As a data point, my BF and I were talking about the episode, and his opening comment was that he found Anna's arc unsatisfying.

I think the whole "torture changed her viewpoint" thing may be a good excuse but not good storytelling. The writers may have not earned the transformation, even if they have explained it. To clarify this, imagine Bobby had been kidnapped by angels, and come back to kill Sam without caring about collateral damage....

More interesting: so the tortures of hell are just imitations of the tortures heaven uses as standard discipline against angels. From memory (so the quote is probably not exact) "All the pain and twice the self-righteousness." I'd say this is good reinforcement for the "Angels are dicks" meme. Not that the show actually needs to reinforce that at this point.

It actually contradicts the idea of the angels needing Dean to torture Alastair because they don't know how to do it effectively. (Presumably they were supposed to be capable with the smiting, but not so much with the cruel stuff.) It's as if the writer of this episode didn't watch last season.

Right? Wild. I could see an explanation that the angels methods and character changed due to the absence of God and the opening of the Hellmouth, but we did need more minutes of explanation with regard to this.

Still, Anna noticed the change in Sam when he was drinking demon blood. She chided Castiel for turning Sam loose just before she was taken away. She didn't want the Apocalypse to begin, and now that it has, seems that eliminating Lucifer's true vessel would put an end to it. I don't think she went crazy or was tortured, she is still on the same mission: Stop the Apocalypse. She adapted to the situation and went the next logical step. Could they have explored it more? Sure, but I can buy it, even with her sudden ruthlessness.

While the episode was very satisfying in many respects, it seems like it would have been smarter to go back to a time when Sam was a baby or child or even alone after Dean went to hell.

Also with Anna destroyed (presumably) in 1978 by Michael, how does she fall from grace later? Unless she exists dually.

I hate time-travel episodes. It makes my hair hurt.

Also with Anna destroyed (presumably) in 1978 by Michael, how does she fall from grace later? Unless she exists dually.

I hate time-travel episodes. It makes my hair hurt.

What if somehow the dual existence/one being destroyed somehow led to Anna's decision to fall? How's that for hair-hurty?

Anne, you're making my hair hurt. ;-)

Whose orders was she re-educated on? Michael's? If so, was he planning to kill her the whole time? If it was his end but not his means, perhaps that's why the general lack of faith in their methods.

If it wasn't his authority, then...hand of god? Finally.

I do hope we get the pay-off of who pulled the boys from the convent. It doesn't look like it was Lucifer, and if it was Michael, I think he would have left Sam there for Lucifer.

I think the convent is the only place we saw the hand of God. So far.

Time travel always makes my hair hurt.

And we're not sure yet -- absolutely positively -- that it was the hand of god that yanked from the convent, are we? Although I guess we're running out of other likely suspects.

And we're not sure yet -- absolutely positively -- that it was the hand of god that yanked from the convent, are we? Although I guess we're running out of other likely suspects.

And if we're dealing with time travel, some of the current unlikely suspects could become likely ones later on.

gleefully spreads hair pain throughout the comm.