(No spoilers) Kripke was asked at Comic-Con 2010 about the Ruby line in Lucifer Rising ("You didn't need the feather to fly, Dumbo"), and if Sam didn't need the demon blood to do what he did. Kripke responded that the demon blood is like a battery, and it gives Sam that boost to do the things he does. What he was referencing had to do with the decisions Sam made, that even though Ruby was pushing him towards darkness, and he was blaming her, she said he didn't need her to do what he'd done. He's self-righteous and angry and would have come to his decisions on his own.

Misha is a series regular for season 6

I fear an overuse of Castiel, much like Spike was overused. He's an intriguing character but he will lose impact if he's shoehorned into scenes just for the sake of fanservice.

if Sam didn't need the demon blood to do what he did

One of the issues that has bugged me has been the treatment of Sam's behavior as an "addiction." His powers/abilities, whatever, I thought were supposed to have been instilled in him by Azazel when he was a baby. Perhaps they didn't come online until his mid-twenties, but they are an inherent part of who he is, just like his liver or his eye color or his skin tone. They aren't a habit like biting his nails or smoking that he picked up that can be kicked through a 12-step program; they're part and parcel of who he is. Acting as though he could just ignore them if he tried hard enough seems like an overly simplistic way to view it. I don't think the writers set it up or carried it through correctly, because Dean may have viewed it as an addiction, but it wasn't. Sam was led to rely on Ruby through a combination of factors but the powers are his (and if logic follows, they still are).

I doubt they'll use Castiel much more than they used him last season. I don't fear overuse, I fear shoehorning, which is kinda different. Spike was all over everything. Castiel *could* have been around more--they just remembered him every so often and tossed him in but only well half the time.

Acting as though he could just ignore them if he tried hard enough seems like an overly simplistic way to view it.

Er. That is also an overly simplistic way to view addiction in general.

That said, I can't say the demon blood addiction as written was particularly convincing and Kripke's explanation of the Dumbo line doesn't make much sense to me.

Kripke's explanation of the Dumbo line doesn't make much sense to me.

I wish I'd done it justice. Here's a [link] to the actual bit (the question starts around 2:13). Careful, there be spoilers.

Basically, Ruby was the feather. It was her contention that Sam didn't need her to do what he'd done; with his anger and self-righteousness, he would have made the same decisions with the same outcome without her pushing him.

Kripke's explanation of the Dumbo line doesn't make much sense to me.

It's pretty poor writing, if they didn't think about any other interpretations of that line.

I seem to recall everyone was worried it would be all Bobby all the time after S2, also, but I think his character has been an excellent addition to the storylines and Sam and Dean's lives. I feel the same way about Castiel. I can't imagine it's going to become the Castiel Show.

Basically, Ruby was the feather. It was her contention that Sam didn't need her to do what he'd done; with his anger and self-righteousness, he would have made the same decisions with the same outcome without her pushing him.

But making the same decisions to pull demons with his mind is not the same as drinking Ruby's blood as appetizer beforehand. The line always referred to the blood drinking to me, not just to his powers.

Also, I would guess in the beginning of S4 Sam wasn't drinking it yet, because we saw that he couldn't pull the demons very successfully at that point. Then there's the whole "you have to drink gallons of demon blood to contain Lucifer."

I don't think the writers ever reached a consensus about what it meant or if he needed it.

I figured he was drinking it at the beginning of S4, because I think that it would have been an even larger fail to not show that start if it had begun during the scope of the episodes. I figured, like having sex with Ruby, it was a done deal. He was just getting better with what it meant.

I said that badly: the explanation makes sense - and I actually like that interpretation of Sam's character arc - but that I was supposed to understand that from the line does not. Even knowing what they meant, I can't make it click with what Ruby said.

Sounds like writer ret-con to me. But maybe I'm not being fair. What me being rash and judgmental? What a surprise that would be...