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

[companionenvy]

5 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

To me, anyone in the hunting life should be concerned that something would come after them. That's why Dean wiping Lisa and Ben's mind makes no sense. That's not going to keep them any safer than not knowing.

Sam himself should have been a little more aware or maybe you know, not lied to Jessica for the entire time they were together. I really wish they would bring Jessica back as a vengeful spirit.

Sam owed Jessica the truth, definitely, but absent the boy king-chosen one-vessel deal, I still don't see it as irresponsible. Nineteen year old Sam, from what I can make out, had certainly been trained as a hunter and gone on some hunts, but he seems to have more often taken the behind the scenes role. It wouldn't have seemed all that likely for an associate of the random, freak of the week monsters the Winchesters seem largely to have been dealing with, pre-series, to come seeking revenge against Sam. (John may have already known or suspected that there was more at work in Mary's death, but Sam didn't have any reason to believe it was anything more than a random monster kill). Even so, I'm not saying it wouldn't have been possible that Sam would have been targeted, either in his own right or as a way of getting at John, but he really wasn't at all the most obvious person to go after. 

Dean's stated reason for wiping Lisa and Ben's memories makes no sense, and was wrong in any case, but I can see where it might have succeeded in making them safer, on balance. To the extent that a monster would have been after them as a way of getting at Dean, its a wash, as Dean remembers even if they don't. The argument that having them forget would make them less safe would be that at least with their memories, they can be marginally prepared and might have a chance of avoiding a trap or at least getting in touch with Dean (although if they're being used as bait for Dean, Dean's going to find out anyway). 

OTOH, I think there's an argument to be made that the minor boost in safety they'd get from at least having some awareness of what's out there is outweighed by the danger of having Dean in their lives -- and there wasn't, I think, going to be a clean break if they had retained their memories, not given Dean's relationship to Ben. By now, Lisa and Ben are old news. Dean would still rush to save them, but they are a lot less likely to ping the radar of Dean's current crop of enemies than they would have been six years ago. Asmodeus isn't going to waste his time, or probably, even known about an ex that Dean hasn't seen in years. So in the short term, Dean's logic made no sense, but in the long term, he may have been right from a pure risk management perspective.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, Katy M said:

 

I don't.  I don't think that anything had ever come after them personally before that point.  Besides the yellow-eyed demon which they didn't know was personal.  There was no reason for him to think that something was going to come after him.  And, I don't think he needs to revisit that guilt at this late stage.

Maybe I've forgotten something but wasn't the entire reason John dragged the boys into the hunting life was to kill the YED? Isn't that one of the reasons John was so angry that Sam left because he couldn't keep an eye on him to protect him from the demon? And why he drove out to Stanford to check on Sam? Or do I have that timeline completely wrong. Honestly, there was no reason why Sam shouldn't have told Jessica about his life other than the show needed Sam to be motivated by vengeance and to show that he was separate from the family.

[Katy M]

7 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Dean's stated reason for wiping Lisa and Ben's memories makes no sense, and was wrong in any case, but I can see where it might have succeeded in making them safer, on balance. To the extent that a monster would have been after them as a way of getting at Dean, its a wash, as Dean remembers even if they don't. The argument that having them forget would make them less safe would be that at least with their memories, they can be marginally prepared and might have a chance of avoiding a trap or at least getting in touch with Dean (although if they're being used as bait for Dean, Dean's going to find out anyway). 

 

I always figured since Cas was so amped up he erased Lisa and Ben from all the monsters' memories too.

Just now, catrox14 said:

Maybe I've forgotten something but wasn't the entire reason John dragged the boys into the hunting life was to kill the YED? Isn't that one of the reasons John was so angry that Sam left because he couldn't keep an eye on him to protect him from the demon? And why he drove out to Stanford to check on Sam? Or do I have that timeline completely wrong. Honestly, there was no reason why Sam shouldn't have told Jessica about his life other than the show needed Sam to be motivated by vengeance and to show that he was separate from the family.

Yes, he got into hunting to find what killed Mary.  But, they still didn't know it was a personal attack to begin with.  When I say they, I mean Sam and Dean. I stil have no idea what John knew and when he knew it.  And, in the 18 years before Sam left home, as far as he knew they hadn't found a whiff of him, so there was no reason to think that whatever killed her (and he didn't know it was a demon until Scarecrow) was even still around or had a personal connection to the family.  I mean, let's take another random case for example.  Let's pretend that Bobby had never become a hunter after he killed his wife and Rufus had never come along.  For whatever reason after Bobby kills his wife, demon leaves.. Bobby gets on with his life after he gets out of jail.  There would be no reason to think that some other demon would come after Bobby at some point in the future.  It was over and done with.

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Katy M said:

 

I always figured since Cas was so amped up he erased Lisa and Ben from all the monsters' memories too.

Yes, he got into hunting to find what killed Mary.  But, they still didn't know it was a personal attack to begin with.  When I say they, I mean Sam and Dean. I stil have no idea what John knew and when he knew it.  And, in the 18 years before Sam left home, as far as he knew they hadn't found a whiff of him, so there was no reason to think that whatever killed her (and he didn't know it was a demon until Scarecrow) was even still around or had a personal connection to the family.  I mean, let's take another random case for example.  Let's pretend that Bobby had never become a hunter after he killed his wife and Rufus had never come along.  For whatever reason after Bobby kills his wife, demon leaves.. Bobby gets on with his life after he gets out of jail.  There would be no reason to think that some other demon would come after Bobby at some point in the future.  It was over and done with.

The difference is that Sam and Dean grew up in the vengeance ride of John's and from what Bobby said, John was pretty paranoid and didn't make many friends because he didn't trust them. A pack of werewolves could go after them for vengeance. Any monster could have gone after them is what I'm saying, not just the YED. Why would they just dismiss the possibility when it came after them once and John didn't know about the deal.

The boys had nothing but the hunting life that Bobby never had.  Sam and Dean had knowledge about the scary monster world as teenagers that Bobby didn't have. They had a life of John Winchester being the best hunter in the world. John was infamous. If it was an ordinary hunter I would be less bothered by Sam not taking precautions.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Not sure how seriously you meant this, but in fairness to Sam, unlike Mary, Sam really had no reason to think his hunting life was going to come back and endanger his loved ones. Jessica was killed as part of the big gameplan to get Sam back on the board -- which Sam couldn't have known anything about at that point. Mary did know that she had made a deal with a demon, even if she didn't know exactly what the ramifications were going to be.

I was going for the joke, but I can't say he had no reason to think Jess might be in danger. Wasn't he having visions of her burning? Or am I remembering a fanfic, lol?

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I was going for the joke, but I can't say he had no reason to think Jess might be in danger. Wasn't he having visions of her burning? Or am I remembering a fanfic, lol?

OH gods! He did! I totally forgot about that! 

[Wayward Son]

To be fair to Sam it was easy to put the nightmares down as just that nightmares considering what happened to Mary. IIRC he never had visions before that to make him suspect what he was dreaming was anything more than a standard nightmare. 

[gonzosgirrl]

13 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

To be fair to Sam it was easy to put the nightmares down as just that nightmares considering what happened to Mary. IIRC he never had visions before that to make him suspect what he was dreaming was anything more than a standard nightmare. 

Yeah, really not invested in this, as I was mostly joking, however if he started having visions of his girlfriend dying in exactly the same way his mother did (or in any horrific way, actually), then I'd think someone as smart and self-aware as Sam might've questioned why. Especially given the life he'd lead up until the very recent past. I don't recall exactly, but I don't think it was a one-off thing.

Edited February 25, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

16 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

To be fair to Sam it was easy to put the nightmares down as just that nightmares considering what happened to Mary. IIRC he never had visions before that to make him suspect what he was dreaming was anything more than a standard nightmare. 

Here's what I just can't buy into. Sam knew about monsters and hunting. If he had no knowledge of those things I would understand him dismissing it. But his mother burned alive and then he dreams about Jessica and he knew the YED killed her. He was a smart guy and IMO that should have prompted him to maybe call John or Dean. But he didn't and here we are.

Maybe he inherited that hiding his head in the sand gene from Mary :P

Edited February 25, 2018 by catrox14

[Wayward Son]

Just now, catrox14 said:

Here's what I just can't buy into. Sam knew about monsters and hunting. If he had no knowledge of those things I would understand him dismissing it. But his mother burned alive and then he dreams about Jessica and he knew the YED killed her. That should have prompted him to maybe call John or Dean. But he didn't and here we are.

Maybe he inherited that hiding his head in the sand gene from Mary :P

I just don't get why Sam should have automatically jumped to = "I am a psychic and these dreams are real." Sam grew up with the knowledge of what had happened to his mother and his dream could have just as easily been the result of a subconscious fear that his life with Jessica was going to be ruined. Even with knowledge of hunters and monster it is uncommon for hunters to start getting real visions. Since Sam had no knowledge of the demon blood, psychic kids etc Sam had no reason to think his dreams were the beginning of a psychic growth as opposed to sub-conscious fears manifesting as dreams. 

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Here's what I just can't buy into. Sam knew about monsters and hunting. If he had no knowledge of those things I would understand him dismissing it. But his mother burned alive and then he dreams about Jessica and he knew the YED killed her. He was a smart guy and IMO that should have prompted him to maybe call John or Dean. But he didn't and here we are.

Maybe he inherited that hiding his head in the sand gene from Mary :P

 

Heheh.

And also, if s8 can be believed, Sam says he always felt tainted, even as a child, so why would he not at least entertain the idea that his 'dreams' might be more than just nightmares.

Did he even say they were dreams/nightmares? Or were they visions? ETA: Dreams
 

Quote

 

SAM: I have these nightmares.

DEAN: [nodding] I’ve noticed.

SAM: And sometimes….they come true.

DEAN: [stunned] Come again?

SAM: Look, Dean….I dreamt about Jessica’s death –- for days before it happened.

DEAN: Sam, people have weird dreams, man. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. [He sits down on the bed.]

SAM: No, I dreamt about the blood dripping, her on the ceiling, the fire, everything, and I didn’t do anything about it ‘cause I didn’t believe it. And now I’m dreaming about that tree, about our house, and about some woman inside screaming for help. I mean, that’s where it all started, man, this has to mean something, right?

 

So it was dreams, but he had it more than once, so yeah, maybe something should've twigged.

Edited February 25, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[DeeDee79]

8 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Heheh.

And also, if s8 can be believed, Sam says he always felt tainted, even as a child, so why would he not at least entertain the idea that his 'dreams' might be more than just nightmares.

Did he even say they were dreams/nightmares? Or were they visions?

I remember in Bloody Mary that it was stated as nightmares about Jessica burning that started days before it happened. Per Superwiki: "But it's more than that, isn't it? Those nightmares you've been having of Jessica dying, screaming, burning—You had them for days before she died. Didn't you!?! You were so desperate to ignore them, to believe they were just dreams. How could you ignore them like that? How could you leave her alone to die!?! You dreamt it would happen!!! "

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I just don't get why Sam should have automatically jumped to = "I am a psychic and these dreams are real." Sam grew up with the knowledge of what had happened to his mother and his dream could have just as easily been the result of a subconscious fear that his life with Jessica was going to be ruined. Even with knowledge of hunters and monster it is uncommon for hunters to start getting real visions. Since Sam had no knowledge of the demon blood, psychic kids etc Sam had no reason to think his dreams were the beginning of a psychic growth as opposed to sub-conscious fears manifesting as dreams. 

 

I never said a thing about him thinking he was psychic. You're interjecting that into an argument I'm not making.

What I am saying is that his experience with monsters, the demon coming after Mary, John hunting the demon, his knowledge that his mother burned alive which is almost virtually impossible to be his own memory since as an infant he likely didn't retain that, then wouldn't he have at least given a moment of consideration that maybe these nightmares could be a message or something? A warning? 

That this might potentially be a problem and maybe contacted Bobby if he didn't want to call John or Dean, since, Bobby had been essentially Uncle Bobby? Or even Pastor Jim or Caleb?

I'm saying that there was so much more in Sam's background that him not taking even a moment to really consider it as a possibility was well, you know for plot reasons.

I'm going with Sam inherited that from Mary :)

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

 

I never said a thing about him thinking he was psychic. You're interjecting that into an argument I'm not making.

What I am saying is that his experience with monsters, the demon coming after Mary, John hunting the demon, his knowledge that his mother burned alive which is almost virtually impossible to be his own memory since as an infant he likely didn't retain that, then wouldn't he have at least given a moment of consideration that maybe these nightmares could be a message or something? A warning? 

That this might potentially be a problem and maybe contacted Bobby if he didn't want to call John or Dean, since, Bobby had been essentially Uncle Bobby? Or even Pastor Jim or Caleb?

I'm saying that there was so much more in Sam's background that him not taking even a moment to really consider it as a possibility was well, you know for plot reasons.

I'm going with Sam inherited that from Mary :)

I think we can agree to disagree as IMO even with his background Sam had no reason to consider the nightmares as anything more than that. Not with the knowledge he had at that point. I see that as entirely different to Mary who was explicitly told YED would be coming for something in ten years time. So yeah agree to disagree is best because I honestly find your expectation of Sam unrealistic. 

[companionenvy]

Agree with WS. For me, I think the crux of it is the disconnect between what hunting was for Sam and Dean growing up and what it has become for them in the last ten years. Remember that in S1, they had never seen a demon. Heck, in S2, Sam was excited at the possibility of dealing with a werewolf. I simply don't see how Sam would have had a precedent for thinking that a dream of his girlfriend dying in the same way as his mom -- even a recurrent one -- might be a psychic vision. The fact that Sam had no actual memory of Mary's death doesn't mean he couldn't imagine it -- and he had no way of knowing how close his dream/vision was to reality. And as he approached graduation and the possibility of marriage to Jessica, no psychologist would have found it difficult to fathom why Sam might start having intense anxiety bound up in the violent death of the last prominent woman in his life. 

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, companionenvy said:

Sam was excited at the possibility of dealing with a werewolf. I simply don't see how Sam would have had a precedent for thinking that a dream of his girlfriend dying in the same way as his mom -- even a recurrent one -- might be a psychic vision.

No one has said that Sam should have considered it was a psychic vision. Why is this being perpetuated as a position that no one has taken?  The nightmares were brought up as another reason on top of all the other reasons that Sam might have put it all together and just thought...hmm, this could be troublesome. No one has said that Sam should have thought he was psychic.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

I think we can agree to disagree as IMO even with his background Sam had no reason to consider the nightmares as anything more than that. Not with the knowledge he had at that point. I see that as entirely different to Mary who was explicitly told YED would be coming for something in ten years time. So yeah agree to disagree is best because I honestly find your expectation of Sam unrealistic. 

His time out of the hunting world could still be measured in months. He would later confess that he felt all his life that sonething was wrong/ different about him. So I would hardly call it unrealistic that he maybe should've questioned such specific 'dreams'. But he had already decided to hide his past from the girl he wanted to marry, so I guess that acknowledging she/they might be in danger didn't jibe with that. Just like it didn't work for Mary to remember she made a deal. Which is where this conversation started. So yep, I'll agree to disagree. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
Bit/But

[companionenvy]

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

No one has said that Sam should have considered it was a psychic vision. Why is this being perpetuated as a position that no one has taken?  The nightmares were brought up as another reason on top of all the other reasons that Sam might have put it all together and just thought...hmm, this could be troublesome. No one has said that Sam should have thought he was psychic.

But if it wasn't a psychic vision, then why should he have taken it seriously? There's not a ton of middle ground here. Either these were anxiety dreams, or they were some sort of supernaturally-influenced premonition, whether or not you want to use the specific language of "psychic vision" to describe it. To say that he should have twigged that something was up is to say that he should have recognized that his dreams weren't just dreams, which seems more or less equivalent to saying that he should have recognized that the was having at least something resembling a vision. 

9 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

He would later confess that he felt all his life that sonething was wrong/ different about him.

That's a statement that can cover a lot of ground. Lots of people in the non-SPN world feel a sense that they don't quite fit in and aren't entirely "normal." In retrospect, Sam might be able to attribute some of that (rightly or wrongly) to Azazel's influence, but that's a far cry from expecting college-age Sam to tie a vague sense of wrongness to something objectively sinister. John would have known enough by then, I think, to connect some dots, but if Sam had shared this with, say, Bobby, I'm pretty sure he would have dismissed it as well. I mean, what would Sam have said? I feel like I don't fit in, and sometimes I have problems with anger? To most people, that's called being a teenager. 

Again, I do think Sam should have told Jessica the truth, because he owed it to her as someone he loved and wanted to share his life with. I understand why he didn't, but that doesn't make it right. But frankly, while he wound up getting away with it, I think it would be fairer to claim that Sam knowingly endangered Amelia than that he knowingly endangered Jess. By Season 8, the chance of Sam's hunting life coming back to hurt someone he loved actually was a realistic possibility, and the fact that he didn't consider it speaks to Sam's deep denial and refusal to deal with reality during that period.

[Myrelle]

14 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe he inherited that hiding his head in the sand gene from Mary :P

I actually think it is this, sort of, although it might not be inherited so much as a mere human response and on-going character trait in the fight or flight type of way, regarding both.

For all of the writers' talk that Mary was supposed to be "like Dean", I maintain that we were shown her to be more like Sam in her interactions with other people especially. Her similarities with Dean were more surface qualities and I DO think that they were going for the badass hunter thing, too, but that one they failed at miserably. IMO, anyway.

[Bobcatkitten]

A little OT but I always wondered what happened when Lisa and Ben went home and the neighbors asked, "where's Dean?" or Dean's boss called to see why he was late. And didn't she wonder why there were men's clothes in the house? 

[companionenvy]

34 minutes ago, scribe95 said:

A little OT but I always wondered what happened when Lisa and Ben went home and the neighbors asked, "where's Dean?" or Dean's boss called to see why he was late. And didn't she wonder why there were men's clothes in the house? 

This has come up in the past -- maybe in the All Episodes thread? -- and it is a puzzler. Dean had actually already moved out some time ago, so the boss thing wouldn't have been an issue and neighbors wouldn't have asked where he was right away, but someone would have mentioned him eventually, and there must have been signs of his presence, like photos, still in the house.

My own thought is that it only works if we assume that angels are powerful enough to not just wipe the individual's person's memory but essentially re-write reality so that Dean's year with Lisa only exists in his memory. There's a lot of precedent for that kind of thing in other sci-fi/fantasy shows, although it isn't at all clear if that is going on here. But if I had to fanwank it, the ability of Zachariah to create the "It's a Terrible Life" alt-verse would argue that an angel would at least theoretically have that kind of power. 

Oh, and this is probably an unpopular opinion -- but I'd love it if there were an episode where a young adult Ben came back looking for answers. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by companionenvy

[gonzosgirrl]

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

That's a statement that can cover a lot of ground. Lots of people in the non-SPN world feel a sense that they don't quite fit in and aren't entirely "normal." In retrospect, Sam might be able to attribute some of that (rightly or wrongly) to Azazel's influence, but that's a far cry from expecting college-age Sam to tie a vague sense of wrongness to something objectively sinister.

When Sam was saying this, he was talking about feeling tainted, unworthy of a quest like in the stories Dean told him, because he was unclean. It certainly implied  (to me) at the time it was more than just not fitting in. It was a retcon for Sure, but they made it canon with this speech. 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

When Sam was saying this, he was talking about feeling tainted, unworthy of a quest like in the stories Dean told him, because he was unclean. It certainly implied  (to me) at the time it was more than just not fitting in. It was a retcon for Sure, but they made it canon with this speech. 

ETA: They also showed Sam to be quite happy at Stanford, and in love with Jessica . So anxiety doesn't seem like a good explanation for his vivid dreams of her death. Given his life experience, and the later confession mentioned above, I actually find it more surprising that he didn't take it more seriously.  

Edited February 26, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Bobcatkitten]

I just wanted to note that I watched the J2 main panel in Vegas and someone asked about Lisa and Dean finding pictures of the guy that hit them - hilarious. 

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

My own thought is that it only works if we assume that angels are powerful enough to not just wipe the individual's person's memory but essentially re-write reality so that Dean's year with Lisa only exists in his memory. There's a lot of precedent for that kind of thing in other sci-fi/fantasy shows, although it isn't at all clear if that is going on here. But if I had to fanwank it, the ability of Zachariah to create the "It's a Terrible Life" alt-verse would argue that an angel would at least theoretically have that kind of power. 

He had to have altered reality for everyone-like Balthazar did in My Heart Will Go On too, and as another example.

I've always assumed that's what he did. 

[Res]

On 2/26/2018 at 9:37 AM, gonzosgirrl said:

When Sam was saying this, he was talking about feeling tainted, unworthy of a quest like in the stories Dean told him, because he was unclean. It certainly implied  (to me) at the time it was more than just not fitting in. It was a retcon for Sure, but they made it canon with this speech. 

OTOH if you viewed Sam as overly dramatic and hallucinogenic during that time (and others as I often do), it really doesn't have the same impact. Like the way some feel Dean only has 2 modes; depressed or bossy and mean. 

Also, that was said during season 8 trials where I was actually excessively eye-rolly with the OTT supposed debilitating illness that Sam was still able to cure Crowley after but that speech/rant/whatever was in particular eye-rolly considering God had already cleaned Sam of the demon's blood at the beginning of Season 5. It was also after season 6 where Sam said he'd done his time in the box and had nothing to feel guilty/wrong/unclean about anymore. It was also after season 7 where Sam stated the same thing. But suddenly in the later half of season 8 Sam suddenly was back to season 1 status with the whole "I'm a freak" and need redemption/quest/whatever again. And yet Dean has never received the same or even remotely close to the same thing even though he knows he will never be able to take back the souls he tortured.

Or is it that Sam keeps looking for a quick fix to make himself feel better and get that "hero-of-the-moment high" possibly while Dean KNOWS he never will, no matter what he does? I am honestly asking this question as it did just come to me and I am curious but I am still very bitter over and tired of the constant "quest" type stuff they have for Sam while NOT A SINGLE writer considers these things for Dean. That is just not right and they have blatantly stated that.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Res said:

OTOH if you viewed Sam as overly dramatic and hallucinogenic during that time (and others as I often do), it really doesn't have the same impact. Like the way some feel Dean only has 2 modes; depressed or bossy and mean. 

Also, that was said during season 8 trials where I was actually excessively eye-rolly with the OTT supposed debilitating illness that Sam was still able to cure Crowley after but that speech/rant/whatever was in particular eye-rolly considering God had already cleaned Sam of the demon's blood at the beginning of Season 5. It was also after season 6 where Sam said he'd done his time in the box and had nothing to feel guilty/wrong/unclean about anymore. It was also after season 7 where Sam stated the same thing. But suddenly in the later half of season 8 Sam suddenly was back to season 1 status with the whole "I'm a freak" and need redemption/quest/whatever again. And yet Dean has never received the same or even remotely close to the same thing even though he knows he will never be able to take back the souls he tortured.

Or is it that Sam keeps looking for a quick fix to make himself feel better and get that "hero-of-the-moment high" possibly while Dean KNOWS he never will, no matter what he does? I am honestly asking this question as it did just come to me and I am curious but I am still very bitter over and tired of the constant "quest" type stuff they have for Sam while NOT A SINGLE writer considers these things for Dean. That is just not right and they have blatantly stated that.

I wish I could like this post a million times.

[companionenvy]

As my posting history will show, I strongly disagree re: "constant quest type stuff for Sam," as a mark of writerly preference, given that those quests have a tendency of coming to nothing or being actively harmful, but I think you've hit on a meaningful difference between Sam and Dean. Dean is a lot more self-loathing. He isn't looking for redemption, because on some fundamental level, he doesn't think he's ever getting it. This goes beyond his time in hell; even before that, he didn't think much of himself. I think he's had the fear that he's nothing more than a killer almost since the first time he killed another being and enjoyed it, and he's certainly felt that he was worth nothing other than his hunting skill since John did a number on him in childhood.

Sam, on the other hand, still believes, most of the time, that there's a way of balancing the cosmic scales. If they can just do a good thing that is way better than the last bad thing they did, somehow, it will all be OK. There is an element of the gambler, there: instead of deciding he never wants to play again, he doubles down with the thought that he can win it all back and more on his next hand. Whereas Dean might keep playing, but out of a kind of fatalism, not because he actually thinks the big windfall is coming. So yeah, I think Sam is chasing the big moment more than Dean is, but for reasons more complex than being a self-aggrandizing glory hound. 

I don't think this difference makes either brother better than the other, in theory, although I agree with AwesomeO that the in effect the show has Sam's actions turn out wrong more than is warranted by the narrative. They may have different reasons and psychologies, but both brothers do stupid and risky things with a high probability of biting them in the ass. Sam's usually the one whose bad decisions are more heavily punished. And of course there are productive aspects of Sam's idealism as well as damaging ones.

I do wish the show would have done more with Dean's hell time (or, for that matter, his demon time) I thought they did a great job handling it during much of S4, but there were a lot of missed opportunities for addressing it again. I think the ship's sailed by now, but I would have loved an episode in which Dean had to confront someone he had tortured in hell who was now a demon. And an episode, post Head of a Pin, in which Dean's experience as hell's torturer did come back in a significant and emotionally resonant way.

[ahrtee]

On 2/25/2018 at 5:35 PM, companionenvy said:

Heck, in S2, Sam was excited at the possibility of dealing with a werewolf.

Actually, no.  *Dean* was excited at dealing with a werewolf--he said they were badass, and they hadn't seen one since they were kids.  Sam just eye-rolled at him.  

Having said that, IA with *both* sides of that discussion:  Sam had no reason to suspect his dreams of being visions, but he actually *was* suspicious that they were something more than just dreams, or he wouldn't have felt so guilty at doing nothing about them.  That doesn't mean he should have acted on it (because, really, what could he have done?  If he had told Jessica he was having nightmares about her, she would (probably) have patted his head and thought it was sweet that he was worrying about her, or told him not to eat late at night.)  At that point they had no clue *what* had killed Mary (they didn't even know it was a demon till Scarecrow) so he wouldn't know what to protect against.  And even if he'd stayed home and not gone off with Dean, Azazel *wanted* Sam to find her and waited till he got home before burning her, so chances are it could have just as easily happened while he was at class or at the grocery store.  

 

13 hours ago, Res said:

Also, that was said during season 8 trials where I was actually excessively eye-rolly with the OTT supposed debilitating illness that Sam was still able to cure Crowley after but that speech/rant/whatever was in particular eye-rolly considering God had already cleaned Sam of the demon's blood at the beginning of Season 5. It was also after season 6 where Sam said he'd done his time in the box and had nothing to feel guilty/wrong/unclean about anymore. It was also after season 7 where Sam stated the same thing. But suddenly in the later half of season 8 Sam suddenly was back to season 1 status with the whole "I'm a freak" and need redemption/quest/whatever again. And yet Dean has never received the same or even remotely close to the same thing even though he knows he will never be able to take back the souls he tortured.

Even without getting into the comparison between Sam and Dean's need for redemption, this is something that has always bothered me about the way Sam has been written--he keeps swinging back and forth between "I've paid the price and don't need to feel guilty any more" and "I've always been tainted, and have to keep trying to be redeemed."  Way back in season 5,  Joshua told them: "He granted you salvation in heaven (he turns to face Sam directly) and after everything you’ve done too."  That would have wiped out not only everything he did in season 4 (which is why I assumed he was directing that to Sam, and why Sam was questioning it in the first place) but also his "tainted blood."  I was curious as to why he didn't direct it at Dean as well, because of the souls he tortured, but maybe Joshua was accepting the extenuating circumstances of actually being in hell?  Or maybe he thought that Dean wouldn't believe it anyway but Sam, with his faith and belief in God, should?  

In any event, I just tried to find the difference between "redemption" and "salvation," and the best explanation I can find online seems to be that redemption is aimed at humanity as a whole, and salvation is granted (usually through a messenger, like Joshua) to *individuals.*  It means that *that person* has been cleared of all his sins.  So having Sam still believe he needs redemption (at least, for his demon blood) makes it seem like he didn't believe Joshua (or Chuck), which might be a tad egotistical?  Or at least shows a lack of faith in the word of god.     

That doesn't absolve (either of them) of anything they'd done since season 5, but all of that (aside from those with "extenuating circumstances" like being possessed) were things that they both deliberately chose to do, and were generally against each other, not against mankind, (though again, based on discussions here earlier, choosing each other and thus threatening the destruction of the world--like taking on the MoC in the first place and then removing it against all warnings--could conceivably be considered sins against mankind.) But that's not what Sam has asked for redemption for--he still keeps going back to being "unclean" and his demon blood, which should have been paid by season 5.  And his "Sacrifice" speech, where he declares his biggest sin is failing Dean, makes the least sense of all, because how would sacrificing himself in order to close the gates of hell *ever* redeem himself to Dean?  Wouldn't a simple apology work better, and mean more to his brother than watching him die (again)?  So closing the gates of hell might be a good thing in general, but is *not* because of a need for redemption.  

That's why having Sam constantly look for redemption rubs me the wrong way, and (just maybe?) that's why his "quests" (if you call them that) never work out the way he intended.  Maybe Chuck is tired at having him keep asking for something that's already been granted, or *not* asking for the right thing?  (That's a joke, mostly because I don't think the writers are subtle enough for that, but maybe it should be asked?)  

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Even without getting into the comparison between Sam and Dean's need for redemption, this is something that has always bothered me about the way Sam has been written--he keeps swinging back and forth between "I've paid the price and don't need to feel guilty any more" and "I've always been tainted, and have to keep trying to be redeemed."  Way back in season 5,  Joshua told them: "He granted you salvation in heaven (he turns to face Sam directly) and after everything you’ve done too."  That would have wiped out not only everything he did in season 4 (which is why I assumed he was directing that to Sam, and why Sam was questioning it in the first place) but also his "tainted blood."  I was curious as to why he didn't direct it at Dean as well, because of the souls he tortured, but maybe Joshua was accepting the extenuating circumstances of actually being in hell?  Or maybe he thought that Dean wouldn't believe it anyway but Sam, with his faith and belief in God, should?  

IMO, this is Sam' never ending journey to being a Hero and to ultimately no longer feel that he is tainted.  But since the show was always about Sam, ...and Dean as his support system, this is what they do with Sam. He's not a plot device because he is the plot. It comes and goes and waxes and wanes. I suspect the end of the show will be Sam, at long last, feeling that he's no longer tainted.  So as long as the show continues, Sam's raison d etre is "free himself from feeling tainted". Until that happens, this will be what they do.

IMO, they don't send Dean on "hero journey" because he was a hero to begin with by saving people and hunting things. Sam no longer wanted to be a hunter so he left, he came back in the story and for him, even saving people hunting things, doesn't free him of the taint that he thinks is there. IMO they won't have them both on hero journeys. IMO, there is someone, probably Singer since he's been all along who wants it brought back to Sam's Hero journey . I think the writers even subscribe to the "make the hero want something and never let them get it" until the end. In this case Sam wants to feel untainted, so they will never let him have it until the end of the show IMO

IMO, Dean isn't on that same journey because he has always IMO accepted himself as is even though he carries the guilt and self-loathing. He doesn't feel tainted by something supernatural. Not even the Mark left him feeling tainted AFAIK.  He accepts that he has made some bad choices, and done things he can't take back. He can never make right what he did in Hell nor does he seek redemption nor salvation because he's said many times it's too late for him.  I think he believes that and in s13 he would have chosen to stay dead if not for Billie saying he has work.

So, Dean just keeps on keeping on by saving people, hunting things and looking after his family. IMO, that's the formula. They veered once with the MoC and that kind of ultimately was about Sam saving Dean after saying he wouldn't. Sure it pisses off Sam fans but he got the redemption anyway, and the price wasn't really something he knew was happening until the last minute.   Again, another way to extend Sam's roller coaster ride to "feeling clean"

And in s13, it's once more IMO Sam needing to overcome a new kind of "taint" in that he has seen Lucifer's true face which will be an issue going forward. Or it should be. If Dean goes on a quest at all, IMO, it's so he can free Sam forever of being haunted by that.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

IMO, that's the formula. They veered once with the MoC and that kind of ultimately was about Sam saving Dean after saying he wouldn't. Sure it pisses off Sam fans but he got the redemption anyway, and the price wasn't really something he knew was happening until the last minute.  

I was mostly with you until this part, mostly because I'm not sure what Sam's redemption was supposed to be here - it is possible that I missed it. I thought that the Dean MoC storyline was Dean's just as much (or more) as it was part of Sam's "arc." Dean was the one in the end who helped sway Amara and who God personally talked to and gave his redemption to. God even redeemed Dean for taking on the MoC in the first place in "Don't Call Me Shurley." Even though Dean wasn't there to hear that specifically - I thought Dean and Chuck's later conversation took care of that anyway - the narrative did absolve Dean there of his actions. As much as I loved that episode, Sam wasn't the one redeemed there, in my opinion.*** It was Dean.

*** Actually for me the almost opposite happened in terms of Sam there, kind of almost putting Sam quite a ways back again in terms of needing redemption according to the narrative.

[ahrtee]

19 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I was mostly with you until this part, mostly because I'm not sure what Sam's redemption was supposed to be here - it is possible that I missed it. I thought that the Dean MoC storyline was Dean's just as much (or more) as it was part of Sam's "arc." Dean was the one in the end who helped sway Amara and who God personally talked to and gave his redemption to. God even redeemed Dean for taking on the MoC in the first place in "Don't Call Me Shurley." Even though Dean wasn't there to hear that specifically - I thought Dean and Chuck's later conversation took care of that anyway - the narrative did absolve Dean there of his actions. As much as I loved that episode, Sam wasn't the one redeemed there, in my opinion.*** It was Dean.

*** Actually for me the almost opposite happened in terms of Sam there, kind of almost putting Sam quite a ways back again in terms of needing redemption according to the narrative.

Again, absolution is not the same as redemption.  And AFAIK, neither one required "redemption" from any Higher Power.  Forgiveness from each other and the viewers, yes, and that seems to be much harder to get  than Chuck's absolution for whatever sins they committed.  What are you saying Sam needs redemption for here?  For turning loose Amara?  Chuck already forgave that, for both of them, by saying he was leaving the world in their hands.  Isn't that Sam's "redemption"?  

I'm being serious.  I don't understand what Sam is looking for, or why it's such a problem for the fans.  Does everything in this show have to be absolutely equal, so if one does something, the other has to do (or get) the exact same thing or it doesn't count?   

Edited February 28, 2018 by ahrtee

[companionenvy]

Personally, if a deity or deity-adjacent figure said something to me like "You should be grateful. I've offered you salvation despite your horrific crimes," it would as much a crushing blow as a profound relief. Because to me, that's not a loving statement of earned forgiveness. That's closer to "you're a worthless piece of crap, but I'm so merciful I've decided to overlook it."

[gonzosgirrl]

12 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

I have never been shocked by the head to counter slamming.  Dean is very violent and if not usually dark still a very dirty hero.

Dean however does not slam innocent heads into counters.  That is what struck me. She was a scared girl, an innocent and he wanted to use her to his own gain by force.  That is the first time Dean has ever put his own desires over the life of an innocent.

From the bitter spoilers thread, since it's not spoilery.

I was as shocked as anyone by Dean pointing the gun at Kaia, but I'm over it. IMO, he just said enough is enough, we help everyone, and now you're going to help us. She had already shown herself to be petulant and little violent herself (with Jack). And we all know he was never going to shoot her, and the angels were already after her, so putting 'his own desires over the life of an innocent' is stretching it, IMO. He was more desperate than dark, IMO - and she came around pretty quickly.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I was mostly with you until this part, mostly because I'm not sure what Sam's redemption was supposed to be here - it is possible that I missed it. I thought that the Dean MoC storyline was Dean's just as much (or more) as it was part of Sam's "arc." Dean was the one in the end who helped sway Amara and who God personally talked to and gave his redemption to. God even redeemed Dean for taking on the MoC in the first place in "Don't Call Me Shurley." Even though Dean wasn't there to hear that specifically - I thought Dean and Chuck's later conversation took care of that anyway - the narrative did absolve Dean there of his actions. As much as I loved that episode, Sam wasn't the one redeemed there, in my opinion.*** It was Dean.

It was misbegotten but I think it was them trying to have Sam make up for not looking for Dean in s8.  And  that perspective IMO depends on whether or not one thinks Sam needed that redemption or like how it happened, it think that was Sam's redemption for s8.  I'm not sure why that part would have you not be with me on the rest, though:)

[catrox14]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

From the bitter spoilers thread, since it's not spoilery.

I was as shocked as anyone by Dean pointing the gun at Kaia, but I'm over it. IMO, he just said enough is enough, we help everyone, and now you're going to help us. She had already shown herself to be petulant and little violent herself (with Jack). And we all know he was never going to shoot her, and the angels were already after her, so putting 'his own desires over the life of an innocent' is stretching it, IMO. He was more desperate than dark, IMO - and she came around pretty quickly.

I go back and forth on the Kaia situation. I fully agree that she is not "innocent". She was innocent in the sense that it wasn't her fight. And Dean apologized for it. I think it would have played better if Dean had been shown to be amping up to that beyond the wonky camera angle after mind melding with Jack.  I would like to have seen Dean start showing that edginess before taking that action.  But I can see kind of both readings of the situation and I'm not sure which side I entirely fall on TBH.

[ahrtee]

32 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Personally, if a deity or deity-adjacent figure said something to me like "You should be grateful. I've offered you salvation despite your horrific crimes," it would as much a crushing blow as a profound relief. Because to me, that's not a loving statement of earned forgiveness. That's closer to "you're a worthless piece of crap, but I'm so merciful I've decided to overlook it."

That's a pretty horrific interpretation of a comment that just said he was being forgiven "after everything you've done."  You have to admit raising Lucifer should be pretty high on one's list of regrets, and Sam was feeling guilty.  But I never saw anyone calling that a "horrific crime" or Sam a "worthless piece of crap."  *shrugs*  YMMV.

Edited February 28, 2018 by ahrtee

[Reganne]

11 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It was misbegotten but I think it was them trying to have Sam make up for not looking for Dean in s8.  And  that perspective IMO depends on whether or not one thinks Sam needed that redemption or like how it happened, it think that was Sam's redemption for s8.  I'm not sure why that part would have you not be with me on the rest, though:)

The problem with this for me is it's almost as if it's like Sam is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  If it was suppose to be his redemption for season 8, it wasn't a very good one considering his actions caused far more horrible consequences here than in season 8.  

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I go back and forth on the Kaia situation. I fully agree that she is not "innocent". She was innocent in the sense that it wasn't her fight. And Dean apologized for it. I think it would have played better if Dean had been shown to be amping up to that beyond the wonky camera angle after mind melding with Jack.  I would like to have seen Dean start showing that edginess before taking that action.  But I can see kind of both readings of the situation and I'm not sure which side I entirely fall on TBH.

I kind of look at it as the straw that broke the camel's back. IMO he had been leading up to it the whole season and the revelation of Mary being alive and captive was just it.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

The problem with this for me is it's almost as if it's like Sam is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  If it was suppose to be his redemption for season 8, it wasn't a very good one considering his actions caused far more horrible consequences here than in season 8.  

I didn't say it was good. LOL. That's why I said it was misbegotten.  Just sayin' I think that's what it was supposed to be IMO.

As far as Sam being damned if he does or damned if he doesn't, well, Dean is in the same boat for most of the show LOL They are both perpetually damned if they do and damned if they don't. Cas, too, for that matter.

Maybe the show should be named, "SuperDamned"

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

Again, absolution is not the same as redemption.  And AFAIK, neither one required "redemption" from any Higher Power.  Forgiveness from each other and the viewers, yes, and that seems to be much harder to get  than Chuck's absolution for whatever sins they committed.  What are you saying Sam needs redemption for here?  For turning loose Amara?  Chuck already forgave that, for both of them, by saying he was leaving the world in their hands.  Isn't that Sam's "redemption"?  

I'm being serious.  I don't understand what Sam is looking for, or why it's such a problem for the fans.  Does everything in this show have to be absolutely equal, so if one does something, the other has to do (or get) the exact same thing or it doesn't count?   

I think sometimes people like to see their favourite characters make up for the mistakes they have made.  I know I do, especially if sole character is the one mostly responsible for it and the one getting blamed for it.  

[AwesomO4000]

16 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Does everything in this show have to be absolutely equal, so if one does something, the other has to do (or get) the exact same thing or it doesn't count?  

No, not at all. And that wasn't my point. My point was that - in my opinion - I don't see how the MoC story is mostly Sam's story and Sam's redemption when  - again in my opinion - Sam was potentially an also-ran here. Yes, Chuck gave Sam an "... and Sam," but Sam wasn't even there. It wasn't said for Sam. It was said for Dean. We don't know if Sam even knows about the conversation at all... and I'm okay with that, because for me that wasn't about Sam. It was about Dean and was the end of his MoC mark, so that's perfectly fine with me. My point is that I don't get the argument that this wasn't Dean's story and redemption arc, when for me that's exactly what it was. Sam got the season 5 one, and Dean got this one. I've never had a problem with that - only with the details concerning Sam's part in Dean's redemption, but that's completely different and well covered territory I don't need to revisit. It is slightly less fine with me, however, that the storyline left Sam kind of hanging on that and that the narrative - not me - seems to think that Sam needs more redemption. (I should have emphasized more "the "according to the narrative" part)

I'm similarly confused as to why Sam feels tainted again, and that the narrative seems to think it needs to blame Sam for stuff. Mostly because I don't think it has been explained well. The season 8 stuff didn't make sense to me, since I agree that Sam was mostly okay and zen with where he was after season 7, and he was being a good and supportive brother to Dean. ...Buuuut since Carver went there, and created a whole "Sam abandons Dean and Kevin" scenario as a backdoor to get there - which didn't make sense, to me. And maybe because it didn't really make sense, he then created the Gadreel situation. That actually made a little more sense (that Sam might feel reminders of being tainted that is), but still to me was unnecessary. But now that that was out there, then, in my opinion, address it properly and move on. Not half-assedly and bring it up over and over again annoyingly just to let it drop again.

That is what is bugging me. I was perfectly fine with Sam's arc and character development through season 7. I didn't think the character of Sam needed any more redemption. Period. I would have been happy as happy could be if the narrative just shifted over to Dean and the MoC with Sam as an in character and supportive brother, but instead Carver had to create scenarios where Sam felt "tainted" again or he hugely messed up and needed "redemption" ... and then just let them drop, in my opinion. My main issue - and sorry for bringing up Gadreel again so I'll make it brief - with Gadreel was the huge build up to Sam losing time, feeling violated, and like he was potentially "tainted" again, and then it was just dropped and turned into something else mostly Sam's fault that he would again need redemption for.

So if Dabb is bringing this "tainted" thing up again with intentions of actually doing something with it and being done with it... I'll be fine with that. If this is just another Sam feels tainted, but we're not really going to address it as anything, I'll be hugely annoyed.

 

So for the TL:DR crowd: My issue is not that I need things to be "equal," it's that I want things to be resolved. If you're going to take a character that I'm fine with his previous character development and thumb your nose at that development and mess it up, then I want it to be seen through in a major way, not as an also  "... and Sam" (too, I suppose, wherever he is, whatever). Or just don't make it so he needs redemption to begin with.

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I think sometimes people like to see their favourite characters make up for the mistakes they have made.  I know I do, especially if sole character is the one mostly responsible for it and the one getting blamed for it.  

And this is also a part of it.

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

It was misbegotten but I think it was them trying to have Sam make up for not looking for Dean in s8.  And  that perspective IMO depends on whether or not one thinks Sam needed that redemption or like how it happened, it think that was Sam's redemption for s8. 

And this is me - sort of. I think that Sam needed redemption for season 8. I just disagree that the season 8 scenario was in character for Sam or that it should have been a story arc to begin with, so it annoys me that he needed redemption at all. And then that it was somewhat half-assed instead of more directly addressed.

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

The problem with this for me is it's almost as if it's like Sam is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  If it was suppose to be his redemption for season 8, it wasn't a very good one considering his actions caused far more horrible consequences here than in season 8.

Yes, this exactly. And they just kept digging the hole deeper and adding more and more stuff, even when the details didn't even seem to be necessary... Like the 2000+ people in the town that died due to Amara that we never saw but the narrative mentioned anyway even though it probably wasn't necessary.

7 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Personally, if a deity or deity-adjacent figure said something to me like "You should be grateful. I've offered you salvation despite your horrific crimes," it would as much a crushing blow as a profound relief. Because to me, that's not a loving statement of earned forgiveness. That's closer to "you're a worthless piece of crap, but I'm so merciful I've decided to overlook it."

Thank you. This is pretty much what I was trying to figure out how to say in terms of Sam and Joshua. I actually didn't think that Sam felt all that good about Joshua signaling him out for "absolution" with the caveat of "despite everything you've done, too" added on just for the reason you described. Sure, you get redemption, but the higher being is still pretty much saying that you're not really a good person.

14 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

But I never saw anyone calling that a "horrific crime" or Sam a "worthless piece of crap." 

Not specifically, no, but it was implied by angels like Uriel (yes, he was evil, but the remarks likely still had an impact) and even Castiel. It wasn't the actual words, but the tone that said this for me. (Both Castiel's and Joshua's tone. Uriel's derisive tone was a given.)

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And this is me - sort of. I think that Sam needed redemption for season 8. I just disagree that the season 8 scenario was in character for Sam or that it should have been a story arc to begin with, so it annoys me that he needed redemption at all. And then that it was somewhat half-assed instead of more directly addressed.

Unfortunately, that's what happened though. I don't think Sam needed redemption myself for s8 .

But Sam saving Dean IMO was Sam himself trying to make up for it. To me that's a redemption arc. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Unfortunately, that's what happened though. I don't think Sam needed redemption myself for s8 .

I probably wouldn't have either except for Kevin... and Benny... and the shrugging his shoulders at everything, and making ultimatums. Carver's interpretation of Sam at this time pretty much made me dislike the show and stop watching after being a fan since the first episode. That's a pretty big feat. So I was at least hoping for some real redemption from this mess I thought he was making.

Just now, catrox14 said:

But Sam saving Dean IMO was Sam himself trying to make up for it. To me that's a redemption arc. 

And it maybe would have been for me but - and this is a huge "but" - the writers made that "redemption arc" cause an apocalypse... so that's not really redemption in my opinion, since redemption is supposed to be a good thing for the most part. And maybe I could have just written it off as"well, Sam's just snake bitten here"... except that Dean saves Sam again by also doing a potentially risky thing: killing Death... and nothing bad happens. Actually something good ends up happening because of it that ends up helping to fix the bad that Sam caused. What am I supposed to take away from that? And what kind of redemption is that for Sam that his saving Dean to try to make up for his mistakes causes yet another huge mistake?

55 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not sure why that part would have you not be with me on the rest, though:)

Hee. I'm with you on the "tainted" stuff for Sam, at least to a point*** and at least in relation to Carver, because I think Gamble addressed that and resolved it with both "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and season 7.

But based on what I said, I disagree that the writers are not giving Dean heroic arcs. I agree the show sees him as already a hero, but I do consider the MoC through Amara arc a hero's arc anyway and a redemptive one, too, in that Chuck forgave Dean and showed enough faith in Dean having learned from what happened to entrust him with watching humanity - one of his greatest creations. Not only that, but in this arc Dean showed both Chuck and Amara the importance of family and forgiveness. Yes, pigeon lady put some ideas in Amara's head, but until Dean talked to her, she still wanted revenge and held enough anger toward Chuck that she planned to let him die. It was only through Dean talking with her about the costs of revenge and that it was important to really know what you wanted before acting that she chose to save Chuck, herself, and all humanity. To me, that's a pretty big redemptive and heroic arc for Dean. Your opinion on that may vary.

But anyway that was the part of that that I disagreed with.

*** Except that I don't think that the current writers - post Gamble - really want to look at this arc for Sam in any meaningful way. They seem to bring it up for plot purposes or drama, but then generally just leave it underdeveloped or even dropped until it's needed again. I don't think the current writers really care if Sam's arcs make any sense and I really wish they would just stop trying and instead let Sam be himself rather than whatever the plot needs him to be.

[catrox14]

11 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And it maybe would have been for me but - and this is a huge "but" - the writers made that "redemption arc" cause an apocalypse... so that's not really redemption in my opinion, since redemption is supposed to be a good thing for the most part.

For me, I don't see it that way.  I  could not fault his argument in 10.23 that no one could tell him what the consequences would be for removing the Mark. Could he have listened to do Dean more, maybe? Dean didn't know what it would do either. He knew it would be bad. I give Sam a pass on this one because Dean was murdering people by this time. Granted they were shitty horrible monstrous "humans" but still considered humans. So he didn't want to see him go further down that path.  And certainly no one thought the Darkness would be a thing. Yes it would have been nice if he had stopped for a minute to call Rowena, but he didn't.  IMO I don't hold either Dean or Sam's feet to the fire about the Darkness becaue that was was a last minute asspull plot twist to write s11. IMO.

ETA: So, at that point, since no one truly knew, the consequence IMO doesn't negate the redemption he got for doing what he didn't do in s8 .  That's just my opinion. 

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

For me, I don't see it that way. I  could not fault his argument in 10.23 that no one could tell him what the consequences would be for removing the Mark. Could he have listened to do Dean more, maybe? Dean didn't know what it would do either. He knew it would be bad. I give Sam a pass on this one because Dean was murdering people by this time. Granted they were shitty horrible monstrous "humans" but still considered humans. So he didn't want to see him go further down that path.  And certainly no one thought the Darkness would be a thing. Yes it would have been nice if he had stopped for a minute to call Rowena, but he didn't.  IMO I don't hold either Dean or Sam's feet to the fire about the Darkness becaue that was was a last minute asspull plot twist to write s11. IMO

Well me neither entirely, but it seems that the narrative does... and the narrative not only seemed to set it up to make it look bad - with everyone and Castiel telling Sam he shouldn't do it - it points it out multiple times, so that I can't really ignore it. It's sort of like the "And Sam hit a dog" thing that popped up with even Crowley mocking Sam for it. If we're not supposed to think Sam's wrong or bad for making these decisions and these things happening, then why point at it and laugh or make sure we don't forget it?

And this is why I get mixed messages. If saving Dean was supposed to be Sam's redemption - good, fine: to me that makes a lot of sense based on what the show has shown previously - then why not let it be Sam's redemption, no strings attached. Have Rowena accidentally unleash Amara, because she did something wrong with the book, did the spell wrong, whatever... or have an outside influence mess with the spell and make Amara the consequence of that. Not that difficult, in my opinion.

As I said, I would like Sam's arcs to have direct and unambiguous resolution if they are going to do them. If it's supposedly good that Sam saved Dean and he was supposed to be redeemed by doing that, don't make his actions start an apocalypse - basically equating saving Dean with working with Ruby and causing Lucifer to rise - because to me that's not going to look like redemption. But maybe I'm thinking about this more than the writers and Carver did.

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Well me neither entirely, but it seems that the narrative does... and the narrative not only seemed to set it up to make it look bad - with everyone and Castiel telling Sam he shouldn't do it - it points it out multiple times, so that I can't really ignore it.

 

I don't think the narrative sees it that way either. Both things can be true for Sam. That he got redemption for s8 by saving Dean. And there was an unintended consequence. It would be one thing if Sam KNEW 100% and believed Death 100% with time to consider it clearly and maybe even try to research it that the Darkness would be a thing. But he didn't so I legit don't think the narrative is saying "Oh Sam did this inadvertent thing, so that erases him saving Dean from the Mark" Both things exist at the same time.

[catrox14]

It could also be looked at that Sam's goal was saving Dean. He did that. Cas could have stopped going along with Sam if he felt that strongly about it. He could have told Dean what they were doing, but he didn't. So unless you think Sam has that much power and influence over Cas, he was doing it to because he wanted to get the Mark off Dean just as much as Sam. He told him he would do anything to save him even after Dean beat the crap out of him in 10.22.

I've always thought Carver put them through the ringer IMO to look at good intentions gone bad. Not just to say Sam is a jerk no more than Dean was a jerk for the Gadreel incident. Nor do I think it's saying that Sam and Dean don't care about humanity either. Just good intentions gone bad.  IMO

[companionenvy]

34 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Well me neither entirely, but it seems that the narrative does..

Agreed, in this specific scenario and others. That's what I was getting at at my (admittedly hyperbolic) earlier post about deity-figures saying "be grateful I saved you, you undeserving piece of scum."

Because there is a more charitable way of looking at Sam's actions, and the show doesn't take it. A meaningful absolution, IMO, would sound more like "You made mistakes, and you should feel bad, but you were dealing with an impossible situation and were being manipulated by forces far more powerful than you. You're still a good man, Sam, and your place in heaven is safe." 

That is very, very different from what Joshua said. Dean at least a couple of times acknowledged that Sam couldn't have known that killing Lillith was a bad thing, but the prevailing attitude seemed to be that apocalypse 1 was Sam's screw-up to fix. 

Then fast-forward to S10, and Sam starts another apocalypse, which Chuck, again, specifically calls him out for, and is again very much framed as Sam's screw-up (which it more or less is, but none of it would have happened if Dean hadn't a) taken the mark and b)killed Death). And unlike S4/5, Sam isn't the one to stop that apocalypse. Dean is, whether or not it's as flashy as some would have liked.

Sam's also taken a lot of blame for not looking for Dean and trusting the BMOL, scenarios where, again, I think there were ways of framing his actions more sympathetically. At least in the case of the BMOL, I at least think the writers were trying to give him a legitimate, no strings attached redemption in having him become "leader" of the raid, but I'd have been happier if Sam for once wasn't in need of redemption. 

[gonzosgirrl]

How can Sam and Castiel not be held accountable for the Darkness? Sure, they didn't know that specifically would happen - but they surely knew something pretty bad would come of using the book. Dean told them it was 'speaking' to him, it wanted to be used. It was called the Book of the Damned, for crying out loud, lol. Dean begged them not to use it. Cas didn't know what Death said about removing the Mark, but Sam did, though I'll grant that there wasn't much time after he found out to stop what was in motion - but he didn't try, nor did he give the impression he even thought about trying. So yeah, IMO they were both responsible for releasing Amara. Do I fault them for it? No I don't, the same as I don't fault Dean for doing what he had to do to save Sam. Dean was willing to leave the gates of Hell open, lie and stuff an angel in Sam to save him; Sam was willing to sacrifice his friends, lie, and risk biblical consequences to save Dean. Frankly, that's why I love the Winchesters.