Dean's role in S5

[feliciakw]

Just got done rewatching "Heaven and Hell." And something jumped out at me that I'd completely forgotten. Each time Dean has confronted Uriel, and Uriel has threatened him with death and/or damnation, Dean has tossed back that God had him pulled out of the Pit for a reason. In this episode, Dean calls Uriel's bluff, and Uriel says, "This is bigger than you. You can be replaced."

Dun-dun-DUUUUUUUUUNNNNN.

Makes me think it was never their intention to have Dean act as Michael's vessel at all. (I still would pay money to see Jensen play Michael, though.)

These developments in the mytharc, though, make me wonder who knew what when. I also think the majority of the angels, the ground forces, if you will, were more along the lines of Castiel in their goal: save the Earth, save the human race. I just wish, you know, we'd met a couple more of them and that they were further up the command ladder, to counterbalance the unpleasant ones we got.

Of course, in the end, it was only Dean who could pull Sam out from under Lucifer's influence long enough to leap into the abyss. And it took a lifetime to get there.

Dean Winchester: hanging out, being awesome, saving the world.

Comments

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're watching the same show. My whole point is that Dean saved Sam simply by being who he is--everything that makes Dean Dean. His humor, his heroism, his love, his loyalty. Dean was certainly not passive at the end. He did the only thing left to him: being there for Sam, not letting Sam die alone. If you think that kind of love is passive and pointless, we've got very different views on what love is.

He certainly did not sit in the corner and wait for the prince to save him. He rode into a losing battle to save the prince.

You're also not understanding my difference between "mytharc" and "story." Yes, the "mytharc" would have continued without Dean, but the story would not be the same, because it was Dean's influence on Sam kept Sam going. If there had been no Dean, then Sam would have fallen into revenge and obsession faster than he did, and wouldn't have been able to pull himself out. Dean is integral to the story, which to me is greater than the mytharc.

I'm sure that doesn't make sense to anyone but me, though.

killing 2 innocnt people to drink their blood

But we don't know that Sam had to kill two people for their demon blood. The hosts might already have been dead, in the same way that Ruby 2.0 was a dead body inhabited by a demon. Did they actually say that Sam had to kill two living people? If not, then I think you're putting more blame on Sam than is strictly necessary.

And can you explain why falling into the pit sam/luci took micheal with him? It wasn't necessary at all. Why sarcifice micheal?

Much as truly disliked that aspect of the ending, I'm sure they did it for the symmetry or something. By that point, there was nothing redeeming left of Michael's character. He wanted to fight "because it was destiny," not to save the world. There's no way they could have ended it with Michael escaping.

I like Dean as a protagonist and no matter what kripke said he was a protagonist for about 4.5 years

Of course Dean has always been a protagonist of the story. He was just never the protagonist of the mytharc. He was never meant to be.

My mind is still boggling at how you see enough for dean to take so inactive role and be ok

For what it's worth, I do understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I just don't agree, obviously. :-)

But my mind can't understand why you see Dean as passive, or why you insist on reducing Dean's role to nothing, without trying to see something redeeming or necessary in the existence of the character. What I see as subtle and realistic in RL (because very few of us are going to fight literal demons, but all of us can make a difference in someone's life, simply by being there for them), you see as passive and pointless. And I just can't understand how someone who likes Dean can settle for passive and pointless without trying to see something more in the character.

It comes down to what we choose to see in the story. I choose to see a hero who is a hero, inherently, in his very make-up. (It's much the same way you see Dean as a hunter at his very core, that being a hunter is "who he is.") A hero not just in what he does, but in who he is as a person. That's encouraging to me.

You choose to see a passive "deansel in distress" who is of no use to anyone and holds no value either as a person/character or as an element of the other characters' experience.

As a Dean!girl, and as a person, I just don't get that.

[leelust.livejournal.com]

OK, i think it's better to PM about it.