cavelupum

Haha, no problem! :)

I think it stands for One Perfect Tear.

I might be misunderstanding, but Dean at least had no idea Sam was drinking demon blood at the beginning of S4 when he punched Sam in the face twice after finding out he was using his powers — at the time, he thought it was “just” Sam’s powers, more developed as a result of Ruby’s tutelage perhaps, but nothing more than that. Dean finding out about Sam drinking demon blood came much later, near the end of the season (4.20).

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn’t contribute half as much as I do to this thread if venting about how Dabb & Co. treat Dean didn’t often go hand-in-hand with taking (what I often see as unfair) digs at Sam or implying he’s the writers’ favorite — I have never and will never understand the latter, especially post-S7. I also think both sides are guilty of jumping in to defend their fave, but that’s just me.

As a general addition to the discussion, my big issue that I take with the way Dean handled his grief is that he seemed to directly blame Jack for what happened, which wasn’t fair because Jack wasn’t directly responsible for the losses he was mourning. It’s not like Dean just wanted to be left alone by everyone to cope in solitude — he specifically and in a targeted way wanted to exclude just Jack, and Jack knew this (see his convo with Sam in 13.04), knew Dean thought he was destined for evil, knew Dean planned to kill him should he turn, and was afraid of Dean as a result. Given that Jack was a strange combination of innocent and dangerous, Dean not troubling to hide his negative feelings before they even brought Jack back to the bunker was a problem that needed to be rectified to some degree, not just because they really did need to keep this unknown entity on a good path to the best of their abilities but also because it was a bit unfair to Jack, who did nothing to really earn Dean’s dislike of him at that point save being born.

Dean was a grown man dealing with the equivalent of a (dangerously super-powered) child who, despite how Dean felt about it in his grief, was not at direct fault for Castiel’s death or Mary’s uncertain fate and didn’t deserve that blame. I mentioned earlier that people should ideally be allowed to grieve as they wish until it harms others — to me, Dean telling a confused and overwhelmed kid he didn’t believe he could be good and saying he’d be the one to kill Jack qualifies as harmful. I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case (which I think would only intensify his feelings of otherness and being unwelcome). Again, Jack wasn’t truly responsible for the losses Dean was mourning, so there was no real reason to treat him like a guilty pariah and plenty of potential reasons to try to appeal to and avoid upsetting a being that powerful. Dean, whom it’s worth noting is also not innocent when it comes to prioritizing the more pressing mission at hand over the immediate feelings of others (5.11, 7.07, 13.17), should have been able to understand this reality even in his grief, IMO.

Jack was, as far as they knew at the time, the most powerful being in the world and one they were unable to take out should things go sideways. He was also shown to be impressionable and childlike. Arguably, it was important for Dean to at least pretend to accept and get along with Jack lest the brothers inadvertently turn him against them or just down a dark road in general. Jack was said to be actively afraid of Dean, who directly told Jack he didn’t think he could be saved and that he (Dean) would be the one to kill him. That conversation between Jack and Dean also happened before Sam suggested bringing Jack along on a case (aka “forcing” Jack’s presence on Dean). In an ideal situation, everyone should be given the luxury to deal with their grief as they see fit short of harming others in the process, but it was hardly an ideal situation.

This post summed everything up so much better than I could, and I agree with it completely. (Also totally forgot about Eve and Abaddon somehow.)

Well, arguably, so does Mary, who eventually saw the error of her ways in trusting the BMoL and aligned herself with the boys up until Lucifer separated her from them by pulling her through the rift at the end of S12. She’s also willing to compromise and alter options, as demonstrated by her acceptance of going back to OW with her sons once they show a willingness to account for the people she feels still need her. I was a bit hyperbolic in the post you quoted, I’ll admit, and it came off as a little unfair to Dean AND Mary, but I stand firmly by the point I was trying to make: Sam is not the only one who shares negative traits with his parents. I also do still feel Dean has enough of a documented history of digging his heels in when he feels justified that it’s fair to consider it a trait of the character, and I would add to my other examples his doubling down without apology in the Gadreel arc and stating he was “entitled” to sell his soul for Sam regardless of Sam’s feelings and in spite of knowing firsthand precisely how much it sucked to be on the other end of things. There are additional examples to be found in the MoC arc, and per God, the MoC just makes you more of what you already are. That said, of course a trait or even a pattern of behavior doesn’t define a multilayered character, but it is something I’ve personally noticed. To repeat something I mentioned on page 108 of this thread, I have never had the impression that Dean is all that great at apologizing for the big things and to Sam at least, but I’d accept evidence to the contrary.

I still don’t personally see any of this as evidence that Dean is mistreated by the writers any more than Sam is on average, but miles vary. Dean should have killed Alistair, but Sam should have killed Lucifer. Dean should have killed a hellhound or two, but Sam should’ve participated in the death of Azazel or been the one to stab Ruby. I mean, I’m pretty sure both sides could do this all day long if given the opportunity. I also don’t agree that a random, one-off YED in a single episode in S12 is in any way equal to Azazel, a two-season villain whose interference changed the course of both brothers’ lives forever and was particularly targeted at Sam. If you took away the Lucifer win from Dean, he’d still have Azazel, Zachariah, Ruby, Dick Roman, Cain, Death, and even Hitler to his name as significant kills. If you took Alistair from Sam, he’d have a couple of hellhounds, the alpha vampire, Ramiel, assists WRT Ruby and Lucifer, and Lilith, which was presented as a terrible mistake and had disastrous consequences. (I could be forgetting some, so feel free to remind me, I’ll admit I haven’t rewatched the series in full in awhile.) Dean talked God’s sister, the Darkness herself, down from the ledge of destroying everything and was willing to die to take her out if it didn’t work, and there are no signs so far that his positive influence on her will be reversed or undone in any way, which is as it should be. Sam made the ultimate sacrifice to lock Lucifer away, and it was crapped all over six years later by releasing him again in S11, having him torment Sam some more for good measure, and then denying Sam the killing blow. Eight years later, Dean fans get to revisit the Michael arc they always felt robbed of, and Sam fans get to remember that the character’s greatest achievement of all was undone and Lucifer had to be finished off by his brother. To sum it up, I’m not trying to say that Dean fans have nothing to complain about at all or that Dean is the favorite of the writers. There’s nothing wrong with disliking the way things were done or wanting something different. I’m saying that Sam fans have just as many things to be disappointed in as well, and I maintain my opinion that Sam’s not the favorite of the writers any more than Dean is. I don’t think the writers always consider the implications of their choices (and I will freely admit to getting angry at their decisions at times), but I can’t buy that they’re consciously, deliberately snubbing Dean. In an episode in which Dean gets to look like a badass with that angel wing shot, has a dramatic showdown with a supercharged Satan, lands the killing blow on one of the biggest and most important villains in the entire show, and is set up for a myth arc next season, why even quibble over whether or not Mary’s line about calling Sam, who did little more in 13.23 than get kicked around and toss a blade, was evidence of Dabb’s underlying favoritism? IDGI.

Definitely a possibility. I just know a lot of Dean fans (not sure if this applies to you, so if it doesn’t, disregard) headcanon that John was physically abusive to Dean, and if that’s a consensus, then it’s easy to postulate that Dean picked up that ugly habit of occasionally lashing out violently when angry from John as is the sad case sometimes in the real world. Tragic and not without explanation, but still wrong. I think comparing Mary to Sam, and particularly Sam at this point in the series, is doing a disservice to him and an undeserved insult. I’m sure I could write an entire essay about it, but I’m fine with agreeing to disagree here since I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind.

Mary has a history of a dismissive, “I‘m doing what I want and you can like it or lump it” sort of attitude and refuses to back down from her decisions even when others disagree with her, per her infuriating defense of working with the BMoL and initial insistence that she was not going back through the rift with the boys in 13.22. Similarly, when Dean feels he’s right or justified, you’re not going to talk or reason him out of anything and he’s not going to apologize for it — it’s the way it’s going to be, take it or leave it. See the end of 13.17 and the way he handled the Amy Pond situation, because while arguably he made the correct decision, Dean also called Sam a bitch and a dick and basically said that even though he acknowledged Sam had every right to be angry, it was time to get over it because he was right. Since there’s always been theorizing back and forth about whether or not John ever physically hurt his sons, usually in reference to Dean and particularly regarding the Flagstaff incident, perhaps Dean got his tendency to escalate to flinging objects and/or striking loved ones (2.03, 4.04, 7.03, 13.18) when angry from his father. Dean also has a bossy streak which certainly could have come from John, whom we know liked to give orders. My point being that while I know there have been jokes that Dean must surely be adopted because all of his family save him are apparently assholes, arguments can easily be made that he shares negative traits with his parents. Nothing wrong with loving him anyway, of course.

I love “Red Meat” because it’s like the proverbial oasis in a desert — IMO, frequently the norm for Sam is to be choked, tied up, or knocked unconscious when things start getting real, so to be thrown a bone in that regard was a welcome change. On the other hand, my disappointment in that same season was that Sam, who always had faith and prayed daily for a long time per 2.13, was more or less ignored by God with their one solo conversation happening offscreen. To me, that’s not the way one treats a favorite any more than Dean’s turn in “Red Meat” was for you, which I think suggests at least some sense of balance, with each brother getting the spotlight at different times. We as fans may not always like the specific way our favorite character is highlighted or wish it was done differently, which is why it’s nice to vent sometimes.

Apologies if the word choice wasn’t the best, but I’ve seen talk (not just here, FTR) in which Sam is referred to as the favorite of Dabb and/or other writers as though it’s a fact and in a way that seems to suggest these fans wish Dean was similarly favored. Bitterness implies resentment, and like jealousy, resentment is an emotion of comparison and can go hand-in-hand with it — regardless, I promise I didn’t think too deeply about using that word specifically to imply some great meaning, judgment, or accusation against any specific person or group; I was just posing a question. Nothing more, nothing less.

So much this! If frequent head injuries are an indicator of preferential treatment, I don’t want it anymore either, haha.