AwesomO4000 January 1, 2015 Share January 1, 2015 (edited) After reading the recent comments in this thread, I am finding that I apparently see this show a bit differently. I definitely agree that some of the important milestones for Sam are glossed over or occur offscreen, though I'm not really sure that Sam isn't "deep" or I should say that not knowing some things about him doesn't make him shallow to me. I actually know a lot about Dean, but in some ways don't find Dean any deeper for it. Unpopular opinion here - I don't really find Dean to be very deep as a character some times. He loves Sam and would do anything for him. He loved his dad and would do anything for him. He likes to enjoy the simple things in life, because his life was difficult, and until the later years he was a make the most of a bad situation guy. Many of the other things that should make him more "deep" are kind of contradictory for me, and so don't really help me. Like how he would easily follow John's orders, but then in other situations easily becomes the great leader, or when he has the best interest of say Sam at heart and would unselfishly do anything for him, except when he doesn't (like make the deal or let Gadreel possess him. Or how he's a completely confident leader, is smooth with the ladies and knows he's a kickass hunter and hunter, but at the same time has almost no self esteem). I feel like I know what makes Sam tick sometimes despite the writing, because he seems less of a contradiction then Dean. He's often had things done to him and decisions made for him, which is why I think he has such a thing about wanting control over his own life and his own choices, or to at least be given the option. I think it's actually kind of interesting that despite those control issues, Sam doesn't necessarily need to be the main decision-maker - and he usually isn't - but does greatly prefer being included in the decision-making process and gets pissy when he isn't And he can be very helpful in that role. He can be a good leader, but then shows some trepidation with it, making it apparent that he wishes everything doesn't rest on his shoulders (which is much more relateable to me than Dean's flip-flop of "you want me to follow your every command? Sure!" vs "I'm the leader now and I'll take control of this situation" which he adopts with equal adeptness. It might've been less jarring for me if Dean seemed at all uncomfortable / trepidacious about being the leader, but Dean usually seems very confident and comfortable in the leader role ). I might not be explaining this well though, so I'll try to illustrate by commenting on some discussion... They kept the running gag of 'opportunistic' eater for a while but it took on a darker subtext (in-universe) when we found out repeatedly that Dean knows hunger as a child and Sam does not... {snip} ... Dean has always enjoyed food, sex, sleeping. To me it reflects a life of sometimes depravation and he truly sabots it when he can get it. I'm not sure if I agree with this exactly. John may have been a crappy father, but I didn't see any conclusive evidence that he let either Sam or Dean go hungry. For me Dean throwing away the Spaghetti-Os in "Something Wicked" was evidence of that. And since we learned in "The Girl Next Door" that Sam was also left alone, we don't know if he didn't know hunger then either. There's no way to know in either case for sure. We do know from that that Sam sometimes went without proper sleep, though, so likely Dean did as well there - so that part I agree with. Not just the actual "going to college" thing, but in terms of making friends and getting into this serious relationship and living with his girlfriend and stuff. How was he able to do that? How was he able to do that again with Amelia? Or even with Ruby, in a way? *Why* did he do that (either time)? What did he do when he hit a rough patch and he needed to get his head straight again? (Or did he never hit a rough patch and never needed to get his head straight?!!). And then he was able to just switch 100% again to another totally new life hunting with Dean, with barely a glance back, too. He also went through the whole thing of being (semi?)-estranged from his family just fine, apparently, and then rejoined them with barely a hiccup and then had his father die about ten seconds after their estrangement ended, without really any angst, either. I'm not asking for more angst per se (Dean produces plenty enough for both of them, I guess), I just don't understand Sam's perspective in general, because it seems like he's so bizarrely flexible and so bizarrely pragmatic. Again I disagree. For me Sam wasn't always handling the transitions well, and it was shown in season 1 with Sam's nightmares about Jessica and his unhealthy, and sometimes single-minded need for revenge. He wanted to go with Dean, yes, but he also wanted to get away from his shattered life as well. He did try to keep in touch with his old friends at first though, so he didn't entirely not look back. And when John died, Sam did not, in my opinion, get through it without any angst. Sam threw himself into hunting and doing "what dad would want" out of his guilt about what happened with John, and as Sam told Dean he was not handling it well or healthily at all. The problem was that Dean was handling it - or not as the case may be - worse and so Sam tried to help Dean there as best he could, but unfortunately Dean being Dean, he didn't want the help or to even acknowledge that he needed it. And Sam obviously didn't handle Dean being dead well either - evidenced both by "Mystery Spot" and by season 4. In season 5, Sam sort of got a wake up call and decided that his behavior had been destructive and he finally let "fix my mess" be his driving force and went from there. For me, this is where Sam really put his pragmatism - begun after "Mystery Spot" into action. And after learning that his worked better - i.e. he actually succeeded in stopping the apocalypse - he adopted it more often thereafter. That's actually something that I haven't understood in previous seasons, too. Sometimes it's pretty obvious that Dean needs help, and Sam's not an idiot, but Sam in general has been very passive about taking the lead in those times, too. That's what I mean by not understanding what responsibilities Sam thinks he has toward his brother. It seems plausible to fanwank that Dean's his big brother, so Sam assumes he's basically infinitely capable. Dean *does* also seem to want to give Sam that impression most of the time. But then, other characters have tried to get under Sam's skin by going on about what they assume Sam's hidden feelings to be about Dean being weak or needy, so I guess that handwave doesn't fully make sense. Plus, I don't know what being the younger sibling is like, I don't have any siblings myself, but who even overestimates their parents that way, let alone an older sibling? That's also what I mean about Sam's lack of agency making him seem difficult (for me, anyway) to empathize with. He comes off as irresponsible/callous/entitled to me because it seems like he's liable to just let his loved ones (including his father) twist in the wind and isn't prone to feeling any guilt or fear for them or look for ways to protect them -- but then he apparently *does* love them? I don't get it. I don't see this really either. I think that Sam very much feels responsible for helping Dean and tires to often. As I mentioned above, Sam tried to help Dean in season 2 after their father died, and pro-actively tried to get Dean to talk about it and/or deal with it. He was even willing to go so far as to let Dean beat on him if that would help Dean, but nothing Sam seemed to try to do helped. To me that didn't negate Sam's trying, however. In season 3, Sam felt responsible for trying to get Dean out of his Deal and spent a lot of time - often behind Dean's back - researching how to get Dean out of his deal (even though Dean was the one who got himself into that situation) and even offered himself in exchange for Dean in the finale. So there was no lack of guilt or responsibility or being passive there, in my opinion. In season 4, it was shown that Sam tried to get Dean out of hell by offering his own soul instead, changing places with him (again - not passive in my opinion). In season 5, Sam tried hard to give Dean reasons to trust him again, sharing how he felt and not keeping things from Dean even when they were uncomfortable ("Good God, Y'all" , "My Bloody Valentine", "Sam Interrupted"). He was more passive in his role then, but in my opinion, that was actually what was needed in that case. Dean would not have accepted a Sam taking charge. When the situation changed and Sam taking charge was needed (and Sam recognized that Dean was going off the deep end) Sam went after Dean and showed a lot of understanding when Dean had a moment of crisis ('Point of No Return"). In season 6, Sam (post-resouling) let Dean know how grateful he was and in the finale, took on his hell memories because he "wouldn't leave Dean alone out there". In season 7 despite being a bit crazy himself, Sam repeatedly let Dean know that he knew Dean was struggling and that he wanted Dean to get help. And he actively tried to get Dean into cases when he saw that Dean was over-obsessing about Dick Roman. Just because Sam's above efforts didn't always work doesn't negate those efforts for me. What that more tells me is that perhaps Sam is more willing to accept help from his brother and Dean - predictably - isn't as willing to accept help even when it is actively offered. What I mean about not understanding Sam's expectations of his brother is mostly that it's hard for me to understand what Sam thinks is "too much" to expect or ask of his brother, and what he assumes his brother will give him? My heart melted and tbh I will love Dean forever, regardless of how irritating or horrible I think he might be in any given circumstance, just for that one scene at the end of Nightmares, when he tells Sam "as long as I'm around, nothing bad will ever happen to you." But I don't understand if Sam just has always implicitly assumed that was the case and so it's nbd for him, or what. And if he has always just implicitly assumed that Dean would look out for him no matter what, and considers Dean someone he can count on to be able to come through (which apparently Sam does, considering he's never taking the lead in trying to protect him), I think Sam expects that Dean will have his back just as he has Dean's. In my opinion, Sam doesn't expect Dean to always solve everything for him or even protect him from everything. Sam in fact explicitly told Dean just that in season 2, saying that he couldn't and didn't expect Dean to be able to protect him from everything. It was part of the reason why he ran off to find out more about his psychic abilities on his own and why he hoped that there were angels and a higher power that might possibly be looking out for them in "Houses of the Holy." As for Sam not taking the lead in trying to protect Dean, I disagree, with my reasoning in the above examples. If anything, the season 6 finale* was extremely proactive in trying to protect Dean as was offering up his life /soul to keep Dean out of hell and his soul to get Dean out of hell. I can't think of many things more proactive than that, myself. And though I didn't mention it above, I think Sam was pretty proactive this season in trying to help Dean as well - it's just that in typical show manner, for some reason, Sam's not allowed to be very effective in his efforts. * Where Sam's "I'm not leaving my brother alone out there" declaration was very much one of Sam's "as long as I'm around" moments for me. Dean just wasn't able to see it. In terms of saying something to Dean, I think Sam's saying that it was his turn to save Dean at the end of the "All Hell..., part 2." Or the "For what it's worth, I've got your back" from "Mannequin 3..." qualifies.I guess there were a few of those types of Sam moments for me. I had more to say, but I seem to have forgotten what it was and this is long enough anyhow... I'll invoke the right to revisit this discussion, and I'll leave it at that. Edited January 1, 2015 by AwesomO4000 Link to comment
rue721 January 2, 2015 Share January 2, 2015 Just because Sam's above efforts didn't always work doesn't negate those efforts for me. What that more tells me is that perhaps Sam is more willing to accept help from his brother and Dean - predictably - isn't as willing to accept help even when it is actively offered. That's true, your examples of Sam trying to sort things out on his own or offer a hand are good ones, and he's got the major obstacle that Dean will never accept his help. You're right that it's not that he never tries to help, it's that his efforts never get traction. Sam's efforts also tend to frustrate me because I don't really understand why he puts his energy where he does, though it's true that he'll pour a lot of energy into those efforts regardless. Like, the thing in S3 of him finding that zombie/monster man and thinking that maybe Dean can stay alive the same way. WTF, Sam?! I mean, it was kind of touching in that he'd obviously pinned a lot of hopes on that idea because he'd been so desperate to find a way to keep his brother from dying, and also in that he'd rather have Dean survive as some killer monster than die (how could Sam look at that zombie doctor man and think, "well, that's better than Dean dying, at least!"? He must *really* love his brother). But it was also ridiculous. Why even waste time trying to find ways that Dean could survive as a killer semi-zombie? How is that even helpful? That kind of thing comes off as naive to me, and sometimes it's very endearing and sometimes it's aggravating. Anyway, my issue isn't so much that Sam is lazy or selfish, which I don't think he is, it's more that he's such a passive participant in the story as a whole. Even if he's ostensibly doing things off screen, or doing things that just happen to never get any traction, the end result is that we don't get to see him making a lot of decisions for himself on screen and dealing with the consequences himself. That makes it difficult to get a bead on him imo, and it's frustrating to me to always have him be sort of this enigma. Also, it bothers me that it seems like the lesson to a lot of what Sam *does* manage to do on screen be that he really *should* give up his agency because he makes terrible decisions for himself. It bothers me on a structural level, in that I think that it keeps Sam too enigmatic, and it bothers me on a character level because I think it's kind of messed up that every time Sam tries to be independent it's in some misguided and childish way that he's ultimately punished for and/or regretful of. Like the thing with Ruby, for example. I thought that the "Dumbo speech" could have gone in a lot of different directions, in that, just like Sam didn't need the demon blood (apparently), he also didn't nee *Ruby.* He actually is capable of being independent, thinking for himself, being alone, etc etc etc, but he was vulnerable and subject to her manipulation because he apparently didn't think so, he apparently only knows how to function as a part of a whole. I mean, the show goes on about how Dean is ostensibly afraid to be alone, but Sam is the one who will get himself into a couple with *someone* no matter where he is or what else is happening. Every time he's at a loss, he'll find someone to cling to. Every time he's tried to leave his brother during the course of the show, he either ends up going back again very fast or hooks himself into another very close relationship with someone who's willing/able to take charge. Which is a pretty human thing to do and fine as a "thing" about the character, but since that's his pattern, I find it strange that the show is always "teaching" him that he should *give up* agency as a way of being a better person. I just don't get it. Like I don't get a lot about the choices the show has made about telling Sam's story (such as putting so many of the character's major turning points or decisions off screen). For me Sam wasn't always handling the transitions well It wasn't that he had literally *no* trouble handling the transitions, but that he handled them much too smoothly to be realistic, to me, and it made me wonder whether always looking/moving forward and being able to put the past behind him to an extraordinary degree was supposed to be a character trait of Sam's (I guess it is?) or whether the show just didn't feel like going into what he was feeling. Those were *huge* transitions, and the show has made it very clear how much trouble Dean has had with similar transitions. Off the top of my head, they made sure to mention in Bad Boys that he was pouring salt along his windowsills and doorways in that group home. I don't know how it could be possible for Sam not to have done similarly when he went to college, or moved in with Jessica, or moved in with Amelia, etc etc etc? I don't know how it could be possible for Sam to to go to college and not find his interest piqued or not to make an effort to learn more about or keep abreast of anything connected with the supernatural, since that's what he'd been trained for/studied his whole life and something that his family was still deeply involved in? I don't know how it could be possible for Sam to have just left his own family as a teenager and not become close with Jessica's, or a bff's, family at all or otherwise struggled with the thing of being suddenly completely on his own? And yeah, maybe he *did* struggle with all that stuff, it wasn't onscreen or referred to in any depth, so I guess there's nothing to do but fanwank it. But I feel like the show's choice to *never* refer to anything like that when it comes to Sam (though they do for Dean), and the show's choice to never show Sam hanging onto the past in any way onscreen (though they do for Dean), to the point that in S8 they had the ridiculousness of him not even bothering to help Kevin or look for Dean and Cas once they were sent to Purgatory, must be an attempt to say something about Sam as a character at this point. But what, Idk, because that ability to completely divorce oneself from the past seems so counter to how human beings actually operate and so extreme even within the world of the show that I need more explanation than the show has given in order to actually understand it. Anyway, my point is simply that Sam's characterization is so choppy and under-explored imo that I have trouble even understanding who he is or how to marry the contradictions in his character. I'm fine with a character being contradictory in general, I even think that that's good writing, imo it's more realistic and interesting if a character has contradictory impulses. But with Sam, a lot of the contradictions come from Sam being passive or failing to do things in situations where that doesn't make sense (to me, anyway) in terms of Sam as a character or even in terms of human behavior, and I don't know how to put together those contradictions into a complex but coherent character -- I end up feeling instead like Sam just doesn't make sense or I don't get him. I definitely agree that some of the important milestones for Sam are glossed over or occur offscreen, though I'm not really sure that Sam isn't "deep" or I should say that not knowing some things about him doesn't make him shallow to me. I actually know a lot about Dean, but in some ways don't find Dean any deeper for it. Unpopular opinion here - I don't really find Dean to be very deep as a character some times. I don't think that Sam is "shallow," I don't think he's superficial or anything like that. Actually, the opposite -- he tends to be really unobservant and clumsy when it comes to anything that's not related to work or that's more intuitive imo. That's why I find things like when he gets that little paper Merry Christmas banner in A Very Supernatural Christmas to be so sweet, actually. He obviously wouldn't care or probably even notice something like decorations for his own sake, but he knows in an abstract way that things like that matter to his brother, so he'll put an effort in anyway because he loves him. I found that touching, and Sam does that sort of thing quite a bit. Usually after Dean yells at him or tells him straight out what he wants, but hey, nobody's perfect. But I think that he's meant to be very straightforward/single-minded, and he does seem very literal imo, and in that sense, I think that he's not very "deep," either. The way he wants to talk things out all the time actually drives me crazy and is probably a large part of why I feel that way. That he would expect things to be articulated or that he often seems to need things to be articulated in order to register them or to do anything much about them sometimes makes me laugh and has been part of the character since at least Wendigo -- but when he's asking about more complex things and especially now that he's in his thirties, it seems kind of dense and ridiculous to me. YMMV. Also, he's very hard working, but he's not very creative, and that also makes me feel like he's not very deep. Maybe that's unfair or "deep" is the wrong word altogether, but that's what I mean when I say that I don't find him "deep." IA that the show will just sort of force Dean into whatever role they feel like he should play at any given time even if it doesn't really make sense for the character. But I don't have a problem with him being able to play roles like Dauntless Leader or Ladies' Man or whatever, because it seems like part of the character, to me, that he's a "good actor" in that way and will commit whole-hog to playing a role even while knowing that it's just a role. Probably what has helped me accept that as a character trait rather than just a screw up on the part of the show is that there have been quite a few times when Dean has called himself out for it. Dream a Little Dream of Me had Dean calling himself on his own bluffs pretty explicitly, for example. Sam has also called him on his bluffs quite a bit, too. Like when Dean was trying to be a tough guy in Fresh Blood. Or, right now in the MoC storyline, it's pretty clear that Sam knows that Dean is bluffing, but wants to believe the bluff and/or is choosing not to call him on it. That's actually why I find John and Dean's relationship interesting and like finding out more about it -- because they were obviously both playing roles with each other and seem to have been conscious of it, but kept on doing it for each others'/their own sakes. (Well, if I can actually articulate that better later on, I'll put it in John's thread I guess). Anyway, I don't think that Dean is a deeper character than Sam, in the sense that I don't think he's more complex as a character than Sam is (on a more meta level). Within the world of the show, though, I would say that Dean is a deeper "person" than Sam is, in the sense that he's more creative and thinks a lot more about connotations and implications or is more liable to assume that there are layers to things and to try and figure out what those are than Sam is. He's less concrete than Sam is, I guess. That's not to shit on Sam, it's not a value judgment -- personally, I find it appealing that Sam is relatively down to earth. 1 Link to comment
Demented Daisy January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 From my discussion with Ditty in the Bad Boys thread: We've heard, many times, about the fights that Sam and John used to have, but we've never seen any of them. Not until Sam was an adult, anyway. So I wonder what kind of pressure John put on Sam. We know that John's primary focus for Dean was to protect Sam, but what was John's focus for Sam? When he was younger, that is. Sam started to rebel when he was a teenager, so we know that's when John started to push Sam harder on the hunting life. Sam was shielded from most of it until he was about 8 (A Very Supernatural Christmas). So what happened between 8 and 14 that made Sam want to rebel against John and the hunting life? (Genuine question. I can't remember if this has been addressed other than Sam wanting a "normal" life.) Link to comment
DittyDotDot January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I think Sam's yearning for a normal life was bred out of his unconscious belief that something was wrong with him, but his conscious mind had him thinking that he was abnormal because he had a weird screwed up family who moved around all the time and killed monsters that most people didn't believe existed. What episode was it that someone told Sam that he was and will always be a freak and it had nothing to do with his weirdo family? Was it When The Levee Breaks...was it when he was hallucinating Dean in the panic room? I'm drawing a blank. Anyway, that's always been my take why Sam wanted to rebel against John was he thought it would make him feel normal if they had regular Thanksgivings and Christmases and real summer vacations instead of hunting werewolves. Link to comment
Demented Daisy January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 When did Sam start thinking that there was something different/wrong with him? I can't remember. I don't mean different because he was from a weird family, different because of the demon blood. Did he suspect, as a child, that he was different, even from the weirdos in his family? Link to comment
DittyDotDot January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 The story he told in The Greatest Escapist strongly suggested that Sam always knew on some level there was something "unclean" about him. I think it was subconscious, but even in S1 I think he knew there was something wrong with him. He was reluctant to tell Dean about the visions and generally was hurt when he thought Dean or anyone else saw him as a freak. To me, its a lot of Sam's motivations from the start of the show. I think he always saw himself as wrong on some level. 1 Link to comment
Demented Daisy January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) I guess I just wonder when he started to think he was "unclean". Was it something in particular? Or is it something he's felt for so long that he can't remember a time when he didn't feel that way? I feel like the owl in that old Tootsie Pop commercial. "When did Sam start feeling different? One, two, three? The world may never know." ;-) Edited January 20, 2015 by Demented Daisy 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I'd say it was probably something he felt for so long he couldn't remember when he didn't feel wrong. This is come up a few other times in the show and my watching A Rock and a Hard Place reminded me of it. Sam says it again at the end of the episode, "What if this is just me? I'm beginning to think I'll never be okay." (or something similar, can't remember the exact dialogue right now.) Another time that sticks in my head is in Hello, Cruel World and his Dean hallucination says that he'll never be okay--which was Sam's thoughts since Dean was his projection. Now you got me jonesing for a Tootsie pop so bad. ;) 1 Link to comment
rue721 January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I think Sam's yearning for a normal life was bred out of his unconscious belief that something was wrong with him, but his conscious mind had him thinking that he was abnormal because he had a weird screwed up family who moved around all the time and killed monsters that most people didn't believe existed. I don't think that Sam wanted a "normal" life, I think that he wanted to prove himself. As in, prove that he wasn't weird or trash or bad or something, that he could fit in -- "fit in" to the world at large, not (just) within his family. Something that I would have been interested in seeing is what Sam imagines their lives would have been without hunting (without the visits from Yellow Eyes and all). It was always strange to me that way back in the day, in S1 or S2, Dean was always imagining that if he and Sam weren't hunting together, they couldn't be close. Dean himself back in those days was always giving his rational for hunting as some kind of homage to their father's legacy, so I guess he can't really imagine being a family without their family life revolving around hunting. But Sam always seemed to sort of separate the two? I mean, he definitely seemed to feel like not only did he "belong" in the family but that he was trapped within it and being suffocated by it -- and I don't think it was hunting per se that he had the issue with. We've heard, many times, about the fights that Sam and John used to have, but we've never seen any of them. Not until Sam was an adult, anyway. So I wonder what kind of pressure John put on Sam. We know that John's primary focus for Dean was to protect Sam, but what was John's focus for Sam? When he was younger, that is. I think Sam just didn't bother appeasing him, so John would try to put him in his place, and things would escalate. Sam just doesn't seem to me like someone who is very big on authority for its own sake -- not in that he has a problem with it particularly, but in that hierarchy/duty really doesn't seem like it registers with him (the way that it registers with Dean, for example). He just seems like he assumes he's a free agent and that he/everyone defaults to being an autonomous individual (rather than one of a group). Even how he will always try to act respectful (rather than kind) toward Dean when Dean is flipping out at him is part of that imo. Maybe that's also part of his feeling of being set apart or different or weird. On the one hand, that means that he's alienated. On the other hand, that means that he feels independent. So, I think maybe John's pressure on Sam was for Sam to obey and to put the needs of the group/John first, and Sam was like "why?" -- and they came to loggerheads over that constantly. Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 5, 2015 Share February 5, 2015 Brought over from the "About A Boy" episode thread: And the flip! The flip! Although I have grown very fond of another kind of flip in Sam's hair in the clown episode of season 2. It's so very hilarious considering how serious he is. Sometimes I think Sam's hair should have his own show. Heh! I was (re)watching this episode during lunch today and Sam's flippy/sticking out hair was very, very distracting. As I said in that thread. My favorite was the bouffant of extreme angst - "oh noes! I must not drink that demon blood." To demonstrate, I will provide pictures: Sam's hair just a few moments before: After the fight and temptation strikes: the bouffant of extreme angst... 7 Link to comment
supposebly February 5, 2015 Share February 5, 2015 (edited) As I said. It should have its own show. Maybe we can vote for it somewhere as additional non-human character. ETA: or rather animated object. Edited February 5, 2015 by supposebly 2 Link to comment
catrox14 February 5, 2015 Share February 5, 2015 It would have to be favorite inaminate object : non-Impala division. 3 Link to comment
SueB February 5, 2015 Share February 5, 2015 It might give the Impala a run for it's money. 2 Link to comment
Iguana February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 NEVER! Sam's hair is to the metallicar what kale is to the most succulent filet mignon. Not even worthy to be mentioned in the same breath. 3 Link to comment
catrox14 February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 It might give the Impala a run for it's money. HOW DARE YOU! "She didn't mean it, Baby" 4 Link to comment
SueB February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 Sorry! I didn't mean it. *runs out to avoid lynching* Link to comment
rue721 February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 What if the Impala and Sam's hair teamed up? The world of windblown looks would really open up! Along with the Bouffant of Angst, we might get to see the Whipping Locks of Agitation, the Droopy Ponytail of Srs Bsns, and so on. 1 Link to comment
Altered Reality February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 Okay, those two photos? Yeah, I'm giggling. Most undignified it is too. As for the rest of the conversation? Well, you are all a bit cracked, ya know. And I mean that most respectfully. 2 Link to comment
catrox14 February 6, 2015 Share February 6, 2015 Well, you are all a bit cracked, ya know. Well we ARE fans of Supernatural..so.... 2 Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Disclaimer: This is not an attack on Sam or Dean. I'm not saying that either had it worse off than the other. Just that they are different. So, I've been thinking over the past few days.... (No idea why this occurred to me. My brain works in strange ways sometimes.) Sam must have some serious issues. And not because of the trauma of his adulthood. I'm referring to his childhood. Sam's earliest memory can only be from John.* The only life he has ever known is death. The death of his mother. The death of the myriad of monsters they have killed. And the obsessive mission of his father (and brother) to keep him from death. For whatever reason, Dean was able to "cope" with these things and embrace the hunting lifestyle. (That's another post for another thread.) Sam never could. Maybe John was upfront with Dean; maybe he told Dean everything. But he and Dean hid that from Sam for as long as they could which, in my mind, did Sam a real disservice. I'm sure, for a very long time, Sam thought the worst of his father because he didn't know the truth. Then the resentment crept in, which he had to live with because he couldn't escape. It had to be a vicious cycle. Even in death, John wanted to keep secrets from Sam. How does one cope with such a life? All questions, no answers? Just secrets and lies. Who wouldn't want to escape that? I've mentioned many times that Dean was (for lack of a better word) brainwashed by John. But couldn't we say the same thing about Sam? Perhaps Sam grew up a little self-centered, a little arrogant, a little selfish. His whole life has been based on one family truth: Keep Sammy safe. Even if he was never explicitly told that was Dean's mission in life, he had to know. Maybe only sub-consciously, but I'm sure that knowledge was in there somewhere. He had to know that he was the center of (at least) Dean's universe. How does a child process that information without getting an inflated ego? When did he learn that his mother died in his nursery? At what age do you tell a child that and not expect it to mess him up in some way? It's a different kind of damage from Dean, but I'd say it's still damage. It explains why, even, Sam likes the things he does. John was a stereotypical blue-collar man. He got down in the trenches and dirty; he was hands-on. Sam loves books and technology; he has studied art and philosophy. Perhaps he even planned on studying law to be the antithesis of his father. He was raised to hunt bad guys -- but he wanted to leave the supernatural ones behind. He couldn't escape his need to punish evil, but he consciously chose to attack it in the most clinical way possible: in a suit and tie, in a courtroom. Perhaps that's where his interest in serial killers came from. Studying them is only possible when they are caught. Like I said, just some things I was thinking about. * When I said that Sam's first memory could only come from John, I didn't mean that literally. I mean that Sam could never develop the memories that Dean had, of a somewhat stable family life. His memories could only be of crappy food in crappy hotel rooms with an absent father and a brother who, in all fairness, couldn't possibly give Sam the life he needed. That's not an attack on Dean. Dean did the best he could, but he was only a few years older than Sam and dealing with his own trauma. He was in no position to raise Sam and John never should have tried to make him. But like I said before, another post for another thread. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 For whatever reason, Dean was able to "cope" with these things and embrace the hunting lifestyle. (That's another post for another thread.) Sam never could. Maybe John was upfront with Dean; maybe he told Dean everything. I don`t think he ever gave full information or he that he gave it freely. At first, when John found out the truth, not telling either boy would have been due to age. I highly doubt he pulled a four/five year old Dean aside and gave him the full lowdown. Such a small child would not only not fully comprehend but just get scared. Same would be true for the first few years of Sam`s life. Dean was simply older and it`s normal that older children know more than the younger ones, whatever that knowledge entails. Now I`d say he told Dean maybe at age 7ish or so and Sam found out by way of snooping at age 9. It`s not that much of a gap but I question on how John thought that was gonna fly for much longer. Dean, still being a child himself, I`ll grant some naive belief that Sam could be sheltered but what did John think? That his son was deaf, dumb and blind and lived under a rock? The way they lived and especially if one child knows, it is inevitable the other one finds out soon enough. There is not a child on the planet who wouldn`t have ultimately found out the truth. It`s not like John actually put work into living a secret identity or something. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Well, John couldn't have told either of them anything immediately. I would imagine it took him years to learn. I meant that once he knew, once he started "hunting monsters", he told Dean, but he kept it from Sam. Probably due to their ages, but also so Dean could properly protect Sam. How could Dean protect Sam if he didn't know what he was protecting Sam from? 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 I think that was part of it but for Dean, the same thing would hold true IMO as for Sam. Kids aren`t stupid, they`ll figure stuff out. Link to comment
SueB February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Well, John couldn't have told either of them anything immediately. I would imagine it took him years to learn. In "Home" Missouri said that John came to see her only a few days after the fire. I got the impression that he stayed on at the garage for a few weeks or months before he took off. But I didn't get the impression it was years. So, IMO, Dean was maybe 5 (born in late January, Mary died in early November) at the oldest when John started living on the road. They also talked about a babysitter at their hotel (in Swap Meat) so for a while I think John left both boys with someone else when he was out. I imagine he clued in Dean fairly early because Dean also remembered the fire and that something wasn't right (he told Lucas in 'Dead In The Water' that he also didn't talk for a while after seeing what happened to his mother). So John may have explained their life choices differently to Dean to let him know that he was protecting them and hunting the thing that killed his mother. It may not have been the whole "ghosts are real" speech but I bet it was something pretty early on. He probably dragged both Dean and Sam to talk to people when they were too young to be left alone as well. By the time Sam could talk, he could probably at least leave them in the car alone. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 19, 2015 Share February 19, 2015 Taking this to the appropriate thread. 1 Link to comment
rue721 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I think that even though Sam knows intellectually that their life isn't normal, it's *his* normal. I think that's an essential difference between his outlook and Dean's. It says a lot about what normal is to him, imo, that hunting is what he defaulted to when he lost his soul. That wasn't him feeling a sentimental attachment or thirsting for vengeance, etc, that was him just going with what felt natural and what his fundamental impulse was, apparently. When he worries about deviating from normal, too, it's not like when Dean worries about it. Dean worries about how they're not normal from his idea of the status quo ante bellum. Sam worries about how he's not normal as a *hunter.* That he's too much of a monster, etc. I think that was part of it but for Dean, the same thing would hold true IMO as for Sam. Kids aren`t stupid, they`ll figure stuff out. Sam must have realized there were secrets, and evidently had a good idea what they were, since he did things like read John's journal to try to find out more. But there's also only so much that a kid can comprehend. Especially when he's more or less just continuing to live the same life he's always lived. In terms of Sam actually helping out with John's research, etc, he apparently was doing that as a pretty young kid, like 11 or 12? There was that flashback when he was on his own doing some research, when he met Amy and had his first kiss. It didn't seem like that was his first time. I think that comparing Dean and Sam in that sense is sort of apples to oranges. Dean saw something horrible happen (Mary's death) and *then* was taught all these hunting skills and about monsters, etc, as a way to protect himself/everyone from something happening like that again. He had a really powerful incentive to learn all that stuff quickly and well. For Sam, though, that horrible thing was just family lore that he couldn't actually remember. So that powerful incentive that propelled Dean (and John) toward hunting wasn't there for him. To me, Sam seems really content, and like this is the right life for him. But that's also easy for him, because he was raised from before he can remember to live in this life -- he's a native to it. The "old life" is just a story to him. Dean isn't quite a native in the same way. Link to comment
SueB February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I always thought Sam felt like a freak because of the nomadic existence. So he was different from the rest of the school kids and felt like an outsider (with his Salvation Army clothes and bouncing around schools). Dean at least knew WHY they were different. Later, when Sam knew WHY, he just didn't love the hunting life. (as you've stated above). So he's a freak-squared. Not a normal person, not a hunter. Sucked to be him. Link to comment
DittyDotDot February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I think how much John told Dean and at what age is immaterial. I think Demented Daisy's point was that Sam and Dean had fundamentally different relationships with their father, which helped shape them as adults. Dean was told what he needed to know so he could protect Sam. Obviously John didn't tell Dean everything about Sam maybe turning evil, but it seems from Something Wicked--where Dean was looking at photographs of the Striga's handprint and such--Dean at 9-years-old knew enough about what was out there hiding in the dark. Dean didn't know there was a lot John was holding back on until after John died, but believed his father was open and honest with him as a kid. From Dean's perspective, his father respected him and trusted him with a great responsibility--which is, IMO, a lot of why Dean trusted John implicitly too. Which I think really helped shape who Dean is today--probably why Dean takes the job so seriously, IMO, and I also think this is why Dean generally has problems lying to people he's close to. Whereas, I think Sam always felt like he was on the outside of everything. It seems John and Dean were working as a team to protect Sam, but I don't think Sam was probably part of that team. Plus, it seems Sam had to snoop and beg to be told the truth, which I think would make someone feel like they weren't to be trusted--and probably why he never truly trusted John either. This, more than anything, probably shaped Sam into who he is today. I think that's why he assumes people don't trust him and he has to prove himself time and time again. Now, I'm not saying one had an easier or more traumatic childhood than the other or that John loved either one more, but it feeds into what makes Sam and Dean fundamentally different people, IMO. 5 Link to comment
rue721 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 Whereas, I think Sam always felt like he was on the outside of everything. It seems John and Dean were working as a team to protect Sam, but I don't think Sam was probably part of that team. Plus, it seems Sam had to snoop and beg to be told the truth, which I think would make someone feel like they weren't to be trusted--and probably why he never truly trusted John either. This, more than anything, probably shaped Sam into who he is today. I think that's why he assumes people don't trust him and he has to prove himself time and time again. IA overall -- something that complicates it, though, (imo) is that Sam does seem like he trusts Dean implicitly. He obviously knows that Dean has and does hold things back from him, and they've been on shaky ground since the Gadreel thing, but even since then, it seems like he's willing to count on and be open with his brother. To me, it seems like Sam errs more on the side of taking the strength of their relationship too much for granted, rather than worrying about its fragility or not trusting it enough. YMMV. I agree that he didn't really ever seem to put much stock into anything that John was saying or doing, and I agree that it seemed like John and Dean were a team with Sam on the outside of that -- but I think that Dean and Sam were *also* somewhat a team, with John on the outside of *that.* That seemed really clear in the first season of the series, but even in flashbacks it always seems to me like they're able/willing to work as a team and then Dean plays go-between for Sam with John. People have brought up the thing of Cas calling Sam or Sam and Cas keeping in touch on the phone even though they're not particularly close friends, etc. In contrast, I always get the impression that John was really only contacting Dean and then Dean relayed whatever needed relaying to Sam. Even when Sam finally tried to call John in S1 (when Dean was dying), it was because Dean was out of commission. I don't think that it means anything all that ~deep~, just that I don't think there was necessarily ever all that much direct communication between John and Sam. John was a stereotypical blue-collar man. He got down in the trenches and dirty; he was hands-on. Sam loves books and technology; he has studied art and philosophy. Perhaps he even planned on studying law to be the antithesis of his father. I agree that Sam "rebelled" by trying to be John's antithesis. That must have gone into spite-fueled hyperdrive after John told him to fuck off and they became estranged. I would assume that Sam was very eager to prove himself (and prove John wrong) after that. Most people would be, I would think? But I think something that was bound to trip up Sam is that, much as he might have had issues with or even (possibly/plausibly) hated his father, John was going to be Sam's default model for "what a man is." Because who else could or would be? I mean, I think Sam was going to take after John to a certain extent regardless of Sam's aims/aspirations, because John and the life John raised Sam in were going to define normalcy for Sam, and Sam was going to default to that a lot of the time (often maybe without even realizing it). I do think that Sam's personality seems a lot like his father's, but how much of that would be because that's just his native personality and how much of that would be because that's who raised him (and in a very isolated, "hothouse flower" kind of way, at that). I think the threat of taking after John by default or against your own will is something that has come up for Dean also, but I think that the ways that Sam might default to being more like John, and the ways in which it *bothers* him to default into being more like John, are different than the ways that Dean might or the ways in which it bothers him to. Link to comment
SueB February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 but I think that Dean and Sam were *also* somewhat a team, with John on the outside of *that.* That seemed really clear in the first season of the series, but even in flashbacks it always seems to me like they're able/willing to work as a team and then Dean plays go-between for Sam with John. ITA. I think it was the two of them for years. And when they successfully hunted dozens of things by the end of S1, Dean had more referent authority in his mind than his Dad IMO. Because Dean DID talk to him about stuff. something that complicates it, though, (imo) is that Sam does seem like he trusts Dean implicitly. I think he does and this season has been hard on Sam because he's had to take the leadership role. Still...look throughout the series who enters a dangerzone first. I bet 9 out of 10 times, Dean is the first one thru the door and last one out. Even though it's been years of side by side, their partnership has a pattern that they haven't broken. Much to Sam's dismay in "Things We Left Behind". Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 From way, way back, but at the time I didn't have time to comment, and then forgeot until I was reviewing the thread to see where we were now... But I think that he's meant to be very straightforward/single-minded, and he does seem very literal imo, and in that sense, I think that he's not very "deep," either. The way he wants to talk things out all the time actually drives me crazy and is probably a large part of why I feel that way. That he would expect things to be articulated or that he often seems to need things to be articulated in order to register them or to do anything much about them sometimes makes me laugh and has been part of the character since at least Wendigo -- but when he's asking about more complex things and especially now that he's in his thirties, it seems kind of dense and ridiculous to me. YMMV. Also, he's very hard working, but he's not very creative, and that also makes me feel like he's not very deep. Maybe that's unfair or "deep" is the wrong word altogether, but that's what I mean when I say that I don't find him "deep." I'm not quite sure what you mean here. In my opinion, I don't think Sam needs to have things "spelled out for him" to understand them, so much as I think he likes them "spelled out" so that he knows others understand him and his point of view and at the same time that others know that Sam understands their point of view. It's more about being included and being trusted in my opinion. And I think what Ditty Dot Dot was talking about above goes directly into this: that often times when he was young, Sam wasn't included in the bigs things and he often felt like somehow he was being treated like he wouldn't understand anything, so instead he was "protected" by just not being told anything. When all that really did - since Sam wasn't stupid and was going to find answers however he could get them - was give Sam the impression that maybe John and Dean thought he was either stupid, wouldn't be helpful anyway even if he did know, or he couldn't be trusted with the family "business." So when Dean shuts up and won't talk things out with Sam - at least in the early years - in some ways it was like Sam was being shut out all over again. Whereas if they talk it out, Dean can't be safe in his delusion that Sam "doesn't know," because Sam can let Dean know that yes, he does know, and maybe he can be useful and no, he doesn't want Dean to "keep him safe." Because all that's really happening there is that Sam does know - as Sam showed in "Everybody Loves A Clown" and "Bloodlust" when it came to Gordon and what Dean was doing there - and they are just ignoring the huge elephant in the room so that Dean can keep the delusion that Sam is being kept "safe." As evidenced by Dean's talk with Gordon about how he can't let Sam see how he's really feeling - as if Sam didn't already know: which he did - meaning that no one was really benefitting from Dean's tough guy act except maybe Dean - but that's arguable as well. So likely no one was benefitting from Dean just keeping that all bottled up inside. The situation is a little different now, because now Sam understands Dean's "coping mechanisms" more and likely doesn't take them as personally - at least not since about season 5... and then for some reason he had to "relearn" it in season 8 - ugh how I dislike that season. Also old: Anyway, I don't think that Dean is a deeper character than Sam, in the sense that I don't think he's more complex as a character than Sam is (on a more meta level). Within the world of the show, though, I would say that Dean is a deeper "person" than Sam is, in the sense that he's more creative and thinks a lot more about connotations and implications or is more liable to assume that there are layers to things and to try and figure out what those are than Sam is. He's less concrete than Sam is, I guess. That's not to shit on Sam, it's not a value judgment -- personally, I find it appealing that Sam is relatively down to earth. I personally think that Sam and Dean are fairly even in thinking about implications and connotations, maybe just about different things. Dean is just as likely to go along with the "guns blazing and we'll deal with the consequences later" plan as Sam is. And Sam is often the one to consider the "unusal" allies in the big picture - as in "Changing Channels" when he was thinking ahead to maybe trying to get the Trickster to fight on their side. Sam does tend to be straightforward towards a goal, and likely Dean has come up with a few more "creative" solutions than Sam has, but in my opinion, Sam has had his fair share of creative solutions and big picture thinking... if nothing else his "solution" in "Time Is On My Side" was creative even if not very helpful (I give Sam a pass for desperation due to lingering "Mystery Spot" trauma.) Curent: IA overall -- something that complicates it, though, (imo) is that Sam does seem like he trusts Dean implicitly. He obviously knows that Dean has and does hold things back from him, and they've been on shaky ground since the Gadreel thing, but even since then, it seems like he's willing to count on and be open with his brother. To me, it seems like Sam errs more on the side of taking the strength of their relationship too much for granted, rather than worrying about its fragility or not trusting it enough. YMMV. But can you fault Sam for that, really? Who else is Sam going to trust? Much of his life turned out to be either something hidden from him or an outright lie or manipulation - even Jessica. Few people told him the truth - not even God's supposed messengers, the angels, told Sam the truth. Even Cas as a supposed friend turned on him when he needed a diversion. Hell, Sam can't even always trust himself. Even when he makes the right decision - like the season 1 and season 2 finales - it turns out to be wrong. Or his brain goes nuts on him - as with Hallucifer. In that case, just as with most things, really the only person who could give Sam an anchor - his "stone number one" was Dean. So even if Dean isn't always truthful with him, he's better than anything else Sam has ever had. I think it's understandable that Sam is going to cling to it... and as long as he understands the "rules" (i.e. that Dean might do some shady things to keep him alive and/or hide things from Sam to keep him "safe,") it's the most stable thing Sam's got and he's going to hold on to it. 1 Link to comment
SueB February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 he's better than anything else Sam has ever had. I think Jess was pretty high up ....*sob* but IA, Dean's been the only constant in his existence. Dean and Baby. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 Hell, Sam can't even always trust himself. Even when he makes the right decision - like the season 1 and season 2 finales - it turns out to be wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by this. What decisions are you referring to? Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I'm not sure what you mean by this. What decisions are you referring to? His decision not to shoot the Yellow Eyed Demon in John and his decision not to kill Jake: both what should have been "right" decisions... and both turning out to have horrible consequences to the point that it would likely have been better to have made the "wrong" decision both times. Hell, Jake ended up dead anyway not a couple of days later. It might be argued that if Sam had killed Jake, he would have been doing what the YED wanted and he might've turned evil, etc. etc, though that's debatable, since it was self defense... but he still ended up raising Lucifer anyway, so how much worse could it have gotten? If he had killed Jake, Dean wouldn't have ended up in hell at least which - oh yeah, without Dean in hell, no first seal breaking. Never mind... even leading the demon army probably wouldn't have been as bad as that. And if he'd killed teh YED in John, none of it would have happened. I doubt that there's any way Sam wouldn't have considered / wondered things about that, so yeah he likely wouldn't even trust his own decisions at some point. It's tough to do so when almost every decision you make turns out wrong, even the ones that theoretically should've been right. Season 5 might have helped a little, but still it was mostly fixing everything he thought he messed up in teh first place. I think Jess was pretty high up ....*sob* but IA, Dean's been the only constant in his existence. Dean and Baby. Oh I agree that Jess was pretty high up, but he didn't get to have her in his life for very long. And I agree. A sad commentary there. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 20, 2015 Share February 20, 2015 I understand the arguments about S2, but S1 -- I'm not sure if that decision turned out wrong in the end. It's such a complex array of "what ifs". On the one hand, by not killing John and the demon, Sam facilitated the continued mission of Azazel. However, one could argue that Ruby could have continued his mission after he died. (It's hard to say how much she knew and when.) Likewise, had Sam killed them, John would not have been able to sell his soul and save Dean. (I'm not sure killing Azazel would have stopped the demon attack/car accident.) So, Sam made the right decision, IMO. Sam chose family over vengeance. Why do you think it turned out wrong in the end? (Not being snarky, genuinely curious.) 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 His decision not to shoot the Yellow Eyed Demon in John and his decision not to kill Jake: both what should have been "right" decisions... and both turning out to have horrible consequences to the point that it would likely have been better to have made the "wrong" decision both times. Hell, Jake ended up dead anyway not a couple of days later. It might be argued that if Sam had killed Jake, he would have been doing what the YED wanted and he might've turned evil, etc. etc, though that's debatable, since it was self defense... but he still ended up raising Lucifer anyway, so how much worse could it have gotten? If he had killed Jake, Dean wouldn't have ended up in hell at least which - oh yeah, without Dean in hell, no first seal breaking. Never mind... even leading the demon army probably wouldn't have been as bad as that. And if he'd killed teh YED in John, none of it would have happened. I think both Sam and Dean have made many decisions that turned out to have bad consequences, but I don't think they were necessarily the wrong decision. The only time I've ever thought Sam was "wrong" was when he was bosom buddies with Ruby. It's Supernatural, even the best of intentions generally go to shit. I think that's the point of it all, no matter what decision you make in life there is a consequence of some sort, but you still need to make the decision that you can live with in the end--good or bad. 1 Link to comment
rue721 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 In my opinion, I don't think Sam needs to have things "spelled out for him" to understand them, so much as I think he likes them "spelled out" so that he knows others understand him and his point of view and at the same time that others know that Sam understands their point of view. It's more about being included and being trusted in my opinion. I disagree, because of the mechanics of what is happening in those conversations. Someone else (usually Dean but not always) picks up something that Sam doesn't seem at all aware of. The other person makes a reference to that thing, while Sam acts distracted or uninterested. The other person ends up spelling out what they're seeing or what they learned or what they're thinking to Sam, and then Sam gets himself onto the same page as the other person. It's an issue with Sam's listening skills, not his speaking skills imo. Sam has a lot of focus, and is good at blocking out whatever he's not focusing on. Sometimes too good at it. Conversely, Sam is very good at explaining himself as far as I remember. He's very blunt. I can't think of a character on this show who's more articulate or more frank than he is. This isn't an attack on Sam. I understand if you disagree, but there's no need to defend him as though I'm trying to make a case for him being shitty. I don't think it's a bad thing that he's blunt and straightforward. I don't think he needs to be more Byzantine or artificial. But I think the vice that's the flip side of that virtue is obliviousness. He's straightforward and frank, so that's what he wants and expects from other people. Fine, fair enough. Most of the time I find it endearing. But, personally, I sometimes also find that lack of [emotional?] situational awareness aggravating and even arrogant. Because if he's busy being oblivious, that means whoever is around him can't afford to be. I find people like that exhausting in real life, so I don't have a lot of patience with it even in terms of watching fiction. YMMV. I'm so relieved that finally in this season, it seems like he's finally willing to let ambiguity lie and pick up on what's going on without trying to discuss it explicitly. meaning that no one was really benefitting from Dean's tough guy act except maybe Dean - but that's arguable as well. So likely no one was benefitting from Dean just keeping that all bottled up inside. No, of course nobody is benefiting from Dean's emotional constipation. Even Sam said himself in Bloodlust that he knew that that's just Dean's go-to thing when he's really afraid, and that it was frustrating him (Sam) -- so Dean tried to drop the act for a while. But I think that things changed for Dean when Sam saved/cured him from being a demon, and Dean seems to me to now be actively trying to put more trust in him and to rely on Sam more. Funnily enough, isn't being willing to be more trusting and expose weaknesses like that a sign of confidence? So has Dean's confidence grown since becoming a demon (and getting cured of it)? Just a weird thought. But anyway, wrong thread. But can you fault Sam for that, really? Who else is Sam going to trust? I wasn't "faulting" Sam for anything. My observation was that, whatever might have been going on in terms of Sam feeling excluded from John's relationship with Dean, Sam and Dean apparently had their *own* relationship, separate from either of their relationships with John, and *that* relationship was apparently loving and open enough that Sam trusted and still trusts Dean implicitly. Actually, I think all signs point to Sam and Dean *both* having a much stronger relationship with each other than *either* of them ever had with their father. (As good as John and Dean's relationship looks in comparison with John and Sam's, the show started because John ditched Dean, after already estranging himself from Sam. I think that John played a really different role in Dean's life than he did in Sam's, but I don't think he was especially communicative or even nurturing toward *either* of them. I think that in Sam's perspective (as a child, and maybe now), Dean and John had a close relationship. I'm honestly not sure whether Dean felt/feels that they had a close relationship or not. But from a perspective outside of the family, John seemed pretty distant (and difficult to get along with) just in general, including with his kids). In terms of decisions, IA with everyone above saying that things ultimately not breaking Sam's way doesn't mean that Sam made the wrong decision necessarily. I think that there are stretches when Sam's luck is sort of ludicrously bad in terms of things not breaking his way, but I don't think that it means anything in terms of the character, I think it's just lazy writing. Like how Sam is also constantly getting knocked out or tied to a tiny chair in like 95% of the fights. I don't think we're meant to actually think that Sam is just terrible in a fight or bizarrely weak for his size or something, I think it's just laziness on the part of other people in the production (writer, director, etc) and this is their "go-to." Which is its own problem, but not, imo, a character-development problem. I think that the decisions have to be judged on their own merits, aside from their ultimate consequences (which Sam couldn't be expected to foresee). For example, I don't think that not breaking Jake's head open while he was on the ground was a bad decision on Sam's part -- imo, it was the right thing to do, regardless that the ultimate consequences of it were bad. Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 Oh I agree, DittyDotDot, that they weren't necessarily the wrong decisions - especially morally. My main point was that after what happened, I could understand it if Sam questioned his own judgment a lot of the time, especially before season 5. Because at that time, it didn't seem to matter what decisions he made - right or wrong - the consequences were bad. Why do you think it turned out wrong in the end? Even though the decisions themselves were the right thing to do, for me the reason that Sam might question them - and so ultimately his own judgement - was mostly because of the consequences for everyone else. For example, was John better off because Sam didn't kill him and the YED? I'd say no. Not only did the YED live, but John sold his soul and spent over 100 years being tortured in hell. It is true that John saved Dean - though there is the question that if the YED was killed, would the demon in the truck still have hit Sam and Dean? And we don't know how badly Dean was hurt from the YED vs the accident, since the doctor mentioned that it was the head wound that they had been most worried about and that had seemed to do the most damage to Dean. But even if Dean had died - and John too - they likely both would have gone to heaven. Instead the YED lived to pit all of the psychic children against each other, which caused Sam to be killed (after Sam making another right decision which nevertheless meant that would happen), leading to Dean going to hell for 40 years. So basically Sam's decisions, even though morally the right thing to do, indirectly led to his two remaining family members spending 100 and 40 years respectively being tortured in hell... and as a result of Dean going to hell, the first seal was broken, making it possible for Lucifer to rise, starting the apocalypse. So knowing all of that, I can imagine that Sam might have considered the "what if" possibilities. If he'd killed the YED when he had the chance as John had pointed out (and just in case Sam wouldn't have questioned it himself, he had his father's words to remind him), Sam might have been left alone, but likely the apocalypse never would have happened, and that's a lot of guilt and questioning himself and his decisions to consider for someone. I disagree, because of the mechanics of what is happening in those conversations. I guess I'm not sure what kind of conversations you are referring to here, or I just never picked up on those kinds of things (maybe I'm like Sam that way?), so I will take your word for it. This isn't an attack on Sam. I understand if you disagree, but there's no need to defend him as though I'm trying to make a case for him being shitty. I don't think it's a bad thing that he's blunt and straightforward. I don't think he needs to be more Byzantine or artificial. I'll take your word for this as well, though this... But, personally, I sometimes also find that lack of [emotional?] situational awareness aggravating and even arrogant. Because if he's busy being oblivious, that means whoever is around him can't afford to be. I find people like that exhausting in real life, so I don't have a lot of patience with it even in terms of watching fiction. YMMV. doesn't exactly hit me as complimentary, so I'll take it as you find Sam's personality a mixed bag of good and bad. No problem. My main point above was that I think I understand why Sam is the way he is sometimes, considering ambiguity and lack of clear communication often made his childhood a somewhat lonely and not always happy one without him even knowing why his life was that way at first. And I was mainly referring to Sam's wanting Dean to talk things out rather than ignore them. Since I apparently haven't picked up on the situations that you are talking about - I don't generally see Sam's need to discuss things annoying or unreasonable myself - then I can't agree or disagree with you on that point. Usually, in my opinion, Sam only wants to be included at least minimally and then he's good with it. Example: Typical Dean and Sam exchange: Sam: "So what's the plan?" Dean: "Don't die" or "We go in guns blazing" or something equally vague. Sam: :: shrugs:: "okay" etc. Sam included and/or vaguely informed = Sam okay with it. Dean saying things like "I'm fine." or "I don't have a problem, you do." when Dean actually isn't fine or does have a problem = Sam being shut out and an unhappy Sam. My opinion only, I understand. I wasn't "faulting" Sam for anything. My observation was that, whatever might have been going on in terms of Sam feeling excluded from John's relationship with Dean, Sam and Dean apparently had their *own* relationship, separate from either of their relationships with John, and *that* relationship was apparently loving and open enough that Sam trusted and still trusts Dean implicitly. I didn't mean to imply that you were "faulting" Sam. My "can you fault Sam for that" was more of an expression like "Do you blame him?" I.e. that Sam has a good reason to trust Dean rather than anyone else - which is what I thought the rest of my post was expressing. I wasn't commenting on your part about John. I was commenting on this: IA overall -- something that complicates it, though, (imo) is that Sam does seem like he trusts Dean implicitly. He obviously knows that Dean has and does hold things back from him, and they've been on shaky ground since the Gadreel thing, but even since then, it seems like he's willing to count on and be open with his brother. To me, it seems like Sam errs more on the side of taking the strength of their relationship too much for granted, rather than worrying about its fragility or not trusting it enough. YMMV. With my point basically being: who else is Sam going to trust if not Dean? Link to comment
Mulva February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I've never understood the idea that Dean had a miserable, deprived childhood while Sam was The Pampered Prince Riding on His Backseat Throne. They had the identical childhood. Either both of them went hungry or neither of them did. And since Dean was given the car while Sam was disowned for the heinous crime of taking a once in a lifetime opportunity, I don't think Sam was the favored one. 1 Link to comment
SueB February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I've never understood the idea that Dean had a miserable, deprived childhood while Sam was The Pampered Prince Riding on His Backseat Throne. They had the identical childhood. Either both of them went hungry or neither of them did. And since Dean was given the car while Sam was disowned for the heinous crime of taking a once in a lifetime opportunity, I don't think Sam was the favored one. I don't think Sam was the Pampered Prince, not remotely. And both had traumatic childhoods sufficient for years of therapy IRL. I think there IS canonical evidence: - Sam was kept out of awareness about monsters until later in life. Debatable on the impact (good or bad) but generally "protect Sammy" was Dean's Job #1. - Dean put Sam's happiness above his own - the Christmas gifts, the food scene when Sam was young - Dean got arrested stealing food - In Metamorphis, when the other Hunter asked if either had ever know real hunger Dean nodded enthusiastically "yes", Sam said "no". That leading many to think Dean made sure Sam got fed before he did. That does not IMO, equate to Sam being pampered, but there's plenty of evidence that Sam was more important than Dean IN DEAN'S MIND. And I think the show canonically supports the notion that Dean sacrificed everything for Sam and John. Dean certainly states that he did in "In My Time of Dying". So... it's less that Sam remotely thought he should be treated well, it's just that it would appear Dean put Sam's needs above his on most occasions. Link to comment
catrox14 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I've never understood the idea that Dean had a miserable, deprived childhood while Sam was The Pampered Prince Riding on His Backseat Throne. They had the identical childhood. Either both of them went hungry or neither of them did. And since Dean was given the car while Sam was disowned for the heinous crime of taking a once in a lifetime opportunity, I don't think Sam was the favored one. I'm not seeing anyone saying Sam was pampered like at all. Dean actually did go hungry at times when he gave his food to Sam. Maybe he should not have tossed away the spaghettios but I don't think it's a far reach to think Dean gave food to Sam before he fed himself probably most of the time. And if that meant there was no food left for Dean he went hungry. And even said in s4 he knew what it was to be hungry for days. They did not have the same childhood because Dean had a responsibility for Sams welfare and well being that Sam never had for Dean. Sam was not held responsible for Deans well being as children. That makes their childhoods very different. Dean had his mom for 3 years as a toddler to 4 year old. Sam never had his mother, which makes there childhood different. Each suffered because of Mary's death in different ways. John seemed to be contemptuous of Dean for not protecting Sam better in Something Wicked when Dean was 9 YEARS OLD. Sam was held in contempt by John for leaving for college but that was long after the were children. Dean was sent to a boys home for pretty theft. And Sam was left to deal with John alone when he was like what 10? I could cite many other examples but I think the boys did not experience the same childhood other both having lost Mary and being raised as hunters by an arguably asshat of a father. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 But even if Dean had died - and John too - they likely both would have gone to heaven. Instead the YED lived to pit all of the psychic children against each other, which caused Sam to be killed (after Sam making another right decision which nevertheless meant that would happen), leading to Dean going to hell for 40 years. So basically Sam's decisions, even though morally the right thing to do, indirectly led to his two remaining family members spending 100 and 40 years respectively being tortured in hell... and as a result of Dean going to hell, the first seal was broken, making it possible for Lucifer to rise, starting the apocalypse. So knowing all of that, I can imagine that Sam might have considered the "what if" possibilities. If he'd killed the YED when he had the chance as John had pointed out (and just in case Sam wouldn't have questioned it himself, he had his father's words to remind him), Sam might have been left alone, but likely the apocalypse never would have happened, and that's a lot of guilt and questioning himself and his decisions to consider for someone. Hold on. If we're going to talk indirect consequences here, then shouldn't Dean get at least some blame for not killing the YED? Sam had every intention of killing Azazel, but Dean begged him not to do it. I'm not a fan of placing blame for indirect consequences. Isn't that what we (or at least I) have been complaining about for years, with Dean? He takes on the guilt of bad things that have happened as an indirect consequence of his actions. IMO, if Dean shouldn't feel guilt for indirect consequences of his decisions, then Sam shouldn't, either. As for the apocalypse not happening because of one decision by Sam, we could go even farther back and blame Mary for it. If she hadn't made the deal, Azazel never would have been in Sam's nursery that night. Too many things went wrong to point to one decision and say that the apocalypse wouldn't have happened if not for it, IMO. There are just too many "what ifs" to say that Sam made the right decision that turned out wrong in the end. But mileage varies. 1 Link to comment
supposebly February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I don't really see that not killing YED in John as a bad or wrong decision. This also would have meant that Sam would have to live with the fact that he killed his own father. That might have pushed him down a bad path even earlier. Never mind how Dean would have treated him after that. As a moral and human choice, it was the better one. As the right one, well, we don't know that anything would have been better. Moral choices are not always the best ones in terms of how many people get saved by it. Immoral choices are sometimes the ones that save more people. 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I don't think Sam was the Pampered Prince, not remotely. And both had traumatic childhoods sufficient for years of therapy IRL. I think there IS canonical evidence: - Sam was kept out of awareness about monsters until later in life. Debatable on the impact (good or bad) but generally "protect Sammy" was Dean's Job #1. - Dean put Sam's happiness above his own - the Christmas gifts, the food scene when Sam was young - Dean got arrested stealing food - In Metamorphis, when the other Hunter asked if either had ever know real hunger Dean nodded enthusiastically "yes", Sam said "no". That leading many to think Dean made sure Sam got fed before he did. That does not IMO, equate to Sam being pampered, but there's plenty of evidence that Sam was more important than Dean IN DEAN'S MIND. And I think the show canonically supports the notion that Dean sacrificed everything for Sam and John. Dean certainly states that he did in "In My Time of Dying". So... it's less that Sam remotely thought he should be treated well, it's just that it would appear Dean put Sam's needs above his on most occasions. I'm not sure that it was that simple. Maybe when they were younger, yes, though I think there is even potentially some canonical evidence there that things may not have been as cut and dried. For example, in the same episode where Dean got Sam the Christmas gifts - which I admit was awesome of him - we had this exchange: Sam: Thought you went out Dean: Yeah, to get you dinner. At which point Dean gives Sam Funyuns - not exactly a "cheap" snack (way to stretch the food dollars, Dean ; ) ::joke::). However, within the time Dean went "food" shopping Sam still had time to presumably get into a bunch of stuff, including finding Dean's gun and finding and reading John's diary. Considering that, then Sam's "Thought you went out" to me was very telling. Sam didn't expect Dean to come home that early - i.e. he expected Dean to be out for maybe much longer than he had been. My conclusion: even after the striga incident, Dean did not deprive himself of going out to stay home and "watch Sammy" all the time, and that Sam was quite used to Dean going off and leaving him on his own, and that he was quite capable of amusing himself to let Dean go do whatever he wanted to do on his own. There was also that flashback - and I don't remember the episode now - where Sam was upset for some reason and they were arguing and Dean pretty much just stormed out saying "I'm going out" and leaving young Sam crying. Now I'm not saying that Dean was awful for doing that or anything like that - it was amazing that Dean didn't crack under all of the pressure, and leaving was likely the best thing he could've done rather than say hit Sam or something. My point is that behavior didn't strike me as "sacrifice everything for Sam" behavior. It was normal "hell, I'm a kid, I don't have to put up with this crap" behavior. We also know canonically that Sam spent enough time in places like Plucky's to hate them while Dean went off chasing girls, and I'm guessing this didn't happen when Sam was older - probably around when he was 10 or 11 (I am going to go with Dean being 14 or so in the boy's home, since that fits much more with previous canon than the nonsensical 16.) So I do not agree that the canonical evidence only supports Dean putting his own happiness above Sam's - he may have done it sometimes, but there were plenty of times that Sam either behaved pretty much - the running away incident that one time being the exception - or put up with situations he disliked in order for Dean to go out and do what he wanted to do. My conclusion: both brothers sacrificed at times for the other so they could each make the best of their situation. For me it didn't appear so cut and dried one-sided. There are just too many "what ifs" to say that Sam made the right decision that turned out wrong in the end. But mileage varies. No, I agree. I wasn't blaming Sam for the indirect consequences. I was saying that it wouldn't be out of the question for Sam to blame himself and question his own judgement, or that considering his own judgement in hindsight - especially including his decision with Ruby - it wouldn't be unreasonable for Sam to trust Dean's judgement much of the time either as much as or more than his own. This was all part of my explanation of "of course Sam is going to trust Dean more than anyone else" point. And of course, now that everything happened, the "bad" is more apparent now, but at the time Sam had no way of knowing what was going to happen. It's only in hindsight that it even appears Sam's decision turned out bad. However, that's likely how Sam himself is going to look at it. Dean is famous for blaming himself for everything, but despite what Sam says about giving himself a "free pass" or whatever he says sometimes, I think that there's enough evidence to show that Sam blames himself for a lot, especially early on. He definitely blamed himself for starting the apocalypse and in many ways he blamed himself for not being able to stop Dean from going to hell also - the second of which was not even his fault really. So taking that into consideration, I could also see Sam questioning even his own judgement at times. For me that would track with Sam being completely comfortable with trusting Dean's judgement maybe even over his own on many things, especially on the job, even though sometimes Dean isn't entirely honest with him. Basically I was saying that in Sam's life, Dean is the most dependable person Sam has, and based on what has happened to him throughout his life, I can entirely see why that is the case. Link to comment
SueB February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 (edited) Moral choices are not always the best ones in terms of how many people get saved by it. Immoral choices are sometimes the ones that save more people. While numerically true, it's also an "ends justify the means" kind of approach. I believe Sam and Dean have always been happy to sacrifice themselves for humanity if need be but not others. At the time they were facing YED, they looked at it as trading a single demon's life versus their father's. They had no knowledge of the cosmic consequences. I think they made the right call. And I would argue that the future is always in motion (w/ all due credit to Yoda). it's the old "would you kill Hitler as a child" question. At the end of the day, the right action is IMO the moral action as the individual understands morality. In Sam and Dean's case (at that stage in their life), they believed killing the person to kill the demon is wrong. Now they due it 3x every Tuesday. Earlier in "Devil's Trap", they exorcised Meg knowing it would kill the human because they believed they were freeing her. Here's a what-if: What-if YED refused to leave? I think both Sam and Dean, would have been prepared to kill John if they could temporarily hold onto YED and couldn't exorcise him. They would not have left YED to go free walking around in a John-suit. Now flashforward to today: The brothers have BOTH proved to be hypocritical about their own. If Jodi, for example, was possessed, would they kill or exorcise? I'd say exorcise. OTOH, Dean nearly knifed Mrs Tran. So... inconsistent and hypocritical about demon possession is a fair charge. But back to unintended consequence: I don't believe you can hold anyone morally accountable for unintended consequences if they were not reasonably foreseeable. There IS, however, a difference between holding someone morally accountable and having them feel responsible. So, for Sam, here's some examples: - not killing YED!John - right thing, still responsible for chasing YED down given the vague ideas about the special children (and Dean is in on this responsibility too) - letting Jake live - good call, responsible for chasing down his ass when he went mental but not morally culpable for the deaths he may or maynot have caused etc... - Mystery Spot - damn lucky that really was Gabriel. - drinking demon blood - he owns that one. For me it didn't appear so cut and dried one-sided. You're absolutely right about the Plucky's bit and I'm certain there was more mutual sacrificing as Sam got older. Note: My headcanon is that Dean stole those Funyons. Edited February 21, 2015 by SueB Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 I think in terms of bad/good decisions or rather the outcome being bad and even indirect consequences of actions, this show (like many) operates on the same principle as the movie "Gravity". I don`t know who has seen it but the main character worked really, really hard to get herself out of a dangerous situation. And she was certainly competent and courageous. I didn`t even detect any major "plot stupidity" moments in what she did. But over and over and over again the movie introduced another obstacle. Simply to keep the story going. At a certain point it became "oh come on, give her a break". Now this was condensed into two hours but Supernatural over now 10 Seasons has done nothing else. Even if every character did the right thing - and that is positing that the right thing morally and stragetically would be the same thing which they seldom are - and saved the entire world, wiped out evil and generally did all that could be expected of them, if the story was supposed to go on, you bet something bad would come from World Peace. Just to introduce the next obstacle. So if Sam had killed the YED and this John and say Dean had died because of his injuries and noone around making a deal, would Sam have made a deal and put another cycle of badness in motion? Would something equally bad had happened? Most likely. I think it was the right decision for the character in the moment. And I do believe he did not only do it because Dean pleaded with him. IMO Sam doesn`t do stuff he completely disagrees with. He has to at least have conflicted feelings on a matter to act in a way that might go against how he would have acted on his own. It`s just when it`s his voice alone, one part of him wins. And when another voice is introduced, the other part of him can suddenly overrule the first one. But it`s 100 % "yes" or "no", I don`t think a second voice changes the outcome. Link to comment
Demented Daisy February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 Nothing on this show, IMO, is cut-and-dried or one-sided. Every single one of the main characters (and some of the minor) have made decisions that had unintended consequences, some good, some bad. It's what makes the show dynamic and compelling, IMO. 1 Link to comment
rue721 February 21, 2015 Share February 21, 2015 (edited) With my point basically being: who else is Sam going to trust if not Dean? Nobody, he could just not trust anybody. That's even how the Winchesters in particular were raised to be, afaik, to not trust anyone. What's interesting about Mystery Spot, imo, is that once Dean is gone, Sam *doesn't* trust anybody. But Sam trusts Dean implicitly. I think it's his trust that's remarkable (not his relative lack of it toward anyone else). In other words, I guess your point is still going over my head. Note: My headcanon is that Dean stole those Funyons. LOL now I have an idea in my head of Dean challenging himself over the years to steal the most awkward-to-steal food possible. First it was just a crunchy, crinkly, puffy bag of Funyons, but eventually he worked his way up to a big fluffy loaf of white bread and a slippery, bulky jar of peanut butter. :P Edited February 21, 2015 by rue721 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 22, 2015 Share February 22, 2015 In other words, I guess your point is still going over my head. I think my point was - If I'm remembering correctly. I'm not even sure anymore. Heh. - that out of everybody in Sam's life, Dean has most earned Sam's trust. You are right that Sam could trust no one, but I think that would be a very lonely existence and would pretty much mean that Sam would have to hunt on his own, because hunting with someone you don't fully trust could be a potentially dangerous thing to do. Also apparently Sam not trusting anyone else is kind of a scary thing - as evidenced by "Mystery Spot" and arguably soulless Sam. Maybe Sam didn't like what he became when Dean was gone in "Mystery Spot" with his not trusting anyone else. Maybe also what happened when he trusted his own judgement over Dean's in season 4. So yeah, Sam I think trusts Dean, because for the most part Dean earned Sam's trust, and a person who doesn't trust anyone isn't necessarily something Sam wants to be. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.