Plotting them with this level of expectation is another.

Nobody is going to do reams of work that might never get used. It's also counterintuitive to spend too much on details like that while you're breaking a story. The plot and the current POV characters are way more important.

And since, for instance, Mary was killed in the pilot, and the boys were raised by John, there wouldn't be a whole lot of need to create a backstory for her parents from the get-go.

And that's what makes it fun as you proceed. You go back to see where you left a door open, and what might happen if you walk through it.

You may well be right that the "men of letters" still exist. But there is one good reason for thinking they are all dead: their looking upon Hunters as "apes", and their general sense of superiority.

Unless their knowledge of magic made them mega powerful, that level of arrogance when messing with the supernatural is likely to get them all killed. My head canon on this is that the "men of letters" (hereafter lettermen) are a cycle. They study magic, grow more powerful, more arrogant, get themselves killed off. Then someone stumbles upon their cache of knowledge, and starts a new chapter of the lettermen which gradually grows more arrogant and are killed off.

I personally loved the episode.

And the whole Alchemist's Lodge vibe, naturally. It's like every Masonic conspiracy made awesome.

Yeah and the cycle thing is kind of how the Masons worked. I mean the real Masons pretended to be an ancient order but were actually founded in the 18th century . Then refounded in the 19th century from scratch based on stories and published records about the 18th century ones. In all fairness, the 20th century Masons legitimately can trace their family tree to the 19th century lodges.

Nobody is going to do reams of work that might never get used. It's also counterintuitive to spend too much on details like that while you're breaking a story. The plot and the current POV characters are way more important.

Your point is well taken, but I still find it a little frustrating when we add weird character notes (Sam really didn't search for Dean, really?), etc. I don't mind some winging it...I guess I'll just have to go with the flow and ignore the contradictions.

Eh, there's hard evidence dating 'em to at least the 16th century, at least in Scotland.

I'm sure if I bothered or cared, I could trace the Lodge Involvement of my Grandfather's paternal line, seeing as they were all mason-masons as well as Masons.

Bless 'em.

My head canon on this is that the "men of letters" (hereafter lettermen)

See, now I'm imagining them in letterman jackets, which doesn't really work for me.

Unless their knowledge of magic made them mega powerful, that level of arrogance when messing with the supernatural is likely to get them all killed.

So you're assuming they're not an ancient unbroken line? Or, say, not as unbroken as the hunters who make it back hundreds of years?

I have an easier time imaging a bunch of chickenshit ivory towerists hiding in their badproof bunker and making up new spells for useless things...or vivisecting demons all day.

I don't feel that a group that actually worked with hunters is usefully characterised by the reaction of one man (the other Man of Letters didn't seem bothered by the idea of them, and he was an initiated Letterer, unlike Henry, who'd never actually graduated).

Yeah, they might be cocky pricks out of touch with the world--but that's remarkably not fatal in literature.

Unless their knowledge of magic made them mega powerful, that level of arrogance when messing with the supernatural is likely to get them all killed.

If you swap "supernatural" for "weaponry", you could say this about most military forces, too, but it's not usually true.

Okay, Annalee's commentary for this episode is enraging me, and I'm only on the third paragraph. I want to get rage at HER in a comment.