All Episodes Talk: Saving People, Hunting Things

[rue721]

I did find some of those kills too cold -- namely, the way he killed Jeremy via Jeremy's abusive father. That was fighting a little too dirty imo, especially because Jeremy was a human being. And it wasn't even just that Sam killed him that bothered me, it was that he seemed like he was relishing it and felt proud of himself for thinking of that. It was a low blow, but Sam didn't seem like he even had a second thought about it. That's what bothers me about Sam sometimes, it seems like he doesn't have an instinct for what crosses the line and what doesn't. I think that's mostly just poor writing, but maybe it's Sam as a character, too. I thought that was what the demon blood addiction SL was about, too. He seems like he's not so much like that anymore -- I wonder when that changed?

 

Dean especially does seem too ready to kill, to me, and I wish they would both think a little more about what *other* choices they might have. They usually spend no time considering what they can do to their enemies *aside* from killing them. It does bother me. It's not so much that it makes me dislike them as people, because I get why they think the way they do. But it does make me think of them as thugs rather than "heroes" a lot of the time. For sure, I wouldn't want to be in the position of being one of the people who needs their help or who they're trying to "save," because jeez, I'd probably end up dead and they'd just burn me up somewhere and move on no problem.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they didn't go forward with the "came back wrong" SL. Personally, I think the show doesn't do enough "resets" and is too willing to change things for good. I don't want to constantly have different lead characters (and with the amount of times they've each died and come back at this point, if "revenants" were a thing we'd have had tons of "new" Sams and Deans) -- I want them to still be *themselves* even if they evolve over time. But of course, someone who's still watching a show in S10 is probably not the biggest fan of change in general, that might be an idiosyncratic preference. Maybe it's been good for the show overall that they've been relatively willing to change things up.

 

To go back to Sam's "cold" kills for a second: the razor wire on Gordon wasn't so much too cold imo as it seemed weird in a physical way -- I know Sam's big and strong, but it just didn't seem physically possible for him to stand there in that position (leaning back against something rather than leaning forward to press Gordon against something) and cut someone's head off with razor wire while holding the wire from both ends, especially because vampire!Gordon was so strong. Maybe Gordon let it happen? It would have made more sense if the razor wire were tied to something on one end and Sam had been able to use his body weight...well anyway.

[DittyDotDot]

I have no issue with them taking out folks if those folks were engaged in killing other folks. Jeremy had no problem killing the professor or Bobby and would've probably taken out anyone else who got in his way. I sympathize with Jeremy that his father was an abusive asshole and he couldn't dream, but that doesn't mean he should get a pass on killing someone either. The witches--that's a grey area for me because they didn't even know they had sold their souls and they didn't kill anyone, as far as I can remember. The demon chick in Sin City, she was a demon and I highly doubt she was all that innocent. Gordon was a vampire, so...

 

Its not like they can just lock these monsters up somewhere or anything. And, IMO, they really have little choice most of the time. Either kill them or walk away and leave them to kill others. I don't know, I don't see them as less heroic because they take on the burden of all that blood in order to help the helpless. I have more a problem with how they never seem to try and save some of the possessed people anymore, but they were probably traumatized and/or dead already, so maybe it's actually a kindness they're doing for them.

 

To go back to Sam's "cold" kills for a second: the razor wire on Gordon wasn't so much too cold imo as it seemed weird in a physical way -- I know Sam's big and strong, but it just didn't seem physically possible for him to stand there in that position (leaning back against something rather than leaning forward to press Gordon against something) and cut someone's head off with razor wire while holding the wire from both ends, especially because vampire!Gordon was so strong. Maybe Gordon let it happen? It would have made more sense if the razor wire were tied to something on one end and Sam had been able to use his body weight...well anyway.

 

I'm thinking it was all linked to the demon blood. There was lots of mentions at the end of S2 about how if Sam would just give into the physic crap he'd be able to to all sorts of things. Bobby also wondered if his ability to overpower Jeremy was due to his physic thing.

[SueB]

I'm also glad they gave up the "came back wrong" angle.  Because then Sam loses a lot of agency.  And he barely has any to begin with.  I'm not happy with his S4 choices but at least they felt like a dark place a grieving Sam could get to.  Not a mind-whammy from his resurrection. 

[AwesomO4000]

I did find some of those kills too cold -- namely, the way he killed Jeremy via Jeremy's abusive father. That was fighting a little too dirty imo, especially because Jeremy was a human being. And it wasn't even just that Sam killed him that bothered me, it was that he seemed like he was relishing it and felt proud of himself for thinking of that. It was a low blow, but Sam didn't seem like he even had a second thought about it. That's what bothers me about Sam sometimes, it seems like he doesn't have an instinct for what crosses the line and what doesn't. I think that's mostly just poor writing, but maybe it's Sam as a character, too. I thought that was what the demon blood addiction SL was about, too. He seems like he's not so much like that anymore -- I wonder when that changed?

 

Dean especially does seem too ready to kill, to me, and I wish they would both think a little more about what *other* choices they might have. They usually spend no time considering what they can do to their enemies *aside* from killing them. It does bother me. It's not so much that it makes me dislike them as people, because I get why they think the way they do. But it does make me think of them as thugs rather than "heroes" a lot of the time. For sure, I wouldn't want to be in the position of being one of the people who needs their help or who they're trying to "save," because jeez, I'd probably end up dead and they'd just burn me up somewhere and move on no problem.

 

I have no problem with Sam's kill of Jeremy. Yes, Jeremy was human, but he would have killed Sam without a second thought the first time they were in Bobby's dreams. It was only by lucky chance that Dean got Bobby to wake up just in time or Jeremy would have bashed Sam's head in and killed him, after telling him that Sam was an insect while he (Jeremy) was a god. The second time that Jeremy had Sam, he wasn't even going to kill him cleanly. He used his mind powers to tie Sam down and was torturing him first, kicking at and using a baseball bat on his legs. Until Sam thought of his solution he was at Jeremy's mercy and Jeremy had all the power and advantage. I don't blame Sam at all for feeling proud of himself for figuring out a way to save himself and therefore no longer feel powerless in that moment. After getting jerked around by Azazel, possessed by Meg, and now rendered helpless by Jeremy, I don't blame him at all for feeling a sense of accomplishment at actually saving himself for once. Even that early on in the series, Sam was likely already pretty tired of people taking away his choices and making him feel powerless. Jeremy was a guy who just beat him and was going to brutally kill him. Jeremy was about to use the bat to break Sam's ribs, and who knew what was going to come next when Sam came up with his plan. I think I can forgive Sam for being a little angry and feeling relieved and even a little proud of himself. In my opinion, Jeremy made it pretty clear that he was getting addicted to the power his dreaming allowed him and he likely would have used his power and knowledge to do things to other people he even felt remotely "stood in his way" of getting what he wanted. I didn't believe him anymore that he just wanted to be "left alone." He was entirely enjoying playing "god."

 

As for Sam and Dean being quick to kill... I think it partly has to do with their experiences over time. Sam in the past has been hesitant to kill when it's a human (like in "Croatoan") and it often comes back to bite them in the ass later. And humans have also put Sam and Dean on their hit list before - especially Sam - with them even succeeding once ("Dark Side of the Moon"), so I can understand Sam and Dean being wary on giving even people the benefit of the doubt sometimes.

Edited December 30, 2014 by AwesomO4000

[rue721]

As for Sam and Dean being quick to kill... I think it partly has to do with their experiences over time. Sam in the past has been hesitant to kill when it's a human (like in "Croatoan") and it often comes back to bite them in the ass later. And humans have also put Sam and Dean on their hit list before - especially Sam - with them even succeeding once ("Dark Side of the Moon"), so I can understand Sam and Dean being wary on giving even people the benefit of the doubt sometimes.

 

Yeah, and they were also explicitely taught to shoot first and ask questions later. Considering that they were taught well overall how to do their jobs and so are unlikely to want to change things up *too* much, and considering that the kill-first thing has been very practical/useful for them, I can see why they do it. So I don't really think it makes them bad people per se that they're able/willing to kill as their go-to Plan A.

 

But it bothers me that they err on the side of killing and are so quick to do it because imo it means that the further you get from their inner circle, the less trustworthy they are. I mean, I wouldn't be trying to call them for help! They'd be as likely to kill my ass as they would be to save it imo. And god forbid some poor soul decides to sleep with Sam, then she's really toast. Even a kiss eight years previous is enough to do you in, apparently (RIP Sarah). I'd be calling up the dude with the Golem, tbh. That's why I feel like the Winchesters are more like thugs than anything. Of course, there seems like there's no one else to call really, so what's someone going to do if they're really in a tight spot? It's probably the Winchesters or nobody. But people have also got to wonder if the Winchesters' help is really going to be worth the risk they run by getting mixed up with them.

 

I wish they'd value life a little more (or at least, valued lives other their own a little more). I get why life is cheap to them, but it's not cheap to the people they're saving, or even to the people they're killing. Or, if they just are convinced that life is cheap and can't believe otherwise, then they should maybe go completely nihilistic (I don't think that either Sam or Dean is capable of that, though. Well, maybe Dean). Not that I know what complete nihilism would even look like on this show.

 

Anyway, you'd have thought that edging so close to being monsters themselves -- and *still* being "save-able," and able to come back from that -- would have made them feel at least *some* need to look for ways to stop monsters without killing them. The "demon cure" and even the "vampire cure" bother me the most in that respect. Or stuff like Ruby's weird black liquid that she poured into Dean's throat to save him from some witch/demon hex without having to find the hex bag. If "monsters" can be cured or there are ways to save people that they don't currently know about, don't they have a moral imperative to look into *that* stuff? Though who knows where the show is going, maybe that'll come up.

 

I think this kind of thing could be dealt with better if the show had pulled an Angel and had really obvious and terrible consquences/counterbalances come about each time magic or for stuff like "cures" is used, to keep the deus ex machinas from getting out of hand like they currently do. When there's no clear reason not to go the "cure" route rather than the "kill" route, it makes the tendency to kill much creepier imo.

[DittyDotDot]

I think this kind of thing could be dealt with better if the show had pulled an Angel and had really obvious and terrible consquences/counterbalances come about each time magic or for stuff like "cures" is used, to keep the deus ex machinas from getting out of hand like they currently do. When there's no clear reason not to go the "cure" route rather than the "kill" route, it makes the tendency to kill much creepier imo.

 

I think the intention in the first few years was there was no cure for the supernatural and I preferred that approach. That was the thing with Madison; they couldn't save her or, more accurately, killing her was saving her. With the vampire cure, it only cures if the vampire hasn't sucked any blood, which isn't really all that helpful unless you want one of your leads to be turned into a vampire and easily turned back. Most vampires have fed by the time the boys run into them, so it's too late. 

 

Why they haven't tried to cure more demons? I don't know--I still don't know why they never finished curing Crowley--other than it's a really stupid idea, IMO. The problem with the demon cure is it really solves little. Curing Crowley isn't gonna make the world safer or better. Sounds like he was an asshole in life too and its not like the cure takes away his vast knowledge. All it would do is not allow him to possess anyone else, teleport or snap his fingers for things to happen. But he'd still be able to work spells and such and cause a lot of harm. Demons are demons because they took their turn in Hell, so I imagine that's true of most demons. Plus, what happens to the host whose body they are possessing--the actual innocent in all this?  The whole concept it asinine, IMO.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that they have searched out options, but generally don't find any--like with Madison--so their only option is to kill. And, many times I think killing is actually saving. But admittedly, I'm a little warped, so maybe I don't have the best angle on this.

 

I also think they do value others lives more than their own, that's why they do the job in the first place. If it was only their lives they valued, I'd think they'd just kick back and enjoy themselves rather than continuing to torture themselves the way they do.

[rue721]

I agree that the cure thing asinine and I also preferred when the supernatural was a whole mysterious world that didn't have "hacks" like the MoL spells. As soon as there are "hacks," the whole thing is cheapened a bit imo. That's also why I wish that they'd let the afterlife stay at least somewhat mysterious, and didn't reduce Heaven into basically just a foreign country. But they have, so I wish they'd put some limitations on it. As it is now, it seems like there's some secret cheat code to *everything,* which sort of ruins things imo.

 

Also w/r/t possession:  When Sam was curing Crowley, Crowley seemed like he was legitimately turning into a different, non-demon person and started talking about love and forgiveness like he actually cared about it. He was also soft afterwards, like he actually cared about his son when Abaddon brought him back. Also, when the MoL "cured" that possessed man back in the day, what was weird is that he didn't seem to be possessed afterward. So I'm not really sure how the whole "demons aren't corporal, so what happens to these corporal bodies they're in if the demons are cured?" works. It seems like the show hasn't really thought that out, frankly.

 

I also think they do value others lives more than their own, that's why they do the job in the first place. If it was only their lives they valued, I'd think they'd just kick back and enjoy themselves rather than continuing to torture themselves the way they do.

 

The main sticking point for me is:  what does death even mean to them anymore? Neither of them seem to even be *able* to die -- Sam, because Dean will do literally anything to stop it, and Dean because of some kind of mystical something-or-other. And even previous to all this, they were apparently dying and being brought back a bunch of times even without any memory/knowledge of it, as per Dark Side of the Moon.

 

I understand why they would think of death as welcome or even some kind of unattainable peace/rest, and dole it out to everyone else without a second thought. But they don't actually seem to think of it that way a lot of the time anyway -- if they did, why would there have been that whole brouhaha about Dean not wanting Sam to finish the Trials since it would kill him, and Sam being *convinced* not to die in order to close up Hell? That whole thing was so screwed up, though, since then the very next day, Sam was perfectly fine dying for nothing or just to be at peace. Since that's still having repercussions on what's happening now, and it still gets brought up now, I wish they'd really explain that whole bizarre mess a little better. Not to digress.

 

Anyway, I do think that things started out with them sacrificing their safety and treating their lives as cheap in order to save others'. But since then, they've become de facto unkillable. It's one thing for ordinary people to end up killing in order to try to protect others and at the risk of their own lives, and it's another thing for essentially immortal people to kill willy nilly in some kind of supernatural v. supernatural war. The first is arguably heroic, but the second is...Idk, it treats life cheaply imo.

 

That's actually why my favorite "deaths" were really mundane. When Dean got electrocuted, when Sam got stabbed, when they both got shot to death in their motel room. But I'm not big on "epic" in general, so that might be a matter of taste.

[catrox14]

I don't think the boys are intended to be immortal. But being the leads limits what you can do. I know as the years progress I expect one of them to really most sincerely die. I expect it will be Dean.  

 

But I disagree that just because the boys have died and been resurrected that they don't value life.  IMO they value life differently vs not at all. They KNOW their fellow humans won't be resurrected from death without supernatural intervention and if that happens its a heavy price.  I think they dont relish or don't care but rather if  they kill a meatsuit when killing a demon its probably better for the meatsuit, because Repo Man reasons lurking.

[rue721]

Brought over from the Spoilers & Speculation thread (no spoilers involved, though):

 

The show just rarely seems to want viewers to see a happy moment, especially from their formative years, other than things like "Swan Song." I guess it's easier to go with angst, not to mention that their lives didn't seem very happy so a happy moment would seem jarring. I don't mind the angst, but I mind it when it's just there for big emo woe misery and is never resolved. Your comments about kids being crazy and why don't we see that reminds me of "Dark Side of the Moon" (ugh) when we learned Sam ran away, and the show turned this into one of the most depressing, miserable scenes of all 10 seasons. 

 

I'm not sure Dean would ever see his current life as happy, mostly because Mary was gone, but I do wonder what a 8-9 year old Dean would think of it. 

 

This has stayed in my mind, because I don't really know why the show wants to be so dour-yet-wholesome about the guys' pasts?

 

I don't really even know where the show's going with the idea that Dean has adopted and that Sam sort of encourages, that Sam would like to settle down with a wife and kids and do the White Picket Fence thing. Sam obviously couldn't care less about having kids (Idk if we've ever seen him speak to a child?), and that's fine, not everyone wants/needs a family like that. I don't think he'd especially like living out in the suburbs, either? He seems more the type who'd enjoy the yuppie version of city life, to me. And a go-getter for a girlfriend. Well anyway. It doesn't matter in practical terms really, I just don't understand why the show would be trying to push Sam's characterization in that particular direction. It just seems so strange, and I guess it makes me confused as to how the show sees or how the audience is supposed to see Sam as a character, and what drives him/what he cares about? Tbh, I think he seems pretty content with how things are, aside from the current/constant crises the guys are always dealing with.

 

Not that their lives are bad right now in any objective sense. They're on good terms with family/each other and with friends, have a nice place to live, a nice car, are apparently set for life money-wise, seeing as the bunker must be a goldmine with all those artifacts and research materials, etc. I feel bad for Dean because he's obviously unhappy and doesn't feel comfortable in the life he's living, not because anything's objectively *wrong* with that life. I don't feel bad for Sam, because he doesn't seem to see anything wrong with their lives (aside from the obvious threats to them, like the MoC stuff, etc), either. 

 

Tbh, if the whole YED thing hadn't happened, I don't think things would have been *so* different (emotionally/character-wise). John even *still* had a family business, that auto shop, and Dean *still* probably would have worked in it during/after high school, and Sam *still* probably would have gotten the whole family pissed off at him for being "cold" and going off to college and all that. I think "life of quiet desperation" would have been in the cards for Dean even as a mechanic at Winchester & Sons or wherever, and basic contentment would have been in the cards for Sam even as a lawyer in the Bay Area or whatever. Maybe because of the Paradise Lost idea of Hell (or Heaven?) being something you carry with you? It would probably have been much happier and nicer to not have had to grow up living out of a car with no friends or neighbors except in month-long increments, and killing things every day and twice on Sundays, etc etc etc. But people are who they are, too.

 

Anyway, I do find it weird how the show paints being young. That's my main issue with Claire's storyline, it's so unremittingly heavy -- but that's sort of par for the course for how the show has been painting being young or being a kid for a long time, I think? There never seems to be any irreverence or just goofy kid-logic (anymore?).

 

I would like more irreverence especially. Or even just the feeling of flying blind but sort of enjoying it. When they bring in younger characters now, they're always so dour themselves (not just their circumstances), which just makes them duller versions of the older characters imo. That's the innocence I miss, I guess, the innocence of just straight up not knowing a lot and coming up with really funky or kid-logic-based ways of understanding situations or of solving problems. And those funky/kid-logic-based ways might even work! Or might also create yet more (bizarre) problems, too. (And "problems" including just being bored or wanting to have fun, not necessarily anything dire). In the very early days, the guys themselves did that to a certain extent, but now not even the actual child characters do.

 

My favorite young/kid character for years and years has been Audrey, trying to help her Teddy Bear suffer through his existential crisis as best she could. "Why am I even here?" "TEA PARTIES!"

Edited January 7, 2015 by rue721

[AwesomO4000]

This has stayed in my mind, because I don't really know why the show wants to be so dour-yet-wholesome about the guys' pasts?

 

I don't really even know where the show's going with the idea that Dean has adopted and that Sam sort of encourages, that Sam would like to settle down with a wife and kids and do the White Picket Fence thing. Sam obviously couldn't care less about having kids (Idk if we've ever seen him speak to a child?), and that's fine, not everyone wants/needs a family like that. I don't think he'd especially like living out in the suburbs, either? He seems more the type who'd enjoy the yuppie version of city life, to me. And a go-getter for a girlfriend. Well anyway. It doesn't matter in practical terms really, I just don't understand why the show would be trying to push Sam's characterization in that particular direction. It just seems so strange, and I guess it makes me confused as to how the show sees or how the audience is supposed to see Sam as a character, and what drives him/what he cares about? Tbh, I think he seems pretty content with how things are, aside from the current/constant crises the guys are always dealing with.

 

Others may disagree, but I actually didn't understand it either. And it seemed to be a rather recent development in my opinion. Sure back in season 1 and early season 2 Sam seemed to want the white picket fence thing - though I'm not so convinced about the kids, or at least wanting his own kids. Sam, when he was drawn to or had major interaction with kids, seemed to be drawn to the troubled and/or odd kids (even when he was a kid himself), so I could've see him as perhaps a child-advocate lawyer or something for example, rather than really wanting kids of his own. But Sam seeming to want "normal" went out the window for me as early as early season 2. Even when he was hallucinating Lucifer, Sam seemed to be fairly content with his life, and hunting was one of his constants and a thing that he felt kept him grounded. So in my opinion, that "Sam wants a normal life" thing, was something Carver and company decided to bring back from "the good old days" even though it didn't really make sense for Sam as a character anymore and wasn't really seen as an endearing thing by the show back then. In other words, Sam changing his mind and wanting to hunt with his brother was generally seen as a good thing by the show back then, so bringing "wanting normal" back for Sam in season 8 - especially when it made no sense - in my opinion wasn't being done as a good thing for Sam, especially since it was obvious that it was a dead-end plot anyway. They were obviously going to have Sam go back to hunting, so to me it was just a cheap dip into the melodrama well at the expense of Sam's characterization.

 

Anyway, I do find it weird how the show paints being young. That's my main issue with Claire's storyline, it's so unremittingly heavy -- but that's sort of par for the course for how the show has been painting being young or being a kid for a long time, I think? There never seems to be any irreverence or just goofy kid-logic (anymore?).

 

My husband would likely agree with you, since he had one of those "I did stuff that should've gotten me killed" childhoods complete with "kid logic" and free-time filled with doing crazy stuff. I was a weirdly mostly reliable kid and my sister and I barely fought at all. Hubby had to assure me that when my niece and nephew argued and scrapped with each other and did crazy things that almost gave me a heart attack that that was normal kid behavior. My sister and I just never did anything crazy that I remember. From the time I was about 8 (maybe earlier), my mom could ask me to stay in the car and watch my sister while she went grocery shopping and come back 45+ minutes later to see that I hadn't moved from the car. She didn't have to lecture or anything, it was just something that I did because she asked, and I never thought of doing otherwise. From about 9, I did the housework after school every day when Mom went back to college and then work without her having to really ask or give me praise for it (she didn't). I used to babysit other families toddlers and babies starting from 11 years old (I guess other parents found me responsible, too, and referred me to others), and I actually got money for it which, bonus, since I didn't get an allowance per se. Yeah, I was a bit too serious as a kid. I didn't realize until later that this was strange and that I was a really weird kid - heh.

 

Weirdly I'm generally more carefree now (starting from since my mid 20's, after grad school) than I remember being as a kid, * and I definitely wouldn't want to go back to being a kid again. Yeesh - you couldn't pay me enough.

 

So maybe some of the showrunners had a childhood more like mine and just don't really understand regular childhood irreverence. Dean especially would seem to be an example of that, as he seemed to be a mostly reliable and responsible kid who listened to John. Sam, too, actually with his single-minded studying and wanting to prepare for college seemingly without much provocation.

 

* maybe I used up most of my responsible-ness when I was a kid and so let myself lighten up more now that I'm older. ; ) .

[rue721]

Others may disagree, but I actually didn't understand it either. And it seemed to be a rather recent development in my opinion. Sure back in season 1 and early season 2 Sam seemed to want the white picket fence thing - though I'm not so convinced about the kids, or at least wanting his own kids. Sam, when he was drawn to or had major interaction with kids, seemed to be drawn to the troubled and/or odd kids (even when he was a kid himself), so I could've see him as perhaps a child-advocate lawyer or something for example, rather than really wanting kids of his own. But Sam seeming to want "normal" went out the window for me as early as early season 2.

 

Even back then, I don't know that he wanted a "normal" life, as in a White Picket Fence type of thing, particularly? He seemed to me as though he cared about the life he was making when he was at college and was with Jessica, but I think that was about him caring about building his life on his own terms, not about living some kind of White Picket Fence idyll. I don't think that Sam is an idealist in the sense that he would even care about living any kind of idyll, I think he's more down to earth than that. YMMV, of course.

 

From what I remember (though am likely forgetting some instances), when the "normal life" thing came up for Sam, it was usually Dean asking Sam about it, and Sam denying that that was what he wanted. I mostly remember when it came up at that Wishing Well, when Dean asked Sam what he would wish for, and Sam shocked him by saying that what he wished for most was Lilith's head on a plate (rather than getting out of hunting or anything like that). But as far as I remember, it also came up in terms of Sam genuinely wanting *revenge* for Jessica, not to make things safe enough to recreate his life with her or settle down with someone else or anything like that.

 

Obviously this is just my personal take and not based on anything specifically, but it seems to me that when Sam pushed to go to college and then split off from his family, he was focused on getting out from under John's thumb in particular, and I don't think that he lumped hunting or his relationship with his brother in with that -- except in so far as John was deeply involved in hunting/his brother's life still at that point. I don't think he was that worried about getting involved in hunting or having Dean in his life or anything, except inasmuch as it threatened his life at college/with Jessica (which was then over and couldn't be threatened) and except inasmuch as it would mean involvement with John (which it didn't as long as John was missing or dead). 

 

I think that Dean cares about the White Picket Fence idyll for *himself* and has this thing going on of wanting to live it vicariously through Sam because he thinks he's already done for. Also, I think he thinks his mission in life is to make sure that Sam is OK and he equates the White Picket Fence thing with safety/security/etc. But those are his hangups, not Sam's.

 

Sam's always been ambitious. I can't actually imagine him ceasing to be ambitious at all, which imo he'd have to be in order to settle down in the suburbs in the way that Dean keeps pressing (not because no ambitious people can live in the suburbs irl, but because Dean always talks about the burbs like they're his version of the Elysian Fields).

 

My husband would likely agree with you, since he had one of those "I did stuff that should've gotten me killed" childhoods complete with "kid logic" and free-time filled with doing crazy stuff. I was a weirdly mostly reliable kid and my sister and I barely fought at all. Hubby had to assure me that when my niece and nephew argued and scrapped with each other and did crazy things that almost gave me a heart attack that that was normal kid behavior. My sister and I just never did anything crazy that I remember.

 

Growing up, I was extremely earnest and driven -- but I was also a child, and therefore a fucking idiot. (And a hothead, which didn't help!). At least as far as I remember, it wasn't that doing anything crazy was the goal or even the endpoint, it was more like it was unavoidable despite your best efforts. Ime usually, you'd run into a problem and then try to solve it, but as a kid you're probably not going to be the best at solving problems, or even at knowing what is/isn't a problem anyway. Plus, you're pretty easy to distract or confuse or persuade, especially by anyone who's not a kid. So in a worst (or best?!) case scenario, there would be some problem or some distraction that you'd try to tackle, but then you'd make a bad or un/lucky or reckless decision, and that would trigger yet more bad or un/lucky or reckless decisions, until things might spiral out of control and really anything could happen. That's what I think is missing from the show right now, the idea that really anything could happen (good or bad). That's also what I mean by there being a lack of mystery (Houses of the Holy is actually a big favorite of mine for precisely the reason that it makes such an effort to retain some mystery even in the face of an ordinary episodic plot, and doesn't make things so pat).

 

The idea of how little irreverence the show has right now came to mind from DittyDotDot bringing up "acting like a fourteen-year-old" in the Hunted thread, so as a minor example of kid "problem solving" leading to more problems:  when I was fourteen, my best friend and I would want to hang out (obviously), so we'd walk or catch the bus somewhere -- but then we'd have no money for the fare home, or we'd lose track of time and the buses would stop running, or just...whatever. So we'd almost invariably end up broke and across town in the middle of the night, and have to just sort of wonder back across the city (for hours) toward home. But then it would of course be cold or we'd need to pee, or we'd be tired of just walking -- so we'd see what else might be open or where else we could get into (I literally popped a lock to the roof of an apartment building with a bobby pin once. Still proud of that, because I honestly didn't think it would work), or if we passed someone's apartment we'd see if we could crash there (or at least use the bathroom!), and that stuff would lead to whatever it led to (probably not much, though, we were "good kids"! And extremely lucky). Or sometimes we could try to get a ride from someone's buddy or my best friend's older brother or whoever if we had enough money to pitch in for weed or something (meaning, we had like $3 or $5 between us). But then if we were going to actually ask for a ride, since we didn't have cell phones (it was the early 2000s, but we didn't have any money and thus no phones), we'd have to find a pay phone, remember the person's number (huge speed bump!), start calling collect but say our entire message in the time the "operator" gives you to say your name, check to make sure the person didn't accept the charges, and then wait around at that payphone at 2am or whatever for a while to see if anyone actually did come by. And this was *for fun*! It was genuinely fun at the time, too! That's what makes me crack up about it now. How could waiting by the payphone outside of a closed parking lot carnival or whatever, in the middle of the night, with maybe literally empty wallets and feeling cold as hell, possibly be fun? And not just fun, but fun enough to *repeat* at least every week?! But meh, that's what being a kid is I guess. As a younger kid, the stuff was stupider and more bizarre, and as an older kid/teenager it was usually bolder -- but otherwise basically the same. It was the blind leading the blind trying to figure out how anyone/anything was even supposed to be anyway, so I treated television and movies like they were a Rosette Stone for how people were supposed to live and *obsessed* over them, and just sort of winged the rest as best I could.

 

Idk, my point is that I guess what I would like from the show is more of a sense that stuff just happens and people just deal with it, and sometimes dealing with it is...kind of fun, actually? Or at least interesting or amusing or something. I feel like the show has become too linear and airless, like it's just a video game instead of a story. It feels too much like everything's under control? I wish it felt more like very, very little is under control. Like the world of the show is still big and scary and strange. And on the other hand, even as I wish the show's stories were looser and more chaotic (more human, lol), I wish the episodes were a lot tighter structurally. Well anyway, JMV. This is probably too vague to be interesting but I'm too tired to be more specific!

[SueB]

 

This is probably too vague to be interesting but I'm too tired to be more specific!

No, I get it.  It's the seat-of-your-pants action that is missing.  Some of the best plots were huge leaps of faith by the boys that it'd work out. And if it failed, they'd make up a plan B on the spot.  I miss that spark too. 

[DittyDotDot]

Even back Idk, my point is that I guess what I would like from the show is more of a sense that stuff just happens and people just deal with it, and sometimes dealing with it is...kind of fun, actually? Or at least interesting or amusing or something. I feel like the show has become too linear and airless, like it's just a video game instead of a story. It feels too much like everything's under control? I wish it felt more like very, very little is under control. Like the world of the show is still big and scary and strange. And on the other hand, even as I wish the show's stories were looser and more chaotic (more human, lol), I wish the episodes were a lot tighter structurally. Well anyway, JMV. This is probably too vague to be interesting but I'm too tired to be more specific!

 

No, I get it, I do. I think the show used to do this really well back in S1. The endless roadtrip and bad things happen to good people. The whole show was really set around the idea that something horrible happened to this family and hunting was their reaction to it.  For me, the big conspiracies and all takes away the intimacy the show once had.

[AwesomO4000]

Idk, my point is that I guess what I would like from the show is more of a sense that stuff just happens and people just deal with it, and sometimes dealing with it is...kind of fun, actually? Or at least interesting or amusing or something.

 

I think every once in a while the show flashes of this - such as Sam's running away story where he lived on pizza and Mr. Pibb (or whatever he said) and had a dog and freedom, but it sounds like John tried pretty hard to drill that kind of thing out of the guys, and especially Dean, since Dean didn't see anything "fun" about that kind of thing... Well at least Sam's experience anyway, and sure I'm sure there were bad consequences for Dean from Sam running away, but he acted like he couldn't see anything, "fun" from Sam's experience at all and was instead completely pissy about it. I would have at least expected something more along the lines that Dean would be angry about the repercussions, but at least that he'd look a bit understanding or say "well, yeah, that did look like fun" or "I did crazy stuff like that myself," but instead he took the whole, denial parent route there - "what could you ever be talking about, Sam. Running away and eating pizza, getting a dog, etc couldn't possibly be a fun memory at all, what the hell were you thinking, you selfish jerk who should've known better at 13 or 14 or so."

 

Maybe that is an example of what you're saying. From Dean especially, sure he could complain about John's retribution, but at least I would think he'd at least act like he might understand, since apparently he made similar bad decisions - such as the losing the money incident. But again I think the feeling in the background is that John tried to quash that kind of thing out of Dean - i.e. no bad decisions, no "kid logic" because bad things happen and for them "kid logic" could turn into major consequences ("Something Wicked") and subsequently Dean passed this on to Sam. Never mind that John - and apparently Dean - sometimes made rash "adult-logic decisions" -  that's not what they tried to convey to their "charges" (Dean for John, Sam for Dean). In other words, I think I can see a fair amount of "Do as I say, not as I do/did" being passed down from John to Dean and Dean to Sam. And perhaps the nature of their life drill/beats that into them - that even when one of them does have fun from a "kid-logic" or adventure of that sort... they can't think of that too much because it was perhaps more of an aberration - dumb luck - and they can't want to have such an experience again in case it turns out badly next time.

 

The interesting thing is that Sam has his own disconnect when it comes to Dean's childhood experiences - i.e. that Dean found fun in beer can wreaths and drunken Christmases with Kentucky Fried Chicken - so Sam's showing the typical "kid" side there of not seeing the fun in that kind of situation. It reminds me a bit of my memories of being a tween at Christmas when I was young and how much "fun" Christmas dinner was supposed to have been at my Gramma's even though I was generally stuck at the kid's table and that was mostly annoying more than anything else. Of course that sounds really ungrateful - like Sam sometimes sounded - but that's the reality of memories when you're a kid. Mostly what I wanted back then was to be at the real "adult" table, not having to wait for the food to get to me until it was pretty much cold, having "interesting" (I thought as a kid anyway) conversations rather than watching my cousin stick peas under his plate, etc.

 

So in some ways I think the show does kind of show this, but it's showing it in the "adult" perspective of "do as I say, not as I do" in that such irreverence for the Winchesters leads to bad like the incident in "Something Wicked" and running away and/or going to college is not "fun" at all but instead is "abandoning the family."  I never really thought of it that way before, but now that I do that kind of makes sense. We (the audience) are Sam (or Dean) and the show is Dean (or John) in this relationship? Huh.

[Demented Daisy]

Just finished You Can't Handle the Truth on TNT and I was absolutely crushed (okay, a bit of hyperbole there) at what Dean said to Veritas:

VERITAS, sitting next to Dean.
I think it's your turn to spill some. How 'bout we play a little truth or truth? What should we ask Dean first, hmm? Something... Personal about you? (looks at SAM) Hey, Dean, I'm curious. What do you really feel about your brother?

 

DEAN, hesitant at first.
Better now. As of yesterday, I wanted to kill him in his sleep. I thought he was a monster. But now I think...

 

VERITAS
Now you think what?

 

DEAN
He's just acting like me.

 

VERITAS
What do you mean?

 

DEAN
It's the gig.  You're covered in blood until you're covered in your own blood. Half the time, you're about to die. Like right now. I told myself I wanted out... that I wanted a family.

 

VERITAS
But you were lying.

 

DEAN
No. But what I'm good at... is slicing throats. I ain't a father. I'm a killer. And there's no changing that. I know that now.

 

 

I had completely forgotten about that exchange.  Now, since he became a demon, I'm afraid he's going to believe that even more.  And the Mark of Cain ain't gonna help.  I'm dreading where this is going.  

[catrox14]

Yep. I never forgot that. And I think probably that is the line the nepotism duo used to decide that Dean really is a born killer :(. But just because Dean thinks of himself that way doesn't make it true.

Edited January 10, 2015 by catrox14

[rue721]

Yep. I never forgot that. And I think probably that is the line the nepotism duo used to decide that Dean really is a born killer :(. But just because Dean thinks of himself that way doesn't make it true.

 

I think they used it on promos to make Dean seem as frightening as possible, since as far as they know (or I can tell), he's meant to be the Big Bad this season. I don't think it's supposed to be the actual truth, though. Nobody's born a killer.

 

Tbh, I loved that show made such a point that Dean found it impossible to leave his past behind or to fully reinvent himself, even though he apparently really wanted to, and that he ultimately had to just go back to his old life because at least he knew how to live it. Usually they make reinventing yourself look so easy on TV, usually the only hiccup a character has is that some detective is on his trail or something equally over the top. But I think Dean's struggle was much more true to life.

 

So in some ways I think the show does kind of show this, but it's showing it in the "adult" perspective of "do as I say, not as I do" in that such irreverence for the Winchesters leads to bad like the incident in "Something Wicked" and running away and/or going to college is not "fun" at all but instead is "abandoning the family."  I never really thought of it that way before, but now that I do that kind of makes sense. We (the audience) are Sam (or Dean) and the show is Dean (or John) in this relationship? Huh.

 

I think we're maybe talking about different things?

 

I'm thinking of irreverence as:  taking the situation seriously, without taking yourself seriously. That definitely used to be the tone of many of the characters and of the show itself imo, but over the years, I think the show has kind of collapsed under the weight of its own seriousness. It seems like they're conscious of that, and try to bring in characters that really shouldn't take themselves seriously, like children (or "childlike" characters like Castiel, Garth, Charlie) -- yet even *those* characters (such as Claire) have become dour. Unfortunately, I think the show might be a lost cause as far as irreverence is concerned.

 

In terms of kid-logic, I don't think that's something that could be crushed out of someone (though I guess it can be coddled out of them), because at heart that's just resourcefulness imo. Resourcefulness + youthful ignorance, maybe. I think that was a big part of the show originally, too. It seemed to me that part of the premise was that the world was chaotic and unknowable (filled with monsters!), but the guys pulled together whatever they had to figure out what they could and make their way through. I thought that even how the Impala was just their family car, but kitted out with an armory in the trunk, was part of that "we'll figure it out!" ethos. It was as though Mary died, so everyone just piled into the family car and got going hunting monsters! But now that the Winchesters are these pedigreed Super Hunters who inherited a bunker full of McGuffins, that aspect of the show has really been lost imo. I personally really value resourcefulness and cleverness, but maybe that's something that lots of people don't miss? That's also part of the reason I personally don't like the ever-increasing elitism on the show, though -- because it takes away the need for inventiveness/cleverness/resourcefulness.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about running away or going to college?

 

To be honest, I don't think it's especially strange that John felt betrayed or felt that Sam "abandoned the family" when Sam left for college or when he ran off otherwise. YMMV.

 

Anyway, from the "abandoned" parent's perspective, I think it's the supposedly cold-blooded, irresponsible, asshole child who needs to make amends, because it's the *child* who failed the *parent.* From the parent's perspective, what would he need to make amends to his child for? The parent was doing what he'd always been doing, but the child just up and abandoned him -- like the parent was nothing or like the child didn't even care if the parent lived or died after all.

 

Personally, I'd expect John to be consumed with what he'd lost when Sam left and how Sam's absence had screwed him over, not with what Sam was up to or what Sam wanted. I would expect Sam to have some lumps to take for leaving. Not because he would deserve them really, but because I'd expect John to want to give them. YMMV.

Edited January 10, 2015 by rue721

[AwesomO4000]

I think we're maybe talking about different things?

 

I'm thinking of irreverence as:  taking the situation seriously, without taking yourself seriously. That definitely used to be the tone of many of the characters and of the show itself imo, but over the years, I think the show has kind of collapsed under the weight of its own seriousness. It seems like they're conscious of that, and try to bring in characters that really shouldn't take themselves seriously, like children (or "childlike" characters like Castiel, Garth, Charlie) -- yet even *those* characters (such as Claire) have become dour. Unfortunately, I think the show might be a lost cause as far as irreverence is concerned.

 

[snip}

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about running away or going to college?

 

I think we are talking about different things. I'm looking at irreverence from the side of its usual definition (as I understood it anyway).  [From Merriam-Webster] - Irreverence: "A lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously." And the show does sometimes show this, and depending on the character, seems to adopt such an attitude (or at least used to). For example Dean's irreverence to officials such as police and various very educated people seems to be similar in attitude to the show, since he is often shown as correct and has few long-lasting consequences from thumbing his nose at authority. Dean generally is shown to outsmart them and be smarter and in the right than such authority figures.

 

However with other, more general childhood forms of irreverence - such as Sam's rebelling against John and going away to college - the show seems to portray that as "abandoning the family" rather than positive in that the general attitude of the show seems to have been that that is what Sam did when he went to college. The "lessons" Sam learned - see "Afterschool Special" - are that he was wrong for going away to college, because pursuing his dreams didn't make him happy in the end, and his going to college was not the "grown up" thing to do, but that he should've stayed with his family and "accepted his responsibility" (i.e. his lesson seemed to be that taking off to go to college was selfish and irresponsible according to the narrative). It was similar with Sam running away from home: another childhood irreverent thing to do. But instead of Sam's memories of that from "Dark Side of the Moon" being portrayed as potentially fun and adventurous, they were portrayed as simply irresponsible and a betrayal. So in terms of Sam, the show did not reward irreverence and took a more John/Dean approach. Dean, on the other hand - who didn't show Sam's irreverence towards John and was loyal to his family - was the "good son" destined to be Michael's vessel. This is what I meant by the show not really having much light-hearted irreverence - at least when it comes to Sam anyway (which might be why he's sometimes so glum). In my opinion, the light-hearted irreverence has been drilled out of Sam by John, somewhat Dean, and all of the "lessons" he's learned, where any irreverence on his part resulted only in bad and/or disappointment (mostly) from his family. Dean lost it even earlier - at least towards John - and it instead comes out towards authority: which is one of those weird contradictions I didn't necessarily always buy with Dean... That he's so easily respectful of John and at the same time so flippant with authority figures. The one thing that saves it for me is that John is similarly dismissive of authority and so Dean likely picked it up from him.

 

In terms of kid-logic, I don't think that's something that could be crushed out of someone (though I guess it can be coddled out of them), because at heart that's just resourcefulness imo. Resourcefulness + youthful ignorance, maybe.

 

I see "kid logic" more as what Sam did when he ran away - trying to solve a problem without thinking too much past the immediate to all of the consequences down the road. And the show does sometimes reward this - again usually when it comes to Dean. Dean's going in guns blazing plans often tend to work, often over Sam's more potentially thought out plans, but that's not necessarily consistent either - which I guess makes sense, since such type of "plan" shouldn't work every time by the nature of what they are.

   

To be honest, I don't think it's especially strange that John felt betrayed or felt that Sam "abandoned the family" when Sam left for college or when he ran off otherwise. YMMV.

    Anyway, from the "abandoned" parent's perspective, I think it's the supposedly cold-blooded, irresponsible, asshole child who needs to make amends, because it's the *child* who failed the *parent.* From the parent's perspective, what would he need to make amends to his child for? The parent was doing what he'd always been doing, but the child just up and abandoned him -- like the parent was nothing or like the child didn't even care if the parent lived or died after all.

    Personally, I'd expect John to be consumed with what he'd lost when Sam left and how Sam's absence had screwed him over, not with what Sam was up to or what Sam wanted. I would expect Sam to have some lumps to take for leaving. Not because he would deserve them really, but because I'd expect John to want to give them. YMMV.

I agree that this was consistent on John's part. I didn't have any problem at all with that portrayal, and thought that based on what we knew of John it made complete sense. I guess what I found a little unusual was that the attitude of the show seems to agree with John in that it too generally seems to portray what Sam did as "abandoning the family" and seemed to punish Sam accordingly and make sure that he learned that valuable lesson. [rant warning] Part of the reason I hated the first half of season 8 so much is that even after Sam learned that lesson and had become okay and content with it, and I had accepted that that was just part of the show's philosophy and okay with it too (even though it's not necessarily my personal experience or philosophy), the show regressed Sam so he'd learn that lesson all over again (except more boringly and non-nonsensically). Aaaargh! I tolerated it the first time, but this just seemed like cruel and unusual punishment with a side of character assassination. I got it the first time show. Sam abandoning the family in any way = Bad! Please get over it already. Thank you. [/end rant warning]

 

 

I hope I was able to explain what I was trying to convey better this time.

[supposebly]

 

I guess what I found a little unusual was that the attitude of the show seems to agree with John in that it too generally seems to portray what Sam did as "abandoning the family" and seemed to punish Sam accordingly and make sure that he learned that valuable lesson.

 

It's funny, the show even seems to agree with YED who had Jess killed because she kept Sam out of the hunter life.

 

 

Personally, I'd expect John to be consumed with what he'd lost when Sam left and how Sam's absence had screwed him over, not with what Sam was up to or what Sam wanted.

 

I think that was one aspect. I think it's also how he hoped to get Sam back so he had him close in case a demon came after him. Of course, he couldn't just say that. That would be reasonable.

Edited January 10, 2015 by supposebly

[catrox14]

The rebelliousness was against 'The Man' so to speak. He was a trouble maker in that regard. Whether that was supposed to be a positive thing IMO is up for debate. The audience might have enjoyed the snarky, rebellious, irreverent Dean but I am not entirely convinced it was supposed to be considered "good" behavior. 

 

I really never thought that the sympathies were necessarily supposed to be with Dean and John about Sam's going off to college. I think they just showed it as a thing that happened that John and Dean both resented greatly and I thought it was left to the audience to decide whether it was good or bad. I think that scene in DSoM was so powerful towards Dean's viewpoint solely because of Jensen's performance because holy shit, his face when he realized it was Sam's good memory was just crushing. To me that was Jensen playing Dean as just being plainly HURT by Sam leaving, not that going to college was bad or wrong. To me it was all about Sam's independence vs Dean's dependence. 

[Aeryn13]

 

For example Dean's irreverence to officials such as police and various very educated people seems to be similar in attitude to the show, since he is often shown as correct and has few long-lasting consequences from thumbing his nose at authority. Dean generally is shown to outsmart them and be smarter and in the right than such authority figures.

 

I think it`s iffy, Dean gets a LOT of comments denigrating his intelligence and in 95 % of those scenes, the set-up is very clearly so that the audience is supposed to agree with those people and laugh AT Dean because see, he is Dumby McDumberson and didn`t have a higher education. 

 

His stance with authority figures is just a facet of the snarky badass trope. It`s most common in such character types and by sheer virtue of being the protagonist of a story vs. a one-bit-guest-character in a scene or two, the protagonist will most likely "win".

 

And I didn`t think they portrayed Sam`s independence and lack of deference to John in Season 1 as a bad thing. Rather the opposite, the vibe was clearly how Dean is pathetic for not being more like Sam and he should grow a backbone more like Sam. They did explain a bit why Dean acted the way he did but Sam was the one to be admired for standing up for himself.

 

That Stanford didn`t work out for him was a totally different thing narratively. The show hinges on hunting, in the early years even in a very transient lifestyle so of course hanging up your hat and living a peaceful civilian life couldn`t work out when the show started. Sam was the "reluctant hero" and they needed something to get him on the road, fridging a girlfriend/wife character is a common trope to do it. Hence, it happened twice in the Pilot.

 

He also had a big honking supernatural destiny and was a Chosen One. They can never just hang their cape up as long as their story goes on, no matter how hard or how many times they try or how they wish it. This is a staple of pretty much every superhero story ever. It is to be seen as tragic mostly. But since the great big quest for normalcy being a futile one in stories like this, there will always be the undercurrent of "you can`t escape your destiny, that is not who you are and if you try to be, bad things happen". That is hardly only happening with Sam so I can`t agree that it portrays going away to College in itself as a bad thing.

 

Ironically, Dean was the one who got the "why are you whining about your life with the hell and everything, other people have it much harder in normal lifes" speech twice. One by Zachariah in the alternate universe and one at the convention episode. And both times it was presented as if the audience was to agree with it somewhat. Like yeah, I`d love to have an adventurous life, too, like in books or movies but I`m not so much of an idiot that I would ACTUALLY want it like this. I read/see the bad parts and they outweigh the good by far. It`s great for watching from the outside but not living in it.  

[rue721]

However with other, more general childhood forms of irreverence - such as Sam's rebelling against John and going away to college - the show seems to portray that as "abandoning the family" rather than positive in that the general attitude of the show seems to have been that that is what Sam did when he went to college.

 

That's where I disagree -- that wasn't irreverent, imo. I don't think that Sam was leaving to be cheeky or to poke fun or to make light or anything like that. I don't think Sam was making those decisions lightly or playing around. Or, he maybe took the decision to run away lightly, who knows, but his decision to go to college seemed like something he built up to and took very seriously.

I don't even think it was actual rebelliousness that made Sam leave, either. I think it was basically just:  Sam wanted to leave, so he got his shit together to leave, and he left. Whether or not John or Dean wanted him to go was irrelevant, imo, and not really even on Sam's radar -- he'd decided to go, so he was going. (This is why the Trials never made sense to me. At the last possible second, Sam is like, "pfffffft never mind"? And then is like, "pffffft I'll just die"? Sam's a fighter, so that seemed really out of character to me).

 

Dean was mistaken for taking it personally that he wasn't on Sam's radar in terms of Sam deciding to run off or leave for college though, imo. I think that Sam genuinely loves him and it wasn't that Sam didn't care, he just tends to take a blinkered view when he's got a goal in mind. He had that same blinkered view again when he drank demon blood for powers and he had that blinkered view when he dragged Dean to that "immortal" killer zombie guy thinking that it would be a way to keep Dean from dying. Obviously, Mystery Spot is a good example of it. I think that's even why he ran off in Hunted -- once he's decided to do something, Sam will generally do it, come hell or highwater, and I don't think he's even conscious of the sacrifices *he's* making when he's got his eyes on the prize like that, let alone the hypothetical future sacrifices other people might make for it. That's just how Sam thinks/his personality, imo, and while I understand why that would be worrisome or aggravating to Dean, why it would shock or hurt him that Sam was like that about going to college, I don't know.

 

In my opinion, the light-hearted irreverence has been drilled out of Sam by John, somewhat Dean, and all of the "lessons" he's learned, where any irreverence on his part resulted only in bad and/or disappointment (mostly) from his family. Dean lost it even earlier - at least towards John - and it instead comes out towards authority: which is one of those weird contradictions I didn't necessarily always buy with Dean... That he's so easily respectful of John and at the same time so flippant with authority figures.

 

What I think the world of the show constantly punishes Sam for (inexplicably and maddeningly imo) is having agency. If Sam makes a major decision for himself (i.e., is given agency), you can bet that his decision is going to be revealed as a horrific mistake. Why the show insists on teaching Sam again and again that he should let others make decisions for him or that he can't make a decision on his own without it becoming a catastrophe, I don't know. I also hate it because imo a character is revealed in the decisions he makes, so having Sam go for long stretches not making any and having the ones he does make go almost universally terribly for reasons that aren't even under Sam's control or in ways Sam couldn't be expected to foresee (meaning, they don't just feel like "natural consequences" to the decision, at least not to me), makes it pretty hard to connect with him imo.

 

This season, even though Sam's not taking much action and it's since hard to know what he's thinking, imo, his wheels do seem like they're turning and he seems like he's trying to make a long/difficult decision for himself (esp. about Dean and the MoC) -- that's done a lot to endear him to me. That's also all coming from Jared's performance, I think. Dunno if he got a new acting coach or what, but he's really nailing it this season for whatever reason and I love that.

 

Anyway, I think that rebelliousness and irreverence are fundamentally different, and that (over the course of the show) Dean was never rebellious (disobeying just to disobey) but used to be irreverent (didn't take himself seriously, cheeky). That's not to say that Dean has never been disobedient, he has (there was that whole Free Will thing, lol), but he seems to see a decision as to whether to be obedient or not as a genuine dilemma.

 

(I actually think that Crowley is interesting as far as obedience is concerned. He's so finicky about rules and order and keeping his own word, as though Hell could ever be orderly, and he's so dorky and proud about being "King of Hell," as though demons could ever be legitimate "subjects." It's like he's got this (very old-fashioned) ideal of A Respectable Gentleman in mind and now that he's "made it," is legitimately trying to act like that ideal. He's obedient to this old ideal that doesn't even exist anymore and is trying to perform it for -- whom, exactly? Himself? The only thing that I genuinely like about Crowley (as distinct from Mark Sheppard, who I think is great) is that he's a self-made demon. He's not even a self-made man, sounds like, he made all his headway once he was already dead. For some reason, I find that endearing and oddly optimistic).

 

Over the course of the show, I don't think that Sam was ever either irreverent or rebellious, particularly. It actually is kind of funny to me to think of Sam being cheeky -- he never has been, as a general rule, I don't think? Sometimes he's sarcastic or makes jokes, but he usually plays the "straight man" to Dean. (I love when they write funny stuff for Sam, though, imo Jared has good timing and can pull off comedy well, but for whatever reason they really don't write much of that for Sam on the show). As far as rebelliousness goes, Sam disobeys not because he *wants* to disobey, imo, but because he's going to do something whether it means he's disobeying somebody or not. I think he's fundamentally indifferent to whether something is "disobedient" or "obedient," tbh. (Save for Dean -- Sam will defer to him and do what he wants/says just because Dean wants/says it, i.e., out of obedience, even if Sam himself thinks it's a bad idea. That's just him *really* trusting Dean imo).

 

The rebelliousness was against 'The Man' so to speak. He was a trouble maker in that regard. Whether that was supposed to be a positive thing IMO is up for debate. The audience might have enjoyed the snarky, rebellious, irreverent Dean but I am not entirely convinced it was supposed to be considered "good" behavior. 

 

Dean just used to be a smart ass, I think. (I miss it!). Him being a smart ass but also ready to go into obedience mode doesn't seem incongruent to me, because of who Dean's spent all his time with:  his little brother, a bunch of drunk people (at bars), or, back in the day, his Mr. Difficult Personality father. How could he not have just running jokes with himself and a mouth on him***? Got to stay sane somehow. 

 

Ime, it's actually normal for someone to behave that way if he's habitually around people who need *a lot* of patience. Like, if you have to habitually care for someone who's impaired and/or can't be reasoned with (off-hand example:  someone who has dementia), etc. I think that, on the one hand, you've got to keep things light (at least in your own head) because otherwise you will go insane, but on the other hand, you've got to be alert and have your eyes open, because you're trying to protect someone who's legitimately very vulnerable. Not to say that's the case for Dean specifically -- unless something particular was going on with John, that probably doesn't make sense in his case -- but just to say, ime it's not actually an unusual way to act. It's another version of gallows humor, imo. I do think that it's basically gallows humor for Dean, too.

 

I don't think the show really makes a judgement about it. The thing that tended to crack me up, personally, was how much it exasperated Sam. For the most part, I think everyone else just ignores Dean when he runs off at the mouth. But Sam had to hear that stuff ALL THE TIME and FOREVER, so it seems like it would be Chinese Water Torture for him. Which is what makes me laugh about his exasperation with it.

 

***The reason I think he's not mouthy toward his loved ones is because he's not actually a complete jerk and knows to keep it shut in order to be respectful. Or to keep from confusing them or pissing them off, if they can't take a joke (*cough* John *cough*).

[AwesomO4000]

I think it`s iffy, Dean gets a LOT of comments denigrating his intelligence and in 95 % of those scenes, the set-up is very clearly so that the audience is supposed to agree with those people and laugh AT Dean because see, he is Dumby McDumberson and didn`t have a higher education. 

 

His stance with authority figures is just a facet of the snarky badass trope. It`s most common in such character types and by sheer virtue of being the protagonist of a story vs. a one-bit-guest-character in a scene or two, the protagonist will most likely "win".

 

I don't necessarily agree, but mostly because Supernatural is a different kind of show. Sam is considered one of the protagonists, but he often doesn't "win" even sometimes against a one-or-two-off-guest-character. Maybe the biggest example there would likely be Jake. Sam did eventually kill Jake, but that was actually more a defeat than a win, because Jake had already killed Sam and gotten the story to go where it was needed from that - Dean making the deal. Similarly in the face of some guest characters, Sam sometimes ends up as the damsel in distress while the guest character saves the day - Krissy, Henry, Charlie, Jodi, etc. This happens to Dean also sometimes, but not as often, in my opinion. My point being that being the protagonist doesn't necessarily mean that you'll "win" on this show, even when a one-off or seldom seen character is involved. But usually when Dean is seen mocking a police or authority figure in the earlier seasons, he's shown to be right and either saves that character, or solves the case - with the most obvious example being his cat and-mouse game and insult-fest with Henricksen.

 

And I didn`t think they portrayed Sam`s independence and lack of deference to John in Season 1 as a bad thing. Rather the opposite, the vibe was clearly how Dean is pathetic for not being more like Sam and he should grow a backbone more like Sam. They did explain a bit why Dean acted the way he did but Sam was the one to be admired for standing up for himself.

I agree that that was the way it seemed in the first season, but this didn't, in my opinion, continue on into the seasons afterwards. Those seasons seemed to give the opposite message from what I could see.

 

That Stanford didn`t work out for him was a totally different thing narratively. The show hinges on hunting, in the early years even in a very transient lifestyle so of course hanging up your hat and living a peaceful civilian life couldn`t work out when the show started. Sam was the "reluctant hero" and they needed something to get him on the road, fridging a girlfriend/wife character is a common trope to do it. Hence, it happened twice in the Pilot.

 

He also had a big honking supernatural destiny and was a Chosen One. They can never just hang their cape up as long as their story goes on, no matter how hard or how many times they try or how they wish it. This is a staple of pretty much every superhero story ever. It is to be seen as tragic mostly. But since the great big quest for normalcy being a futile one in stories like this, there will always be the undercurrent of "you can`t escape your destiny, that is not who you are and if you try to be, bad things happen". That is hardly only happening with Sam so I can`t agree that it portrays going away to College in itself as a bad thing.

 

I might likely would have agreed with you if not for "Afterschool Special" where the message seemed to be that not only was Sam's quest to go to college futile and caused bad things to happen, but it was also somewhat selfish and "immature" since Sam concluded from it that being responsible and growing up meant that he should've taken responsibility and stayed with his family, thus doing a complete 180 on his stance concerning John. And when we saw Dean somewhat disagree and change his mind on that, maybe thinking that Sam had originally maybe been right....

Ironically, Dean was the one who got the "why are you whining about your life with the hell and everything, other people have it much harder in normal lifes" speech twice. One by Zachariah in the alternate universe and one at the convention episode. And both times it was presented as if the audience was to agree with it somewhat.

... This happened, because Dean too had to learn that he had been right before, and that being loyal to the family and cause was the most important thing. And apparently even when Sam had learned that and was good with it (through much of season 5-7), that wasn't enough, so then the first half of season 8 happened, so they could "teach" Sam again a lesson he'd already learned and accepted for practically 3 seasons already.

 

My main point here is that in the show, this seems to be the message so far, and because going to college for Sam was against what the family wanted, it was in a way "bad" since it turned out to be basically useless, caused bad things to happen, and didn't even make Sam happy. I just have a hard time seeing how that's saying that Sam going to college was a "good" thing or something to be admired. Generally I would think if that were the case, either something positive would happen from it or the character would get some kind of recognition from it. Dean did say one good thing once in season 1, but that was later contradicted and that pretty much became the other characters' and the show's stance that I could see. Usually when Sam and college was brought up he was being mocked for it or told that he had abandoned the family to do it, and we've never really seen Sam use much of anything he learned in college to really do anything positive with it narratively in the story. I can see where others might disagree, and it didn't even really bother me too much, because I've accepted that is the way the show seems to see it and Sam seemed to be happier that way - until they had to repeat the lesson in season 8 and regress and damage Sam's character to do so. That annoyed me greatly.

 

That's where I disagree -- that wasn't irreverent, imo. I don't think that Sam was leaving to be cheeky or to poke fun or to make light or anything like that. I don't think Sam was making those decisions lightly or playing around. Or, he maybe took the decision to run away lightly, who knows, but his decision to go to college seemed like something he built up to and took very seriously.

 

I agree that Sam took it seriously. I was thinking of it more literally as Sam not respecting John's authority and John's "wisdom" of not leaving the safety of the family and going off to do something so frivolous - and ultimately dangerous - as going to college. And the attitude of the show seems to be that in Sam's case, John was right and only bad things came out of Sam disobeying him and running off to college.

 

I do agree with you that Dean shouldn't have taken Sam leaving so personally - though again I'm not sure that the show agrees there, since the sympathy generally seems to be with Dean in that case.

[Aeryn13]

 

Sam is considered one of the protagonists, but he often doesn't "win" even sometimes against a one-or-two-off-guest-character.

I was talking stuff like Dean mocking the local Sheriff or something in one scene or something and never experiencing consequences for it really. That kind of "win". Larger guest character thwart them both on occassion. But if Sam is to roll his eyes at people - because that is what he does when their back is turned and they annoy him whereas Dean is more verbal to their faces - gets exactly the same kind of "win".

 

For me that is not remotely comparable to what happened with Jake. With Jake, the point of the story wasn`t disrespect and authority but that one guy eventually crumbling under the YED`s pressure and it worked out badly for everybody involved.    

 

 

But usually when Dean is seen mocking a police or authority figure in the earlier seasons, he's shown to be right and either saves that character, or solves the case - with the most obvious example being his cat and-mouse game and insult-fest with Henricksen.

 

If Hendrickson had focused on Sam for being a suspect in Jess`death for example and then subsequent happenings, it would have had the exact same outcome IMO. The audience knew more than Hendrickson did, they knew the brothers were right, monsters did exist and they weren`t just crazy axe murderers. As such, Hendrickson ultimately had to "lose". It wasn`t that his opponent was Dean, it was that the narrative could not go any other way.

 

 

My main point here is that in the show, this seems to be the message so far, and because going to college for Sam was against what the family wanted, it was in a way "bad" since it turned out to be basically useless, caused bad things to happen, and didn't even make Sam happy. I just have a hard time seeing how that's saying that Sam going to college was a "good" thing or something to be admired. Generally I would think if that were the case, either something positive would happen from it or the character would get some kind of recognition from it.

 

That never really happens, though, in any of the stories I can think of where you have the reluctant hero who is either a veteran who retired from the fight or the newbie who has just gotten started. They go back to normal for a bit and nothing good comes from it, mostly the family is being killed, the house burned down and so on. Even in old Western movies it was a big trope. The characters also get no recognition for it or appreciation or anything, at best an "oh, that`s tragic that it didn`t work out but what did you expect really?" 

 

I don`t think the point of all of these hundreds of stories of the ilk is that going off and doing your thing was or is bad. At least I`ve never seen them this way. Supernatural is a dime a dozen with using the same tropes so I see them exactly the same way.  

[mertensia]

You know, Sam made all his college plans then told them "I'm leaving for Stanford tomorrow". This secrecy had to hurt Dean- the person who had such a big hand in helping raise Sam- deeply. He gave up his childhood for a brother who said "I'm gone for good as of now" and left then two years later said "don't contact me any more, Dean". It would hurt almost anyone capable of feelings. [As an aside I have always wondered if John blasted Dean for Sam's leaving as John often seemed to do that sort of thing.]

But Dean is someone who learned early on that his wants, dreams and desires were in about 4th place in the family; John and Sam warred and forgot/ignored/dismissed Dean in a way similar to middle child syndrome. It's why Sam is surprised when he finds out something about Dean; Dean learned early on that no one wanted to hear.

[DittyDotDot]

We don't know that Sam made a bunch of secret plans and/or that he didn't inform Dean of his plans. All the show has ever given us about that night is that John and Sam had a huge fight and John told him not to come back. I've never seen anything on-screen that said Sam told Dean to never contact him--I always thought that was born out of John's ultimatum and everyone involved was too stubborn to be the first to break the silence--Dean included--until John went missing.  I'm sure Dean was hurt when Sam walked away, but that's what happens when kids grow up and start living their own lives--that's what Dean's sacrifice was for--so I think Dean was probably equally proud of Sam also. Dean actually kinda says that in Scarecrow.

 

I think they both keep learning things about each other and they both are surprised when it happens. Dean was surprised to learn about Amy; that Sam prayed everyday and that Sam always thought of himself as "unclean". Just as Sam was surprised to learn about Sonny; the striga; and Dean had a fear of flying. Dean's wants and desired were no more dismissed than Sam's, IMO, it's just that Sam acted on his wants and desires where Dean didn't. They both had the same opportunities to walk away and live their own lives, Dean just chose differently than Sam--no one chose it for him, IMO.

[mertensia]

Dean said in the pilot that he had followed Sam's request and not contacted him for two years.

I can't see Sam telling Dean ahead of time after the comments in Dark Side of the Moon.

I do think Dean learned early on that neither John nor Sam wanted to hear about Dean except for what they wanted to hear.

[DittyDotDot]

From the Pilot:

 

Sam: I was just going to college. It was Dad who said if I was gonna go, I should stay gone. And that's what I'm doing.

And

DEAN: You know, in almost two years I've never bothered you, never asked you for a thing.

 

Dean never says that it was Sam's request there be no contact. To me, the dialogue suggests that it was stubbornness on all parties as to why they had no contact.  Bugs also reinforces that to me. Dark Side Of The Moon doesn't suggest to me Sam was sneaking around making secret plans, it sounds to me like Sam was trying to openly go to college and John wouldn't let it happen. If he was trying to be secretive, why tell John in the first place? I'm still not sure if the night Sam left was even when he planned to leave. I guess I never assumed he had any elaborate plans, but approached John about getting into college and it all blew up, so Sam packed his bags. Who knows, they've never really shown how things went down that night? What Dark Side Of The Moon says to me is that Sam made a decision about Sam and didn't consider how that decision affected Dean and Dean had never realized that before. That was the whole point of the episode to me--Sam needed to see that the choices he makes does affect Dean and Dean needed to see that Sam's choices weren't about Dean.

 

However, my point more was that I don't hold it against Sam for leaving for college just because it may have hurt Dean's feelings. If Dean sacrificed his childhood to raise Sam (which I'm of the opinion that he didn't give up his childhood anymore than Sam did), then wasn't Sam growing up and living a life what Dean's "sacrifice" was all about? Or was Sam supposed to stuff all his wants and desires down simply because that's what Dean did?

 

I have a hard time putting Dean's self esteem problems on Sam's shoulders since Dean had many of these issues before Sam was old enough to be factor, IMO. I do think it's been shown that Dean doesn't think what he wants is important, but that doesn't mean that's actually the way it is and I'm not sure it's been shown that Sam doesn't care what Dean wants. Unfortunately what Dean wants most of the time are about how he wants Sam to live his life and I think Sam has every right to choose to live it his own way. I agree that John never considered Dean's wants, but then he didn't give a damn about Sam's wants either--hence all the fighting--the difference is that Sam didn't bend to John's will like Dean did. I don't see how that's Sam's fault, though.

[Aeryn13]

 

They both had the same opportunities to walk away and live their own lives, Dean just chose differently than Sam--no one chose it for him, IMO.

 

Growing up, I think Dean had to be the balance between John and Sam because a dynamic of THREE squeaky wheels doesn`t work. It will implode. If Dean had had the same rebellious attitude towards John, something drastic would have happened. I think that is something Dean intuitively understood and since neither John nor Sam later on were willing or capable to be the middleman, he was the one who did it.

 

As someone who played that role in my family to a certain degree, I admittedly emphasize with that. And your "thanks" for that is mostly "how can you take THEIR side and not mine? Waaah.", not for actually taking a side but trying to broker peace, more or less, and to bring each side to an understanding. My internal monologue was very often something like "because I`m the only person with a shred of maturity here, you numbbskulls".  So I always have a problem with the implication that this is somehow pathetic and weak and bending to another`s will.   

 

Also, Dean leaving at 18 would have meant leaving a 14year old Sam alone with John. Not quite the same situation as Sam when he turned 18.

 

Now, sure, Dean could have left then also but he believed in hunting and the family mission at this point and it was no less a valid choice to keep doing that than to go off to College IMO. I don`t think it made him pathetic or whatnot like Sam thought.

 

 

I do think it's been shown that Dean doesn't think what he wants is important, but that doesn't mean that's actually the way it is

 

After numerous "boohoo, suck it up" speeches, that is IMO exactly the show`s message. Just like Dean thinks he is an unimportant grunt and only good to be Sam`s nurse/guardian/sidekick/cape-holder. On the one hand they play it as the character just having to get over such an obviously ridiculous notion and that it is his own fault to have such silly issues but on the other hand then the narrative and makes him exactly a grunt/sidekick/nurse and only good to revolve around Sam. It`s one of the most assiest, hypocritical things in the show.

 

The characters sees himself as the writers see him but gets criticized for it. Yeah, right.      

Edited January 11, 2015 by Aeryn13

[mertensia]

I don't put Sam's leaving- which frankly was the healthy choice for Sam to make (for one thing I can't imagine adult Sam and John could have worked together for more than a day or two without a huge blow-up)- as something he shouldn't have done for Dean's mental health. Dean's mental health isn't on him. But he could have reached out to Dean in those years even just to make sure they're still alive. We know he didn't. John may have told him if he's going stay gone but Dean didn't.

I have to say that I did misremember dialogue but I can't believe Dean would just stop calling without Sam's telling him to stop. Dean is- has been- the family peacemaker. The one for whom family means something. He had a (really unhealthy) wish that after the YED was dead they could all hunt together. That's someone who's going to keep in touch unless he's told no.

[DittyDotDot]

 So I always have a problem with the implication that this is somehow pathetic and weak and bending to another`s will.   

 

I didn't realize I was saying it was weak or pathetic--I think those would be your words, not mine. Bending to John's will--those are mine--but I don't see that as weak or pathetic. Dean made a choice as to what he wanted and stuck with his decision even if it meant he would have to bend to what John wanted most of the time to make it work. That makes him strong in my mind. My entire point was that I don't feel like Dean's wishes were disregarded anymore than Sam's were, its just that Dean accepted the hand that he was dealt and Sam didn't. Doesn't make one right and one wrong, just different, in my mind.

[catrox14]

I think Sam's college time is a big bone of continuity contention and it makes it hard to figure when the boys stopped talking but my head canon is as follows:

It was said in the pilot that Sam had an interview about law school on the Monday after the weekend in which he decides to help Dean find John. It seems to me that Sam would be applying to law school months ahead of actually going to law school, which implies that he is in his 3rd year AT LEAST but probably the fourth year unless Sam was Advanced Placement in college. So IMO Sam was in college for at least two years during the time they didn't speak.

So if we think it's his 3rd or 4th year and Dean said "You know, in almost two years I've never bothered you, never asked you for a thing.", MO Dean saying he hasn't bothered him implies that at some point Dean was calling and it was becoming bothersome to Sam.

I believe that Dean would have not called Sam right away after Sam left in the middle of the road in the middle of the night because Dean was hurt by Sam's rejection. I don't believe Dean really truly thought Sam shouldn't go to school but I think it was the way Sam left that was so hurtful to Dean. I don't believe that Dean would have been so upset as to not call him for two years. I could see him not calling for like a month but that would be about it. Sammy was his life. Sam was his pseudo-son. That kind of sudden extended separation is not something Dean could tolerate because he's too attached to Sam.

IMO, being in college with so many things pulling at Sam's time not to mention John's ultimatum to Sam, I think Sam would have been the one that eventually put the distance for his own sake to stay on his own course in college. I don't think he would have outright told Dean to stop calling but I think he would have just not returned Dean's calls or when they did talk IMO Sam would have said 'I can't deal with the "the family business" stuff.

I can also believe that Dean's feeling that Sam abandoned him and Sam not possibly having the time to really talk to Dean might eventually lead Dean to make the decision to not bother Sam anymore not out of spite but possibly out of frustration or just the realization that Sam really was not in that part of their life anymore.

I don't think Sam was doing the calling either because he would not want to open the can of worms. I think that whenever Dean was calling Sam, he did it without John knowing because John probably made Dean feel like he shouldn't call Sam. But I don't believe for one minute that Dean would have been able to just stop talking to Sam for two years cold turkey, no matter what John thought about it. I think Sam also didn't tell Dean of his plans because if Dean knew ahead of time that Sam was planning to go to school, IMO he would have been torn between telling John and letting Sam do his thing and I don't think Sam wanted to put Dean in that position or have to deal with Dean possibly trying to talk him out of going to college for Dean's own selfish reasons of needing Sam in his life.

Like I said that is my head canon.

Edited January 11, 2015 by catrox14

[DittyDotDot]

I think Sam's college time is a big bone of continuity contention and it makes it hard to figure when the boys stopped talking but my head canon is as follows:

 

It was a mistake, Kripke has admitted it in many interviews--it should've been four years. There were many rewrites of the Pilot and this was something that slipped through undetected. To me, the length of time--2 years or 4 years--is actually immaterial. I think they all had their own hurt feelings and none of them could overcome them until John went missing.

 

If Dean hadn't been present, I wonder if Sam would've tried calling John after Jessica's death, knowing it was like how his mother died and his dreams? Or if John would've reached out to Sam considering that John had been tracking YED and knew he had been in town? I wonder if Dean would've even known about Jessica if he hadn't been there--would John have bothered to inform Dean and/or would've Sam tried to reach out to Dean? Actually, this could make for an interesting altered timeline episode--one choice made different with Dean deciding to look for John himself and what else would've been altered?

[catrox14]

It was a mistake, Kripke has admitted it in many interviews--it should've been four years. There were many rewrites of the Pilot and this was something that slipped through undetected. To me, the length of time--2 years or 4 years--is actually immaterial. I think they all had their own hurt feelings and none of them could overcome them until John went missing.

The timeline of Sam's college time is important even with Kripke's admission that it was a mistake because of the impact on characterization of the boys and John as the show progressed and was was a mistake that should have been addressed textually once they got to Dark Side of the Moon since the show went back to that event and made it even more important in the narrative. How Sam left for school, how Dean reacted to it, how Dean reacted to Sam's memory of that night especially with learning over 5 seasons how much of a psuedo-father Dean had been for Sam.

 

To me whether Sam was in college two years or four years is important to the boys characterizations and motivations for not talking to each other and why Sam would have decided to rejoin the family business after working so hard to fulfill that dream and risk alienating his family to do so.

[DittyDotDot]

I guess it just doesn't change much for me--whether they were stubborn for 2 or 4 years really doesn't change my opinion of the situation nor does it change motivations for me. They were still epically stubborn--all of them--IMO.

 

I think Dean and Sam didn't talk because they were both hurt. Dean felt abandoned after all his years of taking care of Sam and Sam probably felt that Dean was taking John's side since Dean chose to stay. I imagine both Sam and Dean got over some of their hurts rather quickly--probably Dean sooner than Sam--but stuck by the no contact behavior that had already been established until Dean found a reason to reach out to Sam. Whether it took 2 years or 4 doesn't really change much to me, but I'm kinda weird, so I probably don't have the right angle on it.

[AwesomO4000]

After numerous "boohoo, suck it up" speeches, that is IMO exactly the show`s message. Just like Dean thinks he is an unimportant grunt and only good to be Sam`s nurse/guardian/sidekick/cape-holder. On the one hand they play it as the character just having to get over such an obviously ridiculous notion and that it is his own fault to have such silly issues but on the other hand then the narrative and makes him exactly a grunt/sidekick/nurse and only good to revolve around Sam. It`s one of the most assiest, hypocritical things in the show.

 

In my opinion, some of those "boo hoo princess" speeches you mention fall right into that "you have to give up your dream/wants/whatever to do the hero thing" trope you were talking about above where you said that there isn't generally any acknowledgement or sympathy rather than accept your role as sidkick speeches. Frank's speech in season 7, for example, would fall into that category for me, since Dean was the one who had to pull it together to kill Dick Roman. Neither Cas nor Sam were in any sort of mental condition to take the initiative on that, so Dean was the one to get the reluctant hero "boo hoo" speech. In addition, he also helped to save Sam and got Cas to pull his shit together and help. And then Dean killed Dick Roman and got the sacrificial hero "death." I also didn't see any grunt, sidekick, or nurse role or message from the killing of Azazel either.

 

I actually don't much see the message that Dean has to be only a grunt, sidekick, or nurse within the narrative. There are some times when he is, but there are just as many times - or more -  when he isn't. Now if during the times when Dean isn't the one supporting, but is actually the one making the decisions, and he were to fail, then I might agree with you. But that hardly ever happens. When Dean takes the initiative and makes the big decisions on his own - often with Sam being the one on the sidelines watching - Dean usually gets the win and kills the bad guy or gal: a lot. To me this would seem to entirely contradict the show supposedly trying to teach Dean to take his place as the sidekick, since when he doesn't, he's rewarded for it with a win.

 

Sometimes when Dean tries to be too supportive or a guardian it even backfires on him - when he tried to support Cas in season 6 and when he made the deal to save Sam, for example. And season 4 where he tried to support Sam for a while concerning Ruby (Heaven and Hell) and it mostly just resulted in Ruby digging her claws in further. Arguably season 8 also where Dean's support of both Sam and Castiel lead to them failing. (See also below). In my opinion, if the show's message was that Dean was supposed to be the sidekick, then Sam would actually get a "win" more often when Dean is. Usually when Sam tries to take the initiative and be the "hero" though - he fails. A Lot. The end of season 1, the end of season 2 (where Dean had to save Sam's ass and be the actual co-hero), the end of season 4, the end of season 8. (I would include the end of season 9 there too, since Sam failed, but his role in that season pretty much seemed to be either as a non-entity or a hindrance.)  In season 8 when Dean was the sidekick, Sam still "failed" in a sense and Dean had to save his ass - so if anything, to me, the message would be that Dean shouldn't be a sidekick, because Sam's - and Castiel's - track records in those instances where they take the hero role are generally awful. Sam and Cas basically each have one "win."

 

So from what I've seen narratively in the show, I'm thinking that the show is supporting that Dean shouldn't be a sidekick all that much, because with a very few exceptions, he's the main one in the lead who actually succeeds in doing anything helpful. Of course, miles vary, but I just don't see all that much narrative support for Sam the victorious hero and Dean his sidekick. There was the one instance where Dean somewhat supported - I actually think he had a bigger role than that - and Sam was the "hero." Granted it was an important one, but one instance does not indicate a trend to me. When something only works positively maybe one time in 10 seasons, and there are just as many times or more when it doesn't, that doesn't seem like much of an endorsement to me.

 

Edited to add: This should not be taken in any way as me complaining about Sam not having enough "wins" on the show. I didn't mind Sam's story or role in the show, and actually prefer his supportive story now to the ones he had in season 8 and much of 9. My main point was to show that I didn't think that the plot of the story supports that Dean should soley be a sidekick. I think more often than not, Sam and Dean work best when they work as a team, equally with the same goal - even when they aren't even necessarily in the same location.

Edited January 11, 2015 by AwesomO4000

[rue721]

I don't think Sam would have needed to keep his plans about going to college a secret, because I'm sure John would have been assuming they weren't going to happen and were just dreams/fantasies in the first place. He'd decided when Sam was six months old that he'd raise him to be a hunter, and his older son had already fallen into line with his plans, so I doubt that he really thought he'd lose Sam that way. So when Sam was actually getting his stuff together to go and it was really happening, it was a reality and John had to face it:  blow up. But instead of giving in to the blow up, Sam left. (Because Sam is a badass! But that's also why I think that his family would see him as cold-hearted -- because he could leave even in the midst of John freaking out and demanding he stay).

 

Dean wouldn't have made the same assumptions as John did, I don't think, and would have known that the college idea wasn't just a fantasy, but I don't think he realized that Sam going to college meant an estrangement. I think he probably saw it through rose-colored glasses, like that they'd be able to go visit him, etc. I also don't think that Dean was ever especially upset about Sam going to college or not hunting, I think that Dean was upset about Sam -- in his eyes -- estranging himself from the family. I think Dean had assumed all his life that he and Sam were in it together, they'd lighten the load for each other, but then Sam ditched him and John completely, and he felt left holding the bag. Maybe he felt like a chump, even.

 

I don't think that Sam had to have made some pronouncement in order for Dean to stop calling him. Dean was probably going to do the passive-aggressive thing of waiting for Sam to call, seeing how long that would take as a way of seeing how much Sam cared about him -- but Sam didn't necessarily call, I would guess because he saw John and Dean as somewhat of a package deal, and figured that if John said Sam was out of the family, he was out of the *family.* And I'm sure that if they did speak during the first couple years Sam was away, it wouldn't have gone well (I took the line, "haven't bothered you for almost two years," to mean that their communication had dwindled away, that they hadn't had a big blowout between each other and were "officially" estranged, too -- but I didn't know Kripke has since said that line was a mistake).

 

I know a guy irl who's been estranged from his father for years, but is extremely close to his mom and talks to her every day -- and his parents are happily married! So it's possible to be estranged from one person in a close family like that and not the other. But I have to say that when I was sorta/kinda estranged from my parents (who are also married), I wasn't keeping in close contact with the one I was "less" estranged from. Because if you do get talk to the one you're "less" estranged from, it's almost certainly going to be about the one you're more estranged from! And about how the "more" estranged one is having so much trouble and how are you going to fix it! Or maybe if you try to change the subject to smalltalk about yourself, you can start talking, inadvertently, about how much better your life is now that you've left (just by way of the implied comparison/contrast between your new life and the lives of the people left behind). That's probably not going to go well, either.

 

I just imagine Sam and Dean trying to talk and it being all about how John is a wreck and too much for Dean to handle, but obviously Sam can't help -- and to Dean, imo, Sam not being there for him and helping would feel like being left holding the bag again, and to Sam hearing that Dean complain (even implicitly) about life now that he's gone and how he needs help would feel like Dean doesn't want to talk to him unless he's willing to quit his life (at college). Or maybe they could've talked about school and Sam's life there, but obviously Sam wasn't going to want to respond to worries/complaints from Dean with, "MY LIFE IS WONDERFUL! (at least in comparison to what it used to be or yours now!)" and it probably would have been pretty easy for virtually any information about Sam's life at school to make Dean actually much more bitter and resentful (in a "wow, nice to have such problems!"/contrast/comparison kind of way -- either between Sam's new life and his old one, or between Sam's new life and Dean's). So I guess I think the estrangement is likely self-reinforcing at that point, the split is already too entrenched.

 

Plus, did Dean even have any phone number for Sam once he left? If Sam just picked up a burner once he got to school, there wouldn't be a way for Dean to track that number down without just going to Sam himself. Though that seems a little...banal as a big head!canon explanation :P. And I guess he could have written a letter or sent an email.

Edited January 11, 2015 by rue721

[SueB]

 

They were still epically stubborn--all of them--IMO.

Truth.

 

And really, for me personally, it doesn't matter who shot JR on this one.  Communication was broken and nobody picked up a phone for a while.  Sam seemed content with living that way when Dean showed up.  Dean seemed to feel he had to give Sam space but I also think Dean broke the family tradition by calling Sam after the big blow-up in "When the Levee Breaks".  Personally the "Boo Hoo Princess speech didn't bother me".  I'm a big believer that you stick by family, even if they piss you off.  That's not the same thing as being a doormat in my book.  It means you figure out a way to not let temper run your life.  If after you've calmed down, you figure out what needs to be done rationally, then don't let pride get in the way.  Sort it out.  Dean showed a shit-ton more maturity than John EVER had when he made that call to Sam.  He was still pissed, and said so, but he's not cutting someone out of his life and he offered a rapprochement.  I find that the mature way to handle things.  For me, who is the biggest asshole in a fight is irrelevant if you want to keep the relationship.  And I don't believe in quitting on family.  (I'm not talking about a case where say one member is physically abusive or actually dangerous to the other person...I'm talking about the normal family melodrama). 

Edited January 11, 2015 by SueB

[rue721]

I'm a big believer that you stick by family, even if they piss you off.  That's not the same thing as being a doormat in my book.  It means you figure out a way to not let temper run your life.  If after you've calmed down, you figure out what needs to be done rationally, then don't let pride get in the way.  Sort it out.

 

Although I more-or-less agree with the sentiment, it also really touches a nerve.  I don't think that if a person is unable to meet the demands that family is making of him it's necessarily because he's being irrational or prideful, or that the problem can necessarily be sorted out rationally. He might be trying to have a relationship with someone who *can't* be reasoned with.

 

The only way to get along with an unreasonable person, afaik, is to pretend that whatever lies they need to tell themselves/everyone in order to get through the day are actually true. Especially if that person is your parent, you probably don't even *know* for sure or remember what are just lies you're pretending are true and what's actually true, though. Living like that is a complete mindfuck. Not to mention extremely isolating, because you're living in a different reality from everyone else.

 

If someone manages to keep tethered to reality regardless (through his own anger or stubbornness or whatever), and pull himself out of that mindfuck through force of will, I think it's dangerous for him to try and keep communicating with the people still mired in it -- he's got to guard against falling back through the looking glass. So, I actually don't wonder so much why Dean and Sam weren't in contact while Sam was at school, I wonder more why Dean went back and got him when he did.

 

As to John in particular, I don't think he could be reasoned with. I think there was absolutely no chance that Sam could be doing anything *except* working under John toward John's mission and *not* be estranged from John. People often say that a parent will relent if his child sticks to his guns. Not always. Didn't seem like there was much reason to hope for it in this case, anyway.

 

Even though I doubt that it would ever be said explicitly, I think what John was trying to do was break Sam's spirit. I mean in the sense of "breaking" a horse. He'd succeeded with Dean (and I think that Something Wicked was about Sam having some insight into how), but he couldn't do the same with Sam and that was why their relationship was a shitshow imo.

 

That's why I don't get frustrated with Sam being arrogant or bullheaded or willful -- I like that about him. (Though, ironically (?), I like that about John, too). I wouldn't want to see him brought to heel, and I like that even when he and John were ostensibly reconciling, it was clear that he *still* hadn't been brought to heel (even though that also would almost certainly have doomed their reconciliation if John hadn't died). Sam is probably better off for it, I would think. Dean seems ambivalent about it, though.

 

On the one hand I think that when John was alive, Dean was frustrated and perplexed as to why Sam wouldn't/couldn't just submit to John, for the sake of family harmony, but on the other hand, I don't think that Dean sees Sam's "willfullness" as a problem in its own right. As far as I can remember right now, he actually tends to get angry when Sam seems like he's under someone else's sway (like Ruby's or the Campbells'), even to the point of getting pissed off when Sam is complimentary of John. I don't think that's jealousy really, though maybe? Maybe he just doesn't like seeing Sam being obedient? I think he actually doesn't particularly like seeing himself in Sam in general, though some of that is maybe because Sam's version of Dean is so weird. Remember in S3, when everyone was suspecting Sam of being a revenant because he as acting so violent and cold, and Dean asked him what was going on, and Sam said he was just trying to act like Dean? LOL. (This is also why I think Sex and Violence, while a great concept in terms of the siren legend imo, was poorly executed character-wise).

 

In general, I think Dean's torn up and ambivalent about what it means in terms of how he thinks and what his life is that he *was* successfully brought to heel by John. I think he wishes he hadn't been, but can't not be. Just like Sam can now pretend to have been (like with Adam) but wasn't. Along with the thing of Dean not being able to change the past in that way, I disagree that his issue with how ruthlessly protective he's willing to be of John and Sam was dropped after S1, though I think that John's death made it *much* more complicated. But even the whole thing with Gadreel and the possession in S9 was about that same thing imo.

 

Dean showed a shit-ton more maturity than John EVER had when he made that call to Sam.  He was still pissed, and said so, but he's not cutting someone out of his life and he offered a rapprochement.  I find that the mature way to handle things.  For me, who is the biggest asshole in a fight is irrelevant if you want to keep the relationship.  And I don't believe in quitting on family.

 

IA that Dean showed more maturity, but he (and Sam) just generally are more stable and mature than John. Dean and Sam had a better relationship at *every* point in their lives, imo, than John did with either of them. When John died, he was apparently on bad terms with *everyone* in his life except for Dean. (Though it's arguable, I don't count Sam as someone he was on good terms with, considering Sam and John had been estranged for years immediately previous to John's death, and even their reconciliation was not going particularly well nor was it driven primarily by either of them seeking to end the estrangement).

 

The only reason John wasn't on bad terms with Dean, too, was that Dean was willing to let it go that John gave him radio silence for nearly a year, including when Dean was presumably on his death bed. Imo that Dean could still be on good terms with his father after that says more about Dean than about John.

 

This is actually the specific reason why I don't have a problem with Dean being closed off emotionally in general. To stick with someone whose behavior is completely out of your control, who is always on the brink of death or disaster, who often can't be reasoned with, and who will put their interests/needs above all else (including your well-being), means that you've got to become a shell of a person in some ways in order to stay sane at all, ime. Not to be a bore, I'll try not to repeat (yet more of) what I've probably said too many times at this point.

Edited January 12, 2015 by rue721

[SueB]

I definitely relate to the concept that sometimes you have to look at a family member and realize that their world view is not going to ever reconcile with what you perceive as more rationale.

I'll give an example. I have a step father who has always had some oddities and paranoia. He hid it better when he was younger but it's getting worse as dementia sets in. I found out what sort of drove some of his behaviors and now I inteeact with him understanding some of his POV. He's not always pleasant but I'm not cutting him off because he's family and needs love and compassion. But I choose my method of engaging carefully while showing support.

[Demented Daisy]

Sorry to interrupt.

 

In the renewal thread, I mentioned that the decline in the writing is, for me, a result of less defined ideas.  I don't believe, for one second, that Carver's "3 year plan" included Demon Dean.  They didn't look far enough into the future.  They had what they thought was a great idea and ran with it.  Then they hit the brick wall that was the 200th episode.  

 

I think Carver had an idea about closing the gates to Hell, and maybe Heaven, but that story didn't work with the fans, so they changed tracks.  Now it feels like they're floundering, trying to find something that will keep the fans happy.  

 

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.  Give me a good story and I'll be happy.  (In all fairness, no matter how well they wrote Demon Dean, I probably never would have liked the story.)

 

ETA  Another indication of poor writing for me is the sheer number of episodes I loathe from S7-S10.  Prior to S7, I can't think of an episode that I genuinely hate.  A few I didn't like (I'm looking at you, On the Head of a Pin) but I don't loathe it like I do half a dozen episodes from just S8, for example.

 

ETA 2 I take it back -- 2 episodes in S6 I hate: All Dogs Go to Heaven and Clap Your Hands If You Believe.  Thanks for the reminder, TNT.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Demented Daisy

[Aeryn13]

 

For me, who is the biggest asshole in a fight is irrelevant if you want to keep the relationship.

That`s the thing, there are certain behaviours that would make me NOT wanna keep a relationship going. There is stuff I can`t let slide and if certain behaviour makes me want to axe-murder someone, I would see no point in keeping a relationship, no matter what that relationship has been previously, friendship, familial or romantic. To be honest in that scene, Bobby`s speech is something you`d deliver once to me and then be out the door permanently. In that context and situation, this is not something I`ll abide,

 

Of course, even if I want to keep a relationship I would also sooner drown myself in acid than do what Dean did there with the phone-call. That was complete doormat-dom to me and not maturity. Heck, even if I was on the other end, the party at fault and the other side would crawl back and make the first step regardless, I couldn`t quite respect them fully anymore for it. Which on the other hand, if they decided to cut me out for some of my transgressions that felt was unforgiveable, I can respect that. I have a line, everyone else gets to as well.  

 

 

I don't believe, for one second, that Carver's "3 year plan" included Demon Dean.

I think they even confirmed that in an interview. The Mark of Cain was always supposed to be a story but Dean turning into a demon in the Finale was a late addition, born out of "hey, wouldn`t it be cool if". And by how shoddily that storyline was played out with the lamest conclusion possible - seriously, that silly cure works without much of a hiccup? are you kidding me? - it showed that they put no further thought into it for Season 10.

 

Carver said a lot about this Season having no bigger myth and instead being about personal arcs. Which I find to be sweet-talk for "we have no story and no ideas, look, a butterfly...*runs away*". I can only dread how this is supposed to play out for an addititional 23 episode on top of the 14? we still have to go this Season.    

 

 

ETA  Another indication of poor writing for me is the sheer number of episodes I loathe from S7-S10.  Prior to S7, I can't think of an episode that I genuinely hate.

 

There were a few I hated with the passion of a burning sun in earlier Seasons. Heck, Suck Song I still hate more than any other episode. Though, to be fair, the entire second half of Season 8 was like this episode spread out over half a Season so maybe I loathe them both equally. Maybe with 5.22 having a slight "advantage" because it was the conclusion of an entire 5-year-arc (and a 2-year-arc for Dean that was nullified and ridiculed in one episode) so it is more painful yet despite only being 1 episode vs. 10 or so. I also had hope back then for Dean getting an equal part in the story that he obviously won`t have anymore at this point.

 

However I will say that the ratio of episodes I genuinely loved vs. those I liked vs. those I found okay vs. those I hated was MUCH different in earlier Seasons. For example, I would name Seasons 1, 2 and 4 as good ones overall. Despite missteps and problems in either one. Now Season 5 had a shit ending which drags it down a lot but it still had some wonderful episodes earlier in the Season. 

 

In Season 6 I loved exactly 1 episode. Just One!!! That is not something I can say for any Season before it. Season 7 surprisingly managed to top that and had NO great episode in its entire 23 episode run. Now that is some feat. By sheer force of luck or even statistics, they should have stumbled upon one winner. At least Season 8 had 2 again and Season 9 one episode I loved. So far Season 10 might be batting for the record of S7. We`ll see. 

[DittyDotDot]

I think they even confirmed that in an interview. The Mark of Cain was always supposed to be a story but Dean turning into a demon in the Finale was a late addition, born out of "hey, wouldn`t it be cool if".

 

Do you have the source for this Aeryn? I'm not saying you're wrong--from what we saw on-screen, it feels like it wasn't the original plan--but I do like to read these things for myself if I can.

[Aeryn13]

Sorry, I wouldn`t even know how to track it down anymore. I think Thompson was credited with the idea and it was probably a Carver interview but that`s pretty much all I can remember. 

[DittyDotDot]

Well, thanks anyway. Maybe I'll run across it someday.

[catrox14]

I seem to recall Singer making mention of it in the pre s10 interviews. Something like okay cool! Dean is a demon...now what?

[rue721]

In First Born, they go on at length about Cain being a demon -- so they seemed like they were setting up the demon!Dean thing at least at that point, I think?

[catrox14]

Not necessarily.  I came across this just for my own curiosity.

 

http://www.givememyremote.com/remote/2014/07/23/supernatural-jeremy-carver-teases-the-ramifications-of-demon-dean-sams-quest-to-save-his-brother-and-more/

 

 

It seems like they didn't really decide to do demon!Dean until well into s10 and that was after they did the MoC thing.

Edited January 12, 2015 by catrox14

[Demented Daisy]

I haven't found anything specific about Demon Dean being part of the "3 year plan", but this is one of many articles in which Carver mentions "happy accidents".  An interesting passage:

 

How long would you like to see Supernatural continue?

 

Well, there’s definitely a game plan. Last year, I remember saying that there was a plan and that the plan went through to Season 10 – but this plan can shift as much as it needs to. I feel like my obligation is to keep the show as fresh as it was in Season 1 and I don’t think, unless I’m told, that it’s my job to bring it to an unnecessarily premature end. As long as we are keeping it fresh and people are watching, I think the obligation is to keep spinning them out. It’s fun for all of us and we’re all having a great time with the show. I think that Season 14 could be as thrilling as Season 9.

 

 

[Pete Martell]

Sorry to interrupt.

 

In the renewal thread, I mentioned that the decline in the writing is, for me, a result of less defined ideas.  I don't believe, for one second, that Carver's "3 year plan" included Demon Dean.  They didn't look far enough into the future.  They had what they thought was a great idea and ran with it.  Then they hit the brick wall that was the 200th episode.  

 

I think Carver had an idea about closing the gates to Hell, and maybe Heaven, but that story didn't work with the fans, so they changed tracks.  Now it feels like they're floundering, trying to find something that will keep the fans happy.  

 

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.  Give me a good story and I'll be happy.  (In all fairness, no matter how well they wrote Demon Dean, I probably never would have liked the story.)

 

ETA  Another indication of poor writing for me is the sheer number of episodes I loathe from S7-S10.  Prior to S7, I can't think of an episode that I genuinely hate.  A few I didn't like (I'm looking at you, On the Head of a Pin) but I don't loathe it like I do half a dozen episodes from just S8, for example.

 

ETA 2 I take it back -- 2 episodes in S6 I hate: All Dogs Go to Heaven and Clap Your Hands If You Believe.  Thanks for the reminder, TNT.

 

I don't know if SPN has ever had any long-term story planning. I guess season 2 and season 4 spring to mind (the only real change in season 4 being dumping Anna). The rest has been made up as it goes along, right from the start.

 

To me most of Dean's story felt long-term the past few seasons - it's probably one of the reasons I felt so invested, whereas stuff like the Lisa and Ben misery in season 6 felt like a repetitive stopgap (Dean can't have a family!!!).

 

I do wonder about the gates storyline. I think it felt somewhat believable, and wasn't awkwardly rewritten the way most of Sam's material was in season 8, but I do think lack of long-term story planning has taken a huge toll on Sam (and Cas).

 

I have more of an apathetic reaction to 7-10 episodes than anything else. My most hated episodes are:

 

- Dark Side of the Moon (overwrought, tacky, sleazy, depressing just for the sake of being depressing, with zero followup)

- Sex & Violence (heavy-handed, miserable sourness) 

- Point of No Return (more emo woe with no followup, glorification of suicide and brutal physical assault)

- Let It Bleed (I hate the way they have Cas stalk Elly like something out of a Lifetime movie, I hate everything about the end of Lisa and Ben and how it's ultimately just more Dean angst)

 

I think the closest I've felt to hate in recent seasons is "Torn & Frayed" and "Clip Show" and when Kevin was murdered.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Pete Martell