Etoile

This is very ill informed on how torture works and about its effects on the tortured person. Dean being forced into torturing is another form of torture a worse form of torture than what was done to him. His guilt was the whole point his ‘joy’ his sheer relief at the end of pain, at being the one having the knife, instead of under the knife, was the whole point of what Alastair did to break and debase him. It was a fantastic, nuanced storyline evidently written by someone who did their homework - I don’t have the link handy right now but there is a passage from a UN report on torture that could very well be written about Dean’s experience, both in hell and his feelings after. This is not like having an affair and feeling guilty after, like you said. Like Aeryn13 said, Dean saying that he enjoyed it is how Dean perceives his own actions, the illusion of choice and the guilt that comes from thinking he had some when her really, trully did not. No other storyline, no other trauma has ever been as complex and terrible as what they wrote for Dean’s hell experience and seeing it likened to the guilt of having an affair is simplistic, and a bit like blaming a victim for what it was done to them.

Are you saying that being tortured into torturing is like... having an affair one could feel guilty after as if Dean had any choice in the matter? Torture by definition takes away choice from the person being tortured, no tortured person ever has any choice in what he does under the threat of torture. As for Dean ‘ enjoying it’ it’s not even obscure or subject to interpretation, he himself said that he felt joy in his own pain stopping finally, which was the ultimate psychological sadistc torture Alastair used on Dean. This happened when the writers, Edlund especially but not just him, knew what they were doing about important, and even actual topic, like torture and the effects on prisoners (as opposed to whatever it is that they are doing now).

But that's not what I'm talking about? Of course Sam is a hero, as are Dean or Cas. But they are not heroes because they are these complete unselfish, always perfect people that always have good motivations (for whatever value one assigns to the word good) but because they try. This is literally not the way I watch this show because I actually dislike the overblown idea of heroes and I think that a deconstruction of heroism is a worthy endeavor and that these characters shine exactly because their motivations are complex and complicated), So I guess that what didn't come across in my posts is that I'm never making a moral judgement of an action and saying that they fall on this or that side of some moral perfection. If i say that Sam was rationalizing his choices because this way he could live with them, and justify them both to himself and Dean, I don't meant to say that Sam is a horrible person. Someone who sadistically revels in a destructive vindictive behavior is an extreme end of the spectrum that IMO flattens the conversation and reduces it in terms of good versus bad, right versus wrong, evil versus saintly, and I don't think such a conversation is in any way beneficial. As for Ruby's comment I have to agree to disagree. I know what literally the Dumbo line means, but I still think it's not about Sam's powers but the choices he made, out of desperation, helplessness, hubris - all relatable human reactions.

I think that was Sam's rationalization and his argument to shut Dean up because his reasons were about completely different things (it was about revenge, about being stronger when he'd felt helpless and many more interesting things). The fact that Sam used that argument to justify himself is part of his character and how he tries to logic his way into making his decisions morally correct. Now nobody can object to what he's doing because he's saving people! But the slow reveal of the demon's blood drinking served to show how it was only a rationalization. Beside how many hosts had he killed while practicing his powers with Ruby (or let Ruby kill but it doesn't make much of a difference) when he could have indeed saved them with an exorcism? In before someone say but they always kill host. Yes but self defense is different than using them for demon powers practice. I also took Ruby's comment as something completely different and not about his powers and how he could have developped them without the blood - with Azazel dead his powers had disappeared so I don't see any failing of the writing that Sam needed the demon's blood to activate them. In fact, I took Ruby's comment about not manipulating him into freeing Lucifer (as he was accusing her of) as Ruby telling Sam that he was the one making his choices every step of the way. I think that's exactly what she says: she talks about choices not powers, in fact, but I can't check the transcript right now and will have to go back at you on that.

I can't even deal with the level of mysoginy that Jack's origin story entails and the treatement of Kelly. I'm NODDING forcefully at everything here and I wish more people were willing to call Dabb and the showrunner out on this.

I share this Unpopular Opinion. I think AC has a couple of faces and he uses them for everything. Coupled with the simplistic writing for a character that has no edges, no real personality, but is simply a trope, the effect is astonishing - in a bad way.

You are right, I apologize: he didn't know that at the time. He did see him practicing with Ruby at the end of In the Beginings which considering what Ruby had been trying to do with Sam, and how their last parting words were how Ruby would enjoy hearing his screams in hell, still doesn't make his reaction a knee jerk. Also, he didn't punch Sam in the face out of nowhere. He punched Sam in the face when Sam, who had been practicing his demon's given powers with a demon just a moment before, tried to keep him from leaving. It may be a small difference to most, but it's not to me.

If I may answer, I think, for me, the point of the story is never the plot, but how those plot are developped via the characters's actions and what those actions shows of the characters. It's why I loved early seasons so much and why in general I don't subscribe to the separation of emotional and supernatural themes. Of course, the apocalypse could have happened even if Sam and Dean had made different choices, but the interesting part is that it happened because of the choices they made, out of the trauma of their lives. I don't know if it makes sense. One of the reasons I don't like season 12 and 13, that much is because they are putting plot before characters. It happened for example when Sam joined the BMol last season. Not because it wasn't something I gound OOC for Sam, included his secretiveness but because the writers never bothered to explore why it was in character for Sam. They kind of tried to deal with it at the end of the season when Sam said that he tends to follow and that's why he ends making things worse, but it was so confused and too little to see if they were really addressing one of Sam's huge flaws, ie. his tendency to rationalize his choices as right even when logic and common sense should stop him.

What a misrepresentation of Dean's reaction of Sam's powers. I guess you are talking of the reaction when Dean saw that Sam was enhancing them by drinking demon's blood at the start of season 4 which makes framing it as 'knee-jerks' weird especially considering Dean had just come back from Hell where the same demons Sam was associating with had horribly tortured him. I know that someone said above that Dean is always supposed to have the perfect responses to Sam's trauma no matter what is going on with him, because otherwise Sam suffers, but I on the other hand think Dean is allowed to have Hell PTSD a few days after he came back from Hell and not always have the super perfect responses that respect and nurture Sammy and gently guide him. (How very John Winchester is this argument, by the way?) But even without that little tiny detail, I'd say that knee jerk was not Dean's reaction to Sam's powers, not since they manifested in Sam. Sam was more worried of Sam going darkside, considering these powers were given by the same demon who had killed their mother and later Jess, than Dean was to the point he asked Dean to kill him in case he did go darkside. Throughout season one, two, and three Dean did not have any knee-jerk reaction to Sam's powers, although he objected to Ruby's kind of mentoring, which we all know how it went in the end. On top of it, "the powers that saved the day once in a while" was Sam's rationalization and what pushed him to do everything that he did in season 4, among other motivations. It was what he told himself to keep doing what he was doing, drinking demon's blood so he could save the day. I guess Dean seeing what else that was doing to Sam is small potatoes. I would add that Sam was drinking demon's blood. I know that people like to forget it or make it as not a big deal, but it was and it still is, so calling Dean's a knee-jerk reaction is incredibly unfair on Dean and promotes the idea that he isn't open minded or whatever becasue why focusing on what Sam was doing when you can say that Dean was being a bigot? Ah well, those were all rationalization of Sam, so it's very steeped in Sam's point of view. Luckily all of it was shown to be wrong in the end, like it should have been. But it's still weird seeing things framed like this after all we've seens since. Yeah, when people say that Sam was shown to be wrong, my reaction is of course he was, did people really think Sam could be right after everything that went on in season 4? And I loved Sam's story in season 4, he was rather more interesting and tragic than what we got since. gonzosgirrl, you made me laugh!

Every time the writers try to tell me that Dean is doing feelings wrong I roll my eyes at the screen. They shouldn't have to force their idea of what is right and perfect, because it should be clear from the story and the narrative. and the more they force it, the more ridiculous their idea of emotional clarity becomes. But then I think that these writers wouldn't see emotional honesty if it started dancing in front of them, so I ignore what they sell. I guess I don't get that mad because in the end Dean is allowed to be right, for how much that serves him obviously, like in the episode last season wihen he broke Mary's brainwashing. It's small consolation after a whole season of being told he is doing feelings wrong , after having his arguments misrepresented or changed (not wanting Mary to lie betray and use them becomes suddenly a problem about cut sandwich crust) even when it's crystal clear his feelings are warranted and his instincts right, but at least it's there. I think they do it for drama and because they are not that talented, but it is becoming a staple of the courrent batch of writers.

We saw barely a few seconds of michael taking over. We have no idea what Dean did or did not, if he resisted or tried to kick him off, if he was too tired by the fight and the beating he took. I really hope these are things shown next season. Oh and who better than Dean can show Michael exactly what righteous is, as opposed to self-righteous? Dean, who represents humanity in all its aspects of loyalty, bravery, love, but also enjoys everything that life can give, included those so called sins that Michael wants to erase.

I'm not going to explain my points again because the argument would become circular and I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's fine to agree to disagree. I want just to point out that in 13.05 Jack was indeed left alone while the bros went hunting so the above point is moot because there were ways to avoid that Dean came in close contact with Jack before he was ready. There is a world of difference between 'unfairly relegating Jack to a small area of the bunker' and 'forcing that he hunts with them five minutes after Dean has said the mere sight of him hurts' wether Dean's feelings about Jack were or not valid objectively they were valid to Dean. By the way, Jack was involved in some shady stuff that the writers have totally ignored since so Dean had all the rights to be at least suspicious. Mileage varies.

I imagine, John also said this to himself many times while he neglected his sons and parentified Dean ;) Well, your implication is wrong but in case I wasn't clear in my post, I never meant to imply that Sam drove Dean to Michael, Sam definitely put enough pressure on Dean to perform the good supportive big brother when Dean had nothing left to give, to the point that Dean felt that Dean was dragging Sam down. I'm watching a story about two, three, when they bother to write for Cas, deeply flawed characters with a ton of issues whose story is deeply connected. I don't like to dismiss the context of their decisions. And even though Dean's choice was his and his alone and I doubt we will have the equivalent of Fallen Idols where Dean says how Sam also contributes to the bad dynamic (as per the most favorable interpretation I have seen here) because this seems to be a completely different storyline, he doesn't live in a vacuum. His state of mind at the start of the season was relevant in the sense that it brought him close to giving up and is still relevant at the end of the season: the dude basically sacrificed himself to mop a huge mess - because to me he came across as someone who knew was selling himself without a lot of hope of coming back from it. The difference to me is that Dean doesn't try to force anything on Sam, he simply wants to be left alone. It's a HUGE difference IMO. I want that too. I loved Demon Dean lack of filters. I loved that he said things the way they were even though everything was a bit extra, a bit exaggerated and aimed to hurt deeply. I love the trope of possession as letting true, hidden feelings coming out. As for Sam I can appreciate his character without really liking that kind of character. He's a bit like John to me, interesting when he is allowed to be complex and messy. Maybe I'm holding hope that some things will be finally addressed without using Dean as scapegoat like usual. I'm into this show for these dynamics that I find hurtful yes, especially to Dean and as a Dean fan first, but also very nuanced, but I live in perpetual hope and Michael Dean is giving me a bit of hope both for the exploration of Dean character outside of what he can or can't do for Sam or Cas abut also for what it will show of them as well.

I agree with the general sentiment, I disagree that that was what Sam was doing. He wasn't simply asking Dean to take responsibility of a superpowered newborn (Dean had already accepted that they did have responsibility for him when he said they had to take him to the bunker). He forced an emotional connection that Dean had all the right to reject and he forced Jack's presence on Dean even when Dean said that the mere sight of Jack hurt him (end of 13.03 start of 13.04). To me that's different than asking Dean to take responsability for this superpowered being who just had been the direct or indirect cause of so many deaths. It's this behavior that retraces what John often did not just while growing up but at the very moment of his death when he gave Dean the order of saving Sam or killing him (effectively putting the responsability of Sam's choices on Dean, something that Sam later does as well when he asks Dean to kill him if he goes darkside). The mission is everything, nobody cares that you are hurting. Sam was putting the mission first over everything else (his own mission and his own emotional needs because it was not just about responsibility for Jack but about his desire to save Mom, and his projection of his issues onto him) and namely over Dean's right to feel grief and deal with it in the ways he deemed fit; over his right not be forced into accepting an insta made brother or something in Jack. Typical John, I would say. I laughed when Sam said that Mary had made her choice in the AU in 13.022 because yes, his respect for Dean's choices was inexistent in those first episodes of the season. But then the rules are different for Dean it seems - bitter opinion LOL. Those dynamics are hard to shake because they are in the fabric of their personality. Obviously, Sam is not John in relation to Dean but he grew up the same family dynamic Dean grew up and one way those influence emerge is that he takes a few things for granted as far as Dean is concerned, to the point that sometime he is blind to Dean's emotional needs. In this specific case Dean needed to be left alone grieving Dean had asked quite forcefully to be left alone and grieve and deal with his grief the way he deemed fit. Maybe Sam not putting on him this kind of weight for about four episodes after Dean had relived his original childhood trauma of seeing his mother burn (the dream/hallucination he had in the premiere) wouldn't have made Dean feel so useless and bereft that he'd prefer dying in Advanced Thanatology rather than 'dragging Sam down'. I do think everything about this is relevant to the end of the season and Dean's decision to sacrifice himself to save the world (and Sam and Jack). Again, not an indictment of Sam. It's Sam's little brother syndrome contextualized in the family dynamic he grew up in which also influenced him with regard to Dean. It's something the show shows a lot, but rarely addresses openly because Sam is not a self-aware dude, IMO.

I really, really hope you are right, SueB. Let Lucifer go and the actor with him. He was already past his selling date a few seasons ago. I can't see any reason for bringing him back - again. :(