demon who holds the contract for Dean’s soul. In addition to Lilith, this season

introduces three significant female characters. In the first episode of the season, “The

Magnificent Seven”, the brothers meet Ruby, a demon who professes to be on their side and

claims that she can help them save Dean’s soul. In the second episode, “The Kids are Alright”,

the audience is introduced to Lisa Braedon, a woman with whom Dean once had a brief affair.

This episode features a subplot in which Dean believes that Lisa’s young son Ben may be his

own, though Lisa ultimately denies this. Later in the season, Lisa appears to Dean in a drug-

induced dream state as a representation of the quiet family life which he secretly desires. She is

not seen again until the fifth season. Also introduced in season three is a professional thief and

black market occult dealer named Bela Talbot. Though her professional interests are typically at

odds with the brothers’ efforts, Bela periodically works alongside Sam and Dean as an ally and

source of information and is framed as a possible – but never realized – love interest for Dean. In

addition to the introduction of Ruby, Lisa, and Bela, the third season also brings back a male

Azazel is played by Frederi Lehne. Ava Wilson, Andrew Gallaher, and Jake Talley are played by Katharine Isabelle,

Gabriel Tigerman, and Aldis Hodge.

character called the Trickster, a god of mischief previously seen in the season two episode “Tall

Tales”. Through a complicated a highly symbolic trap, the Trickster shows Sam the

consequences of his attempts to save Dean, urging him to give up and accept Dean’s impending

death, which Sam refuses to do. At the end of the season, the brothers, Bobby, and Ruby

confront Lilith and her demon entourage, but their attack fails. Dean is killed, and the season

ends with an image of his soul in hell.

Because of the dramatic cliffhanger at the end of the third season, Supernatural fans have

come to refer to the gap between seasons and the mid-season break as “Hellatus”, a reference to

the standard “hiatus” taken by television shows and to Dean’s time in hell. Due to the Writers

Guild of America strike in 2007 and 2008, season three was shortened to 16 episodes, rather than

the standard 22. In spite of the shortened season, mixed reception by fans and critics, and

consistently low ratings, Supernatural was once again renewed for a fourth season. Kripke’s

original series plan was for three seasons, and when Supernatural returned in the fall of 2008 it

was with a decidedly different approach.

Though the first three seasons were driven by over-arching plots, they were primarily

built on a “monster of the week” format, where most episodes exist as individual stories in which

the protagonists face a new problem, unrelated to the larger season plot. Season four, however,

expanded the show’s mythology and introduced a more complex meta-plot in which the brothers

are inexorably caught in conflict between demons and angels and must stop an impending

apocalypse. This season introduced a host of recurring characters, including the angel Castiel,

In this season, Ruby is played by Katie Cassidy. Lisa and Ben Braedon are played by Cindy Sampson and Nicholas

Elia. Bela Talbot is played by Lauren Cohan. The Trickster, later revealed to be the angel Gabriel is played by

Richard Speight, jr.

played by Misha Collins, who is responsible for resurrecting Dean. Other angels are Castiel’s

middle-management superior, Zachariah, and the hard-nosed Uriel, played by a Black actor, who

betrays the angels in the service of hell and is killed. The only new female character in season

four is Anna Milton, a rebellious angel who, betrayed by Castiel, and is arrested and imprisoned

by the other angels. In addition to angels, the fourth season introduced another, more unusual

element to the Supernatural mythology.

In episode 18, “The Monster at the End of this Book”, Sam and Dean discover a series of

pulp urban fantasy novels, written under the name “Carver Edlund”

, that chronicle their

adventures in exact detail, beginning with their father’s disappearance and ending with Dean in

hell. Confused and disturbed, the brothers investigate and learn that the series, titled

Supernatural, has a devoted cult following and that many of its readers, mostly women, also

write fan fiction. They track down the books’ author, whose real name is Chuck Shurley, and

demand answers. Castiel appears and informs them that Chuck is, in fact, a prophet and that the

Supernatural novels will one day be known as the Winchester Gospel. Chuck continues to play a

minor role throughout seasons four and five, but it is the breach of the television series’ “fourth

wall”, the symbolic division between the performance and the audience, that is most notable and

which becomes an oft revisited theme.

During the fourth season, Sam is involved in a romantic relationship with the demon

Ruby, now played by a different actor, from whom he learns that drinking the blood of demons

will give him supernatural powers. Eventually, it is revealed that Ruby is in league with Lilith,

Zachariah and Uriel are played by Kurt Fuller and Robert Wisdom. Anna Milton is played by Julie McNiven.

The name “Carver Edlund” combines the names of series writers and producers Jeremy Carver and Ben Edlund.

Chuck Shurley is played by Robert Benedict.

who uses Sam to help release Lucifer from hell, and that the angels, as well as the demons, want

the apocalypse to happen. Zachariah imprisons Dean, but Castiel, disobeying his orders, helps

Dean escape. However, Dean is too late to stop Sam from killing Lilith and unlocking Lucifer’s

cage.

As Supernatural entered its fifth season in 2009, five other major genre series entered the

prime time line-up. The SyFy channel launched both fantasy drama Warehouse 13 and Stargate:

Universe, the third series in the Stargate franchise. Much-hyped science fiction series

FlashForward, based on a novel by Robert J. Sawyer, aired for a single season on ABC, and

Buffy creator Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse premiered on Fox. Meanwhile, Supernatural’s home

network, the CW, launched the paranormal drama The Vampire Diaries, based on a series of

books by L. J. Smith.

Season five of Supernatural continued the apocalypse storyline from season four and

added Misha Collins as a series regular. Sam and Dean discover that they are destined to become

human vessels for the angels Lucifer and Michael and thereby facilitate the final battle between

hell and heaven. Much of this season focuses on their efforts to circumvent this destiny and to

also prevent the apocalypse. Castiel, killed at the end of the fourth season, returns claiming that

he was restored by God and spends season five alternately helping the brothers and searching for

his Father, who is missing.

Both Lucifer and Michael appear as characters, and this season sees the return of Anna

Milton, who tries to kill the brothers and is destroyed by Michael, and of the Winchesters’ long-

lost half-brother, Adam Milligan. Also returning is the Trickster, revealed to be the angel

In this season, Ruby is played by Genevieve Cortese. Lilith is played by Katherine Boecher.

Gabriel, who at first tells Sam and Dean to accept their destinies but later sacrifices himself

helping them fight against Lucifer. The prophet Chuck also appears in multiple episodes and

with him is a new female character, Supernatural super-fan Becky Rosen, who fills her screen

time with mooning over Sam. Ellen and Jo Harvelle, unseen since season two, return to help

avert the apocalypse, only to be killed mid-season.

Ultimately, in an ill-conceived plan to send the devil back to hell, Sam allows himself to

be possessed by Lucifer. After an abbreviated show-down with Michael, who is possessing half-

brother Adam, Sam is able to regain control of his body and trap himself, Lucifer, Michael, and

Adam in hell. During the fight, both Castiel and Bobby are killed but are immediately

resurrected. With the apocalypse averted and Sam gone, Dean returns to Lisa and Ben Braedon

to pursue a civilian family life.

With the end of season five and the resolution of the primary story arc, series creator Eric

Kripke stepped down as show runner and ceded the position to series writer Sera Gamble. For

season six, the CW moved Supernatural to Friday nights, and, according to network president

Dawn Ostroff, the series is “doing better” and likely to be picked up for a seventh season

(Arrow, 2011). As of writing this, season six is ongoing, and casual viewing suggests that,

despite the beginning of a new meta-plot, Supernatural remains mostly unchanged under

Gamble’s leadership.

B. Intra-Filmic Methods

Adam Milligan is played by Jake Abel. Becky Rosen is played by Emily Perkins.

Though Supernatural is currently in its sixth season, my primary data comes from the

first two seasons, only. I have chosen to draw my data from the first two seasons for three

reasons. First, the data yielded is sufficient to provide significant and interesting conclusions and

to represent patterns which, I believe, would hold across the existing five seasons. Second, while

the first season aired on the WB Television Network, WB then merged with UPN to become the

CW Television Network, and subsequent seasons of Supernatural aired under CW management.

By collecting data from both before and after this transition, I have hopefully increased the

representativeness of my results. Finally, the over-arching plot for the first two seasons is

resolved at the end of season two. Though a closed narrative arch is not essential, it adds a

certain symmetry to the research and allows me to consider the data from these two seasons as

isolated from the whole.

In order to conduct a thorough reading of the program, I created a coding sheet to record

and describe the appearances and roles of female characters in individual episodes of

Supernatural. Using the coding sheet, I made note of the following: what female characters

appear in each episode, the character’s approximate age, relationship status, role as victim or

antagonist, whether the character is framed as a sexual object for other characters, and whether

the character dies over the course of the episode. Due to time restraints, the coding for part of

season one was done by another researcher who had knowledge of my research parameters and

had been given detailed instructions. The information gathered through the coding sheets is used

both to characterize representations of women across the narrative and to develop a foundation

for my description of the program’s gender ideology. See Appendix A.1 for coding instructions

and an example of coding for an episode.

In addition to the episode coding sheets, each episode of the first two seasons received

individual consideration. I viewed and took detailed notes on each episode with regard to female

characters and gendered interactions. I noted, in particular, the deaths which occurred over the

course of each episode, comparing the deaths of female victims to those of male victims. Though

some details may overlap, the coding chart and detailed notes provide different perspectives on

the presentation of characters and the functions of gender in the program. These notes are used to

expand and specify my account of the show’s approach to women.

C. Extra-Filmic Methods

To collect information on the engagement of female audiences with the text, I submitted

surveys, via the internet, to fans of the series. The survey was first made distributed on June 8,

2010, and the last response was received on August 25, 2010. I did not identify a specific cut-off

date for survey responses, but all responses were received before the beginning of Supernatural’s

sixth season. No responses were submitted after August 25. The survey consists of fourteen

questions related to demographics and engagement with the series. The first three questions ask

respondents to identify their age, gender, and location, in order to identify patterns in the

responses. Subsequent questions deal with the respondents’ engagement with the text. The fourth

question asks how the respondent was introduced to Supernatural. The fifth asks how she or he

physically watches the show, and the sixth asks about frequency of interactions with other fans.

The next four questions deal with the actual content of the text, asking the respondent to list and

explain no more than four favorite characters and four characters she or he dislikes, as well as no

more than three favorite and disliked episodes. Both to help characterize the respondent’s

engagement as a fan and to elicit further discussion, I asked whether she or he read fan fiction

and, if so, what kind. The next question asks directly why the respondent continues to watch

Supernatural and to identify the aspects of the program that she or he finds most engaging.

Intending to eventually submit a more in-depth follow-up survey, I asked respondents whether

they would be willing to respond to such a survey, but logistical restraints prohibited a second

round of surveys. The final question asks if there is anything the respondent would like to add

that was not addressed in the previous questions. See Appendix A.2 for a copy of the survey as it

was distributed to respondents.

Respondents’ participation was entirely voluntary. I did not directly solicit individual

participants, and I did not offer incentives for the completion of the questionnaire. Rather, I used

social networking and fan sites to disseminate the survey and find volunteers. I contacted the

moderators of Supernatural-focused blogging communities on the websites LiveJournal.com and

Dreamwidth.com. Both of these websites allow users with individual blog accounts to join

“communities”, in which members post public journal entries dealing with specific topics. I

selected the communities, first, by searching LiveJournal and Dreamwidth for communities

which listed “supernatural” as an interest. Communities unrelated to the show Supernatural were

eliminated from my search. I then eliminated unpopular or unused communities by looking at the

number of users subscribed to the community and at the frequency of recent posts. At least one

community that might otherwise have been eliminated due to a small number of members was

included because it was maintained specifically by and for fans in a non-English speaking

country, and I wished to include a wide variety of respondents. I contacted the users responsible

for maintaining 20 different communities on LiveJournal and Dreamwidth, asking them to please

make a post in their communities directing users to the survey available in multiple formats on

my personal journal. I received positive replies from only a handful of the maintainers, two of

whom invited me to post in their communities myself, and negative replies from two others.

In addition to the blogging communities, I used other avenues to find respondents. I

asked for volunteers on the Supernatural fan page on Facebook.com. I also posted a request for

volunteers in the forum section of TheRandomAct.org, a charity organization founded by

Supernatural actor Misha Collins and maintained by fans of the show. Finally, I made a personal

request to Sam Starbuck, known by the username copperbadge on both LiveJournal and

DreamWidth, a well-known fan of Supernatural and other programs, asking him to direct his

readers to the survey.

Respondents submitted their completed surveys to an email address established

specifically for this study, though some respondents replied via comments on LiveJournal. Once

I received the responses, I saved them to my personal computer, assigned each respondent a

number, and removed all identifying information. For those who responded on LiveJournal, I

filtered the comments to so that they would only be visible to me.

I entered data from the surveys into a coded database with categories for each topic

addressed by the survey questions. This database was used to calculate statistical characteristics

of my sample and of their responses. Specifically, I examined data on the respondents’ location,

gender, and age, and on the respondents’ introduction to the series, methods of viewing, favorite

and disliked characters, and participation in the fan community. Moving beyond the numerical

data, I approached the content of the responses as textual analysis, drawing out themes and

observations among the comments.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to identify a distinction between “fans”, who

are the focus of my research, and “viewers”. To this end, I propose two general definitions of

“fans”. First, fans are those viewers whose media consumption extends beyond viewing a

program into other activities, such as interaction with other viewers, creating art or texts which

draw on specific media, or actively pursuing extra information on that media. Second, I propose

that fans are those viewers who identify themselves as fans. This act of self-identification

expresses a sense of attachment to a specific symbolic community and participation in particular

methods of media consumption.

IV. FINDINGS

In this chapter, I discuss specific findings which provide a foundation for my analysis of

Supernatural and the survey responses. First, I describe trends in female characters appearing in

the first two seasons of Supernatural and trends in the deaths of both male and female characters

in the first two seasons. Second, I present findings from fan surveys, beginning with statistical

characteristics of my sample, followed by a description of fans’ responses to female and male

characters in Supernatural. These findings will help support and contextualize my analysis of the

text and the surveys.

A. Women in Supernatural

a. Female Characters in Seasons One and Two

The 22 episodes of Supernatural’s first season introduce 83 female characters. Of these,

only three appear in multiple episodes, and only three others are women of color. Approximately

48% of the female characters appear to be in their 20s or late teens. 22% are in their 30s, 17% are

above the age of 40, and 12% are below the age of 16. Of the total, 34% are shown to be married

or otherwise romantically attached and 30% are framed as sexual objects for one or more of the

male characters. 36 female characters, 43%, are framed as victims, where they are threatened or

placed in physical danger. Only six women, one of whom is a recurring character, are presented

as antagonists and represent a threat to the principle characters, and three female characters are

framed, alternately, as both victims and antagonists. 18% of the female characters are dead

before the end of their respective episodes.

B.1: Female Characters in Season One.

Age Total Sexual Object Married/Attached

Victim/Antagonist Dead

-16 10 0 0 4(V) – 1(A) 1

16-22 10 3 3 6(V) 4

20-30 29 20 13 15(V) – 3(A) – 3(V/A) 7

30-40 18 1 7 7(V) – 1(A) 3

40-50 9 0 5 2(V) – 1(A) 1

50+ 5 0 0 1(V) 1

Total 81 24 28 35(V) – 6(A) – 3(V/A) 17

Season two sees a significant drop in the number of female characters, from 83 to 56,

with two appearing in multiple episodes and six being women of color. A greater number, 60%,

are in their late teens or 20s, while approximately 16% appear to be in their 30s, 14% above the

age of 40, and 9% below 16. 24% are in some kind of romantic relationship, one of whom, a

young woman in the season’s penultimate episode who is quickly killed off, indicates that she

was previously in a relationship with another woman. Other percentages hold relatively constant,

with 34% of the female characters framed as sexual objects and 41% as victims. There is a small

increase in the number of women portrayed as antagonists, 19%, and of women as both victim

and antagonist, 7%. 27% are killed over the course of their episodes, with a recurring character

dying near the end of the season.

B.2: Female Characters in Season Two.

Age Total Sexual Object Married/Attached

Victim/Antagonist Dead

-16 5 0 0 1(V) – 2(A) 1

16-22 2 0 0 1(V) 1

20-30 33 17 8 11(V) – 7(A) – 4(V/A) 9

30-40 9 3 4 6(V) 3

40-50 6 0 2 4(V) – 1(A) 3

50+ 2 0 0 1(V) 1

Total 57 20 14 24(V) – 10(A) – 4(V/A) 18

Of the three recurring characters in the first season, two die in the pilot episode and are

seen throughout the series only as apparitions or in flash back. The third recurring character, a

major antagonist, is violently neutralized in the season finale and does not reappear until the fifth

season. The second season introduces three significant recurring female characters, two of whom

are mother and daughter. Though both survive the season, they are not seen again until season

five, in which they are abruptly killed.

b. Character Death in Seasons One and Two

During the first season, there are 44 separate death scenes, 39% of which depict the

murder of women, and 61% depict the murder of men. Of these, only one male victim is shown

in a state of undress, where all others are fully clothed. By contrast, eight of the 17 female

victims are shown in night clothes, underwear, or no clothes at all. Also, in the deaths of female

characters, the majority occurred onscreen and in the character’s home, whereas the majority of

male characters’ deaths were not explicitly shown onscreen and occurred in a public space.

Female victims were also more likely to be alone when they were killed, where male victims

were more likely to die in the vicinity of other characters.

Of these murders, 57% were perpetrated by male antagonists, while 20% of the killers

were female, and 23% had no specified gender. Male and female victims were both most likely

to be killed by a male antagonist.

B.3: Character Death in Season One.

Gende

Tota

Dressed/Undresse

On/Off

Screen

Home/Publi

Witnessed Shot of

Body

Gender

of Killer

Femal

17 9(D) – 8(U) 11(On) –

6(Off)

12(H) –

5(P)

8 6 3(F) –

10(M) –

4(O)

Male 27 26(D) – 1(U) 9(On) –

18(Off)

11(H) –

16(P)

18 9 6(F) –

15(M) –

6(O)

Total 44 35(D) – 9(U) 20(On) – 23(H) – 26 15 9(F) –

24(Off) 21(P) 25(M) –

10(O)

In the second season, the number of deaths rises to 58, but the number of female victims

drops to 28%. While only two of the male victims were shown in states of undress, so, too were

three of the female victims, a marked difference from season one. Also in contrast to season one,

the deaths of women in season two were equally likely to be shown on-screen as they were off-

screen, and 59% of male characters were killed on-screen. Likewise, half the murders of female

victims were witnessed by another character, though men remained less likely to be killed alone,

with 78% of male character deaths being witnessed. Patterns of location, however, held more or

less true, where 88% of men’s deaths occurred in a public place, as opposed to 69% of women’s

deaths, though women became more likely to die in a public place, rather than their homes.

Though male and female characters alike remained more likely to be killed by male

antagonists, men were twice as likely as women to be killed by a female antagonist. In addition,

38% of the total deaths in season two were either accidental or committed by antagonists whose

gender is unknown or non-existent, as opposed to 23% in season one and compared to 40% of

those committed by men in season two.

B.4: Character Death in Season Two.

Gende Tota Dressed/Undresse On/Off Home/Publi Witnessed Shot of Gender

r l d Screen c Body of

Killer

Femal

16 13(D) – 3(U) 8(On) –

8(Off)

5(H) –

11(P)

8 5 2(F) –

7(M) –

7(O)

Male 41 39(D) – 2(U) 24(On) –

17(Off)

5(H) –

36(P)

32 12 10(F) –

16(M) –

15(O)

Total 57 52(D) – 5(U) 32(On) –

25(Off)

10(H) –

72(P)

40 17 12(F) –

23(M) –

22(O)

B. Survey Findings

a. Characteristics of the Sample

Of the 94 respondents, 93% identified as female and only 7% identified as male. Though

I anticipated that my sample would be largely female, this divide is more extreme than I would

have predicted. The distribution of ages, however, met expectations. The largest number of

respondents, 34%, were between the ages of 18 and 22, what I would characterize as roughly

college-age. The second largest group, at 30%, were between 23 and 30, followed by ages 31 to

40, at 17%. 14% of respondents were bellow the age of 18, and only 5% were over 41, with the

highest age being 56 years-old. 51% of my respondents were located in the United States. 18%

were from Portugal, 7% were from the United Kingdom, 6% from Canada, 5% from Australia

and New Zealand, 2% from Brazil, and 1% each from Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Malaysia,

and Switzerland. A number of fans from non-English speaking countries reported that English

was not their first language, and they, as well as others from outside the United States, expressed

frustration that their local television networks were at least a season behind the episodes airing in

the US and that they often had to watch current episodes online. See Appendix C.1 for

respondent statistics by location.

C.1: Survey Statistics

Age Female Male Total

-18 10 3 23

18-22 30 2 32

23-30 28 0 28

31-40 13 2 15

41-50 6 0 6

51+ 2 0 2

Total 89 5 94

a) United States

Age Female Male Total

-18 3 0 3

18-22 14 2 16

23-30 14 0 14

31-40 10 2 12

41-50 2 0 2

51+ 1 0 1

Total 44 4 48

b) Portugal

Age Female Male Total

-18 5 3 8

18-22 6 0 6

23-30 2 0 2

31-40 1 0 1

41-50 0 0 0

51+ 0 0 0

Total 14 3 17

c) Europe (Not Portugal)

Age Female Male Total

-18 2 0 2

18-22 5 0 5

23-30 5 0 5

31-40 0 0 0

41-50 1 0 1

51+ 1 0 1

Total 14 0 14

d) Other Location

Age Female Male Total

-18 0 0 0

18-22 5 0 5

23-30 7 0 7

31-40 2 0 2

41-50 0 0 0

51+ 0 0 0

Total 14 0 14

The most interesting patterns began to emerge when I looked at questions about the

respondents’ favorite characters and characters they disliked. I asked each respondent to name no

more than four characters in Supernatural that they considered favorites and to give a brief

explanation of their choices. Some respondents named fewer or more than four, but I did not

count any that exceeded four. 82% of my total 94 respondents listed Dean Winchester, the older

brother, as a favorite character. The younger Winchester, Sam, came in third, with 54% of

respondents naming him a favorite. The other three of the top five characters were also male.

In the survey, I posed an identical question asking respondents about characters they

disliked. This time, of the top five characters, only one was male, and there was less consensus

among respondents than in the “favorite characters” category. The most disliked character, Ruby,

one of Supernatural’s recurring female villains, was named by only 40% of respondents.

b. Female Characters

Based on the survey data, the most popular female character, and sixth most popular

character overall, was Ellen Harvelle, played by Samantha Ferris. Ellen, introduced in the second

episode of season two, is the widow of a hunter and the proprietor of a roadhouse that caters to

hunters, specifically. In season five, Ellen sacrifices herself in an explosion to allow the

Winchesters to escape.

The fans who cited Ellen as a favorite character referred to her strength as a woman and

as a maternal figure, calling her “tough” and “kick ass”, as well as “warm” and “caring”. One fan

added, “I wish they’d bring her back”, a possibility exploited for many of the male characters

killed and resurrected over the course of the series. The one respondent who cited Ellen as a least

favorite character described her as “pushy” and expressed the opinion that “some writer wanted a

female reoccurring [sic] presence and just threw [her] in without really thinking about it”.

Overwhelmingly, the character fans most disliked was Ruby, a demon played in season

three by Katie Cassidy and in season four by Genevieve Cortese. Introduced as an unsteady ally,

Ruby becomes an ongoing love interest for Sam and ultimately manipulates him into releasing

Lucifer from Hell, after which she is stabbed and killed by Dean.

The respondents who liked Ruby referred to her complexity as a character and moral

ambiguity. Though many said they did not appreciate the way in which she was killed, and all

made a distinction between the character as played by Cassidy and the one played by Cortese.

Among fans who disliked Ruby, the most common complaint was her betrayal of Sam, as well as

inconsistencies between the two actors’ performances. Others said they did not like the character

simply because she was evil, while others pointed specifically to poor acting as the source of

their dislike.

The second least popular character was Anna Milton, played by Julie McNiven. It is

worth noting that Anna’s character arc is sporadically developed and complicated. She is

introduced in a two-episode arc in season four in which Anna, pursued by both demons and

angels, is revealed to have once been an angel herself. During this arc, she has sex with Dean.

After her angelic power is restored, Anna is betrayed by Castiel and imprisoned by the forces of

heaven. She does not reappear until late in the fifth season, at which point she attempts to

preemptively murder the Winchester brothers. This attempt fails, and she is burned alive by

another angel. If, at this point, readers unfamiliar with the series are confused, you should know

that fans were confused, too.

Of the 94 respondents, only one cited Anna as a favorite character, while 17% said they

disliked her. Like Ruby, a number of fans mentioned poor acting as the reason for their dislike

and several referred to inconsistent story lines and characterization. One fan observed, “I don't

really think the writers knew what they were doing with her and her story seemed to go nowhere

with earlier comments she made not matching up with later actions”. Others cited her eventual

animosity toward the brothers, with one respondent saying simply that she didn’t like Anna

because she “tried to kill them”. Many fans also remarked on the character’s death, a

commentary absent in discussion of other female characters, saying that they felt apathetic or

even elated. One fan went so far as to say, “when she burned at the end of that episode, my

euphoria was only slightly dampened by the realization that Sam was lying on the ground, dead,

not ten feet away from where she was being destroyed”. Another referred to her as “a whiney,

selfish, heartless bitch” and others said she was “annoying”.

Jo Harvelle, ranked fourth on the list of most disliked characters, is the daughter of Ellen

and is played by Israeli actor Alona Tal. Against her mother’s wishes, Jo pursues a life of

hunting, including helping the Winchesters with a case. She is ultimately mauled and killed by

hell hounds in the same season five episode in which Ellen also dies.

Like Ellen, the respondents who liked Jo described her as “strong” and “kick ass”, saying

that she worked well in conjunction with the brothers and was “totally a very good equal to

them”. While some remarked that they did not like the subplot in which Jo was romantically

attracted to Dean, one fan observed, “She could take care of herself, and she could do that and

still have an unrequited crush, which you hardly ever see on television in female characters”. The

respondents who cited Jo as a disliked character often said that she “tried too hard” to be a hunter

or to “be one of the boys”, with one fan even referring to her as “hunter!Barbie”. Others

suggested that she was “annoying” and childish.

Under suggestion from the network (Ausiello, 2007), Eric Kripke introduced Bela Talbot,

played by Lauren Cohan, as a recurring character in season three. Bela, an occult thief,

alternately helps and hinders the Winchesters’ efforts, and is killed at the end of the season, due

in part, according to Kripke, to negative response from fans (Williams, 2008).

The few fans who did list Bela as a favorite character liked that she was “sassy” and

“smart ass”, but did not provide much detail in their responses, though one did say, “I was really

growing to like her sassy ways before they killed her off”. The explanations of respondents who

disliked Bela were even less expansive. One fan simply said Bela “rub[s] me the wrong way”

and described the character as “pointless”. The others did not give a reason for their dislike.

C.2: Female Characters

Character Liked Disliked

Anna Milton 1 16

Ava Wilson 0 2

Becky Rosen 1 4

Bela Talbot 3 10

Cassie Robinson 0 4

Ellen Harvelle 10 1

Jo Harvelle 4 10

Leah Gideon 0 1

Lilith 0 2

Lisa Braeden 0 6

Madison 0 1

Mary Winchester 1 0

Meg Masters 0 8

Missouri Moseley 1 1

Pamela Barnes 1 0

Ruby 5 38

Though it is tempting to view this aggression toward female characters through a

psychoanalytic lens, specifically the Kristevan notion of the female body as abject (Creed, 1996),

I do not believe that the fans’ comments support this interpretation. Furthermore, I would point

to three specific patterns in these comments which, I believe, serve to undermine a

psychoanalytic interpretation.

First, the comments evidence a certain hesitation in discussing characters they disliked. In

general, fans responded to the question about favorite characters with detail and enthusiasm, but

this was not necessarily the case when asked about characters they disliked. 26% of the 94

respondents said that there were no characters they disliked or that they couldn’t think of any. Of

those who did name disliked characters, many did not give a reason or said they didn’t know

why. This would appear to be in direct opposition to the enthralling attraction Kristeva claims is

intrinsic to the abject.

Second, another trend in describing disliked characters was for respondents to cite

reasons external to the narrative, a tendency which was also present in comments on favorite

characters. Many fans pointed to failure or inconsistency on the part of the show’s writers for

creating poor characters with comments like “Their characters were introduced sloppily and

handled poorly” or “[The writers] brought them in without any real idea of the context or where

this would take the story”. Also common was a tendency to refer to poor acting as a source of

dislike, and a number of fans explained that they would have liked certain characters, Anna in

particular, had the part been cast differently. Though some made a point to say that they held

nothing against the actors and simply did not like the characters. If these characters existed for

the viewers as representatives of an intra-narrative symbolic order, as Kristeva would suggest,

then why would the respondents go to such lengths to de-mystify and contextualize them?

Finally, a reading of fans’ distaste as a response to abjection is undermined by the simple

fact that not all of the disliked characters discussed in the surveys were women. In fact, the

second most disliked character was male. Furthermore, respondents often used similar language

or gave similar reasons for disliking characters of either gender. Disliked male characters were

just as likely to be described as “pointless”, “evil”, or even “whiney” as female characters.

Though the word “bitch” appeared often in descriptions of disliked female characters, the words

“douche” and “asshole” were just as frequent in describing disliked male characters. Also, the

extra-narrative complaints regarding poor acting or writing were equally common for disliked

male characters as for disliked female characters.

c. Male Characters

Though my analysis centers on fans’ engagement with female characters, I believe it is

important to examine, briefly, specific patterns in fans’ engagement with male characters, also.

One trend in particular emerged through the survey responses that I did not expect and which

runs counter to both conventional wisdom and previous research (Scodari, 2003; Knee, 1998;

Williams, 1996) regarding gendered viewing.

As previously stated, the most popular characters were overwhelmingly male, which is

unsurprising considering the make up of the principle cast. What was surprising was that many

female fans said that the reason they liked these characters was because they related to them on a

personal level. This tendency was strongest when discussing the character of Dean Winchester.

“He reminds me a lot of myself”, one fan remarked. On a visceral level, one fan said she liked

Dean because “Dean is like a male version of me. I strongly identify with him because we like

the same music, same clothes, and have the same sense of humour and issues with self-worth”,

while another expressed the same sentiment, adding “even though he can be a douche (mostly

season 5) I can't help but love him”. Another said she identified with Dean specifically because

she was also an older sibling who “spent a lot of time as a kid taking care of my siblings when

my folks weren't around”, much as Dean does for Sam throughout the course of the series. One

respondent even identified Dean as role model, saying. “When I was eighteen I tried to model

myself on him. He’s so brave”.

Likewise, one fan connected her own personal difficulties to Sam:

I relate to Sam more probably since the Pilot. I get what losing

people close to you can do to a person. And when I watched Sam

struggle with his darker urges in Season 4; it was a scary reminder

of my own inner struggle. I feel that Sam's journey can mirror a lot

of ours (minus the monsters and stuff).

Regarding sibling dynamics, another remarked, “I feel a huge connection to [Sam]. We're both

the youngest, black sheep in the family, and share a deep resentment to being bossed around

without any explanation”.

Even Castiel, an angel and the second most popular character, was considered relatable,

with one fan saying, “like him, I often feel like I'm struggling to fit into society around me and

don't understand why people think the things I say are funny sometimes”.

C.3: Male Characters

Character Liked Disliked

Adam Milligan 1 1

Alastair 3 2

Andrew Gallagher 2 0

Ash 3 0

Azazel 3 0

Ben Braeden 0 1

Bobby Singer 33 1

Castiel 56 2

Chuck Shurley 4 0

Crowley 7 0

Dean Winchester 77 4

Gabriel 27 2

God 0 1

Gordon Walker 0 2

John Winchester 8 6

Joshua 0 1

Lucifer 8 3

Raphael 0 2

Sam Winchester 51 8

Uriel 0 6

Victor Henriksen 2 1

Zachariah 0 12

In many ways, my findings, specifically those on fans’ responses to characters, serve to

destabilize existing models of audience engagement, rather than support them. Specifically, the

absence of abjection in female fans’ readings of female characters diminishes the usefulness of a

Kristevan psychoanalytic reading of gender in film. Also, the popularity of identification with

male characters among female respondents serves to undermine Scodari’s (2003) assumptions

about how female fans situate themselves in fictional narratives, and it calls into question ideas

regarding the exclusive male gaze in horror films (Knee, 1998; Williams, 1996). By

deconstructing these models, we can proceed to build a more useful, comprehensive model of

audience engagement with regard to gender.

V. ANALYSIS

A. Intra-Filmic Analysis

a. Women as Victims

During the Supernatural panel at the 2010 San Diego Comic Con,

a fan asked new

show runner Sera Gamble whether any of the women in season six would “stick around”.

Gamble equivocated, claiming that Supernatural was just as dangerous for men as for women,

that just as many male characters were killed. Though the data supports Gamble’s assertion, this

does not address the fact that approximately half of all female characters are framed as victims or

that, over the course of five seasons, only four of thirteen total recurring female characters

survive, two of whom are not technically alive.

Throughout the first two seasons, six episodes open immediately on scenes of women in

danger, and nine others show women being killed or threatened before the opening credits. All

but four of the total episodes contain at least one scene in which a woman is in immediate

danger. In order to contextualize this victimization, I would like to discuss three specific

episodes which frame women as victims in different ways.

Many of the patterns for women in Supernatural are set early on, in the pilot episode. The

episode, written by series creator Eric Kripke, opens in the Winchester family home. Mary

I was in the audience during this panel, and I remember this question being asked. I reviewed video of the panel

to refresh my memory of Gamble’s response.

Winchester, a beautiful blonde woman dressed in a white nightgown, hears baby Sam crying and

peeks into his nursery. A dark, male figure standing over the crib shushes her, and Mary,

assuming it is her husband, John, acquiesces and moves on. Upon seeing that her husband is, in

fact, asleep in front of the television, Mary rushes back to Sam’s nursery. John is awakened by

Mary’s scream and runs, also, to the nursery, where he finds baby Sam asleep and Mary pinned

to the ceiling above, a blood stain spreading across her stomach. As he watches, her body bursts

into flames which quickly spread across the ceiling and eventually consume the house. John

grabs Sam and calls for Dean, who carries his baby brother out of the house. The three of them

stand on the front lawn and watch in horror as the house burns.

All of this happens before the opening credits.

The episode picks up 22 years later, and we learn that Mary’s death propelled John into a

life of hunting down the supernatural and that Sam and Dean were raised to do the same. Sam,

however, has left the life and is now a pre-law student at Stanford. His girlfriend, Jessica

, is a

pretty blonde woman seen three times over the course of the episode. The first time she appears,

she is dressed for a costume party as a “sexy nurse”. For her other two appearances, one of which

is her death scene, she is in a small T-shirt and underwear. She is, presumably, also a student, but

her course of study is not known.

The monster for this episode is a creature, originating in Mexican folklore, known as a

“woman in white”. In Supernatural, the ghost of a beautiful woman in a white dress haunts a

stretch of highway, luring men to their deaths, supposedly as punishment for their unfaithfulness.

Once the brothers have eliminated the spirit, which Dean refers to as a “bitch”, Sam returns

home to witness Jessica die in the same manner as Mary. This tragedy causes Sam to join Dean

Jessica Moore is played by Adrianne Palicki.

in the search for their currently missing father and for the creature that killed Mary and Jessica.

Though this could be the origin story for any hero, the series may be viewed in a different light

when we consider that this origin is framed by the deaths of two women and that it is those

deaths which provide the impetus for the story that follows.

The sixth episode of season one, titled “Skin” and written by John Shiban, opens on a

young woman tied to a chair. Her clothes are torn, she is crying, and it is obvious that she has

been badly beaten and tortured. The monster in this episode is a shape shifter whose modus

operandi is to assume the appearances of men with attractive wives or girlfriends and then

torture those women. The Winchesters become involved in the case when one of Sam’s college

friends, a young woman, asks him to help prove the innocence of her brother, accused of

torturing and killing his girlfriend. Throughout the episode, we return to images like the one in

the opening: a young woman, tied to a chair, being tortured for pleasure. Though there is a

certain amount of action and drama, these are the only scenes of violence in the episode.

The third episode I would like to discuss strikes a very different tone. In season two’s

“Heart”, written by Sera Gamble, Sam and Dean are investigating werewolf attacks in San

Francisco when they meet Madison

, a young woman connected to one of the victims. Believing

her to be in danger, the brothers decide that one of them should stay and look after her. When

Dean declares, “I’m gonna hang here with the hot chick”, Sam asks, “Why do you always get to

hang out with the girls?”, at which point they use a game of rock-paper-scissors to decide who

stays. Sam wins and ends up watching soap operas with Madison as she folds her underwear and

describes how being the victim of a “mugging” made her a stronger, more confident person. The

brothers quickly discover that Madison is the werewolf and that the victims were men by whom

Madison, for whom no surname is given, is played by Emanuelle Vaugier.

she, consciously or not, felt threatened. In reference to the male werewolf who turned her, Dean

says, “Maybe he was looking for a little hot breeding action.”

The remainder of the episode consists of Sam insisting that they must find a way to save

her and reverse the werewolf curse. Their efforts fail, though not before Sam and Madison have

sex. Eventually, the brothers realize that there is no way to save her, and Sam, at Madison’s

insistence, shoots her in the heart with a silver bullet.

b. Women as Objects

In seasons one and two, 54% of the female characters between the ages of 16 and 30 are

framed as sexual objects in one way or another. However, unlike many shows with a largely

female audience, there are few long-term love interests for the brothers on Supernatural. Aside

from Sam’s girlfriend, Jessica, who dies in the pilot, only four possible or existing love interests

occur in multiple episodes. These characters are Jo Harvelle, Bela Talbot, Lisa Braedon, and

Ruby.

When Jo first appears in the second episode of season two, Dean begins, apparently out

of habit, to make a pass at her, but he stops himself. Jo seems surprised by this and tells him that

the hunters who pass through the roadhouse often hit on her, and she describes a pick-up routine

that sounds, to regular viewers, like a page right out of Dean’s playbook. This establishes a

pattern for their interactions as the series goes on. In episode 14 of season two, a demon who is

possessing Sam mocks Jo for her “crush” on Dean, supporting the assumption that she is, in fact,

attracted to him. Though Jo’s mother, Ellen, appears sporadically through the rest of season two

and is featured in the season finale, Jo herself is not seen again until episode two of season five.

In the 10

episode of season five, Dean makes a direct sexual advance, but she rejects him. Later

in the same episode, Jo is fatally injured, and Dean, before leaving, kisses her on the forehead, as

a brother, and on the mouth, as a lover. Though there is clearly a rapport and attraction between

them, circumstances and hesitation prevent them from acting on the possibility of romance until

that possibility is finally eliminated by Jo’s death.

To a certain extent, a similar pattern is set for Dean’s relationship with Bela Talbot. Bela,

however, is frequently at odds with the brothers, and it is this conflict which prevents the

romantic possibility from being realized. Though it is never entirely clear whether Dean feels

any kind of attraction to Bela, she openly expresses sexual desire for him. In one episode, Dean

emerges cleaned up and dressed in a fitted tuxedo. Bela is obviously flustered by his appearance

and tells him, “You know, when this is over, we should really have angry sex.” Dean hesitates,

embarrassed, then crosses his arms uncomfortably and replies, “Don’t objectify me.” There is

also an episode in which Sam has an erotic dream about Bela, but the implications of this are not

explored. Bela’s motivations, however, are primarily self-interested, and she frequently

undermines and betrays the brothers. For the most part, the only feeling Dean expresses toward

Bela is a desire to kill her. When the opportunity to shoot her presents itself, he tells her she’s

“not worth it” and walks away, and he later listens unfeeling as she cries and begs for help to

escape her impending death. She gives Dean a crucial piece of information just before she is

killed by hell hounds in payment for a deal she made with a demon, foreshadowing Dean’s own

death at the end of the season.

Through sporadic contact, Dean is able to eventually establish a relationship with Lisa

Braedon, a single mother with whom he had a brief affair eight years before. She is introduced in

the second episode of season three, in which her son and other neighborhood children are

threatened, and Dean initially pursues the case out of a desire to see Lisa again. She appears once

more in season three, but it is as a dream in Dean’s mind. He sees her in a picnic setting, calling

him to her and talking about picking up her son from soccer practice. This scene suggests that,

for Dean, she is a symbol of the suburban family life he has never had. Dean does not actually

see her again until episode 17 of season five.

Faced with what he believes is inevitable tragedy, Dean goes to see Lisa to tell her

goodbye and to say that he is going to make “arrangements” to ensure that she and her son will

be safe. Later in season five, after forming a plan in which Sam must sacrifice himself to stop the

apocalypse, Sam makes Dean promise that, once everything is over, Dean will return to Lisa and

lead a normal life. At the end of the fifth season, with the apocalypse averted and Sam gone,

Dean does exactly that. As of season six, however, Dean and Lisa are no longer together.

The only definite, ongoing romantic relationship in the series is that between Sam and the

demon Ruby

, though describing their involvement as “romantic” may not be entirely accurate.

Ruby first appears in the third season, claiming to be an ally, and provides the brothers with

information and help throughout the season. Though she expresses an interest in Sam from the

beginning, they are not involved in a sexual relationship until the following season. At first, Sam

keeps the relationship and Ruby herself a secret from Dean, despite Ruby’s insistence that he tell

his brother the truth. Dean does discover that they have been working together by following

Sam, and he immediately attacks Ruby. Sam stops him, and the three establish a shaky truce.

Throughout the season, Ruby encourages Sam to develop his latent psychic powers and

strengthen them by drinking the blood of demons. She provides her own blood during a few

I have chosen to approach Ruby as a single, uniform character, though she was portrayed by two different

actors, and fans typically make a distinction between “Ruby 1” or “blonde Ruby”, played in season three by Katie

Cassidy, and “Ruby 2” or “brunette Ruby”, played in season for by Genevieve Cortese. Incidentally, in February of

2010, Cortese married Jared Padalecki.

highly sexualized scenes, and Sam drinking from her acts as a prelude to their sexual encounters.

Despite being warned by Dean and openly threatened by the angels, Sam, under Ruby’s

advisement, believes that using his powers is the only way to stop Lilith from releasing Lucifer.

In general, Ruby appears supportive and understanding of Sam’s decisions and the difficulties he

faces, and she frequently tells him that he should be honest with Dean and that she doesn’t want

to come between them. Eventually, Sam’s addiction to demon blood and his conviction that he is

doing the right thing drives the two brothers apart, and Sam and Ruby pursue Lilith on their own,

though Ruby insists Sam and Dean will patch things up once everything is over. Meanwhile,

Dean learns that killing Lilith will actually release Lucifer. He races to stop Sam, but he is too

late. Sam kills Lilith, and Ruby, triumphantly euphoric, reveals that she has been in league with

Lilith all along. However, she does not mock Sam for his gullibility. Instead, she is happy for

him, saying that he has done the right thing and that they’ll both be rewarded. Finally, Dean

bursts in, and Sam holds Ruby still so that Dean can stab her and kill her.

Jo, Bela, Lisa, and Ruby are framed as objects in two senses. First, they are sexual

objects in that they receive the sexual attentions of the protagonists and, more to the point, do not

overtly project sexuality of their own. Only Bela and Ruby express direct sexual agency, and

they are framed as erstwhile antagonists and are both killed. We must also question the

possibility of female sexual agency in the context of such a male-dominated narrative. Second,

these women are objects in the sense that they are disposable. They are brought into the story

sporadically as needed, and, once they are no longer useful to the narrative, they are killed off.

c. Women as Props

Though a case can be made for the regular victimization and objectification of women on

Supernatural, the most frequent and most significant pattern for female characters is that they are

simply pushed aside, comparable to the way in which small physical props might be used in

stage or film. Women, like props, appear when they are useful or serve a specific purpose and

return to the offstage when they are not. Observation suggests that women in this series will meet

one of three fates. A female character will appear in a single episode, in which much is made of

her relationship with one of the brothers, and then she will never be heard from again.

Alternately, a female character will appear in a single episode, establish a relationship with one

of the brothers, and then she will die during that episode. For an example of the second pattern,

see my discussion of the episode “Heart”, above. Finally, a recurring female character will be

introduced, she will disappear from the narrative for some length of time, and then return later to

be quickly killed off. There are a few exceptions to these patterns, but, as a general rule, women

who attempt to take part directly in the action are, at best, prevented from doing so or, at worst,

meet with death for their efforts.

In the episode “Route 666” in season one, written by Eugenie Ross-Lemming and Brad

Buckner, an old girlfriend of Dean’s, Cassie

, asks him for help in discovering the truth about

her father’s mysterious death. Dean and Cassie intimately reconnect, and, at the end of the

episode, he promises to call her. She is not mentioned again. In a later season one episode,

“Provenance” by David Ehrman, Sam goes out with Sarah, an intelligent young woman who

eventually helps the brothers solve their case. Sarah is up-front with her attraction to Sam and

tells him they should pursue a relationship. Sam insists that this would be too dangerous for her,

Cassie Robinson is played by Megalyn Echikunwoke.

and she tells him his protectiveness is both “sweet” and “archaic”. Despite this, she is never seen

again, and, when Dean asks about her in the following episode, Sam is dismissive.

Episode six of season two, “No Exit” by Matt Witten, focuses on a monster, the ghost of

serial killer H. H. Holmes, who victimizes young women exclusively. In “No Exit”, the brothers

are joined by Jo, who finds the case and conducts preliminary research, but both brothers are

resistant to her working with them. She accuses Dean of sexism, telling him, “You don’t think

women can do the job.” He replies, “Women can do the job fine” and that it is her lack of

experience he doesn’t like. Dean insists on remaining close to Jo in order to protect her. Just

moments after she does, in fact, leave his sight, she is abducted by the ghost and imprisoned in a

concrete chamber. Another woman is likewise imprisoned, and Jo tells her, “This won’t make

you feel better, but I’m here to rescue you”, underscoring the helplessness of their mutual

situation. In her single moment of active resistance, Jo stabs the ghost as it reaches for her, but

she is otherwise unmoving until the Winchesters arrive to save her. To resolve the case, Jo is

positioned as bait so that the Winchesters can trap the ghost. This episode resolves without harm

to the heroes, but Jo, of course, is seen only twice more before her death in season five.

Finally, the themes of victimization, objectification, and marginalization are most clearly

expressed in the character of Anna Milton. Anna is introduced in a two-episode arc in season

four and is first seen as a patient in a psychiatric hospital. What the psychiatrist describes as

paranoid schizophrenia, however, is a psychic gift, and Anna is pursued by both demons and

angels. After she escapes from the hospital, the Winchesters find her and help her evade capture.

For the first half of the arc, Anna is fearful and follows their lead, becoming angry only when

she’s overhears them discussing her past and psychiatric history. In the second half, however,

Anna learns that she was once an angel, and her frightened demeanor immediately becomes one

of calm confidence. It is worth noting that this dramatic self-discovery is ultimately passive.

Anna regains her memories after being hypnotized by a psychic, and continues to acquiesce to

Sam and Dean, even after revealing that she was a military leader in heaven. She then has sex

with Dean in the backseat of his car. Though they appear to have established an emotional

connection, this encounter is not framed as part of a larger romance, and there is a vague

suggestion that she might be sleeping with him out of gratitude. At the end of the arc, Anna

regains her full powers as an angel and vanishes.

She appears briefly in three more episodes in season four. The next time she sees the

Winchesters, Dean remarks, “You look terrific.” She replies simply, “Yeah, not the most

appropriate time, Dean.” Most of her exchanges are with Castiel, encouraging him to question

the authority of heaven and think for himself. Though he ultimately follows this advice and sides

with the Winchester, Castiel first betrays Anna and turns her over to the other angels. She is not

seen again until episode 13 of season five, during which interim she is being tortured in heaven.

When she does return, Anna appears to Dean during a dream in which he is entertained

by exotic dancers dressed as a demon and an angel. She tells him to meet her, saying that she has

escaped from heaven, but Castiel believes she was released for a purpose and goes to meet her

instead. Anna insists that the only way to stop the apocalypse is to kill Sam, and, warned away

by Castiel in the present, she time travels to 1978 with the intention of killing John and Mary

before Sam and Dean can be born. Dean suggests that she is insane, saying that she has “gone all

Glenn Close”, presumably a reference to Fatal Attraction

. Castiel transports Sam and Dean

Close’s character in Fatal Attraction becomes fixated on a married man with whom she had an affair, harassing

him and his family and threatening them with violence.

back in time to stop Anna, which they are unable to do. Michael appears to save them and undo

Anna’s actions. Without a word, he touches Anna and burns her alive from the inside out.

Though she is, at least in part, framed as a strong, competent female character, Anna’s

over-arching story cycles through the patterns already established for women in Supernatural.

She is introduced as a victim, threatened by supernatural forces, and saved through the

intervention of the Winchesters. Her sexual encounter with Dean frames her as a sexual object,

though subsequent interactions, or lack thereof, negate her as a potential love interest. She is

established as a recurring character, only to be abruptly removed from the narrative for an

extended period. When she does eventually return, she not only meets a violent death, but has

also transitioned from an erstwhile hero to a clear villain.

In my analysis of Supernatural, I have chosen to focus on the representation of female

characters, neglecting the question of how male characters are also represented. It is possible that

the majority of male characters also fall into patterns of victimization and marginalization. What

is significant about the treatment of women as “props”, however, is the fact that all female

characters on Supernatural meet one of the three fates discussed above, which is not the case for

male characters. There are three exceptions among female characters, but the circumstances

surrounding these characters makes it difficult to argue that they break pattern in a significant

way. It is also worth noting that the series is not over, and these three characters may yet return

to the narrative to die.

B. Extra-Filmic Analysis

a. Why fans watch

If, as I have asserted, Supernatural consistently marginalizes and portrays women as

sexual objects and victims of violence, why, then, do so many women continue to avidly follow

the series? References to the program’s content appeared in the majority of responses, but fans

also mentioned aspects of visceral engagement with the program and boundary work in the fan

community as reasons for watching.

1. Content

Almost all of the respondents cited the relationship between the two brothers, as well as

general characters and dynamics, as the reason for their continued interest in the show. As one

fan said, “If you’re not watching it for the brothers, then you’re doing it wrong”. The sibling

bond and the sacrifices it necessitates are, in fact, a major themes of the series.

A majority of respondents also said they appreciated the folklore and mythology –

American, Christian, Eastern, and Classical, to name a few sources – from which the writers

draw nemeses for the brothers to fight. While some respondents said they were not generally fans

of horror or paranormal media, many others said that it was these elements that drew them to the

show, to begin with, and were part of what they most enjoyed. Some said they liked the show’s

humor and funny episodes, others preferred the drama, and many appreciated the blending of the

two. Likewise, many fans enjoyed the large, over-arching plots in the series, while others would

rather see scary “monster of the week” episodes.

2. Visceral Engagment

Interest in character and plot, however, was far from the only reason fans gave for

enjoying Supernatural. Regarding the aspects she most enjoyed, one fan observed frankly, “It's a

couple of hot guys in a mad-ass car, killing monsters and ghosts with fire and guns”. Many fans

expressed love for the series’ musical soundtrack, which consists almost entirely of classic rock

and eschews, as one draft of the pilot script stated, “anemic alternative pop” (MacKenzie, 2011).

There was also admiration for Dean’s car, a black 1967 Chevrolet Impala, known affectionately

to fans as the “Metallicar” and considered by many to be a vital part of the show’s cast. Many

fans also referred to the attractiveness of the actors as one of a number of sources for their

continued interest, and several mentioned the technical and visual aspects of the series.

In addition to the visceral elements, fans also engage with the program through the

physical act of watching. 52% of the total respondents said they watch Supernatural primarily

online, and another 6% said they watched it on DVD or using a DVR device. This suggests that a

significant number of fans are deliberately going out of their way to watch the series, especially

fans in countries where the local television channels are often a season or more behind the

American broadcast schedule. One American fan who no longer had access to the CW network

said that she used a website for video streaming which put her computer at risk for viruses, but

this was of less concern to her than the fact that she had to wait a day for the episodes to be

available online.

Radway (2003) describes the “escape” experienced by women reading romance novels,

but only one respondent in my survey said that watching Supernatural helped her “[forget] the

world and the problems”, though another described it as a “cathartic experience”. Rather, for

many fans, watching the program is a semi-communal experience. 31% said that they regularly

watch with friends or family members, and, unlike the women in Radway’s study, several

watched with their husbands or boyfriends. One fan said it has become a “tradition” for she and

her sister to watch online every week. Another described a typical family scene, saying, “I watch

live every week in my den with popcorn and soda and one or two family members join me every

time”, and another said, “I watch with friends the night new episodes premiere, sometimes just

the one friend, but if others are around, there can be about five of us in the room, starting at the

screen”. Even those who said they typically watched the show alone were likely to have some

communal contact, since 46% of respondents said that they became fans because of a friend, and

59% said that they often talked to other fans about the show.

One similarity between Radway’s participants and my own was the understanding of

reading or fan activities as being “clandestine”. Though my respondents were highly likely to be

in regular contact with other fans, several expressed a sense that their enthusiasm was

inappropriate outside of a fannish context. One fan confessed, “I didn't used to admit to anyone

that I watched it, actually”, though she did not elaborate on why. Another described the

experience of encountering a fan in her class while she was student teaching, saying, “Every

Thursday it was "Did you watch it?! What did you think?!" And we'd go on and on, to the great

displeasure of everyone else”, suggesting that, though she and her student clearly enjoyed these

exchanges, other non-fans found them irritating. One respondent said that she had “bothered a

few friends who've at best seen a few episodes with my over enthusiastic ramblings about it”,

and another said she was hesitant even to talk with the friend who’d introduced her to

Supernatural because “I don't want to freak her out [too] bad with my fannish obsessive

behavior”. Another respondent even described reducing her discussions of the program, saying,

“Two years ago I did it more often, because I was younger, now I grew up and became to know

how to control myself”, though it may be interesting to note that this respondent is 16 years-old.

3. Boundary Work

Other reasons for watching went beyond actual consumption of the program itself and

extended into the boundary work undertaken by more devoted fans. By “boundary work”, I mean

those activities which take place specifically within the fan community, including interaction

with other fans, the writing and reading of fan fiction, and the act of self-identification as a fan.

The understanding of their activities as “clandestine” allows and even encourages fans to

maintain the boundary between the “symbolic community” (Lamont & Molnár, 2002) of

Supernatural fan culture and “mainstream” media culture, though boundaries between

Supernatural and other media fandoms are highly permeable. Within the Supernatural fan

community itself, however, boundaries between subgroups are actively policed, particularly

between readers of specific subcategories of fan fiction, but even these divisions are often

transgressed. Still, it is not the work of maintaining boundaries in which fans took pleasure, but

rather the activities within those boundaries. Even those respondents who said that they do not

regularly interact with other fans still identify themselves as fans, suggesting that communal

identity can exist separately from communal interaction.

As I mentioned in my discussion of the text, Supernatural regularly breaches the

metaphorical “fourth wall” and engages in an unusually direct dialogue with fans. The episode in

which the brothers discover the Supernatural novels includes the following exchange about fan

fiction:

Dean: There’s “Sam girls” and “Dean girls”, and… what’s a slash fan?

Sam: As in… Sam-slash-Dean. Together.

Dean: Like, together together?

Sam: Yeah.

Dean: They do know we’re brothers, right?

Sam: Doesn’t seem to matter.

In another episode, super-fan Becky tricks Sam and Dean into attending a Supernatural fan

convention, featuring fans dressed as characters, Supernatural merchandise, a role-playing game

that turns out to be a real hunt, and running commentary on the series’ tropes. The most dramatic

transcendence of the fourth wall divide occurs in a season six episode in which the brothers are

transported to an alternate reality where they are actors, named Jared Padalecki and Jensen

Ackles, on the television show Supernatural

. Through this device, Supernatural openly invites

fans to engage with the text and creates a unique fan environment, and a recent survey (Clarissa,

2011) listed Supernatural as the television show with the strongest online fandom.

Reference to these “fandom-call outs [sic]” appeared in many survey responses. One fan

even remarked, “I have the whole Dean Discovers Fandom exchange as a ringtone on my cell

phone”. Another cited the character of Becky as evidence of the show’s intelligence and fan

savvy, saying, “She provides hilarious and awkward moments to the show. It’s like a metaphor

or a representation of the fans of Supernatural, it’s our caricature exaggerated to the top. It’s

really funny and not offensive at all”. Discussing the writers’ awareness of the largely female

audience, one fan said, “It is so refreshing to be thought highly enough of as viewers that the

This dialogue is from episode 18 of season four, “The Monster at the End of this Book”. I referred to a video on

YouTube.com for the exact dialogue. The YouTube user had title the video “Funniest scene” of the episode.

Because season six is ongoing at the time of conducting this research, I have chosen to focus on events and

characters in the first five seasons only. However, I feel this episode is pertinent to the discussion and have chosen

to include it.

writers don’t assume we’ll eat up any drama we can get, even if it’s silly, nonsensical

melodrama, because “girls dig that”. No thank you”.

Fans and fan practices also played a major role in many respondents’ continued interest

in and introduction to Supernatural. Fan fiction, in particular, was a crucial factor, with an

overwhelming 82% of respondents saying that they read or wrote fan fiction of some kind. A few

even claimed that they started watching the show as a result of fan fiction. One respondent said

she first encountered Supernatural through “crossover” fan fiction, stories which feature

characters and elements from different media texts, and became interested. Finally, she said,

“When I found myself writing Supernatural fanfic myself I realised it was time to give up my

resolution never to watch Supernatural and I then proceeded to watch through all five seasons at

once”. For some, fan fiction and other fan writing provide a medium in which to interact with

other fans and to express ideas about the show. Saying that she didn’t often talk with others

about Supernatural, one respondent explained, “I'd rather show how I feel through fanfiction”

and another similarly remarked, “I prefer to just read fanfiction”. Placing fan practices in a

broader cultural context, one fan said that she occasionally wrote fan fiction, “but I work in

publishing, so not only is there not a lot of free time for it and I read and write all day for my job,

but it’s a bit of a risk having a career in an industry that frowns on violation of copyright”.

Another respondent said frankly, “I’d have given up on SPN if not for the fiction that was written

around the canon”. One fan concluded her survey by embracing her status as a fan, saying,

“Don’t hate the crazy fandom, yo. Life is too short to be normal”.

However, not all respondents appreciated Supernatural’s “meta” episodes or viewed

fandom interactions as entirely positive. One respondent stated simply, “[T]he whole “breaking

the fourth wall” thing just scares me. Fandom/canon should NOT mix. Kripke should stay off the

internet”. Another fan referred to Becky as one of her most disliked characters, saying, “she

exemplified everything that is negative about fandom, with none of the positives”. Likewise,

another praised Supernatural’s “incredibly large, talented, prolific fandom”, adding, “I heavily

resent Kripke for how he’s portrayed fans on the show”. Other fans expressed more negative

views of the fan community. Several indicated hesitation to voice unpopular opinions, “for fear

of being jumped by bitch-queen fangirls wearing rose coloured glasses” or because “it is easy –

especially since it is online and there are no facial expressions to help convey people’s meaning

– to misunderstand and even offend others”. One fan explained her reluctance to participate in

fan activities, saying, “I tend to steer away from the 'fandom' as a whole, not in the least because

it generates a lot of hatred and I don't like being caught in that”, and another went so far as to

say, “I don't talk to many people anymore because fandom was kind of ruining the show for me”.

Despite this resistance, however, these respondents continue to watch the show.

In addition to fan practices, a sense of loyalty also played a role in fans’ continued

interest in Supernatural. Some of the respondents also made reference to the amount of time and

emotion they had invested in the story and characters. “I just keep watching because I've invested

a lot of time in the show, and I want to see how it ends”, said one fan, adding that it was

elements of earlier seasons that she liked the best. Another remarked, “I’ve been watching for

four years and you can’t just let that kind of time go”. Likewise, one respondent said frankly,

“I’ve been with the series pretty much since the beginning. And, even though the show [has]

disappointed me greatly this past year, I’m staying with it because I do enjoy the mythology

greatly”.

It is possible that the size and breadth of Supernatural fandom, as well as the prominence

and accessibility of the fandom, is a motivation for viewers to become involved as fans of

Supernatural, rather than seeking out alternative genre programming with more positive

representations of women.

b. Critical Commentary

Though the questions were designed to elicit responses on specific subjects, the format of

the survey allowed fans a great deal of latitude in the detail and content of those responses.

Though respondents presented their love of Supernatural as a matter of course, many also

remarked upon aspects of the series in general that they did not like or found offensive. For

instance, referring to an episode which dealt with a coven of “witches”, one fan said, “I'm a

pagan and I didn't particularly care for the way that modern pagans were portrayed”. In a

discussion of a different episode, another fan said, “Being that I am Catholic and am taking a

college course in Theology, I am somewhat offended by what they (the writers) did with the

plot”, and another described the series as “very dismissive of any religions other than Judeo-

Christian”.

With regard to women in the series, a number of fans expressed frustration both with the

absence of strong female characters and with the narrative treatment of women. The same fan

quoted directly above also stated, with regard to her dislike of Bela, that she “wanted a good,

strong female character” and was disappointed. Another fan referred to “just another example of

Supernatural NOT creating well developed female characters, and shafting them when they do

appear” (emphasis original), and another, in response to the question about disliked characters,

said, “just every single vapid female Sam and Dean rescue from Maintown, America in every

single episode when they're not busy causing the Apocalypse. They all run together, and they're

all uninteresting”.

The absence of strong female characters was also mentioned in reference to fan fiction.

Almost all of those who said they read or wrote Supernatural fan fiction said they read primarily

slash fiction, which features a romantic pairing between male characters, though most mentioned

that they sometimes read other types of fan fiction, as well, at least in other fandoms. One fan

remarked, “The main problem I have with Het

ships in SPN is that none of the girls are shown

to be strong enough to handle the several tons of issues that each of teh boys bring”, adding,

“SPN is dangerous for women though, so be careful!”. Another observed, more circumspectly, “I

mostly just read slash. I mean, there's not really much else, is there? The writers of the show kind

of shot themselves in the foot when it comes to females”.

In addition, a few fans commented pointed on the series’ general treatment of female

characters. The observations of two respondents, in particular, are especially interesting. The

first, 21 years-old, listed four female characters as the ones she most disliked, remarking,

“Obviously, there is a huge problem with how all four characters I most dislike are women”. In

another response, she referred angrily to the deaths of Ellen and Jo, saying, “While their death

was brave, it’s still yet another instance of women dying for the Winchester brothers, while when

men die (as in the S5 finale, with Bobby and Castiel, and even John briefly at the end of S2),

they get to come back”. Finally, when invited to make any additional comments, she said

frankly,

As I watched the show, I quickly became aware of the very serious problems it

has in its treatment of race and women, and quite honestly, if I didn’t love it

(meaning how well-written 95% of it is, Sam and Dean’s characterization and

“Het” refers to fan fiction focused on heterosexual couples.

relationship, and Jensen’s and Jared’s acting) as much as I do, I wouldn’t stand

for it.

Though this respondent is evidently aware and critical of Supernatural’s gender ideology,

she actively prioritizes her pleasure in watching the series over her displeasure with its gendered

messages. Likewise, another respondent, 31 years-old, cut directly to the heart of the series latent

misogyny and situated it in the broader context of network politics and the horror genre:

My one criticism of this show (and Supernatural is not alone in doing this) is the

fate of its women. It goes beyond the age-old Angel/Whore syndrome.

Supernatural kills off its women via fire, stabbing, choking, drowning, shooting,

getting hit by cars, blowing themselves up, being attacked by

monsters/demons/hellhounds, or being turned into ash. I’m sure this is done in

part b/c rabid teenage fangirls feel possessive of “their boys” and don’t want any

potential female love interests on screen, and the CW caters in part to their

wishes. And Supernatural also dishes out plenty of pain to male characters. But so

few of the doomed male characters come off like victims or die such uber-violent

deaths. Supernatural seems to almost take pleasure or eroticize the torture of

women, and, if you look too deeply into it, it can dampen enthusiasm for the show

and its writers… particularly when Sera Gamble herself has made such strides for

female screenwriters, and the president of CW Entertainment, Dawn Ostroff, is a

woman—but perhaps they do the best they can in a male-dominated industry

where the horror genre has always eroticized and sensationalized the abuse of

women.

Here, the respondent not only criticizes Supernatural’s treatment of women, she

interprets it in terms of production and genre politics. She describes the treatment of

female characters in detail and makes distinct comparisons to the treatment of male

characters. She even goes on to speculate possible reasons for this gender disparity,

attributing specific rationales on the part of the writers and producers and pointing to

potential influences within the horror genre itself.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

A. Discussion

Based on the findings and analysis I have described, I feel that there are three principal

implications to be considered. First, though some fan comments do reinforce existing sexist

ideologies, this reinforcement is not uniform, and is sometimes actively resisted. Second, fans

bring their own frames to the reading of female characters, rather than applying the frames

established by the narrative. Finally, fans are actively engaging in complex, contextualized

readings of the narrative, not simply absorbing what they’re given.

This study is, in part, a response to Christine Scodari’s (2003) findings regarding female

fans of the shows Stargate: SG-1 and Farscape, in which she concludes that fan practices

reinforce sexist structures, rather than resisting them. Many of my respondents did, in fact

express antagonism toward female characters, employing sexist terms such as “bitch” and

expressing joy or apathy upon characters’ deaths. These sentiments, however, did not constitute a

majority of the responses. Many fans attributed their dislike for female characters to poor writing

or acting, rather than the characters’ actions or attitude. Though this may be a subtle distinction, I

believe it is an important one, because it suggests that what antagonism exists is directed toward

extra-filmic elements and not to the characters as women. In addition, a number of respondents,

especially those quoted in the previous section, articulated ideas that actively resist sexist

ideologies and condemn the misogyny in Supernatural.

As I have demonstrated, Supernatural frequently frames women as victims and as sexual

objects, but the survey data suggests that female fans do not use these frames. Nor do they, as

Scodari would suggest, frame female characters as sexual rivals. Rather, respondents seemed to

understand women in the series, first and foremost, as fictional characters. This may seem

intuitive, but there is a point to be made. In their responses, fans framed female characters in

terms of their purpose in the larger narrative, their relationship to other characters, and the

competency with which the character was presented. In the only instance in which a fan referred

to a female character as a sexual rival, she suggested that Dean, the brother in question, should

have instead been involved with another male character. Likewise, fans discussed female

characters in terms of their agency and active involvement in the story, not, in general, as plot

points waiting to be rescued. Though some fans did refer to the attractiveness of the female

actors and to the sporadic romantic relationships between male and female characters, this was

the extent of fans framing female characters as sexual objects and was far from their primary

understanding.

These conclusions and other evidence in the data suggest that fans’ readings of

Supernatural are not simply those of uncritical consumption. Rather, fans regularly bring

external ideas and knowledge to their viewing and situate the text within the larger contexts of its

production and its status as a genre series. The fact that respondents made reference to writing

and acting illustrates that, in addition to engagement with the text itself, they are also considering

extra-filmic elements in their reading. Also, a number of fans referred to other television series in

their responses, whether to describe how they had come to watch Supernatural or to compare

specific elements between shows. Though this could be dismissed as simply evidence that fans

do, in fact, watch other television, I propose that it demonstrates some of the ways in which they

situate and understand Supernatural within a broader context. This is a significant observation

when we consider the possibility – indeed, the likelihood – that other programs may not

represent women in the way that Supernatural does. In fact, at least a few of the other programs

mentioned, including Stargate: SG-1, Dark Angel, and Supernatural’s original lead-in Gilmore

Girls, all feature female leads. Though fans may not actively connect Supernatural’s gender

ideology to those of other series, their awareness creates the possibility for reading one in terms

of the other.

Though other researchers, have argued that audience consumption extends beyond simple

reception of media (Berenstein, 1996; Jenkins, 1995; Radway, 2003; Scodari, 2003), I believe

that the engagement of fans is even more complex than previous models allow. My findings

suggest that fan practices achieve a broader purpose than “poaching” the text for useful or

interesting elements (Jenkins, 1992). Rather, I contend than fans are using avenues such as fan

fiction, community interaction, collective viewing, and even filling out surveys about favorite

programs as mediums in which to conduct critical analysis of the text at hand. Though

interpretations of the text may vary widely, the act of engaging in complex, contextualized

reading appears across responses, illustrating an awareness which academia traditionally fails to

recognize in media audiences. In fact, I propose that, through interpretation and criticism, fans

are acting as academics, reading the text through an experiential lens that draws on knowledge of

social politics, genre, and personal ideology.

In “Strategies, Tactics and the Question of Un Lieu Propre: What/Where is “Media

Theory”?”, Matt Hills (2004) suggests that fans “poach” from the canon of academic media

theory just as readily as Jenkins (1992) says that they do from media texts. Theory, Hills says, is

constructed as being the property of the academy, the educated elite. This notion of theory as

academic property restricts the production of it to the elite and undermines the “legitimacy” of

applied theoretical research. It is with a particular application of theory, however, that Hills is

concerned: the application of media theory by fans in the reading of media texts and in the

reflexive understanding of fan practices. Hills argues that, because media fans receive primarily

negative or dismissive attention from mainstream media and academia, they are inclined to

reflect critically on their own practices, tactically appropriating elements of media theory. While

Hills raises interesting and important questions regarding the position and purpose of theory in

academic and media culture, he persists in using the “poaching” metaphor (de Certeau, 1984

Jenkins, 1992). I contend that the actual critical practices of fans are more holistic than this

metaphor suggests. Furthermore, though Hills identifies three intersecting identities of

scholar/fan – “scholarly fans”, fan-scholars, and scholar-fans (2004: 141) – I would argue that

the distinction between “fans” and “scholars” is itself arbitrary and unnecessary. Furthermore, I

propose that the generation of media theory is not restricted to the academy. Rather, fans

themselves are both employing existing theories, with and without awareness, and generating

theory of their own. Finally, my research supports the contention that all fans are employing

critical tactics in their reading, not just those fans with access to “legitimate” theory, as Hills

suggests (2004: 144-5).

I cannot state with confidence the nature of female fans’ response to representations of

women on Supernatural, because the responses of those in my survey were not uniform.

However, I believe that this lack of uniformity supports an understanding of fans as critical

readers. Some fans read Supernatural as a misogynistic text, while others did not, and even those

who acknowledged its underlying sexism did so with different attitudes and expressions. The

variety of responses undermines the conventional assumption of fans as uncritical devotees, and

the content of the responses suggests an engagement other than “poaching” or taking away only

those things that appeal to them. Through visceral engagement and boundary work, fans are

situating the text as a whole within their own critical understandings and using fan writing and

community as means to express their interpretations. It is this complex reading and

contextualization which allows fans to act as academics and to experience criticism as an aspect

of pleasure in viewing. Ultimately, fans’ resistance to or tacit support of Supernatural’s gender

ideology is secondary to the practice of engaging with the text as critical readers, as academics.

At the beginning of this study, I asked two principal questions. First, how does

Supernatural construct representations of women? Second, how do women viewing the series

respond to and engage with those representations? These questions were posed with a view

toward understanding both the construction of gender ideologies in media texts and the tactics

employed by viewers in reading those ideologies.

Through analysis of the narrative text, I found that Supernatural frequently marginalizes,

victimizes, and eroticizes female characters. Though this representation of women is consistent

with that found in traditional horror films, it appears to be out of step with contemporary genre

television. Through viewer comments in my survey, I found female fans to be generally

ambivalent with regard to female characters, expressing both admiration and dislike as well as

frustration with extra-narrative factors. I found that fan tactics in reading Supernatural were

complex and contextualized, which, I believe, supports a fan-as-academic assumption.

Though the practical and theoretical limitations of this study prevent me from providing a

more comprehensive understanding of textual and fan practices in Supernatural, I believe that

my findings offer some insight into the ways in which readers engage with media texts, and that

this work may be useful in future research on this subject.

As I have contended, a thorough understanding of media texts requires examination both

of the texts themselves and of their reception by dedicated viewers. To that end, I have

developed a research model which draws on and combines elements of contemporary media

studies and fan studies. Using Freeland’s (2004) framework as a methodological foundation, I

applied different theoretical approaches to analyze the “intra-filmic” and “extra-filmic” elements

of the text. Because it is useful to understand Supernatural as a horror text, I used theory which

addressed constructions of gender in horror films to analyze the text itself, though I believe that

any media theory may be applied through this method to address texts of various genres. To

analyze the engagement of female Supernatural fans, I applied the work of Radway (2003),

Jenkins (1995), and Scodari (2003), but, once again, I believe that other theories may be

employed. I have applied this dual approach model to a specific end, but I am confident that it is

applicable to the study of other media texts. Indeed, I propose that it is necessary and that a

research model which addresses both text and audience is crucial to the future of cultural studies.

B. Limitations and Further Research

Though the focus of this study is relatively narrow, there are issues that I have not

addressed which should be considered when discussing fandom, gender, and Supernatural.

First, any further research on the subject should conduct an analysis of the ways in which

masculinity is also constructed in the narrative. I have chosen to focus exclusively on

representations of women, but this is problematic insofar as any understanding of gender as a

performance requires consideration of how different genders interact. In addition, I believe that

such an analysis would reveal an interesting, complex relationship between Supernatural’s

gender ideology and constructions of hegemonic masculinity.

Likewise, an examination of how race and ethnicity are dealt with on Supernatural is in

order and would be integral to any larger discussion of gender on the program, especially with

regard to masculinity. The series features three recurring characters of color, all Black men, two

of whom are framed as antagonists, and all of whom, as of season six, are dead.

Finally, with regard to the text, in order to fully understand constructions of gender on

Supernatural, we must consider it within the context of the horror, science fiction, and urban

fantasy genres, as well as the other CW programming. As I have asserted, I believe that fans are

already making this contextualization as a matter of course, and we, as academics, would be

remiss in doing otherwise. Extensive research on gender in horror films suggests that

Supernatural is far from unusual in its treatment of women. However, a cursory look at the

larger genre of science fiction television shows, to which Supernatural is linked by viewers, at

least, paints a different picture. Stargate: SG-1 and Farscape, the two series in Scodari’s (2003)

study, both include significant female characters as part of a large ensemble. Dark Angel, a show

mentioned by several respondents because it features Jensen Ackles, centers around a female

protagonist. Likewise, other programming on the CW network, ostensibly aimed at the same

audience as Supernatural, also includes prominent female leads. Popular series The Vampire

Diaries and Nikita both feature female protagonists, and long-running Superman tie-in

Smallville, in which Ackles also appeared and which several respondents mentioned, includes a

number of central female characters as part of its ensemble. Multiple respondents also indicated

that they had begun watching Supernatural due to an interest in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a

crucial text in the dialogue on feminist media (Douglas, 2010; Driver, 2007; Early, 2004; Karras,

2002; Owen, 1999). This, in my opinion, raises a pointed question regarding Supernatural’s

place in genre television with regard to women.

Other questions concerning fan engagement also remain unaddressed and unanswered. I

have suggested that fans simultaneously reinforce and resist sexist ideologies, but I have not

examined the possibility of active, conscious resistance within fan practices or what shape that

resistance might take, if it does exist. If, as I contend, fans criticize and interpret media texts,

does that critical engagement then translate into social action or activism, either within fan

spaces or outside of them? The understanding of fan practices as inherently resistant has been

scrutinized elsewhere (Jenkins, 1992; Scodari, 2003; Busse and Hellekson, 2006), but we must

also address the possibility that fandom may provide a medium for resistance and activism,

regardless of whether it is resistant in-and-of itself. Based on anecdotal experience, I would

suggest that social action is strongly present within fan culture, but further study is required to

understand the shape and meaning of this action.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I have chosen to focus my research on the

engagement of female fans and have neglected to address the perspective of other genders within

fandom. Specifically, I would ask whether male fans of Supernatural, or of any other media text,

are equally engaged, and, if so, where is their engagement taking place? A number of my

respondents said that they watched Supernatural with their husbands or boyfriends or that they

had been introduced to the series by a male acquaintance. Based on these comments and on the

fact that only 7% of my respondents were male, we may assume that, though men are engaging

with the text, their engagement is conducted in different spaces than those through which my

survey was transmitted, i.e. those spaces dedicated to fan writing. Where, then, and through what

means do male fans interact with media texts? Other scholars (Busse and Hellekson, 2006; Green

and Guinery, 2004; Jenkins, 1995; Scodari, 2003) have examined the motivations of women

writing and reading fan fiction, but I have not encountered a study asking why so few men

participate in these practices or addressing the motivations of those that do. Other spaces for fan

engagement and interaction, such as fan art and films, role playing, and conventions, are

prominent, well-used, and generally neglected by academia. If male fans are more present in

these spaces, we must question the gender disparity among fan practices and examine why and

how men engage through their chosen mediums. Secondarily, we must wonder about the

academic assumptions that have excluded male engagement from fan studies in the first place.

List of References

Aaronson, Charles. 1930. “B.O. Explodes Idea that Women Dislike War and Crook Pictures.

Feminine Attendance at Four Productions Classified as Lacking in Love or Romantic

Interest Averages 61 Per Cent of Total at Matinees and 59 Per Cent at Night.” Exhibitors

Herald-World, Cited in R. Berenstein, Attack of the Leading Ladies (New York, NY:

Columbia University Press). (110: 10).

Adorno, T.W. 1991. The Culture Industry, in W. Brooker and D. Jermyn, 2003. The

Audience Studies Reader (New York, NY: Routledge). (55-60).

Arrow, Jennifer. “CW Boss Says She’d Be “Shocked” if Supernatural Didn’t Return for Season

Seven.” E!Online. January 14, 2011. <http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/

watch_with_kristin/b220784_cw_boss_says_shed_be_shocked.html>. (accessed March

24, 2011).

Ausiello, Michael. "Supernatural Exec: "We Won't Be One Tree Hill with Monsters!". TV

Guide. July 21, 2007. (accessed March 16, 2011).

Barker, Martin. 1997. “The Newson Report”, in W. Brooker and D. Jermyn. 2003. The Audience

Studies Reader (New York, NY: Routledge). (74-90).

Bellafante, Ginia. 2011. “A Fantasy World of Strange Feuding Kingdoms”. The New York Times.

April 14, 2011.

Brooker, Will and Deborah Jermyn. 2003. The Audience Studies Reader. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Berenstein, Rhonda J. 1996. Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender, Sexuality, and Spectatorship

in Classic Horror Cinema. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Busse, Kristina and Karen Hellekson, eds. Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age

of the Internet. 2006. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Carroll, Noëll. 1990. “The Image of Women in Film: A Defense of the Paradigm”. The Journal

of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Cited in C. Freeland, “Feminist Frameworks for Horror

Films” in L. Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.) Film Theory and Criticism (New York, NY:

Oxford University Press). (48:4) 349-60.

Charman, Bernard. 1933. “Girls Want Mystery; Boys War Pictures.” Motion Picture Herald,

Cited in R. Berenstein, Attack of the Leading Ladies (New York, NY: Columbia

University Press). (111: 4).

Clarissa. 2011. “Survey Results: The Show With the Strongest Online Fandom Is….”. TV

Overmind. < http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/tv-news/survey-results-show-strongest-online-

fandom/54237>. (accessed April 18, 2011).

Clover, Carol J. 1992. Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Conlon, James. 1982. “Silencing Lambs and Educating Women”. Post Script (12: 1) 3-12.

Creed, Barbara. 1996. “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection.” In B.

Grant (Ed.). The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press. (pp. 35-65).

de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Douglas, Susan J. 2010. Enlightened Sexism: the seductive message that feminism’s work is

done. New York, NY: Times Books.

Downey, Kevin. “This time, the CW network gets it right.” Media Life. September 28, 2007.

< http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Television_44/

This_time_the_CW_network_gets_it_right.asp>. (accessed March 24, 2011).

Driver, Susan. 2007. Queer girls and popular culture: reading, resisting, and creating media.

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Early, Francis H. 2004. “Staking Her Claim: Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Transgressive Woman

Warrior”. The Journal of Popular Culture. (35: 3) 11-27.

Eleni. 2011. “Response to the NY Times review of “Game of Thrones””. RPG Called Life. April

15, 2011. <http://rpgcalledlife.blogspot.com/2011/04/response-to-ny-times-review-of-

game-of.html>. (accessed April 18, 2011).

fan fiction. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon. Dictionary.com,

LLC.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fan fiction (accessed: September 27, 2010).

Forum post. 2011. “Game of Thrones Review Sparks Geek Girl Revolution!” The Galaxy: the

scifi community. April 15, 2011. <http://www.myouterspace.com/index.php/

Community-Home/Galaxy/Galaxy/603-Game-of-Thrones-Reviews-Sparks-Geek-Girl-

Revolution.html>. (accessed April 18, 2011).

Freeland, Cynthia. 2004. “Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films.” In L. Braudy, & M. Cohen

(Eds.). Film Theory and Criticism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (pp.

742-763).

Grant, Barry Keith, ed. 1984. Planks of Reason: Essays on the Horror Film. Metuchen, NJ:

Scarecrow Press.

Green, Leila and Carmen Guinery. 2004. “Harry Potter and the Fanfiction Phenomenon.”

M/C Journal 7.

Hill, Joshua S. 2011. “Game of Thrones: How Fantasy and Intelligence are Marginalized”. Life

as a Human. April 18, 2011. <http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/feature/game-of-thrones-

how-fantasy-and-intelligence-are-marginalized/>. (accessed April 18, 2011).

Hills, Matt. 2004. “Strategies, Tactics and the Question of Un Lieu Propre: What/Where is

“Media Theory”?”. Social Semiotics. (14:2) 133-149.

Hoggart, Richard. 1957. The Uses of Literacy, in W. Brooker and D. Jermyn. 2003. The

Audience Studies Reader (New York, NY: Routledge). (67-73).

Irigaray, Luce. 1985. “The Power of Discourse”. In L. Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One, tran.

Catherine Porter, Cited in C. Freeland, “Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films” in L.

Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.) Film Theory and Criticism (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (p. 78).

Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, Henry. 1995. “'At other times, like females': Gender and Star Trek fan fiction.” In J.

Tulloch, & H. Jenkins (Eds.). Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star

Trek. New York, NY: Routledge. (pp.198-212).

Karras, Irene. 2002. “The Third Wave’s Final Girl: Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. thirdspace: a

journal of feminist theory and culture. (1:2).

Knee, Adam. 1996. “Gender, Genre, Argento.” In B. Grant (Ed.). The Dread of Difference:

Gender and the Horror Film. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (pp. 213-320).

Lamont, Michèle and Virág Molnár. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences”.

MacKenzie, Carina Adly. “’Supernatural’: Jensen Ackles says the classic rock is coming back.”

Zap2It. February 15, 2011. <http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/02/

supernatural-jensen-ackles-says-the-classic-rock-is-coming-back.html> (accessed March

31, 2011).

Mansfield, Nick. 2000. Subjectivity. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Martin, George R. R. 1996. A Game of Thrones. New York, NY: Bantam Spectra.

Modleski, Tania. 1986. “The Terror of Pleasure: the Contemporary Horror Film and Postmodern

Theory”. In Tania Modleski (Ed.). Studies in Entertainment: Critical Approaches to Mass

Culture, Cited in C. Freeland, “Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films” in L. Braudy

& M. Cohen (Eds.) Film Theory and Criticism (New York, NY: Oxford University

Press). Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. (pp. 155-66).

Nielsen Company. “A2/M2 Three Screen Report: 1

Quarter 2009”. 2009. < http://

blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/

nielsen_threescreenreport_q109.pdf>. (accessed March 14, 2011).

Owen, Rob. “TV Preview: ‘Supernatural’ tries to come out of the shadows.” Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette. March 15, 2007. < http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07074/769489-237.stm>.

(accessed March 24, 2011).

Owen, Susan. 1999. “Vampires, Postmodernity, and Postfeminism: Buffy the Vampire Slayer”.

Journal of Popular Film and Television. (27:2) 24-31.

Radway, Janice. 2003. “Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature.” In

W. Brooker, & D. Jermyn (Eds.). The Audience Studies Reader. New York, NY:

Routledge. (pp. 219-225).

Ratcliffe, Amy. 2011. “Response to the NY Times Game of Thrones Review”. Geek With

Curves. April 15, 2011. <http://geekfemme.blogspot.com/2011/04/

response-to-ny-times-game-of-thrones.html>. (accessed April 18, 2011).

Scodari, Christine. 2003. “Resistance Re-Examined: Gender, Fan Practices, and Science Fiction

Television.” Popular Communication, I(2), 111-130.

Supernatural: The Complete First Season. Created by Eric Kripke. Burbank, CA: Warner Home

Video Inc, 2005-2006. DVD

Supernatural: The Complete Second Season. Created by Eric Kripke. Burbank, CA: Warner

Home Video Inc, 2006-2007. DVD

Supernatural: The Complete Third Season. Created by Eric Kripke. Burbank, CA: Warner

Home Video Inc, 2007. DVD

Supernatural: The Complete Fourth Season. Created by Eric Kripke. Burbank, CA: Warner

Home Video Inc, 2008-2009. DVD

Supernatural: The Complete Fifth Season. Created by Eric Kripke. Burbank, CA: Warner

Home Video Inc, 2009-2010. DVD

WB Television Network. “Supernatural Given Full-Season Pick-Up by the WB.” Press Release.

Oct. 6, 2005. < http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20051006wb01>. (accessed

March 24, 2011).

Wertham, Frederic. 1955. Seduction of the Innocent, in W. Brooker and D. Jermyn. 2003. The

Audience Studies Reader (New York, NY: Routledge). (61-66).

West, Candace & Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender”. Gender & Society. (1) 125-151.

Williams, Don. "Creator Eric Kripke Talks 'Supernatural' Season 4." buddyTV. September 8,

2008. <http://www.buddytv.com/articles/supernatural/supernatural-convention-brings-

18107.aspx>. (accessed March 16, 2011).

Williams, Linda. 1996. “When the Woman Looks.” In B. Grant (Ed.). The Dread of Difference:

Gender and the Horror Film. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (pp. 15-34).

Youn, Susan C. 2011. “Geek girls power viewership for sci-fi/fantasy TV”. MSNBC Today.

April 13, 2011.

Appendix

Appendix A

1. Coding instructions for text analysis.

1) “S.” = “Season”. The researcher should indicate the season number of the episode under

consideration.

2) “Ep.” = “Episode”. The researcher should indicate the number of the episode under

consideration.

3) “Description” = The researcher should provide a brief description of the female character. If a

name is given, that should be indicated here. Otherwise, the character should be identified

based on her function in the narrative, e.g. “victim no.2”, “blonde waitress”, etc.

4) “Age” = The researcher should indicate the approximate age of the character to within at least

ten years, e.g. “20-25”, “30s”, “late teens”, etc.

5) “Obj.” = “Object”. The researcher should indicate whether the character is presented as a

sexual object. A character is considered to be presented as a sexual object if she engages or is

engaged by another character in sexually or romantically suggestive conversation of if she

engages in or is known to have engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with another

character.

6) “M/A” = “Married or Attached”. The researcher should indicate whether the character is

known to be married or otherwise romantically attached.

7) “V/A” = “Victim/Antagonist”. The researcher should indicate whether the character is a

“victim”, whose well-being is directly threatened during the course of the narrative, or an

“antagonist”, who poses a direct threat to either the protagonists or other characters. If this

distinction is ambiguous, this should be indicated in the “Notes”.

8) “D.” = “Dead”. The researcher should indicate whether the character dies during the course

of the narrative. If the character is a reappearance of a character who died previously in the

narrative, this should be indicated in the “Notes”.

9) “Notes” = The researcher should make note of any extraneous information relevant to the

current research. Notations regarding meta-knowledge are appropriate.

An example of the coding for a single episode is given below. If an episode features no female

characters, this should also be noted.

S. Ep. Description Age Obj. M/A V/A D. Notes:

1 12 Nurse in hospital 40s

Layla Rourke 20s x Not victim but charac as sick/weak

Doctor 30s

Sue Ann la Grange 45-55 M A x

Layla’s mother 45-55

runner 20s V x

2. Copy of survey as it was distributed.

Before you get started, you need to know two things. First, all the answers you give to these questions

will be entirely anonymous, there will be nothing connecting your identity (RL or digital) to your

answers, and the only person who will see your answers as they appear on this form will be me. Second,

while I would ask, for the sake of accuracy, that you answer every question as fully as you can, all of the

questions are entirely optional. If you don’t feel comfortable providing certain information, feel free to

skip the question.

Once you’re finished, please send the completed survey to

spnsurvey@gmail.com under the subject line

“Survey”. Don’t miss the last two questions on the second page!

Age:

Gender:

Location:

How did you start watching Supernatural?

How do you watch the show now? (e.g. on TV every week, online, alone, with friends, etc.)

Do you talk to other fans about the show? How often?

Who are your favorite characters? Why? (No more than four, please.)

Which characters, if any, do you most dislike? Why? (Again, no more than four.)

What are your favorite episodes? Why? (No more than three.)

What episodes, if any, do you most dislike? Why? (You get the picture.)

Do you read fan fiction? If so, what kind? (Please be as general or specific as your are comfortable with.)

What aspects of the show do you most enjoy? What keeps you watching?

Would you be willing to respond to a more in-depth, follow-up survey? If so, please provide a contact e-

mail address.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

If you have any questions of your own about this survey or my project, please contact me at

spnsurvey@gmail.com, and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.

Appendix B

1. Female Characters in Season One.

Age Total Sexual Object Married/Attached

Victim/Antagonist Dead

-16 10 0 0 4(V) – 1(A) 1

16-22 10 3 3 6(V) 4

20-30 29 20 13 15(V) – 3(A) – 3(V/A) 7

30-40 18 1 7 7(V) – 1(A) 3

40-50 9 0 5 2(V) – 1(A) 1

50+ 5 0 0 1(V) 1

Total 81 24 28 35(V) – 6(A) – 3(V/A) 17

2. Female Characters in Season Two.

Age Total Sexual Object Married/Attached

Victim/Antagonist Dead

-16 5 0 0 1(V) – 2(A) 1

16-22 2 0 0 1(V) 1

20-30 33 17 8 11(V) – 7(A) – 4(V/A) 9

30-40 9 3 4 6(V) 3

40-50 6 0 2 4(V) – 1(A) 3

50+ 2 0 0 1(V) 1

Total 57 20 14 24(V) – 10(A) – 4(V/A) 18

3. Character Death in Season One.

Gende

Tota

Dressed/Undresse

On/Off

Screen

Home/Publi

Witnessed Shot of

Body

Gender

Killer

Femal

17 9(D) – 8(U) 11(On) –

6(Off)

12(H) –

5(P)

8 6 3(F) –

10(M) –

4(O)

Male 27 26(D) – 1(U) 9(On) –

18(Off)

11(H) –

16(P)

18 9 6(F) –

15(M) –

6(O)

Total 44 35(D) – 9(U) 20(On) –

24(Off)

23(H) –

21(P)

26 15 9(F) –

25(M) –

10(O)

4. Character Death in Season Two.

Gende

Tota

Dressed/Undresse

On/Off

Screen

Home/Publi

Witnessed Shot of

Body

Gender

Killer

Femal 16 13(D) – 3(U) 8(On) – 5(H) – 8 5 2(F) –

100

e 8(Off) 11(P) 7(M) –

7(O)

Male 41 39(D) – 2(U) 24(On) –

17(Off)

5(H) –

36(P)

32 12 10(F) –

16(M) –

15(O)

Total 57 52(D) – 5(U) 32(On) –

25(Off)

10(H) –

72(P)

40 17 12(F) –

23(M) –

22(O)

101

102

Appendix C

1. Survey Statistics

Age Female Male Total

-18 10 3 23

18-22 30 2 32

23-30 28 0 28

31-40 13 2 15

41-50 6 0 6

51+ 2 0 2

Total 89 5 94

e) United States

Age Female Male Total

-18 3 0 3

18-22 14 2 16

23-30 14 0 14

31-40 10 2 12

41-50 2 0 2

51+ 1 0 1

Total 44 4 48

103

f) Portugal

Age Female Male Total

-18 5 3 8

18-22 6 0 6

23-30 2 0 2

31-40 1 0 1

41-50 0 0 0

51+ 0 0 0

Total 14 3 17

g) Europe (Not Portugal)

Age Female Male Total

-18 2 0 2

18-22 5 0 5

23-30 5 0 5

31-40 0 0 0

41-50 1 0 1

51+ 1 0 1

Total 14 0 14

h) Other Location

Age Female Male Total

104

-18 0 0 0

18-22 5 0 5

23-30 7 0 7

31-40 2 0 2

41-50 0 0 0

51+ 0 0 0

Total 14 0 14

2. Female Characters

Character Liked Disliked

Anna Milton 1 16

Ava Wilson 0 2

Becky Rosen 1 4

Bela Talbot 3 10

Cassie Robinson 0 4

Ellen Harvelle 10 1

Jo Harvelle 4 10

Leah Gideon 0 1

Lilith 0 2

Lisa Braeden 0 6

Madison 0 1

105

Mary Winchester 1 0

Meg Masters 0 8

Missouri Moseley 1 1

Pamela Barnes 1 0

Ruby 5 38

3. Male Characters

Character Liked Disliked

Adam Milligan 1 1

Alastair 3 2

Andrew Gallagher 2 0

Ash 3 0

Azazel 3 0

Ben Braeden 0 1

Bobby Singer 33 1

Castiel 56 2

Chuck Shurley 4 0

Crowley 7 0

Dean Winchester 77 4

Gabriel 27 2

God 0 1

106

Gordon Walker 0 2

John Winchester 8 6

Joshua 0 1

Lucifer 8 3

Raphael 0 2

Sam Winchester 51 8

Uriel 0 6

Victor Henriksen 2 1

Zachariah 0 12

107

VITA

CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: Jordan Richard

Phone Number: 6015975742

Permanent Address: 309 Live Oak

Natchez, MS 39120

E-mail Address: [email protected]

EDUCATION

Degree Received: Master of Arts, Sociology

Institution: University of Mississippi

Dates Attended: August 2009 – May 2011

Degree Received: Bachelor of Arts, Sociology

Minor in Linguistics

Institution: University of Mississippi

Dates Attended: August 2004 – May 2008

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Position: Graduate Student Assistant

Location: University of Mississippi

Oxford, MS

Dates: August 2009 – May 2011

Position: Paper Presenter, Original Research

Location: Alabama-Mississippi Sociological Association Annual Conference

Cleveland, MS

Date: March 2010

Position: Assistant Librarian

Location: Willie Mae Dunn Library, Copiah-Lincoln Community College

Natchez, MS

Dates: November 2008 – June 2009