Eric Kripke Interview Link and .... questioning questions?
So I read one of the most satisfying Kripke interviews yet here (via keepaofthecheez ) and I perused the comments taking comfort in the fact that the interviewer - Maureen (or Mo) keeps them in check. And she did a good job on that.
But I still have a question (and I have no real hold on where the majority of my spn flisters sit - if they're predominantly Dean girls only or Sam girls only or if they, like me, practice equality when it comes to fangirling both brothers) and I'm hoping this question is not viewed as inflammatory. But from the comments I read I noticed quite a few excusing Dean's role in bringing about the Apocalypse by saying it was a wonder he held out for as long as he did in Hell and how could you possibly expect him not to break and therefore it is wrong to lay any blame at his feet whereas Sam's was a deliberate decision based on ego (ie He thinks himself strong enough to defeat Lilith as opposed to Dean whom he sees as not strong enough/too changed by Hell to fight Lilith) so therefore Sam is far more culpable.
Can we just take a moment to recall how Dean ended up in Hell in the first place and tell me that wasn't a deliberate decision? Let's leave out the discourse on egos for a moment and just consider that Dean is just as much at fault as Sam is - his decision to trade his soul for Sam's life put him in Hell. Sure he was totally manipulated into that but the same goes for Sam and his rationale to do what he did.
And here - just in case I'm being too politically correct - consider the following: If Dean was told (before he made the decision to trade his soul for Sam's life) that the demons want him in Hell because they know he will break the first seal that leads to Lucifer's release would he still have gone ahead with it? If Sam knew that killing Lilith broke the final seal would he have gone through with it (remembering that Dean almost managed to distract him from his task before outside interference happened)? I know what I think on both those questions and the justification that Dean might have believed he could stop it before it went any further will only get you so far.
Yes Sam has some serious redeeming to do this Season 5 - that fact is pretty much irrefutable. Kripke makes no bones about that being much of Sam's story this season however I don't see this as a reason or rationale to amplify the Sam hate out there. Not that I understand the presence of it anyway (a large part of what makes Dean's character so appealing is defined by how he is with his brother, how having Sam as a brother has shaped him to be the Dean we love and vice versa) but the idea that of the Winchester brothers, Sam must shoulder the majority of the blame for bringing on the Apocalypse seems irrational and somewhat naive. What? Spn fandom irrational? Is this new?
Reading all this I could be mistaken for a closeted Sam girl. I'm really not. I believe both brothers are as equally vital and important to the story of Supernatural and I unashamedly love them both in ridiculously huge (and equal) amounts. They are each inherently flawed and equally brilliant in their own ways. Do I suspect Sam of arrogance at times? Of course. Is Dean hypocritical and loaded with double standards at times? Absolutely. Do we love them any less for this? The hell I don't!
When they are together are they stronger than when they are separate? YES.
(Some would argue that their weakness is each other - but that weakness is there regardless if they are together or not - they'd both drop everything and run if the other was in immediate danger)
And besides, all this talk about Sam ending the world. World's still there isn't it? So he hasn't and he won't because he still believes in hope. And Dean still believes in his brother - he just doesn't know it yet. Give him time.
But I still have a question (and I have no real hold on where the majority of my spn flisters sit - if they're predominantly Dean girls only or Sam girls only or if they, like me, practice equality when it comes to fangirling both brothers) and I'm hoping this question is not viewed as inflammatory. But from the comments I read I noticed quite a few excusing Dean's role in bringing about the Apocalypse by saying it was a wonder he held out for as long as he did in Hell and how could you possibly expect him not to break and therefore it is wrong to lay any blame at his feet whereas Sam's was a deliberate decision based on ego (ie He thinks himself strong enough to defeat Lilith as opposed to Dean whom he sees as not strong enough/too changed by Hell to fight Lilith) so therefore Sam is far more culpable.
Can we just take a moment to recall how Dean ended up in Hell in the first place and tell me that wasn't a deliberate decision? Let's leave out the discourse on egos for a moment and just consider that Dean is just as much at fault as Sam is - his decision to trade his soul for Sam's life put him in Hell. Sure he was totally manipulated into that but the same goes for Sam and his rationale to do what he did.
And here - just in case I'm being too politically correct - consider the following: If Dean was told (before he made the decision to trade his soul for Sam's life) that the demons want him in Hell because they know he will break the first seal that leads to Lucifer's release would he still have gone ahead with it? If Sam knew that killing Lilith broke the final seal would he have gone through with it (remembering that Dean almost managed to distract him from his task before outside interference happened)? I know what I think on both those questions and the justification that Dean might have believed he could stop it before it went any further will only get you so far.
Yes Sam has some serious redeeming to do this Season 5 - that fact is pretty much irrefutable. Kripke makes no bones about that being much of Sam's story this season however I don't see this as a reason or rationale to amplify the Sam hate out there. Not that I understand the presence of it anyway (a large part of what makes Dean's character so appealing is defined by how he is with his brother, how having Sam as a brother has shaped him to be the Dean we love and vice versa) but the idea that of the Winchester brothers, Sam must shoulder the majority of the blame for bringing on the Apocalypse seems irrational and somewhat naive. What? Spn fandom irrational? Is this new?
Reading all this I could be mistaken for a closeted Sam girl. I'm really not. I believe both brothers are as equally vital and important to the story of Supernatural and I unashamedly love them both in ridiculously huge (and equal) amounts. They are each inherently flawed and equally brilliant in their own ways. Do I suspect Sam of arrogance at times? Of course. Is Dean hypocritical and loaded with double standards at times? Absolutely. Do we love them any less for this? The hell I don't!
When they are together are they stronger than when they are separate? YES.
(Some would argue that their weakness is each other - but that weakness is there regardless if they are together or not - they'd both drop everything and run if the other was in immediate danger)
And besides, all this talk about Sam ending the world. World's still there isn't it? So he hasn't and he won't because he still believes in hope. And Dean still believes in his brother - he just doesn't know it yet. Give him time.