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

[ahrtee]

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

And as I pointed out in a previous point when an uninfluenced and 100% Dean brings the subject up again he explicitly states he blames Sam for being soulless.

 

There it is from the mouth of an uninfluenced Dean himself "losing your soul" not "for not telling me that you were soulless". So maybe what you're saying is true, and it is backed by spectre possessed Dean, but what I'm saying is also true and it is explicitly stated by Dean himself. And it is Dean blaming Sam for losing his soul that I consider to be utterly unreasonable. 

 

IA that it was wrong of Dean when he (later) blamed Sam for being soulless.  I'm putting the blame for that on the writers who were going for the shortcut for anger in order to ramp up the angst.  But yeah, it was a stupid thing to say.

11 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm very curious... Do you consider Dean a dick for the following exchange he made whilst he was a demon?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DEAN

No, you listen to me. There's no trade. There's no meet-up. There's no nothing -- except the 100% guarantee that, somewhere down the road, I will find you, and I will kill you.

COLE

Well, that'll be a cold comfort to your dead brother.

DEAN

I told him to let me go. So whatever jam he's in now, that is his problem.

COLE

Yeah, well, I'll be sure to pass that on to him as I'm slitting his throat.

DEAN

Yeah, you do that, 'cause he knows me. And he knows damn sure that if I am one thing, I am a man of my word.

 

I ask because I consider it to be a very similar thing! Sam had no Sam when he spent the year with Samuel without telling Dean, while Demon Dean had a soul, but it was a twisted and corrupted one per the shows canon. For the record I don't blame Dean for this exchange either, but since you blame Sam for his soulless actions I'm just curious do you blame Dean for leaving Sam to die?

Actually, this doesn't bother me at all.  He wasn't saying anything against Sam, but had just lost his  "must protect Sammy at all costs" programming.  

But as I've said before, please don't put words in my (or other posters') mouths.  If you look at my post, I dont' think I ever said "I blame Sam for his soulless actions."  I did say *Dean* didn't say he blamed him for turning him into a vampire.  Those are two different things, and neither one says *I* blame him.  

Edited October 18, 2017 by ahrtee

[Bessie]

24 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Point is, I'm not actually "blaming" him, because yes, I actually *do* understand that he had an excuse.  I'm just saying it was a dick move, and that Dean does have the right to be angry, even though *it only came out as anger when he was whammied.*  

He absolutely has a right to be angry. I just think it was misdirected. Bobby, Castiel and Souless Sam were the culprits. Not Sam. 

[ahrtee]

Just now, Bessie said:

He absolutely has a right to be angry. I just think it was misdirected. Bobby, Castiel and Souless Sam were the culprits. Not Sam. 

You're right.  It's just that none of those  happened to be in front of him when the whammy hit.  Sam was.

[Bessie]

Just now, ahrtee said:

You're right.  It's just that none of those  happened to be in front of him when the whammy hit.  Sam was.

Agreed. But he also brought it up when he was not under the influence. That's where I call a foul. 

[Wayward Son]

8 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

But as I've said before, please don't put words in my (or other posters') mouths.  If you look at my post, I dont' think I ever said "I blame Sam for his soulless actions."  I did say *Dean* didn't say he blamed him for turning him into a vampire.  Those are two different things, and neither one says *I* blame him.  

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but clarify I understand correctly. So you believe that Sam keeping to himself and not telling Dean he was alive was bad, but Dean telling Cole to go ahead and kill Sam because it's not his problem and Sam's own fault was perfectly acceptable? 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

UO . I never had a problem with Dean including Sam's soullessness in the coin tirade because to me that was not about Sam losing his soul but about Sam LYING to him and letting him be intentionally miserable for a year without ever telling Dean he was alive. And even when they figured out that Sam was soulless, he fought against being re-ensouled him which IMO told Dean something about Sam preferring to be soulless. 

50 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean actually didn't blame Sam for being soulless, he blamed him for lying about it for a year and that he MAY have thought on some level that Sam knew he was soulless but not the fact that he was soulless. There is a difference.

I don't understand this.  Of course SoullessSam lied about being back for a year because, for one thing, he thought Dean was living happily with Lisa and Ben - and more importantly, he really didn't care if it upset Dean not to know he was out of the cage, or probably even realize that it would upset Dean to know that, because he was Soulless!  Sam also didn't know he was Soulless until Cas did the Soulonoscopy.  He knew something was wrong, but he didn't know what.  And since he thought it made him a better hunter, he didn't worry about it too much - Because he was Soulless!  And of course he fought against getting Re-souled - but only after he found out it would likely kill him - Because he was Soulless!   So I really don't understand saying Dean blamed Sam for lying to him about being back for a year - since he was Soulless when he did that - but not blaming him for being Soulless in the first place.  How can you say, I don't blame you for coming back without your soul, but I do hold you responsible for lying to me about it, even though you didn't have your soul while you were lying and so didn't have your moral center.  Cause it makes perfect sense to me that a person without their soul would lie and wouldn't 'care if their brother was worried about them or not.  But that still doesn't make it Re-Souled Sam's fault.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I would have to disagree with you there. Yes, there have been occasions such as this one where Sam has unfairly called Dean out on the things he said while under the spectre's influence.

I was talking specifically about the coin episode and why Sam bugged the living hell out of me in it. And in this episode he did it. 

My point about Sam reacting annoyed all the time related to when Sam was nasty under the influence and seemed impatient/annoyed that it would even be a thing that gave Dean pause. That made his reaction in the coin ep even more aggravating to me. 

In terms of the discussion about Dean blaming Sam for being soulless. I`d say overall he does not. The writing in the Season 8 Finale was weirdly clunky to hammer home the poor widdle Sam so, like in discussions when Dean COULD have a legitimate point but only gets strawman arguments so Sam can easily shoot them down and look validated, I think they made Dean be extra-mean here. Just like in Fallen Idols, another simplistic biased crap episode I hated. It basically ruined Season 4 in retrospect, till the 5.22 came and really ruined everything that still remained. 

Now I do think what Sam says to Dean under the influence holds truth on account of him saying it also when not under the influence because it is more than two examples and it is basically the same thing every time. A variation of "weak/selfish/pathetic". I`ve heard that now from Sam under some influence to Dean directly, from Sam not under influence to Dean directly, from Sam not under any influence to other people, from figments of Sam`s mind in Sam`s head or even from other people TO Sam about Dean. At a certain point, there is obviously a pattern.  

Quote

Of course SoullessSam lied about being back for a year because, for one thing, he thought Dean was living happily with Lisa and Ben 

I don`t think that was the actual reason. Bobby gave that reason. But soulless!Sam IMO realized it would come across as too weird if he told the truth, namely: he didn`t give a flying fuck either way. He didn`t need Dean for anything essential so he lived happily somewhere or not was of no consequence to me. As long as he didn`t need to be bothered by it. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Aeryn13

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Gotcha. I still don't think it was meant sardonically, but I thought every word out of Dean's mouth was mean-spirited and meant to hurt. I hated that scene and wish it had never been written. 

To me, I don't see the point in Dean being asshole at that moment especially when it's possible Sam might die, unless Dean just didn't think Sam was going to die so he was doing what exactly there? Being mean to Sam for the fun of it? That's not really in Dean's MO especially in that situation. He wasn't against Sam finishing the trials at that point. Teasing Sam? Maybe. That's what makes me think all the stuff Dean listed was some kind of sardonic humor.

But thinking more, it actually only makes sense as a way to amp up the audience sympathy and angst for Sam before he confesses that he "let down Dean" as one of his sins.

[ahrtee]

9 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but clarify I understand correctly. So you believe that Sam keeping to himself and not telling Dean he was alive was bad, but Dean telling Cole to go ahead and kill Sam because it's not his problem and Sam's own fault was perfectly acceptable? 

You actually said: "but since you blame Sam for his soulless action"  That to me is putting words in my mouth.

As to your clarification, I'm sorry if you don't see a difference between those two things.  MMV.

Edited October 18, 2017 by ahrtee

[Bessie]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

But thinking more, it actually only makes sense as a way to amp up the audience sympathy and angst for Sam before he confesses that he "let down Dean" as one of his sins.

I think you could be right. I don't know it as a fact, but I suspect it's true. But, I feel the same way about Sam's awful dialogue in the Purge. They both were horribly mean and written to amp up sympathy for the other brother. 

[Wayward Son]

1 minute ago, Aeryn13 said:

In terms of the discussion about Dean blaming Sam for being soulless. I`d say overall he does not. The writing in the Season 8 Finale was weirdly clunky to hammer home the poor widdle Sam so, like in discussions when Dean COULD have a legitimate point but only gets strawman arguments so Sam can easily shoot them down and look validated, I think they made Dean be extra-mean here. Just like in Fallen Idols, another simplistic biased crap episode I hated. It basically ruined Season 4 in retrospect, till the 5.22 came and really ruined everything that still remained. 

 

Perhaps its because the episode aired prior to season 8 and 9 souring my opinion of the character of Dean, but I actually don't have any issues with his conduct in Fallen Idols. Yes, Dean was harsh with Sam, but I completely understand why. IMO while his experiences in the future made him feel it was necessary he and Sam unite and keep each other grounded I still think it was too soon for them to reunite. I don't think Dean had the time he understandably needed to process what happened and forgive Sam and so this lingering frustration manifested in harsh remarks. Personally, (you might be surprised to hear) I don't see it as unreasonable or an example of mean Dean. 

 

Just now, ahrtee said:

I'm sorry if you don't see a difference between those two things.  MMV.

If I were to blame either character (which I don't because of their respective outside influence) I'd argue that Dean knowingly leaving Sam to die is much worse than Sam leaving Dean to live a life he believed Dean was happy in. I would see Dean's action there just as bad as soulless allowing Dean to be turned into a vampire. But as you said MMV

[ahrtee]

16 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Agreed. But he also brought it up when he was not under the influence. That's where I call a foul. 

And that's where I said it was bad writing, or brought up specifically (as someone mentioned) to give Sam something he felt he needed to atone for.  It was manufactured angst and totally unreasonable.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

Personally, (you might be surprised to hear) I don't see it as unreasonable or an example of mean Dean. 

I saw it as a gigantic strawman argument to facilitate the ending conversation that I hated and that killed the interpersonal relationship and what I thought was the set-up for truly tackling its problems in Season 4 for me. Since I do think it just got neatly blamed on Dean and him being set up as the one who was wrong and needed to change, I was spitting-nails-angry. I did not enjoy all the "you are a weak loser" stuff he was hit with during Season 4 but I thought there was gonna be a point to it and for Sam to get off that trip forever. Instead the show created an apparent hybrid, the weak loser who was still bossy and controlling enough to drive Sam to the brink of beige-side.

After that episode Season 5 went into the crapper and never really recovered in my eyes, occasional episodes I enjoyed notwithstanding. The episode before FI was "The End" and never has there been a more aptly-titled one for me. 

FI killed the relationship and 5.22 retroactively killed the only mytharc I had ever truly loved on the show so far. Season 5 is a how-to-manual for me in ruining an entire previous Season to the point I can`t watch my favourite episode anymore because the bitterness outweighs everything else. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Bessie]

10 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

And that's where I said it was bad writing, or brought up specifically (as someone mentioned) to give Sam something he felt he needed to atone for.  It was manufactured angst and totally unreasonable.

I missed you writing that; my bad. And, I agree. The Carver era excelled in manufactured melodrama that came out of left field. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

33 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

I don`t think that was the actual reason. Bobby gave that reason. But soulless!Sam IMO realized it would come across as too weird if he told the truth, namely: he didn`t give a flying fuck either way. He didn`t need Dean for anything essential so he lived happily somewhere or not was of no consequence to me. As long as he didn`t need to be bothered by it. 

And that was essentially the second part of that statement of mine, which you didn't quote.  Of course Sam didn't give a flying fuck either way - Because he was Soulless!

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

don't understand this.  Of course SoullessSam lied about being back for a year because, for one thing, he thought Dean was living happily with Lisa and Ben - and more importantly, he really didn't care if it upset Dean not to know he was out of the cage, or probably even realize that it would upset Dean to know that, because he was Soulless!

If SS had no empathy nor caring, why would he care that Dean was with happily with Lisa and Ben? This implies that he had caring for Dean. If had caring for Dean then whatever bad thing he did whilst he was soulless implies that he was making choices rather than his lack of empathy making him do bad things.

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

If SS had no empathy nor caring, why would he care that Dean was with happily with Lisa and Ben? This implies that he had caring for Dean. If had caring for Dean then whatever bad thing he did whilst he was soulless implies that he was making choices rather than his lack of empathy making him do bad things.

I don't think he did care.  But, I think he thought he was supposed to care.  I'll even go so far as to say that when SS first came back he thought he would start caring, eventually.  But, at any rate, I don't think Sam's not going to get Dean had anything to do with Dean being happy.  It's because Sam knew something wasn't right with him, he knew Dean would know, and he didn't want to deal, and he didn't care if he saw him or not because he didn't care.

As far as the final scene in Swan Song.  I think maybe he went there, because he figured he was supposed to, and maybe he would feel more like himself when he saw Dean, he looked through the window, saw Dean as a family, shrugged and said to himself "he looks happy, I don't care if I see him or not, he'll probably just try to fix me or bug me or boss me around (or whatever SS would complain about) and left.  He just didn't care. Reconnecting seemed like too much work without any benefit.  Then, I guess he went to Bobby's, and realized he didn't care about him either.  I would actually have loved to see his first meeting with Samuel.  Actually see how the whole Campbell gang got together. 

[gonzosgirrl]

When Dean was supernaturally ramped up in Southern Comfort, he said ugly things (some true, some not) and threatened to shoot Sam. Sam in turn told him to get over himself or he'd walk away. We all know how the season went after that.

When Sam was supernaturally ramped up  in Asylum, he said some ugly things (some true, some not) and did shoot Dean, first just to hurt him, and then would've murdered him if the pistol had been loaded. Dean in turn said he didn't want to talk about it and it was never mentioned again.

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't think he did care.  But, I think he thought he was supposed to care.  I'll even go so far as to say that when SS first came back he thought he would start caring, eventually.  But, at any rate, I don't think Sam's not going to get Dean had anything to do with Dean being happy.  It's because Sam knew something wasn't right with him, he knew Dean would know, and he didn't want to deal, and he didn't care if he saw him or not because he didn't care.

That's my headcanon as well. And he admitted he knew something was wrong with him when Veritas figured out he wasn't "human". So that IMO had a lot to do with Dean's POV that was coming through in the coin episode. Like the coin didn't make him resent Sam but the coin amped up the response to the lingering resentments and doubts. Not that Dean thought that about Sam on a conscious basis or behaved in that manner. The coin dredged it and made it more than it probably was to Dean.

[Jeddah]

23 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

When Sam was supernaturally ramped up  in Asylum, he said some ugly things (some true, some not) and did shoot Dean, first just to hurt him, and then would've murdered him if the pistol had been loaded.

If the gun had been loaded, Sam never would have been holding it. Dean wouldn’t have handed it to him.

[gonzosgirrl]

10 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

If the gun had been loaded, Sam never would have been holding it. Dean wouldn’t have handed it to him.

That doesn't change the intent. And yes, Dean pointed his gun at Sam and we don't know for sure what would've happened if Garth hadn't punched him, but the fact remains that Sam did shoot him point blank with the shot gun, and he did pull the trigger multiple times with the handgun.

Edited October 18, 2017 by gonzosgirrl
black/black, not the same thing

[companionenvy]

I've always thought the show could have done more with Soulless Sam. He was around for a while, but since for a lot of that time we weren't supposed to know he was soulless, they couldn't really do much with the premise beyond throw out signs that Sam wasn't acting like himself.

In the end, they just had him go completely evil, whereas I think it would have been more interesting to examine the subtleties of what being soulless meant. Because the thing is, while Soulless Sam had no conscience or empathy, he didn't go around slaughtering innocents or robbing banks. He was doing things he ordinarily wouldn't have, but using someone as bait in pursuit of a monster, while obviously callous and unethical, isn't the same as killing someone senselessly, or for personal gain. Instead, what Soulless Sam did was adopt some distorted semblance of his old life - not only was he hunting, but he was even with "family."

To me, SS was potential a tragic figure. He had all of the memories of Sam Winchester, so he had some theoretical sense of what he was supposed to be doing and feeling -- even, I think, a basic moral code, derived from remembered past behaviors.  So, he knew that going around murdering people was wrong, but a somewhat more nuanced position like "don't put civilians at serious risk, even if logically, the greater good would be served by it" was beyond him. His simulation of humanity also wasn't enough to override his self-preservation instinct, hence the willingness to kill  Bobby. 

I think SS actually did believe, on some level, that he had left Dean alone for his own good, but only because he was lying to himself as a psychological defense mechanism. I once saw a documentary that discussed a very rare syndrome -- maybe even a singular case -- in which the part of a person's brain that controlled emotional response was damaged. When he woke from a coma and saw his wife, parents, etc, his reaction was "That's not my family. These people look exactly like my family members, but they aren't them." Same thing when he saw his house, his friends, etc. The neurologist's explanation was that his brain couldn't make sense of the fact that it recognized everyone on a visual level, but couldn't feel any of the emotional responses normally linked to them. So, his way of coping was to decide they couldn't actually be those people at all. Something similar could be applied to SS - he knew he was supposed to care about Dean, and rationalized his lack of desire to be with him on a reaction that might plausibly be reconciled with the Sam Winchester he remembered. 

I also, by the way, think the show should have done a lot more with demon Dean. Essentially, the MoC arc was a watered-down version of what his arc should have been that tried to have its cake and eat it too: we were supposed to believe that Dean was dangerously unhinged, but the show wasn't willing to have him go too far, so we got what seemed like overreactions on the part of Sam and Cas, Had Dean been a demon, I think the show could have allowed him to go farther. It would have been really interesting to see a Demon version of Dean who had no scruples, but the same basic desires as Dean -- including the desire to hunt evil and protect Sam, Cas, and Baby. That's a version of Dean that might have been interesting enough to last for an extended arc and might even have been able to function in Fan Fiction without requiring the cutting short of Dean's demonhood. I also don't think it is implausible -- why would a demon version of Dean Winchester necessarily lose Dean's version of the prime directive? 

[Jeddah]

1 minute ago, gonzosgirrl said:

That doesn't change the intent. And yes, Dean pointed his gun at Sam and we don't know for sure what would've happened if Garth hadn't punched him, but the fact remains that Sam did shoot him point blank with the shot gun, and he did pull the trigger multiple times with the handgun.

I’m not disagreeing with you about what did happen, although I tend to give characters under supernatural influence more leeway than you do. I just don't understand the reasoning behind saying Sam would have murdered Dean if this one thing (the gun being loaded) had been different, but then not acknowledging that had that one thing been different all the other circumstances would have been completely different too.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

If SS had no empathy nor caring, why would he care that Dean was with happily with Lisa and Ben? This implies that he had caring for Dean. If had caring for Dean then whatever bad thing he did whilst he was soulless implies that he was making choices rather than his lack of empathy making him do bad things.

I didn't say he cared if Dean was happy with Lisa.  I said he thought that Dean was happy with Lisa.  Maybe he thought that since Dean was happy with Lisa, Dean wouldn't want to get back to hunting.  Maybe he simply remembered the promise he extracted out of Dean to go be happy with Lisa after he went to the cage and decided to leave it at that.  Personally, I think it's as @Katy M said, when Sam showed up at Lisa's house, he realized he just didn't 'feel' anything for Dean, so he left.  (He did say a few episodes later that he remembered caring about Dean, but he just didn't feel that way 'now'  - while Soulless.).  It doesn't really matter why he didn't tell Dean he was out of the cage right away, because the the bottom line is Because he was Soulless!

SoullessSam was still making choices - it's just that he lacked his moral center and empathy that would have allowed him to make a fully informed choice that he normally would have made.  So, it doesn't make sense to me to hold those choices against Re-Souled Sam that he made while Soulless.  

[CluelessDrifter]

3 hours ago, Bessie said:

Not true.  He sometimes does, but not always. The crap demon Dean spewed has never come up. Has the shapeshifter Dean comments been held against him by Sam?  I can't remember, but I don't think so. In fact, I think the coin thing is the only time Sam has been unreasonable about comments Dean has made under the influence. 

 

2 hours ago, Wayward Son said:

However, as far as I know, he has never called Dean out on the things he said while he was a demon nor did he comment on the remarks made by a shapeshifter who was drawing on the thoughts and feelings of Dean. 

I'm really having a hard time with this one. As far as I'm concerned, it is a false equivalent.  Are we going to blame Sam and Dean because leviathans took their form and used their memories to gun down people in towns they went to in season 1?  Are we going to blame the men the shapeshifter in Skin 'became' before it killed their wives and girlfriends, or blame Dean for what the shifter said and did when it went after Sam later in the episode and almost killed him?  No, because they weren't the ones who did those acts or said those things.  An entirely separate entity from them, namely monsters that took their form, did.

Edited October 18, 2017 by CluelessDrifter

[Aeryn13]

Quote

 I also don't think it is implausible -- why would a demon version of Dean Winchester necessarily lose Dean's version of the prime directive? 

There should be some fundamental difference about being a demon, though. And I would have been so annoyed if everything had to stay all about Sam for him. I hate the idea of the "prime directive". I know it`s too late for the character to change that now but this "Sam is his reason for being" is really something that bugs me. They didn`t give the Demon!Dean storyline the slightest chance but I enjoyed that he finally wasn`t burdened by what he feels his only worth is and instead just wanted to enjoy life for himself. Hallelujah.

I always wanted an amnesia storyline for Dean - for more than an episode. He wouldn`t have to be mean then but he wouldn`t put up with any bullshit either and all the usual tactics wouldn`t work on him. Last Season it would have been especially gratifying to see him not give a crap about getting to know Mary back.

It was pretty telling that Mary wasn`t in the Regarding Dean episode because even Rowena made for a warmer figure there. Mary wouldn`t have fit.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Bessie]

9 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

As far as I'm concerned, it is a false equivalent.

I'm not understanding what your point is. A false equivalent to what?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 hours ago, Bessie said:

Gotcha. I still don't think it was meant sardonically, but I thought every word out of Dean's mouth was mean-spirited and meant to hurt. I hated that scene and wish it had never been written. 

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I think Ackles DID present it as a a sardonic joke. I never thought Dean meant that at all. And it wasn't meant to be a HAHAHAH funny joke but a sardonic kind of thing.

Maybe it's just me, but aren't these two pretty much the same thing?  Just to be sure, I looked up 'sardonic' at Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and Cambridge - and they all agreed it meant 'derisive' and 'mocking' with some 'scorn' thrown in.  I think that goes beyond a bad joke that just fell flat.  IMO, Mockery, scorn, and derision are all pretty mean-spirited and meant to hurt.  

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I'm not understanding what your point is. A false equivalent to what?

The question wasn`t adressed me but as I understood it, it`s yet another thing if it`s not even the character themselves doing something under the influence but a third entity impersonating them. Like shifters or Leviathans. In that case, it is not equivalent to the character doing it, even while supernaturally charged by something. It is wholly the other entity. Which would go for anything Shifter!Dean did or the Leviathan!Winchesters did. Whereas at least Asylum!Sam or Coin!Dean were Sam and Dean, if you will, not impostors.

So not calling each other out on impostor actions is to be expected because anything else would be wildly unfair. Kinda "I hate what your twin did", just worse.

[Bessie]

3 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Maybe it's just me, but aren't these two pretty much the same thing?  Just to be sure, I looked up 'sardonic' at Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and Cambridge - and they all agreed it meant 'derisive' and 'mocking' with some 'scorn' thrown in.  I think that goes beyond a bad joke that just fell flat.  IMO, Mockery, scorn, and derision are all pretty mean-spirited and meant to hurt.  

I take back my comment. It was definitely sardonic and I am fully onboard with the belief that mockery, scorn and derision are not very nice!

For some reason, I always thought of sardonic as being sly. Thanks for the heads-up!

[Wayward Son]

29 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

 

I'm really having a hard time with this one. As far as I'm concerned, it is a false equivalent.  Are we going to blame Sam and Dean because leviathans took their form and used their memories to gun down people in towns they went to in season 1?  Are we going to blame the men the shapeshifter in Skin 'became' before it killed their wives and girlfriends, or blame Dean for what the shifter said and did when it went after Sam later in the episode and almost killed him?  No, because they weren't the ones who did those acts or said those things.  An entirely separate entity from them, namely monsters that took their form, did.

I’ll concede the shifter can be seen as a false equivalent but not demon Dean. Soulless Sam had no soul while Demon Dean did still have a soul only his soul had been corrupted and twisted. I’m happy to count them as equivalents, but if anything Demon Dean was closer to normal Dean than soulless was to normal Sam. At least Demon Dean had some form of Dean’s soul.

[Bessie]

2 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:

In that case, it is not equivalent to the character doing it, even while supernaturally charged by something. It is wholly the other entity. Which would go for anything Shifter!Dean did or the Leviathan!Winchesters did. Whereas at least Asylum!Sam or Coin!Dean were Sam and Dean, if you will, not impostors.

Ah, okay.  So soulless Sam's actions could only be compared to Demondean's? Fair enough. The point still stands that Sam never held demondean's actions against Dean, whereas the opposite is not true. 

[catrox14]

58 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

If the gun had been loaded, Sam never would have been holding it. Dean wouldn’t have handed it to him.

What difference does that make? Sam didn't know it wasn't loaded and he still fired the weapon with the intent to shoot Dean repeatedly.

I find it interesting that Sam under the influence of things, not possessed like he was by Meg and Lucifer because those were the people trying to kill Dean not Sam, that Sam has tried to kill Dean every single time; fired what he believed was a loaded pistol at Dean; strangled Dean; as Soulless Sam let him be turned into a vampire and watched and smiled; left Dean to aliens/fairies. If I didn't know better, I would think somewhere deep down inside, that Sam hates Dean and secretly wants to kill him.

As for Dean's part, I don't count shapeshifter Dean because he was not Dean at all. He downloaded memories but who knows if those memories were Dean's or a mixture of the shapeshifter's angst and Dean's. Probably both IMO. Shapeshifter was the killer not Dean.

Spectre!Dean never fired the weapon at Sam. It's 50/50 whether he would or not but Sam grabbed the gun hand of Dean's and they brawled. I'm not 100% Dean would have shot Sam because he had multiple chances to do that but instead had a long rant but he was threatening him for sure.

Demon Dean wanted nothing to do with Sam or hunting anymore and stayed away from Sam. He told Cole he didn't care if he killed Sam but he wasn't hunting and trying to kill Sam either. Sam brought the fight to Demon Dean because Crowley sold him out. A pissed off demon!Dean went after Sam with a hammer with the intent to kill him after being captured.

MoC!Dean never tried to kill Sam at all until Death demanded Sam's head. That wasn't because Dean wanted to kill Sam out of any kind of personal grievance. It was a condition of him being sent away to avoid killing anyone else. And I'm still not sure if Dean actually intended to kill Sam when he swung or was always intending to kill Death.

Am I missing other times? I feel like there were more, but maybe not?

[Bessie]

Didn't he go after Sam with an axe under the siren's spell?

ETA: I could be completely misremembering this, but wasn't Sam whammied  in the wishing well episode? I thought he was and he didn't wish Dean dead. Again, this could be totally wrong. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Bessie

[RulerofallIsurvey]

20 minutes ago, Bessie said:

For some reason, I always thought of sardonic as being sly. Thanks for the heads-up!

Well, I did too - that's why I looked it up to be sure I was interpreting it correctly!  :)  I think it is often used to denote a kind of sarcastic humor - less derisive and mocking than the dictionary definitions would imply.  But that's not what I read.  (From the above mentioned sources and also from Dean's delivery.)

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Maybe it's just me, but aren't these two pretty much the same thing?  Just to be sure, I looked up 'sardonic' at Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and Cambridge - and they all agreed it meant 'derisive' and 'mocking' with some 'scorn' thrown in.  I think that goes beyond a bad joke that just fell flat.  IMO, Mockery, scorn, and derision are all pretty mean-spirited and meant to hurt.

Those aren't the only definitions of Sardonic.

 

Quote

 

To wit:

Google dictionary: 

Search Results

Dictionary

sar·don·ic

särˈdänik/

adjective

adjective: sardonic

grimly mocking or cynical.

"Starkey attempted a sardonic smile"

synonyms:mocking, satirical, sarcastic, ironical, ironic;

cynical, scornful, contemptuous, derisive, derisory, sneering, jeering;

scathing, caustic, trenchant, cutting, sharp, acerbic

"his sardonic wit"

From Collins Dictionary:

adjective

disdainfully or bitterly sneering, ironic, or sarcastic

a sardonic smile

SIMILAR WORDS:  sarˈcastic

Merriam Webster online:

Definition of sardonic

:disdainfully or skeptically humorous :derisively mocking

a sardonic comment

 

So I stand by assessment that Dean was indeed being sardonic. And as I noted, upon further review, I agree that it was included to amp up the sympathy for Sam before he announces to Dean that his greatest sin was letting Dean down. I think both things are true. 

[Diane]

So now we are disagreeing about the meaning of a word?

[catrox14]

14 minutes ago, Bessie said:

Didn't he go after Sam with an axe under the siren's spell?

 

Ahh thank you for that. I knew I was forgetting one. Sam was also whammied by the siren and wanted to kill Dean as well. Thanks!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, Diane said:

So now we are disagreeing about the meaning of a word?

Apparently.  But I see nothing in all the definitions @catrox14 posted that differed from or negated anything I posted.  In fact, all the definitions she wrote support my previous comment!  So, thank you for making my point! :D

Edited October 18, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[catrox14]

Just now, Diane said:

So now we are disagreeing about the meaning of a word?

I didn't bring up the definition. I thought sardonic was accurate to my assessment of what Dean was saying in that situation. Dean does have a sardonic, sarcastic sense of humor pretty often and I saw it that way initially and even upon rewatches. Dean was in a bad frame of mind at that time. Dealing with Cas potentially being gone forever, Sam doing the trials and him not being entirely thrilled but going along with the plan and scared that Sam might not survive. And Dean can't do anything for anyone because the narrative wrote him out of the action and it was only Naomi coming to say hey Sam is gonna die that Dean was there to talk Sam down from finishing the trials and here Sam's "confession".

IMO, Sam saying he didn't really know what to confess pinged Dean's sarcastic/sardonic sense of humor and he was like okay well how about "this, this and this"  and to me it was more of Dean thinking well there has been some shit gone down and it was thoughtless but IMO funny in Dean's head in a sarcastic way. Sardonic humor can be biting and mean but it's also not always meant to be INTENTIONALLY cruel to someone else. So maybe the dividing line here is that I don't think Dean was being intentionally cruel to Sam but being a sarcastic asshat as is his wont much of the time. 

I found it similar to the whole Team Free Will thing was sardonic wit. They were up against it, they had nothing and Dean's assessing how they are all pretty fucked and Dean says:  "Team Free Will. One ex-blood junkie, one dropout with six bucks to his name, and Mr. Comatose over there. Awesome".  That was sardonic and sarcastic.

YMMV :)

[Jeddah]

8 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

What difference does that make? Sam didn't know it wasn't loaded and he still fired the weapon with the intent to shoot Dean repeatedly.

I’m not saying it did or would make a difference in Sam’s intentions. What I’m saying is that if we’re playing the hypothetical game, then I don’t agree with @gonzosgirrl about what would have happened. If the hypothetical difference is that the gun was loaded, then I don’t agree that Sam would have murdered Dean. Dean himself says he never would have handed Sam the gun if it were loaded, so to me the scene would have been entirely different had the gun been loaded. I’m not disagreeing with what did happen. I’m only disagreeing with the interpretation of this particular “what if.”

[Bessie]

11 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

So maybe the dividing line here is that I don't think Dean was being intentionally cruel to Sam but being a sarcastic asshat as is his wont much of the time. 

That could be. Because I cannot imagine Dean thinking that listing Sam's greatest sins was funny in any way. And if he did, if your interpretation is correct, and Dean thought it was funny?  That does not speak well of him, at all. 

[catrox14]

4 minutes ago, Jeddah said:

I’m not saying it did or would make a difference in Sam’s intentions. What I’m saying is that if we’re playing the hypothetical game, then I don’t agree with @gonzosgirrl about what would have happened. If the hypothetical difference is that the gun was loaded, then I don’t agree that Sam would have murdered Dean. Dean himself says he never would have handed Sam the gun if it were loaded, so to me the scene would have been entirely different had the gun been loaded. I’m not disagreeing with what did happen. I’m only disagreeing with the interpretation of this particular “what if.”

Ah, I gotcha!

[Katy M]

55 minutes ago, Bessie said:

ETA: I could be completely misremembering this, but wasn't Sam whammied  in the wishing well episode? I thought he was and he didn't wish Dean dead. Again, this could be totally wrong. 

No, Sam was hit by lightning in the wishing well epi because Hope wished him dead.  Dean wished for a sandwich and got food poisoning or something. And, that Todd kid tried to strangle hi, but neither were mentally affected and neither tried to kill the other.  Unless, you meant that he was on demon blood at the time and didn't wish Dean dead.  At that point, I think the last time he had a hit was in Metamorphosis.  The very next episode after wishing well, Ruby would tell him he was getting flabby or whatever, because he hadn't had any blood for a while.

[Bessie]

Thanks for the clarification, @Katy M. 

[catrox14]

Just now, Bessie said:

That could be. Because I cannot imagine Dean thinking that listing Sam's greatest sins was funny in any way. And if he did, if your interpretation is correct, and Dean thought it was funny?  That does not speak well of him, at all. 

I never said it had to speak well of Dean and this isn't even a defense of Dean, really. I'm trying to make sense of that scene character wise for Dean. IMO, Dean is often a smarmy, sarcastic dipshit and says really outlandish things that he must think are funny TO HIM in some way otherwise he wouldn't say them. Dean is not always nice but IMO he is a good man IMO. 

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

This, IMO, was why it was added.  The show seems to have trouble with characters calling Sam out on this mistakes with adding some kind of "but its not really his fault in there."

I disagree with this to a great extent. While I somewhat sympathize with those who saw "Fallen Idols" as a way to "blame Dean" for what Sam did, I disagree. I've analyzed that dialog and still don't see it, especially since even if Dean was being called "bossy," by the episode, I've always thought "so what? Bossy isn't necessarily a bad thing." Sam even likes a bossy Dean much of the time. It's a dynamic shown to be positive in the show much of the time, but anyway... even if this episode did that - and I'm not saying it did - this was contradicted by every episode that mentioned it before and after that when blame was assigned which did say specifically that it was Sam's fault... so much so that other characters who had a hand in it - such as angels, including Castiel - are never even called out on their part in it. It was almost always about "Sam's choices*." I'm just not seeing how that perpetuates "but it's not really his fault" since whenever Sam's bad choices or Sam starting the apocalypse are brought up after that episode, there is never a "but Dean bossed him into it" rejoinder or even a hint of that, so... but obviously miles vary, because I'm just not seeing it at all.

Even giving you that this is what the show does, for argument's sake, though I tend to see it as more of an overall problem. The show often has trouble calling Dean out on his mistakes, too, so this isn't just a Sam thing. Dean's mistakes aren't called out in a different way, though, in that they end up not really being mistakes after all. Gadreel and the mark of Cain are good examples of that, in my opinion.

* The one exception to this was "Sam, Interrupted" where Dean mentioned but it wasn't Sam's fault, because he was just high / addicted, but considering it was Sam's original choice to be addicted, that's not really letting Sam off the hook entirely even there, in my opinion.

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

However the coin episode is the one where I was the most annoyed with Sam`s characterization. First that smug comment about how Dean should tell Garth how he got out of Purgatory - with the clear undertone of "haha, that would make you look so bad" (on accounts of a vampire being involved. Like, there wasn`t any part of that story that would make Sam look 100 times worse?

Then of course Mr."is this really a thing, it wasn`t me?" whenever he says truly nasty stuff under the influence holds Dean 100 % responsible for what he said under the influence. I remember how Sam reacted all the times he did it, kind of even annoyed that Dean dared to even be affected by it. Mind you, not blaming Sam or even really wanting to call him on it but being hurt to be called a stupid loser. For someone who takes easy offense with what is said to him, Sam has no trouble verbally trampling over Dean or other people, even being incredulous why they might have a problem with it, too,

And of course the coup de gras at the end. "I told you why I didn`t look from the jump... so get over it or I will". Nope Sam, you explained shit. Not in any meaningful way. The final part was just... I wanted Dean to get in the car and drive off. Not meekly fold there. God, I hated that so much, The worst Season 8!Sam for me by far was in that episode.      

I had stopped watching the show for a while after the season 8 premier and had the unfortunate idea to check out a few scenes to see if anything had gotten better and turned on this episode. I promptly stopped watching again, because yes, this was bad. Sam was awful here. But looking back on it, I'm not that surprised. Adam Glass is good at writing Dean episodes (in my opinion), but he is not kind to Sam at all. Almost every episode he has written (except 1, maybe 2) has at least something negative (often several negatives) about Sam in it... Sam as incompetent, Sam in denial, Sam as a damsel in distress, Sam as a jerk. He let Garth sum it up for him I think. "And Sam here: Sam can be a bit insecure at times, but for good reason... Bless his heart.*" That really pissed me off. I can't imagine if that had been a line said about Dean that it would have been just brushed aside, but I admit that I could be wrong.

* Southern for "he means well, but he's a bit dim / incompetent / a dumbass."

Quote

 

I think Dean has been wrong about several things in the span of the show, naturally. And I have no problem calling him out for it. Just, I do not agree that in Season 8 in general he was wrong. To me Sam was wrong there, in a major, obnoxious way. That is different than saying Dean is never wrong. I don`t have to agree he is wrong on everything someone else thinks he is wrong about, though.

Example where Dean IS wrong? The stupid deal in Season 2. 1000 % his fault. Colluding with Gadreel for the possession? Wrong, wrong, wrong.  

 

Interestingly I don't think that Dean colluding with Gadreel for the possession - at least the act of the possession - was 100% wrong or his fault. I pretty much give him a pass for that. It was the lying afterwards I took issue with.

4 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

So for clarification during season 8, Sam was either written OOC or had a mental breakdown we were never shown, Cas's motives/behaviors weren't explained well because the writers either didn't know what to do with him or didn't like him and Dean was (paraphrasing) a judgmental, self righteous, controlling ass because that's the way he is and always has been and always will be. <eye roll>

Nope, I thought Dean was written as out of character as well, especially that scene in the finale. Carver was an equal opportunity "let's make the boys act like jerks to up the angst!" guy. However Dean also got a bunch of stuff that was good written for him as well  - like how loyal he was to Castiel in Purgatory and his loyalty to Benny, the last one explaining a bit of why he lied to Sam. Sadly Sam instead got Amelia... and a "quest" that he was shown to be woefully inadequate for for the most part, and that he didn't finish... and then tried to partially blame Dean for - yay. *sarcasm*

3 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I saw it as a gigantic strawman argument to facilitate the ending conversation that I hated and that killed the interpersonal relationship and what I thought was the set-up for truly tackling its problems in Season 4 for me. Since I do think it just got neatly blamed on Dean and him being set up as the one who was wrong and needed to change, I was spitting-nails-angry. I did not enjoy all the "you are a weak loser" stuff he was hit with during Season 4 but I thought there was gonna be a point to it and for Sam to get off that trip forever. Instead the show created an apparent hybrid, the weak loser who was still bossy and controlling enough to drive Sam to the brink of beige-side.

After that episode Season 5 went into the crapper and never really recovered in my eyes, occasional episodes I enjoyed notwithstanding. The episode before FI was "The End" and never has there been a more aptly-titled one for me. 

FI killed the relationship and 5.22 retroactively killed the only mytharc I had ever truly loved on the show so far. Season 5 is a how-to-manual for me in ruining an entire previous Season to the point I can`t watch my favourite episode anymore because the bitterness outweighs everything else. 

It's kind of sad for me that this one episode - which as I mentioned above I thought was not only an exception to the rest of the narrative, but wasn't written by a writer that I even think was particularly good for the most part compared to other writers (I only liked one of her episodes, really, and three I really, really disliked) - ruined the rest of the arc for you. I actually did think Sam went off the trip for the most part - I don't remember Sam thinking Dean was weak in any way during season 6 and 7, even soulless Sam seemed to think he was a good enough hunter to avoid... until season 8 and 9 (damn Carver). But you are entitled to your opinion, and I understand it considering how I feel about season 8 and 9. I'm just sad that it means you can't enjoy the show the way some of us can get to.

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

Demon Dean wanted nothing to do with Sam or hunting anymore and stayed away from Sam. He told Cole he didn't care if he killed Sam but he wasn't hunting and trying to kill Sam either. Sam brought the fight to Demon Dean because Crowley sold him out. A pissed off demon!Dean went after Sam with a hammer with the intent to kill him after being captured.

But I don't get how Dean not caring if Cole killed Sam is any different than Soulless Sam watching Dean get turned. In both cases, something could have been done to prevent what might happen, but the other just shrugged and thought "meh." Dean even asked Cole later "did you miss?" Also Demon Dean wasn't pissed exactly when he told Sam that it was all he could do not to go over and rip Sam's throat out with his teeth, because at that point, Dean didn't think Sam had a chance to stop him, so for me, there was more than just indifference there from Demon Dean. Your miles may vary on that.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, Jeddah said:

I’m not saying it did or would make a difference in Sam’s intentions. What I’m saying is that if we’re playing the hypothetical game, then I don’t agree with @gonzosgirrl about what would have happened. If the hypothetical difference is that the gun was loaded, then I don’t agree that Sam would have murdered Dean. Dean himself says he never would have handed Sam the gun if it were loaded, so to me the scene would have been entirely different had the gun been loaded. I’m not disagreeing with what did happen. I’m only disagreeing with the interpretation of this particular “what if.”

I was talking intent. We saw Dean point the gun at Sam and threaten him, but Garth stopped him before we could see if he would have actually gone through with it. Sam pulled the trigger, fully intent on killing Dean. Whether the gun was loaded or not is immaterial to the intent. But my original point was that they had both said and done (or threatened to do) awful things under supernatural influence, but where Sam took it personally and threatened to walk, Dean swallowed whatever hurt he felt and it was never mentioned again.

Edited October 18, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But my original point was that they had both said and done (or threatened to do) awful things under supernatural influence, but where Sam took it personally and threatened to walk, Dean swallowed whatever hurt he felt and it was never mentioned again.

I disagree with saying that things were never mentioned again, unless you are only comparing these two incidences you mentioned and no others. Sam has arguably been under more supernatural influence than Dean - where I can remember the siren and the coin and as demon Dean and mark of Cain Dean. But what other time - besides the coin - did Sam take things personally and/or threaten to walk over something Dean said while under the influence? When Dean was demon Dean, Sam not only didn't threaten to walk over things that demon Dean said, he insisted that Dean - real Dean - wouldn't say those things and insisted on helping and then was glad to have Dean back. Mark of Cain Dean told Sam that he thought that Sam should've been the one on the funeral pyre instead of Charlie - which in my opinion was pretty vicious - but Sam never held it against him, and again, insisted on helping Dean.

If under the influence of demon blood counts as a supernatural influence, then Dean did mention things that Sam did again (in "Point of No Return"). Dean also apparently - while I'm acknowledging that it's bad writing - seemed to take what Sam did as Soulless Sam personally, since that too was mentioned again.

So, I think both brothers have taken personally what the other said or did under the influence at one point or another and had a not so good reaction to it. In my opinion, it doesn't just go one way.

Edited October 19, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I disagree with saying that things were never mentioned again, unless you are only comparing these two incidences you mentioned and no others. Sam has arguably been under more supernatural influence than Dean - where I can remember the siren and the coin and as demon Dean and mark of Cain Dean. But what other time - besides the coin - did Sam take things personally and/or threaten to walk over something Dean said while under the influence? When Dean was demon Dean, Sam not only didn't threaten to walk over things that demon Dean said, he insisted that Dean - real Dean - wouldn't say those things and insisted on helping and then was glad to have Dean back. Mark of Cain Dean told Sam that he thought that Sam should've been the one on the funeral pyre instead of Charlie - which in my opinion was pretty vicious - but Sam never held it against him, and again, insisted on helping Dean.

If under the influence of demon blood counts as a supernatural influence, then Dean did mention it again (in "Point of No Return"). Dean also apparently - while I'm acknowledging that it's bad writing - seemed to take what Sam did as Soulless Sam personally, since that too was mentioned again.

So, I think both brothers have taken personally what the other said or did under the influence at one point or another and had a not so good reaction to it.

I was comparing only these two things in my original post, because they were so similar in nature: a supernatural influence (psycho doctor; vengeful spectre), coming after a significant trauma where the one had reason to resent the other (Jess dying/Sam getting dragged back into hunting: Dean going to/escaping from Purgatory; Sam not looking for him) and each driven to the point of violence against the other.