Amy, Peanut Butter and Relish?

But Dean would never have threatened to shoot John dead, and his venging against Samuel was one of my (fairly many) favourite moments of the season.

Then again, John! So there is that.

unless you go to some weird place like John abused the boys as kids, for instance.

Emotionally, physically, or sexually, or should I not go there?

I'm way more invested in the characters and relationships than the facty facts of the plots. Somehow, though, the monsters aren't the same level of vehicle for the emotions and psyches as in Buffy--I think Joss got that better than Kripke does. Joss never met a monster that wasn't a metaphor. But on a very real level, I think Kripke just likes monsters.

Julie, Julie, Julie. Pabst Blue Ribbon! Ash's favorite!

Emotionally, physically, or sexually, or should I not go there?

I'm going to say in any way, purposely. Although he clearly caused emotional damage.

But on a very real level, I think Kripke just likes monsters.

Me, too. Once in a while he uses them as metaphors pretty well, or at least as vehicles to explore what's going in the psyches of the boys, but not as often as Joss did.

I feel so ashamed, Amy! My beer of choice when I visit my brother since it costs all of three dollars. I am a sad excuse for a cheap beer drinker that my first thought was peanut butter and jelly.

I'm going to say in any way, purposely.

I dig that. He wasn't trying to be a prick, but fuck did he mess some shit up. Which isn't to say that abuse isn't abuse if you don't mean it. Just that he honestly thought there was a higher calling for his actions, and that he never wanted to hurt them, just make them strong.

Still, years of therapy for both kids, perhaps forever for Dean.

I know it's dangerous and often folly to apply psychological diagnoses to TV characters (at least there is going to be some mythology explanation, even if it's messy, but most writers wouldn't care to be be bound by any real life restrictions of disorders--the plot is more important), but I think John and Dean had severe emotional incest (not like that, gutter minds--it's the promotion of a child into a lot of the responsibilities of an absent spouse, with no requirement of sex at all) issues that seem to match up to what I've read about it. Sam? Sam is "merely" a kid raised by a martial monomaniac. Maybe just a few years of therapy for him.

I think John and Dean had severe emotional incest (not like that, gutter minds--it's the promotion of a child into a lot of the responsibilities of an absent spouse, with no requirement of sex at all

Oh, absolutely. As Plei has always said, Dean was Sam's mom.

I think intent matters to me, even when it shouldn't. At least here. If these were real-life people, I would have been on the phone with child services in a heartbeat, though.

Army brats talk about moving multiple times and the way it shapes you, and that's maybe once every two or three years. And when you think of the Rom or the Travelers, that's at least a whole community moving together, as an extended family.

And the itinerant part of Sam and Dean's lives was the least worrisome of all of it, really.

Crowley makes sense for me up to the point where he can reach into Heaven and get people. That seems a lot for a demon, even the ruler of Hell.

Yeah, that's my problem with it too. If demons (or at least Lilith/whoever's in charge) could yank people out of Heaven at will, wouldn't they have been doing so all along? Of course, the revelations about what Samuel was really up to make it seem less and less likely that it would have required that far a long distance call.

One thing... I've theorized that Crowley unintentionally got Sam's living body out of the cage when trying for something much more valuable to him - like a big hunk of stolen power from Lucifer. Could the event that resurrected Samuel have been tied to that, like a random outburst of angelic energy from Lucifer or Michael that could bring Samuel back without Crowley deliberately trying to do so?

I think intent matters to me, even when it shouldn't.

I think intent matters in fiction, because it can make a character more interesting. In real life, you have to focus on rescuing the children. But in a story, especially one where the damage is historical, untangling the hows and whys and the way they made John a lovely messed up character (instead of a saint or a total jackass) can be very rewarding.

I don't have to want to spend time with John (well, except for rough naked time) to find him a rewarding character to watch.

I hope we do get more explanation for the Samuel bit of the story, one way or another. Just like I hope they do something with Adam, even if it's offscreen.

eta: OMG! They're barricading the room with salt on Being Human. Carver, is that you?

Last week they had one of the vampires at the fight try to dissipate Sally with a fireplace poker, too.

Carver's writing for Being Human now? I should be watching that.