sweetprince (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sweetprince) wrote2007-05-12 02:04 pm
sweetprince) wrote2007-05-12 02:04 pm
Entry tags:
So I'm bored, this is what happens
This has probably already been said, especially in the wake of all of the Sam Girl/Dean Girl fighting, which I still think is ridiculous. I mean I like Sam better, but that doesn’t mean he is better. Anyway, I guess the thing is that I get really really tired of fic writers and Dean apologists claiming that Sam is a worse more selfish brother because he went off to college. Most of us Sam girls probably already sit there and are like, what? Because clearly, we know that wanting something normal, and wanting something for yourself, does not necessarily mean wanting a life without your father and brother in it. If people think that’s the truth about Sam, I demand you show me the evidence. That’s why us Sam girls like Sam. He’s an intellectual.
But I digress, what I’m attempting to posit is that perhaps Sam’s choices were not the choices of the selfish brother, but those of the younger brother.
I’m an oldest sibling in my household, granted there’s considerable age difference between Aidan and I, but I can see many parallels in our relationship, because Sam and Dean actually do follow very prototypical brotherly roles: they don’t get along, they spend time torturing each other with teasing, they don’t know how to deal with what went wrong between them, and they never ever really apologize. When Sam and Dean were put into a “normal” situation as they were in “What Is and What Should Never Be” it became especially noticeable.
Older siblings are the ones that all the hopes are pinned on, the ones expected to follow in their parents' footsteps, to carry on the family name. The younger sibling may feel pressure, immense pressure, following a successful older sibling as Sam certainly did in the wake of Dean who listened to everything his father said (or so we think), but at the same time, a pressure is lifted. A successful older sibling allows younger siblings to strike out on their own, to make their own path.
Sam did this by going to Stanford, it was either that or live constantly in Dean’s shadow, never measuring up according to John. A younger sibling can certainly still be a favorite— hell they’re the babies of the family, of course there’s going to be some preferential treatment—and still not measure up in a parent’s eyes. In fact, when a favorite child doesn’t measure up to the oldest child, it can often have painful consequences for everybody.
John expected more from Sam than he expected from Dean as a result of that favoritism. This son could burn to even brighter astronomical heights, in his mind. Or so I believe of John. But Sam couldn’t. He didn’t want any part of that, probably especially because Sam never saw it as a competition for his father’s affection, he simply assumed Dean got it because it was always Dean who got praised.
So we’ve established that Sam had to get away from his father’s view of Dean. What we haven’t yet considered is that this method of Sam’s has historical applications. Certainly in early modern England (the period between 1300 to 1650 or so) there were laws of Primogeniture that actually forced younger sons to strike out on their own. Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh were both second sons who left as a result of such laws.
Sam can have no part of the legacy of the older brother, for it is the older brother’s alone, instead he must depart from the family ancestral manor and its ways (in this case an impala and a tradition of demon killing), and become an explorer, an explorer of the world of college and "normality" or as Sam protested in the pilot "safe" (which may be selfish, to say I can't watch you die, Dean) John might’ve been angry that Sam didn’t want any part of what he decided it meant to be a Winchester, but that doesn’t mean he still couldn’t be proud of what Sam achieved on his own.
On a completely different note, to say that Sam ignored all of Dean’s years of sacrifice is ridiculous. Dean certainly wasn’t a blithe martyr at the hands of the evil marauding Sam. He was resentful. He left to go play video games when he shouldn’t have just like a normal kid. To assume that Dean never fought with John and simply acquiesced to all of John’s orders is not admirable or human. It’s brainless and would state that Dean simply has no personality developed independently of John. I’m sure this is not what Dean girls want to say. And using the whole if A then B method, I determine that Dean was not the perfect son. He was the good son for sure, but not the perfect son.
We older siblings know that part of being older is taking care of the younger sibling. We don’t expect anything in return for it. Younger siblings are never going to be able to pay us back. They will never be in a situation where the roles are sufficiently reversed to make such a thing equitable. Older siblings should not expect payment. The fact of the matter is that occasionally little brothers and sisters can be brats, and you can tout that whole “look at all I’ve done for you, and now you’re throwing it back into my face” thing, but it’s never going to work. Little siblings aren’t aware of the sacrifices we make for them, in fact, they see their lives as being more difficult than ours. This doesn’t make them selfish, perhaps a little delusional, because I’ve never figured out where younger siblings get these ideas, but it does seem to be universal of younger siblings.
Dean clearly went above and beyond the call of duty, but who’s to say that Sam was never there for him. People state that Dean is the care-giver and that Sam is the…well, Sam is the thing on freakishly long legs. This seems to be a misinterpretation of his character. Sam is the emotionally available brother, the one who tries to make people feel better, the one who cares. This perception seems to have very little to do with sibling relationships, but is instead a personal trait. Dean cared for Sam, he’ll do anything for him. That is not the same as being a care-giver in a relationship with someone or with other people in general. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a care-giver just because I’ve done stuff for my younger siblings. Dean even states over and over himself (think Tall Tales) that Sam is always trying to be there for people and fix them and listen to their problems.
That is the sign of the care-giver.
It’s clear that Sam knows how to read Dean like a book. My younger siblings don’t have the same ability, probably because we weren’t forced into a car together all around the United States as youths, but at the same time, a knowledge of Dean suggests a willingness to get to know him. I can totally see Dean being upset over X, Y, or Z and Sam coming to comfort him, perhaps not in the right way, perhaps in a way that it only made Dean more upset, because our dearest can’t stand addressing his emotions, but I still feel that Sam, once he was old enough, could and would attempt to be his brother’s support. Just because he’ll never be able to give Dean what Dean gave him, does not suggest that there isn’t the same depth of feeling between them. Nor does it suggest self-preoccupation.
Also, a firm desire to save lives is not the same as being a care-giver. Dean saves lives, but it’s not like he takes a particular interest in the lives that he saves. Not wanting people to die and genuinely wanting and hoping for them to be happy are too completely different sets of desires. It’s Sam who gets emotionally involved with the people they save, who reaches out to Charlie, who can’t get over the tragedy of Max despite the killer he became, and who refuses to let Dean end Gordon. Care-givers don’t see things in black and white in the way that heroes do. They can’t. They feel for people. Using Due South as a metaphor I would say that Fraser is the care-giver and Kowalski is the life saver. Can we not also see the parallels between Dean and Sam and those two characters?
Looking again at “What Is and What Should Never Be,” we can notice further details about the Sam and Dean relationship that suggest that Dean was not always a wonderful brother, that he probably couldn’t have or wouldn’t have lived his life for Sam (look at the way he blew Sam off in Fulsome Prison Blues, self-sacrifice, in my opinion, is extremely selfish, it completely disregards the feelings of people who care about you). It looks very much like he was a legend in Lawrence and Sam probably still had to live in that shadow. Once again Sam was driven in the same path to Stanford because of his brother’s good looks, charm, and the fact that all of creation just seems to think that Dean-like characters are darling (Come on, Dean girls, admit it, you’re in the majority).
Unfortunately, the Winchester brothers’ relationship was sacrificed completely as a result of this shadow-casting. To me this indicates just how much nurture played in the development of their relationship, if not in the development of their personalities. Suddenly Dean the older brother is no longer the care-taker but the tormenter. This assignment of roles I have also observed in my own two brothers, who are exactly four years apart. Aidan may love Patrick, but he sure as hell isn’t going to treat him like it. And in spite of the awful things that Sam may have said in that episode, he had every right to feel that way. Just because sibling rivalry is a norm does not mean that the behavior that comes out of it is acceptable or that it should be simply forgiven.
I love Dean. I truly do. I think that he’s genuine, and he does care about the fate of mankind, if not each individual person in it. He’s got a mission and he knows who he is, and he will never be anybody else. Unfortunately, I also think that he’s the good looking quipper and people tend to overlook and possibly ignore the mistakes and faults that such characters have. Sam might’ve left Dean, but it seems to me that the youngest Winchester definitely needed validation from his older brother (that wanting something else was acceptable, perhaps necessary for a person like Sam), validation that he never received. Especially since fandom seems to view Sam’s leaving for Stanford as something he DID to Dean. I don’t think Dean sees it this way, kiddoes. I think he wanted Sam to be happy, even if he couldn’t say it. Just look at him in “What Is and What Should Never Be.” It may have hurt him, but it would be selfish of Dean to begrudge Sam that desire.
Anyway, I couldn't fall alseep last night, and this is kind of the product of this, sorry if it's totally jacked.
So the point of this meta is to discuss, if you think I'm a ravening lunatic and that I have completely misinterpreted Dean and Sam and the entire shebang, please discuss.
But I digress, what I’m attempting to posit is that perhaps Sam’s choices were not the choices of the selfish brother, but those of the younger brother.
I’m an oldest sibling in my household, granted there’s considerable age difference between Aidan and I, but I can see many parallels in our relationship, because Sam and Dean actually do follow very prototypical brotherly roles: they don’t get along, they spend time torturing each other with teasing, they don’t know how to deal with what went wrong between them, and they never ever really apologize. When Sam and Dean were put into a “normal” situation as they were in “What Is and What Should Never Be” it became especially noticeable.
Older siblings are the ones that all the hopes are pinned on, the ones expected to follow in their parents' footsteps, to carry on the family name. The younger sibling may feel pressure, immense pressure, following a successful older sibling as Sam certainly did in the wake of Dean who listened to everything his father said (or so we think), but at the same time, a pressure is lifted. A successful older sibling allows younger siblings to strike out on their own, to make their own path.
Sam did this by going to Stanford, it was either that or live constantly in Dean’s shadow, never measuring up according to John. A younger sibling can certainly still be a favorite— hell they’re the babies of the family, of course there’s going to be some preferential treatment—and still not measure up in a parent’s eyes. In fact, when a favorite child doesn’t measure up to the oldest child, it can often have painful consequences for everybody.
John expected more from Sam than he expected from Dean as a result of that favoritism. This son could burn to even brighter astronomical heights, in his mind. Or so I believe of John. But Sam couldn’t. He didn’t want any part of that, probably especially because Sam never saw it as a competition for his father’s affection, he simply assumed Dean got it because it was always Dean who got praised.
So we’ve established that Sam had to get away from his father’s view of Dean. What we haven’t yet considered is that this method of Sam’s has historical applications. Certainly in early modern England (the period between 1300 to 1650 or so) there were laws of Primogeniture that actually forced younger sons to strike out on their own. Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh were both second sons who left as a result of such laws.
Sam can have no part of the legacy of the older brother, for it is the older brother’s alone, instead he must depart from the family ancestral manor and its ways (in this case an impala and a tradition of demon killing), and become an explorer, an explorer of the world of college and "normality" or as Sam protested in the pilot "safe" (which may be selfish, to say I can't watch you die, Dean) John might’ve been angry that Sam didn’t want any part of what he decided it meant to be a Winchester, but that doesn’t mean he still couldn’t be proud of what Sam achieved on his own.
On a completely different note, to say that Sam ignored all of Dean’s years of sacrifice is ridiculous. Dean certainly wasn’t a blithe martyr at the hands of the evil marauding Sam. He was resentful. He left to go play video games when he shouldn’t have just like a normal kid. To assume that Dean never fought with John and simply acquiesced to all of John’s orders is not admirable or human. It’s brainless and would state that Dean simply has no personality developed independently of John. I’m sure this is not what Dean girls want to say. And using the whole if A then B method, I determine that Dean was not the perfect son. He was the good son for sure, but not the perfect son.
We older siblings know that part of being older is taking care of the younger sibling. We don’t expect anything in return for it. Younger siblings are never going to be able to pay us back. They will never be in a situation where the roles are sufficiently reversed to make such a thing equitable. Older siblings should not expect payment. The fact of the matter is that occasionally little brothers and sisters can be brats, and you can tout that whole “look at all I’ve done for you, and now you’re throwing it back into my face” thing, but it’s never going to work. Little siblings aren’t aware of the sacrifices we make for them, in fact, they see their lives as being more difficult than ours. This doesn’t make them selfish, perhaps a little delusional, because I’ve never figured out where younger siblings get these ideas, but it does seem to be universal of younger siblings.
Dean clearly went above and beyond the call of duty, but who’s to say that Sam was never there for him. People state that Dean is the care-giver and that Sam is the…well, Sam is the thing on freakishly long legs. This seems to be a misinterpretation of his character. Sam is the emotionally available brother, the one who tries to make people feel better, the one who cares. This perception seems to have very little to do with sibling relationships, but is instead a personal trait. Dean cared for Sam, he’ll do anything for him. That is not the same as being a care-giver in a relationship with someone or with other people in general. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a care-giver just because I’ve done stuff for my younger siblings. Dean even states over and over himself (think Tall Tales) that Sam is always trying to be there for people and fix them and listen to their problems.
That is the sign of the care-giver.
It’s clear that Sam knows how to read Dean like a book. My younger siblings don’t have the same ability, probably because we weren’t forced into a car together all around the United States as youths, but at the same time, a knowledge of Dean suggests a willingness to get to know him. I can totally see Dean being upset over X, Y, or Z and Sam coming to comfort him, perhaps not in the right way, perhaps in a way that it only made Dean more upset, because our dearest can’t stand addressing his emotions, but I still feel that Sam, once he was old enough, could and would attempt to be his brother’s support. Just because he’ll never be able to give Dean what Dean gave him, does not suggest that there isn’t the same depth of feeling between them. Nor does it suggest self-preoccupation.
Also, a firm desire to save lives is not the same as being a care-giver. Dean saves lives, but it’s not like he takes a particular interest in the lives that he saves. Not wanting people to die and genuinely wanting and hoping for them to be happy are too completely different sets of desires. It’s Sam who gets emotionally involved with the people they save, who reaches out to Charlie, who can’t get over the tragedy of Max despite the killer he became, and who refuses to let Dean end Gordon. Care-givers don’t see things in black and white in the way that heroes do. They can’t. They feel for people. Using Due South as a metaphor I would say that Fraser is the care-giver and Kowalski is the life saver. Can we not also see the parallels between Dean and Sam and those two characters?
Looking again at “What Is and What Should Never Be,” we can notice further details about the Sam and Dean relationship that suggest that Dean was not always a wonderful brother, that he probably couldn’t have or wouldn’t have lived his life for Sam (look at the way he blew Sam off in Fulsome Prison Blues, self-sacrifice, in my opinion, is extremely selfish, it completely disregards the feelings of people who care about you). It looks very much like he was a legend in Lawrence and Sam probably still had to live in that shadow. Once again Sam was driven in the same path to Stanford because of his brother’s good looks, charm, and the fact that all of creation just seems to think that Dean-like characters are darling (Come on, Dean girls, admit it, you’re in the majority).
Unfortunately, the Winchester brothers’ relationship was sacrificed completely as a result of this shadow-casting. To me this indicates just how much nurture played in the development of their relationship, if not in the development of their personalities. Suddenly Dean the older brother is no longer the care-taker but the tormenter. This assignment of roles I have also observed in my own two brothers, who are exactly four years apart. Aidan may love Patrick, but he sure as hell isn’t going to treat him like it. And in spite of the awful things that Sam may have said in that episode, he had every right to feel that way. Just because sibling rivalry is a norm does not mean that the behavior that comes out of it is acceptable or that it should be simply forgiven.
I love Dean. I truly do. I think that he’s genuine, and he does care about the fate of mankind, if not each individual person in it. He’s got a mission and he knows who he is, and he will never be anybody else. Unfortunately, I also think that he’s the good looking quipper and people tend to overlook and possibly ignore the mistakes and faults that such characters have. Sam might’ve left Dean, but it seems to me that the youngest Winchester definitely needed validation from his older brother (that wanting something else was acceptable, perhaps necessary for a person like Sam), validation that he never received. Especially since fandom seems to view Sam’s leaving for Stanford as something he DID to Dean. I don’t think Dean sees it this way, kiddoes. I think he wanted Sam to be happy, even if he couldn’t say it. Just look at him in “What Is and What Should Never Be.” It may have hurt him, but it would be selfish of Dean to begrudge Sam that desire.
Anyway, I couldn't fall alseep last night, and this is kind of the product of this, sorry if it's totally jacked.
So the point of this meta is to discuss, if you think I'm a ravening lunatic and that I have completely misinterpreted Dean and Sam and the entire shebang, please discuss.
no subject
I don't really care who likes who. What happened to people being different and just having different tastes...?
P: like...how I like dr peppe instead of coke just cos it tastes better to me? lol
I think people just have too much time on their hands that they're gonna start fighting over who is better. They both have their good points and their bad points.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?! /nerd
:D
no subject
no subject
-headscratch- There's such a difference between Winchester-logic and...actual logic lol that it's kind of hard to say.
Was Sam a horrible person for wanting to go to school and live normal? No. That's...what anybody wants. Being a hero is hard, and we've seen that by the toll it's taken on all the hunters we've seen.
Did it hurt Dean really fucking bad? Yeah. But that's something you can't ask of someone. Please drop all your hopes and dreams to stay with me because I will hurt if you leave. And Dean never would've asked that of Sam, anyway...
Does Dean crumble into little pieces every time Sam leaves? Just about. And Sam leaves a lot (by accident or on purpose). I don't think he does it because he's a bad person or to hurt Dean...I just don't think Sam knows to what extent his brother loves him (speaking strictly canon here ;D).
I kind of want to hit Sam when he thinks this because hellooo Sam is almost the same way about Dean (maybe to a lesser degree), but boys are just silly that way lol Especially these boys. But the point is...they're both really fucked up, to the point where (normal) people want them to start kissing just because it might make them feel better lol
so...do I think Sam owes Dean because he left to go to school? No way. Do I think that Sam maybe (especially after this whole...stabbity thing...-facepalm-) needs to smack some sense into himself and realize how much his brother loves and needs him? ....maybe lol
NO FIGHTING THERE IS TOO MUCH ANGST IN OUR FANDOM ALREADY ;___;
no subject
no subject
cos I'd like to think that if Sam knew how much his brother really loved him he wouldn't run away. Sam's not stupid or dumb or mean like that. I mean cos when you think of all the stuff he'd say early season 1, where he ran away thinking he was the freak son and Papa only loved Dean cos he was perfect...even though Dean thought that Papa loved Sam more...OH BOYS!
I MEAN SERIOUSLY. How did Sam ever think Dean would actually shoot him? I don't think he's selfish or whatever, like some of these fangirls must think, I just think he really has no clue about how Dean feels. And I mean hey, Dean doesn't make that easy. He's locked up tighter than Fort Knox with his heart.
we could talk about this all day long -squishes you-
no subject
All I will say for now is that I agree with the general points of your argument (though I can't really reiterate them now). You're amazing! Also, you have a brain, I think. :D
WILL RETURN.
no subject
no subject
As a Dean girl (oh, I still find this term idiotic but whatever, I have to invent something better but it's Sunday)that went Bi-Winchestered I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with everything you have written here.
I slowly grew fond of Sam as I began to understand him and now, looking at it from a perspective of time I'm rather ashamed that I didn't see it from the very beginning, I blame it on Dean for sending my hormones into an overdrive back then.
I'm glad you wrote it all out because sooner or later I would have to do it and I'm just to freakin' lazy to make a post that's this long.That last bit was purely from technical side.
no subject
no subject
no subject
To assume that Dean never fought with John and simply acquiesced to all of John’s orders is not admirable or human. It’s brainless and would state that Dean simply has no personality developed independently of John. I’m sure this is not what Dean girls want to say. And using the whole if A then B method, I determine that Dean was not the perfect son. He was the good son for sure, but not the perfect son.
All right, so I'm a "Dean girl," I suppose, if we're going to label people. I just like Jensen a whole lot more than I like Jared, which transfers over to the show because I have this weird thing where I think of the characters by the actors' names (or I just use the names interchangeably, like a lot of people seem to do). But that's not the point.
My point is that I pretty much completely agree with the statement I quoted above. It's probably the point that really caught my eye. I do think it's wrong (and weird) to say that Dean is the better son because he (at least, according to Sam) has always followed every single one of Dad's orders and played the role of the cherished, "perfect" older son. For anyone "Dean girl" to say so is just...well, it's weird. Have we thought of the context here?
Of course, we're not speaking strictly about which brother is the better son; it seems in this argument that it all comes down to which is the better PERSON. Sam is the asshole because he went off to college (something that a lot of people do); and just because he went against his father's wishes and "abandoned" Dean, Dean becomes the victim and Sam is the cruel, horrible person who scarred Dean for life.
On a completely different note, to say that Sam ignored all of Dean’s years of sacrifice is ridiculous. Dean certainly wasn’t a blithe martyr at the hands of the evil marauding Sam. He was resentful. He left to go play video games when he shouldn’t have just like a normal kid.
Again, I agree completely.
I also believe (and this might be completely off-base) that Sam wasn't necessarily thinking of Dean when he went to Stanford. Yes, Dean plays a very significant role in Sam's life, having been responsible for part of Sam's upbringing (although, personally, I don't think that Dean's role as a parent/guardian was as HUGE as fandom makes it out to be). However, Sam was a teenager. Teenagers aren't RATIONAL. Teenager!Sam may have been an intellectual, and he may have had book smarts, but this doesn't make him selfless, nor does it mean that his only concern (aside from his concern for himself) was for DEAN.
I think that when Sam left, he was thinking about his own future. He was mad at his father and he was rebelling against rules that he thought were completely irrational. Although he claims that he simply wanted a normal life, I really think that Sam thought of college as his salvation, his BEST CHANCE of living past the age of thirty. In my mind, it wasn't so much about getting AWAY as it was about ensuring his own future. HE WAS A NORMAL TEENAGER. You can't fault him for that, no matter how completely WRONG you think he was.
*starts on next comment*
no subject
This is where my experience sort of...I wouldn't say that it defeats your argument about older vs. younger siblings, because it really doesn't. Everyone's experience with their siblings is going to be different. But as an older sibling, I agree that us older brothers and sisters are traditionally meant to take care of younger siblings. But (and this is sort of weird, I guess) that's really almost never been my experience.
Yes, I used to stick up for my sister when my neighbors picked on her. But then she did the exact same thing for me. In my family, I'm pretty much the. Well, I'm not a failure, per se, but if you were to cast my sister and me in Dean and Sam's relationship (strictly canon; no incest, plz), there would be a complete role reversal. I'd probably be Sam; she'd probably be Dean. Ignoring the fact that she's been one of my best friends for my entire life so far, she's usually the one taking care of me.
Older siblings are the ones that all the hopes are pinned on, the ones expected to follow in their parents' footsteps, to carry on the family name. The younger sibling may feel pressure, immense pressure, following a successful older sibling as Sam certainly did in the wake of Dean who listened to everything his father said (or so we think), but at the same time, a pressure is lifted. A successful older sibling allows younger siblings to strike out on their own, to make their own path.
This is really where my experience is different. I don't think I necessarily agree with what you say, because you sort of state it as a fact, but I think it can be absolutely true--especially in Sam and Dean's relationship. My sister is the straight-A student with all the boyfriends (which isn't uncommon; I know you aren't saying that such a role is reserved for the older sibling at all). I'm the kid who didn't get the best grades and who forgets people's birthdays and spent years in therapy and blahblahblah. My sister's the successful one, and I'm not. People always ask me if I'm insanely jealous of her, or if I hate her, but I honestly don't. And I couldn't hate her for something like that. Because I don't really think of her "successes" as being relative to my own (or lack thereof).
I'm not saying my experience is totally unique and that it's never happened between any other pair of siblings ever before. We know that there are a lot of younger siblings who end up setting the bar, being the successful sons and daughters while the older siblings always think of themselves as trailing along somewhere behind them.
One thing I think you maybe should have addressed (and you might have; I'd have to read up again) is the sentiment, often felt by older siblings, that the younger sibling is the favorite. You addressed John's favoritism of Sam, but you didn't talk about Dean's view of said favoritism. I mean, most of the older siblings I know complain about their younger siblings being the favorite, being more adored and more loved by their parents. I just think it would be an interesting thing to think about, but it would probably take up an entire meta post of its own.
Okay, so I suck at meta. I really suck at getting my point across efficiently (which is why I'm totally changing my English major to something else, yeah). Um, let me know what things I need to clarify, yo.
*falls over*
no subject
Well, I probably should've mentioned that it also all depends on how close you are in age and how well you get along. The larger the gap, the more dependent a younger sibling is going to be on an older sibling. And you're right this is also largely based on my immediate observation.
My cousin Alison is the youngest of three and she ALWAYS thought she had it the hardest, even though her oldest sister clearly did. Also, I didn't adress favoritism as much, because I feel that a lot of older siblings feel less cherished because they notice that the rules are less strict with younger siblings because parents have already figured out what works and what doesn't. I don't think John relaxed with Sam, so while Dean might've known that Sam was the pride and joy, he might not have felt treated particularly differently.
Anyway, thank you for your comments, my dear.
no subject
Exactly, in the pilot Sam corrected Dean with "No, Dean, not normal, Safe." Which contradicts everything that fandom says. I would say, based on Bugs, that it wasn't Sam who was obsessed with normal, but Dean who was obsessed with NOT being normal.
it all comes down to which is the better PERSON
You read my mind. One of the things I feel about Sam is that he couldn't watch his father and his dad die, he didn't want to die young himself, because HE'S a care-giver. People like that feel everything that happens to people around them, almost like it happens to them. Or at least so I've noticed with the care-givers in my own family. So Sam took that chance for himself. Dean is the hero, he doesn't think of others when he goes in guns blazing, this doesn't mean he's thinking of himself, which I'm afraid a few people think I'm applying, but he neglects to think of consequences and how other people feel (thus my citation of Folsome Prison Blues).