Yay! I finally have enough stories for a list. So, here it is. Not very sorted, but I hope it's all right...


***************

(  Leverage Collapse )
***************

(  Supernatural Collapse )


************************************************
(  RPS-AU Collapse )

Wow, I never realized that I hadn't posted this story on LJ! I'm an idiot, apparently...

So, here it is, a fic from 2013, set in season 2 of Supernatural. I think it was for a challenge.




Title: You can stretch right up and touch the sky
Pairing: Gen, Sam and Dean (Season 2)
Rating: PG
Any warnings: some swearing

Summary: A Winchester-vacation turns out the way you'd expect it.

(title borrowed from Mungo Jerry's "In the summertime")

(  Story Collapse )

First of all: It's a phase. I'll get over it. Like I got over The Avengers or whatever else kind of stuff got my attention during a SPN-hiatus.


Now, since that's off my chest, I'll go on rambling some about SGA.

Hmmm, where do I start? Maybe I start with the mundane, like "Why the hell did they have to put the poor women in such gastly tight uniforms in S4 and after?"

That's really kinda unimportant, but it's bothering me. And I've been so damn happy with the first seasons, where the women wore such incredibly SENSIBLE shoes. Not just Teyla, but Elizabeth as well. Hiking- Boots! Damn right, THAT'S the kind of footwear you take on an expedition into the unknown without the certainty to come back. So maybe that answers my first question: after re-establishing a stable connection to Earth, they had to bow to the new regulations regarding (stupid, way too tight and not-even borderline sexist since you HAVE to open the zipper or have your boobs crushed into your ribs) uniforms?

At least in Sheppard's case, it was an improvement. Love that scruffy look.


Ok, this is weird rambling. Sorry 'bout that.

Why am I still binge-watching SGA, you ask?
Well, for one: John Sheppard is just delicious, Rodney is obnoxious but in a very entertaining way and there is a lot of really dark topic in that show that should have been explored a lot further.
Oh, and I love Teyla. And I adored Elizabeth. Actually, I liked everyone in that crew... I have a special fondness for Mr Wolsey even.

But dark. Oh hell, it's such a dark concept. Look at it this way:

There comes along a group of explorers, stumbling blindly into a new galaxy and into a ... well, you can't even call it a War, since that would imply two or more parties fighting.
What they find is a system where not humans are the apex predators, but creatures that eat humans. Ok, not entirely - they just suck them dry. And they keep them like cattle, coming to one world or another when hungry, but taking only so many that the population can regrow. Other than a few cullings every generation, they pretty much leave the humans alone, as long as they don't get too ambitious and try to fight back.

Now, for one, that's a LOT more consideration the Wraith show their food than humans do. We don't just keep our meat in tight, dark stables and feed them with stuff that makes them grow faster, but we put them in cattle-wagons and cart them over the country to kill them in some place where everything stinks of death and terror. Which - ok, maybe the Wraith kinda did that too, but at least the humans had LIVES before being food. Our pigs? Would probably kill for such treatment. Why there aren't more vegetarians on Atlantis is one of my nagging questions. I'd certainly never eat pig from Earth anymore, at least (or chicken. Or Beef.)

So that? That's a Dark Thing. Not the Wraith. they're... kinda very understandable. They can't act differently, because they would die. It's pretty simple: eat or be dead.

But along comes that troop of humans and accidentally, ALL Wraith are woken up. And along with that comes the prospect of more food - on Earth. Whoops?

One thing I've always thought with that is this: I've seen so many fic-writers talk about how Sheppard woke the Wraith and all that crap - yes, he did. It wasn't on purpose so that's not too much his fault, but most importantly, I think they'd have woken a lot faster than usual, and all of them, even if John hadn't killed that Keeper-Queen.
Remember the T-1000 - aka Colonel Sumner? That Queen KNEW about Earth way before Sheppard appeared, and she would have woken all of her brethren sooner or later anyway. Too much food on the table makes everyone greedy and happy.

So, where was I?
Ah. Stumbling troops. The Atlantis-crew fell into this system of be-eaten-or-run in Pegasus, and of course they don't like it. With more advanced weapons and access to Ancient technology, they're even able to fight back a bit. Cool so far.
Not so cool?
Starting genetic manipulations and leaving morals from Earth behind completely.
Not only do they try to find a treatment against being fed by wraith (to be fair, that one was started by the Hoffians, from Pegasus) but they went even further and did medical experiments on one of their prisoners. I'm not an expert in law and civil rights, but I'm PRETTY sure that that's not allowed by any nation that signed the Geneva Convention or other Laws or War (Jus in Bello, btw - and there we are back with Supernatural ;) ). I'm also rather sure that the USA and Canada signed the Geneva Conventions. Even if one could argue that the Wrait don't fall under the "enemy combatant"-label, it's still highly dubious to start administering a mind- and body-altering drug to a prisoner.

And EVEN IF Elizabeth and Sheppard and other people somewhere in the whole Galaxy decided it's ok - there is just NO WAY a doctor who takes his vows seriously would do it.
I love Carson, don't get me wrong. I really do - but one reason why I love him is because he's just as dark as everyone else. Why do you think did he have this magic gene-therapy for the Atlantis personal at the ready, not even weeks in their new environment? Don't tell me he invented it in Atlantis. And if he had this research done on Earth ... why not start the therapy there?
Could it possibly be because there are laws in place about proper medical procedures regarding gene-altering treatments?

In my mind, Dr Beckett couldn't do more on Earth with his research, but lo-and-behold, on Altantis, there are no laws about that. Yay!
And so many lovely volunteers for testing the treatment!

Long story short: if I were Michael, I'd be JUST AS PISSED as he. They not only violated him once, but did so AGAIN even after he begged them not to (begged them to rather kill him instead)

I get that there is no easy solution for peace with a race that eats humans. I'm not saying the Atlanteans were evil people. Rather, I think they just tried to make things better and kept on making it worse. In German, there is the word of "verschlimmbessern", which would translate to "worsebettering". Kinda.
Either way, that's what they did all through the series. Replicators? Yeah, same thing in blue. Trying to do the right thing - making it worse for nearly everyone in the Galaxy.
They don't always mess up, and I'm sure their hearts are in the right place, but it's one step forward and then a two feet drop.

Then there is Alistair, aka Todd the Wraith, who first inplied that Wraith aren't mindless killing-machines, and aren't all evil beings who kill for sport.
(oh, and while we're at it: It's disgusting that the Wraith put a tracking device in Ronon and hunt him through the Galaxy, right? But for years, it was ok for people to track a fox with hundreds of dogs across the country, and let it be torn apart the moment it could not run any further. And in some countries, it's still fine to torture a bull and dance around it when it tries to get away or attack its torturer...But yes, Wraith truly are inhuman ;-) )

What I seriously love about this series is how they make all those mistakes that have been made on Earth already. How they apparently didn't learn from the past, or just try to tell themselves that it's not applicable since the Wraith eat people.

It carries so many similarities to some of the Western Nations' (most prominently US) actions in the recent wars, so many similarities to conflicts on Earth, some even darker than anything that's been done down here.
Sadly, no character in the show ever mentioned it. In my eyes, a big miss. It would have been so damn easy, but it was never spoken out loud. Maybe the writers truly didn't see what they did? If so... wow. Ouch.
If not - they might not have dared, out of fear of being cancelled. which they'd been anyway, sadly. Or maybe not so sadly? Maybe... maybe it's good that it ended like it did, that there was no "easy fix" that would have made me mad, to be honest.

All right. My ramblings will go towards a conclusion. I could probably talk a bit about Sheppard...

I could mention that I LOVE how he never hooks up with anyone in the inner circle of the show. There is chemistry between him and Elizabeth, and him and Teyla, but nothing more.
There's definite chemistry between Sheppard and Rodney, though while I get that fic-writers love slash in all its glory, there's not really any sexual chemistry between them that I see.
Like Sam and Dean Winchester, John and Rodney are just bickering brothers. Except unrelated, but who cares.
(While we're at McKay: Katie Brown was so much more suitable than Keller. Seriously. Jennifer and Rodney? Uh... yeah, ok... )

Definitely MORE chemistry is between John and Ronon. Not that I would slash them automatically, but if I had to pair John with anyone, Ronon would be my choice. Except in my fics, he'd go back to tying his hair back. Much better looking than the shaggy dog routine.


Which seasons do I love best? Hm, couldn't really say. I love the early seasons, especially because of Elizabeth. I also like the two later seasons, mainly because of little things like Sheppard feeding someone to Todd (more or less), the new sexy Shep-uniform (is it singleform, since he's the only one who wears it?) Teyla being pregnant and later a mom (and still kicking ass) and epic things like Ronon and Te'alc beating the crap out of each other and the military commander of Atlantis smack in the middle of the betting-pool.
So, I couldn't say.

Ok. So. That's basically it. I'll go and read some more SGA-fics, until I can't stand it anymore. Then I'll be back to SPN, catching up with every ep since 14 (yes, it's been that long!). So please, if anyone wants to talk to me - don't spoil me ;-)

Bye. See ya probably soon.

All right.
I've ranted a bit last post about the "reviewers" who claim Supernatural to be so against women that they always kill them, daring to even sometimes use the term "misogynistic".

Which I never thought was true and never even SAW, having me sometimes doubt that the people even watch the show. At all.

So, since that difference in views wouldn't leave me alone, and apparently I'm not the only one (just look at the older post by corbyinoz here that says basically the same thing, I've dug up my rusty old excel-skills and, based on the amazing Table of Death on supernaturalwiki, made some charts.

I admit, there's still some work to be done. I've yet to sort the evil people into "big evil" and "henchmen-evil", and I probably did some angels a disservice with calling them "evil" when they weren't REALLY evil, just on another side as the Winchesters. But I had to simplify.
In the same simplification-process, I didn't count EVERY death. When there was something like "10 shop-customers" in the ToD, and it wasn't specified, I just didn't count them at all. And if there was "10 male demons", I counted them as one. Same for female, of course.

I've also constructed the classification of "jerk", which is for people who are ... well, jerks, but aren't outright evil. Lester Morris, who made a crossroads-deal to have his wife killed by Dean is a perfect example for the classification of "jerk". He's not EVIL... but clearly not a good guy either.

I didn't count the many deaths of Sam and Dean and Castiel, and Bobby was also counted only once. Death isn't yet confirmed DEAD, and I don't believe he can be killed, so I'm not counting him. Benny, so far, is dead (double-dead ;-) ) because he's not been seen since his last death. If he appears again as not-dead, I'll remove him from the list.


So, now I present to all: the facts!

- in the whole show Supernatural, there were 238 dead females vs 612 dead males.

- of these dead females, 90 were "evil", 9 were "jerks" and 139 were "good guys".

- of these dead males, 269 were "evil", 65 were "jerks" and 278 were "good guys".

- that makes for 4 % female jerks vs 11 % male jerks; 38 % female evils vs 44 % male evils and 58 % good females vs 45 % good males.

For those who (like me) love pretty pictures, here're some cool charts. Yay.

More than once, I've read Supernatural-reviews that point out that the show "treats women abysmally", and I've just as often wondered if the people writing that even watch the show.
Not that there aren't some really clichéd females, especially in the earlier seasons, or more specifically in the bars that Dean frequents. So yeah, that's not really nice (especially in the "oh, blond and sexy equals 'easy to get into bed'" kinda equation)

Still... I wonder.

So, this show is about two men who were raised by a revenge-driven single father in a world that is pretty testosterone-based.

In this context, isn't it only natural to be true to the world they grew up in? Biker-bars and law enforcement are still not exactly known for their gender-fairness, after all. Though I'm having hopes for the law enforcement especially ;-)

And yet, when I look at Supernatural, I don't just see macho-men. Sure, the show is based on machismo, but when I watch, I see strong female characters that apparently get overlooked by the "reviewers" or - worse - ignored. Not just the obvious. For me it starts with Mrs Rourke, Layla's mother, who tried everything she could think of to save her daughter, and I'm sure she'd have happily sold her own soul for her. We should also not discount Haley from Wendigo, though she isn't really the smartest spoon in the drawer. Doesn't make her a weak character, though!

And we continue with Cassie's Mother, Mrs Robinson, who married a black man in a time where that was certainly not taken too well. We have Cassie herself, being strong-willed and smart, fighting for what she sees as right. And not wilting into the arms of the strong hero, either, but rejecting him not once but twice, first out of disbelief and then because it was the right thing for her to do.
We get to meet two of my favorites, Deputy Kathleen Hudak from Hibbing, Minnesota, and Meg, lovely, deliciously evil Meg.
We get to meet smart and courageous Sarah Blake, and all the single mothers from the first season - the mom of Asher and Michael ("Something Wicket"), Andrea Barr ("Dead in the Water") and the mother from "Home" who moved into the Winchester's house. Not to forget Linda Tran, Kevin's mother. And maybe they aren't fleshed out fully, but they aren't wilting flowers - they keep on fighting even though their lives got knocked off track. The HAVE to, sure, with their kids, but isn't that what Supernatural is about? To keep fighting even though the world seems to be against you?

There's Diana Ballard, from "The Usual Suspects" and the doctor from "Croatoan". Professional and smart (and as far as I know, still alive)

Let's continue with Ellen and Jo, smart and strong, and with them we start meeting more female hunters (huntresses?). Like Tamara (from "The Magnificent Seven") and the Winchester's cousin (forgot her name) and Annie Hawkins.
We learn that good, beautiful, stay-at-home Mary Winchester was just as kick-ass as Buffy Summers, meet God-defying angels, wicked Bela Talbot and evilly twisty Ruby.

I can't really name them all, there are SO MANY. I just have to mention Sheriff Mills, because duh... such a great character! We have hunters and hackers, witches and demons, bankers and evil leviathans. Cops and thieves and barkeepers and yes, sometimes they wear really short shorts and get to be called "fun" by Dean Winchester.

But do WE know those barmaids aren't smart? No, we don't. Sam actually is the one who, in Tall Tales, remembers the girl Dean hung on to as a rather dumb bimbo, while for Dean she was a smart young student of... something.

Does the show typically pass the often-called-upon Bechdel-test? "Two women having a conversation with each other and the topic is not a man"?
I'd say: mostly not.

That's of course proof! ... It cannot possibly have something to do with the fact that most of the women we meet are witnesses to a murder/supernatural event or have horribly lost their family/significant other. And that in that moment, they are talking to Dean or Sam, who are male, so those scenes have to be disqualified for the Bechdel-test right from the start. Even if for instance the hunter Annie Hawkins talks very competently about hunting, that cannot be counted for that test because she talks to either Dean or Bobby.

As for the fact that seems to make those reviewers especially mad - "all the women die in the show"... well. Duh. Of course they do. EVERYONE dies. They don't all return, and some of them don't die (or rather: haven't died yet), but they get written out of the show, which in some cases (Ellen, Jo, Lisa) really makes me sad.

But the reason why they die in my eyes isn't because they have no dick but rather because everyone the Winchesters touch and get help from is doomed.
John - dead
Pastor Jim - dead
Bobby - dead
Rufus - dead
Garth - not yet, we're still waiting
Benny - dead (double-dead)
Frank Devereaux - dead
the Campells - all dead
Kevin - dead

I'm not counting all the evil men we've met in the show. I'm pretty sure in total, there are more dead MALE baddies than female (though most female baddies were super-bad-baddies. Just sayin')
Now, so far we still hang on to Castiel. That and maybe Garth is it on the male-support-side. Oh, ok... maybe Crowley, though I wouldn't count him on the "support-side". Females? Jody Mills, and maybe whatshername, Krissy (is she support?).

So one "definitive" on either side and one "maybe", too, each.

Could we have more moments with female-female talks in the show? It certainly won't hurt. But as I said already, it's not easy when the fact that they will at one point talk to Sam and Dean (male) will discount any competent, smart statements for the test. Not to mention that we have a show that runs on 40 minute-episodes.

As for the dying: well, if they get touched by the Winchester's life, they are pretty much doomed. It's harsh, but it's a gender-unbiased reality.


I personally am not watching the show because I want to see women talking to each other about their jobs. I want to see "my" boys kicking evil demon-ass and meet interesting people (I'm using the term "people" in a very loose definition ;-) ). If I wanted something else, I'd WATCH something else.
It's not a show that demerits women, at least not in my eyes. I can easily admit that I'm probably not seeing everything correctly, and I'm probably already gender-brainwashed by my upbringing, but really... the women we see are mostly STRONG characters, and pretty much everyone who has a larger role could be an interesting person to explore further.

Yes, I'm getting a bit protective of my show, I'll admit it. And as I said - I probably don't realize every little bit. But it still pisses my off a bit when I read such "reviews" of people who probably never really looked further than Dean and Sam's sexy bottoms.

What is the fascination with mpreg?

I just don't get it. Is there someone who can explain to me why people write stories about two guys and one of them suddenly turns into a half-woman? Because for me, writing and reading about two guys is because it's about two GUYS.
If I wanted pregnancies in my story, I'd read male/female stories.

That is to say, I'm always fine with other people liking different things, but I honestly don't get it.

Ok, so you know how sometimes you get out of writing? Not so much because you don't have ideas, but because you just don't know how to get them written down the right way - and you long for a machine that types your thoughts (if there is one, send it to me please).

Yeah, shitty.

LUCKY though that a right prompt at the right time can ignite your whole writing-bones back and so I found myself inspired to not just write one fic, but two (and a half)! Yay!

One's completely gen and Supernatural (duh) and the other is... hm. Well, this.




Title: The Jester
Author: marlowe78
Pairing: Jensen/OMC
Rating: probably adult, though nothing explicit
Word Count:~7.000
Warnings: child-abuse (sexual), underage, non-con (non-explicit), swearing and most of al: destruction of a well-loved comic-book-hero! [spoiler if you are sensitive to that] It's Batman. Yes. Batman. He's a bad guy here (well, not totally, but bad enough to warrant prison, which is not where he ends when this story ends. So if you love Batman and hate the idea of someone making him a bad man ... don't read this. And if you do - don't complain!

Summary: Two names now, two identities. New hair-color and a life of fighting crime - what's not to like? Maybe he should just accept that being one of the good guys means sacrifices, and that your innocence is one of them. Both your innocences, to be perfectly clear...


Quickbeta by soncnica (if anyone spots anything we missed, tell me and I'll change it! Promise, no bad blood)

Disclaimer: All fiction, as in: not true!

Written for this prompt here. (though I just realized that the last part of the story isn't even in here. Whoops)



( The JesterCollapse )


a/n: Any similarities to known side-characters in the comic or cartoon-movie are completely deliberate.

Jared’s and Jeff’s costume: click here

Jared and Jeff’s mask: find it here

All right, folks. This here has been bugging me for a while now and I finally made myself write it. It's kind of a sequel to Making friends with shadows on my wall and it would be better if you read that one first, BUT it can be read as a one-shot, my friend soncnica told me.

Without further ado, I present:

Title: Don't just stand there, say nice things to me
Author: marlowe78
Pairing: none (sorry!)
Rating: lots and lots of swear-words. So I guess PG 13 or over (but if you're 13, you should not be on my journal anyway!)
Word Count:~5.000
Warnings: language, physically abusive home-life (kinda?)

No beta (if anyone spots anything, tell me and I'll change it! Promise, no bad blood)

Disclaimer: All fiction, as in: not true! Title is from the song "Push" by Matchbox 20. Go, 90s!

Summary:: Romance-novels and chick-flicks will tell you that people fall in love only once and it’s so damn wonderful that everything’s sunshine and kitties and the love will last forever and ever.
Romance is wrong, though. It’s fantasy. People fall out of love all the time, it’s sometimes ugly and sometimes it’s just what it is.

And it’s absolutely possible to fall in love more than once.

( Read hereCollapse )

Others have done it, I know. I still want to do it myself, because... well. Just because.

So here is my first "not to do"-list - it might get more posts as time goes by.

1) Mix up "lay" and "lie"

- It's apparently easy to make that mistake. Since English is not my native language and I had to learn it in school instead of soaking it up along family and friends, it might come to me easier to know the difference. Or not, but anyway:

to lie, lay, lain - meaning to be horizontal on a surface

to lay, laid, laid - meaning to PUT something on a surface (horizontal or not)

Example to "lie": "Dean lies on the floor" - Dean is horizontal on the floor.
Example to "lay": "Dean lays the book on the table" - Dean puts the book on the table.

It gets a bit muggier when you want to use the continuous forms (-ing-form), because now you have the same word expressing two different things:
"Lying" can be "being horizontal on a surface" OR it could be "telling a lie". The rest of the sentence can usually clear any misunderstandings up.

So if you want to express that Dean is still on that floor, you write "Dean is lying on the floor." (see? No lies told in that sentence)
Or you can say "Dean is laying books on the floor" - which would mean that he's putting them there.

There is ONLY ONE exception when you might correctly write "Dean is laying on the floor", and that would be when Dean is a chicken and lays eggs. Otherwise, "to lay" is ALWAYS used with an object that is being moved.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) the other male

No. Just... no. In what context could that three words be used correctly? Certainly not when you are writing about two men, HUMAN men.
I often see this used in sentences when there are two men talking, or just two men in a scene together. Something like "Dean was standing beside Bobby and he looked over to him. The other male was drinking a beer."


I actually cringe at that sentence, and I'm sorry for everyone who uses that and now feels offended - don't be, I don't mean anyone personally. But feel free (aka: please do) to take this advice:

That is bad writing.

Again, there's one possible reason to say it like that, and that would be if both characters were actually animals. Cats. Or maybe wolves. Animals are described as "males" or "females", but not humans.
We can say "the other man" (though it's not really inventive, is it?) or just "he".

Would anyone really write "the other female" if it were two women at the bar?

People might be a special kind of animal, but if that's not what you want to express, keep biology away from stories and leave it in the science-department or inside the plot.

If you don't want to be repetitive and use something other than the name of the character or "him"/"he", try to change the sentence.

Examples:
"Dean was standing beside Bobby and he looked over to him. Bobby was drinking a beer."

"Dean was standing beside Bobby and looked over to him. The old hunter was drinking a beer."

"Dean was standing beside Bobby and looked over to him. His bearded friend was drinking a beer."

Or how about just re-structuring?

"Dean was standing beside Bobby at the bar, watching him drink a beer."


(there will be more, I'm sure. see ya...)

... but I think I want to right now.

So I'm talking about the episode which makes fans go completely bollocks over, flinging words of ...well, maybe as strong as hate but certainly misunderstanding, and wanting Sam to get monster-influenced once more.


I will first say something about what gets dropped in most reactions, because of the very heartbreaking last minutes. Because I think the plot of the MotW was very compelling, and I loved how the storyline never veered into "fat-jokes" or something as demeaning. I loved that the pretty gypsy wanted to run away from her lean, clean husband with an overweight guy (who cheats, but still), saying that he loved her and called her his princess. I loved that Dean could relate to sometimes wanting something cushion-y in bed.
I really liked Mariska and her husband, who looked like the perfect villains, all clean and healthy and pretty. But they weren't! They actually helped people, even if the fat-sucking was quite disgusting. They did something good with their misfortune of Mariska having been born as something with a suction-trunk. And to be extra-clear, I BET that a lot of overweight people would go to that spa even if they knew someone was eating their fat. Because hello! It's gone, you lose weight and everyone can be happy. Does anyone think the beauty-surgery method of sucking fat is any less disgusting? It's not. It's also environment-friendly to use the fat and not throw it away. So all in all, it's a pity that things ended as they did for her. I felt really bad for Mariska - and I felt very sad for the woman on the treadmill, who tried to lose weight for her wedding. She was working so hard, and yet it wasn't enough, and then she got killed.

Life is not fair!

But ok, this is out of the way now, I can get to what I want to say about those last minutes. About Sam saying what he said and why he did it.
There's this theory that he's been influenced by the Mark of Cain - and while I see how that would make people happy, it wouldn't make it a happy thing for me.

"But why! Sam hurt Dean with his words, and if he wasn't responsible, Dean wouldn't feel so bad", people might say.
And I say: "Bull-Shit. It's the exact opposite, and to make things worse, you'd subject Sam to having his choices taken away AGAIN."

Why is it the opposite? Oh, well, let's see. Does anyone remember the siren? Sam said that he didn't mean those words, he wasn't responsible for them. Does anyone think that they hurt any less because of that? Or that the words he hauled at him when Ellicott was possessing him hurt any less? Does anyone think, even if it was the truth and Sam really didn't mean it, that Dean didn't have doubts?

Dean Winchester has always believed that there's no-one in the family who loves him the way he loves them. Maybe because subconsciously he knows that his utter devotion is not quite natural and not really normal? Maybe.
Whether it's true that they don't love as devastatingly or not isn't important, because for Dean it doesn't matter. He believes that, and everything that confirms his belief hurts doubly and only makes him believe more. Yes, it can be lies and deceit. It can be instigated by angels and demons - but even if all that would be a fact for Dean, he would still have this last flicker of doubt. And anything that would happen towards confirming his doubts would make him fall back on believing that he's expandable and would always be to his family. Sam saying "I wouldn't. Same circumstances, I wouldn't" was for Dean basically saying "I won't save you when you are dying", which for Dean would probably mean "I don't love you enough for that."


When in reality, Sam basically meant "I love you more than that. I value your choices more than I value my own happiness"


Now, that said, lets look at Sam here.
Sam had been possessed by an angel AND a demon (don't forget Crowley here). He'd been possessed before, by Meg and by Lucifer and Dean knew that Sam wouldn't want that again. Never. Because they used his body for their own purposes, used it to hurt and kill. If it's difficult to see how that would feel to him, try seeing it like being drugged and taken advantage of. The classical date-rape. And Dean, his brother, offered him up for that on purpose? Well, hell yes I would be pissed! Beyond pissed.
Once again, his choices have been taken away from him, and to make matters worse, his friend, only family and supposed protector , his big brother instigated that. On purpose!
Those weirdly inappropriate jokes about Sam being an episode of Teen-Mom maybe weren't just inappropriate jokes...
Bad enough that it happened, but Dean trusted to wrong angel and things got bad, really bad. Kevin died, other people died. Even saving Charlie from death won't override the bad here, because she'd probably not even be there if Sam hadn't been alive by that time.

Anyone having difficulty seeing why Sam is right to be angry?

What makes things a lot muggy is this: he's not screaming and punching and kicking out in anger. He's calm and collected, and so damn disappointed. He hears Dean saying "I'd do it again" and can only say "And that is the problem". Because while Dean said "I'd do anything to save you", he knows it also means "I'd do anything to save you, damn the consequences and damn the people that get hurt in the process."

Who would want that? Who would want to know that your brother would basically destroy the world to keep you alive? And worse - destroy your own free will? Override your wishes in the classic 'the outcome justifies the means' scenario. Dean wouldn't want that, if he were dying. He'd not want other people suffer and die just so he could live. How does he think Sam feels about it?

Well... he doesn't. That's the thing. Because of course Sam is right when he tells Dean that he saved him for Dean, not for Sam. Sam was ok with everything. Dean couldn't be alone. We all know that's true. And yes, THOSE are words that Dean needed to hear, just to have them on the outside and be able to look at them and examine them and see that oh,well... maybe he's got a point there.

The thing that hurt so much about that conversation wasn't only the words. It was the calm demeanour Sam had going, the caring voice and gentleness he used to deal that final blow.
And I might even respect Sam a lot more if the words were partly meant to be a blow. He could have explained what he was saying, explain all that he felt and say to his brother that Dean hurt him by lying and deceiving and betraying his wishes. Sam can't even now kill himself if he wanted to, because that would make all those who got sacrificed for his life meaningless. He could have said that to Dean - he was clearly calm enough to find the right words for Dean to understand.

He might have thought that what he actually said would be enough. I don't know, maybe he's giving Dean more credit here than is sensible. not because Dean is dumb, he's just never in his right mind when it's about his own life.

But Sam didn't explain. He left, probably knowing somewhere in his head that Dean didn't get it. Maybe he's thinking that there will be enough time to explain later, when he's not so tired and maybe when he's not still angry and disappointed.

If that were the case? If he lashed out in his calmness to deal a hurting blow, I'd be happy.

Because, to be honest, I never get Sam much. I get Dean to his core, don't know why. Maybe because we get more reasons for his behaviour from the show, or maybe because I just understand those reasons better... who knows. I feel for Dean, because while he deserves a slap to the face, or a punch in the gut, he might not deserve to get the confirmation about what he's been fearing for all his life: his love is a one-way street. Sam doesn't love him.

Don't hit me, I don't believe that's true! I'm just slipping into what I believe to be Dean's skin.

So, I'd be happy for Sam to do something I actually GET. I get anger. I get fury and bitterness. I get it when Dean punches Sam, even if he does it for the wrong reasons. I get the overwhelming urge to hurt someone, and the disability to do it any other way than with fists.
In Sam's case, he HAS another way. He doesn't use fists and force, he uses words. And if Sam used his words at least in parts intentionally to that purpose - well, that I get.
As I stated above, he has every right to bitterness and anger.

If he wanted to make Dean understand his point? Well... that was a big fail. I'm overusing this explanation, but I'll do it again, anyway:
Imagine you coming home to find your favourite, very valuable first edition of "The jungle books" chewed up by your dog. And in your anger about it, you kick the dog. While it's understandable to be angry and to lash out, the dog won't know what it did wrong. It will not get "Oh, I'm not supposed to eat books", it will only get "for some reason, my owner kicked me, I don't know what I did, but I'll try to be all small and apologetic so he won't do it again."
You might think now "Oh, my dog understood me, it feels sorry, lesson learned" - but of course that would be wrong. Because the dog didn't understand "eating books is bad", only that "my owner's foot can hurt me"

Just let me say that kicking your dog in such a situation is even worse than kicking your brother. Because a brother will get things in some way when you explain it later on, while your dog might never recover the trust it had before. You can tell your dog "I was just so mad" all you want - it won't get it.


Now, why do I feel like it would be bad if this whole conversation was influenced by the Mark of Cain?

Easy.

If this conversation was based on the Mark, it wouldn't make Dean think "oh, Sam didn't mean that. I'm glad, he really does love me". Nope, Mr D. Winchester would think "But maybe there's some truth behind those words, still? Maybe he doesn't really really love me?" and we would be back to square one, with Dean doubting his worth to what is left of his family.

And why would it be bad for Sam?

Well, that's even easier. He would have his choice and anger taken away and they'd be used to feed the curse on the Mark. His words and his intentions and his rightful anger would be used by something else, and they wouldn't hold any value. People (Dean) could always think and say "But that was the Mark of Cain speaking", and there would be NO accepting his point. Or even understanding. And I don't think Sam deserves that.

He deserves to say what he means, and he deserves to be angry and bitter. He deserves the chance to make his brother hurt, and he also deserves to see the consequences that might have on Dean and deal with them. It's part of the whole choice-procedure. You choose - there will be consequences. Bad ones and good ones, and both are payment and reward for your free will.


For me, and maybe for Dean, it would be a lot easier if Sam just punched him in the face. But that's not Sam's choice of weapon, and he deserves that choice as well.