All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[Katy M]

18 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

and was their go to contact if something happened with John, which implies that off screen that he was doing those things for John and the boys.

Not necessarily. Dean did say that they had gone over it a million times.  But, the contact name may change based on their geography and what the others had going on at the time.

[catrox14]

55 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Not necessarily. Dean did say that they had gone over it a million times.  But, the contact name may change based on their geography and what the others had going on at the time.

That is never shown on screen nor IMO implied on screen so I'm disinclined to think it was intended to be considered off screen. John may have had a lot of contacts but seems to me he'd be reticent to leave the boys with someone other than Pastor Jim whom he trusted implicitly.*** IMO, if the intent in s1 was for Bobby to hold that place for the boys all along since his introduction why not mention it before the Christmas episode. IMO it's because Bobby wasn't yet in that position in the writer's mind until s3.

The question isn't that it wasn't a retcon in s3 or s7 but how well it works without destroying everything to get there. Like Bobby in Dallas SPOILERS ....erased an entire season. Bobby's past was elevated in importance by a retcon. It's not an insult to the character to say that.

There is a retcon in Dean's past with the boys home. It had never been implied that Dean spent time enjoying school prior to that episode, nor that he participated in sports but Bad Boys says he did. For me I can see the logic for 2 months of Dean in the boys home because John as an asshole to Dean. I think it works because it does fall in with John's shoddy treatment of Dean. Dean's age in it is a problem because he should really have been 14 not 16. Sam staying with Bobby works in this s9 retcon because of the s7 retcon that the boys had spent much time at Bobby's.  

***I don't think John was going to leave the boys with just anyone if thought the demon would find them. Why he thought leaving Dean with Sam alone was better and beyond me but I guess he thought he was capable, which is not to say he should have done it no matter, with Dean being so young.

Oh John, you are contradictory fuck LOL

Edited August 16, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

6 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

That is never shown on screen nor IMO implied on screen so I'm disinclined to think it was intended to be considered off screen. John may have had a lot of contacts but seems to me he'd be reticent to leave the boys with someone other than Pastor Jim whom he trusted implicitly. IMO, if the intent in s1 was for Bobby to hold that place for the boys all along since his introduction why not mention it before the Christmas episode. IMO it's because Bobby wasn't yet in that position in the writer's mind until s3.

IMo, it doen't matter that much what the writers' intentions are.  It matters what is on screen.  There may have not been anything specific on screen in that scene that said that sometimes the name that you call changed, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that it doesn't fit, or doesn't seem possible.  And, I never meant to imply that I thought there were a lot of revolving names. Just Pastor Jim, Bobby, possibly Caleb and Jefferson who were also mentioned onscreen in Season 1

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

IMo, it doen't matter that much what the writers' intentions are.  It matters what is on screen.  There may have not been anything specific on screen in that scene that said that sometimes the name that you call changed, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that it doesn't fit, or doesn't seem possible.  And, I never meant to imply that I thought there were a lot of revolving names. Just Pastor Jim, Bobby, possibly Caleb and Jefferson who were also mentioned onscreen in Season 1

Okay, I guess I'm confused then. In another post, you were saying that something could have happened off screen that should be considered as reasons why the retcon in s7 wasn't a retcon. And now you're saying it only matters what happens on-screen. I'm not arguing I'm just confused by what you mean.
 

Here's where I'm coming from:

Google dictionary:

Quote

r

(in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

"we're given a retcon for Wilf's absence from Donna's wedding in ‘The Runaway Bride’: he had Spanish Flu"

verb

verb: retcon; 3rd person present: retcons; past tense: retconned; past participle: retconned; gerund or present participle: retconning; verb: ret-con; 3rd person present: ret-cons; past tense: ret-conned; past participle: ret-conned; gerund or present participle: ret-conning

1. revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.

IMO, Pastor Jim, young!Dean and John were the three people in s1 who were designated as the caregivers for the boys and  Bobby and Caleb(I don't remember Jefferson) were John's hunting contacts. I don't think they were shown to be care giving options for John in s1.  So, I'm saying the "Uncle Bobby", and being with Bobby A LOT in s7, was the new information that imposes a different interpretation on the role of Bobby in their lives, that IMO was not established in s1.

IMO, the information that Bobby taught them how to track, puts a different interpretation on John's role as their hunting teacher.

IMO, Edlund used those retcons to enhance Bobby's involvement with the boys childhood than was previously shown on screen, and that served to show to Bobby, and the audience, that Bobby had become a better man, and a better father than his own father, before Bobby  died.

Edited August 16, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I just don't understand how something like, maybe Bobby took care of Sam and Dean from time to time when they were kids is a retcon unless I have been specifically shown every minute of their childhoods previously and that it did not include Bobby.  Just because it wasn't mentioned in S1 or S2, doesn't mean that it directly contradicts anything previously shown either.  There's a hella lot that's never been shown about Sam and Dean's younger years.  It's no big deal to me.  

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I just don't understand how something like, maybe Bobby took care of Sam and Dean from time to time when they were kids is a retcon unless I have been specifically shown every minute of their childhoods previously and that it did not include Bobby. 

Well, I think it is a retcon in the sense that it was canon established retroactively, but I don't think it a retcon in the sense that goes against canon--I do think it changes how I viewed the first couple season. I think there's room for both interpretations within the show's established canon, though.

For me, I just prefer to think of Bobby as someone they knew--someone who took a shine to Sam and Dean--and someone John worked with from time to time until John pissed him off, but was more a casual acquaintance until John died. It kinda takes the punch out of their childhoods if I consider that they had regular reprieves at Bobby's house. I also think John's death has a bigger impact this way. And, the way Dean kinda glams on to Bobby in the wake of John's death, is much more interesting to me if Bobby is someone he barely knows.

Edited August 17, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

It kinda takes the punch out of their childhoods if I consider that they had regular reprieves at Bobby's house.

I don't know. For me, it depends on how often they got a reprieve. In a way, it might've made it harder. Here was a place that the boys sometimes - but probably not often - got to go where they had something different... but then they had to go back to their regular, fairly crappy life. It would be one thing if they didn't know anything different than the training and moving around to new school after new school, but at Bobby's they got a taste of some "freedom" and being a "kid" - going out in the woods, going to the park to play ball, etc. - just to have to go back to John's way.

For me it would actually explain some of Sam's frustration with John, because for a few brief times Sam maybe had something different with "Uncle Bobby," and that probably made life with John seem even more stifling in comparison as Sam got older and was instead left on his own. So I guess the retcon actually works for me to make Sam and Dean's life just as bleak, but maybe also now with a taste of frustration for having something every once in a while, but only for it to be taken away again or to serve as an example of what they could've still had if John hd not had a falling out with Bobby and others and pretty much isolating them in the later years.

[SueB]

6 hours ago, catrox14 said:

 

I don't think there is much to go on that "Daddy" was purposeful to indicate that Bobby was often the boys caregiver that was implied in s7.  It might be that Bobby is basically a smart country/rural man who runs a junkyard outside of town, who hunts animals and monsters, and he might actually use  "Daddy" in his common usage. Maybe it was a choice by the actor who's played cowboys, Southern men where "Daddy" is used commonly as the term no matter if they know the dad or the kids that well.

I tend to think Kripke hadn't planned out that Bobby so well that he was going to say "Daddy" to show that he was always in the boys life. But maybe I'm not giving Kripke enough credit as the showrunner and writer.  That's just my opinion. YMMV   

I don't either.  What I'm saying is that BECAUSE he used "Daddy" it helps sell the story later. Not that he PLANNED to go where they went in S7.  

My point is that there is nothing in S1 that had to be ignored because of the events in S7.  There's enough leeway in the introduction of Bobby that him knowing the boys as kids, them staying at his house on occasion, is not out of the question IMO.  YMMV.

[companionenvy]

There's a lot that's still unclear or doesn't quite add up about the boys' childhoods, IMO, and the details we do have seem to change depending on the writers' needs at a particular moment.  I honestly don't think any of the showrunners ever had a "bible" of Sam and Dean's backstory, beyond "shitty childhood on the road with Dad."

One thing that's always been fuzzy for me is at what point Sam and Dean became "initiated" into the hunting world. In the pilot, Sam tells the story about John giving him a shotgun at age nine, and says they were raised like soldiers. But until the Christmas that he was 8, Sam didn't even know about the supernatural world, and while 12 year old Dean knows the truth and sleeps with a gun under his pillow, he's plainly not going on hunts with John, and for Sam to know so little, it seems unlikely that Dean is getting substantial training behind his back. On the other hand, in "Just My Imagination," 9-year-old Sam is left behind while 13/14 year old Dean hunts with John -- and then is allowed onto the hunt himself. At the same time, as late as age 17 Dean is still going to school (which he no longer would have been legally obliged to do) and staying with young teenage Sam, so while he's clearly been on hunts by that point, he's also living some semblance of a "normal" life.

None of this is so inconsistent as to be a retcon, but to me, it suggests different writers with somewhat different views of what kind of a childhood the boys had. I think the same is true of questions like "how bad a parent was John,"  to which the answers seem to run the gamut from "terrible verging on blatantly abusive" to "lousy but well-intentioned and trying to do right in some really difficult circumstances." 

One pretty easy fanwank for the possible inconsistency between John getting "babysitters" for Sam and Dean vs. John leaving the boys home alone would be to assume that it depended on a)proximity to other hunters b)the expected length of John's absence and perhaps c) whether the boys were attending school or between schools at the time. And, presumably, the older Dean got, the longer John would have felt comfortable leaving him alone with Sam. 

I think the boys relationship to Bobby is something of a retcon, but it never bothered me, and agree that it doesn't actively violate any early canon.

[Katy M]

11 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Okay, I guess I'm confused then. In another post, you were saying that something could have happened off screen that should be considered as reasons why the retcon in s7 wasn't a retcon. And now you're saying it only matters what happens on-screen. I'm not arguing I'm just confused by what you mean.

No, that's not exactly what I'm saying.  I don't know how to explain this.  If it didn't happen onscreen, then it's not a fact.  but, if there's a possibility that it could have happened, than it could have happened.  If that makes any sense.  So, for example, something was stated about them staying with Caleb a lot as kids. That was never said, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't.  Prior to whenever, it was never stated that they stayed with Bobby a lot, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't.  With the other stuff that came out later, it appears that they stayed with Bobby a lot and since Caleb hasn't been mentioned since, probably not so much.

If it is stated onscreen, then it happened.  Period.  So, in Devil's Trap, if Sam had extended his hand and said "nice to meet you" well, then obviously everything after that would have been retcon.

10 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

but was more a casual acquaintance until John died. It kinda takes the punch out of their childhoods if I consider that they had regular reprieves at Bobby's house.

It depends on what regular is.  There are 365 days a year.  If they spent 30-50 days a year at Bobby's, distributed in any way, that's only 10-15% of the year, but long enough for them to become close to him.  But, still 85-90% of the year out on the road.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

It depends on what regular is.  There are 365 days a year.  If they spent 30-50 days a year at Bobby's, distributed in any way, that's only 10-15% of the year, but long enough for them to become close to him.  But, still 85-90% of the year out on the road.

I'm not trying to do maths here, I'm just saying I prefer to think of Bobby as a casual acquaintance before John died; someone they knew of, but I don't think they ever were left at Bobby's. Their childhoods and co-dependence is more meaningful and makes more sense TO ME this way. But, I'm not arguing that the show supports this viewing, in fact, I know it doesn't anymore. But, that's the thing about art, not everyone has to see it the same way to enjoy it.

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

If it is stated onscreen, then it happened.  Period.  So, in Devil's Trap, if Sam had extended his hand and said "nice to meet you" well, then obviously everything after that would have been retcon.

It seems to me, the actual definition of retcon has gotten distorted here. It doesn't have to necessarily outright contradict established canon to be a retcon. By definition a retcon is just retroactively established canon leading to a different interpretation of previously described events.

For instance, John's father disappearing when he was young giving him a sad and lonely childhood is a retcon, IMO. It doesn't outright contradict established canon, but it was something they established later that makes me think of John differently. Mary hunting a werewolf after Dean was born is a retcon and does make me think of Mary differently, but I don't think it outright contradicts anything shown onscreen. Cass taking a vessel and being on Earth previous to his taking Jimmy is a retcon, but, again, it doesn't outright contradict anything said previously onscreen, even if it does change how I see Cass in S4. Reapers being literal angels of death is a total retcon, but since they never actually stated what species reapers were previously, it doesn't outright contract anything said previously--even if I think it's total bullshit.

I think the show is chalked full of retcons--which is expected in any show that lasts any length of time--some work for me and some don't. Even some retcons that do outright contradict established canon work for me, like the whole Grand Canyon donkey ride guffaw. Even though it contradicts what Dean said back in Hunted, the donkey ride story actually makes sense to me and I can figure a way around Dean not remembering it. 

So, I do think Bobby being sometimes foster daddy is technically a retcon. They retroactively established that relationship with Sam and Dean later that has me view their childhoods differently than I did the first couple seasons. Doesn't mean it goes against established canon or that it's wrong, but it does, by definition, make it a retcon, IMO. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Pondlass1]

If only they could get the right actors.  Sam and Dean Winchester - The Formative Years.  Would make for a brilliant spin off.

[catrox14]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

No, that's not exactly what I'm saying.  I don't know how to explain this.  If it didn't happen onscreen, then it's not a fact.  but, if there's a possibility that it could have happened, than it could have happened.  If that makes any sense.  So, for example, something was stated about them staying with Caleb a lot as kids. That was never said, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't.  Prior to whenever, it was never stated that they stayed with Bobby a lot, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't.  With the other stuff that came out later, it appears that they stayed with Bobby a lot and since Caleb hasn't been mentioned since, probably not so much.

If it is stated onscreen, then it happened.  Period.  So, in Devil's Trap, if Sam had extended his hand and said "nice to meet you" well, then obviously everything after that would have been retcon

I see the disconnect here, I think. I thought wrongly that Caleb had been a caregiver for the boys. He was a contact of John's not the boys. Once my error was pointed out, I removed Caleb from that list of caregivers and made a post with that correction. I was not intending to imply that Caleb was doing that off screen. I do not think he was. Same with Bobby. 

[Katy M]

40 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

For instance, John's father disappearing when he was young giving him a sad and lonely childhood is a retcon, IMO. It doesn't outright contradict established canon, but it was something they established later that makes me think of John differently.

See, to me that is a retcon of established canon, because in In the Beginning, that guy told John to say hi to his old man, and John said to Mary he was a mechanic from a family of mechanics.

[DittyDotDot]

30 minutes ago, Katy M said:

See, to me that is a retcon of established canon, because in In the Beginning, that guy told John to say hi to his old man, and John said to Mary he was a mechanic from a family of mechanics.

Does it really outright contradict it though? The guy doesn't say, "Say hello your natural-born father," he just says, "Say hello to your old man." Which could be a step father, who happens to be a mechanic from a family of mechanics and John would be a member of that family--who is also a mechanic.

I don't think it's any more of a retcon than Bobby suddenly being their foster parent later in the series. IMO, they both are retcons--retroactively established canon--doesn't mean it contradicts canon, though.

ETA: Look at it this way, when watching Devil's Trap the first time, did you think Bobby had been their foster parent or did you start to see it later and go, yeah that makes sense to me? Whether it makes sense to you or not, it changed how you viewed the situation earlier. By definition, that's a retcon. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

12 minutes ago, Katy M said:

See, to me that is a retcon of established canon, because in In the Beginning, that guy told John to say hi to his old man, and John said to Mary he was a mechanic from a family of mechanics.

Well, we never did find out anything about John's mother.  Maybe she came from a family of mechanics. :)

However, since Henry disappeared when John was about 4?  (Probably the same age as Dean when his mom died, actually) as @DittyDotDot says above, it's likely that his mother remarried.  But in order for John to have what Dean called "a lonely childhood" (and to give him appropriate Winchester daddy issues) chances are it wasn't too quickly. (I wonder if they had to wait 7 years to declare him officially dead, or could just get divorced on grounds of abandonment?)  

Another side thought, though I know it's a retcon and goes against John's history--maybe we can make a case that the reason why he lugged the boys with him all the time instead of dropping them off with someone was that he didn't want them to feel abandoned the way he had been?  (And no, I know that the "real" reason was that he knew the demon was after Sam and wanted to protect him/keep him from turning evil.)  

[Aeryn13]

There are a few things that literally contradict canon these days - Michael being the younger brother for example - whereas the Bobby stuff IMO does not. But I still find it pretty obvious that when the character was introduced the dynamic didn`t remotely come across like the super-daddy stuff from later Seasons. He was supposed to be a one-off character after all.

So they fleshed out his role afterwards when those plans changed. In and of itself, that is a good thing and would be rather expected. I do believe they went too far with the Daddy stuff later on. I was never a John Winchester fan but even I found some of that stuff eyeroll-worthy and over the top. 

As a result, even if there isn`t a direct retcon, certain scenes don`t work for me. If I`m to believe Bobby was that much of a father figure and their bond was that close, then I don`t buy his earlier scenes in the show where I don`t remotely see this stuff. However, the earlier scenes came first so that is my guideline. Of course they can tell me all kinds of shit that happened during their childhood which we never saw onscreen. But to really find it believable I would have needed a showrunner/writer who had the entire story with a super-tight bible written already and was thus able to throw in breadcrumbs of what is to come later. So the early scenes with Bobby would have been played completely differently than they were. 

But SPN has always been more making it up as they go along so I just don`t find a lot of stuff supposedly coming out of left field convincing. To be fair, I have the same problem on other shows. TVD once did an arc with one of its main characters where something was revealed about their past that didn`t contradict any canon whatsoever, it was just a revelation about something in their past. And yet I found it wholly unbelievable with who the character was and how he acted. Meanwhile Highlander the show had a super-shocking, out-of-left-field revelation about one character`s past and yet it was still perfectly believable because that character was such a chameleon.

I know this is gonna be a polarizing example but a "reveal" on SPN that worked for me was the Trickster/Gabriel thing. The guy kept his personality, his backstory was just more fleshed out and I could still see why and how disappointed, overlooked angel Gabriel became the Trickster. The throughline makes sense.

On the other hand reapers are angels was like something out of a bad nonsensical nightmare. Yet it also doesn`t contradict any spoken dialogue that I can think of.

[gonzosgirrl]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I guess I'm thinking Aladdin: can't bring anybody back from the dead.  It's not pretty!  Lol.  And I can't remember early lore enough, but it bothers me that a demon could resurrect a soul from Heaven.  In the case of YellowEyes bringing back John, I can handwave that away because John had just died and maybe he was still 'in the veil.'  

Don't forget Sam was brought back from the cage after he jumped in body and all!  It must have been the faeries!

I don't think Samuel knew exactly what Crowley was after though, did he?  Even if Grampy did know that Crowley wanted the location to Purgatory, I don't think he knew exactly what he wanted to do with it.  A lot of that bit of the plot didn't make any sense.  

I always wondered who, exactly, Azazel was dealing or working with that could revive the dead. In the case of both John (ITB) and Dean (IMTOD), he either says or intimates that it's not him that does the actual resurrecting/healing.

From the 4x03 transcript:

YED
I'll tell you what, I'll arrange to have lover boy here brought back breathing.

From 2x01:

JOHN
Can you bring Dean back? Yes or no?
DEMON
No. But I know someone who can. it's not a problem.

Is it ever confirmed who actually brought them back? Were  Heaven and Hell conspiring even then for Dean and Sam to be born and stay alive long enough to become vessels? And if so, is that how the Rev chose Dean to heal in Faith? And why all the monsters they fought against all odds, were never able to take them out? And do I need more work to do, since I'm pondering all this at my desk?

Edited August 17, 2017 by gonzosgirrl
clarity

[Katy M]

10 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Is it ever confirmed who actually brought them back? Were  Heaven and Hell conspiring even then for Dean and Sam to be born and stay alive long enough to become vessels? And if so, is that how the Rev chose Dean to heal in Faith? And why all the monsters they fought against all odds, were never able to take them out? And do I need more work to do, since I'm pondering all this at my desk?

Well, we saw him possess Tessa to heal Dean or whatever.  I suppose we could wonder if anybody gave him the power.  Plus, there was no lag time in In the Beginning from the kiss to John drawing breath.  You may be on to something with Faith.  The monsters still aren't able to take them out and I don't think Heaven and Hell care about them anymore. So, that's just your garden variety TV indestructability of main character(s). 

Going back to bringing people back, demons seem to be able to do whatever needs done if a deal is made.  Crowley said in The Devil You Know, that he could get Bobby anything up to and including Death's location.  Azazel said demons couldn't bring people back unless a deal is made. There's some kind of deal making superpower that I don't understand.  I just go with it.

[gonzosgirrl]

21 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Well, we saw him possess Tessa to heal Dean or whatever.  I suppose we could wonder if anybody gave him the power.  Plus, there was no lag time in In the Beginning from the kiss to John drawing breath.  You may be on to something with Faith.  The monsters still aren't able to take them out and I don't think Heaven and Hell care about them anymore. So, that's just your garden variety TV indestructability of main character(s). 

Going back to bringing people back, demons seem to be able to do whatever needs done if a deal is made.  Crowley said in The Devil You Know, that he could get Bobby anything up to and including Death's location.  Azazel said demons couldn't bring people back unless a deal is made. There's some kind of deal making superpower that I don't understand.  I just go with it.

But he specifically said "No" when John asked, so while it happened (in the same episode, moments later) through him* possessing Tessa, I don't think there's any hand-waving to be done - he just said it. Same in ITB, he specifically says he'll arrange for it. Both things imply it isn't his doing, and given the cockiness of the character in general, I expect if he had those powers he would have been all over claiming them.

ETA: Maybe nitpicking, but we don't actually know that it was Azazel possessing Tessa. She screams 'you can't do this' and its voice says 'it's your lucky day, kid', but there is nothing to actually identify the possessor as Azazel. So maybe who/whatever he had in his pocket that was capable of healing/resurrection acted the moment the deal was sealed, in both cases. Of course, Azazel is later ret-conned into being a "Prince of Hell" so who knows.

ETA again: We do see black smoke entering her, and she gets the yellow eyes, so that's a pretty strong cue that it is Azazel, but I still say the resurrection/healing power came from somewhere/thing else, otherwise he'd have claimed it. And the two instances are seasons apart, so it seems intentional to me.

Edited August 17, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[Katy M]

5 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But he specifically said "No" when John asked, so while it happened (in the same episode, moments later) through him* possessing Tessa, I don't think there's any hand-waving to be done - he just said it. Same in ITB, he specifically says he'll arrange for it. Both things imply it isn't his doing, and given the cockiness of the character in general, I expect if he had those powers he would have been all over claiming them.

 

ETA: Maybe nitpicking, but we don't actually know that it was Azazel possessing Tessa. She screams 'you can't do this' and the voice says 'it's your lucky day, kid', but there is nothing to actually identify the possessor as Azazel. So maybe who/whatever he had in his pocket that was capable of healing/resurrection acted the moment the deal was sealed, in both cases. Of course, Azazel is later ret-conned into being a "Prince of Hell" so who knows.

Well, the possessor had yellow eyes, so I feel that's pretty concrete that it was the yellow-eyed demon.  Other than that, this is just one of those things I don't like to think about too hard.  He probably had to use Tessa's power to bring Dean back, but then they decided to do the demon deals and bring people back that way, so that kind of got dropped, I guess.  Unless, demons always possess reapers to bring people back. WE just can't see it.

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

ETA: Maybe nitpicking, but we don't actually know that it was Azazel possessing Tessa. She screams 'you can't do this' and its voice says 'it's your lucky day, kid', but there is nothing to actually identify the possessor as Azazel. So maybe who/whatever he had in his pocket that was capable of healing/resurrection acted the moment the deal was sealed, in both cases. Of course, Azazel is later ret-conned into being a "Prince of Hell" so who knows.

Eh, I think it was intended that it was Azazel, who was the only Yellow Eyed Demon at that time, and he just made the deal with John, so Azazel was a black smoked Demon who turned the meatsuit's eyes yellow when he possessed Tessa. He prevented Tessa from reaping Dean and he restored him to full health. I think there was enough mystery around Azazel at that time to believe he had that power.  And with the retcon that Yellow Eyed Demons are Princes of Hell I think they must have more power than the regular demons. That's a retcon that works for me with Azazel and how he could resurrect Dean. 

[gonzosgirrl]

33 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Eh, I think it was intended that it was Azazel, who was the only Yellow Eyed Demon at that time, and he just made the deal with John, so Azazel was a black smoked Demon who turned the meatsuit's eyes yellow when he possessed Tessa. He prevented Tessa from reaping Dean and he restored him to full health. I think there was enough mystery around Azazel at that time to believe he had that power.  And with the retcon that Yellow Eyed Demons are Princes of Hell I think they must have more power than the regular demons. That's a retcon that works for me with Azazel and how he could resurrect Dean. 

I agree it would've been easy to believe he had the power, but why have him state clearly that he doesn't, both times? If it happened episodes apart, I would take it as yet another writer/continuity fail, but in both instances, the healing and then the resurrection happen immediately following him saying it's not 'him'.

 

ETA: Demons lie doesn't work for me, because demons also love to brag, and there's just no upside to Azazel not claiming it was his power.

Edited August 17, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

Because demons lie? Not being snarky. Maybe he didn't want it to be known that he had that power for his own reasons. Maybe him restoring a life breaks a demon rule so he didn't want one of the minions reporting him back to Lilith.

So in front of the minions he says, 'sorry I can't do but someone else can'. The minions leave, he goes to John's room, takes John's life, possesses Tessa and heals Dean. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by catrox14

[gonzosgirrl]

48 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Because demons lie? Not being snarky. Maybe he didn't want it to be known that he had that power for his own reasons. Maybe him restoring a life breaks a demon rule so he didn't want one of the minions reporting him back to Lilith.

So in front of the minions he says, 'sorry I can't do but someone else can'. The minions leave, he goes to John's room, takes John's life, possesses Tessa and heals Dean. 

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[catrox14]

34 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well I wasn't saying it made sense LOL just coming up with ideas. 

Maybe Azazel was referring to Tessa with "I can't do it, but I know who can".

Maybe Dean being on life support was the loophole. His soul was outside of his body and Tessa was not going to let him back in it his basically dead body, so when Azazel possessed Tessa, he used her body and her powers to put Dean's soul back his body ,and then he used his powers through Tessa to heal Dean's physical body. 

[Wayward Son]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but wasn't the crossroads demon able to resurrect Sam independently without issues? 

[gonzosgirrl]

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Well I wasn't saying it made sense LOL just coming up with ideas. 

Maybe Azazel was referring to Tessa with "I can't do it, but I know who can".

Maybe Dean being on life support was the loophole. His soul was outside of his body and Tessa was not going to let him back in it his basically dead body, so when Azazel possessed Tessa, he used her body and her powers to put Dean's soul back his body ,and then he used his powers through Tessa to heal Dean's physical body. 

But that doesn't explain him resurrecting John, which happens immediately after he  says he'll 'arrange to have lover boy brought back'. IMO, that clearly implies someone/thing else is going to do it. To me, that's twice they went to the trouble of telling us it isn't Azazel doing the saving, and I really wonder if it was meant to tie into the later reveal of Heaven's machinations.

 

6 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but wasn't the crossroads demon able to resurrect Sam independently without issues? 

She brokered the deal, but I assume it was Crowley, as King of the Crossroads, who had the power.

Edited August 17, 2017 by gonzosgirrl

[catrox14]

18 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But that doesn't explain him resurrecting John, which happens immediately after he  says he'll 'arrange to have lover boy brought back'. IMO, that clearly implies someone/thing else is going to do it. To me, that's twice they went to the trouble of telling us it isn't Azazel doing the saving, and I really wonder if it was meant to tie into the later reveal of Heaven's machinations.

 

I get your point that it could have been a tie in, not sure that I think Kripke had really thought that far ahead. I think he had plan but I don't think he had those kinds of details worked out just yet.

Lilith held contracts so maybe she was the one that brought back both Dean and John. Azazel could have used  Tessa's body to put Dean's soul back.

Then with John, Lilith agreed to bring John back to life in exchange for  Azazel getting to bleed into Sammy's mouth.

Alternately, maybe John's reaper had come for him, so he possessed John's reaper like he did Tessa and restored John.

Edited August 17, 2017 by catrox14
clarity

[DittyDotDot]

23 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

But that doesn't explain him resurrecting John, which happens immediately after he  says he'll 'arrange to have lover boy brought back'. IMO, that clearly implies someone/thing else is going to do it. To me, that's twice they went to the trouble of telling us it isn't Azazel doing the saving, and I really wonder if it was meant to tie into the later reveal of Heaven's machinations.

I think demons themselves don't have the power to resurrect, but when they make a deal they use the power of the soul  they mark to make the magic happen. I'd guess, for a resurrection, they'd always need a reaper to get the job done--they seem to be the only thing that can take and give life like that--we probably just don't see the reaper like we did in In My Time of Dying. They are invisible to humans unless they want to be, after all.

ETA: Maybe it's less of a possession, in most cases, and more of a binding? Like how the boys bound Death in Meet the New Boss.

Edited August 17, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[SueB]

First, the boys definitively stayed with Bobby twice - either together or one at a time.

1) Death's door - He took Dean to the park and tossed a ball.

2) Bad Boys - Sam was left with Bobby when Dean was at Sonny's.  

 

Second, on the resurrection bit (see TL;DR to skip logic) - I have to agree that the power of the soul is the key to the demons doing anything.  I buy into the notion that once the Reaper Tessa had Dean, Azazel had to break her hold.  But who HEALED Dean?  Personally, I see a pattern tied to 'soul power'.

Brought back from the dead (pre-Angels):
Faith - a swap, Dean didn't actually cross over -- but someone else HAD to die.  Maybe this was a twist based on the controlling spell.  Jury is out for me.
IMTOD - soul-powered - I think getting the Dean's soul BACK from the Reaper may have drove the possession bit, .... HEY, I just realized... we missed out on JDM kissing Fred Lane!
AHBL2 - soul-powered - Azazel really WANTED Sammy, so Dean making that deal... that just made it easy
ITB - soul powered -- Mary asked for 3, she only got John.  Again, ONE life for ONE soul.  Feels like a pattern to me.
Crossroads Blues - a cross-roads demon cured Evan's wife - not the same as a resurrection, but it stopped the natural order.

Now look at what happened when Dean stopped the natural order in Appointment in Samarra -- a BALANCE had to be maintained ... so others died.

I go back to all of this and say, SOMEHOW, it's about the souls, and the natural order.

Now God, he can do what he wants so he brought back Cas (3X!) with no consequences. And regular Angels can resurrect so long as the bodies haven't been destroyed at the sub molecular level.    So, I'm going to guess that once again, "grace power" is different than "soul power". Further, demons IMO 'broker' in soul power, not grace. 

Which brings me to Reapers -- Billy in particular.  She made it clear she doesn't TAKE lives.  And yet, she made a DEAL to do just that.  She temporarily killed Sam and Dean and resurrected them.  With the "deal" being a single life was permanently lost.  And when the deal was broke, there would be cosmic consequences.  I think the jury is still out on the consequences -- those can still happen IMO.  But how did she make the deal in the first place?  When Dean killed "Death", did that throw something out of whack?  People kept dying, reapers kept reaping... but 'with the cat (THE Death) away,  are the mice (Reapers) able to play?' IDK. I'd say that Billie's deal definitely was an anomaly from what we've seen in the past.  I think the Deal ITSELF broke the natural order.  And one of them not going with her -- well, I think that failed to restore natural order (i.e. unlike when Dean messed around with the natural order, it was an immediate impact, this time she had a timer on ... til midnight).  But what has gone wrong and where did it go wrong when she died?  I feel like some sort of natural order buffer is off overloading somewhere and it's going to make a mess eventually.  [sorry for geek speak, it's just the imagery I could think of]

Bottom Line for TL;DR: I think Demons resurrect using soul power, Angels resurrect using grace power, and Reapers maintain a balance of the natural order.  The deal with Billie feels like we are waiting for the other shoe to drop.  

  

[Katy M]

4 minutes ago, SueB said:

Now look at what happened when Dean stopped the natural order in Appointment in Samarra -- a BALANCE had to be maintained ... so others died.

Now I'm going to have to look at all reaper kills and all resurrections. 

In Faith, the reaper just killed Sue Ann.  He didn't save Layla.  Does that do anything to the balance theory?

I never really thougth Appointment in samarra was about a life for a life.  I just figured he changed where everyone would be. Had he not stopped it, Scott would have died, too.  So, then it would have been two lives for one life.  And, then what happened when he did "kill" the girl?  Did someone else on his list that he hadn't got to yet get to live just because?

And, what about in Death TAkes a Holiday, when lack of reaper cured everybody (why am I bringing this up? It only makes me mad)?  Was everybody dying two towns over?  Or did the natural order know it was temporary? 

What about Benny (and possibly Dean and Sam) escaping Purgatory?  Did someone have to die for that? 

OK, I'm done being obnoxious. It wasn't really my intent. You just got me thinking.

12 minutes ago, SueB said:

HEY, I just realized... we missed out on JDM kissing Fred Lane!

I think that's a good thing.

[SueB]

1 minute ago, Katy M said:

Now I'm going to have to look at all reaper kills and all resurrections. 

In Faith, the reaper just killed Sue Ann.  He didn't save Layla.  Does that do anything to the balance theory?

I never really thougth Appointment in samarra was about a life for a life.  I just figured he changed where everyone would be. Had he not stopped it, Scott would have died, too.  So, then it would have been two lives for one life.  And, then what happened when he did "kill" the girl?  Did someone else on his list that he hadn't got to yet get to live just because?

And, what about in Death TAkes a Holiday, when lack of reaper cured everybody (why am I bringing this up? It only makes me mad)?  Was everybody dying two towns over?  Or did the natural order know it was temporary? 

What about Benny (and possibly Dean and Sam) escaping Purgatory?  Did someone have to die for that? 

OK, I'm done being obnoxious. It wasn't really my intent. You just got me thinking.

I think that's a good thing.

Sue Ann was taken instead of her husband -- who she stopped the Reaper from taking in the first place. *Boom* (that means I just pulled that out of my ass... but really, I think that works).

ETA: Everyone eventually died in Death Takes a Holiday --- like Pamela, their wounds started bleeding again (for example).

Benny escaping Purgatory... that's a good one... have to think. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by SueB

[Katy M]

Just now, SueB said:

Sue Ann was taken instead of her husband -- who she stopped the Reaper from taking in the first place. *Boom* (that means I just pulled that out of my ass... but really, I think that works).

I actually had considered that, LOL.  But, I had to wait you work for it:)

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, SueB said:

Bottom Line for TL;DR: I think Demons resurrect using soul power, Angels resurrect using grace power, and Reapers maintain a balance of the natural order.  The deal with Billie feels like we are waiting for the other shoe to drop.  

  

I think that's sound reasoning for how, but it still doesn't answer the who (or what) as it relates to Azazel and John's resurrection/Dean's healing. He outright said he couldn't do it (wield the soul-power or whatever it may be), but could get it done. I suppose his possessing Tessa could've been enough to break her hold on Dean and let him back in his body, but he wasn't just returned to it, he was healed. Same for John - he was brought back to life, neck unbroken.

I realize it's a question that will never be answered to my satisfaction - I'd wager even Kripke himself couldn't do it now - but dang if it isn't going to bug me forever!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

23 hours ago, Katy M said:

Going back to bringing people back, demons seem to be able to do whatever needs done if a deal is made.  Crowley said in The Devil You Know, that he could get Bobby anything up to and including Death's location.  

Crowley also said he could get Sam's soul out of the cage.  But he couldn't.  

19 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think demons themselves don't have the power to resurrect, but when they make a deal they use the power of the soul  they mark to make the magic happen.

I like this explanation!  And it fits very well with "the soul is more powerful than you can imagine" line from Death himself.  :)

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Crowley also said he could get Sam's soul out of the cage.  But he couldn't.  

Totally different situation. He was basically conning Sam and dean on that deal.  he did, more or less, get Death's location.   And restored his legs.  There is clearly some kind of power involved in demon deals.

[gonzosgirrl]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Oh wow. I didn't know Jared had said that.  I knew there was a "if you kill him, would you kill me" but I didn't think it was being extended into Sam thinking it's hatred on Dean's part towards him if he wants to kill the Devil's spawn.   It is possible for Dean, or any other character, to truly believe that it's not a good idea for the devil's spawn to be out in the world which has absolutely nothing to do with how that character views Sam.  That is such a strawman argument. 

And SPN writers have a terrible habit of doing that: 

Like back in s4, they used a strawman that only TWO things could happen in saving a possessed person, the Hand of Ipecac saving the meatsuit vs demon knife which is harmful to the meatsuit, conveniently leaving out the option of standard old exorcism which they have been doing for years.

Re the last paragraph. Was Sam's Hand of Ipecac  (I love that, lol) exorcising the demon, or killing it? Because if he was killing them and saving the victim, then the argument for that over the knife has some validity. If he was only exorcising, then it doesn't.  I know when he faces Alistair he says 'now I can kill', but I don't know when that transition took place. Did it happen on screen? 

In Metamorphosis, when Dean first sees him using his powers, the black smoke kind of glows/burns on the floor. Was the demon dead or merely exorcised? 

[Wayward Son]

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Oh wow. I didn't know Jared had said that.  I knew there was a "if you kill him, would you kill me" but I didn't think it was being extended into Sam thinking it's hatred on Dean's part towards him if he wants to kill the Devil's spawn.   It is possible for Dean, or any other character, to truly believe that it's not a good idea for the devil's spawn to be out in the world which has absolutely nothing to do with how that character views Sam.  That is such a strawman argument. 

And SPN writers have a terrible habit of doing that: 

Like back in s4, they used a strawman that only TWO things could happen in saving a possessed person, the Hand of Ipecac saving the meatsuit vs demon knife which is harmful to the meatsuit, conveniently leaving out the option of standard old exorcism which they have been doing for years.

Same thing with Dean and Mary and him just wanting his mommy to make him sammiches. It was never played that Dean ever wanted that, or nor behaved like that's what he wanted but then at the end of 'The Raid' that's a factor in his anger with Mary instead of her poor treatment of them:  Strawman.

I'm sure there are many other strawmen arguments the show has used to create angst and it's never good. I hope that doesn't turn out to be a thing again.

Another few examples inspired by rewatching season 6 and reading the episode threads.

 

1) When it came to deciding what to do about Soulless Sam; why were the only options save his soul and put it back in his body (which was argued by Dean and is good) or leave his soul to rot in the cage rather than risking damaging his body (which is bad and argued by Bobby and Cas). Why was the obvious third solution never considered? Namely saving Sam's soul from the cage and sending it on to heaven. Obviously, the show was never going to make soulless a permanent thing, but it really should have been at least mentioned as a possibility. 

 

2) The boys reaction to the whole purgatory thing. Why did it have to be Cas opens it or he stops completely? Why did no one consider working together to lessen the risks? What the show likes to forget is that Raphael winning and restarting the apocalypse was pretty bad news too. Since the boys had no viable alternatives shouldn't they have at least tried to work together? And then had them decide nope too risky. Rather than outright condemning. 

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Re the last paragraph. Was Sam's Hand of Ipecac  (I love that, lol) exorcising the demon, or killing it? Because if he was killing them and saving the victim, then the argument for that over the knife has some validity. If he was only exorcising, then it doesn't.  I know when he faces Alistair he says 'now I can kill', but I don't know when that transition took place. Did it happen on screen? 

In Metamorphosis, when Dean first sees him using his powers, the black smoke kind of glows/burns on the floor. Was the demon dead or merely exorcised? 

I'm fairly certain prior to the death of Alastair Sam was only capable of exorcism. The "now I can kill" line was meant to show his powers had advanced to a whole new level IMO. It is also why the previous uses showed the black smoke going on the floor, while Alastair lit up like someone killed by the knife.

[catrox14]

2 minutes ago, gonzosgirrl said:

Re the last paragraph. Was Sam's Hand of Ipecac  (I love that, lol) exorcising the demon, or killing it? Because if he was killing them and saving the victim, then the argument for that over the knife has some validity. If he was only exorcising, then it doesn't.  I know when he faces Alistair he says 'now I can kill', but I don't know when that transition took place. Did it happen on screen? 

He killed Alistair dead as a door nail on screen. He went through a long painful death too.  Didn't he kill the waitress demon from BSG?

I wasn't saying that Sam didn't have a valid argument over the demon knife, my point was more that it was a strawman argument to divide the boys (I'm not saying this as B v J) it's just factual. The argument was demon knife vs Sam's Hand of Ipecac which conveniently left out standard exorcism as the other option the sake of plot.

. FYI - Hand of Ipecac is a thing from the TWoP and I've never forgotten it. LOL. I didn't post about SPN but I read some of the comments. That always made me laugh 

[gonzosgirrl]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

He killed Alistair dead as a door nail on screen. He went through a long painful death too.  Didn't he kill the waitress demon from BSG?

I wasn't saying that Sam didn't have a valid argument over the demon knife, my point was more that it was a strawman argument to divide the boys (I'm not saying this as B v J) it's just factual. The argument was demon knife vs Sam's Hand of Ipecac which conveniently left out standard exorcism as the other option the sake of plot.

. FYI - Hand of Ipecac is a thing from the TWoP and I've never forgotten it. LOL. I didn't post about SPN but I read some of the comments. That always made me laugh 

I agree Sam could've exorcised over Ipecac'ing and it wasn't justification for consorting with Ruby/lying/ drinking blood. Just saying it wasn't equivalent to using the knife re killing the demons. 

I know he killed Alistair, I am just not sure about any of the demons that came before. When did he know he could kill? Were those early demons dead? I feel like it didn't happen until after he started up with Ruby again post Criss Angel. 

I suppose that's really what he was always working/practicing toward though, to be able to kill. 

30 minutes ago, Wayward Son said:

I'm fairly certain prior to the death of Alastair Sam was only capable of exorcism. The "now I can kill" line was meant to show his powers had advanced to a whole new level IMO. It is also why the previous uses showed the black smoke going on the floor, while Alastair lit up like someone killed by the knife.

I tend to agree, especially with the lightning, but other demons we saw exorcised went through the boards (Or some such) And disappeared, rather than these ember-like remains on the floor. 

[ILoveReading]

There is always a line in 4.01 that always stuck out to me, it was after Sam tried to exorcise the demon from the waitress and she ended up dead. 

Quote

Ruby: Getting pretty slick there, Sam. Better all the time

From the sounds of it, Sam's powers weren't something he could always control and that he was practicing on possessed humans.  I know that there is very slim odds of surviving a demon possession but it sounds like some might have died because Sam didn't have full control rather then just from the demon possession that might have been saved by exorcism. 

Yes, Sam's powers might have saved them, where as the demon knife was certain death, but how many did Sam kill by accident?  I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that it could have happened.  

I always thought what really bothered Dean about Sam's powers wasn't so much that he was using them for exorcism, just that he was using them period.  He felt it was a slippery slope.  That eventually it was going to grow beyond Sam's control. 

That in why I feel its a strawman's argument.  Even more than just leaving out exorcism, why wasn't Dean allowed up to bring up other concerns?

[Wayward Son]

3 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

I always thought what really bothered Dean about Sam's powers wasn't so much that he was using them for exorcism, just that he was using them period.  He felt it was a slippery slope.  That eventually it was going to grow beyond Sam's control. 

That in why I feel its a strawman's argument.  Even more than just leaving out exorcism, why wasn't Dean allowed up to bring up other concerns?

I totally agree with you on this! I don't think it was how Sam was using his powers that Dean had an issue with! It was the fact that he was using them in the first place! Dean hates demon, always has and especially after hell, and he didn't want to see his brother risk turning into one by channeling powers that came from them.

[catrox14]

9 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

That in why I feel its a strawman's argument.  Even more than just leaving out exorcism, why wasn't Dean allowed up to bring up other concerns?

Dean brought up that God didn't want him doing it. He never said anything about personally why it bothered him but I think ti was implied when Dean was like, "Okay you want to hang out with Ruby, have at it. I'm out".

 

12 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

Yes, Sam's powers might have saved them, where as the demon knife was certain death, but how many did Sam kill by accident? 

Was the demon knife always certain death though? Like if they stabbed someone once, they could have taken that person to the ER like Ruby was doing with Sam's practice demons. I mean it's not like they were stabbing people in the brain. That never made sense to me. For all we know, Ruby never took them to the hospital and she just killed them.

[Katy M]

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Was the demon knife always certain death though? Like if they stabbed someone once, they could have taken that person to the ER like Ruby was doing with Sam's practice demons. I mean it's not like they were stabbing people in the brain. That never made sense to me. For all we know, Ruby never took them to the hospital and she just killed them.

The only person who survived a demon knife stab was Bobby.  I have fanwanked that it was because he was the one who stabbed himself while possessed, and he was able to shove the demon so that it's vital organs were somewhere where his vital organs were not.  Otherwise, it seems you have to kill the host to kill the demon, or if you just wound the host you just wound the demon.  Crowley never dies when Dean sticks the knife through his hand, nor did that CRD that Sam stuck in the hand.  And, when they cut demons with it for info, all the demons do is scream.  Same with the Colt. When Sam shot John in the leg, it only injured YED. 

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, Katy M said:

The only person who survived a demon knife stab was Bobby.  I have fanwanked that it was because he was the one who stabbed himself while possessed, and he was able to shove the demon so that it's vital organs were somewhere where his vital organs were not.  Otherwise, it seems you have to kill the host to kill the demon, or if you just wound the host you just wound the demon.  Crowley never dies when Dean sticks the knife through his hand, nor did that CRD that Sam stuck in the hand.  And, when they cut demons with it for info, all the demons do is scream.  Same with the Colt. When Sam shot John in the leg, it only injured YED. 

Aren't the sigils on the knife what kills the demon? If so, it seems to me they could have stabbed the meatsuit in a non letal spot and that would still kill the demon since it's the sigils that kill it. That would have given them time to take the meatsuit for aid, or even do it themselves.

I dunno, that was all pretty messy for the sake of plot. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, ILoveReading said:

There is always a line in 4.01 that always stuck out to me, it was after Sam tried to exorcise the demon from the waitress and she ended up dead. 

Quote

Ruby: Getting pretty slick there, Sam. Better all the time

From the sounds of it, Sam's powers weren't something he could always control and that he was practicing on possessed humans.  I know that there is very slim odds of surviving a demon possession but it sounds like some might have died because Sam didn't have full control rather then just from the demon possession that might have been saved by exorcism. 

Yes, Sam's powers might have saved them, where as the demon knife was certain death, but how many did Sam kill by accident?  I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that it could have happened.  

I always thought what really bothered Dean about Sam's powers wasn't so much that he was using them for exorcism, just that he was using them period.  He felt it was a slippery slope.  That eventually it was going to grow beyond Sam's control.

That in why I feel its a strawman's argument.  Even more than just leaving out exorcism, why wasn't Dean allowed up to bring up other concerns?

I don't think that was what Ruby was referring to in that quote, and I don't think Sam's powers did anything in terms of harming the host. I think we saw what Ruby was referring to in terms of getting "better all the time" when we saw the flashbacks from "I Know What You Did..." because that flashback showed Sam not being able to entirely exorcise the demon. The demon kept being able to get back into the host, so the separation wasn't complete. In that flashback, they ended up having to kill the host with the knife for some reason (I don't know why they didn't exorcise the demon - it was weird *** - unless they didn't want the demon to blab on what they were doing?)

Anyway, I think that's what Ruby was referring to: that Sam was now able to fully exorcise the demon without the starts and stops of the demon going in and out of the host.

As for Dean being worried about Sam getting out of control, obviously that turned out to be true, but I didn't see Dean not being allowed to make that argument. If I remember correctly he did - it was even brought up in pretty much those terms "slippery slope" - starting from season 3, and if I'm remembering correctly, Dean brought it up in those terms more than once. For me, it was actually Sam who was given the strawman's arguments - or none at all - in season 9, when he wasn't even allowed to bring up that Dean taking on the mark - and the power associated with it - was potentially just as much a slippery slope. Sam's only objection was that Dean had been working with Crowley.

*** It looked to me like the show wanted us to kind of conveniently forget the exorcism thing... which they just could've undone by pulling a Star Trek type thing as described in a fun song by Voltaire where they "just make some shit up" by saying the demons now were getting stronger since Lucifer's rising and the exorcisms didn't work anymore - boom! there you go, now that's off the table, have at the conflict.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 hours ago, Katy M said:

Totally different situation. He was basically conning Sam and dean on that deal.  he did, more or less, get Death's location.   And restored his legs.  There is clearly some kind of power involved in demon deals.

Point is Crowley lied.  Demons lie.  And I think a demon restoring the use of Bobby's legs is vastly different than bringing someone back from the dead; especially if the dead person was already in Heaven.  

[catrox14]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

*** It looked to me like the show wanted us to kind of conveniently forget the exorcism thing... which they just could've undone by pulling a Star Trek type thing as described in a fun song by Voltaire where they "just make some shit up" by saying the demons now were getting stronger since Lucifer's rising and the exorcisms didn't work anymore - boom! there you go, now that's off the table, have at the conflict.

 

Problem: Lucifer wasn't out of the cage yet so how could they say that?

[AwesomO4000]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Problem: Lucifer wasn't out of the cage yet so how could they say that?

Oh yeah, oops I got ahead of myself.

But the apocalypse had started, and more demons were everywhere, so the writers could say the breaking of the seals was making the demons stronger. That still would've worked for me, and in my opinion been better than seemingly ignoring that demons could be exorcised, but for some reason now weren't.