Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[BabySpinach]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

Jack may be too goody-goody to be really interesting, and has tons of powers (or, at least he did), but I don't think his raison detre, so to speak, is to be awesome, and the show is actually careful to show his powers not allowing him to solve every problem, and in fact causing real harm. Many other people are understandably suspicious of him, and even people who like him a lot, like Mary, show concern that he's liable to bite off more than he can chew, rather than trusting to his supreme cool and competence.

I still think that Jack qualifies as a Mary Sue because he's given free pass after free pass. He's almost instantly accepted into the family of Team Free Will, even though he brainwashed Cas into leaving Sam and Dean unconscious on the ground like garbage. He killed his mom, which is conveniently never brought up even in the context of his own potential guilt over it. He blasts Cas, Sam, and Dean backwards in his dramatic exit, which could have seriously injured them (just like he killed that guard). He commits murder, though accidental, and all three of TFW trip over themselves to reassure him. Here's the really goddamn bitter part: how did Sam and Cas react when Dean killed all those rapist criminals in self-defense back in season 10? How is it fair that Jack is coddled while Sam and Cas did had zero faith in Dean and did nothing to reassure him?

The one big mistake Jack makes that is acknowledged as his fault is his growing arrogance concerning the war with Michael. But not to worry, he was quickly proven wrong with a few red shirts and a long, lingering shot on his angst, while cradling Mary for good measure. Once again, it was all about the audience feeling sorry for him rather than the consequences of his actions. It's not like we ever heard of those dead people again, or saw their loved ones maybe confront Jack about his screw-up. 

Bobby being suspicious of Jack was an obvious setup to prove him wrong and make him realize how awesome Jack really was. That suspicion never amounted to anything before Bobby welcomed him with open arms, so I don't count that as an example of Jack not being embraced without reservation.

Jack may not have been written to be "awesome", but he was written to be fawned over and coddled by both the characters and the audience. If he messes up, it either won't be framed as his fault or it'll immediately cut to him looking sorrowful or hitting himself so that our sympathies will immediately realign. 

[SueB]

Just so ya’ll know, being named ‘Sue’ has never given me any cool skills.  In fact, I think my name is frightfully boring.  So WHY on earth did they name the trope for an annoyingly perfect character ‘Mary Sue?!’  Shouldn’t it be something exotic like Jasmine or prissy like Penelope?  

*I’ll show myself out...*

[companionenvy]

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

I still think that Jack qualifies as a Mary Sue because he's given free pass after free pass. He's almost instantly accepted into the family of Team Free Will, even though he brainwashed Cas into leaving Sam and Dean unconscious on the ground like garbage. He killed his mom, which is conveniently never brought up even in the context of his own potential guilt over it

To be fair, some of these are things that happened when he was literally a fetus, and it still isn't clear how much conscious will went into Jack's actions before his birth. Given how unaware he was of almost everything post-birth, I can't imagine there was deliberate ill-will involved, and it would actually be kind of weird to blame him for some of these things. When he has killed or hurt people, it has been accidental - which, while I agree that Sam and Cas's response to MoC Dean's killing of the rapists was over the top, means that there's no comparison, IMO, to what Dean was doing. 

Another thing that really separates Jack from most Sues is that there is a reasonable, in-canon reason for his powers. It isn't like Mary, who did very little hunting after the age of 19 and had been dead for over thirty years, but isinexplicably treated as a super hunter and leader. And his powers haven't actually wound up solving everyone's problems, and have frequently done more harm than good. 

[Lemuria]

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

11 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

 

11 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

 

 

11 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

 

 

9 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Has he ever been told by anyone how great he is? Sam said once during a speech at the same time the show usurped the trials for Sam. If IMO Dean were a Mary Sue he would be fawned over clearly and without ambiguity by all who meet him.

Many, many times. Sam didn't just once tell Dean in that one speech. He also told Dean that Dean saved lots of people and made a huge difference (What Is...) and how Dean sacrificed to take care of him (All Hell...), and how the world is a better place because of him (don't remember which ep that is off hand). There was "You're one hell of a P.A." Barnes and Damian (The Real Ghostbusters) told him... and those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty more.

(Let me apologize first for the mess that is the quote above.  I've never been able to figure out how to delete/eliminate the quoting someone boxes, and somehow, way too much of the original post ended up in my capture.)

Barnes and Demian told him how great his life was , not how great he was.

As for Sam, I liked what he said in "What Is..." but I've felt that the few times he's praised Dean since was when he wanted something, such as getting Dean to let him take the rest of the Trials.  And then we get "The Purge," where Sam went right for the jugular: (I'm  paraphrasing here)"You think you're helping but you do more bad than good" and "You only sacrifice if it doesn't cost you anything." He undermined Dean's confidence in the one thing we've seen him cling to for years:  The idea that he is helping people.  And he has never taken these two things back.  

7 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I actually have no problem acknowledging that he shows dickish behaviour on occassion. Where I get defensive over the character is when the show over-calls him out on it, especially in such mean-spirited "haha, it`s because you are a dick" way like in Yellow Fever. Or when he is grieving not to the liking of other people and they badger him about it to the point where he snaps - only to then lean back (and for the narrative to back that up) with a wounded "you are such a dick" sentiment. Which Dean then agrees to and apologizes over.

The adjacent problem with that is the show under-calling other characters out on their dickishness because they might show it in other ways or when they do it, they are supposed to be lauded for it.   

In short, I don`t like when the show is just calling Dean a dick and others get off scot-free for behaviour I find equally or more dickish than he sometimes shows.

I can't "like" this enough times, Aeryn13.  It's the double standard that has bothered me.  And not only do other characters not get called out for these actions but also Dean always ends up apologizing for his actions (even when I don't think he did anything wrong) but rarely do the others, especially when their dickishness involved something they did or said to Dean.  And there have been some fans who have followed suit (to the point where Kripke had to come out and make a statement about it after "Yellow Fever").

When/if Dean behaves badly, I have no problem with its being pointed out, on the show or by the audience.  I just want the other characters to get the same treatment and to have to answer the same way for their actions.  

[Lemuria]

41 minutes ago, SueB said:

So WHY on earth did they name the trope for an annoyingly perfect character ‘Mary Sue?!’  Shouldn’t it be something exotic like Jasmine or prissy like Penelope?  

SueB, that's because it was the actual name of the character upon which the entire trope is based.  It was in a Star Trek parody piece, "A Trekkie's Tale," written by Paula Smith in 1973 to satirize this kind of character that had been showing up in ST fan fiction (Paula wrote a lot of really good stuff and she was an interesting lady).  

[BabySpinach]

Just now, companionenvy said:

To be fair, some of these are things that happened when he was literally a fetus, and it still isn't clear how much conscious will went into Jack's actions before his birth. Given how unaware he was of almost everything post-birth, I can't imagine there was deliberate ill-will involved, and it would actually be kind of weird to blame him for some of these things. When he has killed or hurt people, it has been accidental - which, while I agree that Sam and Cas's response to MoC Dean's killing of the rapists was over the top, means that there's no comparison, IMO, to what Dean was doing. 

Another thing that really separates Jack from most Sues is that there is a reasonable, in-canon reason for his powers. It isn't like Mary, who did very little hunting after the age of 19 and had been dead for over thirty years, but isinexplicably treated as a super hunter and leader. And his powers haven't actually wound up solving everyone's problems, and have frequently done more harm than good. 

I mean, Jack literally learned how to talk while still in utero, so I'm pretty sure he was fully cognizant of what he was doing. He also consciously saved Kelly's life when she attempted suicide, and that was a while before Cas got involved. 

Dean was obviously not in control of his actions, but he was still justified in attacking those people to save himself. Jack killed a completely innocent bystander who was not threatening him in any way. Neither of these things were done with malicious intent. Dean lost control of himself and of the situation. The latter also applies to Jack. But the other characters' reactions are the key difference here.

I don't focus so much on powers and abilities in regards to Mary Sues, unless it's in Charlie's case where she picks up a new upgrade in every single freaking appearance and it's distractingly implausible. I agree that Jack's entire existence, in fact, has done more harm than good for our original SPNVerse. But the key isn't what happens, it's how the show frames it. Jack's numerous screw-ups related to his powers have always been treated as acceptable and/or sympathetic. Yes, we see that he messes shit up quite often, but he never faces tangible consequences for it. He pulls a sad face, maybe beats himself up a bit, and moves on. The narrative does not give him any obstacles to overcome, and it doesn't make him answer for the hurt he's caused. He's faced no external consequences as a direct result of his choices. No one has even chastised him except for Dean, who was being fairly reasonable considering the circumstances but then framed by the show as 100% wrong and mean to poor wittle Lucifer's spawn Jack.

I think that narrative context makes all the difference. It gets iffy when we call characters Mary Sues for simply exhibiting certain qualities, but I think it gets a bit clearer when we look at how the world of the story treats them and how their actions are framed.

In that respect, Mary Winchester does suffer from shades of Mary Sue, especially in season 12. But she's paid for her screw-ups in harsh ways. She even got chewed out by her sons multiple times. She may still be a cold, uncaring asshole, but her actions have been shown to have consequences. I also don't feel as if the show is using cheap tricks to try to force me to like her, at least not in season 13. 

[DeeDee79]

2 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

But the key isn't what happens, it's how the show frames it.

Such a great point. I wholeheartedly agree that Jack falls under the definition of Mary Sue ( as well as Mary as Companion Envy mentioned though to a lesser extent ) as well as Bobby ( as I mentioned myself ) due to the simple fact that the we have been told through the narrative the many ways that these characters are awesome beyond compare: Jack's pure soul & desire to do only good, Mary is a hunter extraordinaire & the best Winchester, Bobby is an expert in all things lore/supernatural that exists ( as per Sam, Dean, Garth, etc.. ) as well as the ideal father figure . Charlie is also a Mary Sue because she has been written without flaw from the moment of her introduction ( per show canon ) which is grating though I don't dislike the character ( much ) . What's truly tiresome about these characters is the fact that they're rarely reprimanded/called out on the times that they fuck up. They tend to be critical of their own actions and another character quickly reassures them of how wonderful/honorable/selfless they really are. 

[Myrelle]

On 8/4/2018 at 12:12 PM, catrox14 said:

Dean has humility. That's why he can be a good leader and still think he is make not a great person. He knows he's good looking but he doesn't run around talking about it all the time. Just because he makes time with the ladies doesn't t mean he thinks he's great. And he gets turned down a lot.  And when he does the show makes a big deal of it. The dialogue calls for Dean to be called a  dick in Yellow Fever. Dean called his future self a dick in  The End. Mary Sues are not ***treated that way.

  Similarly, Dean could kick anyone's ass who isn't supernaturally powered. And yet he's taken down in eps because he does something not in his usual manner, see also dumbed down for plot. To me that removed him from Mary Sue right away.

Has he ever been told by anyone how great he is? Sam said once during a speech at the same time the show usurped the trials for Sam. If IMO Dean were a Mary Sue he would be fawned over clearly and without ambiguity by all who meet him.

Just having an "aww, poor XYZ charcter" because of a specific thing or incident doesn't make them a woobie nor a Mary Sue IMO. It becomes that when it's a consistent pattern of those things. I don't see that with Dean.

Mary Sues are universally loved by all they meet. Dean is most certainly not loved and respected by all he meets.  That they occasionally are shown the error of their  ways if he begs for his own life or another in the process, like John  possessed by Azazel, or the confrontation with Amara, IMO is not really a Mary Sue quality because it's  generally not a long term situation and it's never brought up again in the narrative.  Cas loves Dean and supports him but he isn't particularly forthcoming with much praise for Dean on screen. It's usually a variation  on Cas loving him /humanity and that's about it. 

IMO Dean being humliated by having sold his soul, been to Hell and tortured others in hell after experiencing his own torture changed him. There was little sympathy nor much discussions in the narrative about it save one ep. In fandom, yes, but not on screen. 

IMO, the only reason there is anything about his suffering is because Jensen is such a good and smart actor that he puts the weight of that into Dean and it has infused the character from S4 on,  even if it's not in the page. And it is a sensible choice for the character if not in the dialogue or storylines.

Dean may have not wanted to talk about his Hell time but it changed him completely. He was brash, a little arrogant in season 1 at times and he had a zest for life. He slept around a lot more and was more snarky. That snarky edge comes out occasionally still but has more guilt from torturing until numbers in Hell. He said then that he would never be able to make up for that and I think that is why he thinks he's a piece of crap, yet still fights and still leads in his own way. To me that's not a Mary Sue but a well crafted character and without Jensen IMO Dean would be a caricature.

 

 

On 8/4/2018 at 2:45 PM, Aeryn13 said:

I actually have no problem acknowledging that he shows dickish behaviour on occassion. Where I get defensive over the character is when the show over-calls him out on it, especially in such mean-spirited "haha, it`s because you are a dick" way like in Yellow Fever. Or when he is grieving not to the liking of other people and they badger him about it to the point where he snaps - only to then lean back (and for the narrative to back that up) with a wounded "you are such a dick" sentiment. Which Dean then agrees to and apologizes over.

The adjacent problem with that is the show under-calling other characters out on their dickishness because they might show it in other ways or when they do it, they are supposed to be lauded for it.   

In short, I don`t like when the show is just calling Dean a dick and others get off scot-free for behaviour I find equally or more dickish than he sometimes shows.

As time went on and the show went more and more into saintifying Bobby (and making him more unlikeable in the process) that actually drove me bonkers. Bobby being a dick was supposed to be wise and awesome and not deserving to be called out on his crap. Maybe Rufus should have been around more for that and that was a missed dynamic but it was seriously grating IMO. 

 

So many great posts in this discussion, but these go straight to the heart of why Dean could never be considered a Mary Sue, IMO-nor even Mary Sue "adjacent", to be perfectly honest. When any other character in this show is called a dick and calls himself/herself a dick as often as Dean has been made to do over the course of this series-that's when we can talk about them not being held to a Mary Sue (or Mary Sue "adjacent") standard where it concerns that character, again IMO. Until then, Dean remains the only character on this show who can't be accused of that trope or even that obscure writing malady that, quite frankly, I've never even heard of before this discussion happened.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Myrelle

[Myrelle]

6 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

I still think that Jack qualifies as a Mary Sue because he's given free pass after free pass.

 

6 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Jack may not have been written to be "awesome", but he was written to be fawned over and coddled by both the characters and the audience. If he messes up, it either won't be framed as his fault or it'll immediately cut to him looking sorrowful or hitting himself so that our sympathies will immediately realign. 

 

2 hours ago, Lemuria said:

(Let me apologize first for the mess that is the quote above.  I've never been able to figure out how to delete/eliminate the quoting someone boxes, and somehow, way too much of the original post ended up in my capture.)

Barnes and Demian told him how great his life was , not how great he was.

As for Sam, I liked what he said in "What Is..." but I've felt that the few times he's praised Dean since was when he wanted something, such as getting Dean to let him take the rest of the Trials.  And then we get "The Purge," where Sam went right for the jugular: (I'm  paraphrasing here)"You think you're helping but you do more bad than good" and "You only sacrifice if it doesn't cost you anything." He undermined Dean's confidence in the one thing we've seen him cling to for years:  The idea that he is helping people.  And he has never taken these two things back.  

I can't "like" this enough times, Aeryn13.  It's the double standard that has bothered me.  And not only do other characters not get called out for these actions but also Dean always ends up apologizing for his actions (even when I don't think he did anything wrong) but rarely do the others, especially when their dickishness involved something they did or said to Dean.  And there have been some fans who have followed suit (to the point where Kripke had to come out and make a statement about it after "Yellow Fever").

When/if Dean behaves badly, I have no problem with its being pointed out, on the show or by the audience.  I just want the other characters to get the same treatment and to have to answer the same way for their actions.  

These points are terrific, too.

FWIW, I think that Charlie, Mary, Bobby, and Jack are presently the biggest Mary Sues on this show, but I also feel that Sam was the original Mary Sue and while over the 13 seasons of this show, they have tried to humanize the character a little more, every showrunner since(and including) Kripke really just can't abstain from writing him as one in the end; and I'll never understand why this is so except that they possibly want him to be the complete counterpoint to Dean, which hurts the Sam character and actually makes him seem less human in every way to me, every single time they do this.   

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

But the key isn't what happens, it's how the show frames it

This is key IMO also.

2 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Such a great point. I wholeheartedly agree that Jack falls under the definition of Mary Sue ( as well as Mary as Companion Envy mentioned though to a lesser extent ) as well as Bobby ( as I mentioned myself ) due to the simple fact that the we have been told through the narrative the many ways that these characters are awesome beyond compare: Jack's pure soul & desire to do only good, Mary is a hunter extraordinaire & the best Winchester, Bobby is an expert in all things lore/supernatural that exists ( as per Sam, Dean, Garth, etc.. ) as well as the ideal father figure . Charlie is also a Mary Sue because she has been written without flaw from the moment of her introduction ( per show canon ) which is grating though I don't dislike the character ( much ) . What's truly tiresome about these characters is the fact that they're rarely reprimanded/called out on the times that they fuck up. They tend to be critical of their own actions and another character quickly reassures them of how wonderful/honorable/selfless they really are. 

And this is why I just can't relate to these characters or like them. It's all those "free passes" that the writers give them that rankle for me.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Myrelle

[AwesomO4000]

27 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

but I also feel that Sam was the original Mary Sue and while over the 13 seasons of this show, they have tried to humanize the character a little more, every showrunner since(and including) Kripke really just can't abstain from writing him as one in the end;

I disagree. Throughout this discussion things like "universally liked," "no flaws," and "free passes" have been used to describe Mary Sue characters. Sam is none of those things. He is almost no character's - except crazy fangirls' - favorite. His flaws are often pointed out. He starts apocalypses and gets called out for them. Random hunters tell him what an awful person he is. Two even thought murdering him was justified. Lots of characters including hunters, demons, angels, War, Castiel, Bobby, Dean, Lucifer, God - did I miss anyone? - tell Sam of his numerous flaws including arrogance, self-righteousness, disloyalty, anger. These things are never disputed. They may not call Sam a "dick" as often, but they sure use strong enough other things to call him.

And Sam doesn't get free passes any more than other characters get. While the writing may sometimes favor Sam (and it sometimes favors Dean), I don't see him as a Mary Sue. Mary Sue's don't screw up as often as Sam does. It's kind of in their job description to be mainly perfect and save the day and have their abilities praised... Like Charlie. So miles obviously vary here.

I'll add another "Mary Sue" to the discussion (at least in my opinion): Benny. He was written solely to be the "perfect brother" that Sam was not with all of the good characters to match. And in the end, the narrative even made Dean look badly in comparison to poor, mistreated Benny. I could've really liked Benny, but for me the writing tried too hard to show just how awesome he was at the expense of the other characters, and he became  - for me - the hooker vampire with a heart of gold trope.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

I just want the other characters to get the same treatment and to have to answer the same way for their actions.  

I'm not sure which character doesn't. Sam has generally been called out for his mistakes. Castiel also. I'd discuss further, but I want to stay out of "Bitch versus Jerk" territory.

3 hours ago, Lemuria said:

As for Sam, I liked what he said in "What Is..." but I've felt that the few times he's praised Dean since was when he wanted something, such as getting Dean to let him take the rest of the Trials.  And then we get "The Purge," where Sam went right for the jugular: (I'm  paraphrasing here)"You think you're helping but you do more bad than good" and "You only sacrifice if it doesn't cost you anything." He undermined Dean's confidence in the one thing we've seen him cling to for years:  The idea that he is helping people.  And he has never taken these two things back. 

I disagree with the first part - Sam has been sincere many times since "What Is..." in my opinion... even in season 4 (before he fell off the wagon).

And for me, "The Purge" speech is just more evidence that Sam is not a Mary Sue (and I know you didn't say that Sam was... I'm just expanding my point above). A Mary Sue wouldn't lash out cruelly like that. He / she would keep his / her cool and "be the bigger person" by forgiving the poor, misguided other person who would then later learn the error of his / her ways from the Mary Sue's awesome example and apologize. Which is the opposite of what happened with "The Purge" and the aftermath.

[companionenvy]

I honestly can't see how either of the brothers is a MS in any way, shape or form. I'm not going into details, because I think that belongs in B vs. J, but both Sam and Dean have multiple flaws, people often respond to them with appropriate (or even excessive) harshness when they screw up. In 13 seasons, there might be some things that happen that could, if it became a huge pattern, be somewhat Sue-ish (I'd count in this camp a couple of episodes in which Sam seems to develop superpowers, as well as things like Dean getting away with killing Death scot-free), but as a whole, neither is perfect ,presented as perfect, or treated as such.

I also think it is debatable whether or not a main character can be a Sue. A main cast member in an ensemble, sure, but not a clear lead or co-lead. Because in that case, the narrative is supposed to center on that character, to a large extent, so the fact that he's going to get some big wins or generate a lot of concern in secondary characters is par for the course. I really do think it is essential to Sue-ishness that the character kidn of doesn't fit in the rest of the narrative universe - i.e, the classic "hero's long lost sister who is super hot and cool and more powerful than he is" trope. Not a main character, since the narrative world was supposed to be set up around him.

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, companionenvy said:

I honestly can't see how either of the brothers is a MS in any way, shape or form. I'm not going into details, because I think that belongs in B vs. J, but both Sam and Dean have multiple flaws, people often respond to them with appropriate (or even excessive) harshness when they screw up. In 13 seasons, there might be some things that happen that could, if it became a huge pattern, be somewhat Sue-ish (I'd count in this camp a couple of episodes in which Sam seems to develop superpowers, as well as things like Dean getting away with killing Death scot-free), but as a whole, neither is perfect ,presented as perfect, or treated as such.

I also think it is debatable whether or not a main character can be a Sue. A main cast member in an ensemble, sure, but not a clear lead or co-lead. Because in that case, the narrative is supposed to center on that character, to a large extent, so the fact that he's going to get some big wins or generate a lot of concern in secondary characters is par for the course. I really do think it is essential to Sue-ishness that the character kidn of doesn't fit in the rest of the narrative universe - i.e, the classic "hero's long lost sister who is super hot and cool and more powerful than he is" trope. Not a main character, since the narrative world was supposed to be set up around him.

These are all very good points. I pretty much agree with all of this - except for that small, sort of exception that I talked about to begin with. Because even though I have seen some very detailed and thoughtful discussion here and can now even see some of the points, I still can't entirely reconcile Dean's somewhat conflicting personality - at least now 13 seasons later. In the beginning, yes, but Dean's had a lot of experience since and has had some time to start maybe evolving and reconciling some of his inner demons. For me, purgatory especially should have been a changing experience and that it wasn't, and that Dean seemed to go right back to old habits was somewhat disappointing.

I'm more than ready for Dean to evolve in that area, but unfortunately I think he's the only one who can do it, and no amount of being told he's important and a good person can really do that for Dean until Dean believes it himself. I'm just not sure what would finally convince him.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

For me, purgatory especially should have been a changing experience

The way they paid off Purgatory for Dean was bringing him back to heel worse than ever before with the trials storyline. I mean at first he was too incompetent to get the hellhound kill - guess all that time in Purgatory didn`t pay off - and then he was reduced to guilty cheerleader, in Jensen`s own words. So you are right, I think Purgatory should have changed him but the show did a complete 180 on that concept. Reason 4.567 318 I hated the second half of Season 8.

[ILoveReading]

Briana Buckmaster (Donna) just posted this and it made me think of the conversation about conflicts in a personality.

I don't have trouble reconciling the opposing sides of Dean knowing he's a good hunter and leader but still has low self worth for two reasons.   The first being is that Dean was raised as a weapon and a shield.   He knows he's good at hunting because he was trained for it for since he was four years old.  But on the other side of the coin he was treated like a blunt instrument.  His worth to John  was in what he did not who he was.  If he "failed" he was treated differently so its very possible for the psyche to realize that your very good at one thing, but not believe in yourself as a whole. 

One of my favorite movies is The Guardian.  In it Kevin Costner stars as a coast guard rescue swimmer.   He's character is basically a legend with how many people he's helped.  When ask how many he saved he said 22.  The person who asks seems surprise at a low number given his reputation, and then he said it was the number he lost.  That's the number he tracks  This always reminds me of Dean.

Dean is a good hunter, he knows that.  But he losses stay with him more than the successes.  So that can easily lead to Dean thinking he's both a success and a failure   

The second is that Dean is walking contradiction.  Most things about him are exact opposites.  

One one hand Dean is a battle hardened warrior but on the other we still see glimpse of that lost childhood when Dean's able to find joy in simple things like a giant slinky. 

He's both both weak and strong mentally.  He would have to be to keep functioning after everything he's been through, but he's still can be fragile when he fears he's being rejected.

He's both tough and gentle.  He can rough of bad guys with the best of them but he's still soft and gentle if someone needs it. 

He both loves and hates hunting.  He loves the thrill of the hunt and the rush and he likes helping people, but at the same time hates what hunting has cost him.

Dean's can be both a gentleman and a cad when it comes to the ladies.  He seeks one night stands for comfort but yet part of him still longs for something more.

Dean can be both a dick and great guy.

He's both rude and sensitive depending on the situation. 

He's impulsive and thoughtful when it comes to game plans.  (The rift last year is a good example of this.  Dean made an impulsive decision to go into the rift alone but he also had a good game plan.  Sam waits in case the rift closes.   He probably also figured Sam had a better chance of getting through to Gabriel since they do share a more profound bond and Sam needs him).

He can both underestimate his abilities and over estimate them. 

It's possible for someone to achieve the highest level of success, yet still feel like a failure. 

This is why, for me, Dean is such a rich, complex, multi-layered 3-D character.

Edited August 5, 2018 by ILoveReading

[Bobcatkitten]

23 hours ago, ukgirl71 said:

I never liked Charlie - there, I've said it, what a relief!!  While we're at it, I actually liked the Stynes as villians and would have liked to see them hang around a bit longer, I hated the Leviathans as the "Big Bads" and wish Metratron had been 'offed' much sooner than he was.

I cosign all of this. 

[AwesomO4000]

4 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

This is why, for me, Dean is such a rich, complex, multi-layered 3-D character.

Interesting post, and I'm happy for you that that characterization works well for you.

But for me, it doesn't always work... it just seems like a way to have all things in one character without having to worry too much about having to figure out motivation. Like Kevin Costner's character, it makes it possible to have someone with awesome abilities and yet still be "just like us" in terms of insecurities. I get that, but in a way it's also somewhat easy. We have a character who is awesome and whose motivation is helping people, yet he's still humble - how can someone not like that? - the archetypal good-guy hero (with aspects of the caregiver thrown in). There can be interesting conflicts along the way, but somehow the hero in the end never loses his humility or conviction. I just don't happen to relate as much to the archetypal good-guy hero or find those kinds of characters as interesting. It's a testament to Dean and Jensen that I find his character interesting at all and he goes beyond "Yeah I get it, you want to save people and you're good and humble."

I think it's much harder and more complex to have a character who has obvious flaws and yet still overcomes those flaws to do the right thing. There's room to grow and change and learn. Not everyone watching may agree that the growing and changing is successful, but for me at least the attempt is interesting and something to root for. I just happen to prefer that kind of character rather than one who always seems to remain or return to being the same no matter what happens to him / her.

8 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

The way they paid off Purgatory for Dean was bringing him back to heel worse than ever before with the trials storyline. I mean at first he was too incompetent to get the hellhound kill - guess all that time in Purgatory didn`t pay off - and then he was reduced to guilty cheerleader, in Jensen`s own words. So you are right, I think Purgatory should have changed him but the show did a complete 180 on that concept. Reason 4.567 318 I hated the second half of Season 8.

I think the problem was that to change Dean some, that insecurity / hero duality would've had to be eroded some, and status quo would have to have gone. I would've liked that, myself, but apparently that wasn't the goal. I won't get into what I thought the goal was... and I've covered that in many previous posts anyway, so shut up me. No one wants to hear that anyway.

And heh, I hated ALL of season 8... except maybe "Everybody Hates Hitler" and the introduction of Metatron - though more in retrospect, because I didn't know at the time - because I really like (to hate) Metatron. He's one of the reasons I love "Don't Call Me Shurely" so much.

[ahrtee]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think it's much harder and more complex to have a character who has obvious flaws and yet still overcomes those flaws to do the right thing.

Just curious, but are you saying that Dean *doesn't* have obvious flaws, or just that he's never overcome them to "do the right thing"?  

I think we've been watching different shows all these years. :)

[SueB]

I completely relate to Dean on this topic.  I kick ass at some aspects of my life.  I lead, mentor, etc... But my overall self-esteem is pretty shitty for other reasons. 

And look at Jared.  He's a millionaire+, has his own plane, had millions of adoring fans.  And he still has self esteem issues.

It's not logical. It just is.

No one wakes up and says "I'm so glad I feel shitty about myself".  And you can list all 8000 reasons why an individual is objectively very successful and admired.  

So, Dean being both a badass and feeling shitty about himself?  Totally makes sense to me.  I think Dean thinks he's good at 'saving people, killing things'.  I think he thinks he can still get laid at 40 based on charm and good looks.  When he talks about good vs evil, he feels on solid ground.  He's seen both.   But his abandonment issues have given him a sense of 'not worthy'.  And Jensen does a great job of showing that.  His first reaction when he's stung by someone's action/comment is to nod.  As if to say "there it is, I should have expected it".  Despite that, he's made a ton of progress, especially in the last 4-5 years.  And, IMO, much of that is due to his relationship with Sam and to some degree Cas. 

I think he's finally convinced Sam would never willingly abandon him.  Don't get me wrong, if Sam ended up cozying up to one of the AU hunters and eventually found some sort of happiness with her/him, I think Dean would be cheering him on.  Not the 'apple-pie life', run away from hunting kind of life.  But Dean (IMO) seems to be comfortable that Sam wouldn't be running away from Dean.  

His relationship with Cas is obviously close but I think Dean always recognizes that as an angel, Cas may feel called to do something.  So long as it doesn't meet Dean's definition of "stupid" (which, yes, I know, that's not for Dean to decide, but he does it anyway), he'd probably accept Cas' decision.  Cas is immortal, and I think that influences his perspective.  What does Dean want?  He wants Cas (and Sam, and Jack, and Mary) safe in the bunker.  Fighting the good fight next to him. 

I don't think he'd feel abandoned by Jack -- that's not their relationship.  OTOH, Mary is an open sore.  They reached a rapprochement but she's still taking actions that reinforce Dean's abandonment issues (like planning to stay in AU world).

Long winded way of saying, I find the apparent logical disconnect between his hunter confidence and low self esteem completely understandable.   

[AwesomO4000]

7 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Just curious, but are you saying that Dean *doesn't* have obvious flaws, or just that he's never overcome them to "do the right thing"?  

A little bit of both actually - well sort of. When I say "obvious flaws" I mean things like arrogance, selfishness, rage, greed, lack of compassion, etc. The biggies. For me, things like being cynical or having low-self esteem are flaws, but they aren't obvious flaws that a character has to overcome in order to do the right thing... Having low self esteem maybe isn't too much of a barrier to doing the right thing - unless it also comes with self-doubt concerning one's abilities. If anything it might help towards doing the right thing, because it can mean that a character likely already puts others' needs above his/her own and is willing to sacrifice for someone else because he/she might see them as more worthy. Being cynical might be a barrier if that being cynical also includes some misanthropy - which that could potentially be something to overcome. But being cynical in itself might just mean that the person isn't so sure what he/she is doing will necessarily stick. It doesn't mean necessarily on its own that he/she won't try anyway.

So even though Dean has made some progress towards his self-esteem issues - though I'm not sure I agree he's come as far as @SueB does ; ) - I don't think that was ever a barrier for Dean towards "doing the right thing."

I'll use Sam as an illustration of what I mean. At the start of the series, Sam was fairly self-absorbed in his own goals and life. Even after Jessica died, for a while Sam was intending on going back to his old life once they'd found John and solved the YED issue, and that was his priority. But starting in season 2, Sam (for me) started to change from this and see that maybe he could feel fulfilled through hunting and by living the life he had rebelled against. For me, the Sam we saw in the second half of season 6 had changed a lot since the beginning of the series. Sam from the beginning of the series might have been tempted by the life of Jared Padelcki in the "French Mistake" alternate universe, but Sam of season 6 didn't even think twice about not going back to their friends and their life where he and Dean "made a difference" despite all the hardships they'd had to face to get there. He was genuinely happy to be back when he and Dean got back to Bobby's musty old house. And along the way Sam had to overcome some arrogance and rage issues and even some of his own self-doubt issues for a while - although the rage issues maybe got "solved" a little too easily for my taste, but okay. The journey was maybe such a big change for Sam that he even went through it a second time! Heh, because Sam did it again between seasons 8 and 10.

So in order to decide to fight the good fight again (like he apparently did as a teen), Sam had to overcome his self absorption and arrogance (twice). It wasn't something he already had per se at the beginning of the series, but something he had to learn through being with Dean and seeing the good that they could do together. And that for me - and I understand that other viewers will not agree - was an interesting journey to watch (at least the first time...  not as much the second time until the season 10 mark anyway.)

On the other hand, Dean has always been a hero and has almost - with a few understandable hiccups of doubt - always put "saving people" above his own comfort and even life since the beginning of the show. He also still has the same self-esteem issues he had to begin with despite 13 seasons of experiences, people, and powerful beings showing and telling him how important to the world he is. I'm more than ready to see some change and progress for Dean in this area, but I'm not sure if the story is ever going to let that happen... I think the "awesome hero who is still insecure" thing is maybe too tempting a thing to give up, being the "best of both worlds" in terms of hero writing.

And I'm also curious, so I hope you don't mind me asking, but what do you see as Dean's flaws? And are they something he needs to overcome?

I know that Dean has self esteem issues, and that could be seen as a flaw, but as I said, I don't see that as really being much of a problem for him doing what needs to be done, because despite those issues, he rarely questions his own judgement on what's right... even at his questionably lowest point, self-esteem-wise, in season 4, Dean still didn't question his judgement in any way, or even actually his own abilities no matter what anyone else told him. When Sam lied to him, Dean didn't question "hmm maybe I deserve to be lied to." Hell, no. He was affronted as he should be, so his self-esteem issues apparently didn't affect even that.

Dean also can be a bit rash to make decisions, but again, for the most part this isn't a problem either, because with maybe an exception or two, Dean's rash decisions generally turn out to be the right ones in the end anyway, so again, not really a flaw that Dean has to overcome. He tends to put Sam's life over the potential benefit of the rest of the world sometimes, but again instead of this potentially being a problem - as say Gadreel could have been if Gadreel had been written differently, or as not closing the gate could have been if that had somehow caused some kind of backlash - Dean's decision turned out to be the right one, so again this hasn't been a "flaw" (since it's not really even that big of a flaw) that Dean really had to overcome to do the right thing.

So Dean has flaws, but as far as I can see, those flaws seldom cause any kind of major problems (except maybe to himself) or are flaws that he needs to overcome in order to do the right thing. This hasn't been the case with Sam or Castiel, however, on both accounts. Both have caused major problems due to their flaws, and both had to overcome them in order to do the right thing on more than one occasion. So I guess that's what I was trying to say, but didn't get across.

And I'm still not sure my explanation here made sense to anyone but me, but that was what I was trying to convey... except with less words (which generally doesn't work out for me so well - heh - so lots of words it is!)

Edited August 6, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[companionenvy]

One of the narrative problems the show runs into, I think, is that probably Dean's most logical character arc is one that would destroy the show, if fulfilled. 

Unlike Sam, who begins having apparently escaped the hunting life and needs to be taught to embrace his family and his own identity -- all very good things for a show about him and his brother hunting monsters -- Dean begins a committed hunter who, it quickly becomes evident, feels that he has the weight of the world - and especially, his brother's life - on his shoulders, and can't have and probably doesn't deserve a normal life because of it. 

The show could have Dean address his self-loathing more than he has without destroying its basic premise, but until the very end, it can't have Dean not (often literally) bear the weight of the world on his shoulders, or go to any length to save Sam, or, above all, settle down in a happy, non-hunting existence because that would mean the show is over. Fundamentally, that's the ending we get at the end of S5 for Dean: he's realized that he has to let Sam go, and then goes to be with the woman he's ostensibly supposed to love now that the world isn't in imminent danger of ending, leaving other hunters to take on the ordinary ghouls and vampires. 

Now, I do think a better show would be able to have him progress more without totally destroying the show, but while I don't think SPN is as much of a steaming pile of crap as some people here seem to, it certainly isn't ambitious. It has settled into, for me, a reliably mediocre warhorse, which has meant not doing anything to really shake-up the formula. Dean and Sam aren't going to form real romantic relationships, for instance, and they aren't going to make more than a token attempt at changing the terms of their own lives and relationship, even when there seems like there might be an opening to do so. 

[BabySpinach]

39 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

So in order to decide to fight the good fight again (like he apparently did as a teen), Sam had to overcome his self absorption and arrogance (twice). It wasn't something he already had per se at the beginning of the series, but something he had to learn through being with Dean and seeing the good that they could do together. And that for me - and I understand that other viewers will not agree - was an interesting journey to watch (at least the first time...  not as much the second time until the season 10 mark anyway.)

On the other hand, Dean has always been a hero and has almost - with a few understandable hiccups of doubt - always put "saving people" above his own comfort and even life since the beginning of the show. He also still has the same self-esteem issues he had to begin with despite 13 seasons of experiences, people, and powerful beings showing and telling him how important to the world he is. I'm more than ready to see some change and progress for Dean in this area, but I'm not sure if the story is ever going to let that happen... I think the "awesome hero who is still insecure" thing is maybe too tempting a thing to give up, being the "best of both worlds" in terms of hero writing.

I know that Dean has self esteem issues, and that could be seen as a flaw, but as I said, I don't see that as really being much of a problem for him doing what needs to be done, because despite those issues, he rarely questions his own judgement on what's right... even at his questionably lowest point, self-esteem-wise, in season 4, Dean still didn't question his judgement in any way, or even actually his own abilities no matter what anyone else told him. When Sam lied to him, Dean didn't question "hmm maybe I deserve to be lied to." Hell, no. He was affronted as he should be, so his self-esteem issues apparently didn't affect even that.

So Dean has flaws, but as far as I can see, those flaws seldom cause any kind of major problems (except maybe to himself) or are flaws that he needs to overcome in order to do the right thing. This hasn't been the case with Sam or Castiel, however, on both accounts. Both have caused major problems due to their flaws, and both had to overcome them in order to do the right thing on more than one occasion. So I guess that's what I was trying to say, but didn't get across.

I think that Dean is just a different type of character. He's not a tragic/fallen hero to redemption type. He is (was) the sidekick and supporter who always assumed that others were more important than him. His first mytharc came about season 4; before that, he was always the witness and bystander to Sam's demon issues. Personally, I don't have a problem with Dean not falling from grace in the same manner as Cas and Sam did. Dean isn't the type to lose sight of his moral integrity or the trust of his loved ones in the pursuit of power or the "greater good". That's an intrinsic part of him, and it's the reason why he's never made a world-shattering decision that has cost droves of innocent lives. If he ever does betray his loved ones for an unworthy end, I'm sure the fallout would be the same as with Cas and Sam's previous messes. I'd also quit the show then and there.

There's also the big difference that Dean's character was established without any direct connection to the demon story at all. He existed just for himself, and all the things we learned about him were his own, regardless of whatever the plot had in store for him later. By the time that first mytharc in season 4 came about, he was already well fleshed-out and had a very belligerent and uncooperative reaction to his supposed destiny. This contrasts with Sam, whose original core character (feeling like a freak, aggressively seeking normality, wanting revenge) was entirely defined by the demon blood/Boy King story. This set Sam on a more conventional hero's journey toward embracing whatever role he was supposed to play (though he thought he was doing the opposite). He was groomed to be special and important his entire life, so why would he ever question that he was the Destined Savior? Hence, he considered Dean weak and inadequate, he ate up Ruby's praise, and he made that final push to kill Lilith after she mocked him for not being strong enough.

Dean could afford to react less conventionally because he'd existed outside of the central mytharc for the first three seasons and had no reason to accept his own Specialness at face value. Plus, he'd spent his entire life orbiting his younger brother, who had always been the afflicted and "different" one. What's interesting nowadays is that Dean is the one who's done more to influence the fate of the universe, not to mention his multiple heart-to-hearts with several ageless, omnipotent entities.  

For me, what makes up for Dean's lack of a traditional hero's journey is his current character being engaging, multi-faceted, and lovable enough all on its own. That's likely due to his core personality having been established outside of any mytharc. Dean also never needed a fall from grace. He lived most of his life thinking of himself as the second fiddle, as someone else's caretaker. He's never displayed any significant level of hubris or self-importance that necessitated knocking him down a few pegs. Not every character needs a dramatic crash and burn like Sam's; it all depends on their personality and their place in the narrative. 

Dean was more of an underdog type. He fell ass-first into his destiny and fought it kicking and screaming all the way. He had his Specialness shoved at him well into his adulthood, when he'd already accepted that he was more disposable and less valuable/important than Sam, so he didn't unconditionally accept the angels' attempt to butter him up (like Ruby was doing more successfully with Sam). That was much more interesting viewing experience for me, watching this established character have his entire worldview shattered yet still fight to maintain his principles.

In the end, it's all about taste. You seem to prefer the characters who fall hard and rise back up better than before, and I totally get that. Zuko from Avatar is one of my favorites specifically for this reason. But I love Dean because he's always been the dark horse, the bothersome wrench in the carefully-laid plans of the angels and demons. He doesn't surrender to destiny but tells it to screw itself and do things his way. This quality is counterbalanced and grounded by his low self-worth and refusal to acknowledge his own importance. He is (was) a fundamentally different type of character from Sam, though nowadays they're on more similar footing (in that neither of them have deliberately screwed things up for unworthy reasons or undergone any substantial character development lately).

TLDR; Dean is not the type of character who'd crash and burn from a fatal flaw and then learn a lesson about being humbler/less arrogant/more decent. Rather, he's the underestimated and under-appreciated disruptor who isn't fully aware of the power and impact he wields. Mileage varies on how engaging that is for various fans!

[AwesomO4000]

Interesting post and a lot for me to mull over and think about. But I have a few off the cuff comments, too.

8 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

In the end, it's all about taste. You seem to prefer the characters who fall hard and rise back up better than before,

This is sometimes true, but that's not entirely it. I mainly prefer characters who are less.. well not perfect exactly, but almost too good to be true. And if they are straight up good characters with few flaws, I  tend to like them to be weird and/or damaged, though weird is usually more important. One of my best examples of this is Samuel Beckett from China Beach, but he's not a well known enough example. He's not even the most well known TV character named Samuel Becket, even though I adore that Sam, too (It's kind of funny that two of my top 20 favorite characters of all time from TV shows are named Samuel Beckett.) It's not that I dislike Dean, because I do like him a lot as a character. I just find him more - well annoying isn't exactly the word, but it's hard to describe. It's like I can see what's going to happen with his character from a long ways away and when it does happen, I shake my head and think "well of course that happened. It's Dean." And whereas some people might enjoy that - which I entirely understand, because it's comforting - sometimes I like to be surprised.

 

I'm also not sure that Dean's character origins were developed without any direct connection to the demon story. For me, Azazel did directly affect Dean's life. In some ways more so than Sam, because for the most part Sam wasn't aware of his direct connection to Azazel until later. But Dean saw the fire. Dean felt the loss of his mother. And Dean's life forever changed, because of what Azazel did. That's why for me, it made just as much sense that Dean killed Azazel as it would have if Sam had... maybe moreso. If I had thought that Dean's character had no connection to Azazel or that arc, I would've been highly annoyed that Dean had been one of the ones to kill him. But I didn't and so thought that it was very appropriate.

8 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean isn't the type to lose sight of his moral integrity or the trust of his loved ones in the pursuit of power or the "greater good". That's an intrinsic part of him, and it's the reason why he's never made a world-shattering decision that has cost droves of innocent lives.

Well, that and some luck, in my opinion. (Edited here in case of going into "B vs J" territory. I'll put the parts over there later maybe if clarification of what I mean id needed.)

But again, Dean's kind of a contradiction in this way also in that I've not seen a character who was both so lucky and so unlucky at the same time. And again that's kind of a way to have it all ways with the character.

Edited August 6, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[DeeDee79]

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean was more of an underdog type. He fell ass-first into his destiny and fought it kicking and screaming all the way. He had his Specialness shoved at him well into his adulthood, when he'd already accepted that he was more disposable and less valuable/important than Sam, so he didn't unconditionally accept the angels' attempt to butter him up (like Ruby was doing more successfully with Sam). That was much more interesting viewing experience for me, watching this established character have his entire worldview shattered yet still fight to maintain his principles.

 

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

For me, what makes up for Dean's lack of a traditional hero's journey is his current character being engaging, multi-faceted, and lovable enough all on its own. That's likely due to his core personality having been established outside of any mytharc. Dean also never needed a fall from grace. He lived most of his life thinking of himself as the second fiddle, as someone else's caretaker. He's never displayed any significant level of hubris or self-importance that necessitated knocking him down a few pegs. Not every character needs a dramatic crash and burn like Sam's; it all depends on their personality and their place in the narrative. 

 

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

TLDR; Dean is not the type of character who'd crash and burn from a fatal flaw and then learn a lesson about being humbler/less arrogant/more decent. Rather, he's the underestimated and under-appreciated disruptor who isn't fully aware of the power and impact he wields. Mileage varies on how engaging that is for various fans!

Great post @BabySpinach and I love these observations. Dean is truly an amazing character and I love how Jensen has fleshed him out especially when the writing tends to be lackluster. Dean's journey has always been engaging IMO and that's why I'm still watching.

[ukgirl71]

I must just say that I love everyone's observations, no matter what the opinion expressed.  It shows you care, you're passionate and observant.  If everyone on this board is indicative of the fandom as a whole, it's no wonder the show has lasted this long.  Carry on my (wayward?) sons and daughters :o)

[SueB]

I agree, I am enjoying everyone's observations.

Truly an unpopular opinion:  I think Dean pushing hard to shut the gates of Hell is what REALLY started to unravel the SPN-verse.  Yes, Sam agreed but Dean was really pushing for that. Jump to TL;DR for Bottom Line.  In my logic train (which others don't have to agree):
- Shutting the Gates of Hell was a CHOICE.  A proactive step not based on a threat but based on Kevin saying he knew how.
- Metatron said 'you're trying to pull one of the big levers'.  And that it was 'their choice'.  I'm thinking -- trying to alter that natural construct Chuck put in place (that worked ... reasonably ... for millenia) was hubris on Dean's part. They could have just kept fighting the good fight, learned how to make demon bombs.  Try to keep demon numbers down.  Arguing against myself -- the ONE factoid that says the gates was necessary is that they let hundreds of demons escape at the end of S2.  Lucifer brought up more for the Apocalypse.  And Crowley kept them limited but not as limited as before they started roaming the earth again in S1.  Recall Bobby's comment about 1 demon possession a year, and in S1 they had 37 by May.  So with Heaven in disarray and Hell more active, some action to restore balance seemed warranted.  But that was a mighty big lever they were planning to pull.
- Because of the choice:
1)They Young Frankenstein Abaddon and she starts to wreck havoc. 
2) They kick over the bees nest that is Metatron and he tricks Cas into helping him cast out all the Angels from Heaven (and they permanently lose their wings)
3) Sam nearly dies
4) Dean makes a dubious consent (at best) call to 'let an angel in' to save Sam
5) Kevin dies
6) Dean leaps at doing some major "good" after Sam recovers his own body and takes on the Mark of Cain.  Yes, it was the only way to kill Abaddon.  But they bested her before without the First Blade.  I think in his heart of hearts, Dean knows that taking on the Mark of Cain was a desperate act to feel like he had a mission.  I also still contend he was three sheets into the wind and in full on pity party mode when Crowley approached him but, hello - demon! But his motivation for taking on the Mark was not purely altruistic.  He wanted to kill something. BIG.  And this smelled like redemption to him.  So he rashly took on the Mark.  Which leads to.....
7) Becoming more Stabby McStabberson even before he became a demon (see Thinman creep).  
8) Dean becoming a demon with who knows how many dead demon meatsuits (because it seemed like he was mostly killing 'Abaddon faithful').  Plus he certainly was at least harming civilians when testy.
9) Sam going RoboSam mode and using that asshole as bait -- which resulted in him both selling his soul and then Dean killing him
10) Death of Randy and the Rapists
11) All the deaths Cain did because Dean kicked over THAT bees nest when he went looking for him in the first place

Now at this point, the main 'owner' of the Bad Decision Making Award going back to Sam because Dean rejected using Book of the Damned. So Sam owns:
a) Suzy's death by Werther Box
b) Charlie's death
c) releasing the Darkness

Dean, however, owns killing Death -- which again was a pretty big move.  Not the same weight class as pulling a lever but very up there. 

So based on Dean killing Death, vice Sam plus having the Mark in the first place, I accept that The Darkness was really a joint ownership.  Dean had the key, Sam had Rowena do a spell that unlocked it.  Works for me.

Since that time, I think the boys have shown generally better decision making.  The hospital speech about both parts of the bumper sticker was the kicking off of them working harder to save people.  It was a good course correction that Sam may have stated first, but it was partially motivated by Dean's speech about how they look more evil than good (in 10.23) lately.  But the mutual issues arising from the Darkness:
(Note: Numbers are Dean's "count", letters continue Sam's "count")
13e) Letting Lucifer out of the cage
14f) Death of thousands as Amara tries to get Chuck's attention
15g) The BMoL deciding they needed to 'sort out' America and the dozens of deaths they caused
16h) Impregnated Kelly with Nephilim -- resulting in Kelly's death
i -- mostly) Death of hunters as the BMOL take over
17j) Rift opening to Apocalypse World
18k) Death of Kaia and return of evil Kaia as a byproduct of getting Nougat over to Apocalypse World
19l) Death of Gabriel -- who was Team Humanity
20) Possession of Dean by Michael - who knows how many deaths THAT causes

Which brings me to the Bottom Line:  The butcher's bill for the Dean's push to close the Gates of Hell, further combined with him choosing to take on the Mark of Cain, resulted in the deaths of at least dozens. Note: I put the Darkness on both Sam and Dean's shoulders and that was the death of thousands.  But even worse than the immediate deaths of people, Heaven is destabilized. Hell is destabilized.  Death was/maybe is destabilized.  And I'm looking at my beloved Dean Winchester as the one who got them into the mess with Sam making it worse when he released the Darkness to get them out of this mess.   After the Darkness release, I think issues are mostly on both.

Edited August 6, 2018 by SueB

[Casseiopeia]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

I agree, I am enjoying everyone's observations.

Truly an unpopular opinion:  I think Dean pushing hard to shut the gates of Hell is what REALLY started to unravel the SPN-verse.  Yes, Sam agreed but Dean was really pushing for that. Jump to TL;DR for Bottom Line.  In my logic train (which others don't have to agree):
- Shutting the Gates of Hell was a CHOICE.  A proactive step not based on a threat but based on Kevin saying he knew how.
- Metatron said 'you're trying to pull one of the big levers'.  And that it was 'their choice'.  I'm thinking -- trying to alter that natural construct Chuck put in place (that worked ... reasonably ... for millenia) was hubris on Dean's part. They could have just kept fighting the good fight, learned how to make demon bombs.  Try to keep demon numbers down.  Arguing against myself -- the ONE factoid that says the gates was necessary is that they let hundreds of demons escape at the end of S2.  Lucifer brought up more for the Apocalypse.  And Crowley kept them limited but not as limited as before they started roaming the earth again in S1.  Recall Bobby's comment about 1 demon possession a year, and in S1 they had 37 by May.  So with Heaven in disarray and Hell more active, some action to restore balance seemed warranted.  But that was a mighty big lever they were planning to pull.
- Because of the choice:
1)They Young Frankenstein Abaddon and she starts to wreck havoc. 
2) They kick over the bees nest that is Metatron and he tricks Cas into helping him cast out all the Angels from Heaven (and they permanently lose their wings)
3) Sam nearly dies
4) Dean makes a dubious consent (at best) call to 'let an angel in' to save Sam
5) Kevin dies
6) Dean leaps at doing some major "good" after Sam recovers his own body and takes on the Mark of Cain.  Yes, it was the only way to kill Abaddon.  But they bested her before without the First Blade.  I think in his heart of hearts, Dean knows that taking on the Mark of Cain was a desperate act to feel like he had a mission.  I also still contend he was three sheets into the wind and in full on pity party mode when Crowley approached him but, hello - demon! But his motivation for taking on the Mark was not purely altruistic.  He wanted to kill something. BIG.  And this smelled like redemption to him.  So he rashly took on the Mark.  Which leads to.....
7) Becoming more Stabby McStabberson even before he became a demon (see Thinman creep).  
8) Dean becoming a demon with who knows how many dead demon meatsuits (because it seemed like he was mostly killing 'Abaddon faithful').  Plus he certainly was at least harming civilians when testy.
9) Sam going RoboSam mode and using that asshole as bait -- which resulted in him both selling his soul and then Dean killing him
10) Death of Randy and the Rapists
11) All the deaths Cain did because Dean kicked over THAT bees nest when he went looking for him in the first place

Now at this point, the main 'owner' of the Bad Decision Making Award going back to Sam because Dean rejected using Book of the Damned. So Sam owns:
a) Suzy's death by Werther Box
b) Charlie's death
c) releasing the Darkness

Dean, however, owns killing Death -- which again was a pretty big move.  Not the same weight class as pulling a lever but very up there. 

So based on Dean killing Death, vice Sam plus having the Mark in the first place, I accept that The Darkness was really a joint ownership.  Dean had the key, Sam had Rowena do a spell that unlocked it.  Works for me.

Since that time, I think the boys have shown generally better decision making.  The hospital speech about both parts of the bumper sticker was the kicking off of them working harder to save people.  It was a good course correction that Sam may have stated first, but it was partially motivated by Dean's speech about how they look more evil than good (in 10.23) lately.  But the mutual issues arising from the Darkness:
(Note: Numbers are Dean's "count", letters continue Sam's "count")
13e) Letting Lucifer out of the cage
14f) Death of thousands as Amara tries to get Chuck's attention
15g) The BMoL deciding they needed to 'sort out' America and the dozens of deaths they caused
16h) Impregnated Kelly with Nephilim -- resulting in Kelly's death
i -- mostly) Death of hunters as the BMOL take over
17j) Rift opening to Apocalypse World
18k) Death of Kaia and return of evil Kaia as a byproduct of getting Nougat over to Apocalypse World
19l) Death of Gabriel -- who was Team Humanity
20) Possession of Dean by Michael - who knows how many deaths THAT causes

Which brings me to the Bottom Line:  The butcher's bill for the Dean's push to close the Gates of Hell, further combined with him choosing to take on the Mark of Cain, resulted in the deaths of at least dozens. Note: I put the Darkness on both Sam and Dean's shoulders and that was the death of thousands.  But even worse than the immediate deaths of people, Heaven is destabilized. Hell is destabilized.  Death was/maybe is destabilized.  And I'm looking at my beloved Dean Winchester as the one who got them into the mess with Sam making it worse when he released the Darkness to get them out of this mess.   After the Darkness release, I think issues are mostly on both.

And to think all of this could have been avoided if Dean had just let Sam rest in peace in heaven (he hadn't screwed up the universe yet at that point) at the end of S2.  What a long strange journey they have traveled since then.

[Myrelle]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

I agree, I am enjoying everyone's observations.

Truly an unpopular opinion:  I think Dean pushing hard to shut the gates of Hell is what REALLY started to unravel the SPN-verse.  Yes, Sam agreed but Dean was really pushing for that. Jump to TL;DR for Bottom Line.  In my logic train (which others don't have to agree):
- Shutting the Gates of Hell was a CHOICE.  A proactive step not based on a threat but based on Kevin saying he knew how.
- Metatron said 'you're trying to pull one of the big levers'.  And that it was 'their choice'.  I'm thinking -- trying to alter that natural construct Chuck put in place (that worked ... reasonably ... for millenia) was hubris on Dean's part. They could have just kept fighting the good fight, learned how to make demon bombs.  Try to keep demon numbers down.  Arguing against myself -- the ONE factoid that says the gates was necessary is that they let hundreds of demons escape at the end of S2.  Lucifer brought up more for the Apocalypse.  And Crowley kept them limited but not as limited as before they started roaming the earth again in S1.  Recall Bobby's comment about 1 demon possession a year, and in S1 they had 37 by May.  So with Heaven in disarray and Hell more active, some action to restore balance seemed warranted.  But that was a mighty big lever they were planning to pull.
- Because of the choice:
1)They Young Frankenstein Abaddon and she starts to wreck havoc. 
2) They kick over the bees nest that is Metatron and he tricks Cas into helping him cast out all the Angels from Heaven (and they permanently lose their wings)
3) Sam nearly dies
4) Dean makes a dubious consent (at best) call to 'let an angel in' to save Sam
5) Kevin dies
6) Dean leaps at doing some major "good" after Sam recovers his own body and takes on the Mark of Cain.  Yes, it was the only way to kill Abaddon.  But they bested her before without the First Blade.  I think in his heart of hearts, Dean knows that taking on the Mark of Cain was a desperate act to feel like he had a mission.  I also still contend he was three sheets into the wind and in full on pity party mode when Crowley approached him but, hello - demon! But his motivation for taking on the Mark was not purely altruistic.  He wanted to kill something. BIG.  And this smelled like redemption to him.  So he rashly took on the Mark.  Which leads to.....
7) Becoming more Stabby McStabberson even before he became a demon (see Thinman creep).  
8) Dean becoming a demon with who knows how many dead demon meatsuits (because it seemed like he was mostly killing 'Abaddon faithful').  Plus he certainly was at least harming civilians when testy.
9) Sam going RoboSam mode and using that asshole as bait -- which resulted in him both selling his soul and then Dean killing him
10) Death of Randy and the Rapists
11) All the deaths Cain did because Dean kicked over THAT bees nest when he went looking for him in the first place

Now at this point, the main 'owner' of the Bad Decision Making Award going back to Sam because Dean rejected using Book of the Damned. So Sam owns:
a) Suzy's death by Werther Box
b) Charlie's death
c) releasing the Darkness

Dean, however, owns killing Death -- which again was a pretty big move.  Not the same weight class as pulling a lever but very up there. 

So based on Dean killing Death, vice Sam plus having the Mark in the first place, I accept that The Darkness was really a joint ownership.  Dean had the key, Sam had Rowena do a spell that unlocked it.  Works for me.

Since that time, I think the boys have shown generally better decision making.  The hospital speech about both parts of the bumper sticker was the kicking off of them working harder to save people.  It was a good course correction that Sam may have stated first, but it was partially motivated by Dean's speech about how they look more evil than good (in 10.23) lately.  But the mutual issues arising from the Darkness:

13e) Letting Lucifer out of the cage
12e) Death of thousands
13f) Impregnated Kelly with Nephilim -- resulting in Kelly's death
14g) Rift opening to Apocalypse World
15h) Death of Kaia and return of evil Kaia as a byproduct of getting Nougat over to Apocalypse World
16i) Death of Gabriel -- who was Team Humanity THAT causes

Which brings me to the Bottom Line:  The butcher's bill for the Dean's push to close the Gates of Hell, further combined with him choosing to take on the Mark of Cain, resulted in the deaths of at least dozens. Note: I put the Darkness on both Sam and Dean's shoulders and that was the death of thousands.  But even worse than the immediate deaths of people, Heaven is destabilized. Hell is destabilized.  Death was/maybe is destabilized.  And I'm looking at my beloved Dean Winchester as the one who got them into the mess with Sam making it worse when he released the Darkness to get them out of this mess.   After the Darkness release, I think issues are mostly on both.

I'm more of a believer in taking personal responsibility for ones own actions/choices/decisions and leaving what others have done out of it and, this, even though I realize that nothing happens in a vacuum; so needless to say, I disagree with the bulk of this post. And if you're going to trace blame back in a similar manner, for me Chuck/God is the biggest culprit in all of this for throwing up his hands and just leaving-not once, but twice now-when his creation got out of hand and leaving the responsibility for keeping his creation intact on these two very flawed humans-who might be flawed in very differing ways, but who are clearly both flawed. In my mind, Dean is sometimes harsh, course, impulsive, and belligerent(and apparently according to many writers on this show, this, and only this, is what constitutes a "dick")-and while yes, the last couple might be his worst flaws, hubris would be way down there on Dean's list, if it was there at all(again IMO) as reasons for pushing for certain things, at times. To me, when Dean pushes it's more for reasons such as the bolded part above-or as he told Jack in that one episode from last season-you try to do better next time even when you make mistakes, no matter how big or small those mistakes were; but most importantly, you keep on going and you don't give up and you continue to do the best you can to do what's right(with the word righteous, more the implication there, IMO)-and this, even while Dean knows that Chuck/God has left them alone, with all of humanity as their responsibility-and theirs alone, unless Chuck/God deigns to grace them with his presence again and offer his help-which is a pretty big IF when the only time he did that was when he was threatened personally.

As for Sam his big 4 flaws to me have always been self-centeredness, arrogance, condescension, and hubris(but he's not a dick; not according to any writers that I can think of of, anyway)-and I'm not saying this in a bitch vs jerk way either-just trying to be balanced in my thoughts on each main character's greatest flaws, IMO, most of which I admit to having gleaned from what has been more said through actual dialogue within the storytelling than what was shown, as I feel that the "show" within the storytelling is often much more subject to opinion than the "tell" part of it. 

The B vs J post would go back to what Baby Spinach said about how the show frames each character's flaws to me, and I won't go there here. But I will add that for me it's the "tell "after any character's screw-ups that more informs the authorial intent for the characters on this program; and much more so than the "show", which I don't think the writers/showrunners put half as much thought into as they do the "tell" in the aftermath. My feeling is that their "tell" in that same regard of the aftermath says more about their authorial intent where it concerns the Mary Sue nature of any of the characters on this show, also.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Myrelle

[DeeDee79]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

Truly an unpopular opinion:  I think Dean pushing hard to shut the gates of Hell is what REALLY started to unravel the SPN-verse.  Yes, Sam agreed but Dean was really pushing for that

From what I recall from Trial and Error both brothers were on board to close the gates. Dean only pushed hard to be the one to do the trials, not to shut the gates. The results from the trials should be on both of them, not just Dean IMO.

[Pondlass1]

11 hours ago, companionenvy said:

have Dean address his self-loathing

I think "self-loathing" is a bit over the top.  Since he was 4 years old it's been drilled into Dean than he's number 2.  Sam is number 1 and must be protected at all costs.  That would screw with anyone's psyche and self worth. 

Some great posts, guys... especially from @BabySpinach who seems to grasp the same Dean Winchester as I, but way better able to articulate this complex man.  

[BabySpinach]

6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

You don't think that Dean is the kind of character who needs to make a mistake and learn something, and I agree that that is the way his journey is presented. But for me he does make similar mistakes sometimes, and he does show hubris and recklessness, but it just isn't acknowledged as such by the narrative as something Dean needs to change from.  I'm not sure why that is, but sometimes it's kind of frustrating for me. Like it's okay if Dean does it, but if another character does something similar, then they are somehow too arrogant and have to be knocked down a peg or two.

Oh, I absolutely think that Dean has things to learn. It's just that he's never needed to learn to be humbler, less arrogant, or to learn the value of individual lives, and that's because he never grew up ever thinking that he was important or better than anyone else. He's also never done the equivalent of what Sam and Cas have. He's never pushed toward an external goal that he thought was worthy of betraying his loved ones' trust or causing innocent civilian collateral. And contrary to popular belief, Dean has never risked the world on Sam's behalf. No, I don't count the Trials, and I'll elaborate on that. 

Quote

I'm also not sure that Dean's character origins were developed without any direct connection to the demon story. For me, Azazel did directly affect Dean's life. In some ways more so than Sam, because for the most part Sam wasn't aware of his direct connection to Azazel until later. But Dean saw the fire. Dean felt the loss of his mother. And Dean's life forever changed, because of what Azazel did. That's why for me, it made just as much sense that Dean killed Azazel as it would have if Sam had... maybe moreso. If I had thought that Dean's character had no connection to Azazel or that arc, I would've been highly annoyed that Dean had been one of the ones to kill him. But I didn't and so thought that it was very appropriate.

Dean's personality was shaped by the tragedy caused by Azazel's machinations, but he was never directly involved with the whole demon army/demon blood thing, he was just a side effect while Sam was at the center of it. Dean could have not existed at all and the whole Boy King thing would have come about in the same fashion. That's basically what I meant in that Dean was only connected to the overarching mytharc via other people for the first three seasons. 

Quote

Well, that and some luck, in my opinion. Killing Death could've ended with earth-shattering consequences. Dean did kill a powerful being who no one knew how much influence over the balance in the world he had after all (which was maybe a bit presumptive, too, along with being reckless.) Gadreel similarly could have ended badly in many ways, but Dean lucked out in that Gadreel turned himself around and redeemed himself. Even Dean's throwing in with the angels in season 4 could've turned out badly. What if Dean's pledge to do the angel's bidding in exchange for help with Sam had been binding and Dean had had to become Michael's vessel because of it? There are many ways that Dean's character could have had a different journey where he learned something and grew from it without it affecting his character's integrity in any way. At least in my opinion.

Those things you mentioned come back to my original point, that Dean never did any of these things for hubristic reasons and was motivated by desperation rather than an arrogant need to be special or right. And they all involved saving Sam, without any other motive. So I don't see how Dean deserved to be knocked down the same way that Sam and Cas have been in the past. I actually would have loved to see something come of Dean pledging himself to the angels for Sam's sake back in season 4, for instance, but not because he deserved to be punished. It would've just been interesting to watch Dean confront and deal with this new, personal problem. Same goes for him killing Death. Something should have come out of that, and I would have enjoyed seeing how Dean handled it. 

Quote

And to think all of this could have been avoided if Dean had just let Sam rest in peace in heaven (he hadn't screwed up the universe yet at that point) at the end of S2.  What a long strange journey they have traveled since then.

I firmly believe that the angels would have resurrected Sam when the time came. The apocalypse plan was a lot bigger than something that Jake's knife could avert.

Quote

I'm thinking -- trying to alter that natural construct Chuck put in place (that worked ... reasonably ... for millenia) was hubris on Dean's part.

I think that wanting to shut the gates of hell comes from the same place that made Dean not want to reap the little girl in Appointment in Samarra. He sees an opportunity to save someone/let them live and he takes it because he can. And by season 8 of the show, both of them have spat on the millennia-long apocalypse plan put in place by all the angels and demons, talked one-on-one with Death and gotten his help multiple times, and killed the Mother of all monsters. I think their relative view of what was "untouchable" had shifted to the point where closing the gates of hell was actually viable. But, like with all of the "big picture" goals that various characters have pursued, it failed in some way. SPN has always been about scrappy individuals making small but significant differences in the lives of other individuals. Any lofty, ambitious plans would always crash and burn as characters lost sight of what was truly important. The Trials are another example of that, but without the collateral damage. 

I firmly believe that Sam/Dean had every right to not go through with the Trials if they so chose, even if it made half of season 8 pointless (nope, not a fan of season 8). They didn't create the demon problem, and the choice they BOTH made at the end was to just keep things the way they'd always been. No one should ever be obligated to sacrifice their life for a problem that they didn't create. The ridiculous part came when Sam went on and on about how he wanted to die and was saved against his will. If he truly felt that, then he should have finished the Trials and at least made his death useful. UGH, season 9...

Anything that happened after the gates of hell weren't closed is not the direct fault of Sam or Dean (for that particular reason, anyway). Many other people with free will of their own were involved. It's like blaming the Cupid for the Apocalypse. He set the stage for John and Mary to have kids, sure, but he was just a small piece of the bigger machine. 

Quote

The butcher's bill for the Dean's push to close the Gates of Hell, further combined with him choosing to take on the Mark of Cain, resulted in the deaths of at least dozens. Note: I put the Darkness on both Sam and Dean's shoulders and that was the death of thousands.  But even worse than the immediate deaths of people, Heaven is destabilized. Hell is destabilized.  Death was/maybe is destabilized.  And I'm looking at my beloved Dean Winchester as the one who got them into the mess with Sam making it worse when he released the Darkness to get them out of this mess.   After the Darkness release, I think issues are mostly on both.

NOPE, I will never put the release of the Darkness on Dean's shoulders. It's like blaming Sam for Dean choosing to take on the Mark of Cain. The MoC didn't result in a single innocent civilian's death. Heaven and Hell being destabilized is entirely down to the dumbass sheep populating these realms. Angels stupidly killed each other. Demons have no loyalty and switch sides at the drop of a hat. No, Dean didn't get them into this mess; he's barely even affiliated with it. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by BabySpinach

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

So based on Dean killing Death, vice Sam plus having the Mark in the first place, I accept that The Darkness was really a joint ownership.  Dean had the key, Sam had Rowena do a spell that unlocked it.  Works for me.

I completely disagree.  

Sam is responsible insofar as enlisting Rowena to work on the spell, but ultimately, which the show conveniently ignored is that it was Rowena's spell, and only Rowena's spell that released the Darkness because it removed the Mark.  Death didn't seem to know that Rowena was even a factor so killing Sam was/would have been ultimately pointless other than preventing him from taking further action.  Death would have had to find Rowena and kill her to stop the process and if he had known about it when they were in the bar, the simplest course of action for Death was to kill Rowena and then take out Sam. 

And given Dean was bearing the Mark which served as both lock and key, he was really protecting the universe from the Darkness, which he didn't know was a thing until Death told him.  So, really IMO, Dean's terrible decision to take on the Mark was actually good for the universe as a whole despite destroying him in the process.  

So, that is my UO, that Dean should have not born any responsibility nor blame for the Darkness being unleashed.

[BabySpinach]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

And given Dean was bearing the Mark which served as both lock and key, he was really protecting the universe from the Darkness, which he didn't know was a thing until Death told him.  So, really IMO, Dean's terrible decision to take on the Mark was actually good for the universe as a whole despite destroying him in the process.  

If the Mark of Cain needed to exist, then Dean was one of the better people to bear it. His strong will and moral principles allowed him do reasonably well (until everyone else went off the rails with Sam and Cas scrambling like headless chickens). Cain was a murder monster for centuries until he learned to chill out, while Dean had it mostly under control from the jump. 

[Katy M]

17 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I completely disagree.  

Sam is responsible insofar as enlisting Rowena to work on the spell, but ultimately, which the show conveniently ignored is that it was Rowena's spell, and only Rowena's spell that released the Darkness because it removed the Mark.  Death didn't seem to know that Rowena was even a factor so killing Sam was/would have been ultimately pointless other than preventing him from taking further action.  Death would have had to find Rowena and kill her to stop the process and if he had known about it when they were in the bar, the simplest course of action for Death was to kill Rowena and then take out Sam. 

And given Dean was bearing the Mark which served as both lock and key, he was really protecting the universe from the Darkness, which he didn't know was a thing until Death told him.  So, really IMO, Dean's terrible decision to take on the Mark was actually good for the universe as a whole despite destroying him in the process.  

So, that is my UO, that Dean should have not born any responsibility nor blame for the Darkness being unleashed.

I agree with most of this, but not all of it.  Sam is responsible for recruiting Rowena.  Dean (or Death) killing Sam wouldn't have done jack squat because Rowena was already doing the spell.  I'm not sure if Death sending Dean to the Empty, or wherever he was talking about would have put him out of range of the spell, though.  Dean was unwittingly protecting the earth from the Darkness.  However, taking the mark wasn't "good for the universe" because Cain was already serving as that protecting and had Crowley and Dean not gone to bother him, he would still be doing so.  Cain even told him that there was a price to taking the mark and Dean was like "I don't care, whatevs."  

I will never agree that their boneheaded decisions are not boneheaded even on the occasions when nothing bad comes from them.

[BabySpinach]

3 minutes ago, Katy M said:

However, taking the mark wasn't "good for the universe" because Cain was already serving as that protecting and had Crowley and Dean not gone to bother him, he would still be doing so.  Cain even told him that there was a price to taking the mark and Dean was like "I don't care, whatevs."  

But then Abaddon would also still be around. Once her reign over Hell was solidified, it's very likely she would have gone to Cain, given their history, and gotten him murder-happy again.  

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, BabySpinach said:

Oh, I absolutely think that Dean has things to learn. It's just that he's never needed to learn to be humbler, less arrogant, or to learn the value of individual lives, and that's because he never grew up ever thinking that he was important or better than anyone else. He's also never done the equivalent of what Sam and Cas have. He's never pushed toward an external goal that he thought was worthy of betraying his loved ones' trust or causing innocent civilian collateral. And contrary to popular belief, Dean has never risked the world on Sam's behalf. No, I don't count the Trials, and I'll elaborate on that. 

Dean's personality was shaped by the tragedy caused by Azazel's machinations, but he was never directly involved with the whole demon army/demon blood thing, he was just a side effect while Sam was at the center of it. Dean could have not existed at all and the whole Boy King thing would have come about in the same fashion. That's basically what I meant in that Dean was only connected to the overarching mytharc via other people for the first three seasons. 

Those things you mentioned come back to my original point, that Dean never did any of these things for hubristic reasons and was motivated by desperation rather than an arrogant need to be special or right. And they all involved saving Sam, without any other motive. So I don't see how Dean deserved to be knocked down the same way that Sam and Cas have been in the past. I actually would have loved to see something come of Dean pledging himself to the angels for Sam's sake back in season 4, for instance, but not because he deserved to be punished. It would've just been interesting to watch Dean confront and deal with this new, personal problem. Same goes for him killing Death. Something should have come out of that, and I would have enjoyed seeing how Dean handled it. 

I firmly believe that the angels would have resurrected Sam when the time came. The apocalypse plan was a lot bigger than something that Jake's knife could avert.

I think that wanting to shut the gates of hell comes from the same place that made Dean not want to reap the little girl in Appointment in Samarra. He sees an opportunity to save someone/let them live and he takes it because he can. And by season 8 of the show, both of them have spat on the millennia-long apocalypse plan put in place by all the angels and demons, talked one-on-one with Death and gotten his help multiple times, and killed the Mother of all monsters. I think their relative view of what was "untouchable" had shifted to the point where closing the gates of hell was actually viable. But, like with all of the "big picture" goals that various characters have pursued, it failed in some way. SPN has always been about scrappy individuals making small but significant differences in the lives of other individuals. Any lofty, ambitious plans would always crash and burn as characters lost sight of what was truly important. The Trials are another example of that, but without the collateral damage. 

I firmly believe that Sam/Dean had every right to not go through with the Trials if they so chose, even if it made half of season 8 pointless (nope, not a fan of season 8). They didn't create the demon problem, and the choice they BOTH made at the end was to just keep things the way they'd always been. No one should ever be obligated to sacrifice their life for a problem that they didn't create. The ridiculous part came when Sam went on and on about how he wanted to die and was saved against his will. If he truly felt that, then he should have finished the Trials and at least made his death useful. UGH, season 9...

Anything that happened after the gates of hell weren't closed is not the direct fault of Sam or Dean (for that particular reason, anyway). Many other people with free will of their own were involved. It's like blaming the Cupid for the Apocalypse. He set the stage for John and Mary to have kids, sure, but he was just a small piece of the bigger machine. 

NOPE, I will never put the release of the Darkness on Dean's shoulders. It's like blaming Sam for Dean choosing to take on the Mark of Cain. The MoC didn't result in a single innocent civilian's death. Heaven and Hell being destabilized is entirely down to the dumbass sheep populating these realms. Angels stupidly killed each other. Demons have no loyalty and switch sides at the drop of a hat. No, Dean didn't get them into this mess; he's barely even affiliated with it. 

Wow, I agree 100% with this post. I wish I could like it more than once.

[AwesomO4000]

5 hours ago, Myrelle said:

As for Sam his big 4 flaws to me have always been self-centeredness, arrogance, condescension, and hubris(but he's not a dick; not according to any writers that I can think of of, anyway)-and I'm not saying this in a bitch vs jerk way either-just trying to be balanced in my thoughts on each main character's greatest flaws, IMO, most of which I admit to having gleaned from what has been more said through actual dialogue within the storytelling than what was shown, as I feel that the "show" within the storytelling is often much more subject to opinion than the "tell" part of it.

The B vs J post would go back to what Baby Spinach said about how the show frames each character's flaws to me, and I won't go there here. But I will add that for me it's the "tell "after any character's screw-ups that more informs the authorial intent for the characters on this program; and much more so than the "show", which I don't think the writers/showrunners put half as much thought into as they do the "tell" in the aftermath. My feeling is that their "tell" in that same regard of the aftermath says more about their authorial intent where it concerns the Mary Sue nature of any of the characters on this show, also.

I'm not sure how the "show" versus "tell" is different here, because in the case of Sam, it does match up, in my opinion. The narrative has always called out Sam's flaws through other characters - as I listed in one of my posts above: lots of them - but it also gave him consequences for those flaws which is the "show" part. And Sam had to overcome some of those flaws before he was able to fix his mistakes. I don't see where the "show" and "tell" don't match up in terms of Sam's flaws or character journey.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean's personality was shaped by the tragedy caused by Azazel's machinations, but he was never directly involved with the whole demon army/demon blood thing, he was just a side effect while Sam was at the center of it. Dean could have not existed at all and the whole Boy King thing would have come about in the same fashion. That's basically what I meant in that Dean was only connected to the overarching mytharc via other people for the first three seasons. 

Alright I'll give you that point, but I don't see Dean's not being directly linked to mean, for me, that he wasn't directly involved in the arc. In a revenge based arc, for example, the person seeking revenge could be doing so even if the person killed he/she is revenging for was killed entirely by accident or because they were trying to stop the bad guy. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that he / she is not directly related to that arc once they choose to get involved. That's the perspective that I'm looking at it from.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

He's [Dean] also never done the equivalent of what Sam and Cas have. He's never pushed toward a goal he thought was worthy of betraying his loved ones' trust or causing innocent civilian collateral. And contrary to popular belief, Dean has never risked the world on Sam's behalf. No, I don't count the Trials, and I'll elaborate on that. 

I disagree. In my opinion, Dean lying about Gadreel very much betrayed Sam's trust and inevitably caused innocent civilian collateral damage in Kevin and the hosts of the many innocent angels that Gadreel killed. And Gadreel very much could have gone wrong and been a threat to the world if he had helped Metatron more using Sam's knowledge and access to stuff in the bunker. That it didn't go wrong and actually turned out to be a good thing didn't negate the fact that I thought it was risky and wrong of Dean to do... even though he thought that the goal of saving Sam was worthy of betraying Sam's trust. I'd also put Dean killing Death to save Sam up there on the "risking the world on Sam's behalf" list. In my opinion, there was no way that Dean could know for certain that that wasn't going to go terribly wrong.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Those things you mentioned come back to my original point, that Dean never did any of these things for hubristic reasons and was motivated by desperation rather than an arrogant need to be special or right. And they all involved saving Sam, without any other motive. So I don't see how Dean deserved to be knocked down the same way that Sam and Cas have been in the past. I actually would have loved to see something come of Dean pledging himself to the angels for Sam's sake back in season 4, for instance, but not because he deserved to be punished. It would've just been interesting to watch Dean confront and deal with this new, personal problem. Same goes for him killing Death. Something should have come out of that, and I would have enjoyed seeing how Dean handled it.

I wish I could answer this here more in depth, because I think it's relevant to the current character arc and character flaw discussion, but I took it to the "Bitch vs Jerk" thread just in case. My main gist from over there is that not all of Dean's motives have been "saving Sam" (like taking on the mark of Cain wasn't) and even when it is, that a saving Sam motive, in my opinion, shouldn't be an excuse, because it involves recklessness a lot of the time. And recklessness comes with it's own bit of hubris, in my opinion.

And if recklessness is one of Dean's flaws, then in my opinion, there should be consequences (and not just personal ones) that he learns from like the other characters on this show who make reckless decisions and then get consequences that they have to learn from. Otherwise, in my opinion, it goes right back to my point above about Dean's flaws not being written as actual flaws, since he often gets a pass for them when other characters don't.

4 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

It's like blaming Sam for Dean choosing to take on the Mark of Cain. The MoC resulted in the deaths of those deserving, too, without a single innocent civilian.

Which pretty much supports my point above, in my opinion. It's not that Dean's actions don't have bad consequences because they are somehow necessarily that much different from other character's mistakes or actions or that they don't have the potential to be really, really bad... it's just that they just don't.

Edited August 6, 2018 by AwesomO4000

[Katy M]

46 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Which pretty much supports my point above, in my opinion. It's not that Dean's actions don't have bad consequences because they are somehow necessarily that much different from other character's mistakes or actions or that they don't have the potential to be really, really bad... it's just that they just don't.

Yes, that's true.

 

3 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

But then Abaddon would also still be around. Once her reign over Hell was solidified, it's very likely she would have gone to Cain, given their history, and gotten him murder-happy again.  

Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe they could have just shot her in the head again with a devil's trap carved in the bullet, cut of her head and not sewn her back together this time.  Maybe her Hell reign wouldn't be any worse than Crowley's for earth.  Maybe Dean would have gone more kill crazy than Cain and Abaddon put together.  There's no knowing.  What should be known is you don't take demon marks, you don't drink demon blood, and you don't make demon deals.

[BabySpinach]

24 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe they could have just shot her in the head again with a devil's trap carved in the bullet, cut of her head and not sewn her back together this time.  Maybe her Hell reign wouldn't be any worse than Crowley's for earth.  Maybe Dean would have gone more kill crazy than Cain and Abaddon put together.  There's no knowing.  What should be known is you don't take demon marks, you don't drink demon blood, and you don't make demon deals.

I think the point of Abaddon wearing that bulletproof vest in 9.02 was shorthand to show us that she was more prepared for their tricks this time (though wearing a helmet may have been more pertinent, lol). They did try to imbue some level of urgency and stakes by showing her flunkies stealing living souls and turning them into demons, which was worse than anything Crowley would ever do. It wasn't all that successful, though, but that's another thing entirely. 

Dean had no illusions about the MoC being bad. He just saw it as a necessary evil and already considered himself a hopeless case with nothing to lose. He probably assumed that Sam or Cas would kill him/lock him up if they ever needed to (and he did request this later). When he was dying, he expressed that maybe it was better that way.

Sam thought that he could embrace the demon blood curse but only use it for good and become the hero who stopped the apocalypse. Ruby helped feed his notions of being the Only One Who Could Do It. Sam was in deep denial while locked up in the panic room for his and others' safety. It's a small but significant difference. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by BabySpinach

[AwesomO4000]

4 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Dean had no illusions about the MoC being bad. He just saw it as a necessary evil and already considered himself a hopeless case with nothing to lose. He probably assumed that Sam or Cas would kill him/lock him up if they ever needed to (and he did request this later). When he was dying, he expressed that maybe it was better that way.

Sam thought that he could embrace the demon blood curse but only use it for good and become the hero who stopped the apocalypse. Ruby helped feed his notions of being the Only One Who Could Do It. Sam was in deep denial while locked up in the panic room for his and others' safety. It's a small but significant difference. 

I agree about Sam thinking he could ultimately use the demon blood for good, and that was his mistake / flaw.  But we don't know why Sam started with the demon blood to begin with - because we weren't shown - so we don't know if Sam originally started drinking the demon blood because he wanted to be the "hero who stopped the apocalypse" or if that thinking wasn't partially fueled by the demon blood once he started on it.

From what I gathered and what little we were shown, Sam likely originally started drinking the demon blood because he wanted revenge - which is a whole other kettle of fish and not related to Sam's arrogance flaw, that I could tell, but partially born out of his feelings of failure at that point. What happened later was partially fueled by Sam's arrogance, but I wouldn't say that his original motive for starting on the blood was. We don't know for sure, but the evidence we do have points to no.

But Dean taking the mark on without considering the consequences was reckless. That's why I compared it to Sam recklessly removing the mark and - maybe on the other thread? - Castiel recklessly throwing in with Metatron (causing the falling angels). But in this case, it wasn't just recklessness, I think, because if Dean just assumed Castiel and Sam would kill him if need be... why does that make it right that he would assume that on their behalf and make them go through that and have to clean up his decision?

I think @Katy M's point - and I'm sorry if I'm being presumptive - wasn't that those things were equivalent. It's that they are all things it should be obvious not to do and not expect serious consequences from doing so.

31 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

They did try to imbue some level of urgency and stakes by showing her flunkies stealing living souls and turning them into demons, which was worse than anything Crowley would ever do. It wasn't all that successful, though, but that's another thing entirely. 

Dean already had the mark by then though, so this wasn't part of showing the urgency for Dean's motive for taking it on. It was more to back up Dean's decision and to get Sam on board with Dean's plan and decision to take it on to begin with. But for me, it was sort of more retroactive than a real motive.

[BabySpinach]

Quote

But in this case, it wasn't just recklessness, I think, because if Dean just assumed Castiel and Sam would kill him if need be... why does that make it right that he would assume that on their behalf and make them go through that and have to clean up his decision?

Because Dean at that point felt as worthless as scum. As far as he knew, Sam had disowned him and said he'd let him die (likely not Sam's true meaning, but that was how Dean interpreted it). So he figured that Sam wouldn't fret too much over it ("What happened to you being okay with this?" 9.23). Sam back in season 2 also made the same unfair request to Dean, so maybe Dean assumed that Sam would be willing to reciprocate if he had to. And Cas WAS ready to kill Demon!Dean in 10.03 if there was no hope of curing him; Cas has consistently done terrible things when he's convinced that it's necessary/the only way. So Dean had reason to believe, at that point in season 9, that Sam and Cas would deal with him if it came to that and not feel too bad about it. He underestimated their level of feelings for him, which ties back to his low self-regard and Second Fiddle Syndrome, and that was the mistake.

Edited August 6, 2018 by BabySpinach

[DeeDee79]

1 minute ago, BabySpinach said:

Sam back in season 2 also made the same unfair request to Dean, so maybe Dean assumed that Sam would be willing to reciprocate if he had to.

Excellent point! I'd completely forgotten about that.

[Katy M]

But after Dean took the mark he was unkillable except by someone else who had the mark and used the blade.  It's circular reasoning.

[BabySpinach]

23 minutes ago, Katy M said:

But after Dean took the mark he was unkillable except by someone else who had the mark and used the blade.  It's circular reasoning.

Cas plus a bunch of angels could throw him into the sun/launch him into space (lol), or (more viably) they could lock him up in a reinforced dungeon and throw away the key. But now I do wonder what would've happened if they took Dean into heaven via the sandpit gate. Any regular human would instantly disintegrate, but maybe it wouldn't do that for Dean because the Mark doesn't let go of the bearer's soul. If that's the case, set him up with a suite in heaven! They could've made it look exactly like Purgatory and given him unlimited hologram monsters to slaughter. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by BabySpinach

[gonzosgirrl]

14 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

Cas plus a bunch of angels could throw him into the sun/launch him into space (lol), or (more viably) they could lock him up in a reinforced dungeon and throw away the key. But now I do wonder what would've happened if they took Dean into heaven via the sandpit gate. Any regular human would instantly disintegrate, but maybe it wouldn't do that for Dean because the Mark doesn't let go of the bearer's soul. If that's the case, set him up with a suite in heaven! They could've made it look exactly like Purgatory and given him unlimited hologram monsters to slaughter. 

And this also speaks to the idea of intention. Dean couldn't have imagined that taking on the Mark would result in him becoming a demon, never mind the ultimate consequence of the Darkness. Even after his death and resurrection, Dean exhorted Cas to kill him (fling him into the sun) rather than go down that road again. And when it seemed that he would, he sought out Death itself. He certainly went into that meeting believing Death could kill him, so it wasn't, IMO, circular reasoning on Dean's part.

IMO, the fact that there were essentially no consequences to killing Death is a big fail on the storytellers' part. I, for one, would've welcomed it. 

[BabySpinach]

Quote

Alright I'll give you that point, but I don't see Dean's not being directly linked to mean, for me, that he wasn't directly involved in the arc. In a revenge based arc, for example, the person seeking revenge could be doing so even if the person killed he/she is revenging for was killed entirely by accident or because they were trying to stop the bad guy. In my opinion, that doesn't mean that he / she is not directly related to that arc once they choose to get involved. That's the perspective that I'm looking at it from.

But revenge is not a core part of Dean's character. He prioritizes the lives of his family and the lives of random civilians way above it. And he was incidental at most to the whole demon army/psychic kids plot. 

Quote

I disagree. In my opinion, Dean lying about Gadreel very much betrayed Sam's trust and inevitably caused innocent civilian collateral damage in Kevin and the hosts of the many innocent angels that Gadreel killed. And Gadreel very much could have gone wrong and been a threat to the world if he had helped Metatron more using Sam's knowledge and access to stuff in the bunker. That it didn't go wrong and actually turned out to be a good thing didn't negate the fact that I thought it was risky and wrong of Dean to do... even though he thought that the goal of saving Sam was worthy of betraying Sam's trust. I'd also put Dean killing Death to save Sam up there on the "risking the world on Sam's behalf" list. In my opinion, there was no way that Dean could know for certain that that wasn't going to go terribly wrong.

That's why I said "external" goal. He didn't and has never betrayed Sam's trust to go off to do something big and terrible on his own. He betrayed that trust in order to keep his brother alive. And no, he didn't "cause" the collateral damage. Gadreel bought into Metatron's bullshit and became a murderous traitor of his own free will, and that was not something that Dean could have reasonably forseen. Plus, Dean did his best to check "Ezekiel's" credentials with Cas in 9.01 but just didn't have the information or the time he needed. He didn't even know that Metatron was gunning for Kevin. But that whole fiasco pretty much sucked for everyone. I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop the entire time.

The second half of season 9 also took plenty of time to rake Dean over the coals for Gadreel via Sam, the writers' mouthpiece (The Purge, anyone?). The fact that Gadreel redeemed himself was never connected to Dean's initial decision to trust him. Heck, Sam had something akin to a brain aneurysm when he continued to blame Dean for Kevin yet forgave Gadreel, the actual murderer! So the brother who was desperate to save Sam's life was somehow worse than the traitorous angel who killed a kid for his own gain? Got it. They even had the Ghostfacers enact a clumsy, inaccurate parallel that equaled Dean with someone who'd lied and "forced" his friend back into the ghost-hunting life for his own selfish reasons. Fucking hell, I hated that. 

Quote

I wish I could answer this here more in depth, because I think it's relevant to the current character arc and character arc discussion, but I took it to the "Bitch vs Jerk" thread just in case. My main gist from over there is that not all of Dean's motives have been "saving Sam" (like taking on the mark of Cain wasn't) and even when it is, that a saving Sam motive, in my opinion, shouldn't be an excuse, because it involves recklessness a lot of the time. And recklessness comes with it's own bit of hubris, in my opinion.

Dean took on the Mark of Cain because Abaddon needed to be killed. He was also circling the drain and needed something productive to do before he drowned. I don't find that particularly worthy of narrative punishment. Why kick him when he's already down? 

And I really didn't like him killing Death at all (that whole finale made no sense and sucked hard), but it was a desperate spur-of-the-moment about-face that even he wasn't planning on. That's different from Sam's months-long campaign to forge ahead with the BotD and ignore the casualties piling up. 

I think that the second half of season 9 categorically proves that Dean gets punished harshly when he sets things in motion and they go wrong, even when others have directly caused more death and destruction than he has and haven't suffered half a season of being told/shown what a shit person they are.

The bottom line is that I still don't agree that Dean's poor choices compare with Sam and Cas' in terms of scope, motive, and premeditation, but I guess we'll have to settle for our difference in opinion on this front. This discussion has definitely gone in many interesting directions!

I feel like I'm monopolizing this thread, so I'll stop with this particular topic lol. I've said my piece (and then some!)...

[DeeDee79]

16 minutes ago, BabySpinach said:

But revenge is not a core part of Dean's character. He prioritizes the lives of his family and the lives of random civilians way above it. And he was incidental at most to the whole demon army/psychic kids plot. 

That's why I said "external" goal. He didn't and has never betrayed Sam's trust to go off to do something big and terrible on his own. He betrayed that trust in order to keep his brother alive. And no, he didn't "cause" the collateral damage. Gadreel bought into Metatron's bullshit and became a murderous traitor of his own free will, and that was not something that Dean could have reasonably forseen. Plus, Dean did his best to check "Ezekiel's" credentials with Cas in 9.01 but just didn't have the information or the time he needed. He didn't even know that Metatron was gunning for Kevin. But that whole fiasco pretty much sucked for everyone. I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop the entire time.

The second half of season 9 also took plenty of time to rake Dean over the coals for Gadreel via Sam, the writers' mouthpiece (The Purge, anyone?). The fact that Gadreel redeemed himself was never connected to Dean's initial decision to trust him. Heck, Sam had something akin to a brain aneurysm when he continued to blame Dean for Kevin yet forgave Gadreel, the actual murderer! So the brother who was desperate to save Sam's life was somehow worse than the traitorous angel who killed a kid for his own gain? Got it. They even had the Ghostfacers enact a clumsy, inaccurate parallel that equaled Dean with someone who'd lied and "forced" his friend back into the ghost-hunting life for his own selfish reasons. Fucking hell, I hated that. 

Dean took on the Mark of Cain because Abaddon needed to be killed. He was also circling the drain and needed something productive to do before he drowned. I don't find that particularly worthy of narrative punishment. Why kick him when he's already down? 

And I really didn't like him killing Death at all (that whole finale made no sense and sucked hard), but it was a desperate spur-of-the-moment about-face that even he wasn't planning on. That's different from Sam's months-long campaign to forge ahead with the BotD and ignore the casualties piling up. 

I think that the second half of season 9 categorically proves that Dean gets punished harshly when he sets things in motion and they go wrong, even when others have directly caused more death and destruction than he has and haven't suffered half a season of being told/shown what a shit person they are.

The bottom line is that I still don't agree that Dean's poor choices compare with Sam and Cas' in terms of scope, motive, and premeditation, but I guess we'll have to settle for our difference in opinion on this front. This discussion has definitely gone in many interesting directions!

I feel like I'm monopolizing this thread, so I'll stop with this particular topic lol. I've said my piece (and then some!)...

Even though it may be redundant at this point I have to say that I agree with all of the points that you've laid out. As @Pondlass1 stated earlier you have a knack for grasping what makes Dean such a remarkable character and articulating it perfectly. 

[raven]

Remember to stay on topic;  the conversation has drifted from "Bitterness and Unpopular Opinions".  If you're talking in depth about a character, take it to their thread and if you're complaining about a character's treatment vs others', take it to "Bitch vs Jerk".

[BabySpinach]

3 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

Even though it may be redundant at this point I have to say that I agree with all of the points that you've laid out. As @Pondlass1 stated earlier you have a knack for grasping what makes Dean such a remarkable character and articulating it perfectly. 

Thank you, that means a lot! I'm glad to be among others who see my favorite character the same way that I do (though ultimately it's just one of many interpretations). Next time, I'll even put my opinions in the right thread! :P

[Katy M]

12 hours ago, BabySpinach said:

Cas plus a bunch of angels could throw him into the sun/launch him into space (lol),

Then they could have done that with Abaddon, yet they didn't.