It was mentioned and dimissed with other possiblities in a *single sentence*

No, it wasn't. It got a whole sentence all to itself. Does that mean it passes the bar for seriously considered?

I think you're underestimating the impact that being a murdering monster, even one that doesn't kill again, is supposed to have to a character.

It's repeatedly posed throughout the series as a horrible thing, something that Sam would rather die than be. Now, there's a scenario where containment was not considered, seriously or otherwise.

For a show that consistently presents monsterhood as a fate worse than death, why is choosing the death instead of werewolf cake uninformed, dismissive, or unconscionable? Is it the current American societal prejudice as suicide being worse than any other option, ever?

Even before you come to the risk of killing again, there's a) being a monster and b) having killed already weighing on Madison. Removing a threat against innocents added to that? What's the uninformed angle again? Remember, she's living this. It's not a thought experiment for her.

Going back to what Kristen explained about the process: I get that, I respect that. It's crazy and fluid and there are no take-backs.

That also struck me (maybe wrongly) as a way to say "don't ever complain about TV Show writing because it's hard".

I'm grateful for the perspective.

And if, in the end, Amy was a deliberate choice to provide conflict for the brothers, alright. Did I enjoy it or the lingering ramifications? No. And not in the "that was a wonderfully uncomfortable arc". And I think a lot of the dislike is that this riff is repetitive before anything comes of it, and that it's over a character I didn't know. I didn't mind the aftermath of Sam finding out. I didn't mind Dean being hypocritical and possibly rash. It was the prelude to that that had me rolling my eyes at the "previouslies".

And I'm shutting up now.

And if, in the end, Amy was a deliberate choice to provide conflict for the brothers, alright

I don't understand how it could be anything else. I mean, it was deliberate, it was a source of conflict that persisted...what else could it have been?

I don't understand how your other objections could have been fixed, either. By taking her out of the previouslies? I mean, they can't make her a character you already know without spending even more time on her, or I guess they could retcon someone...

I'm kinda confused of anything other than "I didn't like Amy. I thought it was boring." Or are you saying it failed to set up a realistic conflict?

I mean, having *Gordon* himself in purgatory seems unfair. Madison wildly more so. Did they just stop being worthy of judgement to Heaven or Hell because they got dinged by another monster?

It seems unfair to me too, but the show has repeatedly established that the unfairness is canon. Of course, even Supernatural's Heaven seems kind of sucky to me in the long run unless Ash is wrong about only a relative handful of souls finding out how to interact with their loved ones and others.

Oh, yeah--I didn't mean to imply going to Heaven was a good thing, just that so far they've kind of implied you got to earn your way wherever.

Okay, I am catching up on Supernatural, and just finished "There Will Be Blood". I know that vampires are powerful and can be discreet, but trust me that a black guy is going to be noticed in North Dakota. My brother was there for 6 months and was able to COUNT the black people. And then the "retreat" was in Montana? Oh, no one's going to notice the black guy there!

Although I suppose I should appreciate the color blind casting. I did love the bit about seeing them next season.

That also struck me (maybe wrongly) as a way to say "don't ever complain about TV Show writing because it's hard".

Kristen didn't say that, and neither did I. What I was saying, at least, was that watching TV with a little perspective can help. It's not the same medium as a novel, or a film, so the means *and* ends of the storytelling is going to be a little different.

That also struck me (maybe wrongly) as a way to say "don't ever complain about TV Show writing because it's hard".

That's not what I said or what I meant. I responded to Amy's post because it specifically mentioned me.

I mean, she doesn't like what she's become. She's not the same woman she was last year. I can't imagine living with knowing I'm a monster, and a bullet seems really simple in comparison.

This seems like the heart of it to me. Even if a cage could be built, who wants to live that way? I don't think I would.

And relying on two guys you met three days ago? Not the most realistic plan.

No flippancy intended, but I am more likely to sleep with a guy than rely on him to set up a framework so I don't kill when I turn into a monster every month long after they've gone on with their lives. I totally agree with you, Amy.