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

[cavelupum]

Dean was a grown man dealing with the equivalent of a (dangerously super-powered) child who, despite how Dean felt about it in his grief, was not at direct fault for Castiel’s death or Mary’s uncertain fate and didn’t deserve that blame. I mentioned earlier that people should ideally be allowed to grieve as they wish until it harms others — to me, Dean telling a confused and overwhelmed kid he didn’t believe he could be good and saying he’d be the one to kill Jack qualifies as harmful.

I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case (which I think would only intensify his feelings of otherness and being unwelcome). Again, Jack wasn’t truly responsible for the losses Dean was mourning, so there was no real reason to treat him like a guilty pariah and plenty of potential reasons to try to appeal to and avoid upsetting a being that powerful. Dean, whom it’s worth noting is also not innocent when it comes to prioritizing the more pressing mission at hand over the immediate feelings of others (5.11, 7.07, 13.17), should have been able to understand this reality even in his grief, IMO.

Edited May 21, 2018 by cavelupum

[Reganne]

4 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

Dean was a grown man dealing with the equivalent of a (dangerously super-powered) child who, despite how Dean felt about it in his grief, was not at direct fault for Castiel’s death or Mary’s uncertain fate and didn’t deserve that blame. I mentioned earlier that people should ideally be allowed to grieve as they wish until it harms others — to me, Dean telling a confused and overwhelmed kid he didn’t believe he could be good and saying he’d be the one to kill Jack qualifies as harmful.

I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case (which I think would only intensify his feelings of otherness and being unwelcome). Again, Jack wasn’t truly responsible for the losses Dean was mourning, so there was no real reason to treat him like a guilty pariah and plenty of potential reasons to try to appeal to and avoid upsetting a being that powerful. Dean, who it’s worth noting is also not innocent when it comes to prioritizing the more pressing mission at hand over the immediate feelings of others (5.11, 7.07, 13.17), should have been able to understand this reality even in his grief, IMO.

I agree and I would add the breakdown to that as well.  Dean prioritized the mission with Donna over Sam's emotional state.  While I don't blame him for wanting to help Donna out, if it gets called out when Sam does it, I will call it out when Dean does it.

 

As far as with Jack, I agree with you.  Dean was a grown adult and he could have kept his distance from Jack if he needed to.  After all, he agreed to bring Jack back to the bunker.  He could have also said no to Sam when he told him he wanted to bring Jack along.  He could have gone on a different hunt from Sam and Jack.  He is a grown man who can make his own decisions so I don't buy into the idea that mean Sam made Dean interact with Jack.  

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case (which I think would only intensify his feelings of otherness and being unwelcome).

After Dean agreed Jack could come back to the bunker, Sam could have said, "I know your not his biggest fan, I'll take responsibility for him I'm just asking you to be civil. "

When the case from Missouri came in Sam could have said, "Hey Dean, I caught a case why don't you take it, I'll stay with Jack."  Because later that same ep, Sam had zero issues going out and leaving Jack alone.  Instead he told Dean he had to stay and help.  Or Sam could have said, lets go on a case me and you, since once again leaving Jack alone in the bunker wasn't an issue for Sam when he felt the need to go out.

Dean flat out told Sam he was having trouble being around Jack.  Sam didn't listen, so he cant' exactly be surprised when Dean grew more hostile.  Which is another example of Sam's complete lack of awareness where it concerns Dean.

[Etoile]

7 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case

I'm not going to explain my points again because the argument would become circular and I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's fine to agree to disagree. I want just to point out that in 13.05 Jack was indeed left alone while the bros went hunting so the above point is moot because there were ways to avoid that Dean came in close contact with Jack before he was ready. There is a world of difference between 'unfairly relegating Jack to a small area of the bunker' and 'forcing that he hunts with them five minutes after Dean has said the mere sight of him hurts' wether Dean's feelings about Jack were or not valid objectively they were valid to Dean. By the way, Jack was involved in some shady stuff that the writers have totally ignored since so Dean had all the rights to be at least suspicious. Mileage varies.

[Myrelle]

11 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

Dean was a grown man dealing with the equivalent of a (dangerously super-powered) child who, despite how Dean felt about it in his grief, was not at direct fault for Castiel’s death or Mary’s uncertain fate and didn’t deserve that blame. I mentioned earlier that people should ideally be allowed to grieve as they wish until it harms others — to me, Dean telling a confused and overwhelmed kid he didn’t believe he could be good and saying he’d be the one to kill Jack qualifies as harmful.

I’m also not sure how it would have been possible to grant Dean his wish of not engaging or interacting with Jack anyway, short of unfairly relegating Jack to only a small area of the bunker and leaving him on his own whenever the brothers needed to work together on a case (which I think would only intensify his feelings of otherness and being unwelcome). Again, Jack wasn’t truly responsible for the losses Dean was mourning, so there was no real reason to treat him like a guilty pariah and plenty of potential reasons to try to appeal to and avoid upsetting a being that powerful. Dean, whom it’s worth noting is also not innocent when it comes to prioritizing the more pressing mission at hand over the immediate feelings of others (5.11, 7.07, 13.17), should have been able to understand this reality even in his grief, IMO.

I disagree with a lot of this, too. Sam could have parented Jack if that's what he wanted to do. Dean could have hunted a lot. They don't need to do everything together any more and if a partner is needed we now know that there are others out there that they can call on, if needed, for that help.

As for the bolded part, Dean could have(and likely would have, IMO) figured this out on his own. After all, it's not only been expected of him since he was a child, it's been demanded of him-first by John and now by Sam and I'll even add Mother Mary in there, at this point. Yay for family.

[Reganne]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

After Dean agreed Jack could come back to the bunker, Sam could have said, "I know your not his biggest fan, I'll take responsibility for him I'm just asking you to be civil. "

When the case from Missouri came in Sam could have said, "Hey Dean, I caught a case why don't you take it, I'll stay with Jack."  Because later that same ep, Sam had zero issues going out and leaving Jack alone.  Instead he told Dean he had to stay and help.  Or Sam could have said, lets go on a case me and you, since once again leaving Jack alone in the bunker wasn't an issue for Sam when he felt the need to go out.

Dean flat out told Sam he was having trouble being around Jack.  Sam didn't listen, so he cant' exactly be surprised when Dean grew more hostile.  Which is another example of Sam's complete lack of awareness where it concerns Dean.

And Dean made the decision to go on the hunt with Missouri because he's a grown man and can make his own decisions.  If Dean felt he needed his space from Jack, he could have said No Sam.  I am not bringing him on a hunt.  I need my space.  You two can go on this hunt together.

5 minutes ago, Etoile said:

I'm not going to explain my points again because the argument would become circular and I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's fine to agree to disagree. I want just to point out that in 13.05 Jack was indeed left alone while the bros went hunting so the above point is moot because there were ways to avoid that Dean came in close contact with Jack before he was ready. There is a world of difference between 'unfairly relegating Jack to a small area of the bunker' and 'forcing that he hunts with them five minutes after Dean has said the mere sight of him hurts' wether Dean's feelings about Jack were or not valid objectively they were valid to Dean. By the way, Jack was involved in some shady stuff that the writers have totally ignored since so Dean had all the rights to be at least suspicious. Mileage varies.

There's a difference between always leaving Jack behind and sometimes leaving him.  There needed to be a balance IMO.

[ILoveReading]

When Dean opens up he's frequently told to suck it up or he's somehow doing feelings wrong.

TBH, it doesn't bother me that much if someone opens up to Dean and repeats this.  Its what he's been taught by those around him.   If its okay for Dean because of "circumstances" then it should be okay for other character too.

Quote

And Dean made the decision to go on the hunt with Missouri because he's a grown man and can make his own decisions.  If Dean felt he needed his space from Jack, he could have said No Sam.  I am not bringing him on a hunt.  I need my space.  You two can go on this hunt together.

After Sam tried to tell him he couldn't.   I liked that Dean went his own way.  Good for him for sticking up for himself. 

Dean tried to tell Sam he didn't want Jack on the hunt.  Sam didn't listen and tried to shove Jack at Dean harder.  Plus, I don't see Dean being comfortable with Sam on a hunt with someone he didn't trust. 

Sam only backed off after the got his own way. 

I always felt that 13.5 and 13.4 should have been reversed.  If the episode after Dean's feelings was Sam telling Dean to get away it would have made Sam appear so much more understanding and Dean's attitude in 13.04 more understandable. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Reganne]

9 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I disagree with a lot of this, too. Sam could have parented Jack if that's what he wanted to do. Dean could have hunted a lot. They don't need to do everything together any more and if a partner is needed we now know that there are others out there that they can call on, if needed, for that help.

 

And nothing stopped Dean from going on a hunt with Jody and Missouri.  He could have done that more if that's what he wanted.  He doesn't need to always stay with Sam.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reganne

[cavelupum]

As a general addition to the discussion, my big issue that I take with the way Dean handled his grief is that he seemed to directly blame Jack for what happened, which wasn’t fair because Jack wasn’t directly responsible for the losses he was mourning. It’s not like Dean just wanted to be left alone by everyone to cope in solitude — he specifically and in a targeted way wanted to exclude just Jack, and Jack knew this (see his convo with Sam in 13.04), knew Dean thought he was destined for evil, knew Dean planned to kill him should he turn, and was afraid of Dean as a result. Given that Jack was a strange combination of innocent and dangerous, Dean not troubling to hide his negative feelings before they even brought Jack back to the bunker was a problem that needed to be rectified to some degree, not just because they really did need to keep this unknown entity on a good path to the best of their abilities but also because it was a bit unfair to Jack, who did nothing to really earn Dean’s dislike of him at that point save being born.

Edited May 21, 2018 by cavelupum
autocorrect error

[Myrelle]

25 minutes ago, Reganne said:

And nothing stopped Dean from going on a hunt with Jody and Missouri.  He could have done that more if that's what he wanted.  

  

The writers stopped him, just as they made Sam badger Dean about parenting Jack and then justified it as the right thing to do by having Dean apologize after being ripped to shreds by that awesome grief counselor first. Oh, and admit to Death that he felt  like he was holding Sam back(or whatever he said in AT-but at least that conversation gave us at least an inkling of Dean's real, true, and deeper mindset where it concerns greater and more general matters between the brothers).

I DO predominantly blame the  writing for the business with Jack-especially as I don't see them ever re-visiting that or calling Sam out as being wrong in any way(other than what Dean said when he was angry-which didn't even touch on Sam acting very John-like, himself-and as they had Sam do regarding Dean when Sam felt like Dean was acting like John) on any of it. That was kind of the point I was attempting to make.

IMO, it was the writers' complete intent to make Sam look more right than wrong regarding how the two brothers handled Jack at the beginning of the season. Jensen was once more required to soften the writing for Dean so that we could understand and sympathize with him and from where he was coming from in regards to Jack after the events of the S12 finale. They demand this of Jensen often, IMO, because he excels at it, but it gets real old having him make good and salient points about many things, only to force him to take them back-and sometimes now within the very same episode!-or to not allow him to even voice them at all-even while it's been shown to us in even a debatable manner.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Myrelle

[ILoveReading]

I believe the writers set out to make Dean the bad guy with the whole Jack situation.   They wrote him extra vanilla to make Dean's attitude seem worse and they barely touched on his grief.   The one episode we get into his head space Cas is immediately brought back.

But at the same time we get scenes of Sam bonding with Jack, and when Dean laid it out that Sam was using Jack there was a scene where Sam got to explain his feelings. 

Don't even get me started on that horrid "grief" episode.

[Reganne]

20 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

  

The writers stopped him, just as they made Sam badger Dean about parenting Jack and then justified it as the right thing to do by having Dean apologize after being ripped to shreds by that awesome grief counselor first. Oh, and admit to Death that he felt  like he was holding Sam back(or whatever he said in AT-but at least that conversation gave us at least an inkling of Dean's real, true, and deeper mindset where it concerns greater and more general matters between the brothers).

I DO predominantly blame the  writing for the business with Jack-especially as I don't see them ever re-visiting that or calling Sam out as being wrong in any way(other than what Dean said when he was angry-which didn't even touch on Sam acting very John-like, himself-and as they had Sam do regarding Dean when Sam felt like Dean was acting like John) on any of it. That was kind of the point I was attempting to make.

IMO, it was the writers' complete intent to make Sam look more right than wrong regarding how the two brothers handled Jack at the beginning of the season. Jensen was once more required to soften the writing for Dean so that we could understand and sympathize with him and from where he was coming from in regards to Jack after the events of the S12 finale. They demand this of Jensen often, IMO, because he excels at it, but it gets real old having him make good and salient points about many things, only to force him to take them back-and sometimes now within the very same episode!-or to not allow him to even voice them at all-even while it's been shown to us in even a debatable manner.

To me, blaming Sam for making Dean be with Jack and blaming the writers are two different things.  If you want to say that the writers made Dean look wrong in the Jack situation, I would agree with you.  They did.  Most of that had to do with the fact that Dean was lashing out at Jack at the beginning of the season.  I think many viewers didn't like to see that because they were falling in love with Jack's character.  The writers made Jack a character that the audience loves, so in turn it made Dean's actions look that much worse.  There are times through out the series where they make Sam look wrong or bad as well, so I wouldn't say that it's something that's only unique to Dean.

[Myrelle]

10 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I believe the writers set out to make Dean the bad guy with the whole Jack situation.   They wrote him extra vanilla to make Dean's attitude seem worse and they barely touched on his grief.   The one episode we get into his head space Cas is immediately brought back.

This. So much.

Jack was written and portrayed as a sweet and altogether innocent little cinnamon roll and little more or else-and certainly not in any way as a bona-fide spawn of Satan/The Devil. This was done for a reason and they can claim nature vs nurture all they want, but that's not what I saw where it concerned Lucifer being Jack's father. IMO, all that he got from Lucifer were archangel powers and nothing else as regards the nature part. No he was Saint Kelly's son (and maybe the President's, too) through and through and nothing more-so yeah, the whole nature vs nurture thing was a complete bust for me and likely too ambitious of an undertaking for this crop of writers. IMO, of course.

Just now, Reganne said:

To me, blaming Sam for making Dean be with Jack and blaming the writers are two different things.  If you want to say that the writers made Dean look wrong in the Jack situation, I would agree with you.  They did.  Most of that had to do with the fact that Dean was lashing out at Jack at the beginning of the season.  I think many viewers didn't like to see that because they were falling in love with Jack's character.  The writers made Jack a character that the audience loves, so in turn it made Dean's actions look that much worse.  There are times through out the series where they make Sam look wrong or bad as well, so I wouldn't say that it's something that's only unique to Dean.

I never said that it was unique to Dean. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I believe the writers set out to make Dean the bad guy with the whole Jack situation.   They wrote him extra vanilla to make Dean's attitude seem worse and they barely touched on his grief.   The one episode we get into his head space Cas is immediately brought back.

Yeah, the first few episodes were as subtle as a sledgehammer. 

And the more Sam kept badgering about Jack, the more hostile and annoyed Dean grew and the more he got blamed for being hostile. Which annoyed me. The gried councelor episode was the precictable ending, complete with a lesson by an obnoxious writer`s mouthpiece, telling us all how we were supposed to hate Dean for how he acted and him apologizing for being a dick afterwards. 

That`s why I shudder these days whenever Dean gets or even tries to express a legitimate grievance or feeling. It is never allowed to stand. He is gonna end up apologizing for it anyway. 

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, cavelupum said:

Dean was a grown man dealing with the equivalent of a (dangerously super-powered) child who, despite how Dean felt about it in his grief, was not at direct fault for Castiel’s death or Mary’s uncertain fate and didn’t deserve that blame.

Actually, if Jack, who seemed to have powers in the womb, would've allowed Kelly to have her choice to end both of them via her death, then the rift wouldn't have happened. I realize that backward extrapolation can go too long and too far, but this was a direct action that caused her to continue the pregnancy and the rift opened shortly thereafter.

[ILoveReading]

9 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Jack was written and portrayed as a sweet and altogether innocent little cinnamon roll and little more or else-and certainly not in any way as a bona-fide spawn of Satan/The Devil. This was done for a reason and they can claim nature vs nurture all they want, but that's not what I saw where it concerned Lucifer being Jack's father. IMO, all that he got from Lucifer were archangel powers and nothing else as regards the nature part. No he was Saint Kelly's son (and maybe the President's, too) through and through and nothing more-so yeah, the whole nature vs nurture thing was a complete bust for me and likely too ambitious of an undertaking for this crop of writers. IMO, of course.

Yeah, the writers failed miserably in the nature/nurture thing.  Never once did I think think Jack was anything but a nougat loving cinnamon roll.  I never felt he was going to go off white, let alone evil all season.

In the last few episodes if the writers truly wanted me to feel "oh noes, Lucifer might be influencing Jack," I, as a viewer should have been worried or at last had doubts that Jack would side with Lucifer over the Winchesters.  I didn't.  Not even for a second. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by ILoveReading

[gonzosgirrl]

4 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

And the more Sam kept badgering about Jack, the more hostile and annoyed Dean grew and the more he got blamed for being hostile. Which annoyed me. The gried councelor episode was the precictable ending, complete with a lesson by an obnoxious writer`s mouthpiece, telling us all how we were supposed to hate Dean for how he acted and him apologizing for being a dick afterwards. 

Yep.

[Reganne]

7 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

 

I never said that it was unique to Dean. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I wasnt intending to say you said that.  I guess I used a phrase that could be interpreted that way so I apologize for that.  I was trying to point out that the writers have done this to Sam as well.

[trxr4kids]

7 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Most of that had to do with the fact that Dean was lashing out at Jack at the beginning of the season.  I think many viewers didn't like to see that because they were falling in love with Jack's character.  The writers made Jack a character that the audience loves, so in turn it made Dean's actions look that much worse.

I've said it before but it bears repeating, IDGAF about Jack AKA Spawn of Satan! Phew I feel better.

[Reganne]

1 minute ago, trxr4kids said:

I've said it before but it bears repeating, IDGAF about Jack AKA Spawn of Satan! Phew I feel better.

Lol.  I love Jack but that's how I felt about Benny when it appeared everyone else loved the character.  I'm like, I really don't and I hope he never comes back.  Yeah I think I am just bitter about season 8 in general.

[gonzosgirrl]

It's amusing how any and every instance of Dean's character being undermined by the writers (the thread subtitle is who the writers screwed this week) is met/countered with but.. but... Sammy! As if that justified it, makes it okay. It doesn't. I care about what they do to Dean, and that they might have done the same to Sam two or six or twelve seasons ago doesn't mitigate the shittiness of what they are doing to Dean. I've a feeling this thread wouldn't be 112 pages long if we could just vent our opinions without all that.

7 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I've said it before but it bears repeating, IDGAF about Jack AKA Spawn of Satan! Phew I feel better.

Me too.

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Lol.  I love Jack but that's how I felt about Benny when it appeared everyone else loved the character.  I'm like, I really don't and I hope he never comes back.  Yeah I think I am just bitter about season 8 in general.

If only they'd wrapped up Nougat Baby just as quickly. 

[Myrelle]

12 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

I've said it before but it bears repeating, IDGAF about Jack AKA Spawn of Satan! Phew I feel better.

LOL! Right there with you... ;-D

[Reganne]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's amusing how any and every instance of Dean's character being undermined by the writers (the thread subtitle is who the writers screwed this week) is met/countered with but.. but... Sammy! As if that justified it, makes it okay. It doesn't. I care about what they do to Dean, and that they might have done the same to Sam two or six or twelve seasons ago doesn't mitigate the shittiness of what they are doing to Dean. I've a feeling this thread wouldn't be 112 pages long if we could just vent our opinions without all that.

I think it happens because of comments regarding the writers preferences and how people claim they don't care about Dean and much prefer Sam.  If they are doing the same things to the characters at some point, then I can't understand why when it comes to Dean it's to insult his character because they apparently prefer Sam.

 

I think you would have a lot less comments on these things if people weren't playing "the writers favor someone who's not my fav" card.  Or the "they don't like my fav so they are trying to make them look bad."  Those kinds of arguments don't hold much for me when the writers do these things for all sorts of characters.  

[cavelupum]

23 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's amusing how any and every instance of Dean's character being undermined by the writers (the thread subtitle is who the writers screwed this week) is met/countered with but.. but... Sammy! As if that justified it, makes it okay. It doesn't. I care about what they do to Dean, and that they might have done the same to Sam two or six or twelve seasons ago doesn't mitigate the shittiness of what they are doing to Dean. I've a feeling this thread wouldn't be 112 pages long if we could just vent our opinions without all that.

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn’t contribute half as much as I do to this thread if venting about how Dabb & Co. treat Dean didn’t often go hand-in-hand with taking (what I often see as unfair) digs at Sam or implying he’s the writers’ favorite — I have never and will never understand the latter, especially post-S7. I also think both sides are guilty of jumping in to defend their fave, but that’s just me.

[Aeryn13]

I`m okay with Jack but they desperately need to give him an edge as a character. He can`t be Saintly McMartyrdom 24/7. 

I did like his scene with Dean in the Finale because characters just work better for me when they interact with Dean. But still there needs to be more than the nougat!baby. And his entire angst was also born out of his saintliness so far. Alexander Calvert is good and I`m not saying he has to suddenly play Anarchy from Arrow again but the writers ought to give Jack some real negative traits, too.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Aeryn13

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I think it happens because of comments regarding the writers preferences and how people claim they don't care about Dean and much prefer Sam.  If they are doing the same things to the characters at some point, then I can't understand why when it comes to Dean it's to insult his character because they apparently prefer Sam.

I guess it's because we're talking perceptions. Even when something is spelled out in words and deeds and should be indisputable, people interpret what they really meant, or what their head-canons tell them is true. I personally don't see the same disrespect and disdain being dealt out to Sam's character, so yeah, when my concerns are met with the 'but Sam' rejoinders, it just makes the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.

2 minutes ago, cavelupum said:

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn’t contribute half as much as I do to this thread if venting about how Dabb & Co. treat Dean didn’t often go hand-in-hand with taking (what I often see as unfair) digs at Sam or implying he’s the writers’ favorite — I have never and will never understand the latter, especially post-S7. I also think both sides are guilty of jumping in to defend their fave, but that’s just me.

I can only speak for myself as well, but I tend to make statements about Dean. But I am definitely guilty of engaging when the but Sam's come back in response.

[Reganne]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I guess it's because we're talking perceptions. Even when something is spelled out in words and deeds and should be indisputable, people interpret what they really meant, or what their head-canons tell them is true. I personally don't see the same disrespect and disdain being dealt out to Sam's character, so yeah, when my concerns are met with the 'but Sam' rejoinders, it just makes the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.

And I see a lot of things with Dean's character that I consider to be dealt with better than with Sam's that it sends my head spinning when people claim the writers prefer Sam.  I don't understand it.

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, Etoile said:

The difference to me is that Dean doesn't try to force anything on Sam, he simply wants to be left alone. It's a HUGE difference IMO.

I disagree. Being "left alone" does force things on Sam in a way. If Sam's way of coping is to share grief with family and Dean won't share and just expects Sam to suffer alone, in my opinion that is just as much enforcing his own wants on Sam. And as I mentioned, in the case of John's death, "Sam, Interrupted" and in the Gadreel situation, Dean just expecting Sam to "get over it" and not talk about it, is in a way, in my opinion, saying "my way or the highway." It's forcing Sam to forgo the comforts of family, because Dean just wants to not talk about it. It's not like Sam has any other family to talk to about it.

1 hour ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's amusing how any and every instance of Dean's character being undermined by the writers (the thread subtitle is who the writers screwed this week) is met/countered with but.. but... Sammy!

Heh. I'm pretty sure that it goes both ways. If I remember correctly, this current discussion included a lot of "but, but Dean..." (in relation to Dean's hell situation not being properly addressed.) Though I admit I could be remembering it wrongly.

And generally my "but, but Sam's" comments come up from some comment addressing something else with "yeah, but Sam's a jerk." - Not exactly like that, because it's often more subtle, but that is the general gist of the comment. I already understand that quite a few people here think Sam's a jerk and that's fine. The thing that gets me going is when I see "Sam's a jerk, because of..." accompanied by things that Dean also does, but yet Sam's the only one who's a jerk for doing it.

I'm an equal opportunity "they're being jerks" person. I'll call both characters out, and have on multiple occasions. The main exception is season 8, because I didn't find the behavior there for either brother to be in character myself. The first half of the season was just one big WtF? for me and a failure. And I rolled my eyes at all of the "isn't Benny just awesome!" pimping. I mean at least Jack messes up sometimes. I could've really enjoyed Benny had he been allowed to be a more complex character, but alas no. And most of the beginning of season 8 was "The Benny Show... also with these jerky losers Sam and Dean" for me. I sort of wondered if I was seeing that wrong... until the point when Dean tells Benny he's got to cut him loose... and then I was like "oh, come on, really? Dean wouldn't do that. You writers suck!" and I came to my conclusion that that's what was going on.

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It's amusing how any and every instance of Dean's character being undermined by the writers (the thread subtitle is who the writers screwed this week) is met/countered with but.. but... Sammy!

This so much! And when Sam is the one that's written as "bad" in whatever scenario is being discussed it's " but he only did that because Dean did/said etc..." As you said in an earlier post it's funny how we're all watching the same show with such wildly varying interpretations. To each their own I guess.

[Katy M]

22 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

This so much! And when Sam is the one that's written as "bad" in whatever scenario is being discussed it's " but he only did that because Dean did/said etc..." As you said in an earlier post it's funny how we're all watching the same show with such wildly varying interpretations. To each their own I guess.

They both make their own choices.  Sure, maybe something wouldn't be a choice but for something the other did. For instance, if Dean hadn't taken the mark, Sam wouldn't have had a reason to try to get rid of it.  And, if Sam hadn't died, Dean wouldn't have had a reason to sell his soul.  But, that doesn't make the resultant actions the other's fault.  Although I probably should have found a better example for Sam since dying wasn't a conscious choice he made.  But, I'm kind of tired right now, so that's what I'm going with.  

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

Although I probably should have found a better example for Sam since dying wasn't a conscious choice he made.  But, I'm kind of tired right now, so that's what I'm going with.  

Point well made :)

[MysteryGuest]

20 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Of course he isn't superman, but again, it comes down to a pattern. I don't think Sam is a loser for not being able to defeat the vamp or failing to kill Lucifer himself, but at the end of the day the show is choosing to create scenarios in which Sam didn't manage to get the win. And taken as a whole, S13, especially the second half, seemed comparatively light on victories for Sam. That doesn't mean the writers loathe him or think he's incompetent or aren't going to give him some great scenes next year, but I agree that this was not a particularly strong season for Sam as a hunter.

As for Sam's contribution to Lucifer's death - I don't think anyone is discounting it. He did play a part, an utterly essential one. But... it wasn't the classic hero's role; it was the sidekick role. Throwing a weapon to the guy who actually strikes the killing blow is standard sidekick fare. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it was more than it was. Sam even credited Dean alone with the kill before Dean acknowledged Sam's contribution, and Sam wasn't totally delusional to do so, especially as not only the final kill, but also the initial plan to allow Michael in was Dean's.

I honestly do not keep score of who kills whom, who falls down the most, or who wins the most fights.  I guess it's normal for some people to do that on a show with two leads, but it's not something I pay attention to.  It's not a competition, at least not for me.  I don't care about the classic hero role, what matters to me is that neither brother could have killed Lucifer without the other's help.  So if it had been Sam who was being chocked into unconsciousness and Dean had managed to get him the archangel blade in the nick of time to kill Lucifer, I'd feel exactly the same way about the end result.  I do realize that we all watch for different reasons and interpret things differently.  Such is life.

[Reganne]

7 minutes ago, Katy M said:

They both make their own choices.  Sure, maybe something wouldn't be a choice but for something the other did. For instance, if Dean hadn't taken the mark, Sam wouldn't have had a reason to try to get rid of it.  And, if Sam hadn't died, Dean wouldn't have had a reason to sell his soul.  But, that doesn't make the resultant actions the other's fault.  Although I probably should have found a better example for Sam since dying wasn't a conscious choice he made.  But, I'm kind of tired right now, so that's what I'm going with.  

I agree.  Just like it's not Sam's fault that Dean treated Jack badly in the beginning of season 13 because Sam tried  to force him on Dean.  Dean made his own choices to stay around and treat him the way he did.

[MysteryGuest]

21 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I agree.  Just like it's not Sam's fault that Dean treated Jack badly in the beginning of season 13 because Sam tried  to force him on Dean.  Dean made his own choices to stay around and treat him the way he did.

Sadly, neither Dean nor Sam get to make their own choices.  They're made for them by the writers.  And sometimes the writers really fuck up and write things that are completely out of character for both brothers just to get from point A to B...season 8 will always be my example of this.  I know we all like to defend our favorites, but I think the writers will happily throw either brother under the bus if it gets them where they want to go.  And then we're left discussing who did what to whom for 13 years, and counting.  

[DeeDee79]

34 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I know we all like to defend our favorites, but I think the writers will happily throw either brother under the bus if it gets them where they want to go.  And then we're left discussing who did what to whom for 13 years, and counting.  

Yes! Very true and accurate statement.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, Reganne said:

I agree.  Just like it's not Sam's fault that Dean treated Jack badly in the beginning of season 13 because Sam tried  to force him on Dean.  Dean made his own choices to stay around and treat him the way he did.

I don't think anybody said the things Dean said and did to Jack were Sam's fault. What was Sam's fault was creating the circumstances whereby Dean was forced to be in Jack's company, despite the many times he said he didn't want to be. And the bunker is Dean's home, too - he shouldn't have had to leave, presuming that's what you mean by him 'choosing to stay around'.

Edited May 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[DeeDee79]

12 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

And the bunker is Dean's home, too - he shouldn't have had to leave, presuming that's what you men by him 'choosing to stay around'.

Exactly. He shouldn't have to scout out hunts in order to make himself scarce in order to avoid Jack. If anything his comfort and state of mind while in his own home should be considered before Jack's. I don't mind Jack as a character but I sure as hell didn't "fall in love with him" this season so Dean's state of mind was of more importance to this viewer.

[Reganne]

53 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I don't think anybody said the things Dean said and did to Jack were Sam's fault. What was Sam's fault was creating the circumstances whereby Dean was forced to be in Jack's company, despite the many times he said he didn't want to be. And the bunker is Dean's home, too - he shouldn't have had to leave, presuming that's what you mean by him 'choosing to stay around'.

 

Dean agreed to bring Jack back to the bunker though.  Sam didn't make him do that.   I didn't see Sam bringing Jack around to rooms in the bunker specifically so Dean would have to be around him.  If Jack is in the bunker as Dean agreed for him to be, they are going to cross paths.  So yeah, after he made that initial choice to bring Jack in, he could keep himself away from Jack in the bunker or leave for a bit.  Heck Dean walked into Jack's room himself when he told him he would be the one to kill him.  Sam didn't shove Jack into Dean's room for that to happen.  The fact that Jack is there at all is not only on Sam but Dean as well.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Reganne

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

I honestly do not keep score of who kills whom, who falls down the most, or who wins the most fights.  I guess it's normal for some people to do that on a show with two leads, but it's not something I pay attention to.  It's not a competition, at least not for me.  I don't care about the classic hero role, what matters to me is that neither brother could have killed Lucifer without the other's help.  So if it had been Sam who was being chocked into unconsciousness and Dean had managed to get him the archangel blade in the nick of time to kill Lucifer, I'd feel exactly the same way about the end result.  I do realize that we all watch for different reasons and interpret things differently.  Such is life.

As I explained in a previous post, I don't  don't actually have a problem with Dean and Sam's respective roles in the finale, nor do I expect total parity between them. But I also don't think it is out of line, or somehow reducing the show to an immature competition, to want both/all of your main characters to frequently have a meaningful, positive role in the narrative. That doesn't mean I expect every season to be totally equal, or that I care much if a season or half season is relatively more Dean or Sam centric. But over time, if a show has two leads, and both leads are supposed to be heroes - well, then, I expect both of them to have their fair share of big damn hero moments. If they go for a long period of time where such moments are few and far between, I'm going to notice. 

After a Sam-strong S12, though Dean still has more wins over long-term villains, I'd still say that both brothers do have their fair share of big wins (though I still think Dean comes out ahead). But in the specific context of a discussion about Dean and Sam's respective roles in the finale, and who was better served, I think it is relevant to point out that Dean gets the classic hero role, as while that might not matter to you personally, it seems germane to the discussion at hand. And in the context of frequent discussions of how unfair the writers are to Dean, pointing out ways in which Dean has not only been granted prominence but arguably been given more prominence than Sam seems similarly relevant.

If I'm watching a big ensemble show like Game of Thrones, I get that a particular season may be comparatively Arya or Sansa light, and won't take it as a horrible insult against or permanent demotion of that character, but I also think it is reasonable to then hope and expect that the next season will give more attention to that character, because if the show is selling Arya as one of our core characters, that's what should happen. Similarly, Arya might have a season where she's mostly a victim and doesn't get badass moments, and that's fine and in line with a realistic character arc - but if this continues for three seasons, well, I have to conclude that the show's conception of the character has changed, or else that they're doing a lousy job writing for her. If I'm watching a show with a clear lead, like Buffy, then while I want the Scoobies to play key roles in her victories, and might like it if Willow or Giles or even Xander takes out the odd big bad for a change, I'm going to notice, at the very least, if for several seasons in a row, Buffy takes a secondary role to other people's flashier heroics. 

Bottom line: I don't think there's anything petty about observing that, in my opinion and that of some others, Sam hasn't had the strongest season, hunting wise, and took the supporting, rather than lead role in the finale. Nor - even if you, like me, don't think this is a terrible travesty -- do I think it is petty to then offer the hope that this means that Sam will get a turn at some flashier heroics in early S14, especially if it turns out that Lucifer is actually dead for real, having been killed by Dean. 

21 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Exactly. He shouldn't have to scout out hunts in order to make himself scarce in order to avoid Jack. If anything his comfort and state of mind while in his own home should be considered before Jack's. I don't mind Jack as a character but I sure as hell didn't "fall in love with him" this season so Dean's state of mind was of more importance to this viewer.

But...what else were they supposed to do with Jack? They couldn't exactly send him to a foster home (or even Jodi's - he's above her pay grade). Which meant Jack was going to be living in the bunker, in Dean's home. I'll grant that Sam  could have tried to run subtle interference to limit their interactions rather than trying to force Dean to warm up to Jack, but fundamentally, there was really no way that wouldn't have been damaging to Jack -- who, apart from any ethical considerations, it actually was really, really important to keep on their side -- to avoid Dean having to develop at least a polite toleration for his fairly regular presence in Dean's life. If Jack was going to live there, it was an appropriate expectation that he'd be, at the very least, joining the boys for meals, and the occasional outing and, yes, even some hunts. And even before Sam was trying to force them to all play happy families, Dean had showed open hostility towards Jack, who was now well aware of Dean's feelings for him,  so Sam wasn't jumping the gun in thinking that there was cause for concern. 

[DeeDee79]

3 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

But...what else were they supposed to do with Jack? They couldn't exactly send him to a foster home (or even Jodi's - he's above her pay grade). Which meant Jack was going to be living in the bunker, in Dean's home. I'll grant that Sam  could have tried to run subtle interference to limit their interactions rather than trying to force Dean to warm up to Jack, but fundamentally, there was really no way that wouldn't have been damaging to Jack -- who, apart from any ethical considerations, it actually was really, really important to keep on their side -- to avoid Dean having to develop at least a polite toleration for his fairly regular presence in Dean's life. If Jack was going to live there, it was an appropriate expectation that he'd be, at the very least, joining the boys for meals, and the occasional outing and, yes, even some hunts. And even before Sam was trying to force them to all play happy families, Dean had showed open hostility towards Jack, who was now well aware of Dean's feelings for him,  so Sam wasn't jumping the gun in thinking that there was cause for concern.

Honestly given what they knew about Jack before he was even born I wouldn't have blamed them if they had immediately taken him out or at least looked for a way to do so at the beginning of the season. Considering the fact that they were both on board with taking his grace because he was Lucifer's kid and the fact that Cas was brainwashed into betraying both brothers to make sure that Jack was born it wouldn't have been out of character for either of them. As far as I'm concerned it was more out of character for Sam to welcome Jack wholeheartedly into the bunker than it was for Dean to protest his presence. Due to Sam's history with Lucifer his insistence that Jack could be good considering that his father and the source of his power is friggin Satan was a pretty big WTF moment for me tbh. Bottom line as far as I'm concerned if Sam wanted Jack to be his pet project then he should have taken it on by himself and made his excuses as to why Dean was not involved. He was hostile because Jack was in his home, his comfort zone while he was a huge unknown which is completely understandable given who Jack is and what they had already seen happen as a result of him being conceived in the first place. The fact that fandom has fawned all over Alexander is main reason ( IMO ) that Dean has been regarded as an ogre for not daring to see what a precious, misunderstood being he is. I like Jack just fine but the entire beginning of the season with his presence being yet another reason for the writers to put a rift between the brothers infuriated me and was straight up bullshit. 

[MysteryGuest]

13 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Bottom line: I don't think there's anything petty about observing that, in my opinion and that of some others, Sam hasn't had the strongest season, hunting wise, and took the supporting, rather than lead role in the finale. Nor - even if you, like me, don't think this is a terrible travesty -- do I think it is petty to then offer the hope that this means that Sam will get a turn at some flashier heroics in early S14, especially if it turns out that Lucifer is actually dead for real, having been killed by Dean.

I didn't mean to imply that it was petty, it's just not my thing.  And I completely agree with you that we should all get to see our favorites play the hero and be an integral part of the story.  I happen to think the show does a pretty good job of this.  I think Sam had the flashier heroics last season, and seemed to be saving Dean's butt quite a bit.  The pendulum may have swung back a bit this season, but I feel that's been the pattern for the entire series.  

I admit to being the oddball in that I never had an issue with Dean's role in Swan Song, I actually loved it.  I never had any interest in seeing him as Michael's vessel, and I never felt cheated by the ending.  I also couldn't have cared less who got the death blow in on Lucifer this time, and am just happy that someone did it.  If the rumors are true, and he's not really dead (son of a bitch!), then I won't care who kills him the next time, either.  But I am also aware that the things that are of the least importance to me may be the most important to someone else.  

[gonzosgirrl]

5 minutes ago, MysteryGuest said:

I also couldn't have cared less who got the death blow in on Lucifer this time, and am just happy that someone did it.  If the rumors are true, and he's not really dead (son of a bitch!), then I won't care who kills him the next time, either.  

Well I care. I care a shit-ton, since Dean gave up everything in order to save Sam and Jack and end Lucifer once and for all. And if they not only undo Lucifer's death and render that sacrifice meaningless, but then hand it off to big bad Sam (or worse, someone else) to the job Dean couldn't get done even with an assist from Sam? I can tell you my reaction won't be pretty.

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

but then hand it off to big bad Sam (or worse, someone else) to the job Dean couldn't get done even with an assist from Sam? I can tell you my reaction won't be pretty.

With the addition of Jack I would say that with our current crop of writers that the odds of him being the one to end Lucifer if he's not most sincerely dead would probably be higher than Sam's. Son whose father violated and attempted to kill him will trump true, tortured vessel. 

[MysteryGuest]

29 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Well I care. I care a shit-ton, since Dean gave up everything in order to save Sam and Jack and end Lucifer once and for all. And if they not only undo Lucifer's death and render that sacrifice meaningless, but then hand it off to big bad Sam (or worse, someone else) to the job Dean couldn't get done even with an assist from Sam? I can tell you my reaction won't be pretty.

Well, Sam made the ultimate sacrifice in Swan Song, and they brought Lucifer back and rendered his sacrifice meaningless, so I won't be stunned if they do it again.  It's what they do.  And in my opinion, they do it to both brothers, equally.  And you'd be no more pissed off than some Sam fans are now.  Flip a coin, and you can bet that someone isn't going to be happy with the result.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, MysteryGuest said:

Well, Sam made the ultimate sacrifice in Swan Song, and they brought Lucifer back and rendered his sacrifice meaningless, so I won't be stunned if they do it again.  It's what they do.  And in my opinion, they do it to both brothers, equally.  And you'd be no more pissed off than some Sam fans are now.  Flip a coin, and you can bet that someone isn't going to be happy with the result.

I honestly would've been good with Sam killing Lucifer if that's what they'd set up. But that's not what happened, and with what did happen, if they reversed it now it would just about be the worse thing they could do to Dean. 

And to be fair they took 6 seasons to let Lucifer out of the cage, so negating Dean's sacrifice within a couple episodes wouldn't be the same thing at all, IMO.

Edited May 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Myrelle]

7 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

And when Sam is the one that's written as "bad" in whatever scenario is being discussed it's " but he only did that because Dean did/said etc..." As you said in an earlier post it's funny how we're all watching the same show with such wildly varying interpretations. To each their own I guess.

I honestly don't care what the fandom thinks. It's the writer intentions that bother me when they allow Sam, through actual dialogue, to even partially blame Dean for things that Sam has done, but they refuse to allow Dean a similar type of argument. And this usually occurs during the BMs and even on those rare occasions when they allow Dean a decent defense or allow Dean to leave Sam's side, not long afterwards, he's shown or told the apparent error of his ways by someone and made to apologize for those same words or deeds. And yes, S8 WAS another example of this, but it was far from the only one or the first time that happened.

I'm trying to think of a speech that was ever written for Dean to Sam that even came close to paralleling the speeches that Sam gave to Dean in Fallen Idols or Sacrifice or The Purge. I can't for the life of me think of one such speech wherein Dean was allowed to tell Sam what he thinks Sam has done wrong strictly in regards to the brother's relationship and dynamic and how and what Dean feels that Sam should change to make things better between them and why it's the way it is in Dean's opinion and from Dean's POV. And that nonsensical stuff that they gave him to throw out about what Sam should confess to in Sacrifice does not qualify, IMO, because it wasn't strictly about the brothers' relationship and dynamic. And "you let me down in ways that I can't even explain" in S5 was nothing also because he didn't and wasn't allowed to explain it-not like Sam was in those three episodes that I mentioned, that's for sure.

And Dean not being a big talker or disliking chick flick moments is no excuse either because we have seen and been shown and even been told by Sam himself of the falsity of those things concerning Dean.

The fact that they've never done this for Dean, but they have numerous times for Sam makes me believe that the writers feel that most of what is wrong with their relationship and the brothers' dynamic is Dean's fault, but still we've been shown that Sam can be just as clingy as Dean and at least debatably jealous and resentful of anyone who Sam feels Dean might put before him or place greater trust in, in Dean's life. He even said that outright to Dean about Amara. And that's also what makes it appear that Sam blame shifts and projects his own faults and flaws onto Dean, IMO-because Dean isn't given or allowed any real opportunity to air his POV in this regard except for those rare occasions when it comes out in OTT anger and/or under a supernatural influence.

In this way, I think that the writers usually favor Sam over Dean and I don't know or understand why in the world they would do it that way except that they are often just tone deaf to their own writing and/or the acting choices and portrayals that we're getting from the actors and that sometimes can greatly alter the intended message of their writing. It's like they refuse to even consider the possibility that this fictional creation of theirs can have and involve more input than strictly and only their writing, and that a visual medium such as television involves far more collaboration between  numerous and different kind of "artists" or "visionaries" than  the more simpler and strictly printed mediums would.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

Most of the following here is me playing "Devil's advocate." See my final statement at the bottom for my main conclusions.

58 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

It's the writer intentions that bother me when they allow Sam, through actual dialogue, to even partially blame Dean for things that Sam has done, but they refuse to allow Dean a similar type of argument.

You don't see the writers allowing Dean to do this, too, but I have seen examples. "Point of No Return" had Dean partially blaming Sam for his wanting to say "yes" to Michael and telling Sam so with Sam just accepting Dean's argument without much complaint. And in "The Mentalists" Dean says that the reason he had to kill Amy Pond was because Sam couldn't and blamed Sam for his lying about it too - saying that he would've told Sam eventually (supposedly) but he was just waiting to see if Sam's waving his gun at Lucifer was just a passing thing... even though in show time it had actually been weeks, maybe even a couple of months since the waving the gun incident (Dean broke his leg after that incident and they spent weeks waiting for it to heal) and apparently Dean trusted Sam enough to go hunting with him, but not to tell Sam the truth, so in my opinion, that was a weak argument at best, but Sam accepted it and the blame and conceded to Dean that he (Sam) was being unreasonable. Which is also the way that the narrative showed it, in my opinion, since Dean got to accuse Sam of acting like a bitch for daring to be angry about the lying and even ghost Ellen implied that Sam was treating Dean unfairly. And Dean has blamed Sam for abandoning the family and him (Dean) by going to college. Yes, the writers allowed Sam to temporarily say "I was just going to school," but Sam ended up learning the very special lesson that he was wrong to have gone to college (in "Afterschool Special"), admitting to himself that it ultimately not only didn't make him happy, but that the "grown up" thing to do would have been / was to accept his family responsibilities, thereby implying that Sam going to college was in fact Sam abandoning the family and shirking his family responsibilities as Dean had accused him of. Meanwhile the writers have allowed Dean's role in the entire thing to remain vague as to exactly what role Dean had in the whole argument, letting Dean be blameless in the whole thing while still being allowed to suggest that Sam is the bad guy for his actions and basically be justified by the narrative in doing so.

And these examples are in addition to the ones you gave but dismissed as not counting.

I also don't necessarily agree with the example of the "The Purge" speech as an example of letting Sam legitimately vent - though I understand why others do - because it was, in my opinion, a strawman's argument. Sam was obviously spouting untruths there... not only in that speech itself, but because in the end, even Sam's strongest argument - that he (Sam) wouldn't do the same thing - was a lie, too. Meanwhile once again Dean's lying is ignored as an issue during that speech and not considered as something that Dean should be faulted for (much like "The Mentalists"), because apparently Dean was lying for Sam's own good again, and the narrative seems to think that that is okay... whereas Sam lying for "Dean's own good" - like in season 10 - is this awful offense punishable by starting an apocalypse (again) and being called out for it by God.

So yes, I do see this as the narrative - and sometimes Dean - blaming Sam for Dean's decisions to lie, and it's usually framed as "for Sam's own good"*** rather than what it is - Dean lying. I'd throw Dean lying about Benny in there too - because Dean was shown to be justified in doing that also via the narrative - but season 8 was such a huge mess characterwise, I'm not sure I can use that as a legitimate example. Though I suppose if Dean lying about Benny was considered by the writers to be a bad thing, they could've had Benny actually be bad and there would have been consequences for Dean's lying - beyond Sam throwing a hissy fit which he was later shown to be unreasonable for doing. So yeah, Dean lying about Benny was okay too... I know there was the whole Charlie text message thing which was lame in my opinion compared to the whole Benny thing. The writers could "protest" all they wanted - "ooh, see we're having Dean say he was 'bad' for doing that" *wink wink nudge nudge* - but when the end result was Dean being shown as right for lying to protect Benny from mean, old Sam... then the end result is still mainly: Dean lying = justified. In my opinion anyway.

*** In other words, in my opinion, the narrative seems to blame Sam for Dean's lying, because poor Dean has to lie because Sam just wouldn't understand, so Dean has to lie to protect Sam from himself. And this has been justified since way back when Dean used to lie to Sam in order to protect his childhood for just a little bit longer. Dean still does it and still justifies it, and the narrative lets him.

All that being said... I understand why Dean does it. As I said above, this has been taught to Dean since he was a child. Lie to Sammy to protect him. I get it.

However, I'm not so cool with the narrative seemingly endorsing this again and again rather than addressing it as a questionable thing. And before someone points out that Sam also lied to Dean - yes, I know he has. On multiple occasions... and the narrative calls him out for it. A lot. And often with terrible consequences. I don't think the narrative does the same with Dean however... usually the opposite as it often justifies Dean lying or frames his lying as necessary due to some character flaw of Sam's.

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

The fact that they've never done this for Dean, but they have numerous times for Sam makes me believe that the writers feel that most of what is wrong with their relationship and the brothers' dynamic is Dean's fault,

I don't know. I would say that "Point of No Return"*** and "The Mentalists" and maybe even "The Dark Side of the Moon" and early season 5 may count, and those are just Dean as Dean. There's also "Soul Survivor" and that idiotic coin episode (ugh) in season 8 (ugh) and mark of Cain Dean's admonishments of Sam. Based on those I could, I think just as easily play devil's advocate and conclude that the writers think that Sam is to blame for all of the relationship problems due to his abandoning the family (how dare he leave for college), his propensity for screwing up, and his needing Dean to clean up his messes for him.

*** And yes, I know that Dean changed his mind at the end of the episode... but for me that's not much different than Sam changing his mind at the end of season 9, so...

I actually think that the narrative is more balanced than that, with the show showing that both brothers contribute to the relationship - both good and bad, but in my opinion mostly good. Others' opinions will vary on that.

[Myrelle]

My last thoughts on this-I still feel that and see Soul Survivor via Demon Dean as containing the only scene in 13 years that has ever remotely touched on Sam projecting his faults and flaws onto Dean and allowed him to voice it as something that has been a life-long problem for Dean, started by John but exacerbated and perpetuated by Sam. But even in that one it was framed in anger-"I'm your excuse for not manning up" still paints Dean as the "meaner one" of the two brothers, but being a demon and all, it was the wording one would expect. Still, I was glad for any attention to Dean's unhappiness over it being recognized and acknowledged as something he'd been angry over and with since childhood. And the same for "your very existence, ruined my life"-which, again framed in anger and demon speech and something that Dean would likely never say or even acknowledge as a genuine feeling that he'd ever had about their lives or his role in their lives-I also saw those things  as "hard truths" that needed to be said and spoken aloud by Dean to Sam-but Dean didn't get the writer endorsement of that that Sam got for The Purge speech, even though I'd admit that this one could have been meant by the writers to be seen as Dean's rebuttal/parallel to The Purge speech.  

But still I see very little forward movement from either of the brothers over any of this, so any expectation or hope for change from either brother would, IMO, depend on them creating lives that are more apart from each other-which will probably never happen considering who the writers and showrunners of this show fan pander to, first and foremost.

So I continue to think and feel that the writers favor Sam's POV over Dean's where it concerns the problems within the brother dynamic and that's why they allow him to voice it more often and in a more calm and self-assured manner than they've ever allowed Dean to voice his. And to me this makes the narrative unbalanced, although I think that it only really kicked in big-time after S4.

So, unsurprisingly, we'll have to just agree to disagree on that.

[Reganne]

In terms of the brothers dynamic, I see just as much POV from Dean.  As was already brought up earlier by Awesom04000, Dark side of the moon is a great example.  The writing and dialogue Dean got in that episode where he got vent about Sam going to college and abandoning him.  About Sam not having any heaven memories involving Dean.  Anything Sam tries to say got shut down and you even had the shot of Dean throwing the amulet in the garbage at the end of the episode.  This is significant not only to the fact that Dean was let down by God, but also that he was let down by Sam.  

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

In terms of the brothers dynamic, I see just as much POV from Dean.  As was already brought up earlier by Awesom04000, Dark side of the moon is a great example.  The writing and dialogue Dean got in that episode where he got vent about Sam going to college and abandoning him.  About Sam not having any heaven memories involving Dean.  Anything Sam tries to say got shut down and you even had the shot of Dean throwing the amulet in the garbage at the end of the episode.  This is significant not only to the fact that Dean was let down by God, but also that he was let down by Sam.  

Really? Sam got to 'defend' his memories by saying he didn't think of family the same way as Dean, because he 'didn't get the crusts cut off his sandwiches' like Dean did*. Which completely dismissed all the things Sam did get from Dean as his family. I've seen many theories that the memories were manipulated, or these weren't his real memories, or they weren't his 'best' memories and therefore Dean misunderstood that none of Sam's good memories involved Dean being part of his life. Except, Sam DID have the chance to say any or all of that before he was 'shut down', but instead chose to say what he did. He defended and deflected - because that's Sam's default position.

 

*And threw it in his face after literally seeing Dean get those crusts cut off, yet moments later having to comfort his mother instead of the other way around and saying he didn't realize how long Dean had been cleaning up John's messes.

Edited May 22, 2018 by gonzosgirrl