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

[devlin]

I don’t put much credence into what the writers are trying to tell me. They have their own biases and what their interpretation is doesn’t govern how I see the characters. That’s the beauty of art, everyone can see the same situation differently to others, you can put your own spin on the characters actions and motivations 

[companionenvy]

5 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I also have no particular problem with Sam wanting an equal partnership.  What I took (and still take) exception to was the timing--*right after* his "sin" of letting Dean down.

See, for me, part of the disconnect is that I don't see what Sam did in S4 primarily as "Sam letting Dean down." He did , but that't not Sam's main sin, and I don't think it is what he feels - or should feel - primarily guilty for. 

Sam's main crime in S4 is drinking demon blood, and allowing himself to be so thoroughly seduced by a demon that he ignored all warnings that pointed at what an inherently terrible idea this was. Concurrently, he was lying to Dean about what he was up to, which is a betrayal (although one both have committed and will commit again to some degree). But Sam starting the biblical apocalypse is not All About Dean, nor was what he did primarily an offense against him. It involved an offense against him.

I think Dean is angry at Sam primarily because of the personal element, whereas I think Sam feels guilty mainly because of what his irresponsible actions caused. That's what he needs to atone for, and that's why he can be both sincerely guilty and not willing to completely defer to Dean's more personal sense of anger. This is different from either S8, in which Sam's failure to look for Dean is a Dean-specific offense -- or from Dean's lying to Sam about Gadreel, which is something whose most immediate effect was on Sam himself. 

To go to the issue of Sam saying that Dean wasn't his brother...AwesomeO, you aren't totally alone on that one. I mean, yes, when Dean brought it up again in the beginning of The Purge, in exactly those terms, Sam more or less agreed with him. But it is relevant to me that in both conversations, Dean is the one who brought it to that level when Sam hadn't initially been saying anything quite as extreme as "you're not my brother." In the original dialogue, Sam has actually been saying specifically that the fact that they are family is leading to their problems, which brings about Sam's unfinished and therefore somewhat ambiguous response; I agree he wasn't going to finish the line with "Of course we're brothers," but neither was he necessarily going to permanently slam the door on their relationship. Certainly, we don't know that he was going to say "I don't think we can ever be as close as we were," which Dean did say to Sam (with some justification) in S5. Then when they refer back to the discussion, Dean goes back to the idea that Sam said they couldn't be brothers any more -- which Sam never said and which Dean had goaded him into kind of saying -- and Sam more or less agrees, but again with some room for ambiguity, as he says "I meant what I said," and what he said, or was about to say, seems closer to "this relationship as stands has become toxic on both sides, and I think we need to take a pause" than "You are no kin to me; I disown you now and forever."

And again, I think it is significant that Dean's the one who in both cases takes the conversation to this place. Sam doesn't just tell him they aren't family any more out of the blue, and in fact he never tells him that in so many words. It is actually a form of derailing - responding to someone's serious critique with an emotionally charged overreaction It's like asking "So, do you hate me?" in the middle of a serious argument. You're practically baiting the person into saying the hateful thing you're accusing them of saying - and which they actually never would have said left to their own devices.

[Etoile]

Hello, new poster but I have lurked for a bit. I'm diving right into this very divisive subject because there is something that caught my attention regarding this conversation when someone posted the transcript of the Fallen Idols episode. I agree with those that think that episode was meant to shift blame and to obscure a lot of what Sam had done in season 4 with the strawman of Dean having been a bossy little brother and I think that it wasn't simply a case of bad writing considering that the same message is repeated toward the end of the season when Sam needs to be let grow up so he can he the hero he was meant to be.

But most of all, that conversation is very very manipulative.

First Sam says that Dean's attitude of wanting to build trust (I do think Dean was punishing Sam by the way which was his prerogative given all that had happened up to that point; petty as it sounds it's human nature) was not how things should go between them because it doesn't work. Then he adds that he feels so guilty nobody will punish him as much as Sam will punish himself (but Dean should stop punishing him because of reasons), which is exteremely manipulative and not apologetic at all. If you have wronged someone, you don't tell them that: you accept their hurt and their way of dealing with it, saying stop punishing me after so little time has passed most of it spent apart is dictating the terms of the relationship. Then he reframes his own actions as being about needing to get away from Dean because he feels like a little kid in Dean's presence and finally he proposes a way to change the relationship that doesn't imply in any way or form any active participation or change in Sam. He tells Dean that (Dean) has to let him grow up. Not I have to grow up, You have to let me grow up.  As if Sam has no say in growing up (again the concept of the bossy big brother who is keeping Sam for being the man he was meant to be). Not a single apology for I don't know, lying to Dean, belittling his hell trauma, using it as weapon, or beating him and strangling him when he was already down. The whole thing doesn't end there, by the end of the episode we have Dean apologizing to Sam and accepting blame for the apocalypse and Sam nodding and taking the keys of the car so he "can drive".

In brief, Sam who was the wrongdoer in this situation got to dictate the terms of the relationship by shifting blame onto Dean for his season 4 actions and imposing changes on Dean's behavior and nothing is said about what he will do to make the relationship better. No word about, hey I won't keep secrets anymore, and I won't use your trauma as a way to make myself feel stronger or 'not the little kid to my bossy brother'.

Compare that with the season 9 situation where Sam was the one who had been wronged. In that case too, Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and how it's going to be and gets to be angry for more than half a season. He also says the infamous "Secrets ruin relationships" line which is precious coming from him and definitely not something he has learned given that in season 12 he keeps the secret of having worked with the BMol from Dean. Anyway, yes, it was fair that Sam had a right to be angry but so did Dean in the affermath of season 4, but only one of the two is told to stop and the difference is striking to me in how the two situations are treated.

In conclusion:

season 4: Sam lies, beats, and strangles Dean (and also is responsible for Lucifer getting free, although that is not really the important part as far as the relationship goes), he decides how the relationship needs to change to make it more functional. Dean is told that his rightful anger is an inconvenience for Sam.

season 9: Dean saves Sam's life with a reckless decision, lies to him, and again Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and is allowed to be angry and passive aggressive at Dean until Dean dies in the season finale.

My interpretation etc. but I hope I have sufficiently explained it.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Etoile
Typos

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, Jeddah said:

I really don’t think it’s fair to imply one particular poster is behind people’s bad feelings or the tone of the discussion. 

I don't think that she was stating that she was the reason for the bad feelings. @ahrtee stated that she disagreed with her interpretations, not that they were wrong. And also 

 

3 hours ago, Jeddah said:

But to me there's a strong distinction between canon and personal interpretation and I think that line has been crossed *a lot* in these discussions, and that leads to a lot of bad feelings on all sides; and that's what bothers me here.  

This statement in no way says that @AwesomO4000 is the reason for the overall negative tone. 

ETA: The second quote should have been from @ahrtee's post; I don't know why it pulled the wrong name.

Edited May 2, 2018 by DeeDee79

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

Hello, new poster but I have lurked for a bit. I'm diving right into this very divisive subject because there is something that caught my attention regarding this conversation when someone posted the transcript of the Fallen Idols episode. I agree with those that think that episode was meant to shift blame and to obscure a lot of what Sam had done in season 4 with the strawman of Dean having been a bossy little brother and I think that it wasn't simply a case of bad writing considering that the same message is repeated toward the end of the season when Sam needs to be let grow up so he can he the hero he was meant to be.

But most of all, that conversation is very very manipulative.

First Sam says that Dean's attitude of wanting to build trust (I do think Dean was punishing Sam by the way which was his prerogative given all that had happened up to that point; petty as it sounds it's human nature) was not how things should go between them because it doesn't work. Then he adds that he feels so guilty nobody will punish him as much as Sam will punish himself (but Dean should stop punishing him because of reasons), which is exteremely manipulative and not apologetic at all. If you have wronged someone, you don't tell them that: you accept their hurt and their way of dealing with it, saying stop punishing me after so little time has passed most of it spent apart is dictating the terms of the relationship. Then he reframes his own actions as being about needing to get away from Dean because he feels like a little kid in Dean's presence and finally he proposes a way to change the relationship that doesn't imply in any way or form any active participation or change in Sam. He tells Dean that (Dean) has to let him grow up. Not I have to grow up, You have to let me grow up.  As if Sam has no say in growing up (again the concept of the bossy big brother who is keeping Sam for being the man he was meant to be). Not a single apology for I don't know, lying to Dean, belittling his hell trauma, using it as weapon, or beating him and strangling him when he was already down. The whole thing doesn't end there, by the end of the episode we have Dean apologizing to Sam and accepting blame for the apocalypse and Sam nodding and taking the keys of the car so he "can drive".

In brief, Sam who was the wrongdoer in this situation got to dictate the terms of the relationship by shifting blame onto Dean for his season 4 actions and imposing changes on Dean's behavior and nothing is said about what he will do to make the relationship better. No word about, hey I won't keep secrets anymore, and I won't use your trauma as a way to make myself feel stronger or 'not the little kid to my bossy brother'.

Compare that with the season 9 situation where Sam was the one who had been wronged. In that case too, Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and how it's going to be and gets to be angry for more than half a season. He also says the infamous "Secrets ruin relationships" line which is precious coming from him and definitely not something he has learned given that in season 12 he keeps the secret of having worked with the BMol from Dean. Anyway, yes, it was fair that Sam had a right to be angry but so did Dean in the affermath of season 4, but only one of the two is told to stop and the difference is striking to me in how the two situations are treated.

In conclusion:

season 4: Sam lies, beats, and strangles Dean (and also is responsible for Lucifer getting free, although that is not really the important part as far as the relationship goes), he decides how the relationship needs to change to make it more functional. Dean is told that his rightful anger is an inconvenience for Sam.

season 9: Dean saves Sam's life with a reckless decision, lies to him, and again Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and is allowed to be angry and passive aggressive at Dean until Dean dies in the season finale.

My interpretation etc. but I hope I have sufficiently explained it.

Welcome @Etoile! Great first post and I agree with every word.

[companionenvy]

Welcome, Etoile! 

Where I disagree is that I don't really see it as shifting blame - in the same conversation, Sam explicitly says "It was my fault." It is complicated, but I think someone can in part cause something without actually being to blame for it, and I think that's what Sam's saying about Dean here.

An extreme example I once used before is a hypothetical case in which someone has rigged d your remote control so that the next time you press the power button, a bomb goes off. On one hand, the next person to touch the remote, activating the bomb,is the proximate case of the resulting destruction, but they don't actually bear guilt or blame, because no one could have predicted that result. To use a closer parallel: suppose someone is raised by a parent who is a famous war hero. All his life, he has been hearing stories about how great his father is. His father never places unreasonable expectations on him; actually, he tells him often that his only job is to do the best he can in whatever circumstances he faces. But still, the son inevitably has a sense that he needs to live up to his father's example. So, he winds up doing something reckless with catastrophic results, all in the name of being a hero.

Is it the father's fault? I would say no, even though the son's action is intimately connected to who is father is. The father didn't do anything wrong, and probably couldn't have done anything to change his son's feelings. And if the son and the father were talking about what he had done, I wouldn't think the son was shifting blame if he said that he thought he had done what he did partially because it was hard growing up in the shadow of his father's legacy. He'd just be expressing an emotional reality. 

Similarly, I don't think Sam is saying "Dean, you were so mean you pushed me to Ruby." That wouldn't actually make much sense, given that Sam became really involved with Ruby only once Dean was dead. Rather, he's saying that the dynamic -- which he willingly participated in -- wound up being one in which Sam felt that he had something to prove and was susceptible to the manipulations of someone who made him feel like he was the stronger, more capable one, which he didn't feel like when he was with Dean. 

Dean didn't do anything wrong. That doesn't mean Sam's feelings are invalid. In fact, they may be in some ways inevitable. The choices he made based on them are his alone. But now that he's reflecting, I don't think he's out of line to recognize that maybe a more equal partnership would be healthier for him, and in fact was the only way in which he could see continuing to hunt with Dean. 

[gonzosgirrl]

Maybe Dean took the conversation there the first time (though I don't think so) but not the second time. Sam brought the conversation up. And the fact he did so in regards to how 'bad' Dean looked after a sleepless night tells me he knew he has something to feel guilty about. And the fact he didn't blink an eye, never mind deny it when Dean then mentioned the brothers thing, says to me that's exactly what Sam meant. Even if I give the benefit of doubt that it wasn't, it's glaringly obvious that Dean thought so  (in that he says it, twice lol) Sam doubles down and confirms it with his snotty 'just being honest'.

The descriptions  [asides?] in the Wiki transcript I brought that dialogue from are interesting to me. I generally find the recaps and transcripts to be a little Sam- leaning, and even they describe Sam's state/intentions with a bit of a hairy eyeball. 

[Scene opens in the Bunker's kitchen. DEAN is sitting at his laptop with his head in his right hand staring at the screen. SAM enters.]

SAM  Hey.

DEAN [barely looks up and raspy answers] Hey.

SAM [without much concern] You go to bed last night?

DEAN [Clears throat] What? Uh, no. No, "Rudy" was on. "Unforgiven," and then I was too jacked to sleep, so...research.

SAM [still rummaging around the kitchen getting breakfast] Gadreel?

DEAN And Metatron and the mark of Cain and...

[he looks up and realizes SAM isn't really paying attention]

...Crickets.

I did find us a case, though.

SAM Oh, yeah?

DEAN Yeah, was a strange death in Stillwater, Minnesota. A competitive eater died after a hot dog-eating contest.

SAM So, what? Death by tube steak?

DEAN If only. He got attacked in his car, but, uh, get this -- he shrunk from 300 pounds to 90 pounds.

SAM Witchcraft?

DEAN Or a heavy-duty laxative. You game?

SAM Yeah.

DEAN Good. Looks like it's a whore's bath for me. I'll be ready in five.

[DEAN gets up to leave but SAM stops him in the doorway]

SAM You sure you're okay, Dean?

DEAN Why wouldn't I be?

SAM 'Cause -- I don't know you... This isn't about what I said the other day, is it?

DEAN Oh, about that we're not supposed to be brothers? No, don't flatter yourself. I don't break that easy.

SAM Oh, good, 'cause I was just being honest.

DEAN [sarcastically as he leaves] Oh, yeah. No, I got that loud and clear.

ETA: And IMO the bolded confirms that Dean's (and my) interpretation of what Sam meant to convey with 'if you want to be brothers...' is correct. Sam goes right to what he said the other day as the reason for Dean's state of mind. That, IMO, says he knows he shook him. And then Dean states it outright here and Sam reaffirms it. I honestly don't see where there is room for interpretation.

Edited May 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl
grammar, adding transcript & comment

[Myrelle]

30 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Dean didn't do anything wrong. That doesn't mean Sam's feelings are invalid. In fact, they may be in some ways inevitable. The choices he made based on them are his alone. But now that he's reflecting, I don't think he's out of line to recognize that maybe a more equal partnership would be healthier for him, and in fact was the only way in which he could see continuing to hunt with Dean. 

According to Sam in the confines of that conversation Dean was holding Sam back from growing up. That's what Dean was doing wrong according to Sam. And in the confines of that conversation he said that their partnership needed to be more of a two-way street where trust was concerned and he wanted Dean to forgive him and/or move on from distrusting him because according to Sam Ruby made him feel better about himself than Dean ever could or had previously. And Dean said nothing to that other than "So now it's my fault?" to which Sam "No, it's mine." THAT'S manipulative in that it distracted Dean from reminding Sam of all that had happened in S3 and 4 when he was going behind Dean's back with Ruby and drinking demon blood at her behest and basically destroying the trust between them that Sam now wanted and needed back so that he could be "allowed" by Dean "grow up".

Sam wanted what he wanted when he wanted it and he got it even if it was too soon for Dean and that was accomplished by Sam's manipulative words that capitalized on and took advantage of Dean's dysfunctional love of family and his inability to quit them. And as Etoile stated what was Sam's contribution going to be to his own need to grow up in all of this? What were the changes that Sam was willing to make in order for their partnership to be more equal? A good start would have been for him to be more understanding of Dean and what Dean had just gone through what with having been to hell and then coming back to a brother who had formed an intimate relationship with a demon while he was gone and had fairly recently tried to strangle his brother while under the thumb of that demon. But no, none of that was introduced because  we were seeing things from Sam's POV only in that conversation, so when people say we rarely get Sam's POV, I have to disagree and what I further think is that they just don't like his POV when we get it.

Sam wanting what he wants when he wants it at Dean's emotional expense is the story of their familial lives, IMO-from the time that Dean gave Sam the  cereal when he hadn't even had one bowl. And apparently it's all Dean's fault with a side of John's bad parenting thrown in there, but Sam, himself?-nope he has never had or has anything whatsoever to do with it being perpetuated even now.

What a colossal mess of writing that episode was and unfortunately it set the entire tone for the rest of S5 and the series afterwards, IMO-as we've seen even as recently as S13. 

[catrox14]

4 hours ago, companionenvy said:

lace. Sam doesn't just tell him they aren't family any more out of the blue, and in fact he never tells him that in so many words. It is actually a form of derailing - responding to someone's serious critique with an emotionally charged overreaction It's like asking "So, do you hate me?" in the middle of a serious argument. You're practically baiting the person into saying the hateful thing you're accusing them of saying - and which they actually never would have said left to their own devices.

 

If Sam didn't want that to be Dean's takeaway from their convo, the Sam needed to tell him that's not the part he was talking about. But he didn't. He reiterated that he was just being honest.  So I'm not seeing the derailment at all in that particular situation.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Similarly, I don't think Sam is saying "Dean, you were so mean you pushed me to Ruby." That wouldn't actually make much sense, given that Sam became really involved with Ruby only once Dean was dead. Rather, he's saying that the dynamic -- which he willingly participated in -- wound up being one in which Sam felt that he had something to prove and was susceptible to the manipulations of someone who made him feel like he was the stronger, more capable one, which he didn't feel like when he was with Dean. 

The thing is that it doesn't have to make sense when the writers want drama and angst.
 

[Etoile]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

An extreme example I once used before is a hypothetical case in which someone has rigged d your remote control so that the next time you press the power button, a bomb goes off. On one hand, the next person to touch the remote, activating the bomb,is the proximate case of the resulting destruction, but they don't actually bear guilt or blame, because no one could have predicted that result. To use a closer parallel: suppose someone is raised by a parent who is a famous war hero. All his life, he has been hearing stories about how great his father is. His father never places unreasonable expectations on him; actually, he tells him often that his only job is to do the best he can in whatever circumstances he faces. But still, the son inevitably has a sense that he needs to live up to his father's example. So, he winds up doing something reckless with catastrophic results, all in the name of being a hero.

Is it the father's fault? I would say no, even though the son's action is intimately connected to who is father is. The father didn't do anything wrong, and probably couldn't have done anything to change his son's feelings. And if the son and the father were talking about what he had done, I wouldn't think the son was shifting blame if he said that he thought he had done what he did partially because it was hard growing up in the shadow of his father's legacy. He'd just be expressing an emotional reality. 

I wouldn't have used a familial relationship between a father and a son when brothers could serve the same purpose. It's a pet peeve of mine, a parent has different responsibilities to their child that a siblig has and Dean is Sam's brother not his father. But even with this pet peeve out of the way, I see your example as valid but repsectfully disagree with your conclusions. Sam's emotional reality based on your example, and on canon I think, is that he feels small and little in the shadow of such a huge presence like his brother, that he feels jealous and insignificant in the shadow of  a brother who does nothing (from your example again, Dean has no fault in this) to make Sam feel like he has to live to some impossible standard. So wouldn't be more healthy for Sam to understand why he feels like that rather than ask Dean for a much more equal realtionship especially when he was the one who trashed it with lies, secrets and betrayal of trust? Sam was the one who made the relationship unequal and lopsided and yet Dean is the one who must change. I repeat my previous point, Sam says nothing about what Sam can do to make the relationship better and more equal  but he asks for Dean's complete trust and "equal status" after betraying that trust and deciding via his actions in season 3-4 that he was the one calling all the shots. Are his feelings valid? Sure. I don't need feelings to be good to consider them valid. Is Sam shifting blame for them instead of trying to understand which one of them made himself feel like he had to be smarter and stronger and which one of his actions made Dean lose his trust in him? Yes.  Again, IMO etc.

 

46 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Sam wanted what he wanted when he wanted it and he got it even if it was too soon for Dean and that was accomplished by Sam's manipulative words that capitalized on and took advantage of Dean's dysfunctional love of family and his inability to quit them. And as Etoile stated what was Sam's contribution going to be to his own need to grow up in all of this? What were the changes that Sam was willing to make in order for their partnership to be more equal? A good start would have been for him to be more understanding of Dean and what Dean had just gone through what with having been to hell and then coming back to a brother who had formed an intimate relationship with a demon while he was gone and had fairly recently tried to strangle his brother while under the thumb of that demon. But no, none of that was introduced because  we were seeing things from Sam's POV only in that conversation, so when people say we rarely get Sam's POV, I have to disagree and what I further think is that they just don't like his POV when we get it.

Sam wanting what he wants when he wants it at Dean's emotional expense is the story of their familial lives, IMO-from the time that Dean gave Sam the  cereal when he hadn't even had one bowl. And apparently it's all Dean's fault with a side of John's bad parenting thrown in there, but Sam, himself?-nope he has never had or has anything whatsoever to do with it being perpetuated even now.

I have to agree with this. Sam needed Dean's unconditional support because Dean's distrust and anger was making things worse for Sam who felt so guilty about his actions. That's all that counted, not Dean's hurt, nor his feelings nor his betrayed trust or his pain. Sam needed Dean to get over it and Sam got it. And that's the narrative the show pushed imo until the end of the season. Dean having been the in-house character conditioned to take the blame and the responsibility of Sam's (and often John's) emotional distress caves in and gives Sam the keys of the car so he can finally drive the same way at the end of the season he has to accept that Sam can take on Lucifer. And that ends the complex, interesting arc of Sam's various choices and actions in season 4. Let me grow up because that is Dean's responsibility.

P.s. Thanks for the welcome!

[gonzosgirrl]

21 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

As @DeeDee79 said, I did not intend to imply that there was one poster behind the tone of the discussion.  Those were two separate comments--one saying that, while I disagreed with her interpretation she wasn't necessarily wrong, and the other bemoaning the fact that so many people on the site (noted by "in these discussions," meaning *all* these discussions here) were putting their own personal interpretations on events and claiming them to be canon.  I still stand by that comment, but apologize if it came across as being aimed at one particular poster.  

I think it's relevant to add here that my interpretations of the events, and subsequent bad feelings about Sam, were there from the jump. I am one of those late-to-the-game people who came to the show while S10 was airing and I did so without any knowledge of fandom or fan-wars, bi-bros or Dean!girls or Destiel.  I barely knew what the show was about when I started my binge. I came to it via a fanfic rec which was AU and while well written, didn't mean anything to me because I didn't know the characters, but intriguing enough that I thought, eh, maybe I'll give it a watch. I purposely avoided all online discussions until I was caught up, so my impressions of the characters and events were purely my own, not influenced by BTS knowledge or other interpretations. I feel (felt) the way I feel (felt) because of the writing and acting, not because of outside influences.

And by the end of The Purge, I was really wishing Dean had let him die.

(ETA: I don't feel that way now, and didn't even shortly after, but man at the end of that episode I wanted to hurt him.)

Edited May 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[ahrtee]

7 hours ago, companionenvy said:

See, for me, part of the disconnect is that I don't see what Sam did in S4 primarily as "Sam letting Dean down." He did , but that't not Sam's main sin, and I don't think it is what he feels - or should feel - primarily guilty for. 

Sam's main crime in S4 is drinking demon blood, and allowing himself to be so thoroughly seduced by a demon that he ignored all warnings that pointed at what an inherently terrible idea this was. Concurrently, he was lying to Dean about what he was up to, which is a betrayal (although one both have committed and will commit again to some degree). But Sam starting the biblical apocalypse is not All About Dean, nor was what he did primarily an offense against him. It involved an offense against him.

I actually agree--in many ways--with this.  Sam's "big" sin was to start the Apocalypse--which was actually beyond his control.  But Dean forgave him for that from the very beginning, telling him several times that he himself broke the first seal, and "who knew that killing Lilith was a bad thing?"  It's the writers who seem to have forgotten over the years that he said that, and later made it sound like Dean still blamed Sam.  

So for the big picture, in terms of the world in general, yeah, Sam's crime was drinking demon blood and following Ruby's advice which led to setting Lucifer free.   But that's beyond Dean's scope to forgive.  *Sam* wasn't going to forgive himself for it, no matter what Dean said, so what was the point of apologizing to him? 

But there were things Sam *did* have control over, and that were his choice (as Ruby put it--she just gave him the options and he chose that path every time.)  And those choices were the sins that *Dean* felt were the more important *to him*--the sins against the family of lying to him and not listening to his or Bobby's advice.  So it may seem petty from a worldwide perspective, but that's what Dean was most upset about, and that's the one thing Sam never (then or in any of the years since) apologized for.

I'm not saying that makes him a horrible person, or even that he did it on purpose.  He was focusing on the big picture and trying to figure out how he was going to make up for that, and the more minor issues probably didn't even occur to him.   

And that, to me, is pretty much the difference between them, and much of the reason why they always seem to be on a different page when it comes to anger against each other.  Sam--for whatever reasons--tends to make the "big" world-shattering mistakes, like the apocalypse or setting free the Darkness.  Dean tends to make mistakes that affect him or Sam personally, like Gadreel or taking on the MoC, which wouldn't have harmed the world in general if they'd just left it in place.  There may be bad consequences from those actions, like Kevin's death and Demon Dean, but  in general, they're not potentially world-ending. (Even Death noted that the world would go on as usual if Demon Dean were still around.)

What that means is that, when Sam messes up, it's usually on a global scale, and when Dean messes up, it's usually just Sam (or himself) who is affected by the consequences.   

I'm not even going to speculate why the writers do that.  I'm not saying it means one is more important, better or worse than the other, just that IMO it was set up from the beginning that Sam, with his demon blood, would be more "responsible" for the Apocalypse, and Dean was responsible for the family, and so they just kept that trope over the years.  But each one tends to look for a form of forgiveness/absolution that the other doesn't necessarily recognize, much less understand why they need it.  IMO that's why they keep getting angry and hurt with each other.  

JMO.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

But each one tends to look for a form of forgiveness/absolution that the other doesn't necessarily recognize, much less understand why they need it.  IMO that's why they keep getting angry and hurt with each other.  

I don't think Dean expects or even hopes for forgiveness from anyone any more. I think when he is in a good place, he sees himself as only a blink away from the evil things that they've hunted; but at his darkest he becomes those things and he's known this since he went to Hell. And if he looks for pardon from Sam(not forgiveness, and certainly not absolution, because in his own mind, he doesn't deserve either one-not even from Sam), it's because Sam is the only one in his life who could possibly even come close to understanding that.

And that's why we need more on Dean's Hell experience and what it did to him because, IMO, that's another elephant in the room on this show.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Myrelle

[gonzosgirrl]

6 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I don't think Dean expects or even hopes for forgiveness from anyone any more. I think when he is in a good place, he sees himself as only a blink away from the evil things that they've hunted; but at his darkest he becomes those things and he's known this since he went to Hell. And if he looks for pardon from Sam(not forgiveness, and certainly not absolution, because in his own mind, he doesn't deserve either one-not even from Sam), it's because Sam is the only one in his life who could possibly even come close to understanding that.

And that's why we need more on Dean's Hell experience and what it did to him because, IMO, that's another elephant in the room on this show.

 

Not only Hell, but a year in Purgatory, abandoned by his BFF and literally fighting for his life 24/7. A whole world of possible story and insight for Dean and it turned into What About Castiel on the flashbacks and What About Sam in the present. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Reganne]

10 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So what? You want me to say Sam was awful and a monster to poor Dean... okay then fine. I agree it looks bad.. and even by some slim chance Sam didn't mean it that way, he should've known Dean thought he did, so should have mitigated it somehow after he wasn't so angry. This however just increases my bitterness, because in my opinion this should have been a story about how Sam was affected by what happened, but the writers made Sam the jerk and turned him into the bad guy. That entire scene here just seemed so badly written. Either the scene  made no sense - on the one hand Sam is asking Dean if he's okay and sounding all ready to gear up for a hunt with him, and then he's all "but just so you know I meant what I said..." which was contradictory and made little sense - or it was thrown in there as a "don't forget Sam's being mean to poor Dean!!!" plot point whether it made sense in there or not.

They writers easily could've made both brothers have a sympathetic point of view. That wasn't going to happen though, because my impression is still that Carver's goal was to turn Sam into the bad brother to teach him a lesson. He wasn't going to let Sam be sympathetic here. Almost every chance the writers had to let Sam be sympathetic or show his point of view... they didn't take it. This was all about Dean... POV and mytharc. Sam was mostly just a catalyst for Dean's desperation and depression, so Sam had to be "mean" to push Dean over the edge. And I don't think (my opinion) the writers really cared how they made Sam look to do that. The Gadreel the misunderstood angel who was a "real friend" really brought that home for me. That and making sure that Sam was a hypocrite in this. What should have been a sympathetic story where Sam was misused and lied to became all about Dean and how he was hurt and desperate enough to take on the mark of Cain. It's one of the reasons I thought Carver sucked as a showrunner. He either didn't know how to balance things for both brothers or he didn't care to try so long as he got to create angst.

Bizarrely that sort of changed in season 10 where we got  Sam trying to save Dean, but that was interspersed with the "Sam is even worse than Demon Dean" message they were trying to push, and even Demon Dean's stuff he said - which even if Sam said it didn't, I think it did hurt Sam in my opinion, but that wasn't addressed - and the Charlie incident (which that was pretty hurtful also, because ouch) were sort of glossed over and then oops Sam caused an apocalypse, so I don't know for sure whether I was supposed to be sympathizing with Sam there or not. I'm leaning towards not? Season 10 was confusing.

 

 I have to agree with this.  The writers should have been focusing on how Sam felt about this situation.  Sam should have been allowed to be mad at Dean.  Instead, they turned it into a mean Sam and poor Dean situation because Dean always seems to get the POV focus.  For once, they could have focused on Sam being upset with Dean.  Let Sam have some focus on how he felt about the situation.  IMO, the narrative was really quick to turn the tides so the audience could sympathize with Dean because he is the POV character.

[Reganne]

3 hours ago, Etoile said:

 Sam was the one who made the relationship unequal and lopsided and yet Dean is the one who must change. I repeat my previous point, Sam says nothing about what Sam can do to make the relationship better and more equal  but he asks for Dean's complete trust and "equal status" after betraying that trust and deciding via his actions in season 3-4 that he was the one calling all the shots. Are his feelings valid? Sure. I don't need feelings to be good to consider them valid. Is Sam shifting blame for them instead of trying to understand which one of them made himself feel like he had to be smarter and stronger and which one of his actions made Dean lose his trust in him? Yes.  Again, IMO etc.

 

My question for you or anyone really, is what could Sam have done differently at that point in the relationship?  Sam was already changing his behaviour from season 4 by not drinking demon blood and following Dean and trying to earn Dean's trust back.  I am genuinely curious about this, because we discussed this a few pages back.  Because by the time of Fallen Idols, Sam had already started making changes to his behaviour from season 4.  What did Sam need to change at that point?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Reganne

[ILoveReading]

I believe the audience was meant to sympathize with Sam after The Purge for no other reason than the writers tweeted that Sam was coming from a place of honesty.  So when they wrote the script they believed Sam was speaking the truth.

I just think like the writers so often do they underestimated Jensen and his ability to soften the writing.

[gonzosgirrl]

8 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I believe the audience was meant to sympathize with Sam after The Purge for no other reason than the writers tweeted that Sam was coming from a place of honesty.  So when they wrote the script they believed Sam was speaking the truth.

I just think like the writers so often do they underestimated Jensen and his ability to soften the writing.

They seriously tweeted that?! Oy. 

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I have to agree with this.  The writers should have been focusing on how Sam felt about this situation.  Sam should have been allowed to be mad at Dean.  Instead, they turned it into a mean Sam and poor Dean situation because Dean always seems to get the POV focus.  For once, they could have focused on Sam being upset with Dean.  Let Sam have some focus on how he felt about the situation.  IMO, the narrative was really quick to turn the tides so the audience could sympathize with Dean because he is the POV character.

Dean isn't  the POV character  in most of s9 and IMO even most of s10. Sam is and Sam had the emotional arc in s10 and some redemption. 

 IMO, Sam did get to express his anger with Dean with the Sharp Teeth and with the Purge speech.  He was allowed to be passive aggressive with Dean at various turns, which was clearly because he was still upset with Dean. What else would Sam have said or done? Should he have been shown going to therapy? I'm not being snarky. Were you wanting some exploration of him feeling violated or what have you? If so, fair enough. And that's also not something the show EVER talks about with any proper treatment with any character. So that is not specific to Sam. They didn't explore it with Dean either in s4.  I don't think they will ever do that.

When Dean got the Mark, we were seeing Dean's descent from Sam and lesser, Cas' POV. IMO

[belbar]

4 hours ago, Etoile said:

6 hours ago, companionenvy said:

An extreme example I once used before is a hypothetical case in which someone has rigged d your remote control so that the next time you press the power button, a bomb goes off. On one hand, the next person to touch the remote, activating the bomb,is the proximate case of the resulting destruction, but they don't actually bear guilt or blame, because no one could have predicted that result. To use a closer parallel: suppose someone is raised by a parent who is a famous war hero. All his life, he has been hearing stories about how great his father is. His father never places unreasonable expectations on him; actually, he tells him often that his only job is to do the best he can in whatever circumstances he faces. But still, the son inevitably has a sense that he needs to live up to his father's example. So, he winds up doing something reckless with catastrophic results, all in the name of being a hero.

Is it the father's fault? I would say no, even though the son's action is intimately connected to who is father is. The father didn't do anything wrong, and probably couldn't have done anything to change his son's feelings. And if the son and the father were talking about what he had done, I wouldn't think the son was shifting blame if he said that he thought he had done what he did partially because it was hard growing up in the shadow of his father's legacy. He'd just be expressing an emotional reality. 

I wouldn't have used a familial relationship between a father and a son when brothers could serve the same purpose. It's a pet peeve of mine, a parent has different responsibilities to their child that a siblig has and Dean is Sam's brother not his father. But even with this pet peeve out of the way, I see your example as valid but repsectfully disagree with your conclusions. Sam's emotional reality based on your example, and on canon I think, is that he feels small and little in the shadow of such a huge presence like his brother, that he feels jealous and insignificant in the shadow of  a brother who does nothing (from your example again, Dean has no fault in this) to make Sam feel like he has to live to some impossible standard. So wouldn't be more healthy for Sam to understand why he feels like that rather than ask Dean for a much more equal realtionship especially when he was the one who trashed it with lies, secrets and betrayal of trust? Sam was the one who made the relationship unequal and lopsided and yet Dean is the one who must change. I repeat my previous point, Sam says nothing about what Sam can do to make the relationship better and more equal  but he asks for Dean's complete trust and "equal status" after betraying that trust and deciding via his actions in season 3-4 that he was the one calling all the shots. Are his feelings valid? Sure. I don't need feelings to be good to consider them valid. Is Sam shifting blame for them instead of trying to understand which one of them made himself feel like he had to be smarter and stronger and which one of his actions made Dean lose his trust in him? Yes.  Again, IMO etc.

 

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Sam wanted what he wanted when he wanted it and he got it even if it was too soon for Dean and that was accomplished by Sam's manipulative words that capitalized on and took advantage of Dean's dysfunctional love of family and his inability to quit them. And as Etoile stated what was Sam's contribution going to be to his own need to grow up in all of this? What were the changes that Sam was willing to make in order for their partnership to be more equal? A good start would have been for him to be more understanding of Dean and what Dean had just gone through what with having been to hell and then coming back to a brother who had formed an intimate relationship with a demon while he was gone and had fairly recently tried to strangle his brother while under the thumb of that demon. But no, none of that was introduced because  we were seeing things from Sam's POV only in that conversation, so when people say we rarely get Sam's POV, I have to disagree and what I further think is that they just don't like his POV when we get it.

Sam wanting what he wants when he wants it at Dean's emotional expense is the story of their familial lives, IMO-from the time that Dean gave Sam the  cereal when he hadn't even had one bowl. And apparently it's all Dean's fault with a side of John's bad parenting thrown in there, but Sam, himself?-nope he has never had or has anything whatsoever to do with it being perpetuated even now.

I have to agree with this. Sam needed Dean's unconditional support because Dean's distrust and anger was making things worse for Sam who felt so guilty about his actions. That's all that counted, not Dean's hurt, nor his feelings nor his betrayed trust or his pain. Sam needed Dean to get over it and Sam got it. And that's the narrative the show pushed imo until the end of the season. Dean having been the in-house character conditioned to take the blame and the responsibility of Sam's (and often John's) emotional distress caves in and gives Sam the keys of the car so he can finally drive the same way at the end of the season he has to accept that Sam can take on Lucifer. And that ends the complex, interesting arc of Sam's various choices and actions in season 4. Let me grow up because that is Dean's responsibility.

P.s. Thanks for the welcome!

When can I start to applaud you for your comments? + 1000

[Myrelle]

50 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I believe the audience was meant to sympathize with Sam after The Purge for no other reason than the writers tweeted that Sam was coming from a place of honesty.  So when they wrote the script they believed Sam was speaking the truth.

I just think like the writers so often do they underestimated Jensen and his ability to soften the writing.

I think that they also didn't read their audience well enough if they thought that speech would be received as THE truth instead of just Sam's-or maybe that's what they meant when they said he was coming from a place of "honesty"-that it was just Sam being honest about how he felt about way more than just the possession(AKA Sam's POV), which I've always felt he was being, but just that it was his truth and not necessarily the utter truth(because a lot of what Sam said in that speech was ridiculous, IMO)-and maybe that's why everything unfolded the way that it did-because Sam was the one who had to do a similar kind and type of "learning" as the type that Dean was saddled with in S5-that being that no matter how much your family hurts you, you're still going to wind up supporting them in dire times and for Sam it involved his additionally learning that he, too, was not above Dean or better than Dean in how far he would go and/or was capable of going if it meant saving his brother's life.

That IS how it shook out, IMO-no matter what they intended and whether things were changed we'll never know, but I'm not going to say that it was bad, just that in a lot of ways it was somewhat an "equalizing" of S4/5 and it did balanced things out a little bit for me, in that, I could almost tolerate Sam within the bounds of the bond again, after S10. And they certainly built him up again in S11 and 12, although 12 gave us the old "Dean does feelings wrong" Sam back again AND the secrets and lies business back again, so...the more things change the more they stay the same with the brothers seems to be Dabb's approach to their relationship now.

But I remember those two writers describing the things that Sam said in that speech as being "hard truths", too-which is a little different than only and just saying that Sam was coming from a place of "honesty".

[Casseiopeia]

5 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

But I remember those two writers describing the things that Sam said in that speech as being "hard truths"

I think that Sam's speech had to be brutal in order for Dean to go off the rails.  It seemed to be the setup for the 2nd half of S9 and into S10.  Dean had to feel that his actions had killed Kevin and estranged his brother.  Although for a rift between them Sam and Dean didn't really act any different.  They still came running in a panic every time the other was in danger.  They still referred to each other as "my brother".  It was the friendliest "fight" they ever had.  

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

According to Sam in the confines of that conversation Dean was holding Sam back from growing up. That's what Dean was doing wrong according to Sam. And in the confines of that conversation he said that their partnership needed to be more of a two-way street where trust was concerned and he wanted Dean to forgive him and/or move on from distrusting him because according to Sam Ruby made him feel better about himself than Dean ever could or had previously. And Dean said nothing to that other than "So now it's my fault?" to which Sam "No, it's mine." THAT'S manipulative in that it distracted Dean from reminding Sam of all that had happened in S3 and 4 when he was going behind Dean's back with Ruby and drinking demon blood at her behest and basically destroying the trust between them that Sam now wanted and needed back so that he could be "allowed" by Dean "grow up".

This is mainly your interpretation though, not fact. I feel pretty confident in saying that Sam did not say that Dean had to forgive him. Of course Sam wanted Dean to forgive him, because why wouldn't he, but that doesn't mean that he expected it or demanded it. He actually said the opposite in my opinion when he told Dean that he could be angry with him. I'm also failing to understand how Sam answering Dean's direct question was "manipulative" and distracting Dean from the conversation at hand... It was Dean who asked the distracting question. Sam answered that no, that's not what he was saying. Dean was then at liberty to ask whatever he wanted in that regard. And why would Dean have to remind Sam of all that happened in season 3 and 4? Sam just told Dean he knows what he did and how bad it was. The only purpose that I can see (my opinion) for including such a thing in that conversation would be to try to satisfy fans who, in my opinion, likely wouldn't be satisfied no matter what Sam had said.

As for Dean allowing Sam to grow up, maybe it's being forgotten that part of what started the entire mess in the first place is that Dean felt responsible for Sam. Part of the reason Dean made the deal is because - partially due to his upbringing - Dean felt responsible for Sam's death, because he felt that he had failed to protect him. His guilt partially lead to his making the deal which likely took Sam out of heaven and landed him back on the playing field to be handed the same exact guilt that John had put on Dean's shoulders when John made his deal. But for Dean, fulfilling what he saw as his responsibility and his opinion that Sam being alive was crucial was more important to him than the potential guilt Sam would have to live with. In my opinion, this kind of decision making on Dean's part is a form of "not letting Sam grow up." It's making decisions for Sam and assuming that Sam will be able to handle or even want the consequences. The decisions Sam was talking about in this case were different, but in my opinion, part of the same problem.

Dean here was making a unilateral decision - this case is over, we're leaving - maybe because he was angry, maybe because he thought it was his responsibility to make this work even though he wasn't ready and that was affecting his decision making process. But whatever it was, Dean wasn't seeing the big picture, because he was too busy assuming he had to be the one to handle the entire situation even though he wasn't ready.

Sam definitely worded it badly - no doubt - but the idea behind what Sam was saying - that in order for the situation to work, Dean had to let go of the reins a little and let Sam help / take some of the responsibility - was, in my opinion,  valid.

Quote

 

Sam wanted what he wanted when he wanted it and he got it even if it was too soon for Dean and that was accomplished by Sam's manipulative words that capitalized on and took advantage of Dean's dysfunctional love of family and his inability to quit them. And as Etoile stated what was Sam's contribution going to be to his own need to grow up in all of this? What were the changes that Sam was willing to make in order for their partnership to be more equal? A good start would have been for him to be more understanding of Dean and what Dean had just gone through what with having been to hell and then coming back to a brother who had formed an intimate relationship with a demon while he was gone and had fairly recently tried to strangle his brother while under the thumb of that demon.

 

That is a problem they both share. When Dean made the deal, he didn't consider what the guilt would do to Sam - even though he, Dean, had just gone through it. For some reason, Dean figured Sam would just shrug his shoulders and get through it. And I don't think he much considered exactly how much Sam was messed up by it... and by the end of season 3, Sam was pretty messed up, in the "I could go evil scientist and/or human sacrifice" route to stop this, but Dean - though annoyed? (I'm not sure what that emotion was) and asking "what's wrong with you?" wasn't getting exactly what was wrong with Sam. this seems to be a thing with both brothers and is, in my opinion, human. Not many people can really understand how others feel, comprehend, or interpret things. Kind of like we do here. We all see the same thing and interpret it differently.

As for Sam's contribution, in my opinion, Sam was taking steps to fix the situation. The main thing that lead Sam to objecting in the first place was that if Sam followed Dean's orders as Dean was insisting - and I agree that this was over-the-top of Dean and his emotions were getting the best of him as he normally would not act this way in my opinion. This was a writer construct - the monster (pagan god in this case) wouldn't have been taken care of and people might die, so Sam had to force the issue.

If not for those extenuating circumstances, Sam might not have even brought anything up at this point at all. He would have likely waited for a better time... but a "better time" in this scenario might have been 300 miles down the road or a week, a month, etc. later when who knows how many more people might have been hurt or killed. Such was the writer set up.

[Myrelle]

7 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I think that Sam's speech had to be brutal in order for Dean to go off the rails.  It seemed to be the setup for the 2nd half of S9 and into S10.  Dean had to feel that his actions had killed Kevin and estranged his brother. 

Heh. It did a lot more than that. He knew that he and he alone was going to burn for Kevin before the Purge speech, and IMO, it helped him to feel like The King of Hell was good company for him.

[Myrelle]

13 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for Sam's contribution, in my opinion, Sam was taking steps to fix the situation. The main thing that lead Sam to objecting in the first place was that if Sam followed Dean's orders as Dean was insisting - and I agree that this was over-the-top of Dean and his emotions were getting the best of him as he normally would not act this way in my opinion. This was a writer construct - the monster (pagan god in this case) wouldn't have been taken care of and people might die, so Sam had to force the issue.

If not for those extenuating circumstances, Sam might not have even brought anything up at this point at all. He would have likely waited for a better time... but a "better time" in this scenario might have been 300 miles down the road or a week, a month, etc. later when who knows how many more people might have been hurt or killed. Such was the writer set up.

Dean was written so OOC in this episode it was laughable, IMO.

Writer construct is too nice of a word for it because IMO it was just as much a case of out and out attempted character assassination as any purported  attempted Sam character assassination has ever been.

It was the main thing that made the episode heinous, IMO; and I remember the writers all saying that the bond would be made "stronger" because of it. Pfffffffffffftttttt. As. If.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Myrelle

[catrox14]

55 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

hink that Sam's speech had to be brutal in order for Dean to go off the rails.  It seemed to be the setup for the 2nd half of S9 and into S10.  Dean had to feel that his actions had killed Kevin and estranged his brother.  Although for a rift between them Sam and Dean didn't really act any different.  They still came running in a panic every time the other was in danger.  They still referred to each other as "my brother".  It was the friendliest "fight" they ever had.  

Dean had already taken on the Mark and made the decision that he was poison and he left before Sam said all that. I think it made Dean more isolated because he wouldn't ask Sam for help and he hid the issues more. It was Mark and the First Blade caused him to be a murderer.

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for Sam's contribution, in my opinion, Sam was taking steps to fix the situation. The main thing that lead Sam to objecting in the first place was that if Sam followed Dean's orders as Dean was insisting - and I agree that this was over-the-top of Dean and his emotions were getting the best of him as he normally would not act this way in my opinion. This was a writer construct - the monster (pagan god in this case) wouldn't have been taken care of and people might die, so Sam had to force the issue.

Except that Sam "forcing the issue" didn't change anything.  The only reason Dean changed his mind was the deputy calling about another victim, so Dean knew it wasn't over yet.  If that hadn't happened...well, if Sam really thought it wasn't over and Dean was insisting on leaving (and Sam wanted to be treated like an equal)...he could have said, "I don't think it's done.  I'm going to stay and look into it further.  You can leave.  I'll call if I need help."  Not snarky or hurt, just stating his opinion and not asking for Dean to even agree with him.  IMO that would have been Sam stepping up as an adult/equal, not "asking" Dean to "let him grow up."  And I think it would have made Dean stop and think (and respect his request) a lot more.

Edited May 2, 2018 by ahrtee

[Reganne]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Dean isn't  the POV character  in most of s9 and IMO even most of s10. Sam is and Sam had the emotional arc in s10 and some redemption. 

 IMO, Sam did get to express his anger with Dean with the Sharp Teeth and with the Purge speech.  He was allowed to be passive aggressive with Dean at various turns, which was clearly because he was still upset with Dean. What else would Sam have said or done? Should he have been shown going to therapy? I'm not being snarky. Were you wanting some exploration of him feeling violated or what have you? If so, fair enough. And that's also not something the show EVER talks about with any proper treatment with any character. So that is not specific to Sam. They didn't explore it with Dean either in s4.  I don't think they will ever do that.

When Dean got the Mark, we were seeing Dean's descent from Sam and lesser, Cas' POV. IMO

Maybe show Sam's feelings after his confrontation with Dean.  The focus solely on Dean is why it's obvious they were gong on the poor Dean kick.  That whole speech they made Sam do was ridiculous and probably one of the only times I was even mad at the character through my binge watch.  It was the perfect opportunity for the narrative to soften the blow on Dean and his mistakes and push the audience to sympathize with him.  This IMO, gets the audience to side against Sam because he was mean to poor Dean.

[Reganne]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

 

That is a problem they both share. When Dean made the deal, he didn't consider what the guilt would do to Sam - even though he, Dean, had just gone through it. For some reason, Dean figured Sam would just shrug his shoulders and get through it. And I don't think he much considered exactly how much Sam was messed up by it... and by the end of season 3, Sam was pretty messed up, in the "I could go evil scientist and/or human sacrifice" route to stop this, but Dean - though annoyed? (I'm not sure what that emotion was) and asking "what's wrong with you?" wasn't getting exactly what was wrong with Sam. this seems to be a thing with both brothers and is, in my opinion, human. Not many people can really understand how others feel, comprehend, or interpret things. Kind of like we do here. We all see the same thing and interpret it differently.

As for Sam's contribution, in my opinion, Sam was taking steps to fix the situation. The main thing that lead Sam to objecting in the first place was that if Sam followed Dean's orders as Dean was insisting - and I agree that this was over-the-top of Dean and his emotions were getting the best of him as he normally would not act this way in my opinion. This was a writer construct - the monster (pagan god in this case) wouldn't have been taken care of and people might die, so Sam had to force the issue.

If not for those extenuating circumstances, Sam might not have even brought anything up at this point at all. He would have likely waited for a better time... but a "better time" in this scenario might have been 300 miles down the road or a week, a month, etc. later when who knows how many more people might have been hurt or killed. Such was the writer set up.

Bingo.  There are sometimes in the series where Dean doesn't try to understand Sam or what he might be going through as well.  In fact, he specifically told Sam not to be mad at him.  Like Sam wasn't suppose to feel angry or upset about Dean's decision to die in his place.  

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Dean had already taken on the Mark and made the decision that he was poison and he left before Sam said all that. I think it made Dean more isolated because he wouldn't ask Sam for help and he hid the issues more. It was Mark and the First Blade caused him to be a murderer.

I agree.  Sam's speech isolated Dean.  I think that was the point.  Dean had to feel like he wasn't going to get any help from Sam.  Although it was only Sam who could get Dean to "drop the Blade" when the Mark really started to take hold.  

I just didn't see the animosity between the brothers that I think I was supposed to.

[catrox14]

3 hours ago, Reganne said:

Maybe show Sam's feelings after his confrontation with Dean.  The focus solely on Dean is why it's obvious they were gong on the poor Dean kick.  That whole speech they made Sam do was ridiculous and probably one of the only times I was even mad at the character through my binge watch.  It was the perfect opportunity for the narrative to soften the blow on Dean and his mistakes and push the audience to sympathize with him.  This IMO, gets the audience to side against Sam because he was mean to poor De.

IMo they zeroed in on Dean's shocked face to show just how much he didn't get what Sam was trying to say. I never thought it was to make us feel sorry for Dean. But for us to consider that Dean really can't see Sam's POv. But we can agree to disagree.

[Res]

12 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I think it's relevant to add here that my interpretations of the events, and subsequent bad feelings about Sam, were there from the jump. I am one of those late-to-the-game people who came to the show while S10 was airing and I did so without any knowledge of fandom or fan-wars, bi-bros or Dean!girls or Destiel.  I barely knew what the show was about when I started my binge. I came to it via a fanfic rec which was AU and while well written, didn't mean anything to me because I didn't know the characters, but intriguing enough that I thought, eh, maybe I'll give it a watch. I purposely avoided all online discussions until I was caught up, so my impressions of the characters and events were purely my own, not influenced by BTS knowledge or other interpretations. I feel (felt) the way I feel (felt) because of the writing and acting, not because of outside influences.

And by the end of The Purge, I was really wishing Dean had let him die.

(ETA: I don't feel that way now, and didn't even shortly after, but man at the end of that episode I wanted to hurt him.)

Funny thing. I started summer after S5. A rerun of "The End" got me hooked and I binged that summer so that I started watching live at the beginning of S6. While watching, I didn't engage with online until S8, I think, but I talked to my students who also watching about it. From the beginning, Dean was my favorite as is Jensen. A lot of my students, OTOH, loved Sam and had the "mean, bully" take on Dean. Eventually, I went on line the summer before S8 to try and understand what others were seeing in Sam that I wasn't. BIG MISTAKE. Needless to say, several fanatical Sam fans (on other sites) blasted me to the point that, not only do I still not get it, I actually see a lot of his stuff in an even worse light now. Lol.

As for S9, I've already stated that I wanted Dean to let him die from the very beginning to avoid the sacrifice play I knew he was going to do and be crucified for for years to come. I really, really wished the character could throw the whole thing back on the writers and have them quit sacrificing character for "wangst". 

[Etoile]

15 hours ago, Reganne said:

My question for you or anyone really, is what could Sam have done differently at that point in the relationship?  Sam was already changing his behaviour from season 4 by not drinking demon blood and following Dean and trying to earn Dean's trust back.  I am genuinely curious about this, because we discussed this a few pages back.  Because by the time of Fallen Idols, Sam had already started making changes to his behaviour from season 4.  What did Sam need to change at that point?

What about not asking for conditions from Dean just to start with? How did Sam tried to earn Dean's trust back? He came back because he needed redemption  after he'd learned he was fated to host Lucifer. I didn't see anything about Sam addressing what had made him fall for Ruby's making him feel like he was bigger and better. He got annoyed that Dean couldn't get over it and he dictated terms for his coming back. Dean conditioned by his upbringing and by that vision of the future where not being with Sam had made the apocalypse possible, accepted.

And in regard to the writing, I think they needed to get the relationship stuff out of the way because they needed to focus on the plot and they were also scared of how dark they had made Sam in season 4 with killing the nurse and strangling Dean so this episode was a way to wave a strawman and hope the viewers buy it. Again, considering that the subject of Dean having to let Sam grow up comes up at the end of the season makes it intentional not just bad writing (and it was written badly, I agree).

 

12 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That is a problem they both share. When Dean made the deal, he didn't consider what the guilt would do to Sam - even though he, Dean, had just gone through it. For some reason, Dean figured Sam would just shrug his shoulders and get through it. And I don't think he much considered exactly how much Sam was messed up by it... and by the end of season 3, Sam was pretty messed up, in the "I could go evil scientist and/or human sacrifice" route to stop this, but Dean - though annoyed? (I'm not sure what that emotion was) and asking "what's wrong with you?" wasn't getting exactly what was wrong with Sam. this seems to be a thing with both brothers and is, in my opinion, human. Not many people can really understand how others feel, comprehend, or interpret things. Kind of like we do here. We all see the same thing and interpret it differently.

If we are reaching this far, I would add that Sam in season 2 had basically made Dean responsible for Sam's destiny when he asked him to kill him if he goes darkside. It was a nice parallel to John's final words of saving Sam or killing Sam. If you pay attention to season 2 Dean's state of mind which ends in the deal is made worse as time goes also because Sam reiterates that request a couple of time with, in your words, no concern for what it did to Dean. I didn't include in Dean's decision in season 9 how how Sam had basically used textual emotional manipulation in his season 8 finale speech (I want to kill myself because you don't trust me) because in the end Dean's choice in season 9 is his. But if we're talking about context, don't we have to talk about all the context for every character? Or is that limited to Sam? So if we're playing this backward game the end is infinite and no character is ever responsible for their own choices. 

Just to close this discussion as far as I am concerned, my post was limited to the way two similar situations (season 4 and season 9) were treated differently in the narrative and how in both cases Sam gets to decide the terms of the relationship as a reply to the opinions that Sam didn't get to be angry at Dean when he was done wrong. That's all. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Etoile

[AwesomO4000]

46 minutes ago, Etoile said:

If we are reaching this far, I would add that Sam in season 2 had basically made Dean responsible for Sam's destiny when he asked him to kill him if he goes darkside. It was a nice parallel to John's final words of saving Sam or killing Sam. If you pay attention to season 2 Dean's state of mind which ends in the deal is made worse as time goes also because Sam reiterates that request a couple of time with, in your words, no concern for what it did to Dean. I didn't include in Dean's decision in season 9 how how Sam had basically used textual emotional manipulation in his season 8 finale speech (I want to kill myself because you don't trust me) because in the end Dean's choice in season 9 is his. But if we're talking about context, don't we have to talk about all the context for every character? Or is that limited to Sam? So if we're playing this backward game the end is infinite and no character is ever responsible for their own choices. 

I'm not sure what your point is here. I wasn't blaming Dean for Sam's bad decisions. I was saying that - very recently to the example given that I was speaking to (which was season 4) - Dean had similar behavior. I also stated that this is a human thing. As in it applies to almost everyone. I actually think that it's likely a natural defensive response. Psychologically speaking, I think people who are too in tune with other people's emotions are likely going to find it difficult not to be overwhelmed, and maybe lose their own sense of self and self worth, but that's a whole nother discussion and a bit far afield. If you're wanting to make this a contest, then I'll concede I don't know who doesn't pay attention to whose emotional state more, and I have no interest in counting up who did what to whom. If you're going to blame Sam for Dean making the deal, though, I'll just say that I disagree with that, but that's just my opinion.

And obviously no, it's not only Sam where context is important. You seem to be under the impression that I don't like Dean or something. However that's not true, and I generally make that fairly apparent in my posts. If you remembered, I also said that the situation and Dean's behavior in "Fallen Idols" was, in my opinion, exaggerated by the writer in order to force the issue. That it was a writer construct. It's not just Sam that I will point that out for when I think I see it.

1 hour ago, Etoile said:

Just to close this discussion as far as I am concerned, my post was limited to the way two similar situations (season 4 and season 9) were treated differently in the narrative and how in both cases Sam gets to decide the terms of the relationship as a reply to the opinions that Sam didn't get to be angry at Dean when he was done wrong. That's all. 

I apologize for opening it up again then, but since I don't think I quoted your post, I didn't have a chance to even participate in that discussion, and that was mostly because I disagreed with your premise (and some of what you said) and didn't want to bring up what I saw as yet another failing by the writers in order to prove my point, but I will now though since it's necessary for my point. Also since it was your first post here, I didn't want to disagree with you too much instead of letting you have your say.

But as for your premise that the situations in season 4 and 9 were treated differently, I disagree, and for me it's a context thing.

On 5/2/2018 at 5:25 AM, Etoile said:

In brief, Sam who was the wrongdoer in this situation got to dictate the terms of the relationship by shifting blame onto Dean for his season 4 actions and imposing changes on Dean's behavior and nothing is said about what he will do to make the relationship better. No word about, hey I won't keep secrets anymore, and I won't use your trauma as a way to make myself feel stronger or 'not the little kid to my bossy brother'.

Compare that with the season 9 situation where Sam was the one who had been wronged. In that case too, Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and how it's going to be and gets to be angry for more than half a season. He also says the infamous "Secrets ruin relationships" line which is precious coming from him and definitely not something he has learned given that in season 12 he keeps the secret of having worked with the BMol from Dean. Anyway, yes, it was fair that Sam had a right to be angry but so did Dean in the affermath of season 4, but only one of the two is told to stop and the difference is striking to me in how the two situations are treated.

In conclusion:

season 4: Sam lies, beats, and strangles Dean (and also is responsible for Lucifer getting free, although that is not really the important part as far as the relationship goes), he decides how the relationship needs to change to make it more functional. Dean is told that his rightful anger is an inconvenience for Sam.

season 9: Dean saves Sam's life with a reckless decision, lies to him, and again Sam gets to dictate the terms of the relationship and is allowed to be angry and passive aggressive at Dean until Dean dies in the season finale.

First, I disagree that Sam told or even implied to Dean that Dean's anger was an "inconvenience" to him in "Fallen Idols." Sam told Dean that he deserved his anger, and that it was understandable if Dean was angry. What was an inconvenience was that Sam - in trying to make changes in his behavior to do his part (and you asked earlier what was Sam doing to earn Dean's trust back - this was one of many of those things - actions speak louder than words) was trying to let Dean lead everything and following Dean's direction on the case as a show of conciliation, but that wasn't working (due to Dean's heightened reaction which, in my opinion, was partially writer construct). However that didn't change that it was affecting the case, and so Sam felt that he had to do something. Did Sam push it a little? I'd say probably yes, but it was the fastest way to make sure that "saving people, hunting things" was the priority and wouldn't be compromised again. In my opinion - and no one else has to agree - Sam did not do this to diminish Dean's anger or even alleviate his own guilt, since the very next episode, Sam was pointing out his own culpability again in starting the apocalypse (which is why I personally don't buy into Sam shifting blame onto Dean, because if he did, he didn't do a very good job of it considering he was right back to feeling very guilty the next episode). In my opinion, Sam did it because he wanted to still hunt with Dean to try to make up for his mistakes through helping people, and he didn't see himself being able to do that unless he and Dean could at least work as partners even if Dean was angry.

The reason I disagree that there was a big difference between the above and what happened in season 9 was context. Yes, in season 4 Sam was the one who wronged Dean and in season 9 it was reversed, however the situation on the case was somewhat similar. Even though Dean maybe should have been trying some conciliatory behavior on the case in season 9, he wasn't in my opinion. From the beginning Dean assumes the dominant role. Admittedly Sam lets him, so it' a little on Sam for not objecting earlier, but this too is similar to season 5... until Dean starts lying to him to actively make Sam leave. Granted, Dean had his reasons, but taking it out on Sam wasn't the conciliatory way to go. Dean continues to be less than accommodating towards Sam, making it difficult to work the case. Sam has to ask for more time and information for them to no kill Garth yet while Dean gets annoyed that Sam asked, conceding begrudgingly and telling Sam (not asking) to clean up the werewolf Dean killed and grab Garth. Dean was not acting much like he was trying to change. And similar to season 5, it was a good thing Sam objected, because Garth wasn't a bad guy and didn't need to be killed. I will say that I think Dean's behavior here was a little off, but I don't think it was really on purpose to make Dean look badly - I would more say it was tone deaf. I say that, because it was written by Adam Glass meaning lots of badass Dean, damsel in distress Sam, and including a nasty Sam insult, so I don't think Glass was trying to make Dean look a bit jerky here. Nonetheless, Dean's apology goes awry and turns into excuses and then it sounds like he just wants Sam to put it behind him "I just think maybe we need to put a couple W's on the board and we get past all this." Which to some might not look like Dean asking for Sam to forgive him right away - or at least forget it or put it aside or something - but that's what it looked like to me. And that's when Sam dictated the working relationship only thing... (and I think Glass' choice of words from Sam was deliberate - he's generally not a Sam-friendly writer.) The end result was though to make the working relationship less emotional, so that hunts wouldn't be compromised.

So I see it as more similar than you do. In both cases, in the case of the week, Dean dictated how the case was going, purposely made working the case together difficult (for different reasons, but the result was the same), got a little reckless with his conclusions due to his emotions, and put people (or werewolf Garth and his werewolf wife, in this case) at risk because of it, and with that as the backdrop and a consideration, Sam and Dean had to hash out working conditions again. So I guess I see the case and situation similarity as an overriding factor or at least a tipping factor as to why things went the way that they did both times over the difference in who was in the doghouse at the time. Whereas you see the results going "Sam's way" even when the situations were different as the more important consideration when comparing them.

Our perspectives on what was the main deciding factor in how things went down is just different. For me, it's the "saving people, hunting things" that's the main factor in Sam's decisions both for Sam and narrative-wise.

[Myrelle]

16 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm also failing to understand how Sam answering Dean's direct question was "manipulative" and distracting Dean from the conversation at hand... It was Dean who asked the distracting question.

The manipulative and distracting statement that Sam made was that he followed Ruby because Ruby made him feel better than Dean ever has/had by treating him like a big boy or grown up. This is a blame shifting statement with connotations of "you and/or your treatment of me made me choose Ruby over you"-and even if Sam just meant that it contributed, he knew that it would, of course, rankle Dean and it did and Dean was distracted from his own valid reasons for still not trusting Sam over everything that went down between them in S4. As someone else mentioned, it was only like a month later and SAM is  already trying to lay down the law about how they're going to operate on the hunt by telling Dean everything that Dean needed to do and all that he'd done wrong previously?!- and IF they're going to stay together hunting, that is-which is another manipulative statement that Sam tried to make even going so far as saying that Dean was the one who "called back", trying to nullify the one thing Dean was right about and allowed to say by the writing in that whole horrible conversation-when Sam pulled out that oldie but goodie, Dean made sure to set him straight on who called who first. And about that call-Sam was shaken because of what he'd learned about becoming Lucifer's meatsuit and little more, IMO. Yes, he felt that he was now better able to handle the demon blood addiction, too, but he was also "surprised" that Dean wasn't more panicky over Sam's Lucifer news-IDK, I guess he just forgot that Dean had also just learned that he, himself, was destined to be an archangel vessel, too. It might have been nice if he'd asked how Dean was doing with that knowledge, but...

Yeah, I'd call a lot that manipulative, but it's the kind of manipulative behavior that younger siblings often practice pretty much unconsciously because it's learned from childhood and all of those types of familial placement behaviors were obviously heightened in the brothers' case because of the parentification of Dean by John.

As for what Sam could have done different-three things come to mind-1)he could have acknowledged all the pain that he'd caused Dean by not listening to him and taking up with a demon(of all beings!) while Dean was roasting in hell and being torn apart daily by demons, instead of making excuses for it-which is what he did, IMO, in the guise of getting his feelings out about the "problems" with their hunting partnership 2) Told Dean that, for his part, he would respect and consider Dean's thoughts more and what Dean had to say more when future conflicts arise-because they both knew that they would and 3)Ask Dean how HE was handling the Michael stuff and if Dean didn't want to answer that, fine-at least Sam asked.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Myrelle

[Reganne]

8 hours ago, Etoile said:

What about not asking for conditions from Dean just to start with? How did Sam tried to earn Dean's trust back? He came back because he needed redemption  after he'd learned he was fated to host Lucifer. I didn't see anything about Sam addressing what had made him fall for Ruby's making him feel like he was bigger and better. He got annoyed that Dean couldn't get over it and he dictated terms for his coming back. Dean conditioned by his upbringing and by that vision of the future where not being with Sam had made the apocalypse possible, accepted.

 

 

 

Sam asking for Dean to treat him like an equal in hunting and not simply accept being bossed around by Dean (like Dean was doing in that episode) is not a bad thing, especially considering that it was Sam who right about the case in Fallen Idols.  Dean refused to listen to Sam.  This dynamic doesn't work where only one of the hunters is calling all of the shots and there is no way that dynamic would work.  I don't blame Sam for calling Dean out on that.  At the end of the day, Dean made the choice to call Sam back and work together.  As Sam said, Dean can be as mad at him as he wants, but it shouldn't affect interfere with the hunt.

 

Sam tried to earn Dean's trust by trying to stay off the demon blood and opening up to Dean to say... look I need to step away from hunting.  His addiction to demon blood and his relationship with Rubu were the two things that stained their relationship in season 4.  Sam held Ruby so Dean could kill her and then stayed away from the demon blood.  In fact, in My Bloody Valentine Sam came clean to Dean again and said he was craving demon blood.   What do you think Sam should have addressed about changing his behaviour that he wasn't on the road to already doing?  

 

As for what made Sam fall for Ruby, yes it was only glossed over, but she saved his life as he told Dean in season 4.  Then the demon blood made him feel stronger.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Reganne

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, Myrelle said:

20 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm also failing to understand how Sam answering Dean's direct question was "manipulative" and distracting Dean from the conversation at hand... It was Dean who asked the distracting question.

The manipulative and distracting statement that Sam made was that he followed Ruby because Ruby made him feel better than Dean ever has/had by treating him like a big boy or grown up.

But if that is true - and if it is, I think it reflects at least as poorly on Sam as it does on Dean - then it seems to me that there has to be some way in which Sam is allowed to articulate this even at the risk of causing Dean pain. Because that feeling is germane to their hunting relationship going forward, and can't just be cast aside. I agree with AwesomeO that, IMO, the show exaggerated Dean's behavior on the case in order to serve their point, but in the context in which Sam spoke up, it is also relevant that allowing Dean to dictate what they were doing was also a mistake that would have compromised the case. So Sam didn't have the luxury of shelving the issue for a while until things calmed down.

Thinking about the scene more, I think that part of the problem -- and it is a problem that I think emerged again as recently as the "kids table" conversation last episode -- is that I think the writers/Sam are actually not getting at the heart of Sam's actual, more valid problem with their dynamic, and it is this problem that actually did, IMO, contribute to Sam's worst mistakes (again, this doesn't mean Dean is at fault, because Sam's actions are in no way a direct or predictable outcome of Dean's behavior, which is itself a function of deep-seated childhood issues). 

In the first three seasons of the show, while Dean was the more natural leader, I didn't really get the impression that Dean was too dictatorial or didn't take Sam's thoughts into account. John is the one who expected to retain a strict command structure during hunts with his adult sons. Again, Dean may have often been in the lead, but he didn't have a my way or the highway approach - and to the extent that he did, Sam generally gave as good as he got. The case in Fallen Idols was not typical, and to the extent that it makes sense at all, seems to be more plausibly seen as a result of Dean not trusting Sam after S4 than as a resumption of an unhealthy partnership in which Sam was expected to defer to Dean. 

To me, however, there is a different core problem that appears to have played a far more significant role in Sam's psychology during S4 and again in S10 - namely, Dean's warped version of family loyalty, in which anything less than all-encompassing devotion to the family and its aims is unacceptable and worthy of blame. Which begins with John, but then is continued in Dean's attitude toward Sam.

We often focus on the obvious psychological damage that John did to Dean. But let's look for a minute at how Sam grew up. At the age of about 10, he's initiated into a family culture centered around the hunting life, generally, and a single-minded dedication to revenge against Mary's killer, specifically. Basically everything else in life is treated as trivial and a distraction. For several reasons, some internal and some external, Sam does not take as naturally to hunting as Dean does. Part of this may be personality, and some of it may be a version of typical teenage rebellion, but I think the family dynamic in some ways made it pretty predictable that the significantly younger brother - who was kept in the dark for longer and would have been likely (and appropriately) given precisely the "kiddie table" treatment, at least in relative terms, on hunts -- would not find it as easy to define himself by hunting in a way that the older brother would. This was extraordinarily unfair to Dean, who never had a childhood and was basically treated as lacking in value except to the extent that he was useful as a hunter and protector of Sammy. But it also wasn't all that healthy for Sam, who was thus raised in a family in which the only thing that was perceived as valuable was something that was more John and Dean's thing than his. 

So young adult Sam does the healthy thing - he decides he's going to college. And this is treated - by John but also by Dean -- as a betrayal and wholesale rejection of the family. Significantly, Dean does not change his opinion on this even once the boys have repaired their relationship. In fact, he treats it as a personal rejection every time that early-seasons Sam says something to indicate that he plans on eventually leaving the hunting life, and in moments of anger will question Sam's dedication to him, the family, and the mission (the key difference between Dean and John being that Dean places family before mission, and John doesn't). The message is clear: attempts to find a life outside the family/hunting are wrong and hurtful, and the family must be placed first at all costs. 

At the end of the S1 arc (although it happens in the S2 premiere), John damns himself to hell to save Dean. At the end of S2, Dean damns himself to hell to save Sam. This reinforces, in the most extreme way, the values that Sam has been raised with. What is your value as a person? As a father/brother/son? Well, it is a)how effective a hunter are you and b) how willing you are to sacrifice anything and go to any lengths for your family. 

By S3, Sam has more or less adopted these values - as well he might, given the catastrophic failure of his attempt at living a more normal life, and the virtual closing of any opportunity for him to do so in the future. So he becomes obsessively mission-focused and goes to obsessive and unhealthy lengths to try to save Dean; making it infinitely worse, of course, is the fact that Dean is going to hell for Sam. And the upshot is: he fails. He can't stop Lillith, and watches Dean get dragged away by hellhounds. 

In the context of Winchester family values, Sam hasn't just suffered a personal loss. He's basically worthless. 

So enter Ruby, and what does she tell him? Sam, you can save the world. You can avenge your brother. All is not lost. And Sam is extremely vulnerable to this, which bears some relationship to what he says in Fallen Idols. But again, I think that this vastly simplifies the psychology. It isn't that he wants someone to stroke his ego because Dean never made him feel special enough and got bossy on hunts. It is that he - like Dean -- has by this point been emotionally blackmailed into feeling that he has no value except as a fighter and as a brother, and Ruby comes to him at a point at which he feels that he has totally failed on both counts. Thus, Sam is desperate to believe anyone who tells him he actually does still have worth and can make up for these failures. 

I've gone on long enough, but this will then be compounded later in the show when Sam's failure to look for Dean is again painted, by Dean and the narrative, as betrayal - but when Sam fully internalizes this message again, and puts everything on the line to save Dean, it ends in apocalypse mark 2. 

[AwesomO4000]

On 5/3/2018 at 7:51 AM, Myrelle said:

The manipulative and distracting statement that Sam made was that he followed Ruby because Ruby made him feel better than Dean ever has/had by treating him like a big boy or grown up.

I apologize. From the way I read it, I thought you were saying the "No, it was my fault" that was somehow the manipulative statement.

However I disagree with how you characterize a lot of the rest of the conversation - I did not interpret that Sam was saying that Ruby made Sam feel better than Dean ever did like you have, for example. That's not what Sam said, and Sam - in my opinion - knew Ruby had lied. Ruby told Sam so.

And I had already admitted that Sam worded his arguments badly... and above I also admitted in that post that Sam was likely pushing some.

On 5/3/2018 at 7:51 AM, Myrelle said:

And about that call-Sam was shaken because of what he'd learned about becoming Lucifer's meatsuit and little more, IMO. Yes, he felt that he was now better able to handle the demon blood addiction, too, but he was also "surprised" that Dean wasn't more panicky over Sam's Lucifer news-IDK, I guess he just forgot that Dean had also just learned that he, himself, was destined to be an archangel vessel, too. It might have been nice if he'd asked how Dean was doing with that knowledge, but...

I'm pretty sure that Sam hadn't forgotten. Sam almost died due to that very revelation (for him - Dean had found out a little earlier), and that almost dying was before Sam knew he'd be brought back again by Lucifer. Dean had also learned about Michael weeks before that call, and Sam had been with him after that and had been able to see how Dean was reacting to the news. And although it might have only been part of the reason Sam had called Dean, Sam had been trying to not keep things from Dean or lie to him. He wouldn't have wanted Dean to have the information sprung on him from another source - like Zachariah, for example.

On 5/3/2018 at 7:51 AM, Myrelle said:

As for what Sam could have done different-three things come to mind-1)he could have acknowledged all the pain that he'd caused Dean by not listening to him and taking up with a demon(of all beings!) while Dean was roasting in hell and being torn apart daily by demons, instead of making excuses for it-which is what he did, IMO, in the guise of getting his feelings out about the "problems" with their hunting partnership 2) Told Dean that, for his part, he would respect and consider Dean's thoughts more and what Dean had to say more when future conflicts arise-because they both knew that they would and 3)Ask Dean how HE was handling the Michael stuff and if Dean didn't want to answer that, fine-at least Sam asked.

As @companionenvy's excellent post above explains, that Dean had been roasting in hell was part of Sam's problem. Sam had no control at all over Dean ending up in hell - in fact he tried everything he could to prevent that - but Sam felt the guilt anyway. Did Sam make a mistake taking up with Ruby? Obviously, but in my opinion it was an understandable mistake. Sam didn't take up with Ruby to hurt Dean... Sam already felt as worthless as he could get due to everything companionenvy outlined. But Dean also made a mistake in making the deal in the first place. The show just sometimes seems - to me - to paint Dean's mistake as a noble thing that saved his brother and sacrificed for family, while Sam's mistake is painted as the most awful betrayal to Dean that Sam had little reason for doing except to hurt Dean. And by the time the audience does learn Sam's reasons - over 1/3 of the way into season 4 for some, 2/3 of the way through for others - they've already been shown and influenced by all of the previous "see how awful Sam is being" stuff that came before the revelations.

As for the other two things Sam was already "not keeping things from Dean" - the phone call about Lucifer being an example, even if you found it wrong - and trying to listen to and respect Dean's thoughts more. Unfortunately that happened to go somewhat badly in this particular hunt, and Sam didn't think that was going to work as a long term strategy. Which he told Dean about. And it had been weeks since Michael as I explained above.

So while I can understand and accept some of your criticism of Sam being manipulative, I also don't think his motivations were all selfish ones... as I outlined in my post above concerning hunting effectively being the important goal rather than Sam getting himself "off the hook" which based on what Sam said in this conversation and his statements and actions later (where he was still admitting his culpability), I don't think was his goal.

I also find it somewhat restrained on Sam's part that Sam accepted all of the "You took up with and listen to a demon" criticisms without pointing out that Dean believed and took the side of the angels... who also had as a big a role, if not bigger, in starting the apocalypse as the demons and Ruby did.^^^ I don't believe for a moment the angel party line that Castiel gave (and that Cas was given) that the angels didn't know what was going on with Ruby, or that they couldn't have stopped her or the seals from breaking. There was a cut scene that showed this much earlier in the show*** - which is probably why the writers cut it in order to "keep the surprise" - but Zachariah pretty much spelled it out in the end. I think it's somewhat ironic that Sam is criticized for not listening to the advice of the angels when they told him not to use his power when the angels wanted Sam to spring Lucifer just as much as Ruby did, so their "advice" to Sam wasn't genuine or actually being helpful at all, it was there to sow seeds of distrust between Sam and Dean - nothing more. They were playing Sam just as much as Ruby had been. In my opinion, Dean listening to the angels, while understandable on Dean's part - especially since they saved him from hell - wasn't, in the end, any better a strategy than Sam listening to Ruby. Bobby had been right. They shouldn't have listened to the angels either.

^^^ It might be even worse if Sam never realized exactly how much influence the angels had (Sam wasn't there in the beautiful room personally to hear all of Zachariah's boasting) and so had no idea exactly how much he was manipulated.

*** This scene showed Castiel and Uriel discussing Ruby and Uriel saying that at least they could smite her if not Sam, and Castiel explains that the higher ups say no, because Ruby has a purpose. The angels could have stopped Ruby at any time, but they wanted her influencing Sam.

Edited May 4, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[Etoile]

40 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I also find it somewhat restrained on Sam's part that Sam accepted all of the "You took up with and listen to a demon" criticisms without pointing out that Dean believed and took the side of the angels... who also had as a big a role, if not bigger, in starting the apocalypse as the demons and Ruby did.^^^

The entire purpose of the plot of season 4 is Dean rejecting the plan the angels had for him (and his brother) as shown by Castiel taking Dean's side at the end.

The two stories plays parallels and in completely opposite directions and conclusions. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Etoile said:

The entire purpose of the plot of season 4 is Dean rejecting the plan the angels had for him (and his brother) as shown by Castiel taking Dean's side at the end.

The two stories plays parallels and in completely opposite directions and conclusions. 

Dean didn't know what the plan was for him until the very end of season 4, and then yes, he rejected it. It was season 5 where Dean actively rejected the angels plan for most of the season.

Until the end of season 4, Dean believed the angels assurances and he pledged himself to them because he was scared for Sam and (understandably) needed help. Of course Dean couldn't know that the angels were lying, but my point is, that considering the angels - in my opinion - were no better than the demons, Dean was only going on his gut instinct that the angels were telling him the truth about them not wanting Sam to use his powers... Which was a lie, since in the end Castiel - as an agent of the head angels - let Sam out of the panic room specifically so he would use his powers and let Lucifer out of the cage, just like the head angels wanted him to. So all of those objections beforehand - in my opinion - were simply to sow seeds of discontent between Sam and Dean. The head angels were likely hoping that they'd split Sam and Dean up and Sam would go darker even earlier so that Dean would be easier to manipulate. The angels were never going to smite Sam for using his powers, and God had nothing to do with any of it. That was all a lie.

And Castiel did take Dean's side at the end, but by then it was too late. His original brainwash-inspired betrayal - and the betrayal of Anna, which specifically took her off the board so she couldn't be of help or warning either - had already done most of the damage. Dean would never find out about the first betrayal, which was a bit ironic, because Castiel would blame Dean later for not getting to Sam fast enough to stop him in the church... which Dean never would have had to do anyway if Castiel hadn't let Sam out of the panic room to begin with.

So yes, Dean did reject the angel's plan once he found out what it was, but Sam would have rejected Ruby's plan, too if he had known the real plan. Until then both Dean and Sam believed what their various sides told them even though both were being lied to by both sides. So I disagree that the stories went in completely opposite directions with completely opposite conclusions. Since both sides were evil, I don't think they were opposite. And the only reason Sam didn't also reject Ruby's plan, is because Sam didn't even know what Ruby's plan was until it was too late. Now if Ruby had told Sam the real plan... that his killing Lilith would release Lucifer and Sam still did it, then I agree the directions and conclusions would have been opposite.

So I disagree. In  my opinion, both sides were evil and both brothers got played by them. The consequences for one were just much bigger than the other.

[FlickChick]

I will never understand how some people cannot see how often Sam blames his mistakes and choices on someone else - usually Dean.  It is this trait of Sam's that drives me crazy, because taking responsibility for your own choices/actions is the most important trait that a person can have. JMO

Edited May 3, 2018 by FlickChick
typo

[Reganne]

10 minutes ago, FlickChick said:

I will never understand how some people cannot see how often Sam blames his mistakes and choices on someone else - usually Dean.  It is this trait of Sam's that drives me crazy, because taking responsibility for your own choices/actions is the most important trait that a person can have along. JMO

I think people just interpret things differently.  There are many things people say on this board that leave me scratching my head, but alas I guess that's the way they see it.  I also think some people see things they want to see, which could be said about all the different parts of the fandom.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, FlickChick said:

I will never understand how some people cannot see how often Sam blames his mistakes and choices on someone else - usually Dean.  It is this trait of Sam's that drives me crazy, because taking responsibility for your own choices/actions is the most important trait that a person can have. JMO

And taking responsibility - a lot of times to extreme - is one of the things I admire most about Dean. I'm right there with you on the rest of it. I am a diehard Dean fan, but I know he can be bossy and single-minded, reckless at times. He's flawed, and so is Sam. And Sam's worst flaw is blaming others for his choices. IMO of course.

[Mulva]

I've never seen Sam blame anyone else for his mistakes.  On the other hand, I've seen everyone blame Sam for the apocalypse despite the fact that they all wanted to kill Lillith.

[gonzosgirrl]

47 minutes ago, Mulva said:

I've never seen Sam blame anyone else for his mistakes.  On the other hand, I've seen everyone blame Sam for the apocalypse despite the fact that they all wanted to kill Lillith.

Never? Really?

Quote

SAM
How do you think we got here?

DEAN
What's that supposed to mean?

SAM
Dean, one of the reasons I went off with Ruby...was to get away from you.

DEAN
What?

SAM
It made me feel strong. Like I wasn't your kid brother.

DEAN
Are you saying this is my fault?

SAM
No, it's my fault. All I'm saying is that, if we're gonna do this, we have to do it different, we can't just fall into the same rut.

DEAN shakes his head.

DEAN
What do you want me to do?

SAM
You're gonna have to let me grow up, for starters.

So in pretty much the same breath, Sam says

-he 'went off with Ruby' (aka: had sex with and drank blood from a demon) to get away from Dean. I don't know how else to interpret that but holding Dean's past actions responsible for driving him away and into Ruby's arms.

- he then says it is his (Sam's own) fault, but qualifies it not happening again by them changing, getting out of that rut. At no time does Sam say what HE has to do to change (not here, rarely ever*) to help their relationship. Dean has to let him grow up. And that is only this conversation - it's not an isolated event.

 

*I wanted to just type not ever here, because I can't think of a time, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

[Myrelle]

Ruby, herself, pointed out this character flaw of Sam's in Lucifer Rising, IMO. And she basically told him that was how she took advantage of him.

[Mulva]

33 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Ruby, herself, pointed out this character flaw of Sam's in Lucifer Rising, IMO. And she basically told him that was how she took advantage of him.

Yes, because Ruby is an unimpeachable source of information.

[gonzosgirrl]

38 minutes ago, Mulva said:

Yes, because Ruby is an unimpeachable source of information.

But she did exactly what she said. That's just fact. She took advantage of his flaw. It happened.

Sam said it himself. She made him feel good, strong.

Edited May 4, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[AwesomO4000]

43 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But she did exactly what she said. That's just fact. She took advantage of his flaw. It happened.

Sam said it himself. She made him feel good, strong.

 

But for me, I don't get what that has to do with supposedly blaming Dean for it? For me those aren't the same flaw. One is needing to feel useful and not weak. One is not taking responsibility.***

For me the two things can exist separately. Sam can say that he went with Ruby, because she made him feel strong (though I would argue it was also because she made Sam feel like he could actually do something (that he was not just worthless / less than, because he failed to save Dean)). It wasn't Dean's responsibility to make Sam not feel like that, and I don't think based on what happened and Sam's upbringing - as @companionenvy explained so well above - that it was anything Dean could do for Sam. It's something Sam has to fix / feel on his own. So to me, I don't see how that's Dean's fault or that Sam is saying that it's Dean's fault. It just was how Sam felt ("I" statements and "me" statements - versus "you made me feel like a little brother" - which isn't what Sam said.)... which Sam admitted that it was him who felt that way, not that Dean made him feel tat way - for me two different things.

If anyone contributed to Sam feeling worthless and having to prove himself, it was the damn lying angels, but that was their goal anyway... because they're dicks. Uriel especially - his smarmy attitude of Sam being tainted and his powers being an abomination when the entire time Uriel wanted to let Lucifer out... which is where Sam's powers indirectly came from. So yeah, lying hypocrite.

*** Which weirdly, in my opinion, taking responsibility can also exist with momentary bursts of shifting blame. Just because Sam appeared to be shifting blame in "Fallen Idols," if that's what he was doing, doesn't mean in the very next (and much better, in my opinion) episode he didn't admit to Jesse that he (Sam) made the wrong decision and not mean it wholeheartedly, which in my opinion, Sam did. Same as just because Dean in "Sharp Teeth" started to apologize, but ended up spouting off blame against changing rules and fate and everything else not Dean, didn't mean that Dean didn't feel sincerely guilty and to blame for what happened. For me, a moment here or there of shifting blame due to frustration, feeling too much guilt or pressure, etc. is not indicative of how a character is all of the time... especially with the added wrinkle of different writers having different interpretations of the character and injecting their own versions of that into the writing.

And as I've said before about other things, characters are allowed to change their mind, and I think they - Sam, Dean, Castiel - should get to do so without being branded with the few times they might deviate from their usual.

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by AwesomO4000