Why would Sam’s motive was ignored and only his brutal action was emphasized? This show chose to accuse Sam. I wonder why they don’t put the same standard to other characters. There are also some dramaturgic difference between demon Dean and soulless Sam. When demon Dean hits someone, they put lively rock music behind and make the scene very thrilling.(10×02) When it comes to soulless Sam, it was never like that.(6×13) (2/3)
Wouldn’t this be a double standard? How come Dean could be a badass while Sam is only ruthless, despite the same violence? Would it be only me who have this inquiry? I would like to listen to your opinion. (3/3)
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The way the show handles Sam’s premeditated violence is completely different from the way it handles Dean’s, or, in some cases, even Castiel’s.
On one hand, it’s absolutely a horrible double standard, and it disgusts me. We saw something very similar in season 13 when it came to Sam and Dean’s expressions of grief. Dean started the season belittling, threatening, and overall being absolutely terrifying to Jack. His accusations and cruelty were significant factors in Jack taking a kitchen knife and attempting to kill himself.
Then again, the show has spent literally 13 whole seasons showing us how unhealthily Dean reacts to loss. He lashed out physically at Sam in season 2 after John’s death. This is not entirely unexpected, and the show doesn’t really hold Dean accountable for his actions. After all, he is grieving. Dean is hurting, too. In fact, fans often see such violence and jump straight to, “Dean must be suffering. Poor Dean!” And while they’re likely correct that Dean is dealing with some sort of emotional turmoil or loss, the way the show deals with his violence means that viewers thoughtlessly excuse it. I’m not saying that fans are not allowed to feel bad for Dean or love him despite his hurtful and unhealthy coping mechanisms. I would, however, appreciate if the show had a more nuanced handling of it. It’s entirely okay to feel sympathy for a character’s bereavement while understanding that the way they react to it is Not Good At All™.
Unfortunately, the way the show deals with violence doesn’t work well for Sam. Where, for Dean, the handling of violence or emotional outbursts has historically been permissive and sympathetic, it’s the exact opposite for Sam. The writers made sure we were worried for Sam’s humanity in the early seasons. We viewed every action with suspicion, even his kindness. Sam is a gentle, caring person, so it was very, very easy for the show to make us suspicious. From the beginning, Sam cared. He was so kind and so emotionally invested in things that he literally only had to do something a tinge less than saintly and we’d be cautious. Oh, wow! Sam did a thing that Dean does every day? Must be going evil.
Soulless!Sam is such a good example of this, and I’m so glad you brought him up. Rewatching season six with a critical eye, it’s hard not to notice that…. objectively, Soulless!Sam was still miles more principled than almost any other hunter in the early seasons. He was pragmatic and direct, but not actively malicious, yet his personality was such a huge departure from his usual self that it set all the alarm bells ringing. (By god, Sam gave his brother a hug but didn’t express enough emotion while doing so?!MUST BE E V I L.)
Sam has good, cheerful, consensual sex with a sex worker who enjoyed the experience so much she forgets she’s working? BUT BY GOLLY Sam didn’t profess his undying love and put a ring on her finger?!
MUST BE E V I L.
If Dean did almost anything Soulless!Sam did, viewers would either excuse it or wouldn’t even think twice. But because it was so unthinkable for Sam to do those things, viewers sat up and took notice of even the slightest indication of apathy or lack of consideration.
So I mean… part of it is just Sam’s natural goodness working against him.
He’s so kind, principled, and serious about his moral code that any departure, no matter how small, is alarming. In contrast, Dean started out as the “unprincipled rogue” who had more or less adopted John’s credo and methods without critically examining them. Sam was the show’s conscience, and viewers held him to a much higher standard because of it.
Part of it, of course, was that the early seasons were actively vilifying Sam. Sam bleeds a nurse to get the juice to take on Lilith? Absolutely horrible, a literal point of no return. Dean is also killing human vessels without a care in the very same season and helps drain possessed humans a season later? Perfectly all right, if the way the show handled it is any indication.
It’s partly understandable (it’s clear that having that tension about the state of Sam’s soul was important to the writers, and the stronger reactions to Sam’s violence are understandable because it takes a lot more for Sam to act out in anger than it takes for Dean to do the same), but as the seasons go on, and especially as they go on without any balance or nuanced portrayal of the brothers’ violence, it just becomes lazy writing. It got so bad during the MoC arc that it was literally painful to watch the show week by week. I think anyone who lived through it can share horror stories. The Sam hate was unimaginable.
So in season 10, when Sam tortured the demon, it was a shock because he isn’t the type to do that. (Except, if we look back at any time Sam has lost Dean, desperation, suicidal action, and ruthlessness are par for the course.) Meanwhile, Demon!Dean murdered gleefully and people cheered that Dean was finally getting to let go. And in season 13, when Dean’s thoughtless cruelty over the course of several episodes made Jack question his worth and attempt to end his own life, there was little backlash.
In contrast, when Sam, overcome with emotion, said to a grief counselor that he felt that Dean had more of a relationship with Mary, I can’t even tell you how many posts I saw belittling Sam for that single, 15-second expression of his pain.
It’s a double standard, yes, but it’s a double standard the show has nurtured since its inception, either accidentally or on purpose.
Exactly this! Sam is a forgiving person, and I think people take for granted that Sam should forgive even the worst offenders, without realizing how horrifying the real-life implications of that actually are. A survivor of assault does not owe his assaulter forgiveness. A survivor of torturer does not owe his tormentor forgiveness.
The sheer amount of hate out there for Sam defending himself from and expressing some long-repressed anger at his torturer of centuries (or more) astounds and disgusts me. It’s even more unsettling because of the clear double standards. Lucifer’s hate, violence, brutality, and rage are justified, but Sam’s attempts at self-protection are vilified.
I wonder if the same people who called Sam “backstabbing” used the same epithet for Lucifer when he forced Sam to endure visions of his own brutal torture and used them to convince Sam that God was communicating with him.
Did they call Lucifer a backstabber when he lured Sam down there and trapped him inside the makeshift Cage and immediately started in with the gross prison rape jokes? What about when he manipulated Sam and made him feel shame about himself, or when Sam’s firm “no” resulted in Lucifer physically attacking him? When he possessed Castiel and used Sam’s trust in Cas to stab his hand into Sam’s soul and try to kill him, did those people accuse Lucifer of “betrayal”?
Did they recoil in horror when Sam was forced to act as an intermediary for “god,” the being who didn’t deserve the faith of his followers, and Lucifer, the being who shredded Sam’s soul? Was it horrifying to them when Lucifer locked himself into Sam’s own bedroom to play out an immature tantrum?
Have they called Lucifer cruel and a traitor for raping Kelly Kline, bringing Sam back to life only so that he could use that life (and the threat of Sam’s death) against him and the people he loved?
People say Lucifer was on the path to redemption and deserved to see it through and pay his penance, but
that’s not true.
Redemption requires remorse, and Lucifer, the Prince of Lies, has not shown a jot of it. In fact, he has continued to laughingly torment Sam and glory in his fear.
I mean, let’s just—
penance noun:The performance of some act of self-mortification or the undergoing of some penalty as an expression of sorrow for sin or wrongdoing.
And how about—
redemption noun: an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.
No, what we’ve seen on screen is a gross sympathy play, a faux-redemption. SPN is very good at taking characters who have done cruel things and then trying to excuse their actions with “oh, but he’s been hurt,” or “oh, but he’s a funny guy who deserves to be loved!”
They try to excuse the inexcusable and cry “Redemption!” when no attempts at redemption have been made.
I’m not going to say that there’s any person who can’t be redeemed, but people who are worthy of redemption are people who actually seek it, no matter the cost to themselves.
So, no. Lucifer does not deserve redemption. He does not deserve to have anyone hear him out. Instead of apologizing, he has lied, manipulated, and cast himself as a victim rather than the aggressor he has spent the last several millennia being.
In fact, he deserved more than a rather tame push to the chest and a, “Yeah, I’m not letting you into my home again.”
Karate Girl 