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

[gonzosgirrl]

I get the humor/temptation of trying to shortcut repeated complaints about/on behalf of the characters, but this is the only place available for complaining and venting about the many flavours of suck that the writers heap on Dean (in my case). The fact that it's happened (many times) before is what make me want to bitch about it. When Show stops repeating itself, I will too. *g*

And yep, my mileage most definitely varies on Dean's defeat and death at Metatron's hand being a 'win'. He went into that fight with one goal in mind, and it wasn't distracting the douchebag. He knocked Sam out and went in alone in order to kill Metatron, and got dead and turned into a demon for it.

ETA: re the thread. I do think there would be a lot less repetition if each time somebody vented about Dean, it wasn't answered with a but.. but SAM (or vice versa). It doesn't have to be ___ vs ___ ,  a comparison of who got screwed worse, when all (I) want to say is that ___ got screwed. Somebody else getting screwed worse/differently neither negates nor mitigates it.

Edited January 30, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[AwesomO4000]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

Well, Dean might not have thought it a loss but I sure did! LOL I mean he became his literal worst nightmare.  I feel pretty sure that if Dean had a choice between permanent irrevocable death and becoming a demon he'd take the former. That's not a win for Dean no matter how much demon!Dean didn't give a fuck about anyone or anything. 

Ah, okay I see where our points are differing now.

What happened to Dean at the end of season 9 was a personal loss, as in Dean himself would not have considered what happened to him a "win." However, narratively and on a large scale, it was a win (imo.) They beat the bad guy. On this show, I tend to look at arcs based on the large scale win versus the personal one... because as I said, what happened at the end of season 5 wasn't really a personal win for Sam either. He was horrified at what Soulless Sam did and ended up carrying a lot of guilt from it.

[ahrtee]

11 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

I get the humor/temptation of trying to shortcut repeated complaints about/on behalf of the characters, but this is the only place available for complaining and venting about the many flavours of suck that the writers heap on Dean (in my case). The fact that it's happened (many times) before is what make me want to bitch about it. When Show stops repeating itself, I will too. *g*

Ah, well, I certainly don't want to interfere with anyone's pleasure in complaining!  :)  

[companionenvy]

Ending the season in catastrophically dire circumstances doesn't negate the win, IMO. Otherwise, Sam winding up in the cage for all eternity at the end of 5 couldn't be considered a win.

As for the thread meta-question of repetition: yeah, I think some of the conversations about past events get kind of repetitive (I really never want to discuss whether or not Dean got shafted in Swan Song again, for instance)! But the question of the writers pattern of treatment of a character is, IMO, central to this thread. In a lot of cases, the issues people have with individual episodes isn't that Sam happened to get a win and not Dean or Sam got Samselled while Dean saved the day and so on. It is that individual episodes may be part of a perceived pattern of treatment, in which Sam is almost always wrong, or Dean is almost always getting sidelined, or Cas hasn't gotten a real win in a good five seasons (sorry, my own perspective might be bleeding in a little toward the end there). 

Not that I always, or even usually agree that these patterns exist, but in theory, they are pretty important in explaining a reaction to any given episode. 

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

What happened to Dean at the end of season 9 was a personal loss, as in Dean himself would not have considered what happened to him a "win." However, narratively and on a large scale, it was a win (imo.) They beat the bad guy

Sam knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he was saving the world. Dean wasn't trying to really save the world either. He already killed Abaddon so killing Metatron was a bonus. Then he woke up a demon and didn't care about anything. It was only after he was cured that he took out a pound of flesh from Metatron but even that wasn't a win because that just fueled his bloodlust even more.

I guess I'm not seeing a win for the world or Dean with Metatron being alive. 

[DeeDee79]

I could be wrong but my interpretation of what @ahrtee was trying to say is that while this is indeed the thread to gripe about which brother gets shafted the most it's kinda tiresome to see the same arguments trotted out in an attempt to change each others mind. No one is really in the wrong because it's all up to your perception of how your fave is being treated but how many times are we going to argue over Ruby/Gadreel/Benny/Swan Song, etc...etc...etch....JMHO for what it's worth.

Edited January 30, 2018 by DeeDee79

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

I could be wrong but my interpretation of what @ahrtee was trying to say is that while this is indeed the thread to gripe about which brother gets shafted the most it's kinda tiresome to see the same arguments trotted out in an attempt to change each others mind. No one is really in the wrong because it's all up to your perception of how your fave is being treated but how many times are we going to argue over Ruby/Gadreel/Benny/Swan Song, etc...etc...etch....JMHO for what it's worth.

I guess that really depends on whether you see it as trying to change minds. I'm not trying to change minds and I never thought anyone was trying to change mine either.  Just more of points being made in the discussion/conversation. But that's just me.

[DeeDee79]

Just now, catrox14 said:

I guess that really depends on whether you see it as trying to change minds. I'm not trying to change minds and I never thought anyone was trying to change mine either.  Just more of points being made in the discussion/conversation. But that's just me.

For the most part IMO most of the posters here don't try to change each others minds; everyone is pretty respectful on these boards. I have seen posters that try to challenge a viewpoint that they don't agree with to the point of where it's almost like being attacked for having a difference of opinion. I've certainly had it happen to me :(

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, DeeDee79 said:

I could be wrong but my interpretation of what @ahrtee was trying to say is that while this is indeed the thread to gripe about which brother gets shafted the most it's kinda tiresome to see the some arguments trotted out in an attempt to change each others mind. No one is really in the wrong because it's all up to your perception of how your fave is being treated but how many times are we going to argue over Ruby/Gadreel/Benny/Swan Song, etc...etc...etch....JMHO for what it's worth.

Thank you, DeeDee.   I guess I'm not being very clear.   There are some eps (where there are very strong opinions on both sides and which have been discussed multiple times) that I think we should just say Agree to Disagree immediately whenever they come up (including most of the examples you gave.)  

The main thing that bothers me in many of these discussions is the "always" and "never" part.  It may be a "perceived pattern" to one person but others may see it differently (or at least, not as a deliberate insult by the writers/producers). 

It wouldn't bother me at all, eg., if someone said "The writing in this ep made Sam look like an idiot, just like it did in xxx, xxx and xxx."  It's the "They *always* make Sam look like an idiot" that makes me cringe and want to rebut with all the proof I can muster to the contrary, which leads to this:

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

I guess that really depends on whether you see it as trying to change minds. I'm not trying to change minds and I never thought anyone was trying to change mine either.  Just more of points being made in the discussion/conversation. But that's just me.

 I see one person saying "this is what I see/believe" and another saying, "OK.  This is the way I see it," as an interesting exchange of views.  Once it gets into "but what about this," and "yes, but, this happened here," then it seems more like trying to prove your point, even if it's done politely.  *shrugs*  I should probably just stay out of this thread. :)  (I usually try to but get sucked in now and then...)

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

 I see one person saying "this is what I see/believe" and another saying, "OK.  This is the way I see it," as an interesting exchange of views.  Once it gets into "but what about this," and "yes, but, this happened here," then it seems more like trying to prove your point, even if it's done politely.  *shrugs*  I should probably just stay out of this thread. :)  (I usually try to but get sucked in now and then...)

I completely agree! Though I admit to getting sucked back in every time I see new posts in this thread also...

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Thank you, DeeDee.   I guess I'm not being very clear.   There are some eps (where there are very strong opinions on both sides and which have been discussed multiple times) that I think we should just say Agree to Disagree immediately whenever they come up (including most of the examples you gave.)  

The main thing that bothers me in many of these discussions is the "always" and "never" part.  It may be a "perceived pattern" to one person but others may see it differently (or at least, not as a deliberate insult by the writers/producers). 

It wouldn't bother me at all, eg., if someone said "The writing in this ep made Sam look like an idiot, just like it did in xxx, xxx and xxx."  It's the "They *always* make Sam look like an idiot" that makes me cringe and want to rebut with all the proof I can muster to the contrary, which leads to this:

 I see one person saying "this is what I see/believe" and another saying, "OK.  This is the way I see it," as an interesting exchange of views.  Once it gets into "but what about this," and "yes, but, this happened here," then it seems more like trying to prove your point, even if it's done politely.  *shrugs*  I should probably just stay out of this thread. :)  (I usually try to but get sucked in now and then...)

If I list 10 times in 10 episodes where I think Dean is getting screwed by the writing in a particular way, and someone else interprets my list as me saying 'always'  I can't do much about that.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, catrox14 said:

If I list 10 times in 10 episodes where I think Dean is getting screwed by the writing in a particular way, and someone else interprets my list as me saying 'always'  I can't do much about that.

Listing something that happened 10 times in 10 episodes is not "always" where there are nearly 300 episodes to choose from (it's also not even necessarily showing a pattern.)  I'm talking about people who literally say, "they *always* make Sam look bad" or "Dean *never* gets the win."  If you say "this always happens" and just give 10 examples,  I tend to feel obliged to point out all the other 290 times when it *didn't* happen.  If you point out 10 times Dean tripped over his own feet in the show, there's not much I can say about that (except maybe "I wish they wouldn't show him as being clumsy so often," or, if I want to be obnoxious, I can add "especially when he was shown to be graceful/light on his feet in xxx, xxx and xxx.")  

I know, I'm argumentative (and too literal!) :)  

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Listing something that happened 10 times in 10 episodes is not "always" where there are nearly 300 episodes to choose from (it's also not even necessarily showing a pattern.)  I'm talking about people who literally say, "they *always* make Sam look bad" or "Dean *never* gets the win."  If you say "this always happens" and just give 10 examples,  I tend to feel obliged to point out all the other 290 times when it *didn't* happen.  If you point out 10 times Dean tripped over his own feet in the show, there's not much I can say about that (except maybe "I wish they wouldn't show him as being clumsy so often," or, if I want to be obnoxious, I can add "especially when he was shown to be graceful/light on his feet in xxx, xxx and xxx.")  

I know, I'm argumentative (and too literal!) :)  

It might be seen as always if someone sees 10 times in 10 episodes as a Small Sample Size that can be extrapolated over the course of nearly 300 episodes to indicate a trend that is closer to "always" than "never" hence them seeing it as writers screwing over a character in a particular way.  But that's just me :).

[gonzosgirrl]

Hyperbole for emphasis is also a thing. :)

[catrox14]

Just now, gonzosgirrl said:

Hyperbole for emphasis is also a thing. :)

NO WAY! NEVER!!!

[gonzosgirrl]

47 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

NO WAY! NEVER!!!

You always say that.

[catrox14]

19 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

You always say that.

True. True.

[Myrelle]

13 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Before Castiel this season, Dean just had a huge win at the end of season 11, and at the end of season 9 and 7 before that. You could've also called killing Death and saving Sam a win, too

And IMO, Sam had big wins at the end of S5, S6(when he put himself "back together" against all odds), S8 when he was more than willing to die to shut the gates of hell except Dean stopped him AND in a long ass speech he additionally got to tell Dean his innermost feelings about how he felt that Dean has historically, within the show, made him feel bad-that counts as a huge win for Sam, in my book. Additionally, he saved Dean from the Mark at the end of S10-another win in my book and in 12 he was given huge wins, too-he became a leader amongst hunters and and beat the MOL AND during that season he killed the Alpha Vamp and the Hellhound to End All Hellhounds, too.

So yes, I'd say MV big time here on Sam "getting wins".

As for Dean wins, I've always seen S9B through the end of 11 as the writers'/showrunners' attempt at "balancing out" all those SpecialSam arcs that we were given-and pretty much non-stop, IMO-from S1-9A. 

[DeeDee79]

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

As for Dean wins, I've always seen S9B through the end of 11 as the writers'/showrunners' attempt at "balancing out" all those SpecialSam arcs that we were given-and pretty much non-stop, IMO-from S1-9A. 

Good point!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

Maybe we should just number the Sam/Dean/Cas complaints: 

Ah well, it was a nice try!

Quote

it's almost like being attacked for having a difference of opinion. I've certainly had it happen to me :(

You're certainly not the only one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[Pondlass1]

I've often suspected the network of broadcasting different versions of an episode when I read comments the next day.  People see things SO differently, it's mind-boggling sometimes.  But then.... I'm guilty of viewing through my 'Dean lens' so I guess my reactions are skewed too.

However, in terms of writing.... definitely the writers provide Dean the slow burn over several episodes.  He gets the tear filled soliloquy too - something  that's rarely written for Sam.  When Sam gives a speech it seldom makes sense, there's no real internal monologue where we can say 'oh, so that's how you feel'.    In terms of speeches, Dean is profound;  Sam mostly deflects and points fingers.

And Sam does weird stuff without explanation.  I won't go into it all here... but look up enigma in any dictionary, I'm sure it would say 'Sam Winchester'. Even this last episode...  out of the blue we get mopey Sam who doesn't want to help.  But at least the writers have stopped with the contrived angst and Sam stomping off in a huff.  That was poor writing.

 They mostly make Dean right.  But no one listens, of course.  And Sam is often written as being wrong or being 'a follower'.  (Sam fans probably have more to complain about when I think about it.)

I find these broken, tragic, complicated brothers fascinating.  There's no other relationship like it on TV for me.

But Dean's my favourite, I will defend him to the end.  

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

And Sam is often written as being wrong or being 'a follower'.  (Sam fans probably have more to complain about when I think about it.)

I've never understood what is so bad about being a follower.  Not a blind follower, of course, I see why that's bad.  But, not everyone can be a leader.  Who would they lead?  My only real complaint about Sam being wrong is Benny.  Benny should have been evil and I will never forgive the show for that one.  But, either way, as many times as Sam has gotten burned by being too trusting, I don't really care that he didn't want to trust a demon.  But, then of course, he goes and trusts monsters later.  So, just no consistency on that.  Benny ends up being the anomaly on Sam's trust spectrum, and so it ends up looking like he's just jealous, which I haven't really seen as a character trait. If he was going to get all jealous of anyone being closer to Dean, he should have been plotting Cas's murder since at least season 5.

[companionenvy]

4 hours ago, Myrelle said:

And IMO, Sam had big wins at the end of S5, S6(when he put himself "back together" against all odds), S8 when he was more than willing to die to shut the gates of hell except Dean stopped him AND in a long ass speech he additionally got to tell Dean his innermost feelings about how he felt that Dean has historically, within the show, made him feel bad-that counts as a huge win for Sam, in my book. Additionally, he saved Dean from the Mark at the end of S10-another win in my book and in 12 he was given huge wins, too-he became a leader amongst hunters and and beat the MOL AND during that season he killed the Alpha Vamp and the Hellhound to End All Hellhounds, too.

So yes, I'd say MV big time here on Sam "getting wins".

As for Dean wins, I've always seen S9B through the end of 11 as the writers'/showrunners' attempt at "balancing out" all those SpecialSam arcs that we were given-and pretty much non-stop, IMO-from S1-9A. 

IMO, some of these are reaching. By a lot. Putting yourself back together after a trauma is admirable and personally important, it isn't a big win in the context of a show in which big wins including stopping apocalypses and defeating dangerous monsters. Nor is telling Dean how he feels a big win. If we're going to start counting things like overcoming trauma and speaking your mind as  major victories, I'm pretty sure we'd find a ton more similar moments for both Sam and Dean.

I'm not going to elaborate on this because we've had the conversation before, but Sam voluntarily agreeing not to close the gates of hell because Dean asked him not to, again, is not a victory in my book, even if he would have otherwise been willing.

Saving Dean from the mark led to the Darkness. Word of Chuck is that the world would have been fine if Dean had kept the mark, and that Sam was wrong for doing what he did. No one on the show disputes this, and Sam's behavior is consistently framed as wrong, wrong wrong. This is no more a win than killing Lillith was.

I'll grant that I think S12 was a very good one for Sam and went a long way to making up for a huge disparity between his big KOs and Deans over the past six seasons. Although I think it is pushing it to say he "beat the MOL" when Jody got the biggest kill and Sam, after his rally the troops speech, was no more integral than any other hunter to the mission. 

[Pondlass1]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I've never understood what is so bad about being a followe

There's nothing bad about being a follower.  I'm a follower.  Followers are more important than leaders when you think about it.  

But Dean is definitely a leader.  Sam fans accuse him of barking orders, my way or the highway, ordering Sam about.  But when it comes to the crunch, he generally gives in...... and is later proven right.

Sam's dislike of Benny was pure unadulterated jealousy in my opinion. Where it came from I don't know. Season 8 was not Sam's season at all.  I hardly recognized him. He was shown in a very bad light. 

I think Dean takes after John.  Maybe Sam is more like the Campbell relatives?  

[gonzosgirrl]

3 minutes ago, Pondlass1 said:

I think Dean takes after John.  Maybe Sam is more like the Campbell relatives?  

I think Dean is adopted. He's nothing like Mary (thank Chuck) and very little like John. Sam, however, is very much his parents' child.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

They mostly make Dean right.  But no one listens, of course.

This IA with.

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Sam is often written as being wrong or being 'a follower'.  (Sam fans probably have more to complain about when I think about it.)

But not this-or not all of it, to be more precise. I don't see Sam as a follower at all and as to often being written as "being wrong", I don't see that as mattering when the writers/showrunners rarely call him out on his worst flaws by having the character himself acknowledge them, such as how Sam has often hurt Dean historically, within the context of this show, by acting just like John did with Dean, including this season in regards to that. It's like Sam reflects and projects his own flaws onto Dean and he's been doing it for pretty much the entire run of this series, IMO, without it even being recognized or acknowledged at all by the writing, nevermind as being written as something that's terribly wrong or a dysfunction of the brothers' relationship.

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

IMO, some of these are reaching. By a lot.

So *I* don't consider that as "reaching" for a win at all, nevermind "a lot". Apparently we all have differing definitions and opinions of what constitutes a "win" here also. Personally speaking, I've been waiting for that type of a big "win" for Dean since S4, but nothing yet. Maybe it's strictly and only a characterization-type of win, but those type of wins count as big ones also and to me-and IMO, Sam has had far more of those type of big wins over the course of this series, than Dean ever has. In that area, Dean does "everything"(hyperbole) wrong(according to the writers, anyway), while Sam is more often shown to be in the right(again, according to the actual writing), in the end.

I've also been waiting for them to acknowledge that Dean was once the True Vessel of OurMichael and then for them to finally give JA the chance to portray him on screen for us and for Dean to overcome him in some way, so I'm just going to go ahead and agree to disagree with both this opinion and the bolded part of the previous one.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Myrelle

[Bobcatkitten]

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

[DeeDee79]

3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Ah well, it was a nice try!

You're certainly not the only one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Didn’t think that I was ?

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I've never understood what is so bad about being a follower.  Not a blind follower, of course, I see why that's bad.  But, not everyone can be a leader.  Who would they lead?  My only real complaint about Sam being wrong is Benny.  Benny should have been evil and I will never forgive the show for that one.  But, either way, as many times as Sam has gotten burned by being too trusting, I don't really care that he didn't want to trust a demon.  But, then of course, he goes and trusts monsters later.  So, just no consistency on that.  Benny ends up being the anomaly on Sam's trust spectrum, and so it ends up looking like he's just jealous, which I haven't really seen as a character trait. If he was going to get all jealous of anyone being closer to Dean, he should have been plotting Cas's murder since at least season 5.

So Benny should have been evil so Sam didn’t look so bad when he disliked him? More like the writers should have remembered that Sam is likely to give monsters the benefit of the doubt. Sam from earlier seasons probably would have trusted Deans judgement until Benny gave him a reason not to.

[gonzosgirrl]

48 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

Didn’t think that I was ?

So Benny should have been evil so Sam didn’t look so bad when he disliked him? More like the writers should have remembered that Sam is likely to give monsters the benefit of the doubt. Sam from earlier seasons probably would have trusted Deans judgement until Benny gave him a reason not to.

Especially vampires, since he was so eager to give Lenore and her nest a break. Sure, she said they didn't/wouldn't feed on humans, but there was no more proof of that than reason to doubt Benny's desire to 'go straight'.

[Katy M]

47 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

So Benny should have been evil so Sam didn’t look so bad when he disliked him? More like the writers should have remembered that Sam is likely to give monsters the benefit of the doubt. Sam from earlier seasons probably would have trusted Deans judgement until Benny gave him a reason not to.

Benny should have been evil because he's a vampire.  I've never liked the "good monster" thing.  Plus, I've never liked the rationalization that proved to Dean that Benny was good--that he saved his life and never betrayed him. Well, of course he wasn't going to betray him in Purgatory.  He need him to get out.  A little more skepticism on Dean's part.  A little more trusting on Sam's.  And a little bit more of vampire nature on Benny's.  I would have been happy.

[Bobcatkitten]

25 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Benny should have been evil because he's a vampire.  I've never liked the "good monster" thing.  Plus, I've never liked the rationalization that proved to Dean that Benny was good--that he saved his life and never betrayed him. Well, of course he wasn't going to betray him in Purgatory.  He need him to get out.  A little more skepticism on Dean's part.  A little more trusting on Sam's.  And a little bit more of vampire nature on Benny's.  I would have been happy.

If you ratchet down everyone in that scenario then there isn't much of a storyline. It sucks sometimes but the fact is tv shows need conflict to continue or it would get pretty boring. 

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, Myrelle said:

And IMO, Sam had big wins at the end of S5, S6(when he put himself "back together" against all odds), S8 when he was more than willing to die to shut the gates of hell except Dean stopped him AND in a long ass speech he additionally got to tell Dean his innermost feelings about how he felt that Dean has historically, within the show, made him feel bad-that counts as a huge win for Sam, in my book. Additionally, he saved Dean from the Mark at the end of S10-another win in my book and in 12 he was given huge wins, too-he became a leader amongst hunters and and beat the MOL AND during that season he killed the Alpha Vamp and the Hellhound to End All Hellhounds, too.

So yes, I'd say MV big time here on Sam "getting wins".

I'm pretty sure in my original post that I acknowledged the end of season 5. I even gave Sam credit for the offscreen stopping of the tainted food at the end of season 7, but I fail to see how not shutting the gates of hell - and almost dying in the attempt - is a "win." How is that a win when Dean actually helping to stop Metatron and dying in the attempt isn't? I honestly don't get it.

As for the speech: if you are talking about the one in "The Purge" - also not a win. Like the complete opposite - I'd call it a huge loss, myself and one of the biggest set ups for Sam to be wrong they've ever done. For that to have been a win, Sam would have actually had to follow through with his "I wouldn't. Under the same conditions, I wouldn't." Since instead it was "I lied" and Gadreel is our "real friend"  - and oh look Gadreel was "good" and helped save the world, so what was Sam complaining about in the first place? Because of the "I lied," it invalidated everything in that speech. Why if Sam lied about something as huge as his principals should the viewer believe anything that he said at all? Answer: we shouldn't and Dean was right, so Sam was just being "meen to Dean." If that's an example of a Sam "win" then things are worse than I thought.

And for comparison, at the same time Sam saved Dean from the mark of Cain, Dean also saved Sam from Death... Which one of those things started an apocalypse and which one got them a huge ally the next season?

As for being a leader among the hunters, I think @companionenvy's analysis on that one is pretty good... and also Sam only got to be "leader" after he was set up - incomprehensibly - to be wrong about the BMoL and had to apologize and say he was wrong in front of everyone in that poorly-written speech, Yay, what a winning moment for Sam *sarcasm.* And considering it was a one and done thing, in the grand scheme of things it didn't amount to much. I agree with @Katy M and @Pondlass1. There's nothing wrong with being a good follower, so why did Sam have to learn this very special lesson about not being a follower? Just let Sam be Sam, and if he's more comfortable following Dean's lead... well then good for him! Let him, not make him have to learn some very special lesson about being a leader that's not going to stick anyway. Again not much of a win for me.

Quote

As for Dean wins, I've always seen S9B through the end of 11 as the writers'/showrunners' attempt at "balancing out" all those SpecialSam arcs that we were given-and pretty much non-stop, IMO-from S1-9A. 

Sure Sam got "special status" sometimes... generally "evil." But it wasn't like Dean didn't get anything in seasons 1-9A. If Sam not closing the hell gates is a "win" then Dean's status as Michael's vessel should count even though in the end he didn't get to actually be the vessel (which to me would have been a "loss" if he had been - just my opinion on that). Dean killed the YED, he killed Dick Roman, and Eve, and Zachariah... which were all big wins during that time.

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

In that area, Dean does "everything"(hyperbole) wrong(according to the writers, anyway), while Sam is more often shown to be in the right(again, according to the actual writing), in the end.

We definitely disagree on this. How is Sam shown to be right in these types of situations? As I outlined above, with "the Purge"  speech, not only was Sam shown to be wrong - he did in fact do the same thing - Sam said he was wrong ("I lied") and then he was punished for it in narrative by starting an apocalypse. How much more wrong do the writers have to show Sam being? Dean never apologized for Gadreel... and he didn't have to because Dean ended up being right.

Can you give me an example of the writers showing Sam to be right? And I'm being serious here, because maybe I am missing something.

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Dean never apologized for Gadreel... and he didn't have to because Dean ended up being right.

I don't care if he apologizes or not, because they are both constantly doing stuff to each other.  But, I fail to see how Dean ended up being right in the Gadreel equation when Gad killed Kevin and took Sam on a joy ride.  Sure, he healed Sam, but at what cost?

[gonzosgirrl]

56 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Benny should have been evil because he's a vampire.  I've never liked the "good monster" thing.  Plus, I've never liked the rationalization that proved to Dean that Benny was good--that he saved his life and never betrayed him. Well, of course he wasn't going to betray him in Purgatory.  He need him to get out.  A little more skepticism on Dean's part.  A little more trusting on Sam's.  And a little bit more of vampire nature on Benny's.  I would have been happy.

But Benny earned Dean's trust while still in Purgatory by saving Castiel, which he didn't have to do. And then Benny could've also killed or turned Dean (or attempted to) as soon as he was back in his body, and he didn't. So Dean's faith in him was justified. However, if the issue is just 'there are no 'good' monsters', then the point is moot and would've required a different story line altogether. But there was precedence for the not-evil vampire in Lenore, and the evil-but-still-capable-of-helping-humans in the Alpha Vamp (who helped them defeat the Leviathan). At least it wasn't just pulled out of thin air.

[companionenvy]

It is clear that we all have different definitions of a big win, a satisfying storyline, etc. But to me, it is pretty unambiguous that defeating Big Bad (without immediate, horrific consequences)  = Big Win. Dean has plenty of those.  In 6-11, he ganks Eve, Dick Roman, and Abbadon, and then defeats Amara. I maintain that Sam does not get a comparably big win from season 5 all the way until season 12 -- where he gets a few big kills in one-off episodes and does take the more action-centered (not necessarily better or meatier) role in the finale.  IMO, if we're going to go with "big victories" for the series, my list would be:

Sam: 

Alistair

Lucifer

Alpha-Vamp

Ramiel

Uber-Hellhound

 

Dean: 

YED/Azazel

Zachariah

Eve

Dick Roman

Abaddon

Amara

Hitler (who I think counts if we're counting things like the first hellhound for Sam).

 

If we limited it to victories over recurring villains, I'd take off Ramiel and the hellhound for Sam, and Hitler for Dean. We could also add in Lillith for Sam and Death for Dean, but I don't think either should count; Lillith wants Sam to kill her and it turns out to be a bad thing, and Dean killing Death, bizarrely, had no negative consequences to speak of, but wasn't framed as a particularly good thing and Death wasn't an enemy.

Of this list, Sam still has the single most impressive victory in S5/Lucifer, but otherwise, I'd say Dean's list is significantly more impressive based on the amount of narrative attention given to the brothers' respective kills. For instance, Ramiel and Azazel are both YEDs, so in that sense they are equivalent, but Azazel is the big bad over the better part of two seasons, while we meet Ramiel once. Let's also recall that Sam has started two apocalypses in this time, both of which he has been explicitly blamed for in canon. 

In all, I'd say that pre S-12, the kill count was ridiculously tilted toward Dean, whereas after S12, the balance  is relatively even.  

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

by acting just like John did with Dean, including this season in regards to that. It's like Sam reflects and projects his own flaws onto Dean and he's been doing it for pretty much the entire run of this series, IMO, without it even being recognized or acknowledged at all by the writing,

 I don't see this at all. Even if I were to accept that Sam criticizing Dean re: Jack was an instance of Sam being mean to Dean, simply being mean is not equivalent to John's treatment of Dean. The dynamics are totally different, for one. Being constantly berated by the father who has robbed you of your childhood when you fail to meet his ridiculous expectations of you, up to and including total obedience, is not, IMO, in the same ballpark as getting called out by your younger brother in the context of sometimes serious disagreements in the course of your long-standing hunting partnership. I've never understood the idea that Sam disagreeing with Dean and pushing his own position indicates that Sam thinks Dean should worship him and simply fall into line, any more than Dean doing the same to Sam does. I do think Sam has a tendency to try to logic Dean out of his feelings, but IMO, that comes from Sam being a "fixer" rather than from any sinister motivation. As far as flaws go, thinking you can coax someone out of depression or grief or guilt by talking your way through it is a pretty forgivable one. I actually do think that Sam is more similar to John that Dean is, but not because he treats Dean poorly.

Certainly, there are times Sam has said horribly hurtful things to Dean, but  Dean has also said horribly hurtful things to Sam. Sam has gone behind Dean's back and disregarded his feelings; Dean has done the same to Sam. We've gone over various examples of both in this thread (the Purge speech, "you're a monster," Benny, Amy Pond, Gadreel, removing the mark, etc), and argued about which is worse and why in various cases, but in the end of the day, I don't think the show, taken as a whole, supports the idea that either Winchester is notably more disrespectful of or nasty to his brother than the other. 

[Myrelle]

39 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

As for the speech: if you are talking about the one in "The Purge" - also not a win.

I wasn't talking about the Purge Speech. I still have no idea what that was about except more of Sam projecting his own issues and flaws onto Dean and then NOT having it acknowledged as such by the writing.

I was talking about the Church speech in Sacrifice. After that one, all I saw everywhere I went afterwards was basically "YAY! Sam!! Way to go with putting MeanDean in his place." The only time I can  ever remember feeling anything even close to that sentiment where it concerned the brothers' relationship-and only that relationship-was in S5 when Dean told Sam that he couldn't trust him anymore-which Dean was shown to be wrong about, btw, and as became pretty apparent as that season went along-and the other time was in The Mentalists-but in neither of those scenes was Dean allowed by the writing to call Sam out on his projecting his own issues onto Dean and even the Purge speech, too, was swept under the carpet by the writing, including the hypocrisy of it all, too.

[Myrelle]

11 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I've never understood the idea that Sam disagreeing with Dean and pushing his own position indicates that Sam thinks Dean should worship him and simply fall into line, any more than Dean doing the same to Sam does.

It was so much more than just this. It was Sam, just like John trying to push a parenting role onto Dean-yet another parenting role that Dean clearly did not want-and, again, it went completely unacknowledged and  unrecognized as being even problematic for Dean by the writing.

IMO, Sam gets big speeches from the writers as to why the brother dynamic has often been a problem for him-with all the hows and whys added in while Dean is allowed little in the same regard strictly within the writing, that is.

The only way we're afforded an inkling of the negative feelings that Dean might have concerning the brothers' relationship, underneath the good ones, that is(and when Dean is not under a supernatural influence), is through Jensen's non-verbal performances of that side of Dean; and thankfully, he's very good at it, because I think that even he realizes now, that the writing in that regard might never come through for his character.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

So...I have a question.  Or several.  And not being snarky here at all.  If I understand correctly, Myrelle (among others?) has

Quote

been waiting for that type of a big "win" for Dean since S4, but nothing yet.

Now, I think I missed what constitutes 'that type of big "win"' originally, but, at my own peril, I'm going to assume that the following Sam 'wins' are what she's talking about (numbered so I can keep track):

Quote

1. And IMO, Sam had big wins at the end of S5,  2.S6(when he put himself "back together" against all odds), 3. S8 when he was more than willing to die to shut the gates of hell except Dean stopped him AND 4. in a long ass speech he additionally got to tell Dean his innermost feelings about how he felt that Dean has historically, within the show, made him feel bad-that counts as a huge win for Sam, in my book. 5. Additionally, he saved Dean from the Mark at the end of S10-another win in my book and in 12 he was given huge wins, too-he became a leader amongst hunters and and beat the MOL AND during that season he killed the Alpha Vamp and the Hellhound to End All Hellhounds, to

So my questions are, if those things count as 'big wins' for Sam, how do the following not count as 'big wins' for Dean?  Because, imo, they seem to be pretty equivalent:

1. I disagree that it was a Sam-only win, but since I know most Dean fans don't feel that way, there's no point denying that you feel this was a big win for Sam and Sam only.  If I accept that logic, I can't think of an equivalent Dean win, except end of S11, and that's also pretty disputed, so I'll acknowledge your feeling there that for you there is likely no Dean equivalent. 
2. If Sam putting himself back together again against all odds (never mind it was only because Cass took on his Hell pain, so it's not really like Sam put himself back together again, more like someone else did it for him, but that's jmo) is a big Sam win, then would Dean overcoming being a demon be equivalent?  Why or why not?
   1. Honestly, I could go either way on this one.  Like I said, I don't think Sam put himself back together.  He had major help from Cass.  Technically Dean didn't cure himself from being a demon.  He had major help from Sam.  Both had major help.  That's why it seems kinda equivalent to me.
   2. So if Dean being cured from being a demon doesn't work as an equivalent 'win' for this Sam win, what about Dean resisting the effects of the MoC all on his own?  That seems like it should be counted as a pretty big win if Sam putting his fractured psyche back together is a win.
3. If Sam willing to die at the end of S8 to shut the gates of Hell except he didn't because Dean stopped him is a big win, then isn't when Dean was willing to die at the end of S11 to stop the Darkness except he didn't because Amara backed down equivalent?
4.  Would not Dean's long ass speech to Mary is S12 to finally tell her his innermost feelings about how he felt, etc count as an equivalent huge win for Dean?  Or is it only considered a big win for either of them if it's D v. S or S v. D?
5. If saving Dean from the MoC is a big win for Sam, then is not getting Sam's soul back in S6 a big win for Dean?

I won't get into the rest with the MoL and individual 'big' monsters killed, because I think others know that history way better than I and have shown that it's also pretty equivalent, imo. 

[Myrelle]

The big wins within the myth-arc storytelling are not that unequal to me-not after S11 anyway. Any "balancing out" by the writers that happened after that in regards to big kills was their answer to Samfan complaints on that front, IMO. My disagreement was mainly with the thought that Sam hadn't had any big wins at all since S5.

It's the imbalances within the writing of the brothers' relationship that continues to rankle this Deanfan to this very day-not the Mary/Dean relationship and not Dean/anyone else-just Dean and Sam. And to me, even Dean's long ass speech to Mary in the s12 finale was more about PoorSam and all he'd gone through because of Mary's decisions and choices then it was about Dean, himself, and all that he'd gone through and been put through.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Myrelle

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

Benny should have been evil because he's a vampire.  I've never liked the "good monster" thing.  Plus, I've never liked the rationalization that proved to Dean that Benny was good--that he saved his life and never betrayed him. Well, of course he wasn't going to betray him in Purgatory.  He need him to get out.  A little more skepticism on Dean's part.  A little more trusting on Sam's.  And a little bit more of vampire nature on Benny's.  I would have been happy.

The show set a precedence in s2 for vampires and other monsters to not be evil. Whether you like that or not is a whole other kettle of fish and it's aligned with Sam and his potential dark side. That theme has been hammered home time and time again when it comes to Sam's potential darkness via Lenore, Madison, the other psychic kids, Amy Pond, all the way to s13 with Jack. It's a theme attached to Sam from the get go of the show. Why should only good monsters be aligned with Sam in that narrative structure?  Why should Benny be evil when other vampires in the show tied to Sam were not? Should they have made Benny evil because he's aligned with Dean and so that Sam was blameless in not trusting Benny? 

Benny was far more important to Dean's character development than Sam which might be why it seems so harsh to Sam.  Benny was 100% about Dean and Castiel. IMO, Sam wasn't jealous of Benny at all. IMO Sam was projecting his guilty conscience onto Benny. I don't think it really would have mattered if Benny was human, werewolf or what have you, it was what Benny symbolized which was loyalty which Dean believed Sam did not show him nor Kevin.

[companionenvy]

56 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

t was so much more than just this. It was Sam, just like John trying to push a parenting role onto Dean-yet another parenting role that Dean clearly did not want-and, again, it went completely unacknowledged and  unrecognized as being even problematic for Dean by the writing.

I get this, but again, the context is really different. John was pushing a parenting role onto a child.  And not only that, he was harshly blaming the child if he "failed" at that role.

Sam was pointing out to a grown man that his treatment of a being with the power of a God and the experience of a child was both excessively harsh and tactically untenable. He assumed that Dean would agree with him that they shouldn't be taking routine cases if at all possible while they were, whatever else their respective feelings for Jack may have been, newly responsible by default for a naive superpowered being with control issues and a slew of baddies after him -- and then didn't protest all that much when Dean took the case anyway. He took Jack on a case despite Dean's discomfort because near 40-year-old Dean's discomfort at being around Jack does not and should not trump not-even-a-month-old Jack's need to not be on permanent lockdown. He wasn't asking Dean to play daddy, and he wasn't ducking his own responsibility. He was coping with a situation that Dean was not responding to productively in any way shape or form, and asking that Dean do pretty much the bare minimum to acknowledge that Jack was a person with needs -- not to mention a ton of power.

I'm not happy that the showrunners had Dean behave the way he did to Jack. It didn't do his character any favors, and I don't think it is necessarily organic at this point in his journey. But while Sam wasn't always perfect in his responses to Dean (for one, he shouldn't have assumed that Dean wouldn't want to take cases, even if it was a reasonable perspective for Sam to take), I'm not going to blame him for not being on Dean's side when Dean actually was in the wrong. And I'm certainly not going to compare one adult asking another to take some responsibility for a dependent with a father foisting parenting responsibilities off onto a young child. 

[gonzosgirrl]

Personally, I think Dabb chickened out by having the literal son of Satan turn out to be a squishy cinnamon roll who just wants to be loved. In my opinion, Dean wasn't wrong, nor would Sam have been if he was on board, in trying to end him before he could do more harm (ie, tearing a hole in the world). And once the story got underway and Jack did prove to be an overgrown toddler, Dean mellowed toward him pretty quickly.

Edited January 30, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Quote

The big wins within the myth-arc storytelling are not that unequal to me-not after S11 anyway. Any "balancing out" by the writers that happened after that in regards to big kills was their answer to Samfan complaints on that front, IMO. My disagreement was mainly with the thought that Sam hadn't had any big wins at all since S5.

Okay.  I think I understand.  Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying earlier.  So are you saying that you think that Sam and Dean have had pretty much corresponding big wins - according to your definition of big wins? 

Quote

It's the imbalances within the writing of the brothers' relationship that continues to rankle this Deanfan to this very day-not the Mary/Dean relationship and not Dean/anyone else-just Dean and Sam.

Ah, okay.  So if I'm understanding you correctly, it's only S v D or D v S emotional catharsis speeches that count.  Do they count if made under supernatural influences?  Or are those ruled out for both sides? 

Quote

Personally, I think Dabb chickened out by having the literal son of Satan turn out to be a squishy cinnamon roll who just wants to be loved.

On the other side, I think it might have been too cliched for the literal son of Satan to be EVUL. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by RulerofallIsurvey

[ILoveReading]

44 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Sam was pointing out to a grown man that his treatment of a being with the power of a God and the experience of a child was both excessively harsh and tactically untenable.

IMO, Sam wasn't just doing this he was making attempting to make Dean responsible for Jack.  He could have said to Dean, "I get your not his biggest fan, I'll take responsibility.  All I'm asking is that you be civil.  If she shows signs of going evil we'll take action"  I do believe Dean would have agreed to this.  Sam did not do this .

The bunker is a big place, it would be possible for them to avoid each other.  When Dean tried to remove himself from the situation in episode 3, Sam's response was basically, "no, we have to take care of Jack."   So he was doing a lot more than just pointing out that Dean's actions were wrong.  Also when Sam wanted to get away from the bunker that ep, he just left so its not that Sam was worried about him being alone.  That is Sam trying to make Dean into a parental figure.  Age doesn't matter.  It's something Dean clearly indicated he didn't want.  Sam continued the my way or the highway approach.  Which is why I think he was acting exactly like John in that scene.

Also Sam's treatment of Jack wasn't much better in the early episodes.  He was also pushing Jack to do things he was uncomfortable with.  Again, something John clearly did.

Dean couldn't have made it any clearer why he was having trouble being around Jack.  Sam's response was to ignore this shove Jack at Dean even harder.  They keep trying to say that Sam is really empathetic, he can't be surprised that Dean's response was to act irritated and annoyed.    Maybe this isn't fair to Jack, but grief is messy.   In fairness to Dean, Sam should have backed off here.

IMO, this is why Advanced Thanotology should have followed ep 3 because it would have showed Sam listened to what Dean said.   He didn't.  He continued to tell Dean he had to be responsible for Jack. 

I'm not saying that Dean's treatment of Jack was acceptable, but or that Dean wasn't wrong, but IMO, Sam actions in regards to Dean were equally unacceptable.  He was demanding and expecting things Dean wasn't ready to give.  It was a lot more than just pointing out actions. 

It's why I don't think there is improved communication between Sam and Dean this season.  Because of big part of communication isn't just speaking, its also listening.  Dean was shouting, both literally and figuratively he needed space and it was the one thing Sam didn't give him.

So I think Sam was equally guilty of acting like an asshat, just in a different way, and his actions seemed very similar to how John treated Dean. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by ILoveReading

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Sam was pointing out to a grown man that his treatment of a being with the power of a God and the experience of a child was both excessively harsh and tactically untenable. H

Then why didn't Sam just say exactly that? What is the point of him bringing up John at all other than as a shitty manipulation and the writers trying to say that Dean is as a bad as John.  It's there for a reason.  Sam IMO was putting himself in Jack's shoes and IMO projecting his stuff onto Dean. I also think Sam feels like garbage because he doesn't know how to handle a "child" and wanted Dean to do it. JMHO

[catrox14]

57 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the other side, I think it might have been too cliched for the literal son of Satan to be EVUL. 

Either choice is cliched which is why this stupid SL should have never seen the light of day. Well, that's just ONE of the MANY reasons it should have stayed on the writers white board with a big fat NEVER EVER DO THIS and a circle with a line through it. 

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't care if he apologizes or not, because they are both constantly doing stuff to each other.  But, I fail to see how Dean ended up being right in the Gadreel equation when Gad killed Kevin and took Sam on a joy ride.  Sure, he healed Sam, but at what cost?

Sorry, I think I didn't explain myself well here. I don't care if Dean apologizes or not either. My point concerning that was supposed to be that I didn't understand why supposedly Sam is supposed to apologize for and specifically acknowledge his shortcomings or otherwise the narrative is supposedly "agreeing" with Sam if he doesn't do that when Dean doesn't apologize necessarily either, but somehow the narrative is showing Dean as "wrong." My opinion is that it's not that simple and that both brothers don't always apologize for what they do, but that doesn't mean - to me - that the narrative is saying that the non-apologizing brother is being let off the hook necessarily. That I base on consequences... which for me are the markers by which I personally judge what the writers are trying to tell me.

And this goes to the part I bolded in your question above. Apparently not much. I say that Dean was right when it came to Gadreel because 1) Yes Kevin died, but Gadreel helped to save the world from Metatron. His role in that save was actually larger than Sam's was. Gadreel also not only healed Sam, he saved Castiel and Charlie also. 2) Dean said that Sam would do the same thing if the situation were reversed. Sam said nope, no I wouldn't... well, apparently Sam would and did, so Dean was right. Considering that Dean was right about that, Sam then really had no leg to stand on in terms of complaining about what Dean did... so in that Sam vs Dean argument, Dean is proven right and Sam ends up just being a dick and a hypocrite by complaining and not forgiving Dean. 3) There weren't any earth-shatteringly bad consequences to the Gadrel situation - which for me is how I (and I realize that this could be just me) judge what the show considers the wrong side of a situation.

Compare this to Sam - doing pretty much a similar thing - to save Dean in season 10... when Sam does it: boom! he starts an apocalypse. This might've maybe just been a coincidence except that Dean also kills Death to save Sam at the exact same time, and there are no bad consequences, but instead good ones - because Billie ends up helping them to defeat the darkness that Sam unleashed when he started another apocalypse.

So I guess my gripe is that Sam's mistakes end up getting these huge consequences like the show is saying "Bad Sam!" while Dean does similar things and nothing comparatively awful happens - and this isn't the only example. Ruby vs Benny and demon blood  vs the mark of Cain are likely other comparisons - so what am I supposed to take away from that? Are the writers trying to tell me something by setting up these parallel situations and then having very differing results?

[DeeDee79]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

The show set a precedence in s2 for vampires and other monsters to not be evil. Whether you like that or not is a whole other kettle of fish and it's aligned with Sam and his potential dark side. That theme has been hammered home time and time again when it comes to Sam's potential darkness via Lenore, Madison, the other psychic kids, Amy Pond, all the way to s13 with Jack. It's a theme attached to Sam from the get go of the show. Why should only good monsters be aligned with Sam in that narrative structure?  Why should Benny be evil when other vampires in the show tied to Sam were not? Should they have made Benny evil because he's aligned with Dean and so that Sam was blameless in not trusting Benny? 

Benny was far more important to Dean's character development than Sam which might be why it seems so harsh to Sam.  Benny was 100% about Dean and Castiel. IMO, Sam wasn't jealous of Benny at all. IMO Sam was projecting his guilty conscience onto Benny. I don't think it really would have mattered if Benny was human, werewolf or what have you, it was what Benny symbolized which was loyalty which Dean believed Sam did not show him nor Kevin.

God I love this post!

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

On the other side, I think it might have been too cliched for the literal son of Satan to be EVUL. 

Not to mention against the whole TFW ethos. 

 

1 hour ago, ILoveReading said:

Maybe this isn't fair to Jack, but grief is messy.   In fairness to Dean, Sam should have backed off here.

Grief is messy, but that doesn't give you a free pass when another person is involved. I also don't think it is unreasonable of Sam to expect Dean to have enough maturity and self-awareness, at this point, to  a) recognize what he is doing and try his best not to take his grief out on Jack and b) get his act together enough to deal with the situation at hand, which would include at minimum acknowledging Jack's presence and treating him civilly. The bunker is a big place, but frankly, I don't think it would be reasonable or necessary for Sam to go out of his way to keep Jack and Dean apart. The bunker may be big enough to hide, but the onus is not on Sam to go out of his way to ensure that Jack avoids Dean. It would be normal for Jack to join the brothers for meals, or read and watch TV while they're in the living room, or talk to them about cases. In fact, it would be damaging to Jack -- or anyone in his situation, really -- to have one of the two other people with whom you share your living space treating you like a pariah. If Dean sometimes needs to excuse himself and be alone when it becomes too much, no problem, but IMO, rearranging their lives so that Dean doesn't have to deal with Jack's existence is not a reasonable expectation.  It isn't like Sam was asking Dean to teach Jack about the birds and the bees or expecting him to read him bedtime stories after nightly heart-to-hearts.  I don't think Sam was really acting like a father figure to Jack in any but the most nominal sense, let alone asking Dean to do so.

And remember, Sam had a lot of cause to be grieving, too. Whatever pass Dean gets has to cut both ways. 

[Wayward Son]

7 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

Not to mention against the whole TFW ethos. 

 

Grief is messy, but that doesn't give you a free pass when another person is involved. I also don't think it is unreasonable of Sam to expect Dean to have enough maturity and self-awareness, at this point, to  a) recognize what he is doing and try his best not to take his grief out on Jack and b) get his act together enough to deal with the situation at hand, which would include at minimum acknowledging Jack's presence and treating him civilly. The bunker is a big place, but frankly, I don't think it would be reasonable or necessary for Sam to go out of his way to keep Jack and Dean apart. The bunker may be big enough to hide, but the onus is not on Sam to go out of his way to ensure that Jack avoids Dean. It would be normal for Jack to join the brothers for meals, or read and watch TV while they're in the living room, or talk to them about cases. In fact, it would be damaging to Jack -- or anyone in his situation, really -- to have one of the two other people with whom you share your living space treating you like a pariah. If Dean sometimes needs to excuse himself and be alone when it becomes too much, no problem, but IMO, rearranging their lives so that Dean doesn't have to deal with Jack's existence is not a reasonable expectation.  It isn't like Sam was asking Dean to teach Jack about the birds and the bees or expecting him to read him bedtime stories after nightly heart-to-hearts.  I don't think Sam was really acting like a father figure to Jack in any but the most nominal sense, let alone asking Dean to do so.

And remember, Sam had a lot of cause to be grieving, too. Whatever pass Dean gets has to cut both ways. 

Excellent post :) . I wish I could like it more than once!