ahrtee February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 IA with pretty much everything here, but have a few reservations. 14 minutes ago, Myrelle said: But by breaking John's rule no 1 with Cassie-a rule that Sam wouldn't even think to break with Jessica-I think we were shown that Dean questioned John's rule and "rules" sometimes even pre-series as an adult and my guess is that he began questioning that rule and those rules even earlier and likely as a teenager when rebellion becomes the norm and I'd bet that would have been the case even for a budding hunter and I'd bet it was in those teen-aged days that John was most tested by Dean as a parent, too-and when any possible physical abuse might have become more probable and possibly brought into play by John, on some rare occasions when he just couldn't control his temper with Dean-because I'm sure it wasn't on-going-but even when the culprit was Sam, it would be Dean who would catch John's wrath more often than not-because he was the older one and, as such, was supposed to be the more "responsible"one, too. We know that Dean rebelled (somewhat) as a teen--not only with Cassie but also running off to CBGBs and (apparently) experimenting with drugs (not to mention losing their food money at poker). But I'm not convinced that was Dean rebelling against *John* particularly, as just normal teenage rebellion, and (more likely) him pushing the boundaries to test how John would react and see if he really would leave. As far as we know, John never did find out that Dean told Cassie about what they did, which I think would have been a big issue. The other rebellions were small, ones that John would accept from a cocky teen and, further, the CBGB incident *proved* to Dean that not only could John rescue him, but he *would* (and wouldn't leave him to be hurt.) Even now Dean sees that as pretty much the only proof (other than trading his soul for Dean's life) that his dad *did* love him. But I'm not sure about major physical abuse--that is, other than an occasional smack or making him double his training exercises--for one main reason: I don't think Sam would put up with John hurting Dean (just like Dean wouldn't allow John to hurt Sam). Sam was pretty vocal about all the perceived injustices, and I can't see him *not* mentioning physical abuse--at least, anything that went above and beyond acceptable "normal" punishment. Sam had made a study of what he considered normal, after all. And even if he didn't confront John at the time, especially if he was young enough to be intimidated, I can't see him not mentioning it later in their fights, not trying to get Dean to run away with him, and/or not mentioning it to Bobby or Pastor Jim. I think either of them would have stepped in if they knew/thought that either boy was being physically abused. Mental abuse is harder to identify and to prove. The only way I can see major physical abuse would be if the reason John "sent away" Dean when he was angry at him would be to prevent Sam from seeing any damage, meaning he had to stay away long enough to heal or at least come up with a reasonable explanation (as in, he was hunting with one of John's friends and got hurt there.) And that makes it more suspect that Sam didn't want to even talk about it--as in, maybe he suspected and was feeling guilty that he hadn't said anything? Hmmm...something to think about. 15 minutes ago, Myrelle said: Oh, and I wanted to add that I don't think John really saw what he'd done to Dean as a child until right before the YED took him, but by then it was too late to do anything about it other than offer an apology to Dean for it all while laying the worst possible burden that he could on him also-and THIS! more than anything other reason is why I feel that Dean still needs better and more closure with and from John-and I don't think it's just me who needs it, I truly think that Dean needs it, too, and I always will and Lebanon did nothing to change my feelings about that, tbh. This IA with 100%. Though I think the only closure Dean would get (or even need, at this time) would be for John just to acknowledge that he hadn't understood Dean at all and was sorry he'd put all that on him--pretty much what he said in IMTOD, but without adding his final burden right after that. 😊 From my own experience, expressing all your bitterness and anger (especially right before the person was about to die--or, in this case, disappear) doesn't give closure, and is more likely to make you feel guilty later (like Sam feeling guilty about his "last words" to John). Acknowledgement/validation of your feelings, even without an apology, tends to work better, even if you don't recognize it at the time. 2 Link to comment
Myrelle February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 25 minutes ago, ahrtee said: I think either of them would have stepped in if they knew/thought that either boy was being physically abused. I doubt that Sam would have known about it. And Dean wouldn't have said anything, especially if John just back-handed him-which is what I could see as having happened in a case such as when Sam ran away to Flagstaff. Now whether that's considered actual physical "abuse" is subjective, I suppose, but the thought of John doing it in that instance? Yup, it would be to me-and to make matters worse, I'd bet the ranch that Dean would have felt he'd "deserved" it and, as such, would have made him less inclined to tell anyone about it and least of all, Sam-same as he felt he deserved to be left at Sonny's and told no one and as he felt he'd deserved all of the blame for what happened in SW. And even if that was only in Dean's own mind, it was there because John never talked with him about it again leaving even AdultDean to feel that it was HIS "unfinished business" as opposed to his father's-whose it most clearly was to us and in all truth and I'm pretty sure that that was the big message that was being sent in that one and as regards the familial stuff. I mean their familial non-communication is infamous and dear old dad surely and obviously played a large part in that, too-and even a simple acknowledgment as to that aspect of it and the predominant lack of it in their up-bringing from John to Dean in ep. 300 would have been welcomed by this fan. Link to comment
rue721 February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Myrelle said: IA with some of this, too, but I DO feel that Dean felt very early on in life that the possibility was always there that John just wouldn't be able to swoop in and save them if something nasty came calling-because, in his mind, John was out there being a superhero and saving the world, so I think that even from the time of A Very Supernatural Christmas, Dean often felt that he was the only line of defense on the home front(he and Sam)-at least until dad came back-which I do agree with you there-was probably young Dean's greatest fear-that dad wouldn't ever come back(I think Dean's abandonment issues started here and arose out of this specific fear-that John would be killed on a hunt leaving him to care for and protect Sam all on his own-and that's why, to me, even when he became older and was "abandoned"(in his mind, and by both John and Sam) for reasons other than this, it hurt him so deeply and made him so angry). Totally agree. 54 minutes ago, ahrtee said: the CBGB incident *proved* to Dean that not only could John rescue him, but he *would* (and wouldn't leave him to be hurt. I hate that CBGB story so much. John is nowhere to be seen when monsters are around every corner, when his kid becomes a ward of the state, when his kid is literally dying...but god forbid Dean sneaks out to party. That's when John is suddenly on his "parental responsibilities" like white on rice. GTFO. It makes me bitter because why would John just suddenly be willing and able to rescue his son THEN? What about all the times he didn't rescue him from much worse stuff, both before and after? John is neglectful as shit but DON'T WORRY EVERYONE if his son needs a ride home this one time, he's ON IT. Father of the year. Like the one thing Dean actually SHOULD be expected to handle by his own damn self. SMH. I get why it would be touching to Dean but don't tell me there wouldn't be some bitterness mixed in there, because if John can "come to the rescue" that one time, then he could have done it so many other times when it would actually have mattered. Also, an even more bitter part of me doesn't even buy it. As irritating as it would be to imagine John suddenly deciding to be Father of the Year that one night and yoink Dean out of the club, it just doesn't smell right to me. I can see Dean finally wondering back to the room the next morning and John teasing him or being irritated with him, or John and Sam having already left and Dean then needs to grab a bus to catch up with them, or something more chill like that. But I can't really imagine John actually even being THAT paternal to track Dean down in the middle of the night and make sure he gets back to the room safe. Which is dumb because then when I do imagine John being that paternal all of a sudden, it pisses me off. But you know. It's weird because most of the shitty stories about John actually don't make me that mad but this "nice" one really does. I guess it comes off to me as really diminishing or minimizing or something in a way other things don't. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 (edited) Quote Now whether that's considered actual physical "abuse" is subjective, I suppose, but the thought of John doing it in that instance? If there is such a power imbalance in a relationship as between parent and child, at least when the parent is an adult and the child is not yet, still a teenager, then yes, I consider it abuse. If it was two fully grown men, I`d see it differently. Quote I hate that CBGB story so much. John is nowhere to be seen when monsters are around every corner, when his kid becomes a ward of the state, when his kid is literally dying...but god forbid Dean sneaks out to party. That's when John is suddenly on his "parental responsibilities" like white on rice. Despite Dean`s fond feelings, I never took it as John doing it to be parental. It was just a night he happened to be around and throw a fit because Dean had gone out, likely against orders, and John wouldn`t let that stand. That he might have saved his teenage son from rape or something like that was more a by-product. I mean, even John wouldn`t show up there, see the risks and go "whatever, maybe some raping will do him some good". It was a happy co-incidence. Dean just painted it more rosily. Edited February 22, 2019 by Aeryn13 4 Link to comment
ahrtee February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 46 minutes ago, Myrelle said: I doubt that Sam would have known about it. And Dean wouldn't have said anything, especially if John just back-handed him-which is what I could see as having happened in a case such as when Sam ran away to Flagstaff. Now whether that's considered actual physical "abuse" is subjective, I suppose, but the thought of John doing it in that instance? Yup, it would be to me-and to make matters worse, I'd bet the ranch that Dean would have felt he'd "deserved" it and, as such, would have made him less inclined to tell anyone about it and least of all, Sam- Oh, IA that an occasional smack (or even backhand) was likely. It was the total beat-down that would leave Dean badly injured (or at least visibly marked by bruises and cuts) that so many people seem to feel happened regularly that I disagree with, because there's no way that could have been hidden (or that Sam wouldn't have fought John about it.) I'm pretty sure Sam would have noticed even invisible damage, like Dean walking stiffly or wincing. Whether or not a single slap is abuse, well, as you said, it's subjective. I personally think any physical attack is abuse, but (especially to hunters who are used to violence--and violent tempers, it seems) I'm not sure John would have considered it anything other than a correction, to make Dean listen--the grown-up version of a smack on the bottom when a kid does something wrong. And Dean, I'm sure, felt it was both acceptable and deserved. 26 minutes ago, rue721 said: I hate that CBGB story so much. John is nowhere to be seen when monsters are around every corner, when his kid becomes a ward of the state, when his kid is literally dying...but god forbid Dean sneaks out to party. That's when John is suddenly on his "parental responsibilities" like white on rice. GTFO. It makes me bitter because why would John just suddenly be willing and able to rescue his son THEN? What about all the times he didn't rescue him from much worse stuff, both before and after? John is neglectful as shit but DON'T WORRY EVERYONE if his son needs a ride home this one time, he's ON IT. I'm not talking about the reality, or what John *should have* been doing, just about Dean's (warped) perception. So, he might take John leaving him alone with monsters as actually showing trust and respect, knowing that his son can take care of himself, but the fact that he showed up just at the time when Dean was incapacitated and unable to handle things himself also showed that he was a superhero. Or maybe that he was lurking in the background (like he did with Sam at Stanford) but wouldn't step in unless he saw he was needed. Again, something Dean wanted/needed to believe, whether or not it was true. He needed his dad to be a hero in order to justify everything John had done wrong. 1 Link to comment
Supafanstan February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 I hope nobody ever loves me the way John loved his kids. 😘 I kid (sorta). I don't doubt that he loved them, but he was about as far away from a good, loving parent as he could get. He apparently never held another job in his life, relying on fraud and theft to survive and then passing that legacy on to his eldest. He left them alone for days and weeks on end, often without enough food or money. He made a child responsible for the life of another child, in every way, up to and including not eating himself so that his brother could. He made Sam choose between his family and his future, using the threat of exile as a weapon. Maybe if he'd told Sam why he thought it would be unsafe for him to be alone/apart from them? Then he abandoned Dean, for all intents and purposes, without explanation, just expecting his soldier to follow orders without question. The other shitty moments they showed us, both big and small - hiding from them in Home, then not answering even when Dean was dying. Explain to me how even a phone call would've endangered them then? Bullshit. The flashback in Something Wicked, the shitty comments to Dean about the Impala. And then his coup de grace. Sure he saved Dean, but in doing so, he also sealed his fate. First by making the deal - something Dean hasn't come to terms with to this day, in my opinion. And then by laying the 'save him or kill him' mantle on his shoulders before dying. And that's only season one. All the reveals since then only make him worse. (PS: even with all that ^^^ ? Mary is worse.) 1 3 Link to comment
Myrelle February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 35 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Whether or not a single slap is abuse, well, as you said, it's subjective. I personally think any physical attack is abuse, but (especially to hunters who are used to violence--and violent tempers, it seems) I'm not sure John would have considered it anything other than a correction, to make Dean listen--the grown-up version of a smack on the bottom when a kid does something wrong. And Dean, I'm sure, felt it was both acceptable and deserved. And the bolded part is the saddest part of it all to me because, hunter or not, it should have been neither to him IF his father had done his best by him; and we're still seeing repercussions from it even as recent as the end of the last season when he told Sam "I don't care what happens to me. I never have. But I do care what happens to my brother." Sam before Dean-always and forever to Dean-and still unaddressed by the father who fostered that mindset in him more than any other, but who Dean still loves too much to stay angry with him over-which wouldn't bother *me* as much as it does if Dean was allowed by the writers on this show to once in a while put himself and his own feelings first, where his family is concerned, and not be made/forced to back down from them(especially when he's right and justified in his emotions!)-just to keep the peace within the family or to keep the family together. IOW, let his loved ones do some "learning"about Dean once in a while, too, and in that regard. That's what I would call real "growth" all around and for everyone. 4 Link to comment
Myrelle February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, Supafanstan said: I hope nobody ever loves me the way John loved his kids. 😘 I kid (sorta). I don't doubt that he loved them, but he was about as far away from a good, loving parent as he could get. He apparently never held another job in his life, relying on fraud and theft to survive and then passing that legacy on to his eldest. He left them alone for days and weeks on end, often without enough food or money. He made a child responsible for the life of another child, in every way, up to and including not eating himself so that his brother could. He made Sam choose between his family and his future, using the threat of exile as a weapon. Maybe if he'd told Sam why he thought it would be unsafe for him to be alone/apart from them? Then he abandoned Dean, for all intents and purposes, without explanation, just expecting his soldier to follow orders without question. The other shitty moments they showed us, both big and small - hiding from them in Home, then not answering even when Dean was dying. Explain to me how even a phone call would've endangered them then? Bullshit. The flashback in Something Wicked, the shitty comments to Dean about the Impala. And then his coup de grace. Sure he saved Dean, but in doing so, he also sealed his fate. First by making the deal - something Dean hasn't come to terms with to this day, in my opinion. And then by laying the 'save him or kill him' mantle on his shoulders before dying. And that's only season one. All the reveals since then only make him worse. (PS: even with all that ^^^ ? Mary is worse.) HA! You said it all! I have nothing to add to this. 2 Link to comment
ahrtee February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, Supafanstan said: I hope nobody ever loves me the way John loved his kids. 😘 I kid (sorta). I don't doubt that he loved them, but he was about as far away from a good, loving parent as he could get. He apparently never held another job in his life, relying on fraud and theft to survive and then passing that legacy on to his eldest. He left them alone for days and weeks on end, often without enough food or money. He made a child responsible for the life of another child, in every way, up to and including not eating himself so that his brother could. He made Sam choose between his family and his future, using the threat of exile as a weapon. Maybe if he'd told Sam why he thought it would be unsafe for him to be alone/apart from them? Then he abandoned Dean, for all intents and purposes, without explanation, just expecting his soldier to follow orders without question. The other shitty moments they showed us, both big and small - hiding from them in Home, then not answering even when Dean was dying. Explain to me how even a phone call would've endangered them then? Bullshit. The flashback in Something Wicked, the shitty comments to Dean about the Impala. And then his coup de grace. Sure he saved Dean, but in doing so, he also sealed his fate. First by making the deal - something Dean hasn't come to terms with to this day, in my opinion. And then by laying the 'save him or kill him' mantle on his shoulders before dying. And that's only season one. All the reveals since then only make him worse. (PS: even with all that ^^^ ? Mary is worse.) And that's why Dean is my hero. He survived all that and still wound up a (mostly) functional adult who truly cares about people and wants to help and do Good. 6 Link to comment
ILoveReading February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 I've always wondered if Something Wicked was more than just John possibly using the boys as bait, but that John was also testing Dean to see if he would/could follow orders or fire if needed. John busting in right at that moment is too coincidental for me to see it as anything other then bait. 2 Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 44 minutes ago, ILoveReading said: I've always wondered if Something Wicked was more than just John possibly using the boys as bait, but that John was also testing Dean to see if he would/could follow orders or fire if needed. John busting in right at that moment is too coincidental for me to see it as anything other then bait. I think they were clearly bait. Especially with the brothers using the little boy as bait in their own time and showing how to do it right. They asked him and got his okay, they explained things to him and reassured him they would be around. John used his own unsuspecting kids as bait without any of this. Which is why "they did it, too" comparisms never fly with me. 1 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 3 hours ago, rue721 said: Like the one thing Dean actually SHOULD be expected to handle by his own damn self. 3 hours ago, ahrtee said: I'm not talking about the reality, or what John *should have* been doing, just about Dean's (warped) perception. So, he might take John leaving him alone with monsters as actually showing trust and respect, knowing that his son can take care of himself, but the fact that he showed up just at the time when Dean was incapacitated and unable to handle things himself also showed that he was a superhero. Or maybe that he was lurking in the background (like he did with Sam at Stanford) but wouldn't step in unless he saw he was needed. Again, something Dean wanted/needed to believe, whether or not it was true. He needed his dad to be a hero in order to justify everything John had done wrong. I think I agree more with ahrtee on this one. Dean grew up with monsters and hunting, it's people he has trouble with getting. As Dean told Sam in "The Benders:" (paraphrase) "Monsters I get; people are crazy," and so I could kind of see - in the Winchesters' weird world - where John would worry less about Dean in a monster situation, thinking that Dean would remember his training and know what to do, versus a situation like CBGBs where Dean might not be expecting people - the same ones they save all the time - to do something awful to him. I could see John thinking "Crap, Dean could be in over his head on this one." And there would be a lot of ways that could happen. In addition to Dean maybe not expecting bad from regular people, if bad did happen, Dean's normal way of dealing with monsters and such might not go over so well in the real world. A fight in Harvell's among hunters, for example, might just be a regular Friday night, but a fight in CBGBs might land Dean in jail and raise questions, especially if he was armed. So I could get John being more worried about Dean in a situation like that... and also see - as ahrtee said - Dean taking being left alone to take care of Sam as John trusting him to know what to do, but him showing up to "save" Dean in the club as John looking out for him. And the bolded part reminds me of Big Daddy and Hit Girl from Kick Ass (the movie). Big Daddy watched the entire time his daughter took out the drug dealers, but didn't step in to shoot until Mindy/Hit Girl got distracted and didn't watch her back. Her apology when Big Daddy pointed this out, and saying it wouldn't happen again also reminded me a bit of Dean/John. Somehow, despite how warped that relationship also was, though, I think Big Daddy kept a closer / more protective watch on Hit Girl than John did on Dean. (Mindy/Hit Girl's "I don't play" reminded me of Dean and his lost childhood.) Link to comment
rue721 February 22, 2019 Share February 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said: I could see John thinking "Crap, Dean could be in over his head on this one." I don't feel like John ever thought that. Literally ever. I don't think that thought was even on his radar. If John had ever wondered to himself, "can Dean handle this?" he would have done things a lot differently. Because Dean was constantly in over his head! Practically every flashback, most of the recounted memories/anecdotes, and the whole first season are examples of Dean being in over his head. He went to Sam in the pilot because he was in over his head. He called John and left him a voicemail saying he was in over his head in "Home." I mean, it has come up constantly. IMO the reason that John was so callous about it was that the dynamic between Dean and John was that BOTH Dean and John worried about John's goals, John's feelings, John's problems. They were BOTH worrying about John. So Dean is trying to help John toward his goals, adjust for John's feelings, solve John's problems. And John is totally rapt up in all that stuff. He was lost in his own head, his own needs. So Dean deals with his own goals/feelings/problems/etc in private. In public it's all about John. This isn't ancient history, *this happens in Lebanon ffs* That's basically what "parentification" is, right? I think that's what was happening. JMV. It's a role reversal. And the whole thing about John tracking Dean down to CBGB and getting him home safe is just too parental for their dynamic IMO. John seems like he expected Dean to do that kind of thing for HIM, he seems to have expected Dean to help him out, but he didn't expect to do that kind of thing for Dean. Dean calls for help, and John blows him off. Dean can't do something and John is sure that it's because Dean screwed up or is screwing around. I don't think it would have even occurred to John to think things like: "Dean can't handle X" "Dean could use my help" "Dean doesn't know what to do here" -- just the same way that it would never (normally) occur to a child to think those things about their parent. Not even trying to put John on blast or anything, I think there was just too much role reversal going on for him to suddenly become a "real" father on the night Dean decides to sneak out and party. And if that WAS the one night John decided to be a "real" father? Fuck him. I mean, like I said, I get why Dean's perspective would be like, "well, that's touching that he came through for me that night." That's totally natural/normal/understandable. Every son is going to WANT to feel like the son and not the parent sometimes. But like, if John has that in him, then how come he's not also becoming a "real" father ANY OTHER TIME? How come he's not showing up when Dean is ACTUALLY in trouble? But nope, all those times John is totally unreachable and/or unreliable. I mean, John's meanwhile not even picking him up from the group home ffs. How crushing would that feel? Now he's picking him up at the club? You don't force someone to fend for themselves for years and years through much worse situations and then come in like a white knight in some shitty-but-ultimately-ordinary situation, I'm sorry. LOL Like I said, this story ignites so much bitterness in me. Like, John was an ass? Selfish? Obsessed? Fucked up? Fine. Dealeable. John wants to be a hero in this one stupid moment despite being an ass ALL the times it actually counts? Fuck him. 1 1 Link to comment
SueB February 23, 2019 Share February 23, 2019 Watching S2 again (TNT Rewatch shoutout!), old Gordon was on recently. And Dean talked with Gordon about how he always thought his father was 'invincible' and 'nothing could kill his Dad'. Which was part of what upset him (Dean). And, of course he couldn't talk to Sammy about it. Now that's kind of a normal thing -- for a son to think their father was larger than life. And in many ways John was. But the whole "feet of clay" for John came crashing down pretty hard for Dean at the start of S2 IMO. First, of course, he died. Second, he laid that bomb on Dean about killing Sam. And Dean WAS angry about that. The whole smashing the Impala bit --- some of that anger was actually towards John (even if Dean didn't realize it at the time). It seems like EVERYTHING Dean learned about John after his death was one dissappointment after another. Yes, there was the moment in 2.22 when John's spirit climbed out of Hell, that's definitely 'larger than life' action. But being the good soldier for Dad and watching out for Sammy was his entire identity. S2 starts to really hack away at his identity. I think S2, when he sold his soul, represented his low point in terms of self-esteem. Yes, the whole "hell torturer" thing was bad and he was convinced he'd wind up back in the pit, but I kinda feel like he was at his most despondent the first time Sam died. Which again, brings me to "save Sam" as the ONLY remaining part of his sense of self after his father died. Link to comment
ahrtee February 23, 2019 Share February 23, 2019 22 minutes ago, rue721 said: Practically every flashback, most of the recounted memories/anecdotes, and the whole first season are examples of Dean being in over his head. He went to Sam in the pilot because he was in over his head. He called John and left him a voicemail saying he was in over his head in "Home." I mean, it has come up constantly. Actually, no. It was *Dean's* perception that he was in over his head. Basically it was that he wanted his dad to swoop in and take over. He even told Sam that he *could* hunt on his own but he didn't want to. But every time John didn't show, Dean managed to handle things on his own (with Sam and/or other friends to help.) So maybe John was trying to wean Dean away from that need to want his dad to fix things. (In the words of Chuck, "I saw that I needed to step away and let my baby find its way.") Especially since, as John pointed out, he didn't expect to survive the showdown with the YED. It was a way for him to do whatever stupid-ass suicidal thing he wanted without having the boys stop him and without worrying that they'd be in the way/in danger. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? But Dean just saw it as abandonment. Now I happen to agree with @rue721 about the CBGB rescue, because I don't think John went after him because he was worried or was hanging around the club watching to see if Dean was going to be in danger (because that would imply that he *knew* that Dean had disobeyed his direct orders and allowed it) which is absolutely NOT the John we've seen over the years. Yes, it does seem awfully convenient that he showed up at just the right time, but I think Dean is the one who took that as a sign that his dad really cared. John was just pissed and wanting to drag him home. JMO. 1 Link to comment
Aeryn13 February 23, 2019 Share February 23, 2019 Quote Actually, no. It was *Dean's* perception that he was in over his head. Basically it was that he wanted his dad to swoop in and take over. He even told Sam that he *could* hunt on his own but he didn't want to. But every time John didn't show, Dean managed to handle things on his own (with Sam and/or other friends to help.) Yeah. He/they were obviously looking for John who had seemingly disappeared on a hunt which dangerous. And he was rattled going back to their old house, on top of Sam`s visions. And Sam was the one who called when Dean was literally dying which is also understandable. But overall, Dean wasn`t completely inept throughout Season 1, I don`t see that at all. Quote Now he's picking him up at the club? You don't force someone to fend for themselves for years and years through much worse situations and then come in like a white knight in some shitty-but-ultimately-ordinary situation, I'm sorry. I still think it was just pretty random. John happened to be there and had the five minutes of spare time on his hand to do it so he might as well have. That`s not really a sign of great fatherly love, that`s maybe just common courtesy. I mean even John had to be around occasionally to do something nice. It would be statistically improbable that that never happened. Even actual abusers - and I wouldn`t call John that - have their nice moments. 2 1 Link to comment
rue721 February 25, 2019 Share February 25, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 7:29 PM, ahrtee said: It was *Dean's* perception that he was in over his head. Basically it was that he wanted his dad to swoop in and take over. I don't think Dean wanted John to swoop in and fix everything (or even fix anything, necessarily), I think he just wanted John to be there. YMMV but I think Dean's expectations of John were completely reasonable. He seemed to want John to do things like answer his calls, show up for Xmas, be reachable in an emergency. But John was unreliable, so he didn't come through with that stuff. Which is really difficult to deal with in a parent. I feel like it gets glossed over, but we saw John teaching his kids again and again that he was unreliable, couldn't be trusted, might go MIA at any time, that even if he was physically present he was liable to be a million miles away mentally/emotionally (whether grieving, drunk, obsessing, giving the silent treatment, or just nuts) and essentially still unavailable, that his own needs and emotions were paramount, that he was blind to theirs, that he couldn't handle the demands of getting along with people or "being normal" even compared to other hunters, that they'd better figure out how to take care of themselves because he sure wasn't going to be there for them -- not physically and not emotionally. IMO that's neglect, which is a mindfuck with lifetime ramifications. I think that a lot of Dean's character arc through the whole series has been dealing directly with the fallout of that. And IMO he's still dealing with it. That's why he wasn't going to start talking about his feelings to John in Lebanon. I really disagree that Dean was just scared of handling things on his own without a white knight waiting in the wings or that all's well that ends well because he managed to survive everything anyway (or close enough). If there weren't this whole backstory of neglect, then sure. It's hard for me to articulate why I think it's so different given that backstory, though. I'll try again tonight. But in essence IMO it's not at all about Dean's competence or ability to survive, neither of which were ever in doubt, but more what the emotional toll would be. This is a dumb analogy, but it's the best I can come up with right now: imagine there's one kid who is learning to ride a bike, and his dad teaches him by running behind him holding the seat steady until the kid can balance on his own. When the kid is ready, the dad lets go and the kid rides off A-OK, now a bike-rider. That kid is going to feel safe and confident on the bike. Then imagine another kid whose dad just hands him a bike and tells him he needs to use it to run important errands, assuming the kid can handle it. So maybe the kid figures out how to use the bike a little, maybe some friends try to teach him, maybe he just walks to the bike to/from the errands, whatever. It's grueling but he finally gets the errands completed, whether he's able to ride the bike in any real way or not, and when he's finished, his dad is like, "You know, good thing you've got that bike, because I'm really counting on you for these errands." That kid is going to be freaking out internally, scared of not being able to come through for his dad. Then imagine how differently each of those kids is going to feel the next day when both their dads say, "OK, now go take your bike and run XYZ errands for me." Kid 1 is probably going to feel empowered and excited, Kid 2 is going to be worried that he won't be able to get the errands done and will let his dad down, that his inability to actually ride is going to be exposed, beating himself up because what's wrong with him that he just learn how to do it like everyone else, and trying to refocus on getting the errands done as perfectly as possible to avoid all that. Dumb analogy because obviously people are more complex than that, but you see what I'm trying to say? Like in this scenario, Dean is Kid 2 and Sam is the errands LOL. Anyway, I don't buy that John was (secretly) watching out or that there was any method to his madness in terms of his parenting. IMO all evidence onscreen has made it seem like he just genuinely assumed that Dean "had it handled," so he went and did his own thing unencumbered. That's why, from what we've seen/heard, John always acted shocked whenever it turned out that Dean actually didn't have stuff handled, like when anything went wrong with Sam. I think John essentially abdicated his responsibilities as a father because he was all caught up in his grief and then the hunt for YED (which IMO was just a continuation of his grief), and since Dean took on as much responsibility as he could and worked hard to keep the peace and convince the others that everything was fine (not least because he himself needed it to be fine), John figured everything was hunky-dory and didn't think twice about it. I certainly don't think he was worrying about how it was affecting Dean or Sam; I think in his mind, Dean was doing great, Dean said Sam was fine -- so why worry? 3 Link to comment
tessathereaper February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, rue721 said: I don't think Dean wanted John to swoop in and fix everything (or even fix anything, necessarily), I think he just wanted John to be there. YMMV but I think Dean's expectations of John were completely reasonable. He seemed to want John to do things like answer his calls, show up for Xmas, be reachable in an emergency. But John was unreliable, so he didn't come through with that stuff. Which is really difficult to deal with in a parent. I feel like it gets glossed over, but we saw John teaching his kids again and again that he was unreliable, couldn't be trusted, might go MIA at any time, that even if he was physically present he was liable to be a million miles away mentally/emotionally (whether grieving, drunk, obsessing, giving the silent treatment, or just nuts) and essentially still unavailable, that his own needs and emotions were paramount, that he was blind to theirs, that he couldn't handle the demands of getting along with people or "being normal" even compared to other hunters, that they'd better figure out how to take care of themselves because he sure wasn't going to be there for them -- not physically and not emotionally. IMO that's neglect, which is a mindfuck with lifetime ramifications. I think that a lot of Dean's character arc through the whole series has been dealing directly with the fallout of that. And IMO he's still dealing with it. That's why he wasn't going to start talking about his feelings to John in Lebanon. I really disagree that Dean was just scared of handling things on his own without a white knight waiting in the wings or that all's well that ends well because he managed to survive everything anyway (or close enough). If there weren't this whole backstory of neglect, then sure. It's hard for me to articulate why I think it's so different given that backstory, though. I'll try again tonight. But in essence IMO it's not at all about Dean's competence or ability to survive, neither of which were ever in doubt, but more what the emotional toll would be. This is a dumb analogy, but it's the best I can come up with right now: imagine there's one kid who is learning to ride a bike, and his dad teaches him by running behind him holding the seat steady until the kid can balance on his own. When the kid is ready, the dad lets go and the kid rides off A-OK, now a bike-rider. That kid is going to feel safe and confident on the bike. Then imagine another kid whose dad just hands him a bike and tells him he needs to use it to run important errands, assuming the kid can handle it. So maybe the kid figures out how to use the bike a little, maybe some friends try to teach him, maybe he just walks to the bike to/from the errands, whatever. It's grueling but he finally gets the errands completed, whether he's able to ride the bike in any real way or not, and when he's finished, his dad is like, "You know, good thing you've got that bike, because I'm really counting on you for these errands." That kid is going to be freaking out internally, scared of not being able to come through for his dad. Then imagine how differently each of those kids is going to feel the next day when both their dads say, "OK, now go take your bike and run XYZ errands for me." Kid 1 is probably going to feel empowered and excited, Kid 2 is going to be worried that he won't be able to get the errands done and will let his dad down, that his inability to actually ride is going to be exposed, beating himself up because what's wrong with him that he just learn how to do it like everyone else, and trying to refocus on getting the errands done as perfectly as possible to avoid all that. Dumb analogy because obviously people are more complex than that, but you see what I'm trying to say? Like in this scenario, Dean is Kid 2 and Sam is the errands LOL. Anyway, I don't buy that John was (secretly) watching out or that there was any method to his madness in terms of his parenting. IMO all evidence onscreen has made it seem like he just genuinely assumed that Dean "had it handled," so he went and did his own thing unencumbered. That's why, from what we've seen/heard, John always acted shocked whenever it turned out that Dean actually didn't have stuff handled, like when anything went wrong with Sam. I think John essentially abdicated his responsibilities as a father because he was all caught up in his grief and then the hunt for YED (which IMO was just a continuation of his grief), and since Dean took on as much responsibility as he could and worked hard to keep the peace and convince the others that everything was fine (not least because he himself needed it to be fine), John figured everything was hunky-dory and didn't think twice about it. I certainly don't think he was worrying about how it was affecting Dean or Sam; I think in his mind, Dean was doing great, Dean said Sam was fine -- so why worry? Agreed. IMO Dean expected the absolute bare minimum from John and John didn't even manage that. The point is, everything John was dealing with? So was Dean and he was a child. All the responsibilities John was slacking off and not fulfilling as an adult man and a parent? Dean was for the most part fulfilling or trying to fulfill starting as a child. If small child Dean managed to do, while essentially drowning(no wonder Michael chose that as the first method but Dean's just too used to it so I assume that's why it didn't work and he wouldn't stop "squirming"), the adult John has zero defensible reason for it. As for the in over his head scenario, I'm trying to figure out when that is supposed to be? When he was a child? Because yes Dean WAS in over his head - any child being forced to do what he was expected to do is in over his head, whether he "succeeds" in doing so or not. Another analogy that may work is very simplistic but...think of it like picking up a heavy box, one at the limits of your capability to pick up - you can pick up the heavy box mainly bending from the knees, back relatively straight or you can just bend over and pick using your back. The first way is correct, the second way is not. Both ways the box gets picked up - but the second way is likely to cause more damage(perhaps permanent as many people know once you "pull your back out", it may never be the same again). Or singing, that's another analogy - a singer who often sings cold, doesn't do warm ups or vocal exercises is quite a bit more likely to cause permanent damage to their vocal chords, and at an earlier age, than one who uses proper technique. Both'll get it done(at least for a while), but the one way causes damage, long term, that may not be obvious at first but shows up eventually. And Dean's choices weren't even his own - his father gave him the box and if he didn't lift it, well he and Sam starve, get killed, etc, etc, because Dad wasn't around, either physically or emotionally or both, to pick up the box. Dean managed to get through it, but it caused damage. That's what parentification(it's also sometimes called a form of emotional incest, but I think that was a smaller aspect perhaps, as Dean wasn't so much his confident, given John didn't confide much in anyone but there was some of that when it came to allowing Dean to take care of him emotionally, instead of the opposite,and for ex, the fact that John made Dean take part in his not telling Sam about monsters being real and what he really did all those years, etc) does - it miss-wires everything during the most formative years. It becomes hard-wired. It is considered abusive, esp in extremes and there is no doubt in Dean's case it was extreme. That's on John. There was zero reason for John to leave his kids alone for days and weeks at a time, or to constantly uproot and them move them around the country. It certainly wasn't because he was worried whatever attacked Mary would attack them, if he had been he wouldn't have been leaving them alone. As for later years? All Dean expected was that his dad would care when something was happening in their old house where his mother, his father's "beloved wife" died. He didn't even call his dad when he was dying, he just knew Sam did and John didn't even care enough to call him. I don't see him expecting John to do any "swooping and saving", he's expecting the minimum of involvement from his father and his father doesn't even manage that. Also if Dean still felt like he was always in over his head? That would still be a direct result of his abuse throughout his childhood(Dean knowing John was possessed because he was praised him instead of yelling at him about what he did wrong, John getting angry and throwing out the dinner, even John criticizing how Dean was taking care of the car because "I wouldn't have given you the damn thing if I thought you were going to ruin it" - thus emphasizing that not only was Dean failing at taking care of the car, but that it was John's first and he did a better job). All that, repeated over and over again, made Dean feel like he was constantly failing or on the verge of failing and failure meant on various scales, death or the silent treatment or being sent away or his father's rage directed at him. Edited February 26, 2019 by tessathereaper 1 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 6:49 PM, rue721 said: I don't feel like John ever thought that. Literally ever. I don't think that thought was even on his radar. You're likely right.... I doubt that John did either... What I was mainly trying to say was that as compared to a monster situation, I could see John more thinking that Dean might get in more trouble in the CBGB situation than the monster ones.... because John likely thought - thought being the operative word - that he had trained Dean well enough that Dean could take care of monster type things. I personally also think that in a way that was true. I would expect a young Dean to be more adept at handling a monster situation than a complex and potentially dangerous social one, because John likely never warned him about that kind of thing as compared to monsters and hunting. And perhaps ironically, Dean still had a little trouble in that department for a while. He got in trouble both from the guy in "Dream a Little Dream" and in "Sex and Violence" from drinking tainted beer. And maybe Dean's need/want to connect socially with people - what he couldn't adequately get from John - made Dean a bit more vulnerable in that kind of situation. 7 hours ago, rue721 said: Anyway, I don't buy that John was (secretly) watching out or that there was any method to his madness in terms of his parenting. IMO all evidence onscreen has made it seem like he just genuinely assumed that Dean "had it handled," so he went and did his own thing unencumbered. I don't disagree here either. I'm actually one who doesn't quite buy Dean's explanation to Sam that John was "looking out for" Sam when John was visiting Sam at college. I more lean towards John was making sure that Sam wasn't screwing up, spilling the family secrets, going evil, or any combination thereof more than he was checking up on Sam for Sam's sake. If John had been actually checking up on Sam for Sam's sake, he would've actually somehow let Sam know he was doing so, in my opinion. The only person John was purposely making feel better with his "visits" to Sam in Stanford was John. And whereas John seemed - as you said - to assume that Dean had it handled, I think he generally assumed that Sam didn't, because Sam dared to do things Sam's own way. I think that it was part of John's ego that let him think that Dean was "fine" because Dean did what John told him to do whereas Sam was going to screw up, because Sam wouldn't do things his (John's) way. And John apparently still thought that way up until the day he died. John didn't trust Sam with the truth - where maybe Sam might take charge of saving himself - but instead tasked it to Dean to either save or kill Sam, because apparently left to his own devices - in John's mind - Sam was incompetent to choose the right path himself and so therefore would be done for unless Dean could "save" him. No wonder Sam was pissed at John and felt like a screw up in John's eyes. I think that was pretty much how he was treated a lot of the time - even including that final John decree. 1 Link to comment
Pondlass1 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 Well, the CBGB story was thrown in by writers during the 'whitewashing' John era. But actually it works for me. John would not want Dean socializing or being in a position where he could become attached to anyone else and break away from the fold. Dean belonged to John. John needed Dean way more than Dean needed John. Dean could get killed by a monster, but no woman (or man) in a nightclub was going to take his son away from him. John was bastard. Way more of a bastard than the infamous Negan actually because it was his own flesh and blood that he sent into danger. But it made for good TV (IMO). Everything's like a wishy-washy soap opera nowadays. 2 Link to comment
rue721 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: I think that it was part of John's ego that let him think that Dean was "fine" because Dean did what John told him to do whereas Sam was going to screw up, because Sam wouldn't do things his (John's) way. I mostly agree. I think another big issue was that Dean was meanwhile telling John that everything was fine, he had it handled, everyone was doing awesome, John should just keep doing what he was doing, etc, and Sam was calling bullshit on that, too. At the end of the day, Dean apparently knew that 90% of that pretense actually was bullshit. As soon as John died, he really dropped the whole thing. So Sam telling the truth was aggravating/confusing/inconvenient but not personally threatening to him, I guess. John apparently did buy the reassurance that Dean had been selling, though. I guess he needed to, to keep himself from feeling too guilty. So when Sam said it was bullshit, that must have felt like a personal attack to him. Like Sam was accusing him of screwing up, and saying all that guilt that Dean had kept at bay for him actually was warranted. Which I can't imagine that John wouldn't have known in his heart of hearts was actually true, too, since both his sons knew it deep down and he doesn't seem to have been a stupid man. I think that just enflamed his guilt more and made him more upset, though. So I think to protect himself from feeling guilt or questioning himself and his choices, John pushed back HARD on Sam. I think that basically, John wanted Sam to at least give lip service to what Dean had been telling him so that he wouldn't have to question himself or feel guilty. And when Sam wouldn't do that, or didn't do it enthusiastically enough, he got pissed off. What's funny is that I don't think Sam actually realized that that was going on at all. Because Sam is maybe the most earnest character to have ever graced our screens and it didn't necessarily occur to him to just say whatever John wanted to hear and be done with it LOL What's also interesting is that as soon as John died, Sam started deifying him. I guess when he realized he wouldn't have any more time with John, he wished that their time together had been happier -- so he rewrote history to at least sort of make it so. Meanwhile, it seems like Dean finds that super aggravating. I feel like his perspective is, Sam made their lives difficult for YEARS by refusing to do EXACTLY what he's doing now. Terrible timing, Sam. LOL. 9 hours ago, tessathereaper said: As for the in over his head scenario, I'm trying to figure out when that is supposed to be? When he was a child? Because yes Dean WAS in over his head - any child being forced to do what he was expected to do is in over his head, whether he "succeeds" in doing so or not. I'm thinking of "in over his head" as feeling unprepared and overwhelmed. Being faced with demands that it's going to cost him a part of himself to fulfill. Yes, I think Dean was faced with those as a kid, but also at other times. Like when John was missing and presumed dead, when Jake killed Sam, when the Hellhounds dragged Dean to Hell, etc. I don't think that being "in over his head" meant he was not ultimately going to be able to get the job done. In fact, I think of it as happening in scenarios in which he has no choice but to try and handle whatever the task is, no matter how unprepared or overwhelmed he might be. Like, Dean gets dragged to Hell -- well, then he's there. He's going to have to deal with it whatever way he can. There's not really another option where someone thinks "this is going to be too rough on him, better give him an easier task" and sets him something more appropriate. That's maybe a bad example because he ultimately was rescued, but you hear what I'm trying to say? But in terms of things that John specifically left up to Dean to do, which was the original topic -- yeah, I think that John way overloaded him, and it was pretty callous. As a kid, for sure. But John was making really bizarre and enormous demands of Dean when he was an adult, too. The classic is the "save Sam or kill him" last words. EVERYBODY would be out of his depth when given a demand like that. That's just not something that you can ask of someone, to save/kill their close family member. And my overall point was that John never seemed to ask himself "is Dean going to be in over his head with this?" when he was just throwing things Dean's way. Because if that was a consideration of his, he would never have thrown half the things Dean's way that he did, such as the "save Sam or kill him" thing. Or even just "hole up in this motel room in a strange town for days on end with dwindling food and a gun to keep the (literal) child-killing monsters at bay." I mean, that shit was bonkers. Edited February 26, 2019 by rue721 OMFG accidentally hit "post" while still writing 4 Link to comment
Supafanstan February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Pondlass1 said: John was bastard. Way more of a bastard than the infamous Negan actually because it was his own flesh and blood that he sent into danger. But it made for good TV (IMO). Everything's like a wishy-washy soap opera nowadays. I agree. I personally don't think we were ever meant to see John as a good father, or even a good man, after Mary's death. There is such a dramatic difference between the John we see and hear about from the pilot on, and the warm, loving guy we meet in In The Beginning. Mary's death and his rude awakening into the world of the Supernatural fucked him up in every way - ways not even Vietnam did, if we're to believe ITB John was the 'real' John. He made this decision to hunt, and he also made the decision to drag his children along with him into this dangerous, vagabond life. He put them in harm's way every day of their lives in the guise of 'protecting' them. John not only put the responsibility of his infant son's life into the hands of child who was barely past being a toddler himself. He willingly exposed the kid to the 'reality' of the supernatural world and then made it his job to protect his brother from it. Even worse, he allowed this child to comfort and care for him (see: John's apology in IMTOD). Everything I ever needed to know about John I learned when, in Something Wicked, after saving Sam from the Shtriga, he held him tight while he only had scorn in his eyes for Dean, who was at least as traumatized as Sam, if not more. Regardless of Dean's 'screw up', he had just witnessed the near-murder of his brother - surely a good, loving father would have offered something other than disdain and blame, and self-doubt that would haunt him for years to come. Edited February 26, 2019 by Supafanstan 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, rue721 said: But John was making really bizarre and enormous demands of Dean when he was an adult, too. The classic is the "save Sam or kill him" last words. EVERYBODY would be out of his depth when given a demand like that. That's just not something that you can ask of someone, to save/kill their close family member. Yes, John was good at that. Another good example was John's demanding that Sam shoot him in order to kill the YED - "you shoot me in the heart, son!" - while Dean is dying and pleading in the background. And when Sam is understandably overwhelmed with that decision and decides not to do it, does John understand? Nope, he tells Sam how the car crash, Dean dying, and everything in their current situation is Sam's fault because Sam wouldn't listen to him and shoot him when John told him to.*** None of it was his (John's) own fault for stupidly going after the demon and getting possessed in the first place, nope. And that wasn't just a spur of the moment, I'm upset right now, but I'll see it differently accusation, because he tells Sam the same thing a second time in the hospital. According to John and his ego, everything would have gone just fine and Dean wouldn't be dying - even though the demon did most of its damage before John was able to take over - and he wouldn't have had to make the deal if only Sam had killed him like John told him to do, because what was so hard about that? Yeah, John put the guilt trip on Sam really well - which likely contributed to the post-death deifying you mentioned - while conveniently ignoring his own rather large part in the complete screw up. And sadly even in the current past episode it's left that Sam should have had a reason to apologize for the things he said to John before he died, but the things that John said before he died - such as blaming Sam for everything - are pretty much justified and/or ignored. And perhaps the sad thing was that if not for John's extreme upbringing, things might have happened differently. Despite Sam not listening to John or agreeing with John's methods of "protection," Sam originally wouldn't have gone evil, because he resisted the YED's offer and died instead. Dean wouldn't have felt like he "failed" to protect Sam and made the deal to bring him back... of course that might've meant that Jake maybe would've taken over as the chosen one and the world might have been doomed, but in terms of Sam and Dean there wouldn't have been the self-fulfilling prophecy of Sam going bad if not for - at least in some measure - John's craptacular upbringing skills. *** As if that wouldn't have screwed up Sam and Dean's relationship forever more after that if Sam had shot John. That actually might've been an interesting offshoot for the "Lebanon" episode maybe (of course John would've had to come back from heaven instead), since it would also have explained alternate Sam and Dean's current distance and Sam insisting (in his fake TED talk) on not having "family," and that they can only bring distraction/problems. 6 hours ago, rue721 said: Meanwhile, it seems like Dean finds that super aggravating. I feel like his perspective is, Sam made their lives difficult for YEARS by refusing to do EXACTLY what he's doing now. Terrible timing, Sam. LOL. Well, that's what Dean always wanted right? It just came too late for Dean to enjoy it, but them's the breaks. Be careful what you wish for and all that. The sad thing in my opinion, however, is once again Sam got the blame and guilt and John got away pretty much scot-free. Dean didn't really disabuse Sam of Sam's assessment that he (Sam) shouldn't have disagreed with John or of his guilt for fighting with John. Dean pretty much implied that Sam should feel guilty and left Sam with that guilt rather than letting Sam know that he (Dean) realized that John maybe wasn't the best father after all. Dean could've said something like "yeah, you didn't exactly make things easy when we were growing up, but, hey, you know what? Dad had a part in that, too. It wasn't all you." But instead, Dean said nothing ... and let John win. Edited February 26, 2019 by AwesomO4000 Because despite what my spell check told me, I knew it was spelled "scot"... I just forgot the hyphen to go with the "free." 2 Link to comment
catrox14 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 I don't really get why the show decided that John needed to anything but a complicated, not great father at all. Part of his steiy is that the awfulness of his introduction to hunting changed him into the drill sargeant, absentee father. It made for a much better story than the recent attempts to whitewash his past. Dean and Sam loving him in spite of his failures makes it pretty realistic and IMO forgiveness didn't need to be had and it doesn't need to have a happy ending to be good. 4 Link to comment
DeeDee79 February 26, 2019 Share February 26, 2019 1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said: The sad thing in my opinion, however, is once again Sam got the blame and guilt and John got away pretty much scot-free. Dean didn't really disabuse Sam of Sam's assessment that he (Sam) shouldn't have disagreed with John or of his guilt for fighting with John. Dean pretty much implied that Sam should feel guilty and left Sam with that guilt rather than letting Sam know that he (Dean) realized that John maybe wasn't the best father after all. Dean could've said something like "yeah, you didn't exactly make things easy when we were growing up, but, hey, you know what? Dad had a part in that, too. It wasn't all you." But instead, Dean said nothing ... and let John win. I don't think that it was on Dean to do/say this. Sam had no problem urging Dean to talk about his feelings about John's death when he clearly wasn't ready to do so as well as berating him for following along with John's orders throughout most of season 1. Why should Dean be held responsible for soothing Sam's feelings about his relationship with John when he was trying to deal with his own grief? 7 Link to comment
Reganne February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 2 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: Yes, John was good at that. Another good example was John's demanding that Sam shoot him in order to kill the YED - "you shoot me in the heart, son!" - while Dean is dying and pleading in the background. And when Sam is understandably overwhelmed with that decision and decides not to do it, does John understand? Nope, he tells Sam how the car crash, Dean dying, and everything in their current situation is Sam's fault because Sam wouldn't listen to him and shoot him when John told him to.*** None of it was his (John's) own fault for stupidly going after the demon and getting possessed in the first place, nope. And that wasn't just a spur of the moment, I'm upset right now, but I'll see it differently accusation, because he tells Sam the same thing a second time in the hospital. According to John and his ego, everything would have gone just fine and Dean wouldn't be dying - even though the demon did most of its damage before John was able to take over - and he wouldn't have had to make the deal if only Sam had killed him like John told him to do, because what was so hard about that? Yeah, John put the guilt trip on Sam really well - which likely contributed to the post-death deifying you mentioned - while conveniently ignoring his own rather large part in the complete screw up. I completely agree. Its talked about quite a bit in fandom how John puts the burden on Dean to kill or save Sam. I agree that it would put a great deal of burden on Dean. However it's never really discussed how John asked Sam to kill him and then blamed him for not doing it as well as for the consequences of Dean being in a coma bc Sam couldnt kill John. Not to mention, this was one of the last conversations Sam had with his father before his death. Of course Sam would feel guilty over that. 1 Link to comment
ahrtee February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, Reganne said: I completely agree. Its talked about quite a bit in fandom how John puts the burden on Dean to kill or save Sam. I agree that it would put a great deal of burden on Dean. However it's never really discussed how John asked Sam to kill him and then blamed him for not doing it as well as for the consequences of Dean being in a coma bc Sam couldnt kill John. Not to mention, this was one of the last conversations Sam had with his father before his death. Of course Sam would feel guilty over that. Sam felt guilty about not resolving things with John before he died, not specifically that fight. (I"m not going into the difference in guilt/damage between John ordering Dean to kill Sam vs. ordering Sam to kill him. That's a discussion for a different thread, probably.) But here, Sam's last fights with his dad weren't about blaming Sam for Dean's condition, they were Sam blaming Dad for doing nothing, for hunting the demon instead of trying to save Dean and accusing him of lying. In other words, not trusting/believing his father and accusing him of not caring. I imagine that would cause more guilt when he realized what John had actually done to save Dean than just a few angry words that I'm sure they both knew was just anger and frustration (especially if Sam knew that was John's MO, as most people think--to fire off accusations when angry). Besides, it seems to me that John's final request to stop fighting (and Sam's puzzled face when he did) shows that John had forgiven all at that point. We know why, but Sam didn't, and so was still holding on to his anger. Again, IMO that's the major part of Sam's guilt, but it's no one's fault but his own. 6 Link to comment
DeeDee79 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Sam felt guilty about not resolving things with John before he died, not specifically that fight. (I"m not going into the difference in guilt/damage between John ordering Dean to kill Sam vs. ordering Sam to kill him. That's a discussion for a different thread, probably.) But here, Sam's last fights with his dad weren't about blaming Sam for Dean's condition, they were Sam blaming Dad for doing nothing, for hunting the demon instead of trying to save Dean and accusing him of lying. In other words, not trusting/believing his father and accusing him of not caring. I imagine that would cause more guilt when he realized what John had actually done to save Dean than just a few angry words that I'm sure they both knew was just anger and frustration (especially if Sam knew that was John's MO, as most people think--to fire off accusations when angry). Besides, it seems to me that John's final request to stop fighting (and Sam's puzzled face when he did) shows that John had forgiven all at that point. We know why, but Sam didn't, and so was still holding on to his anger. Again, IMO that's the major part of Sam's guilt, but it's no one's fault but his own. Excellent post and great points. Sam clearly felt guilty for his last interactions with John and Dean felt guilty for being alive while John wasn't. Both had their own issues concerning their relationship with their late father and were adult enough to come to terms with their own feelings as they saw fit. 3 Link to comment
Reganne February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 2 hours ago, ahrtee said: But here, Sam's last fights with his dad weren't about blaming Sam for Dean's condition, they were Sam blaming Dad for doing nothing, for hunting the demon instead of trying to save Dean and accusing him of lying. In other words, not trusting/believing his father and accusing him of not caring. I imagine that would cause more guilt when he realized what John had actually done to save Dean than just a few angry words that I'm sure they both knew was just anger and frustration (especially if Sam knew that was John's MO, as most people think--to fire off accusations when angry). But that's not all that happened. John said to Sam that if he had of killed the demon when he had the chance, none of this would have happened. When Sam pointed out that it would have killed John, John snapped back and said that Dean would in turn be awake. So yes while a lot of Sam's guilt comes from him fighting with John, that doesnt take away from the fact that John blamed Sam for Dean being in a coma. 2 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 1 hour ago, DeeDee79 said: I don't think that it was on Dean to do/say this. Sam had no problem urging Dean to talk about his feelings about John's death when he clearly wasn't ready to do so as well as berating him for following along with John's orders throughout most of season 1. Why should Dean be held responsible for soothing Sam's feelings about his relationship with John when he was trying to deal with his own grief? No, it wasn't on Dean to say anything, but it might have been a kind thing to do, especially because Dean did say something negative and hurtful earlier. Sam may have been urging Dean to talk about John's death before he was ready, but Dean's response was to wound Sam and then not talk at all... In other words, Dean got what he wanted - Sam not bothering him any more about talking about John, and his being able to grieve in peace - with Sam also apologizing in a way for dumping his crap on Dean as an added bonus - but in order to get that, Dean hurt Sam with hard truths that Dean then never softened. And just because it wasn't up to Dean to soften them, it still might've been a kind thing for him to do. But for me, even more important, would have been for Dean and/or the show to somehow acknowledge John's part in it. And for me, it didn't really. While it's true that Sam criticized Dean for following John's orders, he also later apologized for it and told Dean that he (Sam) had been wrong to make the assessment he did about why Dean followed John's orders. And most important, in my opinion, Sam did it in a way that let Dean know that John had been wrong. Sam basically said "I know I criticized you for following John's orders, but I now understand that I was wrong to do that, and I understand why you do [it]" and the "because John was a bastard" wasn't said out loud per se - although Sam's "you were just a kid" came pretty close - but it was pretty evident (to me) from what Sam said and the way that he said it that that was what Sam meant. And for me that was the difference between the things that you mentioned. In the case with Dean, it was made clear that John had been wrong to treat Dean that way and that Sam understood that (that John was wrong). With Sam and John fighting and Sam's guilt about it, however, in my opinion that wasn't made clear. Not that John had a part in the fault or that Dean acknowledged to Sam that John was at least partly to blame. 2 hours ago, ahrtee said: But here, Sam's last fights with his dad weren't about blaming Sam for Dean's condition, they were Sam blaming Dad for doing nothing, for hunting the demon instead of trying to save Dean and accusing him of lying. In other words, not trusting/believing his father and accusing him of not caring. I imagine that would cause more guilt when he realized what John had actually done to save Dean than just a few angry words that I'm sure they both knew was just anger and frustration (especially if Sam knew that was John's MO, as most people think--to fire off accusations when angry). In my opinion, Sam had good reason to question John's motives. Sam had even earlier alluded to the time before when John had not come when Dean had been dying earlier ("Faith") which John still had never apologized for nor even tried to give any explanation for that. So yes, Sam might have had guilt for not trusting John and accusing him of not caring, but it's not like Sam didn't have a reason to go there and - in my opinion - John shared in that by doing the things that he did. And John's "few angry words" weren't just that, in my opinion. They were very specific... and specifically blaming Sam while accepting no responsibility himself. And I disagree that that part of the fight wasn't germane to the circumstance. John was trying to deflect that he wasn't showing enough concern for Dean not by saying that that wasn't true, but by saying the only reason that Dean was dying was because of Sam. In my opinion that's pretty crappy - and not even true. John could have diffused the fight many ways: by apologizing for not being there earlier, by not blaming Sam, by acknowledging that John understood why Sam was upset (he wanted to save Dean), by assuring Sam that he (John) was trying to think of something... almost anything than what John actually did. In other words, it took both John and Sam to have that fight, but in the end it appeared that only Sam got the blame and guilt for it. Neither the show nor Dean acknowledged that John shared in that guilt. It was generally things like "you spent your whole life slugging it out with the man." and "you picked a fight with him the last time you saw him." And then Sam admitted his guilt while Dean said nothing... so John's part in that fight and the whole toxic relationship didn't get acknowledged, either then or later. With the Dean/John relationship the story gives many reminders that John was the one to blame for messing Dean up in that relationship, and Sam is often learning all the many crappy things that John did to Dean and acknowledging them as having been crappy to Dean and that John was in the wrong. With the Sam / John relationship, I don't think that is the case, but I won't elaborate any more so as to avoid getting into "Bitch vs Jerk" territory. 3 hours ago, ahrtee said: Besides, it seems to me that John's final request to stop fighting (and Sam's puzzled face when he did) shows that John had forgiven all at that point. We know why, but Sam didn't, and so was still holding on to his anger. Again, IMO that's the major part of Sam's guilt, but it's no one's fault but his own. Yes, it's Sam's guilt, but at least Sam acknowledged his part in it and that it was his own fault.*** John may have "forgiven" Sam with his "can we not fight" but he did it in such a way that didn't accept anything as being his own fault. "I forgive you" implies that the person being forgiven did something wrong and the person doing the forgiving deigned to forgive them, but it doesn't acknowledge that that the person doing the forgiving did anything wrong. And in my opinion, that's what John did with Sam. He dumped all of the blame on Sam - this is all your fault anyway! I never should have let you come with us! (more implying that Sam is incompetent because Sam doesn't do exactly what John wants) - and then said "can we not fight about this?" Nowhere in there was any admission of his own part in the fiasco. It was all "I had/have a plan." "You don't know what you're talking about and are a screw up (like you always are)" and "This was all your fault anyway." but "I forgive you." In my opinion: Screw you, and your "forgiveness" John. *** Though I'm still not sure it was 100% Sam's fault, myself. John did participate in that fight, and didn't try to diffuse it even though John knew what was coming. So while it was mostly Sam's fault that he felt guilty, John didn't make it any easier, nor try to keep Sam from later feeling that guilt. John was too busy being "right" and blaming Sam to do that I guess. 2 Link to comment
rue721 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: According to John and his ego, everything would have gone just fine and Dean wouldn't be dying - even though the demon did most of its damage before John was able to take over - and he wouldn't have had to make the deal if only Sam had killed him like John told him to do, because what was so hard about that? Well yeah, because John is clearly a pretty fragile person. I mean, he's always going to need to be shoving responsibility onto SOMEONE else. Who knows what else John would have been blaming on Sam when he wasn't there, seeing as someone who isn't there to defend himself is going to be an easy target. I basically assume that while Sam was gone, he was suddenly the reason everything that John didn't like was the way it was. 2 Link to comment
rue721 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 (edited) The thing about John's forgiveness in Lebanon is that Sam clearly was touched by it and it gave him something he needed. I think that based on how things actually went down onscreen, John did have a lot to ask forgiveness for. But after John died, Sam seemed to basically rewrite their history in his head so that it was all a little nicer -- John was a little nicer, John's relationship with Sam was a little nicer, etc. And I think it became unbelievable to Sam that this nicer version of John could have been the one to instigate such bad fights and such a bad relationship between them -- so it must have been Sam who was to blame, right? So that's why Pearl!John's absolution meant so much to Sam. IMO, Sam had already absolved John after John died, and now all that was left was for Sam himself to be absolved. ETA: and honestly, I think that whether or not John "deserved" to be absolved is irrelevant, because it gave Sam peace to forgive him and to reimagine his father and their past, hunting, everything in a rosier light than was maybe strictly warranted. Also, my theory is that Sam didn't feel safe letting his guard down with John enough to do that before John was dead and essentially harmless. Which is sad, but John did seem pretty prickly, so I think it was warranted. Lol. Edited February 27, 2019 by rue721 3 Link to comment
AwesomO4000 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, rue721 said: I think that based on how things actually went down onscreen, John did have a lot to ask forgiveness for. But after John died, Sam seemed to basically rewrite their history in his head so that it was all a little nicer -- John was a little nicer, John's relationship with Sam was a little nicer, etc. And I think it became unbelievable to Sam that this nicer version of John could have been the one to instigate such bad fights and such a bad relationship between them -- so it must have been Sam who was to blame, right? So that's why Pearl!John's absolution meant so much to Sam, in a way that (yet more) absolution of John on Sam's part wouldn't have. Oh, I agree ...which is why I think in a way that John messed Sam up quite a bit also, just in a different way than Dean. That Sam would have to make up in his head after John died that maybe things weren't as bad as he remembered and maybe he was just being too angry and harsh in terms of his memories of John is... messed up in my opinion... heh. In a way, I think Sam pretty much made himself the scapegoat - and I think part of "Afterschool Special" was showing that - and started believing that maybe it was just him that had been the problem. For me, it's just kind of sad that the show sometimes seems to go along with this: i.e. that John was maybe this nicer John and if only Sam hadn't been angry, disobedient, willful, and wanted something different, then the whole family could have stayed together and all would have worked out fine.... To which I say "bwah ha ha." Because in reality I think that would be a big fat No. Link to comment
DeeDee79 February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 6 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said: No, it wasn't on Dean to say anything, but it might have been a kind thing to do, especially because Dean did say something negative and hurtful earlier. Sam may have been urging Dean to talk about John's death before he was ready, but Dean's response was to wound Sam and then not talk at all... In other words, Dean got what he wanted - Sam not bothering him any more about talking about John, and his being able to grieve in peace - with Sam also apologizing in a way for dumping his crap on Dean as an added bonus - but in order to get that, Dean hurt Sam with hard truths that Dean then never softened. I'm not going to say what I really think about this statement since it probably belongs in another thread but Sam has given Dean so-called "hard-truths" many times without ever taking back what was said after knowing that Dean was hurt. Yeah, I'm ok with Dean doing the same especially since part of his lashing out had to do with his own issues with John and his inability to deal with them. 4 Link to comment
Bergamot February 27, 2019 Share February 27, 2019 35 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said: I'm ok with Dean doing the same especially since part of his lashing out had to do with his own issues with John and his inability to deal with them. I think that one thing the show has done pretty well over the years is to show how Dean and Sam have grown in their understanding of what John's upbringing did to them. There is ambivalence, because they both loved their father, but there has also been acknowledgement, on both their parts, that "Dad messed me up, and he messed you up too." Dean was more in denial about this than Sam, I think, and hid from himself and from the world the damage that John had caused, and so there was a lot to come out. A lot that Sam never knew, which is why we see him acknowledging this at various points. As for what happened after John's death, I think it was one time that the show did it right. (It is especially noticeable to me because there were plenty of subsequent times that the show definitely did NOT do it right.) Dean and Sam were each dealing with their grief and pain, and neither of them were always particularly kind to each other as a result. But you can't have it both ways. If one brother's insensitivity to the other one's feelings after his father's death can be understood and excused because of he was what he was going through, then the other brother likewise shouldn't be criticized for not being nicer. Personally I think the writers did a good job showing their grief, and I have no problem with how the brothers were depicted. And I don't think either of them ever felt that they owed or were owed an apology because of it, and this is one time that I would actually agree. 9 Link to comment
Aithne September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 So, I was thinking. Sam only finds out about the supernatural when he happens to find John's journal, which John happened to leave behind while he was on a hunt. At this point, he's 8. John put a gun in Dean's hands for the first time at, what did he say, 6? So we're 6 years on from then at the time Sam finds out what John does for a living. Dean's been deflecting questions for about 3 years (I think he says Sam was 5 when he started asking), and even now, he warns Sam that if he tells John that Dean spilled the beans, Dean will end him. So while Dean's initial reluctance to tell Sam sounded like it came from him ("I wanted you to be a kid, just for a little longer"), it sounds like John formalized at some point the idea that they weren't going to tell him anything (hence Dean being worried about getting in trouble). So, from John's perspective, how long does everyone think he was planning to wait before telling Sam? Did he hope he could kill Azazel before Sam even had to know anything, and just kept pushing it off indefinitely? I was reading through the thread and pretty much agree that it was probably Dean who ended up inadvertantly turning this into a lifestyle / family business with his desire to help John (possibly John had only trained him in the beginning to be a weapons-proficient babysitter), so I wonder if it was John's hope that they'd be getting back to normal soon and he could just gloss all this over. Link to comment
supposebly September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, Aithne said: Did he hope he could kill Azazel before Sam even had to know anything, and just kept pushing it off indefinitely? If I remember correctly, John didn't know it was a demon for the longest time or that he was after Sam. Demons weren't around much back then and most hunters hadn't heard of them (as per Bobby). From what I gather from the later episodes in season 1, John only found out it was a demon before when he went AWOL. Link to comment
Aithne September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 Just now, supposebly said: If I remember correctly, John didn't know it was a demon for the longest time or that he was after Sam. Demons weren't around much back then and most hunters hadn't heard of them (as per Bobby). From what I gather from the later episodes in season 1, John only found out it was a demon before when he went AWOL. Fair enough, but what I meant by Azazel was more, "the thing that killed Mary" (regardless of when John found out what it actually was and why it did what it did). I had the impression from his words in S1 that he had intended the hunt to end eventually rather than to be a lifelong calling. So the question is, did he ever intend to tell Sam, or was he hoping the hunt would end before he had to? Or was there some other reason for delaying Sam's introduction into all of this? Link to comment
supposebly September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 22 minutes ago, Aithne said: I had the impression from his words in S1 that he had intended the hunt to end eventually rather than to be a lifelong calling. So the question is, did he ever intend to tell Sam, or was he hoping the hunt would end before he had to? I think so. He probably didn't expect it to take that long and Sam would still be a toddler by the time he was done. Getting into hunting was solely to get revenge and to protect Sam. I can imagine he thought he would leave "the life" once that was accomplished. Although, after so many years, I can imagine that would have been quite difficult. I do think he hoped never to have to tell Sam and get it all done before he would have to. But, of course, the longer it took, the less realistic that became. Link to comment
ahrtee September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 47 minutes ago, Aithne said: Fair enough, but what I meant by Azazel was more, "the thing that killed Mary" (regardless of when John found out what it actually was and why it did what it did). I had the impression from his words in S1 that he had intended the hunt to end eventually rather than to be a lifelong calling. So the question is, did he ever intend to tell Sam, or was he hoping the hunt would end before he had to? Or was there some other reason for delaying Sam's introduction into all of this? 4 minutes ago, supposebly said: I think so. He probably didn't expect it to take that long and Sam would still be a toddler by the time he was done. Getting into hunting was solely to get revenge and to protect Sam. I can imagine he thought he would leave "the life" once that was accomplished. Although, after so many years, I can imagine that would have been quite difficult. I do think he hoped never to have to tell Sam and get it all done before he would have to. But, of course, the longer it took, the less realistic that became. I think John originally went into hunting just to find what killed Mary. We don't know what Missouri told him (did she tell him that Sam was in danger or did he find out later?) That was his driving force--revenge and protection. But the YED went underground for the next 20 years, as John said, so he wound up hunting everything that came his way--probably to keep searching and meanwhile honing his skills. I think he originally intended Dean to be mainly Sam's protection; but, as John himself said, after a while he "stopped being your father and became your drill sergeant." (quote from memory, so might be a bit off. 😊) Hunting became a way of life and "normal" life was out of the picture. Dean, of course, grew up knowing just that there was danger everywhere, that Dad was a hero who helped people, and his job was to protect Sam (which, I think, included keeping him innocent of the danger) and had his path set out early. I don't know if he could have settled down if they'd killed the YED back when Sam was a toddler. He'd definitely still be overprotective and hyper alert to any danger. Similarly, IDK if John "accidentally" left his journal for Sam to find, or if it was just becoming too difficult (or too much trouble) to keep the knowledge from him. By then I'm pretty sure he knew it was going to be a long haul and Sam might as well be a part of the family, maybe to help, maybe to free Dean from babysitting all the time. We can blame John for the way he brought up the kids--he absolutely made massive, major mistakes. But if you look at the way things developed incrementally (of course, once you get past the main idea that, after Mary died, John didn't make a settled life for the kids in the beginning) then we can see how he went from the father in the pilot to the drill sergeant we heard about. Not admirable, but (I guess) understandable. 1 Link to comment
supposebly September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, ahrtee said: Similarly, IDK if John "accidentally" left his journal for Sam to find, or if it was just becoming too difficult (or too much trouble) to keep the knowledge from him. It probably was an accident but I also think at this point, he probably wasn't too concerned about keeping it all secret from Sam anymore, who was now old enough to figure things out. So, leaving the journal behind was probably partly an accident and partly from not caring too much anymore. It also gave an easy way to get Sam to find out and avoid the conversation altogether. Link to comment
ahrtee September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 1 minute ago, supposebly said: It probably was an accident but I also think at this point, he probably wasn't too concerned about keeping it all secret from Sam anymore, who was now old enough to figure things out. So, leaving the journal behind was probably partly an accident and partly from not caring too much anymore. It also gave an easy way to get Sam to find out and avoid the conversation altogether. Of course, there's also the possibility that Sam stole the journal from John's bag, since I think John was pretty paranoid about keeping it with him (it had all his hunting information, all his contacts, and he had to keep it up to date.) Remember how disturbed Dean was when John left his journal from him to find in the pilot. OTOH, yes, I can see John thinking it might be an easy way to avoid "the Talk," leaving it up to Dean to explain instead. Link to comment
Aithne September 9, 2021 Share September 9, 2021 15 minutes ago, ahrtee said: OTOH, yes, I can see John thinking it might be an easy way to avoid "the Talk," leaving it up to Dean to explain instead. Just one more charming example of John abdicating basic parental responsibilities, yeesh. Leave it to the 12-year-old to try to handle his crying brother who now knows he could get eaten by monsters. At Christmastime, no less. 4 Link to comment
7kstar September 12, 2021 Share September 12, 2021 On 9/9/2021 at 10:46 AM, Aithne said: Just one more charming example of John abdicating basic parental responsibilities, yeesh. Leave it to the 12-year-old to try to handle his crying brother who now knows he could get eaten by monsters. At Christmastime, no less. On 9/9/2021 at 10:17 AM, ahrtee said: I think John originally went into hunting just to find what killed Mary. We don't know what Missouri told him (did she tell him that Sam was in danger or did he find out later?) That was his driving force--revenge and protection. But the YED went underground for the next 20 years, as John said, so he wound up hunting everything that came his way--probably to keep searching and meanwhile honing his skills. John was thrown into this world and IA that revenge was the driving force. Teaching Dean to protect Sam at all costs was the norm as he no longer did the dad things with either boys. Looking at my own life, I can sorta of relate to the Dad no longer functioning well, as my sister nearly died 7 times prior to the age 10. Now we can talk about the poor decisions and I got a different perspective when she admitted she stopped disciplining because she didn't think my sister would have a long life. She was so scared she would die and why not just let her enjoy life. This of course, cause many issues later for my sister when she didn't die, and she didn't get certain things. But I never understood any of that growing up. I just saw my sister being spoiled rotten and getting away with bloody murder. Now I look at John through the perspective that this thing was a danger to his family, he wasn't planning long term just reacting. Not looking at what damage he was causing. My mom threw me into the adult world and I stepped up to the plate like Dean. It doesn't give John a free pass, but I don't think he planned all the damage he created in his wake. I do think they showed until the story decided to damage the character, that John loved his sons. Was it a balanced love, nope but it does make a interesting conflict. Dean loves his father deeply and maybe hates him at the same time. 4 Link to comment
MAK September 12, 2021 Share September 12, 2021 12 hours ago, 7kstar said: It doesn't give John a free pass, but I don't think he planned all the damage he created in his wake. I do think they showed until the story decided to damage the character, that John loved his sons. Was it a balanced love, nope but it does make a interesting conflict. Dean loves his father deeply and maybe hates him at the same time. IA. John was totally reactionary in his life decisions after Mary. John definitely purposefully turned blind and deaf when the harm he was causing was pointed out to him by others (Bobby, Pastor Jim). Like Dean said to Mary, "I hate you, but I love you, because you're my Mom." He probably had the same feelings towards John in Lebanon. Dean probably understood that John hadn't planned on neglecting his children, or parentifying (is that a word?) Dean. Dean was pushed into the role, and he accepted it. I wonder though about how often and how long John really used to leave the boys on their own. Yes, there were times that he was gone longer than planned, and I'm sure he was gone most of the day when he was in town. And he missed/forgot birthdays and holidays, but he can be "not present" as a father even if he is physically there. In the Dream Root episode, Dean says "he was never there for him, I was" which I took to mean that Dean was there for Sam, as whatever Sam needed, and John was not, but I never thought Dean was talking about physical presence. I say this because someone had to train Dean. Even if you say that Dean trained Sam, you can't really say that Dean was totally 100% trained by the time Sam found the journal and they started training him. Dean had to have had instruction, practice, sparring partner, etc, probably upto age 18. Dean wouldn't improve his skills just teaching Sam, and he couldn't go out and practice on his own if he had to constantly "watch out for Sammy." Even Sam said they were "raised like warriors," implying that John was a hands-on drill sergeant. 2 Link to comment
Aithne September 12, 2021 Share September 12, 2021 1 hour ago, MAK said: I say this because someone had to train Dean. Even if you say that Dean trained Sam, you can't really say that Dean was totally 100% trained by the time Sam found the journal and they started training him. Dean had to have had instruction, practice, sparring partner, etc, probably up to age 18. Dean wouldn't improve his skills just teaching Sam, and he couldn't go out and practice on his own if he had to constantly "watch out for Sammy." Even Sam said they were "raised like warriors," implying that John was a hands-on drill sergeant. Yeah, I agree with that. I think they were left alone plenty, but I think John was absolutely there more than he wasn't. I don't think the relationships would be as deep or contentious if he was just plain absent, and as you say, they were taught a lot. He couldn't have influenced them so much just by being a deadbeat. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.