Castiel said that what Chuck writes will come true, because we know that Castiel is wrong: Chuck didn’t write down the blood-drinking.
I've been thinking about this since you said it on Friday, and I don't think it's quite true. Chuck didn't write down the blood-drinking, but while we didn't actually see the text, I don't think we're meant to infer that he replaced it with a scene where Sam nobly refused to drink Ruby's blood. Rather, he just left it out altogether. Which means that at best Chuck is a filter rather than a reviser.
Now, a selective truth can be very misleading, so that gives them a little room to play, but I think we are still left with an absolute known truth, and Castiel is right: if Chuck writes it down, it will happen. It's just that if he doesn't write it down, that doesn't mean it won't happen.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 07:23 am (UTC)I've been thinking about this since you said it on Friday, and I don't think it's quite true. Chuck didn't write down the blood-drinking, but while we didn't actually see the text, I don't think we're meant to infer that he replaced it with a scene where Sam nobly refused to drink Ruby's blood. Rather, he just left it out altogether. Which means that at best Chuck is a filter rather than a reviser.
Now, a selective truth can be very misleading, so that gives them a little room to play, but I think we are still left with an absolute known truth, and Castiel is right: if Chuck writes it down, it will happen. It's just that if he doesn't write it down, that doesn't mean it won't happen.