Michael's line about raising Lucifer is kinda hinky. Angels need raising? That's taking the parenting metaphor a bit far.

I thought Michael was doing a ham-handed job of pushing the similarities between him and Dean. Whether that ham-handedness was meant to be a character note or just the writers being sloppy, I have no idea.

I'm actually a fan of sacrificing the few to save the many, so that transition doesn't seem out of place to me.

Yeah, but I got the impression that she wasn't - until now.

I got the impression that she wasn't - until now.

If heaven's re-education camp doesn't work, whose can? Her motives are similar, her means have changed.

Also not thrilled with Michael's revelation that the Winchesters have some extra-special blood that makes them suitable hosts. I much preferred it when it looked like the echoes of Dean & Sam's relationship were what made them the perfect agents to act out his issues with Lucifer.

That's not a revelation, though. I mean, not this season. That was a revelation with The Rapture last season.

If heaven's re-education camp doesn't work, whose can? Her motives are similar, her means have changed.

They needed to be better about connecting those dots, I felt.

No, he's a feminist. I read that on the Internet, so it must be true.

I think I read that same essay. Is that the one that said that since he made sweet tender love to Cassie and fogged-up-windows Titanic love to Anna that Dean is 100 percent always a gooey romantic? So that all those barmaids and one night stands he's supposedly enjoying are apparently being treated to the best in candlelight, soft touches and tenderness while he's banging them in the alleyway or the backseat or wherever. (The article I read was doing a black/white comparison -- that is, since Dean was a feminist and a tender lover, therefore Sam was a misogynist and made love like a mostly uncaring rampaging bull. Despite the evidence that he'd been in a happy loving relationship for a year and a half.)

Also not thrilled with Michael's revelation that the Winchesters have some extra-special blood that makes them suitable hosts.

Midi-chlorians! That would explain so much!

While I don't think there's anything unfeminist about a one night stand Dean is not the brother I'm going to pick as champion for my gender. I think it could be the same article--she implied she has another article in her about how Sam's not a feminist. I'd love to see it. Sam's unfeminist because he has a penis of death? It's one possible angle...

Unrelatedly, I read somewhere that JA has opined that pool isn't the only hustle that Dean hustles to make money. Is there an equivalent word to fanon for actor "canon"? Because I'm really attracted to that idea and the weight it might lend to his portrayal.

Ooh. Watching Bloodlust. Dean just punched Sam. Someone can't process their widdle feelings. And then Sam retraces the steps of where he was taken. Hot.

Okay, so I just saw the episode (too much tv on Thursday that I'm always a day late with Supernatural).

I was struck by Michael's comment to Dean that Dean is his one true vessel, but that he had others available to him. Is it possible Michael will ask Sam to be his vessel and Sam agrees? Same bloodline, so Sam might be able to serve.

Why is John undamaged by Michael's possession by Castiel's first vessel was not?

Is it possible Michael will ask Sam to be his vessel and Sam agrees? Same bloodline, so Sam might be able to serve.

That thought crossed my mind too. Then I wondered if the YED-influence would make Sam ineligible. THEN it occurred to me that John was possessed by the YED as well as being vesselized by Michael, so maybe the few drops of YED blood wouldn't knock Sam out of the running after all.

If Sam would say yes to Michael, would that leave Lucifer with nowhere to go? Maybe that would be one way to do an end run around him. Unless it turns out that for some reason any Winchester can also house Lucifer so that Dean would then end up his next target.

Itunes hasn't made this ep available yet. WHY????

I could say more on Ana, but Plei pretty much speaks for me. So, a question instead: when Dean was sent back in time to stop the YED, it turned out the only point was "lessons learned". Because you can't change the past, you can't stop fate etc... So when Ana goes back in time to kill John & Mary, why is it so urgent to go back in time and stop her? I can fanwank it that the "you can't change the past" does not apply when an Angel does it. (In which case why isn't Uberangel Lucifer doing some time travel?) But I shouldn't need to fanwank the question. The writers could have put in a throwaway line. If they were short on time, they could have cut out references to bunny boiling.