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...

I never liked that Dumbo line.

I can't imagine a scenario when I would get tired of Cas or Bobby. To me they're as much a part of the show (now) as the boys.

I can't imagine it's going to become the Castiel Show.

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they created that, from a storytelling perspective. If Sam & Dean have an all-powerful angel at their beck and call, who can transport them anywhere they want, or find out anything with a flick of his eyelash, or smite the monster of the week by waving his hand at it, what's the point of having the Winchesters around?

Doesn't sound like retcon to me. Just muddy explanation. I totally buy that they think they explained it, but now they should deal with the fact that they completely didn't. I think that would be better than trying to cope in meta.

Hmmmmm. I just saw a newly posted BigBang, and to be fair it says it's an AU. But it includes "Graphic physical and sexual abuse of a child...Dubcon, Noncon, Nonconsensual breathplay, Nonconsensual watersports, Electric shock, Violence towards a minor." And if that weren't enough to entice me, there's this: "I know next to nothing about the legal system. Likewise, law enforcement agencies. Likewise, modern medicine. All facts about these things in this story are quite wrong." Jared is the 14 year-old minor in question. I think I'll choose something else to spend the next several hours with.

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.

His explanation was my fanwank of it, so. Apparently my fanwank was the intent?

It was clunky, however.

I think I'll choose something else to spend the next several hours with.

I'm a live-and-let-live kinda gal, but... wow. ::boggles:: Mind if I join you, Morgana?