#sam defense

[eruthiawenluin]

Dean Stans: Ugh I hate John!

Sam: Ugh I hate John!

Dean Stans: Wow Sam, manage your anger much ?? :/

[anti-dean]

Sam is interesting because he believed that there must be good in the world, that if there are demons then there must be angels too, but when he realized that angels are just as bad as demons and that demons aren’t inherently evil, he paved his own path.

Dean is interesting because he’s a self-proclaimed atheist, but when he discovers that angels are real, he takes the message that angels must be working for only good and demons must be working for only bad at face value, thus following the set path.

Only one of these represents Free Will, but it’s the other who is made the face of the concept.

[eruthiawenluin]

In 10 years, people who watch Spn will realize that Sam was right and Dean was wrong in season 4, because like, Idk I assume someone with critical thinking will have watched season 4 by then.

[finalgirlbrainrot]

you know what's really sexy? the fact that sam stans can easily defend sam and give valid reasonings to his actions without screaming and crying about how he had an awful childhood

meanwhile dean stans can't say two sentences without going "ueue poor deanie weenie had such an awful childhood :(( john is the worst :(( it's all john's fault :(( dean's grown-up ass has no responsibility for his actions :(( because woobie dean has self worth issues :((((( boohoo :(( he STARVED for MONTHS so sammy's selfish, ungrateful ass could eat at a five stars restaurant :((("

even tho they had the exact same father and the same childhood (I might even go as far as saying that sam had it worse, but I'm not gonna go there now)

[eruthiawenluin]

For those confused on why Sam’s demon blood/psychic abilities are not inherently evil:

The writers are not any sort of moral authority. Just because they say that we should condemn Sam for these traits does not mean we must. Each individual member of the audience brings their own perspective to the story, and the writers themselves are no exception. The narrative is inherently biased because it is determined by people aiming to promote their own ideals—ideals which often clash with our own.

You really cannot accurately assess a show so centered on these moral quandaries without first understanding what the narrative itself deems right and wrong. This is why literary analysis typically focuses on the universal topics of misogyny vs. feminism, marxism vs. capitalism, free will vs. fate/nature vs. nurture, the other vs. the status quo, etc. The message that a particular author concludes is not necessarily the story we see depicted, since we bring our own unique readings to the text.

Authorial intent exists. It is a writing decision to condemn Sam for his powers. However, if we look past the surface level, these powers are not shown to be any kind of innate evil. They are ultimately neutral and can be used to bring good into the world, which is exactly how Sam uses them and is also why he embraces his differences—the status quo is wrong, not him.

It is clear, though, that the narrative aims to vilify Sam for his powers (in a more generalized sense, for the way he differentiates from the status quo). The only problem? There’s nothing to vilify. Sam uses his powers for the purpose of helping people and preventing the apocalypse. The moral ambiguity is not present… so the writers make the addition of Sam’s addiction. Fandom accepts this as evidence of Sam’s powers and the demon blood being an inherently corruptive force. With that in mind, it cannot be overstated that the traits Sam is demonized for (uncharacteristic pessimism and secrecy, namely) are the psychological effects of any addiction—not of the fictional substance of demon blood itself—and a logical step to avoiding punishment at the hands of the narrative’s moral authority/point-of-view character, Dean. The villainization of Sam relies heavily on ableist messages we’ve internalized from The War on Drugs (the belief that addicts deserve whatever suffering befalls them due to their perceived moral failings, as well as the idea that any loss of autonomy is justified). As effective as this is in carrying the message that Sam’s powers are evil, there’s one more problem: Sam’s addiction is not actually evil, and it does not affect the morality of Sam’s powers, which he still uses to save people’s lives. The addiction and the powers are two distinct issues, defined by some key differences: the former is an issue that arose as a result of desperation and manipulation, whereas the latter is something he was born with and ostracized for. These issues do not exist in their own bubbles, of course, as it becomes apparent that Sam’s feelings about his powers inform his decisions which lead to his addiction. However, it remains true that, objectively speaking, there is nothing solid in the narrative to dismiss Sam’s powers as anything but a neutral force to be called on as it suits him. They are little more than a conduit for the good he wants to bring into the world. This failure to write a convincing villain arc for Sam comes from the writers’ dependence on a Reagan-era cultural bias. In this instance, by accepting the narrative as a reliable judge of morality, we perpetrate those same biases presented when we should be criticizing them.

As for the additional insult of dismissing Sam’s story as a queer allegory based on the assumption of the author’s moral authority? Ultimately, the narrative is anti-queer. Looking at seasons 1-5 specifically, good queer characters (Lily, Corbett) meet tragic ends. Other queer characters (Lucifer, Crowley, potentially Meg) are sexually threatening villains. The only other non-straight characters would be The Chief from the BDSM club and the Sam/Dean cosplayers, who are not villains but are still portrayed as something to be gawked at. It’s no jump to believe that the writers would observe a story which resonates with queer people (even unintentionally) and decide to antagonize it as well. After all, running away from your family, turning down an idealized hyper-masculine all-American lifestyle, embracing the ways in which you are different and othered? That does not conform to the conservative values which are represented through John, Dean, and hunting. However, those are the values which the narrative is dependent on. After all, what is left of the story if blood does not bind a family, what is left if hunting is not a clear pathway to moral righteousness? The show is not equipped to dissect these notions because its premise is dependent on maintaining them.

While the story does attempt to offer differing viewpoints—both the idea that you must remain loyal to your immediate (nuclear) family and the opposing concept of found family—it lands on a strange median, wherein a character like Sam is condemned for leaving his blood family, but can extend that title to non-relatives (at the blood family’s behest, otherwise it is also condemned *cough Amelia cough Jess cough*). Basically, the conservative values take precedence while shallowly humoring the liberal ones.

The one consistent takeaway from this is that the narrative’s condemnation is subjective: it does not mean that the queer allegory (Sam’s backstory and powers, in this instance) is as evil as they want us to believe. They take a concept which they believe is evil and try to depict it as such. We are allowed to disagree with the idea that it should be depicted as evil. Our disagreement with the allegory the writers push is as analytical as it is personal.

Furthermore, it means the writers believe in innate evil. This conflicts with more liberal beliefs and instead coincides with ideas like the original sin (misogyny in Christianity) and other allegories which paint any group of people as inherently immoral. We are able to apply our own experience and beliefs to determine if we agree with their stance, and if a fan is left-leaning, they are less likely to approach a story which depicts someone challenging the status quo through his birth as anything but sympathetic. Leftist values typically rely on compassion for those who are othered, and Sam is no exception. In other words, the writers create a series of events, but use their point-of-view character* to portray those events as evil. But we see that same series of events and interpret them as neutral or good.

*The conduit for the audience (Dean) is also the conduit for the writers’ own morals, which is part of why the audience unthinkingly believes his unreliable narration: we are dependent on it. His is the main POV through which we learn the story. Sam’s secrets are kept from the audience because they are kept from Dean. If Dean takes issue with Sam’s secrets, even if the secret-keeping is justifiable, the audience is encouraged to sympathize with Dean over Sam. This does not mean Dean’s responses are always appropriate or nuanced: only that they are given more attention and sympathy than Sam’s reasoning.

TL;DR: The narrative is biased against Sam and we are under no obligation to share in its beliefs. It is common knowledge that the show epitomizes standards that are misogynistic, homophobic, racist, ableist, etc. but we are able to criticize these elements despite the narrative’s insistence on them. Media and literature comprehension is in-part dependent on understanding how authorial intent may conflict with your own beliefs and affects how you interact with the text, which is why we examine those elements through different perspectives. We can take the narrative at face value despite our beliefs, or we can hold it accountable for its constant pandering to conservatives as well as its performative appeals to its leftist audience.

[eruthiawenluin]

Today I will think about how Sam has been villainized for experiencing anger as a result of his trauma even though he has managed that anger in a way that hurts no one but himself.

Meanwhile, Dean—who abuses his friends and family as an outlet for his anger—is told that he is more than his anger, and that everything he does comes from a place of love.

It’s almost like… the writers… are abuse apologists… with double standards… who blame a victim but excuse a perpetrator… 🤔🤔🤔…

[susiegirl]

I see a supernatural thread "cite and opine" about the characters in twitter and in the Sam part almost all of the reblogs are hate.. this fandom sucks my energy sometimes

[eruthiawenluin]

I’m just gonna say it

Dean stans say made-up things 24/7 and do not get questioned

Like that one dude on iFunny who blamed Sam for Kevin’s death— I mean, what?? Or the Tumblr people saying that Lucifer threw himself into the Cage— WHAT????

There is a difference between interpretation and defying common sense.