“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

Maybe some, like the British men of Letters, but a monster usually comes on Sam and Dean's radar because it leaves behind a trail of bodies. If it promises to be good, they usually leave it alive.

I was thinking John, Bobby, and Rufus too.  Usually is not always.  So wouldn't usually include my 'pretty much'? Or vice versa?

Edited January 31, 2018 by RulerofallIsurvey

[Katy M]

I think most hunters are kill first, ask questions never.  Gordon.  John.  Travis. Roy and Walt.

[DeeDee79]

26 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I think most hunters are kill first, ask questions never.  Gordon.  John.  Travis. Roy and Walt.

Add Mary, Samuel and basically the entire Campbell family to that list. Sam, Dean & Garth probably strike me as the sort of hunters to leave them alive if they're not bad.

[gonzosgirrl]

28 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I think most hunters are kill first, ask questions never.  Gordon.  John.  Travis. Roy and Walt.

Which is probably why 4/5 of them are dead. :)

[ahrtee]

8 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I think most hunters are kill first, ask questions never.  Gordon.  John.  Travis. Roy and Walt.

I think that's been changing, just like the Winchesters changed (though slower).  After all, if all they wanted was to kill every monster in the most expedient way possible (without any pesky moral questions) they could have signed up with the BMoL and used their nifty little mass-monster-killing devices.   

But even hunters can only kill those they find, which are generally the ones who've been dropping bodies. AFAIK, only Gordon, Daniel Elkins and Travis specifically hunted *all* of their particular speciality (Gordon and Daniel, vampires, and Travis, rugarus) and they knew their habits well enough to find ones that weren't killing.  Gordon found Lenore's nest.  Travis had been looking for the rugaru's family for decades.  Sam and Dean found Garth's family and Kate the werewolf while they were hunting others that *were* killing people, otherwise they wouldn't have come to their attention.   Amy had been under the radar since she was, what, 13 years old?  And even John didn't hunt (or at least find) her.  She only became a target when she started killing again.  Ditto the djinn coroner, who could have gone on unnoticed forever, apparently, until her son started killing and she tried to kill the Winchesters.  So, as the badguy last week said, hunters "only find those monsters who are stupid enough to get caught."  Those are the ones who have already been judged guilty, and the hunters are just the executioners.  

[Katy M]

10 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Which is probably why 4/5 of them are dead. :)

Actually, I think that would be more likely to keep you alive.  Not necessarily saying it's right, mind you.

[Res]

On 1/30/2018 at 11:13 AM, scribe95 said:

Dean talked down Amara/Darkness. That's a huge win to me. 

I see this a lot but I have to say that I have to disagree and I'm actually a huge Dean fan. IMO he really didn't do anything but be a sounding board for Amara after her conversation with the weird bird lady who was already there. Amara was already having doubts about killing Chuck when she realized she didn't actually enjoy it as much as she thought she would. Then she received some family advice from bird lady so there really wasn't much for Dean to do after that. It's kind of saying that Dean helped Sam overcome Lucifer in S5. No, IMO, Dean got the crap beat out of him in the cemetery and would have been beat too death if the sun hadn't glinted off the window just right for the awesomest, awesome green army man to awesome Sam into remembering, "Oh, yeah, I have a brother and I think I kinda like him sometimes . . ."  - but I know that argument's probably been done to death, even though I wasn't hear for it. 

I know I've read some state that previous to Amara, Dean's last big win was killing Death and saving Sam. Again, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY Disagree. That finale for S10 was one of the worse manufactured brother angst/toxic love crap I've seen. There was so much non-logic in that episode I almost rolled my eyes out of my head. Of course I did the same thing with the lol!canon cure episode earlier in the season but that's beside the point. No. There's no when here. 

I can see S9 finale being a win for Dean, though, but I don't have the same agreement on what exactly "I lied" referred to which of course is only my opinion.

[AwesomO4000]

14 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I don't feel that the writers have gifted Dean with these types of wins half as often as they've gifted them to Sam-not even from the beginning(I hate the episode Hunted for this reason-to name a very early one) and when the writers do this, it leaves me with such a sour/bitter taste in my mouth every single time; and more so in these latter days, because it's been going on for so long.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the examples you gave - My main one being "The Purge" example which I thought the end of the season gutted pretty thoroughly. True not Sam's completely stupid (paraphrase) "you only do things that don't hurt you" thing (good gravy Carver did his best to assassinate Sam's character for plot purposes in my opinion), but the "I wouldn't" part was pretty much invalidated, and the "real friend" crap for Gadreel pretty insultingly invalidated Sam's very valid - in my opinion - gripes concerning what happened. And though I agree Sam probably should have apologized for the insulting things he said, I also think Dean should have apologized for lying to Sam all of those months, especially knowing all of the mental anguish it caused Sam, thinking he was going bad again and/or crazy. But Dean didn't, so for me the season 9 being crappy to each other and not apologizing pretty much evened out.... while the situation writing pretty heavily tipped into the "Dean was right" direction.

All that being said, I did think of quite a few Dean versus Sam emotional situations that I thought were a win for Dean. Here are some examples that I thought of:

A pretty close almost win: The argument in "Scarecrow" : Dean gets in his "selfish bastard" argument, and even though Sam does talk some, he absorbs that "selfish bastard" and doesn't refute that before leaving.

"Everybody Loves a Clown": not only does Dean get to lambaste Sam for projecting his issues and outline what a crappy son Sam was and blame Sam for causing most of the problems between Sam and John, Sam later comes back to apologize and tell Dean that Dean was right and that he (Sam) feels awful about it, and Dean doesn't give him any feedback.

The end of "Sympathy for the Devil" - the whole "you chose a demon over your brother" speech. That to me was over-simplified, but it was given as fact and Sam wasn't allowed any rebuttal at all except that he would take it all back if he could - which was dismissed as irrelevant by both Dean and the narrative. So Dean won that one in my opinion.

The beginning of "The End" - Another argument where Sam wasn't really given any rebuttal and then Dean pretty much kisses Sam off, at that point intending it to be for good.

The end of "Sam, Interrupted" - Dean won that one, too, in my opinion, because he basically told Sam so what, and told him stow any issues he had and man up, and so that's what Sam did.

"Dark Side of the Moon" - Sam's side of the argument concerning the memories that were being shown was pretty subdued and not given much weight. And then the end scene where Dean got to win without saying a word at all.

"The Mentalists:" Dean's "quit being a bitch" speech... which was precipitated by Sam working the case - just like Dean said they could do. And Sam wasn't allowed to rebut that. As much as I enjoyed that episode, I thought that was at least a little bit unfair. Sam wasn't even being a bitch, in my opinion. All he did was ask Dean if they were going to go to the next location, but Dean was all mad because Sam was just working the case rather than being wooed into not being angry like Dean really wanted, so Dean got frustrated, took that out on Sam, called him a dick and picked a fight, and still got to win the argument. Even though Dean's on the surface legitimate argument / point was actually crap that Sam should've called Dean out on if he'd been given an equal footing in that argument... Got to admit it was pretty slick though of Dean, bringing in the whole "I was gonna tell you the truth once I knew the whole waving a gun at Satan thing was over." Which would've held more water if it hadn't been many weeks if not a couple of months (Dean broke his leg after the incident and had to heal) and 3 cases where Dean trusted Sam at his back since the waving the gun happened when Dean's lie was exposed, so in my opinion, plenty of time for Dean to have decided Sam was stable enough to tell him the truth. But in the end, Sam was the one to give in so Dean's position is validated. So Dean wins that one.

"Sacrifice:" Sam got the end speech, but Dean got the whole "Sam needs a chaperone" and listing off all of Sam's sins part, including some things Sam didn't even do... and don't ask me what Carver's agenda was that Sam gets to say he didn't do whatever Dean accused him of in 6th grade, but not the fact that Sam had no control over getting soulless and that he wasn't himself when he didn't tell Dean that he was back when he was soulless - makes me wonder if Carver even watched those seasons through at least once before taking over as showrunner or he just chose to blame Sam for that stuff anyway.

I can't really include much from season 9B or 10, because Dean was under the influence for much of that time... though arguably Sam could be considered under the influence for some of season 4 also (potentially before the end of Metamorphosis for example, because that's when Sam decided to "stop"), or otherwise, as was mentioned above, demon Dean's speeches would count in my book. And the "you should be the one dead" thing was pretty harsh also.

But bottom line, they might be a little different in that they aren't always as verbose, but I do think that Dean does get his moments to "win" too, just like Sam does. but as always, your miles may vary.

Edited February 1, 2018 by AwesomO4000
because "Sympathy for the Devil" isn't "Lazurus Rising"

[DeeDee79]

8 hours ago, Res said:

No, IMO, Dean got the crap beat out of him in the cemetery and would have been beat too death if the sun hadn't glinted off the window just right for the awesomest, awesome green army man to awesome Sam into remembering, "Oh, yeah, I have a brother and I think I kinda like him sometimes . . ."  -

LOL! This is hilarious!

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

All he did was ask Dean if they were going to go to the next location, but Dean was all mad because Sam was just working the case rather than being wooed into not being angry like Dean really wanted, so Dean got frustrated, took that out on Sam, called him a dick and picked a fight, and still got to win the argument.

I disagree with this. Wasn't Dean calling him out for his overall behavior from the moment that they began working the case? Being mad and holding a grudge was fine but he was basically trying to shut him out when they were working together. Also, why is it that when Dean calls Sam a bitch it’s seen as him trying to pick a fight while Sam’s Purge speech is hand waved as “Carver character assasination”? Is Sam as written incapable of being mean to his brother while Dean is?

Edited February 1, 2018 by DeeDee79

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I disagree with this. Wasn't Dean calling him out for his overall behavior from the moment that they began working the case? Being mad and holding a grudge was fine but he was basically trying to shut him out when they were working together. Also, why is it that when Dean calls Sam a bitch it’s seen as him trying to pick a fight while Sam’s Purge speech is hand waved as “Carver character assasination”? Is Sam as written incapable of being mean to his brother while Dean is?

Here's my opinion, which as always, I'm sure, is wrong. 

1. Dean didn't do anything wrong killing Amy.  Although, I suppose you could make a case that he shouldn't have hid the fact that he did it.  He did do something wrong in the Gadreel possession.

2. Sam has a right to be annoyed with him in both cases, because your feelings are your feelings.  He was obviously way less annoyed in case number one, because he had forgiven Dean by the end of the episode.  So, I think his big mistake was coming back to work with Dean after Sharp Teeth. He wasn't ready to forgive him yet, which is his prerogative.

3. Dean is allowed to not think he did anything wrong (although I obviously disagree in case number 2) and be annoyed with Sam's treatment of him, because again, your feelings are your feelings.

[Myrelle]

11 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But bottom line, they might be a little different in that they aren't always as verbose, but I do think that Dean does get his moments to "win" too, just like Sam does. but as always, your miles may vary

Yeah, your miles vary greatly from mine. They always have concerning many things about this show, but this isn't a thread for arguing, and I don't have time for lists, so I'll just say that we can agree to disagree on the thought that Dean has had his moments as often as Sam has and "just like Sam does"-and add that, as I said, part of the reason for my opinion on that is, as you say, they are not always "verbose". That part is indeed true and because of that even Dean's wins often lack substance where actual words are concerned whereas, IMO, Sam gets to go on to his heart's content quite often. And I know that some will say that Dean is a man of few words, but he isn't always-his apologies are certainly long-winded and wordy enough. And he needs some words from the writers for the deeper stuff, IMO.  But I'll further add that I don't think these writers even see the deeper stuff, so at this point, I expect little change as far as the BM scenes are concerned. I love calling them that now-it's one of a few things that stayed with me from Fanfiction after watching it, in full, for the first time just a few days ago-although, in truth, I did skip the very end because of the "Samulet" scene and the Samgirl trying to shame Dean about dropping it in the first place. That would have given me agita. Oh, and look at that, there went Dean's supposed win in Dark Side of the Moon, and this, numerous seasons later. Go figure.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Myrelle

[DeeDee79]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Here's my opinion, which as always, I'm sure, is wrong. 

1. Dean didn't do anything wrong killing Amy.  Although, I suppose you could make a case that he shouldn't have hid the fact that he did it.  He did do something wrong in the Gadreel possession.

2. Sam has a right to be annoyed with him in both cases, because your feelings are your feelings.  He was obviously way less annoyed in case number one, because he had forgiven Dean by the end of the episode.  So, I think his big mistake was coming back to work with Dean after Sharp Teeth. He wasn't ready to forgive him yet, which is his prerogative.

3. Dean is allowed to not think he did anything wrong (although I obviously disagree in case number 2) and be annoyed with Sam's treatment of him, because again, your feelings are your feelings.

I don’t disagree with this. What I do disagree with is Sam’s words being excused because of supposed character assasination by the show runner while Dean’s are seen as him trying to pick a fight.

[ahrtee]

4 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I don’t disagree with this. What I do disagree with is Sam’s words being excused because of supposed character assasination by the show runner while Dean’s are seen as him trying to pick a fight.

Or in other words, Sam being nasty/cruel or doing something Dean didn't want is considered OOC and therefore a deliberate attempt by the writer/showrunner to make him look bad and all the blame goes on them, whereas Dean being nasty/cruel or doing something Sam didn't want is considered normal for him, and all the blame goes on him.  :(  

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, ahrtee said:

Or in other words, Sam being nasty/cruel or doing something Dean didn't want is considered OOC and therefore a deliberate attempt by the writer/showrunner to make him look bad and all the blame goes on them, whereas Dean being nasty/cruel or doing something Sam didn't want is considered normal for him, and all the blame goes on him.  :(  

Exactly!

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Or in other words, Sam being nasty/cruel or doing something Dean didn't want is considered OOC and therefore a deliberate attempt by the writer/showrunner to make him look bad and all the blame goes on them, whereas Dean being nasty/cruel or doing something Sam didn't want is considered normal for him, and all the blame goes on him.  :(  

This is what frustrates me the most.  That and when Dean does something to save Sam he's weak and clingy and when Sam does it its a beautiful act of brotherly love.  Sam basically called Dean a selfish coward for doing what he did, but then admits he's doing it because he doesn't want to be alone and its awwww..... Sammy just loves brother. 

 

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

1. Dean didn't do anything wrong killing Amy.

I personally, don't' think Dean did anything wrong but that wasn't the message the episode tried to send.  They hired a popular sci-fi actress, gave her a popular sci-fi name, showed flashbacks to her being bullied by the kids at school and by her mom and saving Sam's life.   They gave her a sympathetic motive and victims no one would miss.  Then they had Dean kill her in front of her son.   Then they had Dean break a promise to poor Sammy.

It's bad enough that this episode seemed to be written to throw Dean under the bus, it just rubbed salt in the wound that they made Jensen direct it.

Then when Sam essentially did the same thing to Benny, the entire thing was swept under the rug because of Dean's text message. 

I'm not interesting in debating, either issue since its been done, but to me its a glaring example of a double standard. 

[Reganne]

15 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Or in other words, Sam being nasty/cruel or doing something Dean didn't want is considered OOC and therefore a deliberate attempt by the writer/showrunner to make him look bad and all the blame goes on them, whereas Dean being nasty/cruel or doing something Sam didn't want is considered normal for him, and all the blame goes on him.  :(  

This really goes both ways.  I've seen people do the same thing for Dean.  I've seen people criticize everything Sam does but not admit that Dean has his flaws and has had times where he was wrong or not so nice to Sam.  Some people portray Dean as a perfect loyal brother while making Sam out to as nothing but selfish and ungrateful.  The fact is both brothers have been wrong at times or treated the other badly at times.  Some fans just see the show through their favourite characters eyes.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

This really goes both ways.  I've seen people do the same thing for Dean.  I've seen people criticize everything Sam does but not admit that Dean has his flaws and has had times where he was wrong or not so nice to Sam.  Some people portray Dean as a perfect loyal brother while making Sam out to as nothing but selfish and ungrateful.  The fact is both brothers have been wrong at times or treated the other badly at times.  Some fans just see the show through their favourite characters eyes.

All fans (at least those who have a favorite) see the show their their fav's eyes.  There's still a difference between being more forgiving/lenient towards your favorite and blaming the other one.  What annoys me the most is when people use blaming the other *in order* to excuse their favorite (as in, "well, he may have done this, but HE did it (or something worse) first"...or even better, "he does it all the time and never gets blamed.")  Yes, both brothers have been wrong and/or treated the other badly frequently; but my (admittedly jaundiced) view sees more finger-pointing at Dean (and the showrunners) than at Sam.  (I've also never seen *any* Dean fan say Dean is without flaws.  That's part of why we like him!)

Actually, most of the complaints I've seen against Sam are him being selfish or ungrateful towards Dean.  Dean is usually accused of being overbearing, obnoxious, insensitive, selfish, needy, and generally overriding anything Sam's wants either for selfish or no good reason.  And that's not to mention the show adding in horndogness, gluttony and sloth, which Sam fans accept as a given. :) 

Of course, I'm seeing the forum through my favorite's eyes. :) 

[auntvi]

6 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Also, why is it that when Dean calls Sam a bitch it’s seen as him trying to pick a fight while Sam’s Purge speech is hand waved as “Carver character assasination”? Is Sam as written incapable of being mean to his brother while Dean is?

For one thing, Dean has called Sam a bitch and picked fights a lot (no, I don't know exactly how many times), while Sam's Purge speech happened ONCE. Sam is capable of being mean to Dean, but he often just takes it from Dean and doesn't fight back. That makes the times he does fight back memorable.

[catrox14]

If only the writers believed that Dean's feelings were as worthy as Sam's.  I think it's been shown time and again, that Dean does emotions wrong. Even the audience seems to go with that.  Upthread is the discussion about Dean's behavior towards Jack, (who literally was not an infant, if new to the world) and that Dean's crushing grief and emotional devastation over Cas, and Mary and was wrong and immature and selfish, no compassion towards Dean from Sam and some in the audience over the crushing loss of his BF.

Sam should have pinged immediately that Dean was struggling but IMO Sam was selfish because he wanted to use Jack to save Mary. He never even mentioned using Jack to resurrect Cas.  Funny that. 

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case. He even got to say well' the FBI is nearby do we want them around, and that is greeted with 'Well, Sam has a point'. Yet when Dean made points about Jack's powers, Jack's responsibility for leading Cas down a garden path to "Paradise"  and maybe even to his death since it's still not clear why the fuck Cas decided to stab Lucifer in the AU other than set up to kill Cas. It's long been a glaring double standard going back to s1 that if Sam's sad it must be legitimate but if Dean's sad, well he's doing something wrong or just being emo Dean and if someone just shouts at him in the right way or punches him in the face, he'll straighten up and emo correctly, which equates to stop emoing Dean and watch out for Sammy.  Dean's emotions are consistently invalidated by the narrative in some way, shape or form. When Dean puts down his own foot about not parenting Jack, it's because Dean is selfish and immature.  Double standards

 

I find it interesting (and I do mean that literally) to discuss blame the writers vs the characters for their actions. Yes, writers create all of it, and actors create the characters as well.,  so if it's writer character assassination for one character but not for another I think that comes down  to how the viewer consumes the final product and sees each character.

IMO Sam is an incomplete character who becomes what the plot demands which often seems like character assassination. Sam could be intentionally enigmatic and changeable as a person who is still figuring himself out which I would completely buy into if the show would just let Sam admit that he is not perfect beyond the "I don't want to be a bad guy" which ends up with him being woobified more than a fully formed flawed character.

IMO, Dean is fully realized as a character. The show, the actor, the writers, and both Dean fans and Dean haters acknowledge that Dean can be a jerk a lot of the time. Dean himself knows he can be a jerk, the narrative addresses that Dean can be a jerk (he and others have literally called him a dick in the dialogue and the narrative. 

Sam IMO escapes much of the harsh criticism of the person/character that Dean the person/character faces because Dean wasn't the victim of a supernatural entity like Baby Sammy was with Azazel. MO the show wants us to believe in Sam's innate goodness because he is always so worried about being bad.  When he does crappy things for any reason, then it must be character assassination because the show wants us to believe that dear sweet innocent Baby Sammy would never make crappy choices as an adult. 

IMO, if the writers would remind us that Sam is on a journey still, then his poor choices as the character might not be seen as character assassination but intentional storytelling and unfortunately for some that means admitting that Sam is not always a great guy.

[ahrtee]

18 minutes ago, auntvi said:

For one thing, Dean has called Sam a bitch and picked fights a lot (no, I don't know exactly how many times), while Sam's Purge speech happened ONCE. Sam is capable of being mean to Dean, but he often just takes it from Dean and doesn't fight back. That makes the times he does fight back memorable.

Sorry...the only time I remember Dean calling Sam a bitch as an insult (and not the "bitch...jerk" family joke) was in The Mentalists when he told Sam he had a right to be mad (about Amy) but don't be a bitch about it.  Am I forgetting something? 

It also seems to me that Sam "picks"  more fights (that is, deliberately) with Dean, because that's how he gets him to react when he's shut down.  Not saying that's a bad thing.  Most of the fights they've had have seemed pretty equal to me--sometimes they fight back, sometimes one or the other just takes it.   IMO that's based on who's madder/who's hurting more.  If one lashes out because he's in a bad place, the other usually backs down.  *Both* of them.  Similarly, if it's something they both feel strongly about (or if they're both hurting equally) they can get pretty nasty with each other.  (And if you want to be accurate, some version of Sam's purge speech--that Dean is weak, needy, selfish--has shown up over and over again since season 1.  This was just the first time he said it out loud without being whammied first.)  

I may be a Dean-fan but that doesn't mean I only see things his way or think he's right all the time--it just means (to me) that I can understand (and usually forgive) his motives more than I can Sam's.  It's all a question of who you identify with more--it doesn't mean that one is always right and the other always wrong.  YMMV.

Edited February 1, 2018 by ahrtee

[ILoveReading]

3 minutes ago, auntvi said:

For one thing, Dean has called Sam a bitch and picked fights a lot (no, I don't know exactly how many times), while Sam's Purge speech happened ONCE. Sam is capable of being mean to Dean, but he often just takes it from Dean and doesn't fight back. That makes the times he does fight back memorable.

I find the whole "Sam doesn't stand up for himself' trope to be exaggerated.  Sam stands up for himself and gives back as good as he gets more often than not.

Examples, The pilot, bloody Mary, Fallen Idols, metamorphosis, Slash Fiction, The Purge, Sacrifice, against John in Dead Mans's blood, Torn and Frayed, Citizen Fang, Unforgiven, Road Trip, Southern Comfort, Taxi Driver, First Born, and Point of No Return.

Those are the ones I can think of the top of my head.  If I go through the episodes one by one, I could probably find more.

IMO, when there is a brothers vs brother conflict the narrative will support Sam's view point by giving Dean a straw mans argument, like when Sam was telling about why the was using his powers and Deans' counter was use the knife.   The show refused to allow Dean to mention exorisms. 

Or during Fallen Idols when Sam accused Dean having to get away because Ruby treated him like an adult, but refused to allow Dean to point out he did allow Sam to make his own decisions and Ruby pulled his strings like a puppet. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

If only the writers believed that Dean's feelings were as worthy as Sam's. 

Wouldn`t that be a thing. But then they couldn`t go to the easy well of giving Dean some hand-wavy depression thing, making him look bad during it and really hammer home the message that he does every kind of negative feeling wrong and improper. That allows them to set up Sam as the morally righteous lecturer and do so even under the guise of empathy. Because Sam never does feelings or moral wrong. Even if he did, it is somehow Dean`s fault or at best the fault of an outside influence. 

During the last few years Sam has been IMO the writer`s message board on what moral or emotional lecture they want to get across at any given point in time. It can even be totally opposite things from one episode to another. However, for that function, the character can`t have character flaws or negative traits or anything of the kind. He must be unfailingly perfect, empathic, kind, moral etc. Or, he can have "flaws" if the narrative either totally doesn`t acknowledge them as such or plays them as virtues. Then the audience will see them as virtues. Manipulative writing is still often very effective.

Conversely, Dean is the negative figure that needs to be lectured to - unless it is a random episode where a guest character takes precedence in needing the lecture. That`s why Dean is supposed to have all the flaws and failings, otherwise, why would he need all the lectures?

That a perfectly perfect character with no flaws isn`t a good writing recipe hasn`t stopped writers from dozens of movies and TV shows over decades. So why should it stop the Supernatural ones?         

Edited February 1, 2018 by Aeryn13

[ILoveReading]

55 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

If only the writers believed that Dean's feelings were as worthy as Sam's.  I think it's been shown time and again, that Dean does emotions wrong. Even the audience seems to go with that.  Upthread is the discussion about Dean's behavior towards Jack, (who literally was not an infant, if new to the world) and that Dean's crushing grief and emotional devastation over Cas, and Mary and was wrong and immature and selfish, no compassion towards Dean from Sam and some in the audience over the crushing loss of his BF.

Sam should have pinged immediately that Dean was struggling but IMO Sam was selfish because he wanted to use Jack to save Mary. He never even mentioned using Jack to resurrect Cas.  Funny that. 

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case. He even got to say well' the FBI is nearby do we want them around, and that is greeted with 'Well, Sam has a point'. Yet when Dean made points about Jack's powers, Jack's responsibility for leading Cas down a garden path to "Paradise"  and maybe even to his death since it's still not clear why the fuck Cas decided to stab Lucifer in the AU other than set up to kill Cas. It's long been a glaring double standard going back to s1 that if Sam's sad it must be legitimate but if Dean's sad, well he's doing something wrong or just being emo Dean and if someone just shouts at him in the right way or punches him in the face, he'll straighten up and emo correctly, which equates to stop emoing Dean and watch out for Sammy.  Dean's emotions are consistently invalidated by the narrative in some way, shape or form. When Dean puts down his own foot about not parenting Jack, it's because Dean is selfish and immature.  Double standards

 

I find it interesting (and I do mean that literally) to discuss blame the writers vs the characters for their actions. Yes, writers create all of it, and actors create the characters as well.,  so if it's writer character assassination for one character but not for another I think that comes down  to how the viewer consumes the final product and sees each character.

IMO Sam is an incomplete character who becomes what the plot demands which often seems like character assassination. Sam could be intentionally enigmatic and changeable as a person who is still figuring himself out which I would completely buy into if the show would just let Sam admit that he is not perfect beyond the "I don't want to be a bad guy" which ends up with him being woobified more than a fully formed flawed character.

IMO, Dean is fully realized as a character. The show, the actor, the writers, and both Dean fans and Dean haters acknowledge that Dean can be a jerk a lot of the time. Dean himself knows he can be a jerk, the narrative addresses that Dean can be a jerk (he and others have literally called him a dick in the dialogue and the narrative. 

Sam IMO escapes much of the harsh criticism of the person/character that Dean the person/character faces because Dean wasn't the victim of a supernatural entity like Baby Sammy was with Azazel. MO the show wants us to believe in Sam's innate goodness because he is always so worried about being bad.  When he does crappy things for any reason, then it must be character assassination because the show wants us to believe that dear sweet innocent Baby Sammy would never make crappy choices as an adult. 

IMO, if the writers would remind us that Sam is on a journey still, then his poor choices as the character might not be seen as character assassination but intentional storytelling and unfortunately for some that means admitting that Sam is not always a great guy.

I wish I could like this post more than once.  You said everything I was thinking in a much better way then I could.

[catrox14]

TBC on my post, I am not bashing Sam. I am bashing the writers for not doing a better job with making Sam a more complete character who should be able to be flawed and withstand criticism.

I think the only time I have really thought it was character assassination for Dean was in Fallen Idols, the advent of demon!Dean and putting a gun to Kaia's head.  Demon Dean was the hardest for me to deal with because it was so cruel. At least with demon!Dean we saw something new for Dean and there was actually some revelatory things as hard as they were to swallow and it could be dismissed to an extent because "demon".  Not great but I no longer see it as character assassination like I did initially. I think it ended up having some value for Dean.

Putting a gun to Kaia's head was wildly out of character IMO but I can't call it intentional character assassination YET.  If they never address it, never make it have meaning IN SPN then I'll just blow it off as some kind of ridiculous dramatic moment that Berens thought was okay.  My worry is that it won't become something GOOD for Dean's progression but a jumping off point for "Men are bad especially Dean" for Wayward Sisters and it never gets addressed in SPN. I'm wary on that one. If that's how it's used then I will say yes that IS character assassination. 

Fallen Idols was ridiculous and awful and I think that's about the main one I still see as intentionally destroying Dean's character with nothing ever done to course correct.

IMO, what Sam said to Dean in the Purge was the cruelest thing either brother has ever said to the other one because Sam was not influenced by anything supernatural and he took down Dean's entire existence.  And I get why Sam did that. Sam was pissed, hurt and angry with Dean for the Gadreel incident. That also was the first time that yes I thought Sam went too far but I also kind of had more respect for what the writers did for Sam's character there by making him way harsh and cruel which I think was a better choice than more woobyifing of Sam. 

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case. He even got to say well' the FBI is nearby do we want them around, and that is greeted with 'Well, Sam has a point'. Yet when Dean made points about Jack's powers, Jack's responsibility for leading Cas down a garden path to "Paradise"  and maybe even to his death since it's still not clear why the fuck Cas decided to stab Lucifer in the AU other than set up to kill Cas. It's long been a glaring double standard going back to s1 that if Sam's sad it must be legitimate but if Dean's sad, well he's doing something wrong or just being emo Dean and if someone just shouts at him in the right way or punches him in the face, he'll straighten up and emo correctly, which equates to stop emoing Dean and watch out for Sammy.  Dean's emotions are consistently invalidated by the narrative in some way, shape or form. When Dean puts down his own foot about not parenting Jack, it's because Dean is selfish and immature.  Double standards

Well, I think that was a jerk move on Sam's part, and don't give him a pass. But that was one line, and he quickly followed Dean in working the case (so much for Dean always having to fall in line whenever Sam offers an opinion). Dean was nasty to Jack over several episodes. It wasn't simply that he raised an objection, he was actively hostile toward Jack. I'm going to ignore the "parenting" issue, because I've stated my thoughts on that and it is clear we don't see eye to eye on either what it was reasonable for Sam to expect of Dean or what Sam was actually asking of Dean. 

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

am IMO escapes much of the harsh criticism of the person/character that Dean the person/character faces because Dean wasn't the victim of a supernatural entity like Baby Sammy was with Azazel. MO the show wants us to believe in Sam's innate goodness because he is always so worried about being bad.  When he does crappy things for any reason, then it must be character assassination because the show wants us to believe that dear sweet innocent Baby Sammy would never make crappy choices as an adult. 

I don't see this at all. If the show wanted us to think that sweet innocent Baby Sam could do no wrong, they wouldn't have had a long arc in which he drank blood from a demon, killed an innocent, and started an apocalypse. Sam has a ton of flaws, and has made many mistakes. But so does Dean.

[Reganne]

4 hours ago, ahrtee said:

All fans (at least those who have a favorite) see the show their their fav's eyes.  There's still a difference between being more forgiving/lenient towards your favorite and blaming the other one.  What annoys me the most is when people use blaming the other *in order* to excuse their favorite (as in, "well, he may have done this, but HE did it (or something worse) first"...or even better, "he does it all the time and never gets blamed.")  Yes, both brothers have been wrong and/or treated the other badly frequently; but my (admittedly jaundiced) view sees more finger-pointing at Dean (and the showrunners) than at Sam.  (I've also never seen *any* Dean fan say Dean is without flaws.  That's part of why we like him!)

Actually, most of the complaints I've seen against Sam are him being selfish or ungrateful towards Dean.  Dean is usually accused of being overbearing, obnoxious, insensitive, selfish, needy, and generally overriding anything Sam's wants either for selfish or no good reason.  And that's not to mention the show adding in horndogness, gluttony and sloth, which Sam fans accept as a given. :) 

Of course, I'm seeing the forum through my favorite's eyes. :) 

Exactly.... which is why I don't understand the whole complaint against Sam fans only.  For example, I find the whole argument against Sam pushing Dean towards Jack to be a way of blaming Sam for Deans actions.  I personally see more finger pointing towards Sam myself, but that could be because there seem to be more Dean fans.

 

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

If only the writers believed that Dean's feelings were as worthy as Sam's.  I think it's been shown time and again, that Dean does emotions wrong. Even the audience seems to go with that.  Upthread is the discussion about Dean's behavior towards Jack, (who literally was not an infant, if new to the world) and that Dean's crushing grief and emotional devastation over Cas, and Mary and was wrong and immature and selfish, no compassion towards Dean from Sam and some in the audience over the crushing loss of his BF.

Sam should have pinged immediately that Dean was struggling but IMO Sam was selfish because he wanted to use Jack to save Mary. He never even mentioned using Jack to resurrect Cas.  Funny that. 

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case. He even got to say well' the FBI is nearby do we want them around, and that is greeted with 'Well, Sam has a point'. Yet when Dean made points about Jack's powers, Jack's responsibility for leading Cas down a garden path to "Paradise"  and maybe even to his death since it's still not clear why the fuck Cas decided to stab Lucifer in the AU other than set up to kill Cas. It's long been a glaring double standard going back to s1 that if Sam's sad it must be legitimate but if Dean's sad, well he's doing something wrong or just being emo Dean and if someone just shouts at him in the right way or punches him in the face, he'll straighten up and emo correctly, which equates to stop emoing Dean and watch out for Sammy.  Dean's emotions are consistently invalidated by the narrative in some way, shape or form. When Dean puts down his own foot about not parenting Jack, it's because Dean is selfish and immature.  Double standards

 

Dean had an entire episode that was revolved around his feelings and where Sam was addressing the way he felt about the situation.  Sam spent the majority of the episode trying to cheer him up.  I consider that to be showing compassion.

 

I did see people criticizing Sam for not wanting to help Donna and for him being too harsh to Donna at the end of the episode.  I admit that they aren't as prominent as the ones against Dean at the beginning of the season, but I think that has more to do with the fact that Dean was shown to be more angry and aggressive towards Jack who people were beginning to love and they didn't take to that too well.  I haven't seen anyone say Sam was right and it definitely wasn't shown in the narrative that Sam was right considering his suggestion to drop the case was essentially shut down immediately and it was decided they would continue with the hunt.

[DeeDee79]

6 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Sam has a ton of flaws, and has made many mistakes. But so does Dean.

No one has stated that Dean doesn't make mistakes. In fact as @ahrtee stated in her post many Dean fans acknowledge that he is flawed and has made many mistakes.

[AwesomO4000]

9 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

I disagree with this. Wasn't Dean calling him out for his overall behavior from the moment that they began working the case? Being mad and holding a grudge was fine but he was basically trying to shut him out when they were working together. Also, why is it that when Dean calls Sam a bitch it’s seen as him trying to pick a fight while Sam’s Purge speech is hand waved as “Carver character assasination”? Is Sam as written incapable of being mean to his brother while Dean is?

Actually no. They were working the case together the whole time. Sam was even asking Dean if they should in fact go to their next location together - making sure Dean agreed - when Dean blew up. Before they started working the case together - which Sam was dubious if he was ready - Dean promised it would only be working the case, not getting messy with feelings. So that's what Sam did, but Dean wanted more, and that's why he started the argument... which he won, because Sam agreed with Dean in the end. And I'm not even saying that Dean didn't have a right to be frustrated - he did. The discussion here was mainly about that Dean is generally not allowed to argue back... And for me this was a case where Sam wasn't allowed to argue back, because even though Dean had a right to be frustrated, he framed his winning argument as "Well I was going to tell you about Amy as soon as you were ready" to which Sam should have rightly said, "but dude that was weeks and/or months ago! And you were just fine with me working cases with you, but I'm not 'with it' enough to tell the truth to? What the hell?" That was my point to that example. And apparently the narrative agreed with Dean. I don't agree with the complaint that Dean was supposedly demonized here, because Sam agreed that Dean was right to kill Amy (until Carver LOLed the canon in season 8) and said so, so if Dean is supposedly awful for killing Amy wouldn't that also make Sam just as awful for agreeing?

The reason why I consider "The Purge" speech to be somewhat of a character assassination is partially because of the outcome - which the above is a good illustration of the opposite in a way. I personally found it out of character that Sam was so angry anyway first of all - Sam normally forgives more easily than that when he's in his right mind, so that's the first thing - but then he's given untruths to spout and the one thing that might have been considered something of integrity - that he himself would never do something like to Dean - turns out to be a lie***. And I think - based on how the season went - the writers knew from that point that it was going to be a lie. So it was all set up to torpedo Sam's character and make him the bad guy... and look how well he learned the lesson of how right Dean was and isn't he sorry now. This was different for me from season 4. Sam was awful to Dean there as well... but why it happened at least made some organic sense to the story. It didn't go against Sam's previous behavior patterns to get there. And for me that is the difference.

So yes, Sam is definitely allowed to be mean to his brother - no question - but when his behavior to get there makes me go "wait a minute, why is he being that way?" then that's when I question it.

With "The Mentalists" example, Dean was going to be right about what he did, Sam was going to agree (so by default Sam was just being a bitch according to the narrative) and so I don't see how that is supposedly saying something awful about Dean. Your miles may vary.

*** Which of course it was a lie. Look at the times throughout the series Sam did or considered doing almost exactly what Dean had done here (some of them in episodes Carver actually wrote) - well until Carver came along in season 8 and changed that behavior around completely - so having Sam say "well no, Dean I wouldn't (do that)" was not in character, in my opinion. It was a continuation of what the writers had done to Sam in season 8, only to have Sam go back (at the end of season 9 through season 10) to how he was before Carver changed him to begin with... So for me, what was the whole point of having Sam act that way if they were only going to have Sam go right back to how he was originally except to drag Sam's character through the mud to prove some point that saving each other at all costs was somehow a right thing to do, except when Sam does it and then an apocalypse starts? That entire arc was "Sam is crappy for not looking for and trying to save his brother, and see even a vampire is more loyal than he is. What a jerk! Sam is crappy to Dean for having the guts to save him from death when Sam himself wouldn't save his brother. What a jerk! Well now isn't Sam sorry, now he's finally going to save his brother - bout time - but it's too late! His brother doesn't want him to, but he does it anyway. What a jerk! Look he started an apocalypse! Even God says it's all his fault ."

It may be just me, but I'm at a loss as to how this is supposedly a storyline saying that Sam is good rather than some sort of character assassination. But maybe I'm just dense.

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Sam IMO escapes much of the harsh criticism of the person/character that Dean the person/character faces because Dean wasn't the victim of a supernatural entity like Baby Sammy was with Azazel. MO the show wants us to believe in Sam's innate goodness because he is always so worried about being bad.  When he does crappy things for any reason, then it must be character assassination because the show wants us to believe that dear sweet innocent Baby Sammy would never make crappy choices as an adult. 

I'm not seeing Sam "escaping harsh criticism." From whom? The angels, God, random hunters, demons, horsemen, they all tell Sam he's crap, starts apocalypses, makes "bad choices," is selfish, weak, arrogant. What criticism is Sam escaping? If the show wanted us to just see Sam's "innate goodness" why would it have everyone and his brother tell us exactly how crappy he is and then show us by having him lie about his supposed principals and start apocalypses?

In my opinion, Sam is shown just as fallible as Dean is - often times moreso - because when Sam makes mistakes, the show makes sure that those mistakes have huge consequences and that important supernatural beings tell us how it was Sam's fault, be that Castiel, Joshua, or God.

And for me that would be fine if I didn't see a double standard. When I see other characters making similar or even the same mistakes with much less consequences and no author voices / higher authorities calling them out at all, I start to wonder exactly why Sam is generally tagged as the scapegoat. And yes those "other characters" are usually Dean, but that's the writers doing that, not just me seeing it, in my opinion.

2 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

Because Sam never does feelings or moral wrong. Even if he did, it is somehow Dean`s fault or at best the fault of an outside influence. 

I guess I  missed how God (as the show mouthpiece) saying that the darkness was all Sam's fault and that Dean had absolutely no part in it: Paraphrase: "The world would've been fine with demon Dean in it, but then Sam came along and screwed everything up."  - was somehow Dean's fault. Or how the multiple times everyone blamed Sam for the first apocalypse on Sam was Dean's fault.* If "Fallen Idols" was supposedly there to blame it on Dean and that's it... then in my opinion there wouldn't have been so many episodes after that once again pointing to Sam and saying it was his fault... all the way into season 9. If someone points out apple, apple, apple, banana, apple, apple, apple, apple, apple... I think I'm gonna go with apple being what he/she wanted me to see rather than that one lone banana outlier written in one episode by an author who wrote a total of 5 1/3 episodes for the show.

* even the hunters in "Dark Side..." said they shouldn't kill Dean, because only Sam was to blame... a sentiment Joshua later backed up.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

If only the writers believed that Dean's feelings were as worthy as Sam's.  I think it's been shown time and again, that Dean does emotions wrong. Even the audience seems to go with that.  Upthread is the discussion about Dean's behavior towards Jack, (who literally was not an infant, if new to the world) and that Dean's crushing grief and emotional devastation over Cas, and Mary and was wrong and immature and selfish, no compassion towards Dean from Sam and some in the audience over the crushing loss of his BF.

Sam should have pinged immediately that Dean was struggling but IMO Sam was selfish because he wanted to use Jack to save Mary. He never even mentioned using Jack to resurrect Cas.  Funny that. 

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case. He even got to say well' the FBI is nearby do we want them around, and that is greeted with 'Well, Sam has a point'. Yet when Dean made points about Jack's powers, Jack's responsibility for leading Cas down a garden path to "Paradise"  and maybe even to his death since it's still not clear why the fuck Cas decided to stab Lucifer in the AU other than set up to kill Cas. It's long been a glaring double standard going back to s1 that if Sam's sad it must be legitimate but if Dean's sad, well he's doing something wrong or just being emo Dean and if someone just shouts at him in the right way or punches him in the face, he'll straighten up and emo correctly, which equates to stop emoing Dean and watch out for Sammy.  Dean's emotions are consistently invalidated by the narrative in some way, shape or form. When Dean puts down his own foot about not parenting Jack, it's because Dean is selfish and immature.  Double standards

 

I find it interesting (and I do mean that literally) to discuss blame the writers vs the characters for their actions. Yes, writers create all of it, and actors create the characters as well.,  so if it's writer character assassination for one character but not for another I think that comes down  to how the viewer consumes the final product and sees each character.

IMO Sam is an incomplete character who becomes what the plot demands which often seems like character assassination. Sam could be intentionally enigmatic and changeable as a person who is still figuring himself out which I would completely buy into if the show would just let Sam admit that he is not perfect beyond the "I don't want to be a bad guy" which ends up with him being woobified more than a fully formed flawed character.

IMO, Dean is fully realized as a character. The show, the actor, the writers, and both Dean fans and Dean haters acknowledge that Dean can be a jerk a lot of the time. Dean himself knows he can be a jerk, the narrative addresses that Dean can be a jerk (he and others have literally called him a dick in the dialogue and the narrative. 

Sam IMO escapes much of the harsh criticism of the person/character that Dean the person/character faces because Dean wasn't the victim of a supernatural entity like Baby Sammy was with Azazel. MO the show wants us to believe in Sam's innate goodness because he is always so worried about being bad.  When he does crappy things for any reason, then it must be character assassination because the show wants us to believe that dear sweet innocent Baby Sammy would never make crappy choices as an adult. 

IMO, if the writers would remind us that Sam is on a journey still, then his poor choices as the character might not be seen as character assassination but intentional storytelling and unfortunately for some that means admitting that Sam is not always a great guy.

Great post @catrox14. You summed it up perfectly!

[DeeDee79]

Just now, AwesomO4000 said:

Actually no. They were working the case together the whole time. Sam was even asking Dean if they should in fact go to their next location together - making sure Dean agreed - when Dean blew up. Before they started working the case together - which Sam was dubious if he was ready - Dean promised it would only be working the case, not getting messy with feelings. So that's what Sam did, but Dean wanted more, and that's why he started the argument... which he won, because Sam agreed with Dean in the end. And I'm not even saying that Dean didn't have a right to be frustrated - he did. The discussion here was mainly about that Dean is generally not allowed to argue back... And for me this was a case where Sam wasn't allowed to argue back, because even though Dean had a right to be frustrated, he framed his winning argument as "Well I was going to tell you about Amy as soon as you were ready" to which Sam should have rightly said, "but dude that was weeks and/or months ago! And you were just fine with me working cases with you, but I'm not 'with it' enough to tell the truth to? What the hell?" That was my point to that example. And apparently the narrative agreed with Dean. I don't agree with the complaint that Dean was supposedly demonized here, because Sam agreed that Dean was right to kill Amy (until Carver LOLed the canon in season 8) and said so, so if Dean is supposedly awful for killing Amy wouldn't that also make Sam just as awful for agreeing?

Dean shows up because they caught the same case. Sam then gives Dean the silent treatment for the most part only reluctantly answering when he needs to. Dean offers to drive to the next interview; Sam takes off on foot. Dean told Sam that he had a right to be pissed at him; Sam agreed that he was still pissed. Dean said that they agreed that they would work the case but Sam was being a dick the whole time which he was. I'm sorry but if the situations had been reversed and Dean had treated Sam in the same manner fandom would be calling Dean immature, a dick, and probably a bitch. And again: blaming Dean for the situation- why isn't it character assassination here? Jensen is just parroting the words written for him the same way that Jared does when Sam is being an asshole. We can agree to disagree because we don't and will not have the same viewpoint on this.

[AwesomO4000]

Quote

I didn't see much sideyeing when  Sam wasn't really keen to help Donna (he never has been, I don't get that), but once it was reminded that Sam was laying in bed and not sleeping then somehow well it must really be bad if Poor Sammy is sad. No one has said that Sam was being immature or selfish because he didn't think they should do the case.

I'm pretty sure that I said Sam's behavior in that episode seemed out of character to me with nothing about "poor Sammy"... as you said, the writers will change Sam's behavior for plot purposes. In my opinion how is that not character assassination?

Quote

and that Dean's crushing grief and emotional devastation over Cas, and Mary and was wrong and immature and selfish, no compassion towards Dean from Sam and some in the audience over the crushing loss of his BF.

And I've also seen arguments that grieving Sam in "Everybody Loves a Clown" is somehow being so awful to Dean, because he just won't realize Dean needs to be alone and why won't he leave poor Dean alone to grieve in peace? this thing goes both ways. It's not just "Dean does it wrong."

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

Dean had an entire episode that was revolved around his feelings and where Sam was addressing the way he felt about the situation.  Sam spent the majority of the episode trying to cheer him up.  I consider that to be showing compassion.

He was fighting with Dean from the moment Cas died about Jack. He wanted Dean to help with Jack and not be mean to Jack from the moment Jack was born. Sam compared Dean to John before he attempted to cheer him up.  Sam did not respect Dean's wishes to not be involved in whatever Sam was trying to get from Jack. Sam was blaming Dean for whatever was negative within Jack. Sam didn't try to cheer Dean up until after ALL of that. The compassion IMO that Dean needed from Sam came almost too late and occurred in the episode in which Dean killed himself to save the boys.

[AwesomO4000]

2 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Dean shows up because they caught the same case. Sam then gives Dean the silent treatment for the most part only reluctantly answering when he needs to. Dean offers to drive to the next interview; Sam takes off on foot. Dean told Sam that he had a right to be pissed at him; Sam agreed that he was still pissed. Dean said that they agreed that they would work the case but Sam was being a dick the whole time which he was. I'm sorry but if the situations had been reversed and Dean had treated Sam in the same manner fandom would be calling Dean immature, a dick, and probably a bitch. And again: blaming Dean for the situation- why isn't it character assassination here? Jensen is just parroting the words written for him the same way that Jared does when Sam is being an asshole. We can agree to disagree because we don't and will not have the same viewpoint on this.

There is a theory - and I agree - that Sam at first didn't know that was really Dean. Remember he had been imagining Dean in the past. When the waiter talks to Dean, then Sam realizes that it is really Dean.

And I disagree that Sam was acting like a dick the whole time. I remembered him working the case with Dean and including him and consulting with him the entire time except at one point where they split up to go faster.

[Katy M]

46 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

There is a theory - and I agree - that Sam at first didn't know that was really Dean. Remember he had been imagining Dean in the past. When the waiter talks to Dean, then Sam realizes that it is really Dean.

And I disagree that Sam was acting like a dick the whole time. I remembered him working the case with Dean and including him and consulting with him the entire time except at one point where they split up to go faster.

I don't agree with that.  Sam was giving him the silent treatment. But, again, I don't really have a problem with that.  When he left he told DEan that he couldn't be around him right now, and Dean saw him, went over, sat down, and just started talking. He should have asked. Sam would have said no.  But, it's OK, because it all worked out.  I don't think just because someone is mad at someone else it makes them a dick.  As long as the other person knows why you're mad.  Dean knew.  I fully believe that even if they hadn't worked that case together, Sam would have come around.  He just needed some time to work through his anger.  Again, your feelings are your feelings.  I think everyone should forgive everyone for anything, as long as they've apologized (can't remember if Dean did or not, but not really my point, so not going off on that tangent), but I don't think it has to be instantaneous.  If you always instantaneously forgive everyone that you've gotten upset with, it's probably not going to be all that sincere.

[Reganne]

48 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

He was fighting with Dean from the moment Cas died about Jack. He wanted Dean to help with Jack and not be mean to Jack from the moment Jack was born. Sam compared Dean to John before he attempted to cheer him up.  Sam did not respect Dean's wishes to not be involved in whatever Sam was trying to get from Jack. Sam was blaming Dean for whatever was negative within Jack. Sam didn't try to cheer Dean up until after ALL of that. The compassion IMO that Dean needed from Sam came almost too late and occurred in the episode in which Dean killed himself to save the boys.

What happened before doesn't negate the fact that Dean did actually receive compassion from Sam.  What if Sam realized that he was wrong in how he was acting with Dean and wanted to make things better.  If the narrative wanted to completely sell us on the Dean does feelings wrong idea... they wouldn't have focused so much on his grief in that episode and have Sam be there for him.  Something which Dean even mentioned in the last episode.  That Sam was there for him.

[MysteryGuest]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

I personally see more finger pointing towards Sam myself, but that could be because there seem to be more Dean fans.

If you're referring specifically to this site, then it does seem that there are more Dean fans than Sam, but have we ever actually taken a poll?  This site notwithstanding, in the general fandom, I always thought that Sam was more popular.  I wonder if there are real statistics about that.  Not that it matters even a tiny bit because we all like who we like and there isn't a damn thing wrong with that.  I'm just curious, I guess.  Add in the Cas only fans, and I wonder what the numbers would look like.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

There is a theory - and I agree - that Sam at first didn't know that was really Dean. Remember he had been imagining Dean in the past. When the waiter talks to Dean, then Sam realizes that it is really Dean.

I agree that Sam wasn't sure if it was really Dean at first. Sam was rubbing that hand scar pretty hard until the waiter acknowledges Dean's presence. Then Sam started to engage Dean more. However, Sam was pissed and rightly so. Dean was doing what Dean usually does, which is confront the issue head on and deal with it so they could move past it. Sam was doing what Sam usually does which is to go away until he could move past it. Sam wasn't quite ready to move past it yet and I think that's okay. They each deal in different ways, sometimes those ways clash. I find that's pretty realistic, myself.

[ILoveReading]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sam wasn't quite ready to move past it yet and I think that's okay.

This for me is another example of a double standard (not directed at you DittyDottDott, just in general).  Dean clearly wasn't ready to deal with Jack yet he was excepted to put aside his issues for the sake of going along to get along. 

Why is is okay for Sam to hold onto his issues and pain and anger no matter the situation but Dean is expected to either suck it up, bury it, or or just get over it.

[Wayward Son]

Watching the episode now and Dean can knock Sam out in one punch? What a load of crap! 

[gonzosgirrl]

58 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

Watching the episode now and Dean can knock Sam out in one punch? What a load of crap! 

Asylum. 

[Wayward Son]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

Asylum. 

That was 12 years ago and both brothers have been through a lot and toughened up since then. I would consider it utter crap for either brother to knock the other out with a single punch. We can agree to disagree :)

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

Watching the episode now and Dean can knock Sam out in one punch? What a load of crap! 

Dean's a good fighter (well at least when the writers remember).

[gonzosgirrl]

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

That was 12 years ago and both brothers have been through a lot and toughened up since then. I would consider it utter crap for either brother to knock the other out with a single punch. We can agree to disagree :)

Sure, we can agree to disagree about how you see it, but the fact is there is precedent for It, and therefore not so outrageous as to be ridiculous. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
Typo

[Wayward Son]

Just now, ILoveReading said:

Dean's a good fighter (well at least when the writers remember).

And Sam too is a great fighter! I’m not saying it would be impossible for Dean to win in a fight against Sam, but IMO such a win would take place after a proper fight where both held their own not one punch. I would feel the exact same about Sam taking Dean out with a single punch.

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Sure, we can agree to disagree about how you see it, but the fact is there is precedent for It, and therefore not so outrageous as to be ridiculous. 

Yeah precedent that took place before Sam went to hell and was tortured in the cage, was tortured to a lesser extent against Lady Bevell, learnt to hold his own against Demons, Angels and an assortment of other creatures. That’s a real revelant comparison. 

[ILoveReading]

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And Sam too is a great fighter! I’m not saying it would be impossible for Dean to win in a fight against Sam, but IMO such a win would take place after a proper fight where both held their own not one punch. I would feel the exact same about Sam taking Dean out with a single punch.

It was a sucker punch Sam didn't see coming.  He didn't have a chance to defend himself.

[Wayward Son]

2 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

It was a sucker punch Sam didn't see coming.  He didn't have a chance to defend himself.

And I don’t think a single sucker punch would be enough to knock Sam out. This is the guy who is involved in brawls all the time with beings who are meant to have physical force than any human. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Wayward Son

[ILoveReading]

1 minute ago, Wayward Son said:

And I don’t think a single sucker punch would be enough to knock Sam out. This is the guy who is involved in brawls all the time with beings who are meant to have physical force than any human. 

Haven't we seen both Sam and Dean get knocked out with one punch multiple times in the show.   A skilled fighter can knock someone out with one blow. 

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, ILoveReading said:

Haven't we seen both Sam and Dean get knocked out with one punch multiple times in the show.   A skilled fighter can knock someone out with one blow. 

I think we should just agree to disagree. IMO if Dean fans can complain because Sam didn’t use the exact tone of voice they’d like or very specific words to make an apology valid then I can be annoyed by this :)

[ILoveReading]

Just now, Wayward Son said:

I think we should just agree to disagree. IMO if Dean fans can complain because Sam didn’t use the exact tone of voice they’d like or very specific words to make an apology valid then I can be annoyed by this :)

Im not saying you can't be annoyed, just pointing out why I disagree but yes, we'll agree to disagree.

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And Sam too is a great fighter! I’m not saying it would be impossible for Dean to win in a fight against Sam, but IMO such a win would take place after a proper fight where both held their own not one punch. I would feel the exact same about Sam taking Dean out with a single punch.

Yeah precedent that took place before Sam went to hell and was tortured in the cage, was tortured to a lesser extent against Lady Bevell, learnt to hold his own against Demons, Angels and an assortment of other creatures. That’s a real revelant comparison. 

What the hell does either one of them having been tortured in Hell have to do being cold cocked? It's irrelevant. Completely irrelevant because Sam wasn't on guard that Dean would hit him. Why would he be?  Neither one is Superman.  Anywa, Dale put Marty through a plate glass window which I suspect meant he was slightly juiced up fom the spell.  So I think Dean had a little extra mojo from the spell.

Regardless there is no reason why either one can't cold cock the other one when they are not planning for a fight.