![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bowtrunckleI wrote a meta thingy! :)
There’s been avid discussion about Sam and Dean and which of them, if either, seems to be favored by Kripke as well as debate about “who is the story really about”. I’ve noticed there’s been a propensity for some self-proclaimed “Dean girls” and “Sam girls” to run circles around each other, trying to prove their points. Both this topic and the fan polarization seemed especially heated in the comments to The CW’s Source’s "Hottie Bracket Finals" featuring Sam vs. Dean. Based on my cursory glance, one anonymous commenter summed up the debate:
“Sam Fans bash Dean Fans and call them crazy, obsessed and rabid because they want Dean to have a presence in the mytharc episodes that doesn't just revolve around Sam. Yet Sam Fans whine continuously about Sam not having any characterization.”
Being that it’s the hiatus and I apparently need my SPN fix, I found myself thinking about why some people believe Dean has “no plot” and Sam has “no characterization”. This meta is my SPN-deprived brain’s attempt to explain why.
Let me first say I’m not a Sam or Dean girl. I like both the boys (according to the lingo being thrown around I’m apparently “bibro” (bi-brother) *snortlaughs at self*). And although my initial connection to the show was through Sam, I’ve grown to love Dean. It’s difficult for me to think of one without the other, and if asked to choose which one I favor, it wouldn’t be an easy answer. Each, to me, serves two different yet vital roles in the story—without either of them the plot that’s kept me watching would collapse. I’ve not contributed to the discussion on the CW page. I’m not into fandom wank or purposefully stirring up controversy. So if your knee jerk reaction is to type a ranting reply in caps lock, please do that in your own journal and, if you feel so inclined, send me a link or spin it into a meta and post to spn_heavymeta where I’ll likely stumble across it. However, I love SPN-related discussion and enjoy all pleasant and good-intentioned chatting regardless if what’s being said is inline or refutes my points. I welcome people expanding the discussion, playing devil’s advocate, and/or pointing out inaccuracies or misinterpretations. I don’t ever expect or ask people to agree with me, but when talking about “hot topics” lets keep things civil because it’s a lot more fun. Fandom is supposed to be where show love and fan fun smash together to equal good times to the power of a million and five. Enough said, now onto the blabber! *hurkie jump*
In “The Art of Fiction” John Gardner uses an analogy about two territorial tigers to illustrate how tension must be maintained between characters in order for the climax of a story to be persuasive and interesting:
“The value of the standard feud story always depends on the writer’s ability to create powerfully convincing characters in irreconcilable conflict, both sides in some measure sympathetic--that is, both sides pursuing real, through mutually exclusive, values. For the climax to be persuasive, we must be shown dramatically why each character believes what he does and why each cannot sympathize with the values of his antagonist; and we must be shown dramatically why the conflicting characters cannot or do not simply avoid each other, as in real life even tigers ordinarily do.”
The bolded section is what I find especially relevant to Sam and Dean. They’re like the two tigers that must be constrained to the same territory by the artificial constructs of plot and motivation in order to build tension and conflict necessary for a satisfying and inevitable story climax. As a result, I believe they have fundamentally different (and sometimes overlapping) roles in SPN’s story. And it’s out of these prescribed roles that I believe the “Sam hogs the plot” and “Dean steals all the characterization” debate has emerged.
But before getting to the Sam and Dean tigers, let me back up and ramble about tension and conflict in fiction. I realize there are execution differences between writing fiction that’s being digested in written form (short stories, novellas, novels) and fiction for the visual medium (theater, television, cinema), but I feel the heart of storytelling is largely the same--which is why novels are commonly adapted to the screen--and there’s relevance in applying the rules of fiction to both. So I may be generalizing a bit, but for any screenwriters who may stumble upon this please know it’s not my intention to butcher your medium. I have a better understanding of literary fiction, so that’s where this discussion is sourced.
One of the most important and difficult things to do in fiction is sustaining audience interest. The main way to do this is through tension, if that be through character vs. character tension (antagonist/protagonist tension or romantic tension a.k.a. UST (unresolved sexual tension)), plot driven tension based on a yet-to-be-solved mystery or a what-will-happen-next quest, tension based on a character vs. nature or society, or tension that occurs entirely within the hidden self of a character (character vs. self).
Tension is mostly achieved through conflict. And without conflict, an interesting and compelling plot is impossible. Even tales, arguably viewed as “simple” stories, have concrete, specific, and sustainable conflict. Cinderella was at odds with her stepmother and stepsisters; the Three Little Pigs had the Big Bad Wolf repeatedly banging on their door; even Snow White, who was a push over, had her stepmother queen creating havoc. Furthermore, conflict doesn’t have to be imposed on the character by external forces; it can be entirely internal. In Dorothy Parker’s “A Telephone Call”, an interior monologue about a phone call, the conflict takes place entirely in one character’s head.
In fiction (let’s brush aside modern and postmodern fiction, okay?) sustainable conflict must be magnified to be compelling. Likewise, the characters in the story need to be pumped up so they’re slightly larger than life without becoming completely unrealistic, which can alienate them (unless the point is to make them a caricature or parody a character archetype, usually only done for flat characters who are villains or act as comic relief). The reason why characters capture our hearts is because they act in ways we wish we always could. They say things most of us might think but would never say. They're braver, cockier, funnier. They’re who we wish we could be. Heroes blast ahead and take a stance against impossible odds, and must, at some point, deal with conflict.
However, in real life most of us do whatever we can to avoid overt, messy conflict. We try to keep our mouths shut, procrastinate, acquiesce and capitulate to demands/requests that we may silently not been keen on in order to keep the peace. And only when we’re backed into a corner or are pushed beyond our breaking points do we usually act. We do our best to play nice because the world is a better place when we don’t fight.
And this is where fiction diverges from real life and the tiger analogy comes into play. People in reality are like territorial tigers. Tigers normally avoid conflict. Rather than invade another tiger’s territory, they stalk away and establish their own new territory. But fiction requires a concrete and specific reason why characters must butt heads. Fiction also requires that those involved not be allowed to simply exit the story and establish a new territory off page. It this happened there wouldn’t be a compelling plot and the ending would be unsatisfying (how disappointing it would it have been if Sam walked out after finding John in “Dead Man’s Blood” 1x20 or Dean never chose to return to reality at the end of “WiaWSNB” 2x20). Like two trapped tigers, characters must be made to repeatedly invade and eventually stay in each other’s territory for the conflict to play out. The tigers must be forced, by either internal or external forces, to circle each other until something happens. And this slow circling, evading, hiding, and seeking builds until the climax of the story where their meeting is inevitable and the conflict finally comes to a head.
So how are the tigers kept circling?
A character must be attached to the story in a way that prevents them from avoiding the conflict indefinitely and escaping. As I see it, this is done though:
1. External forces: the character is directly tied to the plot so they can’t escape. This is what I’ll call the plot tiger.
2. Internal needs/desires: the character’s motivation is constructed such that they won’t leave. This is what I’ll term the motivation tiger.
I think Sam and Dean represent these two different conflict tigers, one tied largely to the plot and one made unable to leave because of constructed motivation/characterization. As a byproduct, Sam and Dean are lashed to the story in fundamentally different ways, resulting in the notion of the Sam-centric plot and Dean-centric characterization.
Because I believe Sam and Dean conflict tiger roles have evolved, I’m going to discuss S1 and S2 together and then S3 (through the currently US aired episode “Jus In Bello” 3x12). Then I'll talk about why I think The Show/Kripke doesn't favor either Sam or Dean, but the perception that "it's all about Sam" and "we know Dean to death" both at the expense of the other are artifacts of SPN-specific plot construction, the nature of creating compelling and believable conflict in fiction, and how the fundamentally different conflict tigers are used in a story (I have a really geeky table, too *grins*).
S1 and S2: The Injured Sam Tiger and The Mama Dean Tiger
Every story needs a plot tiger. It doesn’t matter if it’s a person, an animal, or an object, but the story must be about someone or something in order for the plot to move forward in a logical manner. For S1 and S2 Sam was the unwilling plot tiger, tied to the story by external forces outside of his control. He was dragged kicking and screaming from his chosen life, bonked over the head, and essentially concussed by the plot. And like an injured tiger, he literally couldn’t escape the story (i.e. the territory) because it was about him, happening to him, and following him … a monkey humping his back.
Even if Sam had run off to Yemen and left Dean in the dust, he would've only been postponing the inevitable. Azazel would’ve eventually come charging through Sam's front door, dragging the story with him. In fact, the intervening 22 years between the pre- and post-title card scenes in the pilot was exactly what this was; a postponement of what eventually must be and Sam’s futile attempt to escape the inescapable. So by necessity and story construction, someone had to be the plot tiger; in this case it was Sam, who simply had no choice in the matter.
This is why Sam was the entry character for the series, and why the pilot was told from his POV. He was whom the audience was meant to identify and empathize with, which was why it was important to cast a likable and accessible actor to portray him (as substantiated by Kripke in the S1 DVDs). To draw the audience Sam had to be a seemingly regular college student to provide the contrast for his subsequent character development (Campbell’s hero's journey). We had to be charmed by Sam's normalcy, and it was his everydayness that was meant to endure him to us. Sam was the audience’s security blanket, the one we could depend on when inevitably the plot got gnarly (which is why Sam's transformation in S3 is that much more unsettling). So at the beginning of the series it was Sam's story because the story had to be about someone. The mytharc, which so far features Sam at its center, supports this supposition: the generations of PsyKids and their seemingly dark destinies, the fate of a demon army, and the surface motivation for the big bad gal/kid/thing in S3. Even Mary's death—the catalyst for John's and subsequently Dean and Sam's hunting lives—was a consequence of actions centered on Sam and his demon blood baptism.
Certainly S1 and S2 Sam was also made to fit the description of the motivation tiger by making the plot (mytharc) personal in the last five minutes of the pilot with Jess burning on the ceiling. This was repeated at the beginning of S2 with John's death. However, all characters need motivation otherwise the story seems nonsensical and sentimental, so although Sam filled both conflict tiger roles to some degree, his primary purpose in S1 and S2 was to be the plot tiger, the foundation of the story, and anchor the mytharc (plot) firmly into place.
On the other hand, in S1 and S2, Dean was never held hostage by the plot: he wasn't having visions, a demon wasn't hunting him, he wasn't part of a generation of psychics. He wasn't entrenched in the plot the same way Sam was because, at that point, the mytharc (which is what I’m referring to as “plot” even though technically the definition extends it beyond that narrow application) wasn't about Dean. Furthermore, Dean wasn't meant to be the audience surrogate, so he was free to be whatever the writers wanted him to be. He didn't have to be likeable or totally believable. Therefore, he was bigger than life, funnier, tougher, gruffer, snarkier, and sexier than your average Joe. Whereas we were meant to sympathize with Sam and follow him into the plot because we cared about what happened to him (plot), Dean’s role was to entrance us like the Pied Piper, making us follow him because we were curious about who he was (motivation). Dean was the frosting on the cake and the sparkly glitter on the tiara and what Sam couldn't be by construction.
But all of Dean's charisma couldn't anchor him in the story and keep him circling the injured (and sometimes pissy) Sam plot tiger in a believable way. And for the story of two brothers to work, Dean needed to absolutely stay with Sam. Therefore, Dean's motivation had to explain why he wouldn't run off to find John alone even though he physically could've escaped the story (i.e. the territory) without the plot following him. This is why Dean's needs and desires were made to be familial, why Dean needed to need John and Sam more than anything else, why it was necessary for his sense of self to take a backseat to his collective SamDeanJohn identity, and why Dean had to be the bridge between Sam and John (who needed to be at odds for Sam’s rejection of his former life implicit in Campbell’s hero’s journey to take place). In this way, Dean became the mama motivation tiger who repeatedly chose to stay because his internal needs/desires prevented him from exiting the story. It wasn't that Dean couldn't leave; it was that he simply wouldn't (which is why S3 Dean's impending departure is that much more heartbreaking).
Keeping the motivation tiger circling requires different treatment than the plot tiger. Whereas it's usually clear why the plot tiger—Sam in S1 and S2—can't escape as he's essentially trapped in the story, the audience needs to understand why the motivation tiger—Dean in S1 and S2—continues to hover despite the difficulties, bone-aching angst, and single-tear manpain otherwise his character's involvement feels contrived and the conflict appears artificial. The motivation tiger requires a significant amount of characterization independent of the plot (a.k.a. mytharc) as he can’t rely on the plot to elucidate his actions and use it as a characterization crutch like the plot tiger because, by nature, the motivation tiger isn’t tied to the plot. And as a consequence, the motivation tiger appears to be an attention hog because without specialized attention geared specifically toward characterization, his actions simply won't make sense. Essentially the motivation tiger is the shiny dude in the middle of the three-ring circus juggling oranges and pineapples and humming the Benny Hill theme song while the plot tiger is the quiet guy in the corner holding the tent up. But without either of them, things would fall apart; keeping the circus running requires a collective effort.
I think a story can have multiple motivation tigers, plot tigers, hybrid motivation-plot tigers, and/or a combination of all three. However, in the case of the S1 and S2, the story (as we’re learning) was convoluted enough that I think there was room for only one plot tiger, Sam. And I think in order to further delineate character roles without injecting more messy competition in an already conflict-ridden surface plot, Dean was appointed the motivation tiger. However, in any story, as the plot develops and the characters become more complex, the plot and motivation tigers begin to blend, and as a story evolves and the stakes are upped, hybrid conflict tigers are the natural result. Anchoring a character into the story by trapping them in the plot as well as assigning them concrete reasons why they won’t leave only strengthens plot and ratchets everything up for a big-payoff climax. I think this is exactly what’s been happening in SPN and brings us to Sam and Dean and their convoluted relationships with the S3 story.
S3: The Trapped Dean Tiger, The Watch Guard Sam Tiger, and a Mix of Each
S3 feels like the fulcrum on which the mytharc is balanced and we're experiencing the shifting power dynamic as the Winchester seesaw begins to slowly tilt in the opposite direction. I think this makes sense when framed in Kripke’s five-year plan. Year three is when everything should begin to shift; when character foundations laid in the previous seasons are expanded and previously planted plot seeds begin to sprout. S3 is when things should begin to change. And appropriately S3 is when Sam and Dean reverse conflict tiger roles with Dean becoming plot tiger and Sam reverting to the motivation tiger. Then later they evolve into hybrid tigers, supporting the idea that as a series evolves the characters become more firmly incorporated into story through both plot and motivation.
Dean became the plot tiger the moment he locked lips with the Crossroad’s Demon in “AHBL-2” (2x22). By sacrificing his life for Sam’s, Dean trapped himself in his own plot. And like Sam in S1 and S2, he’s now being carried on the back draft of the story, and regardless of his actions, Dean will be forced to deal with the conflict in some manner if it be weaseling out of the deal or taking a trip to the pit. Also, like with the inevitable meeting of trapped plot-tiger Sam and Azazel in S1 and S2, the tension, what enthralls us, isn’t if Dean will deal with the consequences of his deal (because it’s unavoidable) but how he’ll deal with it. Even more satisfying is Dean’s previously established characterization/motivation built through his motivation-tiger role was used to catapult him directly into the plot. The Winchester propensity for self-sacrifice (“Salvation” 1x21, “Devil’s Trap” 1x22, and “IMToD” 2x01) and Dean’s need to save his family, his reflexive response to put others before himself, his inability to accept failure, his fear of being alone, or whatever one interprets the reasons behind his choice made his switch from motivation to plot tiger seamless and a natural extension of his character, the hallmark of good characterization.
Dean’s role as plot tiger marks the emergence of a dual mytharc-related plot. For the first time Sam and Dean have their own plots, “demons after Sam” and “Dean’s deal”. And I think the competing nature of a two-plot story adds to the emotional estrangement between Sam and Dean and the more fragmented feel of S3 by dividing their attention and toggling between each plot respectively. As a result, Sam and Dean must operate more independently because they’re responsible for carrying and cultivating their own plot as well as each other’s (their propensity for secret keeping also acts as dividing agent that supports more individualized plots). In S3 we’ve had at seven out of twelve (58%) episodes featuring plot-driven scenes with Sam sans Dean (“The Magnificent Seven” 3x01, “TKAA 3x02, “Sin City” 3x04, “Bedtime Stories” 3x05, “Mystery Spot” 3x11) and Dean sans Sam (“TKAA 3x02”, “Sin City” 3x04, “Malleus Maleficarum” 3x09, “DaLDoM” 3x10) whereby in previous seasons with a single-plot mytharc there were only seven out of forty-four (16%) such episodes (“Scarecrow” 1x11, “Bloodlust” 2x03, “Crossroad Blues” 2x08, “Hunted” 2x10, “BUaBS” 2x14, WiaWSNB” and “AHBL-1” 2x21). It’s easy to see why a single plot was important for S1 and S2 when part of the goal was to first build the fraternal bond then strengthen the collective Sam-and-Dean identity. But as we’re entering the middle of the series it seems natural that as the story expands their relationship also experiences growing pains regardless if this was done purposefully and/or created inadvertently from story construction. In all likelihood we’ll see the two S3 plots merge, reunifying the brothers with a single larger, stronger plot as the series comes full circle to its finale.
Like flipping from heads to tails on a coin, as Dean became the plot tiger Sam became the motivation tiger. This wasn’t a matter of Sam simply defaulting to motivation tiger because Dean became the plot tiger, but I think, like Dean in S1 and S2, the easiest way to reattach Sam to the plot was through motivation. Furthermore, it was imperative that Sam learned about Dean’s deal before the end of “AHBL-2” to prevent him from leaving the story. When Dean killed Azazel, Sam’s surface goals set up in S1 and S2—avenge Jess and Mary's death and get Azazel off his back—were fulfilled, and without the big bad guy perusing him and the other psychics of his generation dead, the plot previously tangled around Sam’s ankles seemingly fell away. Sure, there was the threat of the newly released demon army but with what we knew at that point Sam could’ve likely exited the story without it following him (Gordon and Kubric didn’t emerge until “BDaBR” 3x03 and mentions of Lilith didn’t occur until “Malleus Maleficarum”). Therefore, Sam had to be retied to the story in a new way, and this had to happen before the curtain closed on S2. The easiest way to accomplish this was to endanger what Sam had come to care about most, what The Show has been building since the pilot, his relationship with Dean, and then reveal Dean’s life was at stake as soon as possible (in the resolution of S2’s climax, the last five minutes of “AHBL-2”). As a result, we never doubted that Sam would stick around for S3 because it was ingrained in his character to need, above everything else, to save Dean. And, voila, that’s how Sam’s character development over the last two seasons was used to flip him from the plot tiger to the motivation tiger in one swift and easy plot reveal. :)
To support this, we’ve seen a number of S3 episodes specifically centered on Sam’s characterization that parallel S1 and S2 Dean-centric episodes when he was the motivation tiger. The Sam-centric flashbacks in “AVSC” (3x08) mimicked the flashbacks in the Dean-centric episode “Something Wicked” (1x18). I think the Sam-centric alternate-reality episode “Mystery Spot” was purposely made the counterpoint to the alternate-reality Dean-heavy episode “WiaWSNB”. Watch the opening montage for “Mystery Spot” and you’ll see clips from “WiaWSNB” despite the fact the episodes didn’t share reoccurring characters outside of Sam and Dean nor were linked by a through-going plot thread.
As the plot becomes more complicated and the characters develop, the relationship between character, plot, and motivation becomes more complex. Plot and motivation tigers are no longer mutually exclusive and characters begin to mesh into the plot based on both external circumstances and internal desires/needs. The need to save Dean kept Sam pigeonholed in the motivation tiger role until Kubric and Creedy tracked him down in “ABDaBR” (3x03) and the revelation a demon was gunning for him in “Malleus Maleficarum” pulled him back into the plot, making Sam a hybrid plot-motivation tiger. And, strangely, this also turned Dean, the new S3 plot tiger, into a hybrid tiger as we know Dean would never exit the plot on his own accord and leave Sam. So although the dual plot might have the boys by the ankles, Sam and Dean have their hands around both plots’ necks and aren’t letting go. In S3, plot, motivation, internal needs/desires, and external pressures/circumstances have melded to create a tangled ball of drama/angst and a no-exit story where the characters are solidly tied to two separate plots and each other. And by the nature of fiction and compounding effect of plot complications it’s only going to get messier. Yay!
Why the Story is About Dean and We Do Know Sam
So far I’ve tried to come up with reasons for some of fandom’s staunch belief “the plot is all about Sam” and “Dean hogs all the characterization”. But just because there’s a possible explanation doesn’t necessarily mean the original observation is true. So because I was curious if there really were more episodes centering on Dean’s motivations and more Sam-based plot episodes (and because I’m a dork), I made a table *makes a face*. Marks in the Sam (P) and Dean (P) columns denote episodes where I thought new information about Sam and/or Dean’s mytharc-related plot was revealed, while marks in the columns labeled Sam (M) and Dean (M) identify episodes featuring new revelations regarding Sam and/or Dean’s motivations/characterization. These designations were based on new information/reveals instead of reiterations of previously known facts because the nature of storytelling is to forward the plot and character development as efficiently as possible, and I felt new information would be the best measuring stick in which to judge the central focus (character/plot) of each episode.
The table of extreme dorkery is here (something is very wrong with Macs and table format preservation and I can't spend any more time trying to figure out how to get the table in this post *headdesk*).
The table results generally support the plot/motivation tiger trends. S1 slightly favors Sam’s plot-slanted episodes (9-8 episodes) and S2 slightly favors Dean-heavy motivation episodes (16-13 episodes). Episodes spent on character motivation in S1 are the same, which makes sense considering both characters needed to get up and running and needed almost equal attention. Sam was favored slightly in S3 with one more motivation-based episode than Dean. It’s not surprising that S1 and S2’s plot results are similar because there was only one plot (see the * table note for explanation), but with the emergence of Dean’s deal, I thought S3 would be telling. But, weirdly, Sam had one more plot-based episode than Dean, which was probably a result of Sam being reincorporated into the plot through two threads (Gordon and Kubric as well as Lilith).
The designations for each episode are somewhat subjective and the table might vary slightly depending on opinion. But I tried to be non-biased so any “errors” are hopefully random (gah, whatever). Even if fandom at large disagrees on the specifics of the exact episode designations, unless I was biased and consistently ruled in favor of one brother over the other, even a moderate amount of non-biased play in the plot and motivation designations wouldn’t likely result in huge differences whereby one brother was favored dramatically over the other in any category. Enough of that boring methodology stuff *snore*, moving on…
The point is neither Sam nor Dean-centric episodes based on plot or motivation overwhelm each other. The slight emphasis on Sam’s plot (28 Sam-plot episodes to 26 Dean-plot episodes) and Dean-motivation episodes (37 Dean-motivation episodes to 35 Sam-motivation episodes) supports the idea of Sam being the plot tiger and Dean being the motivation tiger for the majority of the series. However, overall there’s not a significance difference between Sam and Dean-heavy episodes, suggesting both brothers have more or less been treated evenly with respect to both plot and motivation. Put plainly: Sam isn’t a total plot pig and Dean isn’t a complete characterization hog.
To me, it feels like these numbers (which I expected to be highly skewed) don’t really account for fandom’s avid discussion about this topic. Weird. So if you’re onboard with the discussion so far, the question now becomes: if Sam and Dean are treated more or less fairly with respect to the number of episodes designated to their character and plot development, then why does it still feel like Sam gets less characterization and Dean is short-changed on plot? Could it be something about the nature of their conflict tiger roles rather than the number of episodes they’ve been occupying those roles?
Sam and Characterization
“AVSC” made me realize that I really did know Sam even though I felt he wasn’t as concretely defined as Dean. During the flashback scenes with wee!Sam and notsowee!Dean, I immediately recognized Sam’s snarky sarcasm (“A pony.” :D), his 2+2=4 logic (“If [monsters] got Mom, they can get Dad, and if they get Dad they can get us.”), and his propensity to question the obvious and steadfast, unquestionable boundaries (Is Dad a spy? Why do we move around so much? Is that why we never talk about Mom?). Hiding behind those scruffy bangs was the same Sam, that deeply damaged little boy who idolizes his big brother, who pushes until he gets answers he doesn’t want to hear. In contrast, my knee-jerk reaction to Sam in the flash-forward in “Mystery Spot” was to think, “Wrong! Wrong!” and suddenly want to watch the pilot or “Hookman” featuring the emo-bangs-hoodie-college boy from S1. Then I realized in order to feel the strong affinity for wee!Sam in “AVSC” and the omg!wrong contrast in “Mystery Spot”, I must have good sense of who Sam is to begin with. I don’t think my thoughts are original enough to make me the only one who in fandom felt this way after watching those episodes, so…
I think we do know Sam. I think he has received his fair share of characterization, but it’s been done in a less obvious way. Recall the plot tiger’s characterization is largely filtered through the plot. It’s more direct than the motivation tiger and requires less attention-grabbing work to explain the how and whys of a character. The irony is because the plot tiger’s characterization results in a more straightforward approach we don’t necessarily notice it, making it appear to be covert and sneaky even though we’re staring straight at it. It’s like the non-squeaky wheel, we don’t think about Sam’s characterization being delivered through the plot because it’s meant to be transparent; it’s what’s supposed to happen and we take it for granted. When things work right for the plot tiger, characterization naturally spins from the plot and is virtually unnoticeable. The motivation tiger is the squeaky wheel you can’t help but notice because he’s making noise and waving a sign that says, “LOOK AT ME!” because to understand him you must look away from the plot. When things work right for the motivation tiger, he entrances the audience into paying attention to him, not the plot, and that’s what we remember.
Furthermore, when Sam became the motivation/hybrid tiger in S3, his motivations didn’t need much individualized attention because we already had two seasons of pre-plotted Sam characterization. When Dean was motivation tiger in S1 and S2 we were still learning who the characters were and Dean’s motivations needed to be explained as the story unfolded with scene and subplots outside of the mytharc plot. We didn’t need to be told as many things about Sam in S3 because we’d already seen them—it was understood that Sam wouldn’t abandon Dean because we saw Sam’s head-down determination and his efforts to save Dean in “Faith” (1x12). With Dean it was like we were given the already-constructed building and had the time-consuming task of personally deconstructing half of it to see how it was made. Whereas with Sam we passively monitored the construction from the beginning and saw the innards as the final product was being fabricated.
Dean and The Plot
I think the perception that Dean gets “no plot” is partially due to the nature of the story and Dean’s invented motivation/characterization. This may sound like a cop out, but implicit in Dean’s role in S1/S2 was his need to be all about John, Sam, the family Winchester at the expense of himself in order to set up the motivation for his deal in “AHBL-2”. So according to Dean’s character, Sam’s S1 and S2 plot had to be Dean’s plot, and in a roundabout way the plot was also Dean’s. That’s the paradox; by being about Sam it’s also about Dean because what happens to one affects the other. You kick one and the other jumps. And reinforcing this idea that Dean’s invented motivation partially defines his relationship to the plot is the fact his more assertive sense of self expressed in “DaLDoM” is coincident with the development of his independent plot. It’ll be interesting to see how his character develops as his plot plays out in the rest of S3. :)
In some cases, our understanding of mytharc made some episodes, at their airdate, appear to be Sam-centric even though we now know they weren’t. “IMToD” is an excellent example of Dean’s plot hiding in plain sight. Until “AHBL-2”, the last episode of S2, when Dean’s own plot emerged, the plot-related events in “IMToD” were viewed only in terms of Sam’s plot arc because Dean’s plot, although present, was incognito. But looking back on S2, it’s clear that Dean’s plot had been quietly unfurling since the fall of 2006, we just didn’t notice. Silly us.
I think what also adds to this false perception is even when “it was about Dean” the larger outcome, what we remember, was tied to the mytharc-related plot and, therefore, to Sam, the S1 and S2 plot tiger. Take “Croatoan” (2x09) where the surface plot was Dean-centric (the mystery of him shooting Duane Tanner, his choice to stay with infected Sam). Even though there was lots Dean-centric stuff happening, Dean’s story was the vehicle delivering information about the mytharc-related plot that centered on Sam (Sam’s immune to a demonic virus that’s being cultivated). So what the majority of fandom remembers foremost about “Croatoan” is its ties to the mytharc plot that just happens to be attached to Sam because those facts are directly relevant to the construction of the larger story.
Even though technically Sam was the plot tiger in S1 and S2, that doesn’t negate Dean’s role in the plot. In fact, without Dean to forward the story, the plot would’ve fallen flat on its face. Dean enlightened and deepened the story considerably. Like two facing mirrors reflecting an image to infinity, the consequences of Sam and Dean’s actions bounce off of both brothers over and over again. They’re foils for each other. We understand the story better through their combined reactions. Without Dean, this story wouldn’t have been possible. Think about how different some mytharc-related episodes like “Dead Man’s Blood”, “Scarecrow”, “Croatoan”, or “Devil’s Trap” would’ve been without Dean. Some episodes such as “IMToD”, “BUaBS”, “AHBL-1 and 2” wouldn’t have been possible at all. So I argue that even though Dean wasn’t directly linked to the plot like Sam in S1 and S2, he was definitely part of the plot, got his fair share of plot-related episodes, and was and an active and integral component of the story.
Final Blabberings
I think the idea Sam hogs the plot and Dean hoards the characterization at the expense of the other is a perception, a misconception even. I believe Sam received just as much characterization as Dean and Dean had his fair share of the plot. I maintain The Show doesn’t favor either of them, but has divided its attentions between Sam and Dean more or less equally over the last three seasons and this debate is a perceived artifact of SPN’s plot construction and the nature of creating compelling and believable conflict in fiction.
A character’s motivation is rooted in plot and plot spins directly out of a character’s needs and desires. So plot and characterization are like a snake swallowing its tail, where one ends the other begins. And Sam and Dean’s relationship with the story and their conflict tiger roles illustrate the circular-nature of this debate perfectly. More than anything, this story is about two brothers who are fundamentally different but work together all the same. And I think the same is true for how Sam and Dean are tied to the plot and how their characterization is dealt with. Each are accomplished in different ways and delivered through different means, but somehow they compliment each other and are used in tandem to forward the story. This is Sam-and-Dean’s story, not only Sam’s, not only Dean’s. I think it’s worth a closer look to realize that it’s not a matter of Sam getting more of something at Dean’s expense or Dean having more of something else at Sam’s expense. And with S3 melding previously established conflict tiger roles, I think this perception may very well be on its way out.
Gah! The end! I'm sort of embarrassed about how long and detailed this got, but apparently this is what happens after weeks without new shows. *needs chocolate and caffeine*
ETA:kentawolf drew this gorgeous and so appropriate picture of our furry plot tigers! *eee* Thank you, sweets!
“Sam Fans bash Dean Fans and call them crazy, obsessed and rabid because they want Dean to have a presence in the mytharc episodes that doesn't just revolve around Sam. Yet Sam Fans whine continuously about Sam not having any characterization.”
Being that it’s the hiatus and I apparently need my SPN fix, I found myself thinking about why some people believe Dean has “no plot” and Sam has “no characterization”. This meta is my SPN-deprived brain’s attempt to explain why.
Let me first say I’m not a Sam or Dean girl. I like both the boys (according to the lingo being thrown around I’m apparently “bibro” (bi-brother) *snortlaughs at self*). And although my initial connection to the show was through Sam, I’ve grown to love Dean. It’s difficult for me to think of one without the other, and if asked to choose which one I favor, it wouldn’t be an easy answer. Each, to me, serves two different yet vital roles in the story—without either of them the plot that’s kept me watching would collapse. I’ve not contributed to the discussion on the CW page. I’m not into fandom wank or purposefully stirring up controversy. So if your knee jerk reaction is to type a ranting reply in caps lock, please do that in your own journal and, if you feel so inclined, send me a link or spin it into a meta and post to spn_heavymeta where I’ll likely stumble across it. However, I love SPN-related discussion and enjoy all pleasant and good-intentioned chatting regardless if what’s being said is inline or refutes my points. I welcome people expanding the discussion, playing devil’s advocate, and/or pointing out inaccuracies or misinterpretations. I don’t ever expect or ask people to agree with me, but when talking about “hot topics” lets keep things civil because it’s a lot more fun. Fandom is supposed to be where show love and fan fun smash together to equal good times to the power of a million and five. Enough said, now onto the blabber! *hurkie jump*
In “The Art of Fiction” John Gardner uses an analogy about two territorial tigers to illustrate how tension must be maintained between characters in order for the climax of a story to be persuasive and interesting:
“The value of the standard feud story always depends on the writer’s ability to create powerfully convincing characters in irreconcilable conflict, both sides in some measure sympathetic--that is, both sides pursuing real, through mutually exclusive, values. For the climax to be persuasive, we must be shown dramatically why each character believes what he does and why each cannot sympathize with the values of his antagonist; and we must be shown dramatically why the conflicting characters cannot or do not simply avoid each other, as in real life even tigers ordinarily do.”
The bolded section is what I find especially relevant to Sam and Dean. They’re like the two tigers that must be constrained to the same territory by the artificial constructs of plot and motivation in order to build tension and conflict necessary for a satisfying and inevitable story climax. As a result, I believe they have fundamentally different (and sometimes overlapping) roles in SPN’s story. And it’s out of these prescribed roles that I believe the “Sam hogs the plot” and “Dean steals all the characterization” debate has emerged.
But before getting to the Sam and Dean tigers, let me back up and ramble about tension and conflict in fiction. I realize there are execution differences between writing fiction that’s being digested in written form (short stories, novellas, novels) and fiction for the visual medium (theater, television, cinema), but I feel the heart of storytelling is largely the same--which is why novels are commonly adapted to the screen--and there’s relevance in applying the rules of fiction to both. So I may be generalizing a bit, but for any screenwriters who may stumble upon this please know it’s not my intention to butcher your medium. I have a better understanding of literary fiction, so that’s where this discussion is sourced.
One of the most important and difficult things to do in fiction is sustaining audience interest. The main way to do this is through tension, if that be through character vs. character tension (antagonist/protagonist tension or romantic tension a.k.a. UST (unresolved sexual tension)), plot driven tension based on a yet-to-be-solved mystery or a what-will-happen-next quest, tension based on a character vs. nature or society, or tension that occurs entirely within the hidden self of a character (character vs. self).
Tension is mostly achieved through conflict. And without conflict, an interesting and compelling plot is impossible. Even tales, arguably viewed as “simple” stories, have concrete, specific, and sustainable conflict. Cinderella was at odds with her stepmother and stepsisters; the Three Little Pigs had the Big Bad Wolf repeatedly banging on their door; even Snow White, who was a push over, had her stepmother queen creating havoc. Furthermore, conflict doesn’t have to be imposed on the character by external forces; it can be entirely internal. In Dorothy Parker’s “A Telephone Call”, an interior monologue about a phone call, the conflict takes place entirely in one character’s head.
In fiction (let’s brush aside modern and postmodern fiction, okay?) sustainable conflict must be magnified to be compelling. Likewise, the characters in the story need to be pumped up so they’re slightly larger than life without becoming completely unrealistic, which can alienate them (unless the point is to make them a caricature or parody a character archetype, usually only done for flat characters who are villains or act as comic relief). The reason why characters capture our hearts is because they act in ways we wish we always could. They say things most of us might think but would never say. They're braver, cockier, funnier. They’re who we wish we could be. Heroes blast ahead and take a stance against impossible odds, and must, at some point, deal with conflict.
However, in real life most of us do whatever we can to avoid overt, messy conflict. We try to keep our mouths shut, procrastinate, acquiesce and capitulate to demands/requests that we may silently not been keen on in order to keep the peace. And only when we’re backed into a corner or are pushed beyond our breaking points do we usually act. We do our best to play nice because the world is a better place when we don’t fight.
And this is where fiction diverges from real life and the tiger analogy comes into play. People in reality are like territorial tigers. Tigers normally avoid conflict. Rather than invade another tiger’s territory, they stalk away and establish their own new territory. But fiction requires a concrete and specific reason why characters must butt heads. Fiction also requires that those involved not be allowed to simply exit the story and establish a new territory off page. It this happened there wouldn’t be a compelling plot and the ending would be unsatisfying (how disappointing it would it have been if Sam walked out after finding John in “Dead Man’s Blood” 1x20 or Dean never chose to return to reality at the end of “WiaWSNB” 2x20). Like two trapped tigers, characters must be made to repeatedly invade and eventually stay in each other’s territory for the conflict to play out. The tigers must be forced, by either internal or external forces, to circle each other until something happens. And this slow circling, evading, hiding, and seeking builds until the climax of the story where their meeting is inevitable and the conflict finally comes to a head.
So how are the tigers kept circling?
A character must be attached to the story in a way that prevents them from avoiding the conflict indefinitely and escaping. As I see it, this is done though:
1. External forces: the character is directly tied to the plot so they can’t escape. This is what I’ll call the plot tiger.
2. Internal needs/desires: the character’s motivation is constructed such that they won’t leave. This is what I’ll term the motivation tiger.
I think Sam and Dean represent these two different conflict tigers, one tied largely to the plot and one made unable to leave because of constructed motivation/characterization. As a byproduct, Sam and Dean are lashed to the story in fundamentally different ways, resulting in the notion of the Sam-centric plot and Dean-centric characterization.
Because I believe Sam and Dean conflict tiger roles have evolved, I’m going to discuss S1 and S2 together and then S3 (through the currently US aired episode “Jus In Bello” 3x12). Then I'll talk about why I think The Show/Kripke doesn't favor either Sam or Dean, but the perception that "it's all about Sam" and "we know Dean to death" both at the expense of the other are artifacts of SPN-specific plot construction, the nature of creating compelling and believable conflict in fiction, and how the fundamentally different conflict tigers are used in a story (I have a really geeky table, too *grins*).
S1 and S2: The Injured Sam Tiger and The Mama Dean Tiger
Every story needs a plot tiger. It doesn’t matter if it’s a person, an animal, or an object, but the story must be about someone or something in order for the plot to move forward in a logical manner. For S1 and S2 Sam was the unwilling plot tiger, tied to the story by external forces outside of his control. He was dragged kicking and screaming from his chosen life, bonked over the head, and essentially concussed by the plot. And like an injured tiger, he literally couldn’t escape the story (i.e. the territory) because it was about him, happening to him, and following him … a monkey humping his back.
Even if Sam had run off to Yemen and left Dean in the dust, he would've only been postponing the inevitable. Azazel would’ve eventually come charging through Sam's front door, dragging the story with him. In fact, the intervening 22 years between the pre- and post-title card scenes in the pilot was exactly what this was; a postponement of what eventually must be and Sam’s futile attempt to escape the inescapable. So by necessity and story construction, someone had to be the plot tiger; in this case it was Sam, who simply had no choice in the matter.
This is why Sam was the entry character for the series, and why the pilot was told from his POV. He was whom the audience was meant to identify and empathize with, which was why it was important to cast a likable and accessible actor to portray him (as substantiated by Kripke in the S1 DVDs). To draw the audience Sam had to be a seemingly regular college student to provide the contrast for his subsequent character development (Campbell’s hero's journey). We had to be charmed by Sam's normalcy, and it was his everydayness that was meant to endure him to us. Sam was the audience’s security blanket, the one we could depend on when inevitably the plot got gnarly (which is why Sam's transformation in S3 is that much more unsettling). So at the beginning of the series it was Sam's story because the story had to be about someone. The mytharc, which so far features Sam at its center, supports this supposition: the generations of PsyKids and their seemingly dark destinies, the fate of a demon army, and the surface motivation for the big bad gal/kid/thing in S3. Even Mary's death—the catalyst for John's and subsequently Dean and Sam's hunting lives—was a consequence of actions centered on Sam and his demon blood baptism.
Certainly S1 and S2 Sam was also made to fit the description of the motivation tiger by making the plot (mytharc) personal in the last five minutes of the pilot with Jess burning on the ceiling. This was repeated at the beginning of S2 with John's death. However, all characters need motivation otherwise the story seems nonsensical and sentimental, so although Sam filled both conflict tiger roles to some degree, his primary purpose in S1 and S2 was to be the plot tiger, the foundation of the story, and anchor the mytharc (plot) firmly into place.
On the other hand, in S1 and S2, Dean was never held hostage by the plot: he wasn't having visions, a demon wasn't hunting him, he wasn't part of a generation of psychics. He wasn't entrenched in the plot the same way Sam was because, at that point, the mytharc (which is what I’m referring to as “plot” even though technically the definition extends it beyond that narrow application) wasn't about Dean. Furthermore, Dean wasn't meant to be the audience surrogate, so he was free to be whatever the writers wanted him to be. He didn't have to be likeable or totally believable. Therefore, he was bigger than life, funnier, tougher, gruffer, snarkier, and sexier than your average Joe. Whereas we were meant to sympathize with Sam and follow him into the plot because we cared about what happened to him (plot), Dean’s role was to entrance us like the Pied Piper, making us follow him because we were curious about who he was (motivation). Dean was the frosting on the cake and the sparkly glitter on the tiara and what Sam couldn't be by construction.
But all of Dean's charisma couldn't anchor him in the story and keep him circling the injured (and sometimes pissy) Sam plot tiger in a believable way. And for the story of two brothers to work, Dean needed to absolutely stay with Sam. Therefore, Dean's motivation had to explain why he wouldn't run off to find John alone even though he physically could've escaped the story (i.e. the territory) without the plot following him. This is why Dean's needs and desires were made to be familial, why Dean needed to need John and Sam more than anything else, why it was necessary for his sense of self to take a backseat to his collective SamDeanJohn identity, and why Dean had to be the bridge between Sam and John (who needed to be at odds for Sam’s rejection of his former life implicit in Campbell’s hero’s journey to take place). In this way, Dean became the mama motivation tiger who repeatedly chose to stay because his internal needs/desires prevented him from exiting the story. It wasn't that Dean couldn't leave; it was that he simply wouldn't (which is why S3 Dean's impending departure is that much more heartbreaking).
Keeping the motivation tiger circling requires different treatment than the plot tiger. Whereas it's usually clear why the plot tiger—Sam in S1 and S2—can't escape as he's essentially trapped in the story, the audience needs to understand why the motivation tiger—Dean in S1 and S2—continues to hover despite the difficulties, bone-aching angst, and single-tear manpain otherwise his character's involvement feels contrived and the conflict appears artificial. The motivation tiger requires a significant amount of characterization independent of the plot (a.k.a. mytharc) as he can’t rely on the plot to elucidate his actions and use it as a characterization crutch like the plot tiger because, by nature, the motivation tiger isn’t tied to the plot. And as a consequence, the motivation tiger appears to be an attention hog because without specialized attention geared specifically toward characterization, his actions simply won't make sense. Essentially the motivation tiger is the shiny dude in the middle of the three-ring circus juggling oranges and pineapples and humming the Benny Hill theme song while the plot tiger is the quiet guy in the corner holding the tent up. But without either of them, things would fall apart; keeping the circus running requires a collective effort.
I think a story can have multiple motivation tigers, plot tigers, hybrid motivation-plot tigers, and/or a combination of all three. However, in the case of the S1 and S2, the story (as we’re learning) was convoluted enough that I think there was room for only one plot tiger, Sam. And I think in order to further delineate character roles without injecting more messy competition in an already conflict-ridden surface plot, Dean was appointed the motivation tiger. However, in any story, as the plot develops and the characters become more complex, the plot and motivation tigers begin to blend, and as a story evolves and the stakes are upped, hybrid conflict tigers are the natural result. Anchoring a character into the story by trapping them in the plot as well as assigning them concrete reasons why they won’t leave only strengthens plot and ratchets everything up for a big-payoff climax. I think this is exactly what’s been happening in SPN and brings us to Sam and Dean and their convoluted relationships with the S3 story.
S3: The Trapped Dean Tiger, The Watch Guard Sam Tiger, and a Mix of Each
S3 feels like the fulcrum on which the mytharc is balanced and we're experiencing the shifting power dynamic as the Winchester seesaw begins to slowly tilt in the opposite direction. I think this makes sense when framed in Kripke’s five-year plan. Year three is when everything should begin to shift; when character foundations laid in the previous seasons are expanded and previously planted plot seeds begin to sprout. S3 is when things should begin to change. And appropriately S3 is when Sam and Dean reverse conflict tiger roles with Dean becoming plot tiger and Sam reverting to the motivation tiger. Then later they evolve into hybrid tigers, supporting the idea that as a series evolves the characters become more firmly incorporated into story through both plot and motivation.
Dean became the plot tiger the moment he locked lips with the Crossroad’s Demon in “AHBL-2” (2x22). By sacrificing his life for Sam’s, Dean trapped himself in his own plot. And like Sam in S1 and S2, he’s now being carried on the back draft of the story, and regardless of his actions, Dean will be forced to deal with the conflict in some manner if it be weaseling out of the deal or taking a trip to the pit. Also, like with the inevitable meeting of trapped plot-tiger Sam and Azazel in S1 and S2, the tension, what enthralls us, isn’t if Dean will deal with the consequences of his deal (because it’s unavoidable) but how he’ll deal with it. Even more satisfying is Dean’s previously established characterization/motivation built through his motivation-tiger role was used to catapult him directly into the plot. The Winchester propensity for self-sacrifice (“Salvation” 1x21, “Devil’s Trap” 1x22, and “IMToD” 2x01) and Dean’s need to save his family, his reflexive response to put others before himself, his inability to accept failure, his fear of being alone, or whatever one interprets the reasons behind his choice made his switch from motivation to plot tiger seamless and a natural extension of his character, the hallmark of good characterization.
Dean’s role as plot tiger marks the emergence of a dual mytharc-related plot. For the first time Sam and Dean have their own plots, “demons after Sam” and “Dean’s deal”. And I think the competing nature of a two-plot story adds to the emotional estrangement between Sam and Dean and the more fragmented feel of S3 by dividing their attention and toggling between each plot respectively. As a result, Sam and Dean must operate more independently because they’re responsible for carrying and cultivating their own plot as well as each other’s (their propensity for secret keeping also acts as dividing agent that supports more individualized plots). In S3 we’ve had at seven out of twelve (58%) episodes featuring plot-driven scenes with Sam sans Dean (“The Magnificent Seven” 3x01, “TKAA 3x02, “Sin City” 3x04, “Bedtime Stories” 3x05, “Mystery Spot” 3x11) and Dean sans Sam (“TKAA 3x02”, “Sin City” 3x04, “Malleus Maleficarum” 3x09, “DaLDoM” 3x10) whereby in previous seasons with a single-plot mytharc there were only seven out of forty-four (16%) such episodes (“Scarecrow” 1x11, “Bloodlust” 2x03, “Crossroad Blues” 2x08, “Hunted” 2x10, “BUaBS” 2x14, WiaWSNB” and “AHBL-1” 2x21). It’s easy to see why a single plot was important for S1 and S2 when part of the goal was to first build the fraternal bond then strengthen the collective Sam-and-Dean identity. But as we’re entering the middle of the series it seems natural that as the story expands their relationship also experiences growing pains regardless if this was done purposefully and/or created inadvertently from story construction. In all likelihood we’ll see the two S3 plots merge, reunifying the brothers with a single larger, stronger plot as the series comes full circle to its finale.
Like flipping from heads to tails on a coin, as Dean became the plot tiger Sam became the motivation tiger. This wasn’t a matter of Sam simply defaulting to motivation tiger because Dean became the plot tiger, but I think, like Dean in S1 and S2, the easiest way to reattach Sam to the plot was through motivation. Furthermore, it was imperative that Sam learned about Dean’s deal before the end of “AHBL-2” to prevent him from leaving the story. When Dean killed Azazel, Sam’s surface goals set up in S1 and S2—avenge Jess and Mary's death and get Azazel off his back—were fulfilled, and without the big bad guy perusing him and the other psychics of his generation dead, the plot previously tangled around Sam’s ankles seemingly fell away. Sure, there was the threat of the newly released demon army but with what we knew at that point Sam could’ve likely exited the story without it following him (Gordon and Kubric didn’t emerge until “BDaBR” 3x03 and mentions of Lilith didn’t occur until “Malleus Maleficarum”). Therefore, Sam had to be retied to the story in a new way, and this had to happen before the curtain closed on S2. The easiest way to accomplish this was to endanger what Sam had come to care about most, what The Show has been building since the pilot, his relationship with Dean, and then reveal Dean’s life was at stake as soon as possible (in the resolution of S2’s climax, the last five minutes of “AHBL-2”). As a result, we never doubted that Sam would stick around for S3 because it was ingrained in his character to need, above everything else, to save Dean. And, voila, that’s how Sam’s character development over the last two seasons was used to flip him from the plot tiger to the motivation tiger in one swift and easy plot reveal. :)
To support this, we’ve seen a number of S3 episodes specifically centered on Sam’s characterization that parallel S1 and S2 Dean-centric episodes when he was the motivation tiger. The Sam-centric flashbacks in “AVSC” (3x08) mimicked the flashbacks in the Dean-centric episode “Something Wicked” (1x18). I think the Sam-centric alternate-reality episode “Mystery Spot” was purposely made the counterpoint to the alternate-reality Dean-heavy episode “WiaWSNB”. Watch the opening montage for “Mystery Spot” and you’ll see clips from “WiaWSNB” despite the fact the episodes didn’t share reoccurring characters outside of Sam and Dean nor were linked by a through-going plot thread.
As the plot becomes more complicated and the characters develop, the relationship between character, plot, and motivation becomes more complex. Plot and motivation tigers are no longer mutually exclusive and characters begin to mesh into the plot based on both external circumstances and internal desires/needs. The need to save Dean kept Sam pigeonholed in the motivation tiger role until Kubric and Creedy tracked him down in “ABDaBR” (3x03) and the revelation a demon was gunning for him in “Malleus Maleficarum” pulled him back into the plot, making Sam a hybrid plot-motivation tiger. And, strangely, this also turned Dean, the new S3 plot tiger, into a hybrid tiger as we know Dean would never exit the plot on his own accord and leave Sam. So although the dual plot might have the boys by the ankles, Sam and Dean have their hands around both plots’ necks and aren’t letting go. In S3, plot, motivation, internal needs/desires, and external pressures/circumstances have melded to create a tangled ball of drama/angst and a no-exit story where the characters are solidly tied to two separate plots and each other. And by the nature of fiction and compounding effect of plot complications it’s only going to get messier. Yay!
Why the Story is About Dean and We Do Know Sam
So far I’ve tried to come up with reasons for some of fandom’s staunch belief “the plot is all about Sam” and “Dean hogs all the characterization”. But just because there’s a possible explanation doesn’t necessarily mean the original observation is true. So because I was curious if there really were more episodes centering on Dean’s motivations and more Sam-based plot episodes (and because I’m a dork), I made a table *makes a face*. Marks in the Sam (P) and Dean (P) columns denote episodes where I thought new information about Sam and/or Dean’s mytharc-related plot was revealed, while marks in the columns labeled Sam (M) and Dean (M) identify episodes featuring new revelations regarding Sam and/or Dean’s motivations/characterization. These designations were based on new information/reveals instead of reiterations of previously known facts because the nature of storytelling is to forward the plot and character development as efficiently as possible, and I felt new information would be the best measuring stick in which to judge the central focus (character/plot) of each episode.
The table of extreme dorkery is here (something is very wrong with Macs and table format preservation and I can't spend any more time trying to figure out how to get the table in this post *headdesk*).
The table results generally support the plot/motivation tiger trends. S1 slightly favors Sam’s plot-slanted episodes (9-8 episodes) and S2 slightly favors Dean-heavy motivation episodes (16-13 episodes). Episodes spent on character motivation in S1 are the same, which makes sense considering both characters needed to get up and running and needed almost equal attention. Sam was favored slightly in S3 with one more motivation-based episode than Dean. It’s not surprising that S1 and S2’s plot results are similar because there was only one plot (see the * table note for explanation), but with the emergence of Dean’s deal, I thought S3 would be telling. But, weirdly, Sam had one more plot-based episode than Dean, which was probably a result of Sam being reincorporated into the plot through two threads (Gordon and Kubric as well as Lilith).
The designations for each episode are somewhat subjective and the table might vary slightly depending on opinion. But I tried to be non-biased so any “errors” are hopefully random (gah, whatever). Even if fandom at large disagrees on the specifics of the exact episode designations, unless I was biased and consistently ruled in favor of one brother over the other, even a moderate amount of non-biased play in the plot and motivation designations wouldn’t likely result in huge differences whereby one brother was favored dramatically over the other in any category. Enough of that boring methodology stuff *snore*, moving on…
The point is neither Sam nor Dean-centric episodes based on plot or motivation overwhelm each other. The slight emphasis on Sam’s plot (28 Sam-plot episodes to 26 Dean-plot episodes) and Dean-motivation episodes (37 Dean-motivation episodes to 35 Sam-motivation episodes) supports the idea of Sam being the plot tiger and Dean being the motivation tiger for the majority of the series. However, overall there’s not a significance difference between Sam and Dean-heavy episodes, suggesting both brothers have more or less been treated evenly with respect to both plot and motivation. Put plainly: Sam isn’t a total plot pig and Dean isn’t a complete characterization hog.
To me, it feels like these numbers (which I expected to be highly skewed) don’t really account for fandom’s avid discussion about this topic. Weird. So if you’re onboard with the discussion so far, the question now becomes: if Sam and Dean are treated more or less fairly with respect to the number of episodes designated to their character and plot development, then why does it still feel like Sam gets less characterization and Dean is short-changed on plot? Could it be something about the nature of their conflict tiger roles rather than the number of episodes they’ve been occupying those roles?
Sam and Characterization
“AVSC” made me realize that I really did know Sam even though I felt he wasn’t as concretely defined as Dean. During the flashback scenes with wee!Sam and notsowee!Dean, I immediately recognized Sam’s snarky sarcasm (“A pony.” :D), his 2+2=4 logic (“If [monsters] got Mom, they can get Dad, and if they get Dad they can get us.”), and his propensity to question the obvious and steadfast, unquestionable boundaries (Is Dad a spy? Why do we move around so much? Is that why we never talk about Mom?). Hiding behind those scruffy bangs was the same Sam, that deeply damaged little boy who idolizes his big brother, who pushes until he gets answers he doesn’t want to hear. In contrast, my knee-jerk reaction to Sam in the flash-forward in “Mystery Spot” was to think, “Wrong! Wrong!” and suddenly want to watch the pilot or “Hookman” featuring the emo-bangs-hoodie-college boy from S1. Then I realized in order to feel the strong affinity for wee!Sam in “AVSC” and the omg!wrong contrast in “Mystery Spot”, I must have good sense of who Sam is to begin with. I don’t think my thoughts are original enough to make me the only one who in fandom felt this way after watching those episodes, so…
I think we do know Sam. I think he has received his fair share of characterization, but it’s been done in a less obvious way. Recall the plot tiger’s characterization is largely filtered through the plot. It’s more direct than the motivation tiger and requires less attention-grabbing work to explain the how and whys of a character. The irony is because the plot tiger’s characterization results in a more straightforward approach we don’t necessarily notice it, making it appear to be covert and sneaky even though we’re staring straight at it. It’s like the non-squeaky wheel, we don’t think about Sam’s characterization being delivered through the plot because it’s meant to be transparent; it’s what’s supposed to happen and we take it for granted. When things work right for the plot tiger, characterization naturally spins from the plot and is virtually unnoticeable. The motivation tiger is the squeaky wheel you can’t help but notice because he’s making noise and waving a sign that says, “LOOK AT ME!” because to understand him you must look away from the plot. When things work right for the motivation tiger, he entrances the audience into paying attention to him, not the plot, and that’s what we remember.
Furthermore, when Sam became the motivation/hybrid tiger in S3, his motivations didn’t need much individualized attention because we already had two seasons of pre-plotted Sam characterization. When Dean was motivation tiger in S1 and S2 we were still learning who the characters were and Dean’s motivations needed to be explained as the story unfolded with scene and subplots outside of the mytharc plot. We didn’t need to be told as many things about Sam in S3 because we’d already seen them—it was understood that Sam wouldn’t abandon Dean because we saw Sam’s head-down determination and his efforts to save Dean in “Faith” (1x12). With Dean it was like we were given the already-constructed building and had the time-consuming task of personally deconstructing half of it to see how it was made. Whereas with Sam we passively monitored the construction from the beginning and saw the innards as the final product was being fabricated.
Dean and The Plot
I think the perception that Dean gets “no plot” is partially due to the nature of the story and Dean’s invented motivation/characterization. This may sound like a cop out, but implicit in Dean’s role in S1/S2 was his need to be all about John, Sam, the family Winchester at the expense of himself in order to set up the motivation for his deal in “AHBL-2”. So according to Dean’s character, Sam’s S1 and S2 plot had to be Dean’s plot, and in a roundabout way the plot was also Dean’s. That’s the paradox; by being about Sam it’s also about Dean because what happens to one affects the other. You kick one and the other jumps. And reinforcing this idea that Dean’s invented motivation partially defines his relationship to the plot is the fact his more assertive sense of self expressed in “DaLDoM” is coincident with the development of his independent plot. It’ll be interesting to see how his character develops as his plot plays out in the rest of S3. :)
In some cases, our understanding of mytharc made some episodes, at their airdate, appear to be Sam-centric even though we now know they weren’t. “IMToD” is an excellent example of Dean’s plot hiding in plain sight. Until “AHBL-2”, the last episode of S2, when Dean’s own plot emerged, the plot-related events in “IMToD” were viewed only in terms of Sam’s plot arc because Dean’s plot, although present, was incognito. But looking back on S2, it’s clear that Dean’s plot had been quietly unfurling since the fall of 2006, we just didn’t notice. Silly us.
I think what also adds to this false perception is even when “it was about Dean” the larger outcome, what we remember, was tied to the mytharc-related plot and, therefore, to Sam, the S1 and S2 plot tiger. Take “Croatoan” (2x09) where the surface plot was Dean-centric (the mystery of him shooting Duane Tanner, his choice to stay with infected Sam). Even though there was lots Dean-centric stuff happening, Dean’s story was the vehicle delivering information about the mytharc-related plot that centered on Sam (Sam’s immune to a demonic virus that’s being cultivated). So what the majority of fandom remembers foremost about “Croatoan” is its ties to the mytharc plot that just happens to be attached to Sam because those facts are directly relevant to the construction of the larger story.
Even though technically Sam was the plot tiger in S1 and S2, that doesn’t negate Dean’s role in the plot. In fact, without Dean to forward the story, the plot would’ve fallen flat on its face. Dean enlightened and deepened the story considerably. Like two facing mirrors reflecting an image to infinity, the consequences of Sam and Dean’s actions bounce off of both brothers over and over again. They’re foils for each other. We understand the story better through their combined reactions. Without Dean, this story wouldn’t have been possible. Think about how different some mytharc-related episodes like “Dead Man’s Blood”, “Scarecrow”, “Croatoan”, or “Devil’s Trap” would’ve been without Dean. Some episodes such as “IMToD”, “BUaBS”, “AHBL-1 and 2” wouldn’t have been possible at all. So I argue that even though Dean wasn’t directly linked to the plot like Sam in S1 and S2, he was definitely part of the plot, got his fair share of plot-related episodes, and was and an active and integral component of the story.
Final Blabberings
I think the idea Sam hogs the plot and Dean hoards the characterization at the expense of the other is a perception, a misconception even. I believe Sam received just as much characterization as Dean and Dean had his fair share of the plot. I maintain The Show doesn’t favor either of them, but has divided its attentions between Sam and Dean more or less equally over the last three seasons and this debate is a perceived artifact of SPN’s plot construction and the nature of creating compelling and believable conflict in fiction.
A character’s motivation is rooted in plot and plot spins directly out of a character’s needs and desires. So plot and characterization are like a snake swallowing its tail, where one ends the other begins. And Sam and Dean’s relationship with the story and their conflict tiger roles illustrate the circular-nature of this debate perfectly. More than anything, this story is about two brothers who are fundamentally different but work together all the same. And I think the same is true for how Sam and Dean are tied to the plot and how their characterization is dealt with. Each are accomplished in different ways and delivered through different means, but somehow they compliment each other and are used in tandem to forward the story. This is Sam-and-Dean’s story, not only Sam’s, not only Dean’s. I think it’s worth a closer look to realize that it’s not a matter of Sam getting more of something at Dean’s expense or Dean having more of something else at Sam’s expense. And with S3 melding previously established conflict tiger roles, I think this perception may very well be on its way out.
Gah! The end! I'm sort of embarrassed about how long and detailed this got, but apparently this is what happens after weeks without new shows. *needs chocolate and caffeine*
ETA:
kentawolf drew this gorgeous and so appropriate picture of our furry plot tigers! *eee* Thank you, sweets!
no subject
Date: 2008-04-19 03:16 am (UTC)That's very interesting. I'd originally thought those clips were in there to distract attention from the spoiler of the Trickster clips and I'd never paid attention to the connection.
I like the way you laid out the interrelationships of the mytharc and the internal motivations. I hadn't seen those arguments expressed before, but I would agree that they seem like misperceptions to me. I'd also argue that Dean did have something of a plot arc in S1 but it was buried in his motivational one. He had the role of reintroducing Sam to hunting and also to have his commitment to the family tested. But I think viewers more often catch on to action plots and less to emotional ones.
I kind of came to something a bit similar in a roundabout way.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-19 08:27 pm (UTC)Really interesting discussion. I, too, remember being surprised to find JP's name credited first (for the reasons you stated). Especially being that because my friends who were rabidly whispering about this "Supernatural" show only mentioned Dean (or I should say that's what I only remember them talking about), I had no idea there was even a "younger brother". My response when I first saw Sam was "WHO IS THAT?!". But I think that reinforces what you discussed, Dean being the break-out character who fandom popularizes and why his characterization contributes to that. I also think his role as nurturer and that his character is more emotionally accessible than Sam, despite his prickly exterior, makes it easier for the audience to identify/empathize with him.
You also mention something I didn't touch on here: the reactionary character being largely the motivation tiger. The character bound to the plot is reactionary in the sense they're stuck reacting to external circumstances (the plot), but there needs to be an element of choice, otherwise the story seems fated and loses it's tension (and this is an American story, not European, where free will is practically a requirement). So while the plot tiger is confined to the story and must appear to have choices (drive the boat so to speak), the motivation tiger --whose central drive is usually another character--is stuck being reactionary without the illusion of choice. Unless they change who they are or the power dynamic changes, they're "fated" to react to the other character/characters they're bound to because that's ingrained in their role.
And the flipping power dynamic brings up what you said:
Dean is still the one who rescues Sam and even when he needs rescuing is aided by Sam but usually saves himself in the end.
Interesting that we're beginning to see Sam rescue Dean more this season ("Sin City", "Fresh Blood", "Bedtime Stories" to some degree, and even the original script to "MM" had Sam killing Tammi!demon, switching the rescue role to Sam).
the cumulation of this growing independence of Dean from Sam is going to result in an externalized change of power between them in S4.
I agree that we're seeing a power shift and it'll be fascinating to see where Krikpe takes us for S4. I'm not sure if we'll have an inverse power relationship. I like to think that it's becoming more equal that flipping like a coin only because having 2 characters in an equally matched power play (plot and characterization-based) makes for great tension. I'd love to see Sam and Dean go head to head in S4.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 02:03 am (UTC)No problem, I don't mind anonymous comments (and anyway if you signed it, it wouldn't be :>). I did actually, about a year ago, but when I was going to post it to my IJ account I realized that I should update it since S3 had brought about some changes.
I had no idea there was even a "younger brother". My response when I first saw Sam was "WHO IS THAT?!".
Heh, I guess I did know about the brothers even before watching the show because there was so much talk about how slashy it was, and that seemed to be the real draw for people. And the relationship was definitely what drew me in, so I'm firmly in the bibro camp ;>
the motivation tiger --whose central drive is usually another character--is stuck being reactionary without the illusion of choice
Yes, I suspect this is what is probably behind a lot of the complaints about Dean's role. I remember hearing a lot of that regarding Spike when he was on both BtVS and Angel, complaints that the character was stuck simply reacting to (and being taken for granted by) the main characters. While Spike was my favorite character I really felt his best role was to be that foil, and that it was one of the things that made him interesting. However on those ensemble shows everyone reacted to the main character. Perhaps with SPN there's more friction because the set-up of the show makes them seem like equal characters whereas Dean often has spent a lot of time reacting. To see him only that way though seems to me to sell the character short.
I'd love to see Sam and Dean go head to head in S4.
I thought early on this season that's where they might be headed and I think it would be really fascinating to see. It could open up all sorts of new character development. For people who are very married to the idea of the two as a close team ala parts of S1 and S2 though, I'm not sure what the reaction will be.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 08:24 pm (UTC)Yes, very true. I wasn't sure if I'd be able to get notified of your reply, though. And I'm lazy and don't want to recheck a post to make sure I'm not being accidentally rude by appearing to have abandoned a conversation. ;P
And the relationship was definitely what drew me in, so I'm firmly in the bibro camp
Funny enough, I wasn't aware of the slash vibe, but I did think they were gay. When I discovered they were brothers twenty minutes or so later, I had a serious "Oh!" moment.
Someone here in the comments coined the term "bibrolar" to describe those in the "bibro" camp. *dies laughing* I can't help it, any derivative of "bibro" reduces me to giggles; I'm not sure why. This fandom kills me XD.
However on those ensemble shows everyone reacted to the main character. Perhaps with SPN there's more friction because the set-up of the show makes them seem like equal characters whereas Dean often has spent a lot of time reacting. To see him only that way though seems to me to sell the character short.
I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I think you've vocalized exactly what astri13 is saying in her comment thread to this post. Gah. Too bad I already wrote this meta otherwise I would add that as a corollary ... maybe with a link to your IJ meta.
I also agree that this is probably a by product of a small cast. It seems like a lot of issues get superconcentrated the fewer characters presenta. I've always been curious about the propensity for some people to view the boys as direct opposites, having or not having certain things in terms of the other. For example: "Dean is charismatic so Sam isn't" or "Sam is good at research so Dean isn't." I can't count the number of times I've seen people defending Dean's "smartness" as if because Sam is smart it's assumed that Dean isn't. Even though I think these comparisons aren't true, I think they're made because it's natural to think of pairs of two as being opposites ends of the spectrum (even if they're not) because there's not a third or fourth party to provide another measure of relativity. Stick Ron from "Nightshifter" as a third brother and then I'm sure people wouldn't be saying that Sam wasn't charismatic (although he still wouldn't be as charming as Dean).
I love that this is a forum for discussion and your meta/thoughts have sparked new ideas for me.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 08:47 pm (UTC)Ah right, yes, that is a problem.
I did think they were gay. When I discovered they were brothers twenty minutes or so later, I had a serious "Oh!" moment.
LOL! I'll bet. Oh that's funny. You know, a few months back a friend who doesn't even know the show exists stopped by my LJ while we were on the phone and said "Why do you have two gay guys on your page?" I don't think she understood why I found that so amusing.
"Bibrolar" seems very apt. I think it should go into the SPN lexicon.
Too bad I already wrote this meta otherwise I would add that as a corollary
Next year you can revisit the post -- then you'll be able to add all sorts of corollaries :D
Even though I think these comparisons aren't true, I think they're made because it's natural to think of pairs of two as being opposites ends of the spectrum (even if they're not) because there's not a third or fourth party to provide another measure of relativity.
Very good point, yes. It's the same sort of thing that happens to female or minority characters in shows when they're the only one (or two) representatives. They get loaded with all sorts of baggage that doesn't allow the characters to be individuals. Although I find it kind of amusing in a way, because it's what also seems to happen in families. Someone gets labeled the "smart kid" or the "pretty sister" or the "troublemaker" or "the athlete" or whatever, as if only that sibling has the attribute. It's one of the things that makes twin studies so fascinating to me, that inevitably twins raised apart are more similar than if they were raised together, because they felt less pressure to differentiate themselves in ways that weren't as true to their nature.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 08:19 am (UTC)I just peeked at your header. LOL! Wow, your friend got the gay vibe from just that picture (it's a lovely picture, btw)? The boys' chemistry seems to just radiate off of them. Actually, the reason I thought they were gay (for 20 minutes) was the distinct Scully/Mulder feel of their relationship ... almost UST, but more snarky and exasperated rather than full-out denial/suppression. Heh.
They get loaded with all sorts of baggage that doesn't allow the characters to be individuals.
Yes, OR worse, they're type cast. I was channel surfing last week and ran across a scene on some show with a middle-aged black woman with short hair, wearing stone earring and talking in a mystic voice. She was a psychic. Good old Missouri reincarnated (or maybe Missouri was reincarnated). It made me chuckle, then wish Missouri would show up and heckle Dean some more.
But perhaps the comparison game is just a natural human propensity? We're taught in school to "compare and contrast" as well as "summarize and generalize" from a very early age. Maybe we can just blame the school system for some of fandom's perceptions. ;)
inevitably twins raised apart are more similar than if they were raised together
Interesting. I learned something new. Fandom is good for amassing all sorts of disparate tidbits. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 06:58 pm (UTC)or maybe Missouri was reincarnated
Good God, yes, although had the part been cast differently I suspect it would have been more archetypal than sterotypical.
then wish Missouri would show up and heckle Dean some more
Hee! I got this image of Missouri saying nothing (but picking up everything about the Deal), just standing there with her hands on her hips, staring at Dean disapprovingly until he began to squirm and bark "What?"
We're taught in school to "compare and contrast"
I could even see it being a genetic tendency, so that individuals in groups specialize and become particularly skilled in valued traits, then pass those traits and lessons on to future generations.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 08:14 am (UTC)Duran Duran has a fandom or would that be "bandom"? ;) I actually love Duran Duran. In fact I'm listening to "Come Undone" right now ... a song I associate with "Mystery Spot" because of the lyrics. I never thought of the young le Bon/Ackles resemblance, but their mouths and cheekbones are similar.
The other day I was thinking how much John Edwards and John Barrowman look alike.
No. Really? *does a google image search*
OMG. That is uncanny. LOL!!!
There are some truly strange pictures of Capt. Jack out there on the internet. In particular one of him (apparently) in a production of "Hair".
Kuromatic and I came to the conclusion while back that Sam and Dean have a long lost uncle ... Javier Bardem.
standing there with her hands on her hips, staring at Dean disapprovingly until he began to squirm and bark "What?"
*snork*
Of course Dean would squirm and probably scratch the back of his neck like he does when he knows he's been caught. Then he'd shove Sam forward. "Use your psychic thing, Sam, and make her stop doing ... whatever it is you psychics do." Aww, Dean. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 07:27 pm (UTC)So I'm not the only one who thinks so then! I first noticed it when I was watching the Colbert Report. (He did a great job doing his version of Colbert's the Word). Yeah I could see Javier Bardem. I did think he looked rather like JDM.
Duran Duran has a fandom or would that be "bandom"?
Oh it does/did. Back in the 80s there were zines, both news oriented and fanfic ones. Rumor was the band members had copies in their homes too. One fan doing an interview reported that JT had a zine on his coffee table that had a romantic manip of him and Nick Rhodes on it. This is the oldest site I know of: http://there.indyramp.com/
young le Bon/Ackles resemblance, but their mouths and cheekbones are similar.
To be honest, I'd never noticed it until I saw my header. I'd say it was their eyes as well, both of them have huge ones and look most alike when they're being intense. Some comparisons: http://www.kraftykards.com/images/music/Simon31.jpg and http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/5065/img002df0.jpg
or http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1947857_duran_pa_150.jpg and http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5868/img004vz2.jpg
Hee! Squirmy, uncomfortable Dean is pretty amusing.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 03:26 am (UTC)Jet ski! Someone on my flist circulated that video. I was highly amused.
JT had a zine on his coffee table that had a romantic manip of him and Nick Rhodes on it.
Heh. That's fan appreciation for you. Almost along the same lines of Jim Beaver's "I read John/Bobby" shirt.
I'd say it was their eyes as well
O.O Mmm. *nods* That first picture is very nice. You know, I think it's the cheekbones. I really noticed JA's lovely cheekbones because of the lighting in the Dean vs. Dean dream sequence.
Thanks for the eye candy. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-26 11:38 pm (UTC)I was floored by that one. Who knew he had that much of a sense of humor? I laughed pretty hard over Sandy's "cries his way through sex" shirt too.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 07:51 am (UTC)I have this verbosity "problem", but I suppose the length of this post probably made that quite obvious.
Wordiness rules, yay *G*
I think that's why Sam and Dean have been able to evolve into such round characters. And the more complex and nuanced a character is, the easier it is to be drawn to them and to stay interested. Perhaps that's part of the reason for the show's passionate following?
Interesting you bring up the postitives of a small cast. Yourlibrarian and I were just babbling about the flip side of the coin in a parallel comment thread:
Which brings me here...
It's something that fascinates me a little bit, in storytelling terms, the way each show (or film, book, whatever) must work with both the strengths and weaknesses of the format they choose. A show with many characters at its disposal will maybe have many more options for exploring a wide variety of character dynamics, but a show with a very limited cast will be able to explore those couple of characters to a depth and intensity that larger ensemble can only dream of. Pros and cons to both.
With SN...well, I watched from the Pilot, so knew they were brothers from the start. And I don't slash, so...I never had any trouble or misunderstandings there of the kind outlined above. *G* It's been fascinating to engage with a show as deeply as I have done. I usually find myself identifying with a minor character in an ensemble, and my focus then becomes wishing they would take more of a centre seat. With SN I never had that. I was a Dean girl from the start, initially because I already knew and liked JA as an actor but then because Dean himself captivated me - increasingly so as season one wore on. But Sam's hold on my affections has increased exponentially since then. And really, it's the relationship between them that fascinates me most, warped as it was from the start by the quasi-parental vibe that skewed the sibling dynamic, but always remaining fluid, changing and growing over the course of the show.
Of course, one thing that has always stood out for me is that when we meet the brothers in the Pilot, this is the first time they have ever spent time alone together as adults. They are both bringing all kinds of baggage from their shared childhood - in which Dean was one of Sam's authority figures, frequently his primary caregiver as well as his brother - but now that they are reunited as adults, they have to re-learn how to relate to one another. It's a work in progress for a very long time, for Sam especially, as he comes to realise fairly early in season one that he really doesn't know his brother at all, below the surface. As a sullen and rebellious teen it would never have occurred to him to analyse his father or brother's fears and motivations. But coming back as an adult, everything is different.
I think I've waffled well and truly off the point now, so shall shut up *G*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 08:54 pm (UTC)Ah, a fan from day one. Excellent. I wished I would've listened to my friend who kept insisting I watch "this show with Dean" back in 2005. It took me two years to get my act in gear.
I've never been this interested in a TV-based fandom before, so I've really enjoyed digging into the visual aspects of the show and other such things that aren't present in literary-based fandoms. Of course, story structure and character analysis is fun no matter what medium you're in.
now that they are reunited as adults, they have to re-learn how to relate to one another.
Excellent point. Having Sam estranged from John and Dean for years imparted just enough separation to make things tense and slightly uncomfortable when the boys reunited without completely breaking the family bond. So in that way, Sam and Dean were almost strangers with a hugely complicated history who clearly cared about each other but didn't quite know how to make things work ... a nice push-pull tension.
I recall reading that Kripke had entertained the idea that Sam and Dean were raised apart and the story would spin from them getting to know each other starting from the pilot. I think he made the right choice to go with Sam and Dean growing up together for the reasons you stated. Plus, their shared emotional baggage gives nice depth/history to the story and allows for shared wee!Sam and wee!Dean flashbacks. :)
As a sullen and rebellious teen it would never have occurred to him to analyse his father or brother's fears and motivations.
Yes, watching Sam discover Dean and esp. John are more than just his big brother (the care taker, hero) and father (the enforcer) has been really satisfying. To see Dean relinquish his role once is also a testament to how far he has come since the pilot.
Like almost everything in this fandom, I think the converse of what you said is also true. Not only have these 3 years been about Sam discovering who Dean is, but it's also been about Dean learning that Sam is not just his little brother. Because Dean was virtually half a parent to Sam, breaking his almost-inherent instinct to protect would take years. I think S3 has been especially important for this, not only because it showed Sam taking a more pro-active approach to life, but it also demonstrated to Dean that Sam is a capable hunter. Somewhere over these last years Sam has grown up, and perhaps the time to let go is approaching--something that's hard for any parent.
The way I see Sam and Dean's relationship evolving isn't a matter of Sam only growing up to match Dean or Dean only shifting his view downward to relate to "child!Sam", but more like Sam and Dean have each changed and met in a middle ground. Each giving, each taking, and each totally getting on each others' nerves the whole time! :D
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 09:27 pm (UTC)LOLs. Man, it seems like every time I recap an argument between the brothers, I have to note that 'they are both right and they are both wrong'. It's the beauty of this show, that each character, our boys especially, has a fully rounded perspective formed by his background and life experiences, and they each interpret the world around them according to their own prejudices and preconceptions. Shades of grey abound! And there is something of truth and something of flaw in every argument.
Not only have these 3 years been about Sam discovering who Dean is, but it's also been about Dean learning that Sam is not just his little brother.
Yes, completely. I truncated my argument in the last comment to focus solely on Sam, since his learning curve back at the start of the show was the most overt and obvious, as our perspective character. And because I was going way off topic, and getting rather long and rambly for comments. But yes, the shifting dynamic between the brothers is very definitely a two-way street, as they learn and grow alongside one another, meeting very much in the middle as adults now that they have spent so much time together and managed to share and shed so much of their childhood baggage. It will always be a work in progress - Dean will always be the bossy oldest and Sam will always be the bratty youngest - but they've come such a long way and learned so very much about themselves and each other.
And that's the...okay, another beauty of the show: that process of establishing adult friendships between siblings is something we can all relate to. Those of us who have siblings, that is. But the circumstances the boys live in accentuate and exaggerate and intensify that process. It's fabulous.
For me, as well, this is the first time I've been involved with an online fandom for a show that's currently airing, and it's a fascinating rollercoaster ride!
Would you mind if I friended you? I'm usually stupidly shy about asking and just let people come to me, but I do like to talk thinky thoughts, and there's still plenty of Show still ahead of us. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 06:48 am (UTC)Would you mind if I friended you?
Oh, not at all. I'm always up for discussion about The Show with other enthusiastic people! I'll expedite the process and friend you. :) Feel free to drop by and chat anytime, my journal has an open door policy.
there's still plenty of Show still ahead of us.
Yes, thankfully! And hopefully this will be the case for quite a while.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 07:04 am (UTC)*friends back*
Just in time for new Show! My journal = also very open door.