Quality 5.0 / 5.0 (highly recommended)
Gay Inclusive? Slightly – One mention of a minor gay character
Gay positive? Very – I love how the gay content is handled

Unusually, in this case I think the sequel outdoes the first book, though it’s close. The sheer creativity, wit and cleverness in this book combined with the engaging writing style make this a pleasure to read.

The novel is a mystery or crime drama, set in an alternate reality where Dodos have been re-created and people travel internationally by means of Gravitubes that go through the center of the earth. A branch of the government deals specifically in time-travel-related crimes.

And, most importantly, books have their own reality, and it’s possible for characters from, say, “Great Expectations” to enter the “real” world of the novel, and for the protagonist Thursday Next to travel into works like “Jane Eyre” or Poe’s “The Raven.” Hence Miss Havisham from “Great Expectations” is actually a major character in Fforde’s novel.

Someone is trying to kill protagonist Thursday Next by using coincidences. Yes, you read right. Death by coincidence. Fforde injects a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor into his work, and there are several laugh-out-loud moments along the way.

The main weakness to the novel is the pacing and plotting – what is ostensibly the main plot seems to take a backseat to the many subplots, so it sometimes feels like the story is just drifting. I enjoyed reading this novel, but I didn’t find myself reading it breakfast, lunch, and dinner as I do when a book is totally gripping. Still, this is a minor complaint on my part, given that the characters are likable, the humor agreeable, and the ideas engaging, and I award the novel high scores in the “Quality” category.

As to the gay stuff…. the author mentions once that the Thursday’s brother (named Joffy, a minister in the Global Standard Deity Church) is gay, including a reference to Joffy’s boyfriend. The scene is a delightful riff, as Joffy and his boyfriend must keep their relationship secret because the boyfriend’s employer looks down on its employees associating with… clergymen. This is the only gay content in the whole book (hence the very low rating in that category), but I love the way it’s handled, so I give it full marks on the positivity scale.

Overall 3.5 / 5.0 (promising but fails to deliver a high-impact story)
Gay Inclusive? Very – protagonist is gay, and the mystery takes him into London’s 18th Century gay underworld
Gay Positive? Mostly – the era is definitely not gay positive, but the author’s treatment of the gay content is.

Set in 1757, Lord John Grey is the head of his family’s household until his elder brother Hal returns from a military appointment abroad. As a result, Grey has some responsibility to protect his cousin Olivia, who is engaged to marry well-to-do merchant Joseph Trevelyan, whom Grey believes to be “poxed” with syphilis. At that time in history, syphilis occupied the role HIV/AIDS does today. Worse, in fact: it was incurable, and contracting the illness virtually guaranteed the most unpleasant sort of death.

Meanwhile, another mystery erupts: it appears that vital British state secrets have been lost and might be sold to the French. Grey is tasked with investigating the crime to figure out what happened, who was involved and how to recover the lost secrets before it’s too late.

I enjoyed reading a gay-inclusive mystery set in a period of time about which I know little. Author Diana Gabaldon has done her research (in fact, she is well-known for her historical research), and I learned quite a bit about the history of gay people in Georgian England. She also includes a list of resources for anyone who wants to dig deeper and learn more.

The mystery is mildly interesting, but unfortunately fails to captivate. I was never sufficiently invested in the characters or events such that the story’s twists would have me on the edge of my seat.

Although generally sympathetic, the main character never comes alive. Apparently Lord John is supposed to be young and handsome, but he reads like he’s 60. Whenever his handsomeness was mentioned, it was always kind of jarring, because I had forgotten he was supposed to be young and winsome. That indicates a characterization disconnect.

Lord John is a secondary character from Gabaldon’s better know Outlander series (which I have never read). Reviewer Susan Scribner of TheRomanceReader.com comments,

I like Lord John throughout the Outlander series he has always come across as sympathetic, complex and slightly tormented, but this story doesn’t shed much new light on his core character. He’s always been a bit of an enigma, and he remains elusive.

That’s problematic when Grey is at the center of the story and occupies nearly every page of the tale. Considering Gabaldon’s exquisite attention to historical detail, I would expect a multilayered character of depth and unexpected internal contradictions. Instead, we find someone who is genteel and devoted to duty, and that’s about it. Even his gayness, which he must keep secret given the social mores of the time period, fails to render him more than mildly interesting.

At the same time, the story hints at repressed passions and an undercurrent of powerful emotions. Perhaps future stories will allow Lord John to unfold more fully as a human being caught in multiple traps: the repressive social standards of the era, the excruciating necessity of maintaining a pristine image in his social class and the painful denial of a loving, committed relationship.

In fact, I was dying for Grey to get some action! I hoped his new valet, Tom Byrd, would develop a requited attraction to his master. But no. Nothing. The most important romance in the novel – which the reader doesn’t really delve into until the end – is heterosexual.

On the whole, I find this book to be promising, but little else. I hope that Gabaldon grows into this genre, and that future volumes chronicling Lord John Grey do him justice.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (engaging and interesting)
Gay Inclusive? Very – the subject is a gay man and his beginnings in gay porn
Gay Positive? Mostly – a positive tone undercut by negative implications that go unexplored

A fascinating look into a culture and man full of unexpected contradictions.

Jeffrey Schwartz’s documentary explores the evolution of Jack Stillman – a small, unathletic child of Beverly Hills privilege – into Jack Wrangler, who epitomizes rugged male sexuality. The evolution is far from linear. Jack begins in gay porn at a time when pornography was produced for the big screen, and acting was actually expected of the stars. Sometimes adult films could even get reviews in venues like Variety.

Stillman forged Wrangler in the fire of the gay porn business in the 1960s, during the time of the sexual revolution. The gay experience was fraught with peril; the documentary largely ignores that and focuses instead on the sexual openness of the pre-AIDS period.

The documentary strikes me as a bit one-sided in this sense. In fact, with Jack as the chief narrator, the film seems more like an autodocumentary. The overall tone is self-congratulatory, although to his credit Jack seems as startled by his successes as anyone. Still, I can’t help but think there’s another side to this story not being told.

I do deeply appreciate one of the themes of the documentary: a presentation of gay men counter to common stereotype. In fact, he’s one of earliest media images that counters the stereotype of gay men as effeminate sissies; it’s interesting that his image is not just masculine, but powerfully sexualized. Jack Wrangler represents a “manly man” – rugged, handsome and sexual – who is also gay.

Which makes it so odd that Wrangler moved into straight pornography. He had his first sexual encounter with a woman on-camera. He managed to become successful even in straight adult films, including The Devil in Miss Jones 2 and Debbie Does Dallas 2.

He’s also one of the few porn stars to bridge the gap from porn to mainstream theatrical work.

Perhaps most curiously, Jack became romantically involved with vocalist Margaret Whiting, a woman twenty years his senior. They have since married.

I’m not straight, and I’m not bisexual. I’m gay, but I could never live a gay lifestyle because I’m much too competitive. When I was with a guy I would always want to be better than him: what we were accomplishing, what we were wearing — anything. With a woman you compete like crazy, but coming from different points of view, and as far as I’m concerned, that was doable. (1)

It’s a puzzling development in the personal life of an otherwise openly gay man. Watching this portion of the documentary, part of me shrugs it away: to each his own. At the same time, I can’t help but notice that it’s suggestive that gay men can “change” their sexual orientation, and that the image of a manly gay man “turns out” to be straight … or at least turns to a straight lifestyle.

The most interesting-and perplexing-event of his life is his relationship with Whiting. Wrangler is a self-professed gay man who, according to the film, can´t see himself living with another man. As a condition of moving in with Whiting, and subsequently getting married, the actor agreed to give up performing in porn films as well as having encounters with other men. He makes light of it, saying he has a healthy masturbatory life. However, for a generation of gay men who looked up to Wrangler-not to mention the era he ushered in-I have to think this is a slap in the face. Certainly there is not a list of requirements to be considered gay; what fits one person doesn´t necessarily fit another. But a out gay man married to a woman and abstaining from sex with other men? Does that even qualify as being gay anymore? (2)

Again, I return to the point that the documentary doesn’t present “another side” to the story. Despite including interviews with colleagues from his work in porn, the documentary never delves into what it all means.

—————————

Theatrical trailer:

—————————-

(1) Brother, Job. “The Anatomy of Jack Wrangler.” The Advocate. 5 November 2008. http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid64690.asp (retrieved 30 November 2008).

(2) Vargo, Jason. “Review of ‘Wrangler: Anatomy of an Icon.’” DVDTown.com. 26 October 2008. http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/wrangler-anatomy-of-an-icon/6426 (retrieved 30 November 2008).

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (A+ for effort, but hard to really recommend)
Gay Inclusive? Very – it’s a dramatic gay romance
Gay Positive? Mostly – a few instances of internal & external homophobia pop up

From the same filmmaker (Jeff London) as Regarding Billy, we have Arizona Sky.

The movie opens with a scene between teenage Jake (Blaise Embry) and Kyle (Kyle Buckland). They have been having a secret romance, but now Jake’s family is moving away. They promise to keep in touch, but we all know how adolescent promises like that turn out.

Fast forward fifteen years, and we meet an adult Jake (Eric Dean). He’s a movie producer deeply dissatisfied with his life. His straight best friend (Brent King) calls him on it, and Jake decides to take a vacation to his home town, where he looks up Kyle (Jayme McCabe).

I was engaged by the first half of the movie. From the moment adult Jake met adult Kyle, however, the script took a sharp left into hokey and hackneyed. I was almost ready to buy into the foundational idea that maybe Jake and Kyle, even after 15 years, still had a powerful connection. But as soon as we meet the adult Kyle, it’s apparent that these two have grown into such fundamentally different men, I could not understand why they were so impassioned about one another that they would be driven into histrionics.

Maybe it has something to do with the self-indulgent script. Every scene is at least 10 or 20 percent longer than it should be, and the movie is incredibly talky. I like thoughtful screenplays, but even I was dying for something to happen.

The basic story is sweet. Most of the acting ranges from passable to competent. (Note I said “most”). A charming performance from Eric Dean is probably the movie’s highlight; I also really enjoyed the repartee between him and his straight best friend. Arizona Sky is gay-positive on the whole, a few instances of homophobia notwithstanding.

Everything shows potential, from the acting to the script. The movie just never gels. Its disparate parts are all off just enough that I spent the whole movie divorced from the experience. I never stopped being aware that I was watching a movie.

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Inclusive? Very – an engaging and moving story of the gay rights movement and one of its heroes
Gay Positive? Very – although a tragic tale, it is fiercely empowering

This is the movie I wish Brokeback Mountain had been.

Don’t get me wrong – Brokeback Mountain was a masterpiece of film-making, and it was robbed of its rightful Academy Award. But I have a love-hate relationship with such movies – beautiful, moving, and important stories that are horribly tragic and unhappy. I’m glad that a gay love story finally hit the mainstream with Brokeback Mountain, but it did nothing to dispel myths like gay-love-is-doomed and bad-things-will-happen-to-you-if-you’re-gay.

Milk also brings a tragic story to the big screen: the assassination of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk. Yet Milk is empowering in a way Brokeback Mountain was not. Instead of vaguely feeling bad about being gay, I felt inspired, charged up and ready to fight for my rights. Milk also brings to the big screen the struggle not just for equal rights but also for freedom from the physical and emotional violence that gay people have long endured.

Just this week, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed on The View that gay rights are not civil rights because gay people have not been subjected to a history of violence like black people. Such a willfully ignorant statement is nothing short of appalling; and yet, it is representative of a surprisingly large swath of the population. Many do not acknowledge or do not care about the persecution of gays in Nazi Germany; the institutionalized violence against gay people by police in previous decades and by religious organizations (like the Mormons using electro-shock therapy to “cure” homosexuality); and individual hate crimes that have claimed the lives of people like Matthew Shepherd.

Thank God for Milk, and what a timely film it is. The movie dramatizes Milk’s move to San Francisco and his subsequent rise to the position of City Supervisor (after several failed attempts). Once in the position, a significant portion of the movie details his fight against Proposition 6, which would have enabled the state of California to fire any teacher known to be gay along with any teacher who supported them.

Fast forward 30 years, and Californians once again vote on a proposition of concern to gay rights – Proposition 8, which successfully banned gay marriage (after the California Supreme Court legalized it).

My only criticism of the film falls on the editing, and I’m not sure what the Gus van Sant could have done differently. He’s just covering so much territory in the space of a couple of hours that much of the story gets told in fast-forward. Nevertheless, the movie was engrossing from start to finish, and the phenomenal acting from all quarters – both Sean Penn and Josh Brolin deserve extra mention – imbues the story with life.

Please see this movie. Please take your friends and family to see it. Particularly in the aftermath of Proposition 8′s passage, a lot of people seem to dismiss the gay community’s reaction as sore losers throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. They do not – perhaps because they are not willing to – recognize how a group of people have been systematically oppressed throughout even the history of a country that espouses the values of equality and the separation of church and state.

Milk is a sad tale, but one encoupled with hope. I walked out of the theater both devastated and determined. One thing can be said of Harvey Milk: his hope lives on in those of us who are willing to embrace it.

“If a bullet should go through my head, let that bullet go through every closet door”

- Harvey Milk

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (entertaining, if light, read)
Gay Inclusive? Moderately – two secondary gay characters
Gay Positive? Very – both characters are well-rounded and important to the story

Okay, yeah, I have to admit – the plot is nothing new. Mysterious Monster Makes Mayhem; Sassy Star Saves the Day.

Specifically, the vampires are up to no good – a newly made vampire possessed by a demon begins wrecking havoc on the Mercy Thompson’s small community. It’s up to her, along with her werewolf allies and lone vampire friend, to figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it.

Once again, with textured characters and a involving alternate world, the author brings the story to life. It says a lot about the characters when they each have their own minor concerns that almost rival the main story for interest.

For example, Mercy’s gay werewolf cowboy friend (whew!) Warren returns. At one point, he’s wounded by the Big Bad of the story; and certain members of his pack – sensing weakness in a guy they never really cared for because he’s gay – try to take advantage to knock Warren from his position in the pack. It’s a relatively minor thread, but the relationships (good and bad) that exist between these characters possess a vitality that keeps me turning pages as fast as I can.

On the other hand, the fact that subplots nearly eclipse the main story doesn’t speak well of the main story. Considering Briggs’ inventiveness in her world-building, it’s a bit of a let-down to find the central plot to be relatively formulaic.

Nevertheless, Blood Bound was an immensely entertaining and enjoyable read with an exciting climax and meaty denouement (an improvement over the first book’s conclusion). A great read for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

——————-

See also my review of the first Mercy Thompson book, Moon Called.

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0 (fun, engaging story)
Gay Inclusive? Moderately – two secondary (but important) gay characters
Gay Positive? Very – both characters are well-rounded and fully fleshed-out

A supernatural (or urban fantasy) mystery adventure. Mercy Thompson is a sassy, free-spirited, and no-nonsense walker – that is, a shapeshifter who can transform easily from human to coyote, thanks to her Native American heritage. She lives in a world shared by werewolves, vampires, witches, and the fae (fairy spirits, ranging from gremlins to ogres to mythological monsters).

She has an uneasy but generally congenial relationship with the werewolf pack next door. In fact, she finds herself torn between the pack’s Alpha (Adam), and a former werewolf flame (Samuel). The romantic triangle is not resolved in this book – in fact, it’s not resolved until the end of Book 3.

The romance takes second place to the main story – a mysterious attack on Adam’s pack that leaves Adam on the verge of death and his (human) daughter Jesse kidnapped. Who would perpetrate such an attack? And why?

Briggs brings a lot of strengths to the book, including great characterizaton and a well-conceived alternate universe in which magic and supernatural creatures are real. The world-building (seeing how the supernatural elements fit into the “real” world) was just as interesting to me as the main plot. Briggs even manages to work a little social commentary into her world-building. The fae, for example, have recently been outed to the public, and most of them have been moved onto reservations.

Gay-wise, Adam’s pack includes a gay werewolf named Warren (who was a cowboy before he was turned), and his boyfriend Kyle. They are close friends of mercy’s, and both of them are sensible and helpful fellows with meaty parts in all three books.

A brief explanation why I included the negative stereotypes of heterosexism and gay without agency. The werewolf world is apparently even less accepting of gays than the normal world, and apparently Warren had a hard time of it until he was finally welcomed by Adam. Well, a harder time of it, because some of Adam’s other werewolves still do not deal well with him. It’s great that Adam is not prejudiced, and it paints his characters nicely, but it’s frustrating to see a gay man requiring a popular straight man’s “approval” to be accepted by the rest of the group.

I don’t weight these factors heavily, however. Yeah, I would have preferred if gayness were no big deal in the werewolf world. But even so, Warren and Kyle are two great characters, and Briggs (through protagonist Mercy) clearly cares about them. Major kudos to Briggs for writing them into the story, making them such great characters, and giving them some substantive scenes.

Story-wise, a minor complaint: the story weakens near the end. In part to increase tension, and in part to conclude the novel’s central mystery, the plot becomes convoluted and twisted as it winds to a conclusion. It’s a little hard to follow, and it throws the novel’s pacing off. Still, the author manages to end the book with a bang, and how’s this for a recommendation: I finished the book and immediately went out and bought the next two.

Overall Quality: 3.5 / 5.0 (inconsistent, but deep characterization, great acting, and interesting themes carry the show)

Gay Inclusive? Not really. Only one episode (“Bugs“) contains any gay content, and it’s minor – see my commentary on that episode for more information.

Click here to see my review and analysis of Season 3.

1.1 Pilot

Original Air Date. 13 September 2005.

Monster: Vengeful ghost
Summary: The pilot provides the most important backstory details about the Winchester family’s supernatural experiences. Dean (Jensen Ackles) comes to Stanford to recruit his brother Sam (Jared Padalecki) to help search for their father John (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who has gone missing. In the course of the episode, they must vanquish a specific type of ghost called a Woman in White.

A nice little ghost story, haunting and engaging enough to get me to watch the next episode.

1.2 Wendigo

Original Air Date: 20 September 2005

Monster: Wendigo, a former human whose cannabilism turned it into a fearsome monster
Summary: Following leads from their father, Dean and Sam investigate the disappearance of several campers. They learn that a Wendigo (from Native American legend) is responsible.

The story was a bit dumb, but I enjoyed the change of pace from ghost story to action-adventure, which hints at a flexibility with storytelling that could help a show with a staid Monster-of-the-Week format stay fresh from week to week.

1.3 Dead in the Water

Original Air Date: 27 September 2005

Monster: Vengeful ghost
Summary: Still following their father’s leads and utilizing a notebook full of information about supernatural phenomena, the brothers travel to a town with a history of inexplicable drownings.

Great scenery. The show is filmed in British Columbia, and this typically yields a show with gorgeous backgrounds. Still, there’s a downside: the brothers are supposedly traveling all through the United States, but the scenery pretty much looks just the same in every episode. This is also the first episode where some below-the-surface characterization begins to emerge, foreshadowing one of the show’s strengths.

1.4 Phantom Traveler

Original Air Date: 4 October 2005

Monster: A demon
Summary: The monster creates death; five people escape its most recent attack, and it goes after them one by one. Sam and Dean intervene.

An engaging episode. I like how they show has introduced vulnerability to the characters (such as Dean’s fear of flying); it makes them more complex and nuanced.

I thought the idea of the Phantom Traveler was interesting, albeit vaguely reminiscent of the movie Final Destination. They haven’t quite gotten their creative muscles fully flexing. Of the first four shows, two are about the same thing (a ghost), and one is a rip on a movie that’s already been made.

1.5 Bloody Mary

Original Air Date: 11 October 2005

Monster: A vengeful ghost inspired by the legendary Bloody Mary
Summary: Looking into a mirror and repeating “Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary” summons a murderous spirit and sets into motion a series of horrific killings.

Scary. The pilot episode was atmospheric and creepy, but “Bloody Mary” is outright scary.

Okay, okay. Full disclosure: I scare easily.

I also love mirrors as a symbol. The best episode so far – the story gets under the viewer’s skin with a haunting, exciting storyline and great climax. In my opinion, “Bloody Mary” is the scariest ep in the entire season, and also one of the most mesmerizing.

1.6 Skin

Original Air Date: 18 October 2005

Monster: A shapeshifter
Summary: A college buddy of Sam’s is accused of a murder he says he didn’t commit; it turns out a shapeshifter is murdering people while taking other people’s forms. At one point, the shapeshifter takes the shape of Dean. When the creature does so, he’s able to access Dean’s thoughts and memories as well.

A so-so episode, although I liked the characterization of Dean that the unusual situation allowed, and the development of the relationship between the two brothers. I find Dean’s insecurities, which he conceals under the guise of bravado, to be endearing. His character would be irritating and arrogant otherwise.

A couple of great exchanges from the episode:

Dean: I really wish things could be different, you know, I wish you could just be Joe College.
Sam: Nah, that’s okay. You know, truth is, even at Stanford, deep down, I never really fit in.
Dean: Well, that’s cuz you’re a freak.
Samr: Yeah, thanks.
Dean: Well I’m a freak, too. I’m right there with you, all the way.

Shapeshifter as Dean: He sure got issues with you. You got to go to college, he had to stay home. I mean, I had to stay home with Dad. You don’t think I had dreams of my own? But Dad needed me. Where the hell were you?
Sam: Where is my brother?
Shapeshifter: I’m your brother. See, deep down I’m just jealous. You got friends, you could have a life. Me? I know I’m a freak, and sooner or later everybody is going to leave me.
Sam: What are you talking about?
Shapeshifter: You left. Hell, I did everything Dad asked me to and he dissed me too. No explanation, nothing, just left me with your sorry ass.

1.7 Hookman

Original Air Date: 25 October 2005

Monster: The Hook Man
Summary: Sam and Dean must face an urban legend come to life.

Supernatural appears to take a dim view toward organized religion. This episode provides the first commentary toward it, although others will follow. In this episode, religion is painted as self-righteous and moralizing.

This raises an interesting question. What is the role of God and goodness in the world of Supernatural? Or is it truly just a dark and bleak world? What’s the point of the struggle if that’s the case? In the episode “Jus in Bello” in Season 3, Dean expresses the opinion that the world is going down, and he’d just prefer to go down fighting. But in Season 2′s “Houses of the Holy,” Sam states that he believes in God and prays every day.

This theme is only just touched on in occasional episodes, unfortunately.

1.8 Bugs

Original Air Date: 8 November 2005

Gay Inclusive? Slightly – Sam and Dean are mistaken for a gay couple twice.
Gay Positive? Very – no drama about it

Monster: A Native American curse taking the form of a plague of bugs
Summary: Sam and Dean investigate a series of insect-related deaths in a new housing development.

I found this episode to be quite entertaining, except for two elements. First, the ending was just plain dumb. I mean, seriously dumb. Second, I was disappointed how the Supernatural writers failed to plumb Native American tradition for a storyline of any depth or meaning, and instead utilized the standard Hollywood superficial interpretation of Native Americanism and wrote a loose riff on Poltergeist.

Outside of that, I enjoyed the exploration of the family theme. Larry (Andrew Airlie) has a troubled relationship with his son Matt (Tyler Johnston). The episode explores Sam’s and Dean’s relationship with their own father through the guest stars, and the two Winchester brothers have several revealing conversations. For example:

Dean: What? Dad never treated us like that.
Sam: Yeah, he never treated you like that. You were perfect. He was all over my case. You don’t remember this?
Dean: OK, maybe he had to raise his voice a few times, but sometimes you were out of line.
Sam: [sarcastic] Yeah, like when I said I wanted to play soccer instead of learning bow-hunting.
Dean: Bow-hunting’s an important skill!

Dean also makes an assertion that proves untrue.

Dean: Growing up in a place like this would freak me out.
Sam: Why?
Dean: The manicured lawns. ‘How was your day, Honey’. I’d blow my brains out!
Sam: There’s nothing wrong with normal.
Dean: I’d take our family over normal any day.

The real strength of the show, especially this first season, is the rich characterization of the two brothers. Both of them come to the screen with so many layers that after several seasons, they’re still unfolding. Dean claims he’d hate the “normal” kind of life portrayed in this episode, and yet that seems to be exactly what he craves in later episodes, like “What Is and Should Never Be” in Season 2 (when he’s thrilled to mow the lawn) or “Dream a Little Dream of Me” in Season 3 (when he dreams about having a simple, normal relationship).

This episode also introduces the show’s first, and recurring, gay element: at least a couple of times each season, Sam and Dean either pose as, or are mistaken for, a gay couple.

[Sam and Dean are posing as potential homeowners]
Lynda Bloome (Carrie Genzel): Well, let me just say that we accept homeowners of any race, religion, color or…
[looks at Sam and Dean]
Lynda Bloome: sexual orientation.
Dean: Hmm, right.
[to Sam]
Dean: I’m gonna go talk to Larry. Okay, honey?
[slaps Sam on the ass]

Both Sam and Dean just roll with it. There’s no drama or freakout over being mistaken for gay, which is refreshing. (And a bit at odds with later portrayals. They’re also mistaken for a couple in “Playthings” in Season 2, and Dean refers to it as being “troubling” and he doesn’t understand why.) But for this episode, the minor gay inclusion is a humorous element that’s handled well. Kudos!

The scene in question:

1.9 Home

Original Air Date: 15 November 2005

Monster: A poltergeist
Summary: Sam has prescient dreams of a young mother (Jenny, played by Kristin Richardson) and her children who have moved into Sam’s and Dean’s childhood home. It’s the same house where their mother, Mary Winchester (Samantha Smith) was killed. Jenny and her children are in danger, and Sam and Dean return to help. They discover their old home houses more than just the new family.

A great episode which reveals some family history and includes a nice little twist at the end. Loretta Devine as a psychic was stellar in the role. I hoped all season we would see more of her. Alas,
perhaps she will make an appearance in a future season. I particularly enjoyed her repartee with poor Dean. Some examples:

Missouri Moseley: You boys grew up handsome.
[She looks at Dean]
Missouri Moseley: And you were one goofy-lookin’ kid.

Missouri Moseley: Don’t you worry, Dean is going to clean this up.
[She looks at Dean]
Missouri Moseley: Well, don’t just stand there, boy, get a mop.
[She reads his mind]
Missouri Moseley: And don’t cuss at me!
[Dean walks away muttering under his breath]

1.10 Asylum

Original Air Date: 22 November 2005

Monster: A sadistic ghost
Summary: Dean and Sam investigate an abandoned sanitarium, after discovering recent visitors to the location go murderously insane.

Overall, a good episode, though solely for the atmospherics. Like the movie version of Silent Hill, this episode enjoyed a superb and haunting setting, but the story was predictable, the Monster-of-the-Week was a let-down, and the climax was just silly.

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 5.0 / 5.0

The makers of Dante’s Cove apparently took my advice from my comments on Season 1. First, they decided to take the show less seriously and just have fun with it. Second, they managed to introduce some quality changes that improve the overall texture of the show. The result is a welcome transition from sub-par entertainment to full-fledged supernatural gay soap opera.

The central relationships and conflicts still take center-stage: Ambrosius (William Gregory Lee) undergoes a welcome modernization and now goes by “Bro.” He’s desperately seeking to overpower Grace and win (perhaps “conquer” would be a better word) Kevin, whose relationship with Toby (Charlie David) has hit rocky times.

Van (Nadine Heimann), meanwhile, finds she has an affinity for magic, and her desire to learn more both alienates loved ones and leads her to the company of an erstwhile villain.

Season Two also introduces some new elements.

• The acting from virtually everyone has improved. We’re not talking Oscar material here, of course, but it’s like most of the actors used the break from the show to take a few classes.
• Adam has been recast with an actor with more on-screen charisma (Jon Fleming), and he consequently has a meatier subplot this season, including a rather bizarre love-hate thing with Bro.
• A bit more lesbian action, which makes the show more accessible to a wider audience. Plus, I like all the lesbian characters. They’re fun. Especially the newest cast addition:
• Thea Gill as Diana. I love every moment she’s on screen. She brings a wonderfully quiet, understated quality to the role which provides a nice counter-balance to the histrionics of the other characters. She’s also deliciously mysterious: she has a secret connection to both Grace and Bro. I look forward to seeing more of Diana.

Most Improved Role: Tracy Scoggins as Grace. Yeah, she’s still sporting that ridiculous British accent, but she’s toned it back a little. She’s also toned the character back a lot, thank goodness. She’s no longer the Melodrama Queen, but is slowly growing into a fully fleshed-out character. She displays greater vulnerability and breadth of character than in the first season. I wonder if I’ll start rooting for her.

Most Awesomely Villainous Villain: No winner. I can’t actually tell who the bad guys are supposed to be. Grace seems to be drifting toward the “good side,” with Bro heading into the dark side of the Force. But Bro is an inconsistent character, sometimes wicked, sometimes comical, sometimes wooden, sometimes natural. I guess he’s the main villain, and maybe his villainy just hasn’t matured yet. The show also gives the impression he’s just a really good guy at heart, such as one comical scene where the ghosts of two children tell him there’s still good left in him. In truth, this show is begging for an awesomely villainous villain.

Most Enjoyable Gay Wish Fulfillment: Watching Kevin cry over Toby. Kevin is the hot young thang who comes to Dante’s Cove in pursuit of Toby. But, he’s not quite ready to fully commit, until his own actions threaten the relationship and he faces the prospect of losing Toby. What a fun way to vicariously experience a hot boy so into his boyfriend that he gets all emo and goes to length to keep his man. Runner-Up: Bro seducing “straight” boy Adam. But because, to my mind, the relationship is non-consensual (Adam is under the influence of both narcotics and Bro’s magic), which lends an ugly edge to their “romance.”