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

[DeeDee79]

6 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Consider it the difference between a soldier in a bomber pushing a button over an enemy base (even knowing there were civilians there) vs. one walking into town, taking an innocent civilian as hostage and cutting her throat just because you needed something she had.  Even if the end result is the same--the death of innocent people, it's a lot more personal and cold-blooded in person, and not something you'd want or expect from your hero, especially with her begging him for her life. 

Very good comparison.

[ahrtee]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But one also kills one person, while the other kills many, and in the case of Dean's plan, potentially millions. One is more hands on and seems colder, I agree,, but for me they both still involve dead, innocent people and the aftermath of those deaths accepted as collateral damage.

As for killing the nurse to save the planet, that's exactly how Ruby painted it, and Sam still had doubts at first:

I was only answering your question about why killing the nurse seemed so much worse than saying "yes".  It's all a question of perception--because in wars, many people are killed without ever seeing the bodies, but killing one sympathetic person with your own hands is *perceived* as being worse.  Remember, as I said, no one complained about Sam killing Lilith (and her vessel), because she was the Enemy.  I didn't intend to start (or rather, continue) the discussion on which one was potentially (or actually) worse.

But IMO I did cover the other side--about saying yes "potentially" killing millions--both in my first post about the original intent of the Apocalypse, and in my comment above about "giving in" as a surrender in a war in order to save as many lives as possible.  Remember that Dean had been told that if Lucifer won, there would be "literal hell on earth," as opposed to Michael's "paradise."  If you had no other options (and at that point, there *were* no other options) which would you choose?  

I don't see everything as one has to be wrong and the other right, but *in this instance,* I can accept Dean's choice better than Sam's.   

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

But IMO I did cover the other side--about saying yes "potentially" killing millions--both in my first post about the original intent of the Apocalypse, and in my comment above about "giving in" as a surrender in a war in order to save as many lives as possible.  Remember that Dean had been told that if Lucifer won, there would be "literal hell on earth," as opposed to Michael's "paradise."  If you had no other options (and at that point, there *were* no other options) which would you choose?  

I don't see everything as one has to be wrong and the other right, but *in this instance,* I can accept Dean's choice better than Sam's. 

I got that, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was saying you weren't explaining yourself. I even said that I agreed that what Sam did seemed colder.

I just clarified that in my opinion both thought they were saving the world doing what they did (rather than it being mainly about revenge for Sam) and I gave my reasons as to why I thought that the narrative showed that - and again you don't have to agree - and that, for me the results of both of their plans involved innocent people as collateral damage.

I'm not saying one is more wrong than the other either. I'm saying that - to me - they are pretty much the same. One just looks worse because the means were messy. For me Sam, too, thought he had no other options. Sam's intel told him that Lilith was in place, that she was going to open that final seal and release Lucifer at any moment, and that he (Sam) was out of options and had to act right then to stop what was going to happen. For me that's similar to Dean thinking he had no more options. And in the eyes of the show - in my opinion - both of those options were "wrong," because of their Machiavellian means, and so were treated as such.

Again you don't have to agree, but I think the argument is also there that both decisions were pretty much the same. The difference was that Sam went through with it  and it went horribly wrong while Dean didn't. And that Sam made that decision and it went wrong was likely a huge reason why he didn't want Dean to make the same mistake.

I guess another war example for me would be a long range sniper wounding a soldier as an obvious trap. Communication is down and that soldier is alive and suffering and could be saved, but anyone trying to save him/her would be shot and killed. What does the leader do? Let everyone keep trying to save the soldier and let the potential death toll mount? Leave the wounded solider to die and chance that other soldiers will stop trying to save him/her? Or shoot the soldier, putting him/her out of his/her misery and potentially saving others. Two of those three options appear cold, and one is really cold, but it also would potentially save lives. And I guess for me, I can see the grayness. I can see the decision process for a soldier taking that third cold and terrible option, and I can sympathize with that while still also thinking that maybe it wasn't the right decision or the moral one.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I'm not sure my fanwank has to make anyone but me happy.

Of course not. Sorry, didn`t mean to imply that. I was more just commenting on why that couldn`t be a fix for me. 

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Again you don't have to agree, but I think the argument is also there that both decisions were pretty much the same. The difference was that Sam went through with it  and it went horribly wrong while Dean didn't. And that Sam made that decision and it went wrong was likely a huge reason why he didn't want Dean to make the same mistake.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.  The difference is *not* that Sam went through with his decision while Dean didn't, it's that Dean listened to others and took other opinions into consideration (which is *why* he didn't go through with it), while Sam listened only to Ruby (without fact-checking), and ignored the possibility that there might be other choices.  Therefore, Sam's decision (and the fact that it went wrong) was solely on him.  It doesn't matter if they (both) thought their choice was the only option.  Dean listened to others and so was around when the other option--the rings--did surface.  Sam ignored all other opinions and pleas to wait, and went ahead with his decision--and so wasn't around when Cas finally told them (while there was still a chance to stop him) that killing Lilith would break the final seal.  I'm not saying it wasn't understandable, or what might have happened if the rings *hadn't* surfaced, but again, IMO, that's why Sam tends to get more blame than Dean *in this instance.*    

[AwesomO4000]

12 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

The difference is *not* that Sam went through with his decision while Dean didn't, it's that Dean listened to others and took other opinions into consideration (which is *why* he didn't go through with it), while Sam listened only to Ruby (without fact-checking), and ignored the possibility that there might be other choices. 

"Decision" was probably the wrong word to use in the first case. I should have used "plan." Their plans were pretty much the same.

And I agree that Sam didn't listen and that caused the difference where Sam went through with his plan - or at least Sam didn't listen enough - but I disagree that he would have been there to learn that Lilith was the final seal. In my opinion, there was little chance that Zachariah (Michael) was going to let Sam find that out. So much so that they wouldn't even let Sam hear Dean's unrelated but supportive real voice message and wouldn't let Dean go in time to stop Sam. Dean only found out from Castiel, because Castiel and Zachariah forcibly took him to the beautiful room. Cas even let Sam out of the panic room first, so either Cas didn't know about Lilith at that point, or he neglected to tell Sam, Dean, or anyone until it was too late, and that was because he was left out of the loop until it was too late, or he was following orders.

I also don't entirely agree that Sam didn't take other options into consideration. Not enough, I entirely agree, but Sam saw firsthand what happened when Castiel and Uriel took Dean and put him with Alastair - Dean almost got killed. (Sam didn't know about the Uriel sabotage, and so concluded that the angels were incompetent which is what he said to Castiel.) But we didn't get as much Sam thought process POV - in my opinion - as we did with Dean in season 5, so it's somewhat conjecture on my part. Sam seemed pretty damn pissed though - and maybe then even less likely to listen to Castiel - after that incident, especially when Castiel wouldn't heal Dean (which really pissed Sam off). Everything that happened there just fed into Sam's already blood-addled and Ruby-warped mind where he was telling himself that there was no other choice and the angels were either not on their side or incompetent or both.

And I'm not saying that excuses Sam for his bad decisions, I'm just saying that, for me, there was a little more going on than Sam was given other options and he just didn't listen.

21 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I'm not saying it wasn't understandable, or what might have happened if the rings *hadn't* surfaced,

Or if Sam hadn't found Dean in time and brought "back up." My guess though is that Dean would have likely made the same decision not to say "yes." It just may have been too late - like he said "yes" and then as Michael was coming he had second thoughts - at least if Zach was the "broker" of the deal. I would hope that had Dean talked to Michael face to face to get his assurances that Sam, Bobby, Lisa and Ben, and everyone he cared about would be okay, that he would see through Michael's motivations - maybe even try to negotiate that no one would die first and realize when / if Michael said "sure" or "nope can't do that" that Michael was full of crap. Dean is usually able to read people fairly well, so unless his desperation was clouding his judgement - a possibility - I like to think he would have still said "no," if it had been Michael. Zachariah would've been harder, I think, because he's already smarmy, so Dean would expect him to be disingenuous.

57 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

but again, IMO, that's why Sam tends to get more blame than Dean *in this instance.*    

Oh, I'm not disagreeing here. I already admitted that Sam going through with his plan - as you said that he didn't listen enough - made a big difference. I'm just disagreeing with you that the initial plans weren't pretty much the same, and that for me, sacrificing one person, even in the way that Sam planned to do it, was so different than the sacrifice Dean was willing to make.

[Katy M]

16 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And I agree that Sam didn't listen and that caused the difference where Sam went through with his plan - or at least Sam didn't listen enough - but I disagree that he would have been there to learn that Lilith was the final seal. In my opinion, there was little chance that Zachariah (Michael) was going to let Sam find that out. So much so that they wouldn't even let Sam hear Dean's unrelated but supportive real voice message and wouldn't let Dean go in time to stop Sam. Dean only found out from Castiel, because Castiel and Zachariah forcibly took him to the beautiful room. Cas even let Sam out of the panic room first, so either Cas didn't know about Lilith at that point, or he neglected to tell Sam, Dean, or anyone until it was too late, and that was because he was left out of the loop until it was too late, or he was following orders.

Yeah, there's no way Zach would have let Sam know that, because then SAm wouldn't have killed her, and that would have ruined Zach's plan.  and, in actuality, Sam wouldn't have "been there" because the angels would have only taken Dean to the "beautiful room" even had Sam been there.  Cas wouldn't even let Dean go talk to Sam for "five minutes" to apologize or whatever. 

[ahrtee]

2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

And I agree that Sam didn't listen and that caused the difference where Sam went through with his plan - or at least Sam didn't listen enough - but I disagree that he would have been there to learn that Lilith was the final seal. In my opinion, there was little chance that Zachariah (Michael) was going to let Sam find that out. So much so that they wouldn't even let Sam hear Dean's unrelated but supportive real voice message and wouldn't let Dean go in time to stop Sam. Dean only found out from Castiel, because Castiel and Zachariah forcibly took him to the beautiful room. Cas even let Sam out of the panic room first, so either Cas didn't know about Lilith at that point, or he neglected to tell Sam, Dean, or anyone until it was too late, and that was because he was left out of the loop until it was too late, or he was following orders.

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Yeah, there's no way Zach would have let Sam know that, because then SAm wouldn't have killed her, and that would have ruined Zach's plan.  and, in actuality, Sam wouldn't have "been there" because the angels would have only taken Dean to the "beautiful room" even had Sam been there.  Cas wouldn't even let Dean go talk to Sam for "five minutes" to apologize or whatever. 

Actually, Dean confronted Cas in the "beautiful room" about not taking sides, which caused Cas to rethink.  That was the point when Cas went against Zach and all the other angels  to tell Dean about Lilith, and took him away to Chuck in order to find Sam; and Zach couldn't stop them, even though he was pissed enough at Cas to explode him all over Chuck. :)   Note that even with all the delays, Dean got to the convent *before* Sam killed Lilith, so there was still time to stop it if Ruby hadn't slammed the door in his face and badgered Sam into continuing. 

So if Sam had listened to Dean, Bobby or even his own reservations instead of to Ruby, if he'd said 'no' or "let's wait" at any point, even if Zach had zapped him to the convent himself, then it would have been a very different story.  

.  

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Actually, Dean confronted Cas in the "beautiful room" about not taking sides, which caused Cas to rethink.  That was the point when Cas went against Zach and all the other angels  to tell Dean about Lilith, and took him away to Chuck in order to find Sam; and Zach couldn't stop them, even though he was pissed enough at Cas to explode him all over Chuck. :)   Note that even with all the delays, Dean got to the convent *before* Sam killed Lilith, so there was still time to stop it if Ruby hadn't slammed the door in his face and badgered Sam into continuing. 

So if Sam had listened to Dean, Bobby or even his own reservations instead of to Ruby, if he'd said 'no' or "let's wait" at any point, even if Zach had zapped him to the convent himself, then it would have been a very different story.  

.  

But, nobody didn't want to kill Lillith.  If Sam had stayed, then they would have worked together and perhaps would have killed her anyway.

[ahrtee]

Just now, Katy M said:

But, nobody didn't want to kill Lillith.  If Sam had stayed, then they would have worked together and perhaps would have killed her anyway.

IA they all thought it was a good idea to kill Lilith, as long as they thought she was going to break the final seal.  But once Cas told Dean the truth....

So I guess it all depended on when/how they found out she was the final seal.  And, unfortunately, according to canon, they *did* find out in time to stop it, but didn't.  I put the blame on Ruby, but also on blood-addled Sam for going along with her, without questioning.  Because, well, blood-addled.  But that's a whole different discussion.    

[Castiels Cat]

On 3/25/2018 at 12:56 AM, AwesomO4000 said:

Brought over from the "Spoilers Bitterness" thread:

I greatly disagree. I don't see how the arc in season 8 or 9 had much to do with Sam's hubris. And I also didn't see much redemption.

First, I don't get how not looking for Dean and abandoning Kevin has something to do with hubris. And the Amelia arc - complete with a soap-opera cliched suddenly not dead husband - had even less to do with hubris. For me, it was out of character. Sam looked for Dean in season 7 with even less information when Dean disappeared than he had when Dick Roman blew up. To me, it looked more like Carver just decided he was going to ignore Sam's character development in season 6.5 through 7 and regress Sam back to like season 1 or maybe late season 4.

He had Sam weirdly just shrug his shoulders and stop hunting. To me, even though Sam early on in season 7 said that he had thought he paid enough for his mistakes, this did not include stopping hunting. Season 7 Sam very much considered hunting an important part of his life and a way to make a difference. He was usually the one to find cases and keep he and Dean hunting. He thought hunting with Dean was important and appreciated Dean having his back. There were multiple times Sam told Dean exactly this during seasons 6.5 through 7. In my opinion, Carver just chose to ignore that character development for reasons I don't understand. Even if Sam had decided he'd had enough and was going to give it up, I don't see him just abandoning Kevin to Crowley under normal circumstances. He should have found Kevin first, and then retired. What should have happened to cause Sam to do what he did is if Sam had a mental break. This is what it appeared that Gamble was going for with the set up with Crowley saying that Sam was all alone. Carver throwing all of that out the window and having Sam callously leave Kevin at Crowley's mercy - and then poking fun at it even - in my opinion was little but character assassination.

For me a hubris arc would've made much more sense if Sam thought he would save Dean and then thumbed his nose at any consequences - similar to season 10 - without first having to learn what a very awful and disloyal brother he was in season 8. Why create a scenario painting Sam as a bad brother for not saving for Dean first - pretty much assuring that Sam would save Dean should the situation arise again - if the arc was supposedly about hubris? To me that doesn't make narrative sense. (And this is why I do not think that that was the point of the arc.)

I similarly didn't see what season 9 had to do with Sam's hubris. Sam had every right to be angry at Dean. Carver just didn't let Sam be angry about what he should have been angry about - Dean's months of deception - and instead turned it all around into Sam being wrong and learning that he would save Dean just like Dean had done for him... It's just that Carver, apparently being fickle, decided that Sam saving Dean somehow deserved to get slapped with starting an apocalypse in season 10... even as at the same time Dean was recklessly saving Sam - twice, there were few if any repercussions at all.

I think I've seen you say that part of Sam's redemption was him learning that he should be hunting with Dean after all, and that would've been fine if Sam hadn't already decided that in season 6 and 7, so in my opinion, there was no reason for Sam to learn that again. And again, if this was such a great thing for Sam to learn, why punish him for it later in the season by having him start an apocalypse.

And why should Sam have to relearn yet another lesson about hubris anyway, when apparently it's just fine for Dean to have it? Dean took on the mark recklessly yet still was able to achieve his goal of killing Abaddon. He decided for Sam that he was going to save him, continued the deception even when Sam was hurting from it, and then declared it was the right thing to do and he'd do it again. And even though Kevin died, Dean was otherwise justified in his actions (in my opinion). He then did something reckless yet again to save Sam when he killed Death... and surprise, surprise... nothing bad happened.

In my opinion, that's a pretty crappy message about hubris if apparently it's only a bad thing for one brother and not the other.

My opinion on that.

If anything Dean learned the consequences of his reckless sacrifices way back in season 3, but apparently again, Carver thought that should be revisited, except this time he would change the message / outcome and Dean would be more justified.

So truthfully, I don't see why it should be any different this time around. Dean already did this in season 9 and 10 and both times it was apparently okay - at least in terms of Dean didn't have earth-shattering repercussions. That's just not the way this show seems to roll now. I already thought that it was somewhat of an unusual phenomenon that Jack didn't turn out to be evil. (Though I suppose there's still time for that to happen, yet.) I'd be surprised if Dean made another supernaturally adjacent wrong call. Dean's usually the one with the unusually good intuition about those things.

Seasons 8-11 repeated Sam's first arcs within the show without the denon bloid/devuk made me do it get out of jail free card,  which including his hubris, it's childhood origins (Sully episode), betraying Dean, forsaking family, trying to fix things,by a,grand gesture rather than admiring wrong and apologizing, not listening to Dean, lying gives an, going down a dark path behind Dean's back, releasing an apocalyptic evil.... see the pattern. 

And yes there was hubris.  Sam thinking he knew more about Benny rhan Dean.  Sam bekieving onky he could do the trials  because Dean saw them as a suicide mission was exactly like season 4 Sam believing only he could stop the Apocalypse.... just like Sam thought that God spoke to only him and he would,be the one to stop Amara.  Pride growth before a fall is the definition of hubris.

The difference is that Carver did not cloak Sam in plot armor, sexy powers or prevent him from character growth. Sam was actually able to show remorse, grow, atone, change, apologize to Dean, choose to stand with his brother and dedicate himself to hunting.   It is exactly what should have happened post season 5. Carver was brilliant to have done this as his main act.  He actually redeemed the character for me and I did not think this was possible.  Please know thst my discussion is academic.  I am writing about what I think was the writers' intent and that It was very successful for me.

As for Dean's tragic flaw of low self-esteem and depression thst causes him to blame himself for every loss to the extent that he thinks sacrificing himself for a win to save family or take out a big bad... we have seen this repeatedly and we will see it again when he says yes to Michael however the show has never attempted to resolve it until now.  Sam brought it up in Love Hurts.  We see it's origin through the loss of Mary and John placing too much responsibility and blame on him as  child.  I suspect that there will be resolution and growth after this Dean!Michael arc plays out.

I apologize if I have not addressed everything. My eyesight gets bpurty with a migraine and I miss things. 

[AwesomO4000]

8 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

...which including his hubris, it's childhood origins (Sully episode),

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, because I got an entirely different meaning from "Just My Imagination." What that episode showed me was that Sam did try to go along with his family and wanted very much to fit in. So much so that he rejected Sully to go join Dean and John on the hunt. So it wasn't that Sam and John always butted heads. There was a time that Sam wanted to belong. Something must have happened along the way after that to change his mind. Maybe Sam tried, but just couldn't seem to connect with hunting with the full dedication needed to do it at that time and needed to try something else first to see if he'd like that better... and there's nothing wrong or prideful about that in my opinion. And, since I don't prescribe to the notion that Sam was/is wrong for having his own opinion and not always agreeing with Dean, I saw nothing wrong with his decision to go to college or to want to try for something more stable and safe.

8 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

The difference is that Carver did not cloak Sam in plot armor, sexy powers or prevent him from character growth. Sam was actually able to show remorse, grow, atone, change, apologize to Dean, choose to stand with his brother and dedicate himself to hunting.   It is exactly what should have happened post season 5. Carver was brilliant to have done this as his main act.  He actually redeemed the character for me and I did not think this was possible.  Please know thst my discussion is academic.  I am writing about what I think was the writers' intent and that It was very successful for me.

Where we disagree here is that I didn't see the plot armor  you did. I thought season 5 - 7 addressed all of these things just fine. Sam admitted his wrong-doing in season 5 over and over again, and even said that if he could he would take it all back. He apologized to Dean quite a few times in seasons 6 and 7. He also let Dean know that he appreciated him, and he dedicated his life to hunting. In my opinion, it is exactly what happened post season 5. I saw all of the character growth you mentioned in season 5, 6B, and 7. Sam wasn't showing hubris in season 7. He kept Dean informed at all times about his condition rather than thinking he could handle everything on his own. He was the one to find the hunts and to encourage Dean to continue saving people, hunting things while Dean was focused on Dick Roman. The only reason why Sam had to do this all over again in season 8 - in my opinion - is that Carver regressed Sam, had him do things Sam would not do post season 7 - and I gave many examples and explained why I did not think they were in character for Sam - and made him a complete jerk. I wonder if Carver even watched the episodes that happened after he left the show, because if he did, then the Benny storyline made little sense to me - Sam usually is the one to give the monsters the benefit of the doubt - unless I looked at it as extreme guilt from Sam that he transferred over onto Benny... which Sam shouldn't have even had guilt to begin with, because he should have looked for Dean - just like he did in season 7 - and not abandoned Kevin. The entire Amelia plot was unnecessary and fairly insulting, in my opinion.

In my opinion, if Carver wanted to do some sort of hubris redemption arc his way, I gave a good example of how he could have done that, and still have let Sam keep the great character growth that I thought he got in season 6 and 7. What happened in season 10 would have been sufficient. The season 8 and 9 trashing of Sam's character was unnecessary, in my opinion, and served only to alienate many viewers, including me. So it may have been successful for you, but to me it was a complete failure and unnecessary besides that. It actually made me dislike Sam - who had previously been one of my favorite characters on TV ever - and made me stop watching the show after having not missed an episode since the Pilot episode. And I still don't like Sam as much as I used to. Carver partially ruined him for me.

8 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

just like Sam thought that God spoke to only him and he would,be the one to stop Amara.  Pride growth before a fall is the definition of hubris.

Where did Sam say this? All I remember is Sam thinking that they should go to Lucifer for information, because he prayed and thought that God answered his prayers. (Sam generally has been a hopeful creature... until this season anyway - and that current change also isn't in character, imo.) And as I said before, if "pride goeth before a fall," was Carver's message, why does it only seem to apply to Sam? Throughout season 8 - 10, Dean exhibited hubris all over the place and ignored Sam's feelings and right to choose for himself, and not only didn't Dean apologize, he said he'd do it all over again. But Dean didn't start an apocalypse or have any major consequences for killing Death either. He turned into a demon for a couple months, but nothing really bad happened there either, and all of the big consequences got pushed onto Sam. So again, Carver's hubris message completely failed for me.

Edited March 27, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[SueB]

10 hours ago, Castiels Cat said:

Seasons 8-11 repeated Sam's first arcs within the show without the denon bloid/devuk made me do it get out of jail free card,  which including his hubris, it's childhood origins (Sully episode), betraying Dean, forsaking family, trying to fix things,by a,grand gesture rather than admiring wrong and apologizing, not listening to Dean, lying gives an, going down a dark path behind Dean's back, releasing an apocalyptic evil.... see the pattern. 

And yes there was hubris.  Sam thinking he knew more about Benny rhan Dean.  Sam bekieving onky he could do the trials  because Dean saw them as a suicide mission was exactly like season 4 Sam believing only he could stop the Apocalypse.... just like Sam thought that God spoke to only him and he would,be the one to stop Amara.  Pride growth before a fall is the definition of hubris.

The difference is that Carver did not cloak Sam in plot armor, sexy powers or prevent him from character growth. Sam was actually able to show remorse, grow, atone, change, apologize to Dean, choose to stand with his brother and dedicate himself to hunting.   It is exactly what should have happened post season 5. Carver was brilliant to have done this as his main act.  He actually redeemed the character for me and I did not think this was possible.  Please know thst my discussion is academic.  I am writing about what I think was the writers' intent and that It was very successful for me.

As for Dean's tragic flaw of low self-esteem and depression thst causes him to blame himself for every loss to the extent that he thinks sacrificing himself for a win to save family or take out a big bad... we have seen this repeatedly and we will see it again when he says yes to Michael however the show has never attempted to resolve it until now.  Sam brought it up in Love Hurts.  We see it's origin through the loss of Mary and John placing too much responsibility and blame on him as  child.  I suspect that there will be resolution and growth after this Dean!Michael arc plays out.

I apologize if I have not addressed everything. My eyesight gets bpurty with a migraine and I miss things. 

The definition of hubris is ‘arrogance and excessive self-confidence’, not pride (although it’s close).   But in your examples I don’t see arrogance in Sam.   

 

I DO see Carver’s 3 year plan (which stretched to 4) to get Sam and Dean onto the same sheet of music.   In S8 he character-assinated Sam with the ‘I don’t hunt anymore’ plot.  A simple ‘I shutdown when I though you died’ would have been both in character and bypassed a lot of bitter feelings, but he didn’t.  He created a ‘wrong’ by Sam which didn’t get fully resolved until Sam ignored Dean’s agency and had the Mark removed.  THEN we had a world-risking act to save Dean that was worthy of some of the extreme lengths Dean has gone to to save Sam.  And after proving his devotion, they were able to agree to stop risking the planet for each other. (See speech in S11 Ep 1).  

[catrox14]

I used to think it was character assassination. I've changed my opinion on that after going back to the pilot, to s1, and tracking all the occasions wherein Sam had wanted out of the life and his inner conflict which exists even in s13. I think Sam decided to quit altogether rather than do something drastic like he did before. He was done. He didn't regret being done with hunting. I can understand it pissing off viewers and at the same time it also seemed to meet that basic inner conflict in Sam that he hunted only because his family hunted.  And since he's family was dead, he quit.  The not looking for Dean was infuriating and yet...IMO...not OOC. YMMV.

On the topic of that absurd s11 Sam speech. HOOO BOY that  infuriated me. It was based on a false premise.  I know Sam said when did WE forget the other part of the bumper sticker except Dean didn't really forget either part. Speak for yourself, Sam. Dean didn't let out the Darkness. Much like s5, Dean was shamed by Sam/show for deigning to want to save Cas and a baby (who he didn't know was Amara). And instead it's painted as now being wrong.  Dean's beautiful and reasonable, "Saving people, hunting things" became Sam's 'Saving All the People is the only way that really matters. Saving some of the people just ain't fucking good enough and is wrong now'.  UGH. HATE THAT SO MUCH. 

[gonzosgirrl]

16 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I used to think it was character assassination. I've changed my opinion on that after going back to the pilot, to s1, and tracking all the occasions wherein Sam had wanted out of the life and his inner conflict which exists even in s13. I think Sam decided to quit altogether rather than do something drastic like he did before. He was done. He didn't regret being done with hunting. I can understand it pissing off viewers and at the same time it also seemed to meet that basic inner conflict in Sam that he hunted only because his family hunted.  And since he's family was dead, he quit.  The not looking for Dean was infuriating and yet...IMO...not OOC. YMMV.

On the topic of that absurd s11 Sam speech. HOOO BOY that  infuriated me. It was based on a false premise.  I know Sam said when did WE forget the other part of the bumper sticker except Dean didn't really forget either part. Speak for yourself, Sam. Dean didn't let out the Darkness. Much like s5, Dean was shamed by Sam/show for deigning to want to save Cas and a baby (who he didn't know was Amara). And instead it's painted as now being wrong.  Dean's beautiful and reasonable, "Saving people, hunting things" became Sam's 'Saving All the People is the only way that really matters. Saving some of the people just ain't fucking good enough and is wrong now'.  UGH. HATE THAT SO MUCH. 

Co-signed. I've always maintained that Sam's early S8 behavior was heightened, but not out of character. And yeah, don't even get me started on the 11x01 speech. I think it got me muted and/or blocked by more than one person on Twitter that night. Grrrr. And they only made it worse by Dean blithely accepting it without comment. GRRRRRR.

[Wayward Son]

IMO under Carver in season 8-10 Sam and Dean both were less concerned with saving people and more concerned with saving each other. 

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Wayward Son said:

IMO under Carver in season 8-10 Sam and Dean both were less concerned with saving people and more concerned with saving each other. 

That...doesn't really wash, though. They continued to hunt and saved people all through 8-10.

Closing the Gates of Hell wasn't mandatory to stop a world calamity. It would have just gone on like it had been.     No one knew that Metatron was doing his own devious plan.

In s9, Abaddon was making demons out of souls but that wasn't known in s8. Dean took on the Mark and killed Abaddon stopping her plan.  Neither Dean nor Sam sacrificed humanity for themselves. And they continued to hunt and save people.

In s10, The Darkness was not known until the last moments. Yes, they chose each other but IMO it was such a last minute option it wasn't as though they had any time to really think about it. They went on instinct. Yes, Dean felt something bad would happen, but he couldn't pinpoint what exactly.  I just don't see it as them being these horrible selfish people that your ongoing opinions of them suggests.  JMHO, YMMV

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I used to think it was character assassination. I've changed my opinion on that after going back to the pilot, to s1, and tracking all the occasions wherein Sam had wanted out of the life and his inner conflict which exists even in s13. I think Sam decided to quit altogether rather than do something drastic like he did before. He was done. He didn't regret being done with hunting. I can understand it pissing off viewers and at the same time it also seemed to meet that basic inner conflict in Sam that he hunted only because his family hunted.  And since he's family was dead, he quit.  The not looking for Dean was infuriating and yet...IMO...not OOC. YMMV.

Even though I didn't like Sam not looking for Dean thing, and thought that it didn't necessarily fit with Sam's M.O. - see "Mystery Spot" and "Time After Time..." - that wasn't the part that infuriated me. It was that Carver threw in Sam callously not looking for Kevin and shrugging his shoulders and then making light of that situation even though it,and the character assassination it represented - to me - was not at all funny. If Carver wanted Sam to go back to his early season 2 conflict, fine, but what would have been wrong with having Sam save Kevin first and then give up hunting? Sam wasn't the same person he was way back in early season 1 when he briefly considered not saving the people in "Wendigo." He'd gone way beyond that with 7 seasons of character growth. I think the reason Carver threw abandoning Kevin into the mix was to make sure Sam looked wrong for giving up hunting rather than making an understandable decision, so he made sure that Sam did some very questionable things to drive the point home that Sam was "wrong."

I'm also interested in the occasions you saw when Sam was shown to be wanting out of the life through the seasons. The last two that I remember were sometime in season 2 and that weird, cryptic "I don't want to be doing this when I'm old" in mid season 4. For me, there were just as many - if not more - "we make a difference"s and "All that apple pie family crap? We didn't miss a damn thing"s. Sam seemed into it enough that he was willing to teach it to Adam in season 4, and is still into it enough to then later talk about it with Claire as a legitimate pursuit. Sam tried normal. He admitted that even then he never really felt like he fit in, and to me he's seemed fine with being a freak since season 2, and entirely embraced it in season 5. In "The French Mistake" Sam had a chance for "normal" and Dean even asked Sam if he might want to stay in that alternate universe with the money and the beautiful wife and no monsters to death with, and Sam confidently rejected it, saying that all their friends were back home and "We just don't mean the same thing here (in the AU)" I think Sam likes making a difference, and hunting is how he does that. I guess I just didn't see the "basic inner conflict" that you did past maybe season 2 or 3 - but for me especially after season 5 - which was why Carver's choice and the way he presented it didn't make much sense to me.

For me, Dean has had his own conflict with hunting throughout the seasons even as far back as "Faith" and "Croatoan" and continuing into the beginning of season 6 and beyond, but it's never really - that I see anyway - argued that this means that Dean somehow has some inner conflict about wanting to give up hunting for good.

I think both Sam and Dean have at times questioned whether it's all worth it. The difference for me is that I'd seen both of them decide that it was and want to continue... until Carver is season 8.

28 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

s9, Abaddon was making demons out of souls but that wasn't known in s8. Dean took on the Mark and killed Abaddon stopping her plan.  Neither Dean nor Sam sacrificed humanity for themselves. And they continued to hunt and save people.

This is true, but Dean also took a huge risk with Gadreel, and he was maybe just lucky that Kevin and a few angel hosts were the only human casualties. It could have gone much, much worse and Dean said flat out the he wasn't sorry and would do it again. To me, that was an example of Dean willing to take a potentially huge risk - including innocent people - to save Sam. I'm not saying that Sam didn't also do the same thing - because he certainly did - but that I think Sam did have a point in including both of them. I didn't see the same message you did. Your miles may vary.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

This is true, but Dean also took a huge risk with Gadreel, and he was maybe just lucky that Kevin and a few angel hosts were the only human casualties. It

Except that Dean also had confirmation from his trusted best friend, Castiel, that the angel Ezekiel was trustworthy. So no, I don't think it was putting the entire world at risk by trusting him. It put Sam at risk.

[Katy M]

15 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Except that Dean also had confirmation from his trusted best friend, Castiel, that the angel Ezekiel was trustworthy. So no, I don't think it was putting the entire world at risk by trusting him. It put Sam at risk.

Yeah.  I'd agree with that.  GadZeke was already in a vessel, so it's not like granting him the keys to be on earth.

[companionenvy]

I'll agree that Dean couldn't have known letting Gadreel in was high risk -- as, in fact, it wasn't except for Sam and those close to him. I do think his persuading Sam not to close the gates of hell justifies Sam including him in his 11x01 speech even though I agree with what Dean did. I wouldn't personally sacrifice someone I love even for the good of the world, and it always seemed to me that closing the gates of hell was something that could have backfired in so many ways. But Dean didn't back out because he thought changing the cosmic order was too risky, he backed out because he didn't want Sam to die. Which is fine, and valid, but if the premise of your conversation is "We've been putting saving each other over saving the world," I'd say what Dean did is a pretty inarguable case of doing just that.

I'll also point out that Dean had just chosen to kill Death rather than Sam, which did make him partially responsible for the darkness mess (yup, Sam was primarily to blame, but if Dean had killed Sam and let Death take him, the world would have been safe). And while this was MOC Dean, it wasn't a total departure for him, and he wasn't completely out of his mind when he did it. So again, I think the shoe fits, for both Winchesters. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

yup, Sam was primarily to blame, but if Dean had killed Sam and let Death take him, the world would have been safe)

The spell was already in motion. I think it would have reached Dean in another destination as well. Same result then with the Darkness released. 

What I blamed Sam for in this episode was that once Death gave his little expositionary tale that Sam didn`t immediately say "OMG, Houston we might have a problem, let me make a phone call." Or heck, maybe Death could have teleported himself over to our spell-doing folks and stopped it. Like, at least make an attempt.

Instead he almonst allows himself to be killed for what? Was he thinking "haha, those sucks don`t know I`m gonna have the last laugh, the Mark will be gone one way or another."

Dean asking Death for help, that made sense. Death wanting Dean to kill Sam because otherwise Sam would never stop, that didn`t make sense. Dean seemingly agreeing to it was nonsensical as well. Sam offering himself lamb-style to it and not telling anyone what was going on - didn`t make sense. Death handing Dean the scythe as if Sam could only be killed with that whereas that was actually true for Death himself and then standing right behind Dean - didn`t make sense. Dean killing Death - okay, bloody stupid but at least in this turn of events, it made sense.

Though seriously, the only people who actually entirely made sense throughout this stupid episode were Rowena, Cas and Crowley. They agreed to do the spell, they worked to do the spell, they actually did the spell. 

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

. Which is fine, and valid, but if the premise of your conversation is "We've been putting saving each other over saving the world," I'd say what Dean did is a pretty inarguable case of doing just that.

That's why I said it was a false premise to begin with. There was no evidence that closing the Gates of Hell would actually be a good thing and it wouldn't have altered the existing world. It was a nice add on option but not something that by not doing made them bad guys.  So for me, the show using that as the reason for Sam's speech is completely contrived angst.

Letting the Darkness out was such a last minute asspull by Carver/Dabb that I don't hold it against the boys really.  If Sam had been given more than  5 freaking minutes to assess the situation, without Death threatening him and making Dean do it, then I would be much more inclined to put that action in the category of they were selfish assholes.  It simply didn't have enough time to coalesce as something that should be included as the likes of Apocalpyse 1.0. I just don't think they were selfish for what they only learned in the last moments.  JMHO.

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Except that Dean also had confirmation from his trusted best friend, Castiel, that the angel Ezekiel was trustworthy. So no, I don't think it was putting the entire world at risk by trusting him. It put Sam at risk.

I actually mostly agree here. I should've made it more clear that I didn't mean trusting Gadreel at first - I meant continuing to trust him even after Gadreel started acting weirdly, like insisting Castiel couldn't also stay in the bunker - which should have been a red flag, in my opinion. Gadreel had been acting weirdly enough that even Kevin noticed it (or he noticed "Sam" acting weirdly, and since Dean knew it wasn't just Sam, he should have noticed also, in my opinion), but Dean continued either ignoring it or not paying attention, because Sam was getting healed. Meanwhile Gadreel had unimpeded access to Sam's head and knowledge as well as everything in the bunker, including potentially dangerous weapons and magical lore that he could've done who knows what with (or given to Metatron to do who knows what with). I stand by my opinion that Dean was lucky Gadreel didn't do more damage while Dean was letting him hang around by either ignoring or not noticing the potential threat Gadreel was. Dean wanted Sam healed and he appeared to be willing to ignore a potential dangerous situation to do that.

But then again, I also think that if Sam and Dean are going to continue staying in the bunker with all of that stuff, they should find a way to keep everyone and their second cousin from being able to get in to the bunker where all that stuff is, or have Castiel take it far away, or something. It's really a bad, bad idea, in my opinion, to leave that stuff where apparently anyone could get into it. I'm not even sure they know what it all even is yet... for example, how long were they in the bunker before that Oz witch popped out... and they hadn't yet noticed that whatever-it-was she came out of?

42 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Letting the Darkness out was such a last minute asspull by Carver/Dabb that I don't hold it against the boys really.  If Sam had been given more than  5 freaking minutes to assess the situation, without Death threatening him and making Dean do it, then I would be much more inclined to put that action in the category of they were selfish assholes. 

I actually agree with you here also. I didn't think it was/or should have been painted as all that bad - either thing actually. I just thought that Dean / Gadreel thing was somewhat mitigated by Gadreel turning out to be helpful and Sam admitting he would do the same thing.

That being said, however, I can see where Sam would have felt guilty and maybe thought that he and Dean had gotten into a bad habit pattern, so I can also see where Sam was coming from.

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

That being said, however, I can see where Sam would have felt guilty and maybe thought that he and Dean had gotten into a bad habit pattern, so I can also see where Sam was coming from.

And that's where I think the writing decided to kitchen sink Dean into Sam's POV. If Sam wanted to speak for himself, fair enough.

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

The spell was already in motion. I think it would have reached Dean in another destination as well. Same result then with the Darkness released. 

What I blamed Sam for in this episode was that once Death gave his little expositionary tale that Sam didn`t immediately say "OMG, Houston we might have a problem, let me make a phone call." Or heck, maybe Death could have teleported himself over to our spell-doing folks and stopped it. Like, at least make an attempt.

Instead he almonst allows himself to be killed for what? Was he thinking "haha, those sucks don`t know I`m gonna have the last laugh, the Mark will be gone one way or another."

Dean asking Death for help, that made sense. Death wanting Dean to kill Sam because otherwise Sam would never stop, that didn`t make sense. Dean seemingly agreeing to it was nonsensical as well. Sam offering himself lamb-style to it and not telling anyone what was going on - didn`t make sense. Death handing Dean the scythe as if Sam could only be killed with that whereas that was actually true for Death himself and then standing right behind Dean - didn`t make sense. Dean killing Death - okay, bloody stupid but at least in this turn of events, it made sense.

Yeah, the more you think about it, the less sense it all makes. I still judge the boys based on what they did with the information they had at any given moment, but the situation was totally contrived. The idea of Death giving an unstable Dean Winchester the scythe that can kill him and telling him to kill Sam with it was just dumb.

I do think we were supposed to assume that whatever Death was doing was going to moot the Book of Darkness mark removal spell, otherwise Sam allowing Dean to kill him makes even less sense.  Or, at least, Sam must have assumed it. The only thing that really works for me is thinking that Sam believed it would all be over before Cas et al could complete the spell -- which it actually would have been, had Dean gone through with it. 

[catrox14]

11 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

I do think we were supposed to assume that whatever Death was doing was going to moot the Book of Darkness mark removal spell, otherwise Sam allowing Dean to kill him makes even less sense.  Or, at least, Sam must have assumed it.

I don't see how that could have been the case.  Dean didn't seem to know about the spell, so he couldn't have told Death. Sam didn't mention it AFAIK.

Dean and Sam were a distance from Rowena and Cas. Somehow the spell still worked across space and time. IMO it theorectically should have worked no matter where Dean was sent. 

[ahrtee]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean and Sam were a distance from Rowena and Cas. Somehow the spell still worked across space and time. IMO it theorectically should have worked no matter where Dean was sent. 

Well, the saving grace (I guess, if you want to call it that) is that without the MoC, Dean would no longer be immortal, so sending him into outer space (or wherever) would most likely have killed him immediately.  :)  

IMO none of it made sense.  

[DeeDee79]

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

IMO it theorectically should have worked no matter where Dean was sent. 

Good point!

 

3 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Well, the saving grace (I guess, if you want to call it that) is that without the MoC, Dean would no longer be immortal, so sending him into outer space (or wherever) would most likely have killed him immediately.  :)  

Also a good point! Though if he was sent into outer space would he then be a demon again since his humanity was dead only to die moments later when the spell took hold? Ugh, my head hurts :(

Edited March 28, 2018 by DeeDee79

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Well, the saving grace (I guess, if you want to call it that) is that without the MoC, Dean would no longer be immortal, so sending him into outer space (or wherever) would most likely have killed him immediately.  :)  

I don't know about that. Maybe he would just keep dying over and over and being resurrected over and over. Like Captain Jack Harkness.

Oh sorry. I misread that.  LOL

Edited March 28, 2018 by catrox14

[ahrtee]

Just now, catrox14 said:

I don't know about that. Maybe he would just keep dying over and over and being resurrected over and over. Like Captain Jack Harkness.

I think once the Mark was gone, he wouldn't resurrect.  Of course, we don't know what would happen (as @DeeDee79 said) if he turned into a demon first?   :)

[ILoveReading]

Brought over from the bitter spoilers thread:  No spoilers in the quoted part.

Quote

There was an entire episode that focused on Sam trying to help Dean this season.  I don't understand how that is not Sam showing compassion for Dean.  If Sam wasn't concerned about Dean and his state of mind, he wouldn't have done any of that.  Dean even said that Sam was there for him when he was in his funk

At the end of episode 3, Dean couldn't make it any clearer that he was having trouble being around Jack because he was too big a reminder of what Dean lost.

If episode 5 had aired after that, I'd give Sam credit for showing compassion and actually hearing and listening to what Dean was saying.  He didn't.  He proceeded to shove Jack at Dean harder and seemed shocked that Dean was hostile.  What do you except Sam?

Sam only did that after he got his own way.  That IMO, came across far more as a reward for good behavior then genuine emphathy or compassion.

Talk is cheap.  Dean might have said it, it doesn't mean it was true.  Sam even tried to put the entire responsibility for Jack on Dean's shoulders.  The show actually had Sam say if Jack went bad it was on Dean and Sam trying to guilt trip Dean with the whole, you think Jack is evil, you think I'm evil statment. (this is from Jared at comic con, so IMO this is how he played that part).    Sam was there for Jack.  Not Dean.

Edited April 12, 2018 by ILoveReading

[companionenvy]

The thing is...Sam was, IMO, basically right re: Jack, as Dean has by now conceded. Possibly he could have been somewhat more sensitive in respecting Dean's desire to keep his distance, but given all of the deadly serious crap they are dealing with on a daily basis, I can totally see how Sam -- who, let's remember, had also just suffered some major losses -- didn't have the patience to walk on tenterhooks around Dean. Jack was there. Even if both Sam and Dean had wanted to kill Jack, they had no viable means of doing so, which meant the best option was keeping a close eye on him.  And under the circumstances, alienating Jack was potentially putting the world at danger. Given Jack's power, ensuring that he remained positively disposed toward the Winchesters -- and not likely to run off on his own and/or fall prey to the manipulations of demons who wanted to use those powers for their own ends -- was crucial. It isn't totally out of left field to suggest that Dean being a jerk to Jack could leave him running towards evil. 

Sam was going over-the-top in the "if you think Jack is evil, I'm evil" gambit, although the larger point that even someone destined to go evil can make the decision to change was fundamentally valid. 

Sam wasn't perfect in his reactions to the situation. As he often does, Sam's inclination, in dealing with Dean's emotions, is to try to "fix" him -- in other words, reason or coax him out of it -- when it would often be better to just allow him his feelings. And that's a flaw. But I don't think it is an especially damning one, or one that suggests he is unconcerned about Dean's emotions.  Sam's not a therapist. Lots of people's instinct in hearing about someone's pain is to jump to solutions, even if the best thing to do would often be to just sit back and listen. And in this case, Dean's emotions were far, far from the only thing at stake. Sam "choosing" Dean or prioritizing his emotions shouldn't mean letting him be a jerk to what was essentially a superpowered baby. 

[Myrelle]

Then Sam should have dealt with Jack until Dean could get by his grief instead of pushing to get his way AKA Dean's help-especially after the blow-out at the bunker. But Sam wanted what he wanted(Dean's help) and wouldn't stop pushing until he got his way, and THEN he decided to "help" Dean through Dean's grief-which was clearly no help at all as Advanced Thanatology showed. And frankly, I STILL don't think Dean has dealt with all that happened at the beginning of this season, but now he's moved on to "dealing"in the way that he usually does after he's forced to push his feelings down-by burying it all into the hunt.

I thought Sam was paralleling John to the nth degree in this way, but nary a peep from the writers on that.

[Reganne]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

Brought over from the bitter spoilers thread:  No spoilers in the quoted part.

At the end of episode 3, Dean couldn't make it any clearer that he was having trouble being around Jack because he was too big a reminder of what Dean lost.

If episode 5 had aired after that, I'd give Sam credit for showing compassion and actually hearing and listening to what Dean was saying.  He didn't.  He proceeded to shove Jack at Dean harder and seemed shocked that Dean was hostile.  What do you except Sam?

Sam only did that after he got his own way.  That IMO, came across far more as a reward for good behavior then genuine emphathy or compassion.

Talk is cheap.  Dean might have said it, it doesn't mean it was true.  Sam even tried to put the entire responsibility for Jack on Dean's shoulders.  The show actually had Sam say if Jack went bad it was on Dean and Sam trying to guilt trip Dean with the whole, you think Jack is evil, you think I'm evil statment. (this is from Jared at comic con, so IMO this is how he played that part).    Sam was there for Jack.  Not Dean.

I don't think Sam needs to reward Dean.  He was showing his concern and trying to make things better for Dean.  I think Dean saying Sam was there for him is true for him.  Otherwise, why would he say it?  If Sam was only there for Jack... he wouldn't have left him behind in advanced Thanology.  Sam is only one person  who is also dealing with a lot of stuff and can't be expected to pick up all of the pieces by himself.

11 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

 And frankly, I STILL don't think Dean has dealt with all that happened at the beginning of this season, but now he's moved on to "dealing"in the way that he usually does after he's forced to push his feelings down-by burying it all into the hunt.

I thought Sam was paralleling John to the nth degree in this way, but nary a peep from the writers on that.

Both brothers haven't completely dealt with all the crap that has been thrown at them.

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, scribe95 said:

When Dean came back from hell he clearly compartmentalized. That was how he stayed functioning. If he had been curled up in a corner you better believe Sam would have done anything to help him. 

I'm not so sure that s4 Sam could have or would have done so. He was already under Ruby's spell essentially by the time Dean came back. Given he viewed Dean as already weaker than him, I think he would have seen a broken down Dean as even more weak giving him even more impetus to continue with what he was doing rather than setting it aside. YMMV as always.

[ILoveReading]

3 hours ago, companionenvy said:

I can totally see how Sam -- who, let's remember, had also just suffered some major losses -- didn't have the patience to walk on tenterhooks around Dean.

I don't think he had to walk on tenterhooks.  Just some simple empathy, like when Missouri called, Sam could have said "hey Dean here's a case, get out for a bit."

He could have asked Dean to go hunt the case without Jack after Dean made it clear. 

It doesn't matter if Sam was right.  He could have showed Dean some compassion.  It's not all or nothing.  Sam doesn't have to treat Jack like crap to accomdate Dean's feelings. 

3 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Sam was going over-the-top in the "if you think Jack is evil, I'm evil" gambit, although the larger point that even someone destined to go evil can make the decision to change was fundamentally valid. 

True, but its not on Dean's shoulders.  Sam was wrong to blame Dean that if Jack went evil it was Dean's fault.

Quote

I don't think Sam needs to reward Dean.  He was showing his concern and trying to make things better for Dean.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I never said that Sam felt that Dean needed a reward, I said it felt like Sam was being nice to Dean only because he got his own way.   If he wanted to make things better for Dean he should have done before Sam got his own way. 

It's not about Sam picking up all the pieces, its just about him understanding what his brother needed.  In AT Dean didnt' need to get away from Jack.  He needed it the episode before. 

As for saying things, for me actions speak louder

Edited April 12, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Reganne]

8 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I don't think he had to walk on tenterhooks.  Just some simple empathy, like when Missouri called, Sam could have said "hey Dean here's a case, get out for a bit."

He could have asked Dean to go hunt the case without Jack after Dean made it clear. 

It doesn't matter if Sam was right.  He could have showed Dean some compassion.  It's not all or nothing.  Sam doesn't have to treat Jack like crap to accomdate Dean's feelings. 

True, but its not on Dean's shoulders.  Sam was wrong to blame Dean that if Jack went evil it was Dean's fault.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I never said that Sam felt that Dean needed a reward, I said it felt like Sam was being nice to Dean only because he got his own way.   If he wanted to make things better for Dean he should have done before Sam got his own way. 

It's not about Sam picking up all the pieces, its just about him understanding what his brother needed.  In AT Dean didnt' need to get away from Jack.  He needed it the episode before. 

As for saying things, for me actions speak louder

I'm not misunderstanding you.  I just see it differently than you.  I don't think Sams compassion had anything to do with taking Jack on a hunt the episode before.  I don't see his character the way you do.  Sometimes I feel like some people see almost everything Sam does in a negative way on this site even when he's trying to help or do the right thing.

I also think Dean still needed help/compassion in Advanced Thanology as highlighted by Dean at the end of the episode.  In the end, I think it counts as to how Dean felt about Sam being there for him.  

[catrox14]

It was days maybe a couple of weeks at most that Dean (and Sam) suffered those losses.  Sam was grieving too, but Sam shoved his stuff into his mission that Dean was not in agreement with, and that was to train that not!baby to do Sam's  bidding and open a rift to save Mary.  I say not!baby because Jack wasn't a baby at all.  Jack didn't speak baby talk. He spoke like someone learning how to speak a different language. Maybe Jack was born into speaking Enochian and had to translate. Maybe his archangel power made him capable of fully understanding complex words with multiple syllables or he got it from Kelly. He walked, talked, reasoned out things that an infant simply cannot do.

As for Sam slamming Dean for being mean to Jack, there is another aspect that maybe Sam using Jack will end up having as much negative influence on Jack going dark, should that happen, as Dean being mean. Jack learned early on about manipulation. Be nice, be kind, make your ask. Sam was using Jack and Jack figured that out and had the capacity to call out Sam for doing it. That's not really infant or toddler level cognition. 

Anyway, back to Dean's grief process. That wasn't the entire reason he wanted to kill Jack.  They had no idea of the threat he posed, so the hunter in Dean was like nope, take him out. It was compounded by  Dean's ire towards Jack which was centered around the fact, stated by Dean himself, that Dean believed Cas was brainwashed, and told lies about Paradise by Jack, which ended up with Cas dead. Whether it was true or not is irrelevant because Dean believed it to be true at the time of his initial grief and loss. IMO, Sam was overidentifying with the half monster and was kind of oblivious to Dean's suffering until AT.

[ILoveReading]

2 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I'm not misunderstanding you.  I just see it differently than you.  I don't think Sams compassion had anything to do with taking Jack on a hunt the episode before.  I don't see his character the way you do.  Sometimes I feel like some people see almost everything Sam does in a negative way on this site even when he's trying to help or do the right thing.

I also think Dean still needed help/compassion in Advanced Thanology as highlighted by Dean at the end of the episode.  In the end, I think it counts as to how Dean felt about Sam being there for him.  

We'll have to agree to disagree.  From me compassion is showing you understand where the other person is coming from.  IMO, Sam didn't do that.

[Reganne]

Just now, ILoveReading said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  From me compassion is showing you understand where the other person is coming from.  IMO, Sam didn't do that.

Agree to disagree.  I think he did.

[Myrelle]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

6 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

 

I don't think Sam needs to reward Dean.  He was showing his concern and trying to make things better for Dean.  I think Dean saying Sam was there for him is true for him.  Otherwise, why would he say it? 

Because, sadly, people who are only offered crumbs of emotional support from their loved ones for most of their lives "learn" that that is probably the best that they can probably hope for or expect from anyone. That's what makes Dean the worst judge of who and how others have "been there" for him for most of his life.

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

Sam is only one person  who is also dealing with a lot of stuff and can't be expected to pick up all of the pieces by himself.

And yet this has been expected of Dean by both John and Sam for most of his entire life. It's another part of the damage, besides the first example I cited, that Dean still exhibits as a result of having been parentified as a child by John.

 

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

Both brothers haven't completely dealt with all the crap that has been thrown at them.

I think Dean is allowing Sam to deal with his crap right now, all while yet again having sublimated his own.

I'm thinking that what Dean has buried may still resurface this year, however.

I saw a great post recently about how the parent/child dynamic between the brothers it still in full swing and more apparent than ever under Dabb. I think that both brothers revert back to it automatically at times and I think that is what is happening right now, as did the poster. There were so many scenes/instances of it in the post. I wish I knew how to re-post things like that.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Myrelle

[gonzosgirrl]

Of course Sam was right about Jack. Was there ever any doubt that he would be? Who could have possibly thought the spawn of Satan would be inherently be a bad thing (besides EVERY ONE of them when they found out Kelly was pregnant).

And now it seems Dean must learn his lesson about going through the rift sans Sam and/or Cas. I'm beginning to think 'Dean steps up' means he steps up to the whipping post yet again.

I loathe the Dabb/Singer showrunner team with the heat of the sun.

[AwesomO4000]

36 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sam was grieving too, but Sam shoved his stuff into his mission that Dean was not in agreement with, and that was to train that not!baby to do Sam's  bidding and open a rift to save Mary. 

(Part of this response is more general and is not just replying to your quote here, catrox14.)

Right, and if that was the case, Dean could have taken that into account and showed Sam some compassion too... "Look Sam, I know you think you need Jack to save Mom, but that could be dangerous. Maybe we should go a little more carefully concerning Jack." Nope it was all "Jack has to die! And I know you just want to use Jack to help us save mom anyway, so screw that. Besides, mom's obviously dead, stupid." And no, I'm not saying that this was somehow worse than anything Sam did here... I'm just saying that they both weren't very compassionate to each other in their grief... which to me is fallible and human. Both brothers were hurting in their own ways and were - understandably - talking past each other. I'm just not seeing why Sam is the only one getting the "he should've been more compassionate to his brother" treatment, or that when Sam does perhaps figure out he maybe should be more sensitive and does show some compassion, that it has to be painted only as Sam having conscious or subconscious ulterior motives.

I get it. Some viewers are generally going to see whatever Sam does as proof that he's the worst brother ever and only manipulating Dean for his own purposes, ingrained so deep that he even does it subconsciously. I'm not going to agree, however, because I see plenty of proof that's not the case. I also see both brothers as human beings who make mistakes and sometimes prioritize their own pain as a way to get by, just as a lot of fallible, human people sometimes do.

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

Sometimes I feel like some people see almost everything Sam does in a negative way on this site even when he's trying to help or do the right thing.

So much this.

[Wayward Son]

Never mind. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Wayward Son

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, Reganne said:

Sometimes I feel like some people see almost everything Sam does in a negative way on this site even when he's trying to help or do the right thing.

This works both ways. I feel the same way about everything Dean does as being seen as controlling, rash, dumb, etc.

9 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Nope it was all "Jack has to die! And I know you just want to use Jack to help us save mom anyway, so screw that. Besides, mom's obviously dead, stupid."

When did Dean ever say Sam was stupid for believing Mary was alive? Even as hyperbole (which I'm sure is how you mean it), I think that's stretching it.

Edited April 12, 2018 by gonzosgirrl

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I'm just not seeing why Sam is the only one getting the "he should've been more compassionate to his brother" treatment,

I for one didn`t want him to be more compassionate or really at all but simply to stop nagging. They had different opinions about Jack, it shouldn`t have been that hard to just reach a compromise. Dean doesn`t randomely try to kill Jack but isn`t making any effort to befriend him either, he just keeps his distance. Meanwhile Sam mentors Jack the way he wants and Dean doesn`t get on his case about it. I don`t understand why they never do it like this. Okay, I do, it`s because of over-the-top drama shenanigans.

The reason why Sam annoyed me more during early Season 13 is because I felt Dean was in general more amenable to such a compromise but Sam was not. Dean had to mentor Jack as well or else. It made me groan all the time they had their over-the-top tiffs about it. 

Then of course the episode with the "grief consultant" aka "shame on you, Dean" lesson-giver didn`t help at all. With the hilarious implication that Dean had such a great thing going on with Mary in Season 12 when the only thing he DID have was solely because of efforts he made. And not only did that not yield a lot of positive results but while he was doing it Sam was constantly nagging at him about being too pushy and pressuring.  

So in Season 12 Dean was wrong for trying and then in Season 13 it is like he got a big boon that just fell into his lap. I found that completely unfair and hypocritical. 

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Right, and if that was the case, Dean could have taken that into account and showed Sam some compassion too... "Look Sam, I know you think you need Jack to save Mom, but that could be dangerous. Maybe we should go a little more carefully concerning Jack." Nope it was all "Jack has to die! And I know you just want to use Jack to help us save mom anyway, so screw that. Besides, mom's obviously dead, stupid." A

Dean, literally, from the moment Cas was murdered in front of him, went straightaway into the house and tried to shoot Jack. He reacted almost automatically and didn't think at all.  So, I'm not sure why Dean would have had to show Sam compassion. Sam's outburst at the shifterpist was out of the blue. Dean was lost in his own grief. He did not have the capacity to do that this time. 

People don't always suffer grief in equal parts even over the same people. That is not a bad thing or a wrong thing or makes Sam a worse person than Dean. I'm not saying he was.

I think in this case, Sam just didn't ping on Dean's suffering from the jump and he was more focused on his mission to save Mary via Jack. Maybe Sam couldn't handle seeing Dean so bereft and broken. Maybe he was pushing Jack on Dean's behalf. Unfortunately, the show never really positioned it that Sam was doing this for Dean, not that I can recall. That would have made a world of difference for me if Sam had said to Jack "I can't stand seeing Dean broken like this. Help me open a Rift so we can end Dean's suffering".  And sadly, I don't think the subtext was saying this either. 

[companionenvy]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Unfortunately, the show never really positioned it that Sam was doing this for Dean, not that I can recall. That would have made a world of difference for me if Sam had said to Jack "I can't stand seeing Dean broken like this. Help me open a Rift so we can end Dean's suffering".  And sadly, I don't think the subtext was saying this either. 

That would have been really strange, I think. Why should it have been all about Dean? Like, the obvious reason to open the Rift is to try to save Mary. It would be genuinely bizarre for Sam to frame the decision to try to save his own mother as being primarily about Dean's grief. 

AwesomeO, I really appreciated your post about double standards in judging Sam and Dean. Another example of this that occurred to me in reading the episode thread this week is that Sam got some flak in a previous discussion about their conflict over Jack for unilaterally turning down a case on behalf of both of them, assuming Dean would go along. Whereas this weak, Dean, likewise, unilaterally made a much bigger decision to go into the rift and leave Sam behind, and most people didn't seem to have an issue with it (and yes, I know Sam had room to object -- but Dean had room to object in the previous episode, too, and indeed wound up taking the case). 

I'm sure most of you have heard of the concept of "circles" of grief. Basically, the rule is that when you're grieving, you can complain and cry and vent to people who are more removed from the situation than you are, but need to put aside your issues and support the people who are closer to it. So, if your aunt just died, you can't expect your cousin (her daughter) to console you; you should be the one consoling her. But you are allowed to wallow in as much grief as you'd like in talking to your husband, even though he may have gotten to know and love your aunt as well, because he's a degree further removed from her, and your feelings take priority.

The thing is, Sam and Dean were in the same circle in this situation. Dean is closer to Cas, but not by all that much at this point in the show, IMO, and Sam was in any case closer to Eileen, who had died days earlier. Mary is an equal loss for both. So, I don't really think the issue of support entirely applies. Both of them have different reactions to a shared tragedy. 

[Aeryn13]

Quote

AwesomeO, I really appreciated your post about double standards in judging Sam and Dean. Another example of this that occurred to me in reading the episode thread this week is that Sam got some flak in a previous discussion about their conflict over Jack for unilaterally turning down a case on behalf of both of them, assuming Dean would go along. Whereas this weak, Dean, likewise, unilaterally made a much bigger decision to go into the rift and leave Sam behind, and most people didn't seem to have an issue with it (and yes, I know Sam had room to object -- but Dean had room to object in the previous episode, too, and indeed wound up taking the case). 

Last year after Sam joined the BMOL and promised to "work" on Dean and then it turns out he did that by working BMOL hunts without Dean`s knowledge for a couple of weeks, the episode ended with Dean folding and joining too, I remember reading a lot of "well, finally, character growth, Dean wasn`t a little bitch about it".

If Dean had done that to Sam, he would have been an epic overbearing bully. Sam doing it was just the character "taking charge" apparently. And Dean needed to fall in line to be considered an okay character. 

So I don`t agree that this only flows in one direction.