S10.E11: There's No Place Like Home

[AwesomO4000]

Equally with her remark to Dean on how Sam held him back, presumably from being evil.

 

She called Sam an albatross. That could be interpreted to mean that Sam is holding Dean back from being "evil" but the way she said could also be implied to mean that Sam is a burden as well and holding him back from potential in general. That's a pretty strong and negative reference to make, which is interesting since Charlie had already made the good guy code is holding you (Sam) back / is your a weakness comment.

 

Between that and Demon Dean's comments earlier, I'm hoping that they aren't foreshadowing yet something else that the plot will have Sam "burden" Dean with. No thank you, I've had enough of those.

[DittyDotDot]

I'm rather irritated with what Charlie said about her soul. She was saying that the Wizard found the darkness in her soul which is how he split off Bad!Charlie from good!Charlie. I thought it was kind of canon that the human soul is "good" until it's corrupted by years and years of torture and torment in Hell making it a demon.  But are they now saying that everyone has a dark soul already?  I'm pretty flummoxed by that.

 

Humans are already corrupted at birth, Lucifer saw to that by introducing sin in the first place. I don't think the idea has ever been that the soul is totally good or bad, but there should be a balance. It's the whole ying/yang thing. You can't function as only goodness or badness alone. GoodCharlie wouldn't accept BadCharlie because she was sooo very bad. BadCharlie was trying to prove to GoodCharlie that sometimes she needed the bad just as much as the good.

[catrox14]

Humans are already corrupted at birth, Lucifer saw to that by introducing sin in the first place. I don't think the idea has ever been that the soul is totally good or bad, but there should be a balance. It's the whole ying/yang thing. You can't function as only goodness or badness alone. GoodCharlie wouldn't accept BadCharlie because she was sooo very bad. BadCharlie was trying to prove to GoodCharlie that sometimes she needed the bad just as much as the good.

 

I understood all that and Yes, biblically that might be true about the concept of sin, but I'm speaking within the show's universe AFAIK the show has always dabbled in the darker parts of a person's personality but they generally seem to have not said that out of the gate, a soul is bad at all. The absences of a soul seems to equate to badness see Soulless Sam or the people in Motherls Little Helper.

 

So that is what is bugging me, not the concept of human beings having good and bad sides. But here it was specifically stated that the soul has a bad part. And that is what I'm picking apart. Because that is a big distinction IMO that changes a lot of stuff as far as what would make a demon, how one becomes a demon. Is it saying that every person is essentially a demon it's just not come out yet?  Eep.

[Demented Daisy]

In universe, each soul has to be (at the very least) capable of evil, otherwise, it would be completely incorruptible.  Every person has the potential to become a demon.  I don't see how having the potential for evil changes the process of becoming a demon.

 

I think SPN follows the game book of most popular culture/literature/whatnot when it comes to good and evil.  It's what we choose to do/be, rather than how we were born.

[DittyDotDot]

catrox14, on 29 Jan 2015 - 5:01 PM, said:

So that is what is bugging me, not the concept of human beings having good and bad sides. But here it was specifically stated that the soul has a bad part. And that is what I'm picking apart. Because that is a big distinction IMO that changes a lot of stuff as far as what would make a demon, how one becomes a demon. Is it saying that every person is essentially a demon it's just not come out yet?  Eep.

 

I don't think the show has ever said that the soul is inherently only good, I think it's always been consistent that every soul has some goodness and some badness. Yes you need one or else you have no moral compass to guide you, but that doesn't mean that the moral compass always guides you to the right place either. I don't think the soulless people were all bad, they had no real understanding of right or wrong--they were basically sociopaths--but they weren't consciously choosing to be good or bad. To be a demon, the any goodness is tortured away from your soul and your left with the bad only--BadCharlie might as well have been a demon--demons have the ability to discern what's good or bad, they just don't give a shit and do what ever they want anyway.

 

ETA: or what DD said better and in less words.

Edited January 29, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[catrox14]

Hmm.. I gotta think about this more. I was thinking that Ruby said that one becomes a demon because one's humanity is burned away from torture and torment.  So does the soul = humanity? 

Edited January 29, 2015 by catrox14

[rue721]

Humans are already corrupted at birth, Lucifer saw to that by introducing sin in the first place. I don't think the idea has ever been that the soul is totally good or bad, but there should be a balance. It's the whole ying/yang thing. You can't function as only goodness or badness alone. GoodCharlie wouldn't accept BadCharlie because she was sooo very bad. BadCharlie was trying to prove to GoodCharlie that sometimes she needed the bad just as much as the good.

 

IA that this is what they were going for, but I think that theme got very muddled because Good!Charlie was essentially just normal Charlie with some very minor tweaks to her moral code. It didn't seem like she was very hampered by her "good guy code" or by being detached from Bad!Charlie.

 

Maybe it would have worked better if Good!Charlie were the one who made it impossible for them to do their jobs, the difficult one who got them into trouble? (Because of being too much of a stickler or too rigid or unwilling to re-prioritize or compromise, etc).

 

I think the episode was doomed to be pretty muddled because overall, Charlie's story was meant to be just a metaphor for Dean's current arc rather than a story truly about Charlie, so her story in the episode had to be "more extreme" or "more literal" version of Dean's current MOC struggle in order for her story to work as a metaphor for his -- but at the same time, Thompson is always very delicate and careful with Charlie and wasn't going to push her to be truly more extreme than either Sam or Dean (either in terms of being "too" good or "too" bad), imo.

 

I don't think the show has ever said that the soul is inherently only good, I think it's always been consistent that every soul has some goodness and some badness. Yes you need one or else you have no moral compass to guide you, but that doesn't mean that the moral compass always guides you to the right place either.

 

IA that just because the soul makes you want to do right doesn't mean it actually guides you to do right. This show has illustrated that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" so many times now that it's practically the underlying theme to SPN as a whole at this point imo.

[mertensia]

Late but ha! Charles Fort! I bet he's non-fiction- or mostly so- in the Supernatural universe.

[supposebly]

And so it begins. Carson Beckett!

Wow, Felicia Day CANNOT pull off bad guy. I've seen her play various versions of Charlie before and this pretty much brings it home. No range whatsoever.

 

12 steps no Drinking? Eggwhites? Drinking Green yuck? I don't understand.

I will never understand smoothies especially ones that look like stomach contents. We have teeth for a reason.

 

Maybe leave the knife at home, then? No? Ok, then. I don't get the 12 steps and the food thing if you take the big ass knife that makes your hand shake.

 

Obviously, he is a bad guy, he called Charlie a bitch. I like the scene. Sam looks like he barely knows how to handle this.

 

I still don't get the kale thing. I like kale though. Massaged with avocado, pine nuts, olive oil and lemon juice. Mmmmh.

 

Yeah, this is not working. Which is the main reason why Dean whaling on her later didn't bother me like it should, she was so badly played.

Good Charlie is no different from normal Charlie. So, take her out then! Chloroform, pills, anything? Being good Charlie means you can't use the word murder? Sigh.

 

So, Sam makes the better suggestion and we nevertheless put dark Charlie together with Dean for......(plot) reasons.

 

I don't like the "kiddo". This might be appropriate somewhere but not for me.

 

Well, I don't believe you bad Charlie. So, Dean shouldn't either. There is a difference between hoping bad Charlie is not so bad and stupidity.

 

Again with the drinking. It doesn't work as a metaphor, writers! It makes no sense!

 

Felicia Day plays bad Charlie like a completely different person. Which makes no sense either. Again, bad acting.

 

Even if I hadn't known that that was the wrong town, I would wonder why Dean would tell me all that. Just, so lame.

 

And now we have Dean stupid and blind again. I know we ignore that Metallicar sticks out like a sore thumb both visually and auditorily but in a series of stupid mistakes for plot reasons, this just adds to it.

 

And now I'm supposed to get worried about Dean and the mark. Yeah, not happening.

 

Nice jewelry, Sam! Getting choked again. How very season 1 of you!

 

I like the part where Dean feels bad and embarrassed. Charlie got her arm broken again. Funny!

 

At least we are talking about Cain again!

 

Overall: Bored now. This was nonsensical and boring and badly played and plotted. So, solving this: more research. I miss the motels!

It took me three days to force myself rewatching this so I could comment and maybe find something noteworthy. Not good, Show!

Edited January 31, 2015 by supposebly

[catrox14]

Wo is Carson Beckett?

[Julia]

I still don't get the kale thing.

 

My nonna's ravioli filling had kale in it, and so did her torta di riso (eggs, cheese, kale, onions, rice). Kale can be awesome. I think you have to come from a culture where they're willing to eat more or less anything which keeps over the winter to have good recipes for it. 

 

Who is Carson Beckett?

 

Carson Beckett was a character in Stargate: Atlantis who was killed in a ridiculous way because one of the writers wanted to work with an actress from a Joss Whedon show. Activist fans were really unhappy about it. After that it got weird.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Julia

[supposebly]

 

I think you have to come from a culture where they're willing to eat more or less anything which keeps over the winter to have good recipes for it.

I meant I don't get why Dean eats kale. I love kale! I'm German, so we keep anything cabbage-like and anything of the root-vegetable family over the winter.

 

 

Wo is Carson Beckett?

That would be Paul McGillion's (the lawyer Harper) character's name on Stargate Atlantis.

Edited January 31, 2015 by supposebly

[catrox14]

I'm pretty sure the kale thing is a meta joke about Misha Collins "The Daily Kale" twitter account.

[supposebly]

Well, if it is, I shouldn't have to get a twitter account to get a joke. And it could just be a general joke about how kale became part of this super food craze for a while there. That wasn't my point.

What makes no sense is that Dean thinks eating healthy will keep the mark in check while what actually makes him shake, like a humongous knife, sure, let's put that in the bag!

 

They use these crutches to show how Dean tries to deal with it when they have excellent actors who, with good writing, can portray anything and make sense to boot!

 

I don't want to think about Dean's digestive system going from meat-based to basically vegetarian. That would make anyone flip out.

Edited January 31, 2015 by supposebly

[catrox14]

Well I wasn't suggesting that you had to get a twitter account to get the joke. They probably could have just gone with any health food that Dean wasn't familar with like quinoa but I think they went for the meta joke...as they do . 

 

I've been reading elsewhere that the reason Dean was going with health food is that he's trying to emulate Sam's behavior because he admires Sam's strength. I'm kind of not on board with that intrepretation because that seems.....a bit ...eh. treacly? 

[supposebly]

Where did that come from?

 

And again. How does that translate into eating kale?

 

Maybe he admires Sam's strength in sticking to healthy food? ;-)

[catrox14]

That's just something I've read on other boards and on tumblr.

 

And yes that is precisely what I was relating ,not that I agree with the intrepretation personally :That Dean was attempting to emulate Sam's behavior by eating health foods.

[catrox14]

And another thing. I really did not like them implying that a healthy libido and being attracted to someone is a"bad" thing by having Charlie's good side not try to flirt with the bartender. Holy crap that is a terrible message.

[SueB]

In my simple view, I think he was trying to cleanse his body of anything that is considered unhealthy. And yes, I think his 'source' for healthy eating irole model is Sam. It reminds me a bit of how Sam prepped for Dean's death by trying to be more like Dean. I will say, as someone who shifted from professed to unprocessed foods recently, I litterally had a few days of dealing like crude and then I got more energy. That's consistent with him getting 8 hrs of sleep. Exhaustion leads to coping mechanisms like high calorie food.

A couple more notes on rewatch:

- I think it was essential that Good!Charlie held the key because she drew Dark!Charlie into her. If Dark!Charlie had drawn back in Good!Charlie, then the darker aspects might be in control.

-Clive mentioned the key was made with Oz steel. Charlie's knife, I suspect was made with that Oz steel. I wonder if it had special properties? I wonder if Dean stayed behind to clean up the crime scene and snagged Anything else the Wizard might have been carrying.

- I think one of the things Dean struggled with was how much of a dick Dark!Charlie was. He clearly held Charlie up on a pedestal as a 'little sister her never wanted'. Little clues like 'Why didn't she call?', 'About yay-high, practically sparkles', and calling her 'kiddo'. So when her attacks were so personal it really hurt. She called Sam an albatross, knifed Baby's tire, and then stole Baby. He sat there in that bar just reeling. IMO in part because he was trying to grapple with those things coming from a version of Charlie. In their final confrontation, it wasn't until he said 'you're not my friend' that he broke her arm. I think he really didn't reconcile the dick moves of Charlie with his 'little sister'. I think he's in a bit of denial there. Whereas both Charlie and Clive immediately accepted the faults of their dark counters as their own. Maybe it was guilt, but maybe it was a greater clarity.

- So for two days Charlie was sleeping and Dean was...what. Sam told Cas Dean had finally calmed down. I gotta wonder what Dean was like that Sam described him as calmed down. Was he ranting about getting thrown into the sun again? I wonder.

[Aeryn13]

 

I really did not like them implying that a healthy libido and being attracted to someone is a"bad" thing by having Charlie's good side not try to flirt with the bartender.

 

Yeah, like "good people don`t enjoy sex, burgers and never drink a drop of alcohol". Gee, seriously? I`m not a health nut food-wise and I don`t think that is a sign of evildom. Like, I enjoy "unheatlhy" wood as well as fruit and salad but I will absolutely not eat that tastes like garbage to me just for the "it is good for you" reason. Yeah, you know what, I`m sure I can find food in the "good for you" group that I like. 

 

With Sam, I think the salad stuff has always been a running joke, especially considering his height/built. And we know Jared does like steaks and all that. 

 

 

And yes, I think his 'source' for healthy eating irole model is Sam. It reminds me a bit of how Sam prepped for Dean's death by trying to be more like Dean.

 

And I remember there being a point made on how Sam was suddenly much darker - harkening back to the taunts of the YED of "what came back" and all. Then he said he was trying to emulate Dean. 

 

I didn`t like the message then and I couldn`t like it now because it kinda boils down to "if you wanna look evil, you emulate Dean and if you wanna look good and pure, you emulate Sam". More with the simplistic untrue bullshit. Though in the case of the last episode, I think it was just more Thompson throwing at the wall stuff that is general considered "heatlhy living" in a new age sense, certain foods, no drinking and especially those obnoxious self-help tapes.   

 

 

Whereas both Charlie and Clive immediately accepted the faults of their dark counters as their own.

 

I don`t think so with Charlie because then IMO she would have been more reciprocal instead of saying "I forgive you". That is a victim says, it denies her involvement in the matter, unless maybe followed up by "do you forgive me, too?" But in general it could have been something like "sorry I came after you like that, I don`t blame you for getting overboard in stopping me".

 

Because her dark self was literally another person in a physical sense, that is even more conductive in allowing Charlie to look at her like that, It was "her". "She" beat up on Dean and good Charlie was an innocent bystander who suffered. That is even how the show played it and it`s crap. Therefore she could offer forgiveness from a place of moral righteousness and neatly by-pass the ASKING of forgiveness for herself. Apparently, she alreasy did that in those two days, on account of the people she hurt in her dark form as well. Splendid. How about THEY get a say in what they will forigve when? Just like Stefan over on Vampire Diaries always referring to his evil ripper-self as "him" and "the ripper". If you talk about your own darkness in the third person, then I don`t think you really accept it. 

 

Dean is overly hard on himself but at least he doesn`t refer to his own darkness in such a way. And while he should absolutely forgive himself more, he shouldn`t do so instantly and in place of others. Charlie`s arm is broken, therefore she gets to mete out forgiveness for that. Conversely, Dean had still bruises on his face from Charlie, it doesn`t matter if she is out of leather and in a pink cast now, therefore HE gets to forgive her HER for it, not "she forgives herself for it". She can do that when she beats herself in the face.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

Yeah, like "good people don`t enjoy sex, burgers and never drink a drop of alcohol". Gee, seriously? I`m not a health nut food-wise and I don`t think that is a sign of evildom. Like, I enjoy "unheatlhy" wood as well as fruit and salad but I will absolutely not eat that tastes like garbage to me just for the "it is good for you" reason. Yeah, you know what, I`m sure I can find food in the "good for you" group that I like. 

 

90 percent of all food has some nutritional value and eating healthy is all about balance, IMO. Eating only salads and such is no better for you than never eating any vegetables. I think that's what they were trying to do in the end is say Dean shouldn't try to cut everything out of his life that's considered bad for him, but find a balance he can live with. I just think they missed the boat on having Dean realize he needed to look to other parts of his life for balance too.

[catrox14]

I think they may have been goingbfor thebbalance thing with Charlie but I'm not real convinced they were actually going for that with Dean.

And if they were it failed badly IMO now if this had been demon! Dean vs dark! Charlie that would have worked or if they would have at least referenced to when Dean was a demon it might have been more meaningful. A legitimate mirror/parallel.

But putting it with MoC! Dean whose problem isn't that he liked e the disease and wanted to stay a demon and is embracing the demon, but It's about Dean having an addiction to bloodlust caused by the mark. Those are not the same things as dark Charlie vs good Charlie.

[DittyDotDot]

IMO, the parallel was to how Good Charlie was trying to keep al the "bad" away from her, but once she accepted Bad Charlie back she got some balance. Dean was doing something similar with cutting out all the "bad" things from his diet, he felt like he would be keeping the "bad" away from him, but in the end he was more off-balance by it than he was before.

[7kstar]

IMO, the parallel was to how Good Charlie was trying to keep al the "bad" away from her, but once she accepted Bad Charlie back she got some balance. Dean was doing something similar with cutting out all the "bad" things from his diet, he felt like he would be keeping the "bad" away from him, but in the end he was more off-balance by it than he was before.

I can see that.  Dean is desperate to get some control or the only other option is to make sure he is destroyed.  He can't be killed because that means he becomes the demon again.

 

I guess the reason I enjoyed this one is that I didn't really think about it too much.  I just went with it and ignored the deeper meanings.  I don't think the writers put that much thought in what it is doing to the characters.  They just go wouldn't this idea be neat and go with it.  If you think too much on this ep, it just makes my head hurt.  So I can enjoy it as long as I don't put that much thought into it.  Also for me, if I think they really needed another moment, well that is where fanfiction comes from.  It spurts my muse into writing to fix what is broken.  I just don't have time to write right now...so for now I'm ignoring the hole in the wall.  Nope don't see it.  :)

[rue721]

And another thing. I really did not like them implying that a healthy libido and being attracted to someone is a"bad" thing by having Charlie's good side not try to flirt with the bartender. Holy crap that is a terrible message.

 

Libido isn't a bad thing, but treating the bartender like she's a sex object there for their personal titillation is. That's entitled as hell. Personally, I didn't like how they were talking about her anyway -- as though ~obviously~ it's open season on harassing her while she's trying to work, that's what she's there for, but because of this health/goody-two-shoes kick, they're laying off "bad" stuff like hamburgers and service workers for now. Blech. Which is why I liked that she seemed so over them the entire episode, lol.

 

Where did that come from?

 

And again. How does that translate into eating kale?

 

Maybe he admires Sam's strength in sticking to healthy food? ;-)

 

Not sure about other sites (this is the only place I go for SPN fan stuff) but 7kstar brought up the idea that Dean was trying to act like Sam (rather than continuing what he had been doing, and trying to act like his own "old" self) here, too, a few days back. I agree with catrox14 that it's so sweet it'll probably give you a cavity (though I'm a sap, and am OK with some sweetness, too). However, the idea that Dean was just trying to act like Sam in general, and so was eating and drinking like Sam as well, makes *so much* more sense to me than that Dean literally thought that drinking green smoothies would help him not go dark side, that I'm going with it! And the basic premise that Dean would think that Sam is doing OK, so if he just acts like Sam he'll maybe do OK, too, works for me. YMMV.

 

I think that's what they were trying to do in the end is say Dean shouldn't try to cut everything out of his life that's considered bad for him, but find a balance he can live with. I just think they missed the boat on having Dean realize he needed to look to other parts of his life for balance too.

 

I don't think that they were going for a message of balance. They were pushing the alcohol parallel *so hard* and obviously balance isn't the answer there, because it's not achievable. Dean has also tried the "well, just a maintenance-level amount of killing is a good idea!" thing, and it pretty quickly spiraled out of control.

 

IA with 7kstar, this episode is just poorly thought out, and doesn't hang together when you think about it.

[DittyDotDot]

I don't think that they were going for a message of balance. They were pushing the alcohol parallel *so hard* and obviously balance isn't the answer there, because it's not achievable. Dean has also tried the "well, just a maintenance-level amount of killing is a good idea!" thing, and it pretty quickly spiraled out of control.

 

Oh, I'm not suggesting they did it well. That's why I said, I would've liked them to have had Dean looking to remove other "bad" things from his life other than just drinking, sex and junk food. But Charlie's line at the end about settling for balance is what made me think that's what they were doing.

[supposebly]

 

Dean was just trying to act like Sam in general, and so was eating and drinking like Sam as well, makes *so much* more sense to me than that Dean literally thought that drinking green smoothies would help him not go dark side

Neither works for me. After years of making fun of Sam's eating habits, now it's supposed to be a good thing? It certainly didn't help preventing a demon blood addiction.

And again, why would he take the knife when that was the clearest sign that THAT might tip him over. Not the burgers and what not. It's the knife scene that basically eliminates any sense this change in eating habits might have had for me.

From what I've seen so far, the best course of action for him seems to be taking a break from hunting and violent situations.

[SueB]

 

And again, why would he take the knife when that was the clearest sign that THAT might tip him over.

Because he was off on a job and saving Charlie (in Dean's mind) was his mission.  His issues with weaponry  were shoved to the side because he now had an overriding concern about Charlie.  If eating burgers might be useful, he'd have done that too.  Dean is "family first" and Charlie is family in his mind.  No one approaches Sam-level (I personally feel Dean's feelings for Sam include the parental instinct -- not that he thinks he's Sam's parent -- but that instinct is why Sam is ALWAYS first). 

 

And I noticed he didn't take the knife out. He took the gun out first and then put THAT away.  He stuck with fists (which were obviously sufficient).

 

I suspect that before he started to pack his bag his didn't know he's get the shakes from the knife and shoved it in there anyway due to priorities.  And he won't mention THIS to Sam because he's not going to take himself out of the fight if "family" is involved. 

[Aeryn13]

 

Libido isn't a bad thing, but treating the bartender like she's a sex object there for their personal titillation is.

 

I don`t think trying to hit on someone or flirting with them is being a bad person but obviously since Good!Charlie was so good she couldn`t commit such "henious" acts, it was supposed to be. That made me roll my eyes so hard. That always gives me the message that they consider especially women as such delicate, dainty flowers, that it hits them to their very core. As a woman, that just train of thought just annoys me. And talking about someone in a sexualized way when they are out of earshot? Both genders do that all the time. For me, it`s no biggie really.It`s hilariously what most fandoms do day in/day out with characters/actors considered attractive.   

 

 

that Dean was trying to act like Sam (rather than continuing what he had been doing, and trying to act like his own "old" self)

 

I didn`t think of that when watching the ep and now that this has been brought up as a possible, it makes me hate it even more because it just goes in the "Saintly McWonderful pimping" column which I hate. Dark!Charlie taunting Sam with being "too good" and Dean basically with being bad but being held back by the too-good-Sam was just about all that I can stomach in a single episode.   

[rue721]

IA that changing eating habits was irrelevant in terms of killing. But at least if he was generally trying to be like Sam then there is *some* method to his madness in that he was just copying what Sam was doing -- eating light and killing in moderation.

 

If he was supposed to literally believe that not eating red meat was going to directly affect how bloodthirsty he felt, then I'm at a loss, because wtf. But if not eating red meat was just him generally copying Sam, then OK.

 

Imo it's like how, if you're feeling like you can't do XYZ, you might think of a friend or famous person or whoever who you imagine XYZ would be easy for, and then do your hair or dress sort of like them -- not because that hairstyle or those clothes will literally make XYZ easier, but just to help get yourself psyched up into being able to do it. YMMV. But that's something that I do! And that friends do, too. I don't think it's that off the wall.

 

I don`t think trying to hit on someone or flirting with them is being a bad person but obviously since Good!Charlie was so good she couldn`t commit such "henious" acts, it was supposed to be. That made me roll my eyes so hard. That always gives me the message that they consider especially women as such delicate, dainty flowers, that it hits them to their very core. As a woman, that just train of thought just annoys me.

 

I think that acting like you have the right to hit on someone -- when she's at work and *has* to play nice with you, because if she doesn't keep you happy then her job is at risk -- is obnoxious and entitled as hell. (And if you want to get meta -- yes, I think the same concept applies to actors, too).

 

But I generally find that what has changed in how Dean is written in the last couple seasons (S9 especially) is that he acts much more snotty, snobby, and entitled than previously. I don't think the writers are going for that characterization, I think they're just tone deaf. But it's off-putting to me, personally. It's not at all how I think he was characterized in the earlier days of the show, either, which makes him feel like PodPerson!Dean to me sometimes now.

[Aeryn13]

 

But at least if he was generally trying to be like Sam then there is *some* method to his madness in that he was just copying what Sam was doing -- eating light and killing in moderation.

 

Sam isn`t the one with a dark arc now but I just resent this idea that Dean putting him on a pedestal once again and trying to emulate him because "gosh golly, isn`t Sam the best person ever" is a good thing. I mean, I can see Dean thinking Sam is pure and good but that doesn`t mean I have to agree. In short, there is a reason Dean is my favourite and Sam is not and the last thing I want to see is my favourite turn himself personality-wise into the guy who doesn`t appeal to me. And the show making it like that is a good thing. One reason Sam is not my fave is precisely that kind of character shilling, it puts me off.    

 

 

I think that acting like you have the right to hit on someone -- when she's at work and *has* to play nice with you,

 

I think a bartender being hit on and shooting customers down would be a daily occurence. Multiple times each day. If one couldn`t handle that aspect of the work, then they`d be in the wrong profession. I tend my roll my eyes at the "dance like a monkey for me" poto-ops of Cons with the posing and costumes and all nowadays but actors going there ARE expected to flirt, be nice and stand there with a smile while 500 fangirls in a row grab onto them like a teddy bear. 

Edited January 31, 2015 by Aeryn13

[supposebly]

Overall, this behaving-like-Sam thing (if this is what this is) is just coming out of nowhere for me. There was no lead-up, not conversation, nothing. So, I have a hard time thinking that that's what this is. And if it is what the writers are going for, it's not working for me and if feels completely out of character. Dean has been perfectly fine eating and drinking and dealing with his crap the way he does. I have never had the impression that "deep down" he thinks Sam's way is better. And Sam certainly hasn't suggested that.

[rue721]

I think a bartender being hit on and shooting customers down would be a daily occurence. Multiple times each day. If one couldn`t handle that aspect of the work, then they`d be in the wrong profession. I tend my roll my eyes at the "dance like a monkey for me" poto-ops of Cons with the posing and costumes and all nowadays but actors going there ARE expected to flirt, be nice and stand there with a smile while 500 fangirls in a row grab onto them like a teddy bear. 

 

Aeryn13, I'm a cocktail waitress. I've been waitressing off and on for my entire adult life (~10 years) and was a hostess before that. Ime, people are generally *not* douchebags, and treat bartenders and servers like human beings who are there to earn a living, rather than like pieces of meat. Irl, staff and customers might flirt and might even hook up at times (a girl I used to work with is now engaged to a former customer!). But customers aren't actually buying le droit du seigneur along with their drinks, and the vast majority have enough common sense and common decency to understand that. There *are* some entitled jerks, though, and imo Dean and Charlie (including good!Charlie) were acting too much like entitled jerks when they were talking about the bartender's body like it was an ~indulgence~ they were choosing to consume or forgo in the same way they were choosing to consume or forgo beer, hamburgers, etc. My thought was, who the fuck do they think they are?

 

The show seemed like it was (clumsily) trying to say that Charlie and Dean were abstaining from sex in order to be "good," but I chose to understand it as them abstaining from being assholes to the bartender -- because sex is nbd and perfectly fine, imo, but treating someone like Grade A beef because you know her job is contingent on playing nice with you is not. So that interpretation makes more sense to me, even though I know it's probably not the one the writers were aiming for. YMMV.

 

I doubt that Jensen Ackles of all people is unfamiliar with this issue, it seems like it must be the bane of his existence. Personally, I'm not OK with the way that some producers and some fans objectify and exploit actors, but that's a whole different rant that probably doesn't have anything to do with this episode in particular.

[Aeryn13]

 

There *are* some entitled jerks, though, and imo Dean and Charlie (including good!Charlie) were acting too much like entitled jerks when they were talking about the bartender's body like it was an ~indulgence~ they were choosing to consume or forgo in the same way they were choosing to consume or forgo beer, hamburgers, etc. My thought was, who the fuck do they think they are?

 

But because this is fiction, you are privvy to what they talk about amongst themselves, even some of their thoughts. In real life, not so much. Even if 90 % of the customers would think of doing a service worker, the worker wouldn`t know that. If 50 % talked about it amongst themselves out of eartshot but otherwise acting all nice and polite within earshot/line of sight, the worker wouldn`t know. In fiction, 100 % of the the audience can see it. That is a big difference to me. If people could see and hear everything I did or thought about, I wouldn`t wanna be around for the judging that would ensue (and I know that almost all of the time I give the impression of being all quiet and shy to others) and I doubt it would be much different for others.

 

Within the scene, neither none not even Dark!Charlie openly harassed the bartender. That also makes a difference to me.  

Edited January 31, 2015 by Aeryn13

[Mcolleague]

I did not see Dean's healthy eating as trying to emulate Sam at ALL, and am surprised so many people see it that way. I thought it was just a cute headcanon, and honestly I feel like a lot of us are latching onto any reason to like Sam more these days, since the likeable moments are kinda rare and we WANT to like him and attribute good things to him when possible since, yeah, rare... Dean's new found healthy lifestyle was explicitly called the 12 step program in dialogue, which IMO is referencing the addiction parallel (which I also find super simplistic and roll my eyes at) and has nothing to do with Sam in particular. This is also far from the first thing Dean tried, didn't he just try sating the MoC with food etc. a few episodes ago? And then went on to the cutting off arm/throwing into the sun solutions? I kinda see it as Dean throwing spaghetti against the wall since they have NO IDEA how to fix it. And as others have pointed out, eating healthy hardly did anything for Sam, since he didn't exactly kick his own addiction back in the day despite all the salads. 

 

I'm glad I don't see it that way, since that would definitely make me hate the episode even more. As it is, I only hated that Dean asked forgiveness for hurting Charlie despite being under supernatural influence while Charlie did not do the same. Many MANY people have hurt Dean under supernatural influence - like pretty much ALL of his loved ones - but forgiveness from Dean was always assumed, he was never allowed to react, and the few times he did at all he was condemned in the narrative and in parts of fandom for being *mean* and *holding a grudge*. This is especially ironic since in this very episode Charlie also hurt Dean while under supernatural influence - in fact, she was the aggressor - and no acknowledgement of that at all. Always with the double standards, Supernatural. 

 

I saw some good discussions on Tumblr about the weird stance Supernatural takes with the idea of self defence. It really glorifies NOT defending yourself against violence from loved ones, and treats not fighting back as proof of love, which has this creepy domestic violence rationale to it. This is extra evident in the last few episodes IMO, where Dean DOES defend himself, and that aspect of it - which SHOULD be considered an important factor in the events that follow - is completely glossed over and the whole response is called *evil*. So it comes across like, if you let loved ones beat you or even kill you, that's love, whereas if you fight back and defend yourself, you're a monster. Creepy. Not a fan of this at all. 

[7kstar]

Just to clarify.  I didn't see it as Dean thinking Sam must be put on a pedestal at all.  I just know that he knows Sam likes rabbit food...stuff Dean has said for years.  Since he decided he needed a change in diet, it made sense to me that he would look at the one person he knows that likes to eat the healthy stuff.  He even asked Sam a question about the food as if he expected an answer from Sam because he should know about this stuff.

 

So for me it made sense that maybe Sam's way of eating might help me do better since what I've tried before isn't working.  It was doom to failure because he likes food too much.  So I saw Sam as a starting point and Dean going overboard as searching for something new hence the 12 step.  For me it was things I saw through 7-10 that gave birth of the idea.  It works for me, feel free to ignore if you don't like it. 

 

I didn't see him liking it nor did it give any kind of impression that it was working.  So the idea of balance would be the better goal.  Dean giving up drinking won't last long, he's already longing for it.

 

This show has had some weird things about drinking and women for a very long time.

Now looking and having a conversation without that person knowing about it isn't shocking to me at all.

 

I would never ever tell Jensen to his face the things I have said on the board as an example.  Shoot I have a harder time asking for an autograph due to my being in the industry and it is weird.   The last thing I would want for it to seem as though I thought my being a fan would lead to some opportunity...so it would stay  in my private thoughts or with people that would never say anything to him, which is how I thought of the scene. 

 

Dean was always a flirt.  But since season 3 he hasn't really gotten a lot of action unlike what was implied before season 3.  I think one of the problems is that over the course of the show, it has gotten okay to say things that wasn't acceptable when they started.  For some reason they are allowing things that the sensors would have stopped before.  So for a lot of it I just shrug my shoulders and move on.  I certainly have read worse in plays and such so I don't think about it too much.  This allows me to like something that otherwise I might just really hate it.  If that makes any sense.  JMV on this...the writers might say WTF? 

Edited February 1, 2015 by 7kstar

[rue721]

I did not see Dean's healthy eating as trying to emulate Sam at ALL, and am surprised so many people see it that way. I thought it was just a cute headcanon

 

IA that it's just cute head!canon, but I think it also makes more sense than the stupidity that the episode was trying to sell.

 

When it comes to what the writers actually were trying to convey, imo:  Dean was trying to be "good," so he didn't want to do "bad" things like eat fatty food, have sex, or drink. Charlie needed to accept the "bad" within herself in order to control it, so ultimately she learned that ~balance~ is best -- and Dean needs to learn the same lesson.

 

That's idiotic, imo. It seems ridiculous to characterize fatty food, sex, and drinking as categorically "bad" in the first place. I also don't think that the Mark is part of Dean (as a person), I think it's more like a virus that has sickened him -- so imo, him "accepting" it would have no effect on his ability to "control" it.

 

The ~balance~ thing especially irritated me because the whole episode they kept acting like Dean was an alcoholic and tying that to what was going on with the Mark -- but alcoholics can't drink in moderation, that's part of what makes them alcoholics. So the show was destroying the metaphor just as it was (over) emphasizing it. Rme.

 

So my head!canon explanations are:

-- Dean feels like he's going off the rails, but Sam isn't, so he's going to just try to act like not-going-off-the-rails-currently Sam and hope for the best. Even if that means eating light.

-- Dean is trying to be "good," so he's not going to do bad things like harass the bartender.

-- Dean is feeling out of control, so he doesn't want to drink since that might "loosen him up" and make him more likely to slip (with the killing ~addiction~).

 

I don't think that that head!canon is "reality" within the show, but the poor writing and illogic within this episode were irritating, so I'm happy for fans to pull a "FIFY" and float their own (generally less lazy, more logical, imo) theories. YMMV. Plus, it was obviously just some filler episode that will only have mechanistic repercussions at best (like maybe the lead that Charlie's following up will eventually get them useful information -- blah exposition "repercussions" like that). So I figure we can fanwank our little hearts out if we feel like it, it's not like the nonsensical emotional arc within this episode is going to mean anything or be followed up/built upon within the show anyway. Though obviously, to each her own, I know some people hate fanwanking and crack!spec and all that.

 

In fiction, 100 % of the the audience can see it. That is a big difference to me. If people could see and hear everything I did or thought about, I wouldn`t wanna be around for the judging that would ensue (and I know that almost all of the time I give the impression of being all quiet and shy to others) and I doubt it would be much different for others.

 

Within the scene, neither none not even Dark!Charlie openly harassed the bartender. That also makes a difference to me.  

 

I'm not saying that they're terrible people and we MUST JUDGE THEM *thunderclap*, my point was that the "bad" thing that Dean and Charlie were forgoing imo wasn't having sex with the bartender, it was harassing the bartender. It was basically a joke -- because I do think that the show was *trying* to make some messed up "sex = bad" point, and I was making fun of that -- but also for real I think that it was douche-y for Dean and Charlie to just assume that she's there for the taking.

 

I think that the writers didn't mean for that dialogue to be douche-y. I doubt it even occurred to them that it could be douche-y. But it amused me that the bartender seemed so "over it" in all her scenes because it seemed to me like she also thought they were entitled jerks. Obviously I have no idea if that's what the actress was actually trying to convey, I just thought it was funny how they kept talking about getting with her like it was a given that they could, while she seemed busy working and completely uninterested in them except when she hinted to Dean that he'd been nursing his one drink too long.

 

But anyway, I'm sure that we're *supposed* to be thinking Sex Is Bad and Dean Is Being Good By Not Having The Sex. I'm sure we're *supposed* to be empathizing with Charlie and Dean, not with this bartender who has +/- 1 line. I just thought, personally, that all that was some bullshit. Plus, Charlie is always really difficult for me to empathize with, it's like trying to empathize with a cheerful wood nymph. And when Dean becomes PodPerson!Dean and acts incongruously entitled or snotty, I find him difficult to empathize with, too. It makes *no* sense for Dean to be a melodramatic, self-absorbed yuppie and he never acted like one pre-S9 as far as I can recall, so I don't know why they've slipped and written him as one off and on for the last couple years.

 

To be completely frank, it's probably just the writers lifting wholesale from their own lives too much -- not bothering to be as creative or use their imaginations as much as they should. Not surprising considering that they're not even bothering to give the scripts internal logic or plausible storylines, I guess. Last week there were those incompetent ax-murderers, this week there was Dean separating out the egg yolks to "tame" the Mark. Last week the writers owed money to the douchebag jar for having Cas abandon Claire by the side of the road, and this week -- I won't continue beating the dead horse. Laziness dogs the writing on this show to an extent I find unbelievable. I honestly don't understand it. The entire writing staff can't all be a bunch of freeloaders, so I guess there's some kind of management issue? *shrug*

Edited February 1, 2015 by rue721

[DittyDotDot]

As it is, I only hated that Dean asked forgiveness for hurting Charlie despite being under supernatural influence while Charlie did not do the same.

 

Dean asked for forgiveness? I'm sorry, I really wasn't paying much attention by the end so I probably missed it, but I don't remember Dean asking for forgiveness. I do remember Charlie giving forgiveness. I thought it was her way of trying to tell Dean that he should forgive himself--she certainly wasn't holding a grudge over it. I just figured, Dean being the big ball 'o guilt he is, he blames himself for everything whether or not he should. I thought Charlie was trying to get Dean to realize she wasn't holding Dean responsible and there was nothing Dean needed to be feeling guilty for.

 

 

I saw some good discussions on Tumblr about the weird stance Supernatural takes with the idea of self defence. It really glorifies NOT defending yourself against violence from loved ones, and treats not fighting back as proof of love, which has this creepy domestic violence rationale to it. This is extra evident in the last few episodes IMO, where Dean DOES defend himself, and that aspect of it - which SHOULD be considered an important factor in the events that follow - is completely glossed over and the whole response is called *evil*. So it comes across like, if you let loved ones beat you or even kill you, that's love, whereas if you fight back and defend yourself, you're a monster. Creepy. Not a fan of this at all. 

 

Personally, I've never thought Dean not fighting back at other times was proof of love from Dean, but strategic moves on Dean's part. For instance, when Yellow Eyes possessed John, instead of Dean physically fighting back--which would have been pointless because Yellow Eyes was far more powerful than they were--Dean appealed to his father to take control. Same with when Lucifer had possessed Sam and when Castiel was under Naomi's influence. To me, it wasn't that Dean sat by silently while they beat the crap out of him to show them how much he loved them, but he was being smart and fighting back in a much more effective way than what his fists could do. He tried the same thing with BadCharlie, but without GoodCharlie being a part of Charlie, there was no one to appeal to this time, so he took the next course of action, which was to subdue her physically. Personally, I didn't see it as much as self defense as him doing his job. Yes, I think it went beyond his job and once he had her down and he kept wailing and wailing on her. But, I do realize he was under the influence of something supernatural, so I forgive it.  And, I think that's all Charlie was trying to say to Dean in the end too.

 

I do think the show takes weird stances on things sometimes, though, I just didn't see this as being one of those cases.

[Aeryn13]

 

Dean asked for forgiveness? I'm sorry, I really wasn't paying much attention by the end so I probably missed it, but I don't remember Dean asking for forgiveness.

 

He said "I`m so sorry" to her whereas she offered no apology or acknowledgment of her part in things whatsoever. I guess she has neatly forgiven herself for the punches thrown because "it wasn`t her". So handing out forgiveness like it was incredibly magnaminous of her poor victim self felt somewhat stale. 

 

The scene was shot and framed like he randomely walked up to her and broke her arm, not that it happened in a fight that Charlie started. And Dark!Charlie counts as part of Charlie so she ought to take some responsibility for it as well.  

Edited February 1, 2015 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

Could not her giving forgiveness also be her way of saying she too was sorry? I guess I just didn't see it as she was blaming Dean or thinking everything was Dean's fault and she had no part to play in it, but realizing it was a messed up situation all around. But I'm weird like that.

 

To be honest, I really wasn't paying attention though because I was so annoyed that the show, once again, told us the interesting story in lieu of showing it to us. I kinda checked out after Sam told Cass Dean had finally calmed down after days...that would've been far more interesting to see, IMO.

[Aeryn13]

 

Could not her giving forgiveness also be her way of saying she too was sorry?

For me, that isn`t how it works. "Oh, I forgive you" is not something acceptable in lieu of "I`m sorry for what I did". That is entitled IMO, equating yourself with the blameless. Someone who did nothing wrong can also offer forgiveness. If you feel you ALSO did something wrong on the other hand, say "sorry" as well and don`t weasel out of it. 

Edited February 1, 2015 by Aeryn13

[DittyDotDot]

I guess I just thought that Charlie did feel sorry too and I didn't need it expressly told to me that she did. I got it all from the performance--which is saying something because I don't think Felicia Day is a particularly gifted actress. I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the entitlement you are, but that's fine by me.

[Aeryn13]

 

I got it all from the performance--which is saying something because I don't think Felicia Day is a particularly gifted actress.

 

While I thought this particular scene was one of her better performances in the episode and she did have a nice rapport with Jensen - the actress can seriously not do evil, all those weird pauses in the dialogue that was, I don`t know, supposed to make it sound edgier? darker? just did not work, it was on over-the-top-idea of evil - I didn`t get guilt from her acting at all. She seemed sad and down because something bad had happened to her, the victim mentality, and she bravely soldiered on and gratend Dean forgiveness.   

 

Granted, the dialogue itself did not help, it is the same like with "what will ever ever do when YOU DECIDE I can`t be trusted again and find others friends, wail" and have it framed as "that is my biggest guilt". Yeah, only, you did not say that, your words framed YOU as the victim of another person, not vice versa. If you play that kind of confusing dialogue straight, it doesn`t work IMO.     

[catrox14]

I was bothered by Charlie not apologizing as well. I don't know if I would call it entitlement per se but I do think by Charlie saying she forgives him but not really acknowledging that she left Dean's face pretty well messed up and kicked him in the nards, and by not having Dean say "I forgive you, too" leaves me with the impression that the show wants me to think Dean SHOULD shoulders more of the blame for what happened than Charlie. And I just don't.

 

er thing I noticed which I laughed about was when Sam ate the eggs and said "This is awesome"...Jared's Texas accent was so heavy I had to replay it a few times. He sounded like he just fell off the truck out of Lubbock or something.

Edited February 1, 2015 by catrox14

[Mcolleague]

The way I see it, Dean and Charlie hurt each other under similar circumstances (i.e. under supernatural influence), with Charlie as the aggressor and Dean as a reluctant participant. Then, when it was over, only one of them (not even the aggressor, but the reluctant participant) apologizes and takes responsibility. The other accepts the apology and actually says, "Prove it", without acknowledging her own part in what happened at all. Dean is a walking ball of guilt and it's unsurprising that he would feel 100% responsible, but the fact that she doesn't contradict him and seems to have forgotten that it started with him defending himself and his family, the implication is that Dean is the only one who did something wrong, which she then magnanimously forgave. This is once again the writers using a character as a mouthpiece to manipulate audience opinion IMO, and I hate this sooooo much.

 

I don't recall the show ever acknowledging the harm caused by loved ones not in their right minds, all the times Dean was beaten by someone wearing his father/surrogate father/brother/friend's faces. The only time I can think of is his naming Soulless Sam as an example of Sam's transgressions (which might also be just bad writing) - since the guy lied to him, manipulated him, and let him be turned into a vampire, which endangered innocents including his family - this was thoroughly condemned in the narrative (apparently pretty much driving Sam to suicide), not to mention in the fandom. If it was across the board that forgiveness is assumed towards loved ones not in their right minds, if it was across the board that people are assumed to not be responsible for their actions while under supernatural influence, I suppose I could have turned a blind eye. But this is the first time it IS acknowledged, and it was not when the person being hurt is Dean, and the insult to injury of it all is that Dean was ALSO hurt by a loved one not in their right mind in this same episode, but the writers appeared to have just... not noticed? 

 

This kind of inconsistent standard is what makes so many Dean fans so bitter. *sigh*

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mcolleague

[amensisterfriend]

Again with the drinking.

 

Agreed and taking to the all episodes thread! 

[DittyDotDot]

... the implication is that Dean is the only one who did something wrong, which she then magnanimously forgave. This is once again the writers using a character as a mouthpiece to manipulate audience opinion IMO, and I hate this sooooo much.

 

If they were trying to manipulate me to thinking Dean was the only bad guy here, they failed miserably. To me, the scene wasn't about Charlie magnanimously forgiving bad Dean, but instead was showing me how good Dean actually is because he has a conscious and cares about people. Even though the scene was very heavy-handed and unnecessary, IMO, I think the way they played it actually kept the focus where is should have been, right on Dean. To me, it was more about Dean than if Charlie had asked Dean for forgiveness--that scene would be more about Charlie, IMO.  

 

Sorry, I just don't feel the implications you do, but I'm open to the possibility that they are there and I'm just not seeing them. I just find it hard to get worked up over something that might possibly, perhaps, have been intended when that's not how it appears to have played out, to me.

[Mcolleague]

 

If they were trying to manipulate me to thinking Dean was the only bad guy here, they failed miserably.

 

I don't think they are deliberately trying to show Dean as a bad guy, I should clarify since I didn't make it clear. It ties in more with my previous comment about the erasing of the self defense. By having only Dean take responsibility for these events, and no onscreen acknowledgement of Charlie's side of it, the dialogue suggests that his actions were completely unjustified, while IMO the self defense was justified and only the loss of control afterwards was unjustified. This is problematic to me, because this kind of blanket unqualified condemnation steamrolls over the fact that you SHOULD defend yourself, violently if necessary, even against someone you care about. I think the writers are missing this point, since it's happened several times now, where the narrative condemned Dean's reactionary violence without acknowledgement of the initiation of violence towards him. I think in this episode especially, this dubious morality is voiced by Charlie's dialogue when she forgives Dean without asking forgiveness herself. I think we are meant to see Dean's actions as *dark*, and that forgiveness and self acceptance is the key to saving him, but IMO the show is much murkier/messier than the tell. So yeah, I disliked that there was a tell of the intended takeaway message which didn't reflect what I saw onscreen, and I resent that they had Charlie say these (IMO rather hypocritical) things, because she is a character I like, and her relationship with Dean is one I enjoy. 

[rue721]

OK just rewatched while eating lunch, because I could hardly remember the apology you guys are talking about (WHAT IS WITH the music in this episode? I can't focus on anything else when that MIDI keyboard crap is playing). And a few things:

 

1. Good!Charlie apparently just said she would *check out* the bartender's ass! The first time around, I heard it as she would "suck on" the bartender's ass. So then when bad!Charlie called the same woman's ass "delicious" later...LOL. OK, that's not nearly as nasty after hearing it properly.

 

2. On the other hand, the interrogation that consisted of Dean just yelling TALK! TAAAAALK! in a lawyer's face was much more ridiculous than I remembered.

 

3. Dean and his one shot of liquor, that he just stared at and got all tetchy about when the bartender hinted about him ordering another, still cracked me up.

 

4. When Dean first made the egg white omelette, he said that it was the breakfast of champions for dorks like Sam. So I guess he was maybe trying to eat like Sam? But then they went on about it being part of a 12 (or 3) step program. So...probably meaningless babbling. Plus, aren't they behind the times -- I thought people were supposed to eat whole eggs nowadays because the yolks are where the vitamins are!

 

5. That CGI rope!

 

Anyway, w/r/t the apology: 

Before good!Charlie shot the good!Wizard, she said she was sorry and he said, "I forgive you. We both do." Then in the end, Charlie told Dean that she wouldn't let what happened to her happen to him, I think trying to say she'd help him like the good!Wizard had helped her. I think that Dean saying he was sorry and Charlie saying she forgave him, was supposed to echo the good!Wizard/good!Charlie thing again.

 

I liked what a grump Dean was in those last couple scenes, though! When Charlie said he'd be OK "because you're a Winchester," he rolled his eyes, and when Sam asked him if he was OK, he was like, "NO." Not even being sarcastic, I thought that was funny and maybe the most actual-person-like out of the entire episode!

 

Just as a sidenote, why do the writers or whoever think that Dean is a million years old? They keep hiring actors who are more or less the same age as Jensen Ackles, but then Dean treats their characters like they're young kids compared to him. Dean was literally calling Charlie "a good kid" and the kiddo thing was kind of hilarious (that's a pet name my mom used to use all the time, it's like if Dean were suddenly calling people "hon" or something to my ears. Maybe next week he'll start calling Sam "Sam-a-la," as he continues his slow transformation into a granny), and before that there was the ridiculousness of Cole.

[catrox14]

I do think Charlie is supposed to be about 10 years younger than Dean.  And he has protected and she acts a lot younger than 25 if that is her age.  To me, "kiddo" is just a typical thing he says to Charlie because it's what he thinks a big brother would say to a little sister.  I don't think it's condescending or patronizing.

 

And to be fair, Dean has been through shit that would age a person so to me his life experience does make him seem older.   I have no problem with it.

Edited February 1, 2015 by catrox14