Bergamot

BabySpinach, I enjoy your theorizing! And I will stick with you for as long as you want to continue analyzing the show, no matter how off-the-wall you get! (Because I agree with you about the prospect of the show turning into "Nougatnatural". Not that I would stop watching the show, but I probably not be interested in talking about it. What would be the point? It is already evident that any discussion by fans of Nougatnatural would only be a vapid reiteration of "Jack is so cute!" "Jack is so sweet!" "I loved how heroic Jack was!" No thanks.) I agree with you about the story's focus being cut off at the knees, and how it feels wrong. I also am stuck on what Billie told Dean, and how it was completely ignored in this episode. Not like they got around it, but like it never happened. Billie bringing Dean his death book was an amazing scene that should have been the absolute pivot point of the whole season. The reason it worked so well is that it was an idea that goes right to the heart of what Supernatural was originally about, and that's why I loved it. It was about a human being facing off with a supernatural being (Death herself!), being confronted with an unalterable and potentially world-ending destiny, and then finding a way to deal with it, no matter what it took. Because that's what it means to be a Winchester. Instead what you got as a climax to the story was two immensely powerful supernatural creatures fighting each other with beams of glowing light energy, while the all-too-human Winchesters simply watched from the sidelines. Nothing interesting, just another typical superhero battle. If this is all the writers can come up with, then they really don't understand what made the show special to begin with.

The main reason I am sure he is completely gone is the way Jack grandly announced, "You are NEVER going to hurt ANYONE again!" Now, in the original version of the show, to say something like that would be asking for it. Like Dean telling Sam that nothing bad was going to happen to him, and the complicated, tragic, heartbreaking way this turned out to be wrong. But in this simplified, cartoonish Dabb version of the show, there is no way that Jack's hero moment will be tarnished by having Michael actually come back now and hurt someone. It's not Dabb's style, unfortunately.

Yes. Case in point? Last night's episode. Take a look at the end of the episode to see how "central" he was to the show and the drama after being severed from the Michael storyline. LOL also at those who maintained that it was "waaaaay too early" for this episode to be the end of Dean's storyline. It should have been, but for some strange reason, it wasn't! I guess now that we have reached the end of the most begrudged storyline ever on the show, the rest of the season will be about Jack. And since Lucifer is apparently going to be back, the storyline will be about Jack versus Lucifer, maybe with Jack being tempted to go dark side. Unfortunately for me, I don't watch the show for Jack, and I am heartily sick of Lucifer.

That was just an awkward and unconvincing attempt by the show to distract the audience from the fact that the Winchesters actually had nothing to do with the victory over Michael. Unlike the other times when the Winchesters defeated some ultimate supernatural evil, this time they contributed nothing, they sacrificed nothing, they did nothing but lay on the floor and be irrelevant.

At least Dean got to yell at Sam and Cas about how they shouldn't have stopped him from going into the box. His unapologetic anger was a moment of satisfaction for me. Your rage is my rage, Dean! Jack never interested me as a character; the description "bland woobie" has always fit him perfectly. And now that he has been revealed to be powerful enough to destroy the archangel Michael without even breaking a sweat, what is the point of even having hunters like Dean and Sam around? Jack can easily take care of any supernatural threat. Exactly! But you know what? If this was the first season of Supernatural and he was in charge, it would not have lasted past that season. Nothing of what excited the fans and made them fall in love with the show in that first season can be found in his version of the show. He is just trying to ride the coattails of something he had nothing to do with creating.

Well, they had the foundation of a great story with Michael in Dean; I thought he was the most interesting villain the show has had in years. But of course they had to nip all that in the bud, in order to focus on the character who in their eyes is the star of the show, Jack (and I'm sure the completely lame and regurgitated return of Lucifer as a villain.) And no, Jack shouting that he is a Winchester does not make him one. The show is no longer about the Winchesters. Yes, I agree, Pondlass, I did enjoy those 3 episodes. The way it looks now that will probably be the end of my enjoyment of the season. And no, the Michael storyline never was going to get the attention it deserved. Not with it being a Dean story. What a waste.

To be honest, I got different feeling from the sneak peek than some did. I didn't get the impression that there was anything in there about blame or guilt or whose fault anything is. I guess the assumption is being made that when Dean says, "It's on me", he is saying "It's my fault", but I disagree, I think he is saying "It's up to me" -- the responsibility is on his shoulders. Which is why Cas responds, "No, we're here to help you." I actually don't think that what they are talking about here is Dean's decision to wait on going into the box, because I think Dean saw that only as a temporary stay that didn't change anything about what will ultimately have to happen. And personally I am very glad that he didn't say anything about that -- anything like "You made me do this!" -- because that would not be character growth as far as I'm concerned. Because it was his decision, and as he told Sam before, he could carry out his plan on his own if he had to, and in fact that's just what he was originally going to do. So let other characters say "You made me do this" -- that's not Dean. The other thing I like is that Dean is not pretending that everything is fine. I like that he is being open about the horrible strain that he is under. I don't think that Dean is trying to make Cas feel guilty, but I do think that Sam and Cas often take Dean's strength for granted, and maybe are just assuming he can do this indefinitely. And I think that it is his intention here to remind Sam and Cas that, as Cas says, the situation is not sustainable.

I think that one thing the show has done pretty well over the years is to show how Dean and Sam have grown in their understanding of what John's upbringing did to them. There is ambivalence, because they both loved their father, but there has also been acknowledgement, on both their parts, that "Dad messed me up, and he messed you up too." Dean was more in denial about this than Sam, I think, and hid from himself and from the world the damage that John had caused, and so there was a lot to come out. A lot that Sam never knew, which is why we see him acknowledging this at various points. As for what happened after John's death, I think it was one time that the show did it right. (It is especially noticeable to me because there were plenty of subsequent times that the show definitely did NOT do it right.) Dean and Sam were each dealing with their grief and pain, and neither of them were always particularly kind to each other as a result. But you can't have it both ways. If one brother's insensitivity to the other one's feelings after his father's death can be understood and excused because of he was what he was going through, then the other brother likewise shouldn't be criticized for not being nicer. Personally I think the writers did a good job showing their grief, and I have no problem with how the brothers were depicted. And I don't think either of them ever felt that they owed or were owed an apology because of it, and this is one time that I would actually agree.

I agree, I don't see anything in the show as saying that what John did to his sons was okay, or any indication that Kripke thought of him as a good father. As catrox says, I think that what we saw was that his sons survived and turned out as well as they did in spite of John, not because of him. And to say that we only know of the relationship between John and Dean "from random things Dean has said" is untrue; I think we saw a lot of their interactions, both in flashbacks and the present day, and it was completely sufficient to reveal the family dynamics. Again, this is incorrect. First off, we didn't see anything in Something Wicked, (or in my opinion in any other episode with John) that framed him as someone who knew what he was doing and so should always be obeyed. Let's face it, John failed in Something Wicked -- he never did get the monster -- and almost got his sons killed. Of course Dean never saw it that way, because he loved and looked up to and relied on his father -- I mean, after all, who else did he have? So of course Dean saw him as a brilliant hunter, "the best". But I don't recall seeing anything of John that made him appear superior to the average hunter. But setting that aside, the one lesson Dean learned so well in Something Wicked was this: that his value to his father depended completely on how good a job he did of taking care of Sam. And no matter how unfair and wrong it actually was of John to demand that a child like Dean carry this burden, if Dean did not carry out that responsibility perfectly, his father would hold it against him and think less of him. That is the lesson that Dean learned about his worth to his father. And Dean did not leave because from the time he was just a child, John made Dean believe that Dean himself was the one at fault whenever he couldn't do what John demanded of him. It is what led, tragically, to Dean selling his soul to bring back Sam. That is John's twisted legacy as a father.

I think it would have been very interesting to see those family dynamics! The preternaturally calm, supportive, and understanding John we saw in this episode was obviously not the "real" John, as far as I'm concerned. He was a fake character created by the necessity of giving in to the actor's demands that John be shown as a wonderful father (which, I have to say, is one of the stupidest reasons ever for reshaping a complex character into something more sentimental and simplistic.) But it might have been fascinating to see interactions with the real John, bringing back into their lives not just his positive qualities but his negative ones -- his impatience, bullheadedness, bad temper, rigidity, secretiveness, and obsessiveness. I would have loved to see John go on a hunt with his sons and see him try to bark out orders to them (which would be natural for him) and have him discover he is no longer the one in charge. And I don't see Dean trying to bend himself like a pretzel to please John anymore; he is no longer that person, and I think we saw that even in this episode, in the way he spoke to his father as an equal. Having said that, I do not believe that any speculation about how their lives would change entered Dean's or Sam's head as they moved from their realization that the timeline was changing, to accepting that the wish had to be undone. They made a point of dismissing what would happen to them personally. When they are discussing the altered timeline versions of themselves, Sam says, "That's not the point! The point is, if all this is different, then what else changed?" The scene them immediately changes to show Zachariah and Castiel, to underscore those world-changing consequences, and then switches back to Dean and Sam, saying how are we going to tell Dad and Mom. I don't know, I was thinking about this and went back and re-watched, but I still do not think that Dean was saying this. I don't think he meant that even if he could have both his father and mother back, and have someone else save the world, that he would rather not have that life -- I think he meant that he has accepted that this is the life he was given, and that he is good with who he is. Other than the John versus Mary choice, which was a biggie, but from which they obviously would lose either way, I think we were meant to see Dean and Sam as coming to the decision that the price of the pearl was too high because of the bigger repercussions in the supernatural world, not because of how it would change their lives personally. Although, as I said, it would be interesting to see what would happen regarding those issues.

Thanks, I think I do understand better what you meant. Of course, I am pretty sure now that I don't agree! 🙂 To begin with, even if you argue that simply having his family back together was all the closure that Dean would need, which I think is debatable, I disagree that having one family dinner gave him this. The family dinner was not an end in itself; it was a symbol of what he longed for: the restoration of his original family unit. Getting a small taste of this could not be enough to cause Dean to feel that this great longing was totally satisfied, and that he no longer needed this in his life. It was a bittersweet moment where he briefly experienced what could have been, but the fact that John immediately had to disappear again from their lives meant that it was no more than that. Some things can't be fixed, and Dean will never really get back all that he lost when he was four years old. It is an important point to consider, though -- what price would Dean think was too high to pay in order to have his family back together again? As much as he loves and values Castiel, I think it would be completely out of character for Dean to decide that having his father back would not be worth losing his friend. But then, I also disagree that the reason pre-Dean Castiel was shown with Zachariah was in order to indicate that Dean was making this valuation. I think that their appearance was simply to show that it wasn't just Dean and Sam's lives being altered by the pearl, but that everything that they had done was coming unraveled. It was to show how far-reaching the alteration of the timeline was. Now, of course it can be debated whether the world would be better or worse off as a whole if the Winchesters were removed from the equation, leaving it to "some other poor sons-of-bitches" to save it. But I think there is no arguing that the show itself asserts that the world needs the Winchesters, and more importantly for the sake of this particular discussion, the Winchesters believe this too. I think this is why Dean and Sam went almost instantly from "the timeline is being altered" to "Dad has to go". There was no agonizing over what choice to make, except maybe in regard to John versus Mary. (As a side note, I found it kind of amusing, and also pretty sexist, that Mary was apparently completely left out of the "keep John or let Mary go?" discussion. I mean, I'm not suggesting they should have drawn straws, but shouldn't she have a say? A chance to assert, "No, your father should stay, it's okay if I fade away as a result"? Or was she just like, "Yep, okay, too bad but he obviously has to be the one to go")? But setting aside the "John versus Mary" thing and going back to the question as to what price would be too great: as far as Dean was concerned, in a way this was a question he had already faced and answered before, standing in front of his father's grave in "What Is and What Should Never Be". As he said then, "Course I know what you'd say....Your happiness for all those people's lives, no contest. Right?" That's the same question Dean is talking about in the dishwashing scene. And it shows the one price that would be too high to pay. In the djinn-created world, before he realized that it was not real, Dean thought that he had achieved his heart's desire. His mother was alive, Sam was safely out of the hunting life and happy with Jessica, and his father, while not alive, had lived a happy family life and died of natural causes. Still, Dean could not abandon the responsibility he felt, to be the one saving people and hunting things. The difference now, I think, is that as he tells Sam at the end of this episode, he is good with that, and with who he is, in a way I don't believe he was back then, and he would not want to change it. In regard to this, as has been mentioned, I do like the symbolism of the pearl here for the choice that had to be made, with the reference to the parable in the Bible: "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls. Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it." For Dean and Sam, the price of the pearl was too great, and they were not willing to "sell" everything to buy it.

I guess I don't follow you here. What is it exactly that Dean was not willing to give up in order to have John? I was assuming that the choice was between having Mary and having John, and John was willing to go so Mary could stay.

Same for me. I didn't hate the episode, but it was a missed opportunity for me. Here's the thing. Of course Dean would want to see his father again if he could. Of course it would be a big deal to him, a dream come true. Of course he loves his father with all his heart, in spite of their problems. Of course he would be absolutely gutted to lose him again after getting to miraculously spend a short time with him. Of course! To say that criticizing the writing in this episode is the same as claiming that these statements are not true, is just creating a straw man argument to dispute against. Here are three of the main problems that have been discussed in regard to John and Dean in this episode. First, while the issues between John and Sam were acknowledged in the episode, the ones that existed between John and Dean were not. I'm not even talking about John acknowledging them to Dean, or resolving them somehow -- I'm talking about them being acknowledged by the show, within this episode. As Aeryn13 pointed out previously, if you weren't familiar with the show's past, you would not even know these issues existed. And I did not like that the writers did this. (Please note --again -- that I am not saying that Dean would not be overjoyed to see his father, no matter what, and devastated to lose him again.) Second, yes, we all agree how much it would mean to Dean to see his father again. But if he believed he might be able take care of Michael by wishing on the magic pearl, why would he wish instead to bring back his father? If Michael then escaped, he would use Dean to destroy the entire world, including Sam, Cas, Jack, his mother --and oh by the way, if he was there too, HIS FATHER. Why was his heart's desire not to ensure the safety of everyone he loved? You can guess at an answer, like maybe Dean did not believe the pearl would work, and wanted to see his father once more before the end, but there is no answer provided within the episode itself. Third, the quality of the one private conversation between John and Dean was superficial. Again, this is not the same as saying that the relationship between John and Dean is unimportant or superficial or lacking in significance, or any other straw man. But the man came back from the dead, and what did he say to his older son? That he was very proud of him. Nice to hear, but John had already told Dean this before. That he had hoped that the fight would end and that eventually Dean would have a peaceful normal life. Again, nice to hear, but Dean had already heard John express this before, and we saw how he responded to John's words. So yes, that was a shallow conversation in my opinion, and I found it disappointing. The dishwashing scene was interesting, and I liked hearing that Dean had let go of his anger and was good with who he is. The thing is, though, this was not a revelation that Dean achieved only upon seeing his father again. Dean made it clear that these were conclusions he had already come to previously. "I used to think that too", he said. (And we also know that he had already decided to "let it go" because that is exactly what he tells Sasha he has done, back in "Nightmare Logic.") And again, this does not mean that Dean didn't love his father and wasn't overjoyed to see him again, and that it didn't hurt terribly to lose him again. It does mean that Dean did not achieve any deeper understanding or catharsis about John by seeing him in this episode. He was already there.

Yeah, that was some extreme bullshit that was only handwaved for this episode. In no way, shape or form does it make sense to me within the mythology of the show. Yes. The angels had been planning for the Michael versus Lucifer fight using Dean and Sam for who knows how long -- long before they had Cupid get John and Mary together. There is no way they would just go, "Oh well, John Winchester has disappeared, let's just forget the whole thing", to the point that Zachariah was only vaguely aware of who they were and talked about the plan as something that was abandoned in the past. Same thing for the demons and their plans. But I agree that this was all just handwaved for this episode. There is no way I will believe that the writers on this show bothered to think their way through all the ramifications. They just didn't. Chekhov's teddy bear!

That would have been interesting, if Zachariah had known about Michael! I have to say that one thing I did enjoy about Zachariah's appearance in the episode was how completely and totally unchanged he was. No matter how the timeline had been altered, no matter what devious machinations the angels and demons were currently up to in his timeline, it was still the same old Zachariah: smug, supercilious, and utterly ruthless. "Earth: where you're always stepping in something." Ha! On the other hand, there were the altered timeline versions of Sam and Cas, so different from "our" Sam and Cas. This was interesting, because in a way, they were like examples from a Dean version of "It's A Wonderful Life", showing what each of them would be like without Dean in their life. I thought that our glimpse of the altered timeline Sam was hilarious: "God bless kale, am I right?" Ha! But it was also sad to see this version of Sam, with his uptight, unlikable persona, insisting on the importance of clearing out things like hobbies and family from your life in order to "be your best". This was a Sam who was sorely in need of Dean in his life. I was tickled by Dean's horrified pity at seeing what Sam had become in this timeline. After all, in the eyes of the world it would be Sam, with his own law firm and his TED talks, who would have been considered a success in life. Whereas altered timeline Dean, a wanted criminal with nothing but "a lot of beheadings" on his resume, would definitely be viewed as the brother who had gone down the wrong path in life with nothing to show for it. But in Dean's eyes, of course, he was the brother who was doing well, and Sam was the one who was in bad shape! Altered timeline Castiel was also a sad case. Because he never was sent to rescue Dean from Hell, he never became anything more than a mindless thug for his angelic superiors. Seeing this reversion to a pre-Dean Castiel reminded me of something I was thinking a couple episodes ago, when Michael seemed intrigued by Cas's reason for choosing the side he was on. I was wondering if maybe that's why he was poking around in Dean's memories, taking a look at the first encounter between Dean and Cas. And I like that even after all this time, Dean still had a crystal clear memory of his first earthly encounter with Cas, even down to the exact words he spoke and the sound of his voice.

(I am very sorry as well that happened to you, Cambion.) But you make an excellent point here, PinkChicken. I am glad now that they didn't give John a chance to effortlessly receive a "retconned narrative forgiveness", as you say. I agree with this as well. Actually I kind of wish now that they had just cut out any private heart-to-heart between Dean and John completely. I don't see why John should get to feel better about his relationship with Dean because he again tells him how proud he is of him. (Because yes, John had previously told him that, and I don't see how him repeatedly saying that makes everything okay.) If the show wasn't going to do it well, it perhaps would be better that it not be done at all. I think that what I needed more than that, more than having John say something to Dean, was to have the SHOW acknowledge, in this episode, that it wasn't just Sam that was really screwed up by what John did. In an episode like this, which was all about John reuniting with his family, it should not have been ignored the way it was. It would have been easy enough to do. For example, they could have had John say to Sam during their talk, "I screwed up a lot with you, didn't I? With both of you." Or have Sam say to John, "You did some messed-up things. To both of us." (Italicized portions are my additions.) See? Simple! Why would that be asking too much? Or maybe include with the "Then" segment a clip from IMTOD with John telling Dean, "I'm sorry...I put too much on your shoulders. I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me." Why not? It's like they went out of their way to avoid the subject of what John's parenting did to Dean -- like they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm not wanting to interfere in any way with Sam's moment of closure with John here -- let John and Sam have all the time they need. But to completely pass over, as the episode does, that Sam was not the only son that John hurt -- I didn't like it. And again, I'm not talking about what Dean needed, but about what I needed. And it was something I didn't get.

Fair enough. However. I love Firefly too, very much, but it is a quite a different show from Supernatural, with its own distinct tone. When the Firefly characters call themselves "big damn heroes", it is coming from a very different place. It is a statement loaded with irony and ambiguity and pain, a cutting comment on the universe in which those characters find themselves. One of the essential elements of Supernatural, though, has always been its own special and distinct tone of straightforward sincerity. What you see is what you get. While some people might look down on the show and think of it as less "grown-up" because of it, I've always loved my show for unabashedly being itself. All this is to say that when Dean and Sam call themselves "heroes who save the world", I believe that it is a straightforward statement, and we are supposed to cheer for them. And of course, I absolutely do believe that they are heroes. So what's the problem? For me, the problem is indicated when you have John in this episode saying something like, "I wish I could have been there to see it" after hearing the story of what his sons have been up to since he died. He wishes he could have been there to see it? That's when I realized, even more than I have before, that Dabb has a very fundamentally different view from me of what the show is. In my opinion, for Dabb the show is essentially all about the triumph of the good guys against the bad guys. It is the kind of story that it actually makes sense that John would want to be there to see, because we can all cheer our heroes' victory and celebrate and high-five each other at the end. Go Winchesters! But for me, the story of the Winchesters was never the stirring story of two starry-eyed boys who grew up to be big victorious heroes and became THE GUYS WHO SAVE THE WORLD. It is not about that kind of triumph -- it is about a tragedy. It is the terrible tragedy of a family caught up in and destroyed by huge supernatural events, full of unimaginable pain and desperate, impossible choices and things that can never be fixed. And the thing that makes it worth watching, the one amazing thing, is how the story of two brothers is like the Greek myth of Pandora, who opened the box containing all the evils of the world. Because like Pandora, the brothers found hope shining at the very bottom of the box, and they desperately grabbed hold of it, and have refused to let it go.

Yes. Except I'm not sure that it was just the length of time available that kept things shallow and superficial. You can pack a lot of meaning and emotion into one short conversation if there is good writing. I did experience some strong emotions while watching, but I don't think that they were the "feels" that the episode was going for. For one thing, I passionately hate that Dabb is apparently determined to replace "Saving people, hunting things: the family business" with his own catchphrase: "We're the guys who save the world!". So instead of Dean's stated motivation, which goes back to the show's deepest roots -- "At least we can make sure that what happened to us doesn't happen to other families" -- we get a constant chirpy reiteration from the brothers of some version of "We're big heroes!" (Lately it feels like we hear "WE SAVE THE WORLD!" about once an episode, and I'm tired of it. For one thing, if you were involved in nearly bringing about the end of the world, whether wittingly or not, it might not be a good idea to brag about how you saved it. And for another thing, that's something you let other people say about you, not something you go around announcing about yourself. It is eventually going to make you sound like a pompous ass, in my opinion.) I really did not like some of John's dialog. Again, everything was kept on a vague and superficial level that didn't seem to actually connect to the show's history -- an odd choice considering what a milestone this episode was. What exactly did John mean, after Dean and Sam got him caught up on things, by saying "I wish I could have been there to see it"? To see what, exactly? To see Sam die? To see Dean sell his soul and go to Hell? To see Sam get seduced by a demon and addicted to drinking blood? And so on and on? Gosh, yes, John, I wish you could have been there to see it all too -- it was totally awesome! Sorry, but that was a bizarre thing for him to say. I guess Dean and Sam must have given him a completely whitewashed version of what they had been through since his death. You know, the simplified "We're the guys who save the world!" version of their story that leaves out the important stuff. And they obviously left out the fact that the archangel Michael is trapped in Dean's head right now, fighting to break out and destroy the world. They had to conceal all this, of course, since it seems to have been absolutely essential that John get to return to his own timeline all smiley and guilt-free, and be able to remember his encounter with his family as a "good dream". But if that was the goal, as far as I'm concerned they might as well not have bothered bringing him back. I also didn't like that John could make a point of apologizing to Sam for having screwed up with him, but not to Dean. But I'm not surprised. No one seems to have noticed how much John screwed up Dean, even when it is specifically brought up, as it was in the previous episode. And no, expressing pride (John) or gratitude (Sam) for how well Dean carried his burden is not the same as acknowledging the unfairness and wrongness of what was done to him. Sure, Dean did not seem to expect an apology, but of course that's part of who Dean is. The fact that he doesn't expect apologies doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve them. Still, I think maybe the thing that I disliked the most was that vapid comment from John to Dean: "I guess I had hoped eventually that you would get yourself a normal life, a peaceful life, a family." "Eventually", John? Yes, I guess it would have to be sometime in the indeterminate future, wouldn't it? Since you had already made it impossible for him to have a normal peaceful life as a child. Since you raised him as a warrior from the age of four to be Daddy's blunt little instrument -- and since you made sure that he believed that his only purpose in life, his only value as a person, was to take care of Sam. Since he was just a child, but had to be both father and mother to Sam, as well as provide emotional support for you, while also being your good and loyal soldier. But sure, it is nice of you to vaguely and meaninglessly wish that Dean could somehow have a normal peaceful life "eventually". I liked Dean's response to this comment, though: "I have a family." Mainly because of the layers that Jensen adds to that simple statement. He is not telling John that it's okay, that everything worked out just fine. He does not speak reassuringly, or contentedly, or look hopefully for John's approval. Dean does have a family that loves him, and he deserves their love -- that is a fact. But it is not thanks to John that he has what he has.

I thought this was a very odd and superficial episode considering the significance of the subject matter. As far as I'm concerned, there was nothing in the interactions between John and his sons that we had not seen before, in better-written scenes in previous episodes: John saying he never wanted things to end up this way for his sons, John expressing pride in his sons, his sons expressing their love and understanding that he did the best he could, John saying goodbye, and so on. As for John and Mary, I never really thought of them as a great love story for the ages (as Dean says, their marriage wasn't perfect until after Mary had died), and I thought the episode handled their reunion with way too much stagey sentimentality in place of anything of substance. Did we even hear a single conversation between them? It was all just kissing and tears and handholding and more tears. As a couple, John and Mary actually had an interesting history, with a weird and tragic trajectory, but you would never know it from this episode, which reduced their relationship to a generic, sentimental romance.

This would actually be an interesting portrayal of the character -- I like it, Cambion! But from what I see, that is not what the show is trying to tell us about Mary. Which is, she is not a bad mother, it's just that Dean is being unreasonable in what he expects! When Dean has recently been freed from his possession by Michael, and without having even talked with him about his experience, Mary takes off to spend time with Bobby, we are supposed to see her insistence that Dean call if he needs her as touching and heartwarming, not ironic and sad. When he later visits her, Dean tells Mary that her return has meant everything to him and Sam. He fondly remembers the one meal she can cook. I just don't think that we are supposed to see her as a disappointment. I think that the show is trying to write and portray her as their mother, not just another hunter friend -- as someone who has filled the void in their lives, not as someone they can't expect too much from because it turns out she isn't good at being a parent (or even good at being a human being with empathy, as far as I'm concerned.) But the gulf between what they tell us they are showing with Mary, and what they are actually showing us, is just too big for me. It is my biggest problem with the character. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much to me whether they make Mary good, bad, or indifferent. The main thing is, don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining, show.

Yes, I am familiar with this writer, and let's just say that I am not an admirer. You could call it one of those things, yes, if that's what we actually see happen. I will be very surprised if we see Dean experience the "gift" of catharsis regarding his father, considering that the definition of that word is the "the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions". If there is only a "slight" undercurrent of anger in their interactions, as she describes, then I kind of doubt that Dean can experience a catharsis. Actually, "leaning into rose-coloured sentimentality" is pretty much what I expect from this reunion. Given the parameters that the actor was not going to come back to play John unless he ended up looking good (sure, he will apologize for his mistakes, to make him look even more noble), I don't expect this episode to be an important chapter in the lives of the Winchesters. John's return is a gimmick to celebrate a milestone, but the milestone is for the show, not for the characters' story. Especially considering that Dabb, who co-wrote the episode, has stated that the thing he is most proud of during his tenure as showrunner is the way things worked out with bringing Mary back. That doesn't exactly make me excited to see how things work out with his bringing John back. We'll see.

Ugh, I did not like the torture porn either. And that's a good term for it, because it wasn't used for any purpose in the story; each of those scenes lovingly detailed the victim's terror and pain in a way which was totally gratuitous. If it had been Nick killing those people, for example, maybe it would have been showing us the depth of the darkness and evil that was inside of him, even as he tried to deny it. There would at least have been a point to it, made it part of the plot or characterization of the story. But Tony Alvarez, the "malformed" prophet, was not killing those people in order to take sadistic pleasure from it; he thought he was obeying the word of God and bringing everyone salvation, and he was so horrified when he found out this was not true that he killed himself. So when the camera was watching these peoples' horrible deaths, almost luxuriating in their fear and pain -- it wasn't giving us Tony's point of view. But then whose? It was the show's point of view, I guess, wallowing in the torture as an end in itself, and I think in a sense making the viewer complicit, however unwillingly, as they also watched. Torture porn, being used just for the shock value. That's what made me feel disgusted, I think -- not simply how awful it was, but how gratuitous it was.

Yes! At the end of "Damaged Goods", Dean told Sam that he wouldn't be talked out of the plan, so Sam could either let him do it alone or he could help him. I don't blame Sam and Cas for still trying to talk him out of it, but did it have to be done that way? Dean had chosen such a hard and lonely path -- couldn't they have tried to turn him aside in a way that, I don't know, maybe wouldn't have necessarily made it easier, but at least made it feel less hard and lonely, rather than more? This does give me a better view of the last scene. (And btw, agreeing with your "eek!" at the thought of what Berens would have done.) Yes, I did not like some of the things Sam came out with, but as you say, he was basically going to pieces at that point and just flinging out anything that he could think of that might work. And also, as you and PinkChicken say, it made all the difference in the world that for once Dean was allowed to respond and unapologetically defend his position so strongly and clearly, not just at the end but throughout the episode. For once, this wasn't about "straightening Dean out" or "teaching Dean a lesson" or otherwise putting Dean in his place. Dean is still committed to doing what he has to do, but he has made a strategic decision that he can hold Michael prisoner a little longer, while Sam and Cas look for other solutions. It also helps, I have to say, that just a couple episodes ago, it was freely acknowledged by Sam and by Cas and by Jack that Dean is "more than strong", so we know that they all know and admire Dean's inner strength. It's just that in this situation it was that strength, that courage, that "steely resolve" as you call it, BabySpinach, which was the thing that stood in their way, so in their panic and desperation they meanly (in my opinion) tried to re-characterize it as weakness. Beautifully said! And yes, you are completely right, it is galling that Dean seems to always be the one whose feelings come last, but seeing this here, seeing the depth of his courage and caring for others -- it gets to me every time.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with this. Dean doesn't seem to have held this lack of support against either Sam or Cas in this situation, but upon a re-watch of the episode, I have to say that I do. I understand that they couldn't bear the thought of losing Dean, but I did not like all the little barbed remarks aimed at Dean from both Sam and Cas throughout the episode, not to mention openly flinging it in his face that he was just giving up and was a QUITTER. He asked more than once for help to do this thing, which he DID NOT want to do although he truly believed it was necessary, but he did not get it. As Sam and Cas got more and more desperate as time went on, and were blurting out accusations of Dean being stupid and suicidal, they more and more came across to me as scared children, with Dean being the adult in the situation. Especially with Sam's meltdown at the end, when he was crying and hitting Dean and accusing him of letting Sam down, in that scene Dean really came across to me as an adult giving in to a child against his better judgment. @ZennyKenny you made me laugh with your Insight, but you also made me cry a little. And the worst thing is that the fandom is cheering Sam on for it, validating poor Sammy's feelings, and so the writers march on. Yes, that made me want to both laugh and cry too. As for the fandom, I don't always think this, but in this episode I am not sure I would conflate the reaction of fandom (with all their various agendas, entrenched and hardened over many, many years) with the intention of the writers. In particular, if they are cheering that Sam was able to "finally knock some sense into Dean", then I would say that this is not what the show was saying, at least from what I saw. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, Sam and Cas don't get to use this excuse. That is not where Dean's decision came from. Every time he discussed his plan with Sam or with Cas, Dean was completely consistent. Here is what he DID say, repeatedly: --If Michael gets out, he is going to destroy the world (including, although Dean didn't mention this, both Sam and Cas.) --Michael is eventually going to get out, and Dean knows this because he is himself is the Cage holding Michael, which makes him the best judge of the situation. --Billie says that the plan is the only path that doesn't lead to the world's destruction. --There are no alternate plans being offered to deal with Michael, although Dean would be glad to consider one if anyone else had one. And here is what Dean DID NOT say: --It is all my fault, so I deserve this terrible fate. --I am worthless crap anyway, so it is no big loss. --It is an incredible, horrible strain on me personally to continue holding Michael in, so I would prefer to do this right away so I won't have to keep fighting so hard. So no, I don't excuse Sam and Cas on that basis. That doesn't mean that I think it is despicable of them to love Dean so much that they can't stand the thought of letting him go, I can understand and sympathize with that, and I admit that I love Dean for loving them so much that he hates to see this. But I also admire Dean for doing his best to carry out his plan, and I wish he had been shown respect for that, instead of being denigrated.

No offense, but my problem is that this is the exact same scenario that seems to play out in every episode that has featured Nick. He claims he needs revenge for his dead family in order to find peace, cries a few crocodile tears over it, and then goes out and does something evil. He then claims that it is not his fault, it is Lucifer's fault, it is because of what Lucifer did to him. Dun, dun, dun, OR IS IT? We then go through this whole cycle the next time he appears in an episode. What's the freaking point? It is OBVIOUS that there was something twisted and evil about Nick from the beginning. Never in the history of the show has anyone turned evil solely because they were possessed. I find Nick's story tedious and repetitive, even more so because I disagree with the conventional wisdom that MP is a wonderful actor. He is competent, but to me his portrayal is lacking in nuance and just very one-note; it doesn't do a thing for me, and that just increases the tedium.