A rambly post before the new ep
We've only got a couple days before the new ep, so I thought I'd get this posted while it's still somewhat relevant to where we are in the season.
I've been seeing a lot of discussion on the interwebz, discussion both villifying Dean for his actions, as well as taking up for Dean. The extremes to which these arguments have gone make me somewhat uncomfortable. And I've seen the word "absolutely" used in at least one instance. "Dean was absolutely right to do what he did." I'm sure someone has made the converse argument: "Dean was absolutely wrong to do what he did."
Here's the thing. Everyone involved--Amy, Sam, and Dean--made perfectly understandable choices, choices in keeping with the character and experience, none of which were "absolutely" anything. And I can't fault a single one of them.
Amy: A mother protecting her child. She established a normal life for herself and her child. She held down a steady job that provided for her family, as any of us do. She was managing her hunger. And when her child was sick and dying, she did what she felt was necessary to save his life. And she even went about it in what she saw as a "morally acceptable" manner. She killed society's predators (the drug dealer) or those who were an obvious danger to innocent bystanders (the drunk driver). She was not "indiscriminate" in her killing.
But here's the flip side. In doing what she did, she was doing the exact same thing I've seen Dean accused of---she was playing judge, jury, and executioner. She herself was a predator of humans, and she was choosing who would die for their crimes. Did saving her son justify the deaths of the people she killed? And though she gave her word that it would never happen again, what would she do if her son fell deathly ill again? There's a saying: "The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior." That's not to say I don't believe people can change; I do. (I'll get into that in a little bit.*) Her heart was clearly in the right place. She was protecting her child, as any mother does. But in the process, she was purposely killing people.
This is why I cannot fault her for what she did, but neither can I say that she was right in doing what she did, either.
Sam: Oh, Sam. Sammy. Sam knows what needs to be done. He's done it before. But Amy . . . Amy was his first kiss. Amy was an unexpected sympathetic ear when he needed it. Amy understood how Sam felt about not fitting in and moving all the time. And she saved his life. I 100% get why he wanted to believe her when she gave her word, even against his better judgement ("You can't guarantee that"). And things haven't changed. Sam wants to believe that he can manage his Hell issues; he therefore wants to believe that Amy can manage her brain-eating issues. In spite of what he's seen in his lifetime, he still wants to believe that people can change, and I admire that. He's always wanted to believe that freaks can control their freakish nature. Unfortunately, it rarely turns out well.
And in this case, his initial instincts are, I think, correct. Amy looks human, she acts human, but she's not human. She needs what she needs to survive. And even the poster child for resisting monster nature, Lenore, returned to killing.
So I totally understand Sam's choice in the situation, and I can't fault him for it. But again, I can't 100% get behind his choice, either.
Dean: Now, I'll probably spend the most time here with Dean, because he seems to be on the receiving end of the most bashing/vilifying/accusations of OOC behavior/etc. of anyone. Which kind of makes me wonder what character everyone has been watching all these years.
I don't even know where to start.
Dean recognizes a snake and a scorpion when he see it. Dean sees a threat and eliminates it (and protects Sam in the process if he can). Dean has always done this when faced with a supernatural predator that preys on humans, regardless of their "innocence." Lucy the vampire, for example, had no idea she was a vampire, thought she was high on roofies. Dean knew she had to be put down.
Heck, Dean can speak to this point firsthand. He knows what it's like to have the insatiable hunger of a monster. He's been a vampire. And he was fully prepared to do what needed to be done--to have Samuel kill him.
Amy was a monster, a predator preying on humans. Dean understands that kind of hunger. And we all know where Dean falls in the monster vs. human war. She had proven herself to be a danger with the killings. Dean was very clear with both Sam and Amy as to why Amy needed to be put down. And when it came time to do it, he wasn't cold-hearted about it. He wasn't even completely detached. He explained his actions to Amy, he looked her in the eye, he did it quickly, and as she was dying, he said he was sorry and laid her down gently on the bed. He regretted what he had to do, because he knew he'd have done the same thing she did--he has done the same thing--for his family. "For you or Dad, the things I'll do . . . It scares me sometimes."
Dean also recognizes the difference between a killer with a history and an "innocent." He doesn't kill unless the monster has killed. He didn't kill the baby 'shifter because "It's still just a baby." He told Gary the body-swapping teen that "If you were of voting age, we'd kill you." (Meaning that he wasn't an adult, but if he had been, he was fair game.) He told Andy, "Be good, or we'll be back." He gives warning, he feels regret for those monsters who feel remorse (Madison, Amy, he even tried, at Sam's behest, to give the rougarou guy a fair chance). I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is Sam's influence on Dean. This is why he didn't kill Amy's son--Jacob had not yet done anything to warrant death.
However, Dean knows full well what he's done. He knows he's killed a mother for protecting her child. He knows he's made an enemy and another monster. He knows that the other shoe will drop, because it always does.
Dean did what he believed had to be done. This is why I can't fault Dean for doing what he did, but neither am I righteously overjoyed by his choice. Neither was Dean, btw.
This is why Dean is so conflicted, so guilty, about what he did. He did what he thought needed to be done, but he understood why Amy did what she did, and knew he would have done the same.
Which is why his speech to Amy is so telling. Dean has reached a point (last year, YCHtT) where he believes that he is what he is--a killer--and there's no changing that, no matter how much he might want something else. He knows Amy will kill again, just as he knows he himself will kill again. (He is probably also well aware that he's more than likely killed more than a couple innocent hosts in his war with the demons.) Someone in a discussion thread pointed out that while Sam let Amy go because he saw himself in her and could relate to her, that Dean killed Amy for the exact same reason. And I can't say that I disagree with that assessment.
Now, a little sidebar about trust. I believe that Dean trusts Sam. He trusts Sam to be "Sam." Just as Sam should trust Dean to be "Dean." They are foils to one another, opposite sides of the same coin. Both are flawed and conflicted. They each do what they think is right, almost always with mixed results. Both sides are understandable from the respective point of view. It's when they start enhancing each other's strengths and compensating for each other's weaknesses that they are at their best.
So, in short:
Amy: I understand why she did what she did and cannot fault her for it. She did the best she could under the circumstances.
Sam: I understand why he did what he did and cannot fault him for it. He did what he thought was right and hopeful.
Dean: I understand why he did what he did and cannot fault him for it. He did what he thought was right, what needed to be done, in spite of the weight of the guilt and responsibility on his shoulders.
It's a no-win situation for everyone.
And morally ambiguous chewy, thought-provoking goodness to make us examine our own ethics and views on the world around us.
*As a Christian, I do believe that people can change (or perhaps more accurately, be changed). However, it's not in our human nature to change willingly. It usually takes some sort of divine guidance or intervention. Neither do I believe that such change necessarily involves the person's innate personality. For example, Saul of Tarsus. He was a Pharisee, an expert in the Law, and by all accounts, by the Law, perfect. He spent a great deal of time overseeing the execution of Christians, in spite of his teacher Gamaliel's (who was much respected by the people) advice regarding the matter. Saul was present at the stoning of the first Christian martyr.
And yet.
On his way to Damascus to oversee more executions, Saul had an encounter with Jesus, and he was changed forever. Even his name, to Paul.
But here's something you might take note of: Paul's focus changed, but his personality did not. He was just as enthusiasticslly for the cause of Christ after his encounter as he had been against the cause of Christ before his encounter. Paul changed, but it was not his innate personality that was changed; rather it was his focus that was changed. With his change of focus, his drive to execute some people turned into a drive to love and lead to salvation all people. (Now, as a human, Paul's sin nature didn't necessarily change, but that's a whole different topic. I don't want to stray too far off the intention of this post.)
This probably seems like an extreme example, but here's how it relates to this post:
In a way, both Dean and Sam are correct.
Dean believes that our natures do not change. "The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior." It is not in our nature to change willingly or easily.
Sam hopes that people can fight against their nature to be better than their nature. This can also happen, though it takes something larger than ourselves to light that transition in us.
At this point, I could go off on a tangent about what exactly is Sam's "freak nature." Because really, if he's not craving demon blood anymore, the definition of "freak" as applied to Sam has changed. I'm sure he's not the only one who's ever had hallucinations brought on by his time as a POW.
But that's a different topic for a different time.
I've been seeing a lot of discussion on the interwebz, discussion both villifying Dean for his actions, as well as taking up for Dean. The extremes to which these arguments have gone make me somewhat uncomfortable. And I've seen the word "absolutely" used in at least one instance. "Dean was absolutely right to do what he did." I'm sure someone has made the converse argument: "Dean was absolutely wrong to do what he did."
Here's the thing. Everyone involved--Amy, Sam, and Dean--made perfectly understandable choices, choices in keeping with the character and experience, none of which were "absolutely" anything. And I can't fault a single one of them.
Amy: A mother protecting her child. She established a normal life for herself and her child. She held down a steady job that provided for her family, as any of us do. She was managing her hunger. And when her child was sick and dying, she did what she felt was necessary to save his life. And she even went about it in what she saw as a "morally acceptable" manner. She killed society's predators (the drug dealer) or those who were an obvious danger to innocent bystanders (the drunk driver). She was not "indiscriminate" in her killing.
But here's the flip side. In doing what she did, she was doing the exact same thing I've seen Dean accused of---she was playing judge, jury, and executioner. She herself was a predator of humans, and she was choosing who would die for their crimes. Did saving her son justify the deaths of the people she killed? And though she gave her word that it would never happen again, what would she do if her son fell deathly ill again? There's a saying: "The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior." That's not to say I don't believe people can change; I do. (I'll get into that in a little bit.*) Her heart was clearly in the right place. She was protecting her child, as any mother does. But in the process, she was purposely killing people.
This is why I cannot fault her for what she did, but neither can I say that she was right in doing what she did, either.
Sam: Oh, Sam. Sammy. Sam knows what needs to be done. He's done it before. But Amy . . . Amy was his first kiss. Amy was an unexpected sympathetic ear when he needed it. Amy understood how Sam felt about not fitting in and moving all the time. And she saved his life. I 100% get why he wanted to believe her when she gave her word, even against his better judgement ("You can't guarantee that"). And things haven't changed. Sam wants to believe that he can manage his Hell issues; he therefore wants to believe that Amy can manage her brain-eating issues. In spite of what he's seen in his lifetime, he still wants to believe that people can change, and I admire that. He's always wanted to believe that freaks can control their freakish nature. Unfortunately, it rarely turns out well.
And in this case, his initial instincts are, I think, correct. Amy looks human, she acts human, but she's not human. She needs what she needs to survive. And even the poster child for resisting monster nature, Lenore, returned to killing.
So I totally understand Sam's choice in the situation, and I can't fault him for it. But again, I can't 100% get behind his choice, either.
Dean: Now, I'll probably spend the most time here with Dean, because he seems to be on the receiving end of the most bashing/vilifying/accusations of OOC behavior/etc. of anyone. Which kind of makes me wonder what character everyone has been watching all these years.
I don't even know where to start.
Dean recognizes a snake and a scorpion when he see it. Dean sees a threat and eliminates it (and protects Sam in the process if he can). Dean has always done this when faced with a supernatural predator that preys on humans, regardless of their "innocence." Lucy the vampire, for example, had no idea she was a vampire, thought she was high on roofies. Dean knew she had to be put down.
Heck, Dean can speak to this point firsthand. He knows what it's like to have the insatiable hunger of a monster. He's been a vampire. And he was fully prepared to do what needed to be done--to have Samuel kill him.
Amy was a monster, a predator preying on humans. Dean understands that kind of hunger. And we all know where Dean falls in the monster vs. human war. She had proven herself to be a danger with the killings. Dean was very clear with both Sam and Amy as to why Amy needed to be put down. And when it came time to do it, he wasn't cold-hearted about it. He wasn't even completely detached. He explained his actions to Amy, he looked her in the eye, he did it quickly, and as she was dying, he said he was sorry and laid her down gently on the bed. He regretted what he had to do, because he knew he'd have done the same thing she did--he has done the same thing--for his family. "For you or Dad, the things I'll do . . . It scares me sometimes."
Dean also recognizes the difference between a killer with a history and an "innocent." He doesn't kill unless the monster has killed. He didn't kill the baby 'shifter because "It's still just a baby." He told Gary the body-swapping teen that "If you were of voting age, we'd kill you." (Meaning that he wasn't an adult, but if he had been, he was fair game.) He told Andy, "Be good, or we'll be back." He gives warning, he feels regret for those monsters who feel remorse (Madison, Amy, he even tried, at Sam's behest, to give the rougarou guy a fair chance). I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is Sam's influence on Dean. This is why he didn't kill Amy's son--Jacob had not yet done anything to warrant death.
However, Dean knows full well what he's done. He knows he's killed a mother for protecting her child. He knows he's made an enemy and another monster. He knows that the other shoe will drop, because it always does.
Dean did what he believed had to be done. This is why I can't fault Dean for doing what he did, but neither am I righteously overjoyed by his choice. Neither was Dean, btw.
This is why Dean is so conflicted, so guilty, about what he did. He did what he thought needed to be done, but he understood why Amy did what she did, and knew he would have done the same.
Which is why his speech to Amy is so telling. Dean has reached a point (last year, YCHtT) where he believes that he is what he is--a killer--and there's no changing that, no matter how much he might want something else. He knows Amy will kill again, just as he knows he himself will kill again. (He is probably also well aware that he's more than likely killed more than a couple innocent hosts in his war with the demons.) Someone in a discussion thread pointed out that while Sam let Amy go because he saw himself in her and could relate to her, that Dean killed Amy for the exact same reason. And I can't say that I disagree with that assessment.
Now, a little sidebar about trust. I believe that Dean trusts Sam. He trusts Sam to be "Sam." Just as Sam should trust Dean to be "Dean." They are foils to one another, opposite sides of the same coin. Both are flawed and conflicted. They each do what they think is right, almost always with mixed results. Both sides are understandable from the respective point of view. It's when they start enhancing each other's strengths and compensating for each other's weaknesses that they are at their best.
So, in short:
Amy: I understand why she did what she did and cannot fault her for it. She did the best she could under the circumstances.
Sam: I understand why he did what he did and cannot fault him for it. He did what he thought was right and hopeful.
Dean: I understand why he did what he did and cannot fault him for it. He did what he thought was right, what needed to be done, in spite of the weight of the guilt and responsibility on his shoulders.
It's a no-win situation for everyone.
And morally ambiguous chewy, thought-provoking goodness to make us examine our own ethics and views on the world around us.
*As a Christian, I do believe that people can change (or perhaps more accurately, be changed). However, it's not in our human nature to change willingly. It usually takes some sort of divine guidance or intervention. Neither do I believe that such change necessarily involves the person's innate personality. For example, Saul of Tarsus. He was a Pharisee, an expert in the Law, and by all accounts, by the Law, perfect. He spent a great deal of time overseeing the execution of Christians, in spite of his teacher Gamaliel's (who was much respected by the people) advice regarding the matter. Saul was present at the stoning of the first Christian martyr.
And yet.
On his way to Damascus to oversee more executions, Saul had an encounter with Jesus, and he was changed forever. Even his name, to Paul.
But here's something you might take note of: Paul's focus changed, but his personality did not. He was just as enthusiasticslly for the cause of Christ after his encounter as he had been against the cause of Christ before his encounter. Paul changed, but it was not his innate personality that was changed; rather it was his focus that was changed. With his change of focus, his drive to execute some people turned into a drive to love and lead to salvation all people. (Now, as a human, Paul's sin nature didn't necessarily change, but that's a whole different topic. I don't want to stray too far off the intention of this post.)
This probably seems like an extreme example, but here's how it relates to this post:
In a way, both Dean and Sam are correct.
Dean believes that our natures do not change. "The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior." It is not in our nature to change willingly or easily.
Sam hopes that people can fight against their nature to be better than their nature. This can also happen, though it takes something larger than ourselves to light that transition in us.
At this point, I could go off on a tangent about what exactly is Sam's "freak nature." Because really, if he's not craving demon blood anymore, the definition of "freak" as applied to Sam has changed. I'm sure he's not the only one who's ever had hallucinations brought on by his time as a POW.
But that's a different topic for a different time.