John Winchester: Daddy Dearest

Myrelle · October 2, 2016

Quote

While I do believe that, under the circumstances, Dean really didn't have a chance at any other way of life, I think he really *liked* hunting (remember his talk with Jo in Philadelphia when he said that he'd been started so young he hadn't had any choices, and Jo called bullshit and said that he loved it?)

I think that Dean is a born hunter as well as bred to the role the problem is that with John as his father AND another person whom he felt that he had to be a caretaker for, he was really never given any choice or even the opportunity to realize this for himself. When Dean had even contemplated normal before his year with Lisa and Ben it seemed to me that he thought of it as more of an unattainable dream for him, as in Dream a Little Dream; but I think it was after that year that he realized that he had to hunt and never looked back at living a "normal" life again in any real way. FWIW, I always thought that he would have gone back to it whether Sam showed up or not. But while he's learned that hunting is the life for him, I still think he also realizes that John took that choice away from him when he was a child and as such he can never really and truly know if it's always been his own choice. It is his choice now that he has reached adulthood, but the things that happen to us as children mold and shape us in so many ways and he knows this, too. By keeping Sam a child for just that little bit longer, it is my opinion that Sam was able to better learn that he did indeed have a choice.

John had Dean shooting bottles off a fence at age 6 and Dean bulls-eyed every one of them. And Dean liked that, in addition to liking the response that he got from John over doing that. It almost becomes a question of which one did he like more and no 6 year old could ever answer that question. John didn't make Dean into a hunter, but he never encouraged any other life for either of them. He told them it was to keep them safe, but leaving them on their own had to have them questioning that as they became older children even, especially Sam, who never had the prime directive drilled into him as thoroughly as Dean did.

When I said that the best thing John had ever done for them was to teach them to hunt, I never meant that the best thing he did for them was to raise them as hunters and nothing else because, IMO, from a parental standpoint the complete lack of encouragement to choose for themselves what they wanted to do with their lives has always been his biggest miscue. Now granted, that would have been hard while they were being chased down by the YED, but John didn't know about that for many years and for many years, if he hadn't been so obsessed he could have been showing/giving his sons more choices in life, so his words in one of those late s1 episodes to the effect that he wanted Sam to go to school and Dean to have a home when this was all over were really just empty words he likely told himself or he, too, was in denial as to how impossible that would be-for Dean, at least, if not for Sam.

Regarding John, I think that Dean has made peace with the thought that his father felt that he did the best he could for them, but Dean, at times, inside himself(and like many of us), still questions whether John did actually do the best that could have for them, and truly, what any good parent would have tried to do for their kids. Deep down, I think that Dean knows that his father was very flawed in the parenting dept. It doesn't change the fact that he loved and still loves his father with everything that's in him, but John's mistakes still to this day cause Dean pain, the trouble is that he's gone now(and sacrificed his own life to save Dean's to complicate matter further) so there will never be a chance for them to hash any of that out, but it doesn't mean that his feelings of hurt and anger aren't still there anymore, it just means that there is nothing that he can do with them except to put them in that little lead box of his or let go of them entirely-which I think he might have thought that he'd done-until DemonDean made his appearance.

Saving people, Hunting things, and Denial should be the real motto of the family business, if you ask me. ;-)

rue721 · October 2, 2016

17 hours ago, ahrtee said:

But I still believe that John's *original* intention (when they were kids) was to protect the boys and *not* have them hunt. I still think it was Dean who pushed for a more active role, and always expected Sam to like it as much as he did. And I think by the time Sam was old enough/knew enough to join them, John *did* want to have them all hunting together, whether to give him backup or so he could try to protect them. But by the time Sam joined in, you're right, he was already feeling alienated and resentful, and started questioning and challenging everything. (I wonder if that's why John kept them on the "need to know" basis that Sam kept complaining about--because he didn't feel like arguing with Sam?...which, of course, just led to more resentment and bitterness and more arguing--the never-ending cycle.)

I'm not sure if they were angry at Sam's "rejection"--though, yeah, it definitely played a part; but I still think the major part was, as John said, because he was worried about Sam being on his own, especially if he'd rejected hunting so completely that they couldn't be sure he'd even take basic protection precautions (we didn't hear anything about Sam's roommates complaining about salt circles or protection sigils carved into his bedpost, the way Dean had at the boy's home, so maybe John was right about that?)

Bottom line to me is: John always was a control freak. Was always convinced that he knew the best/*only* way to do things. While I still believe his original motivations were to protect the boys, as they got older and more capable and John felt they could take care of themselves, he tended to treat them as soldiers rather than sons. Hunting became a military operation, with him as the General, making all the plans and deploying his troops, and he wouldn't tolerate fuckups, insubordination or arguments. Unfortunately, Sam was just like him--also convinced that he knew better than anyone, and was frustrated that John couldn't/wouldn't see that. Which left Dean stuck in the middle, trying to keep peace between two would-be Alpha males. This doesn't make any of them "bad," just...interesting And definitely fucked up family dynamics.

I think John shows all the signs of being an alcoholic, though (in my experience) the ones who honestly *need* control don't *like* things that make them feel out of control, like drugs and alcohol. But, as my ex-brother-in-law (also an alcoholic) once told me, there is something called a "dry drunk"--someone who can go into rages/alcoholic behavior, without touching a drop. They can be pretty damn scary.

Sorry...another long and rambling post. Is anybody else reading or should I stick to short and sweet comments?

For what it's worth, I hope you keep making "long and rambling" posts -- I think they're interesting :)

I agree that John wasn't plotting to make his kids into hunters when they were babes in arms or anything like that. When they were really young, I think he was more worried over whether they would grow up at all than what their adult lives would look like. Rightfully so.

But imo he eventually started having real expectations of them (beyond just surviving). Basically, I think that John grew to rely on Dean more and more (which I agree, Dean wanted and encouraged, because it meant building a stronger connection with his dad AND getting to do cool/empowering stuff), and eventually, John started taking Dean's support/help for granted, and ultimately, John ended up feeling entitled to it.

And I think that at that point, he started feeling entitled to Sam's support/help, too. Except that Sam was more, Idk, cynical or resentful (?) when it came to John and didn't/couldn't take direction like Dean did. I think that Sam had felt closed out and undermined when he was young and trying to join in on the Dean/John hunting duo, and by the time John trusted him to help and expected him to help, Sam was kind of just "over it." I think he felt pretty rejected by John, so then when he was older, he rejected John right back.

I think that Dean wanted Sam to hunt, too, but mostly for the bonding aspect. I don't think that he wanted Sam in contact with monsters all the time or anything, but I think he wanted the family together -- and what the family did together was hunt. I also think that Dean just couldn't understand why Sam had to "pick fights" and "run off" and otherwise make trouble with John, and had this idea that if only Sam would fall in line, they could have a happy little (hunting) family. That was even in S1, too, not just in the show's backstory. (Of course, as an adult his perspective has since changed imo).

Actually, I think at this point, Dean is pretty disillusioned that all he got for appeasing John for years and years and years, and working his ass off to do his best by his dad, was some extra responsibility and heartache. I mean, Sam didn't bother and that seems to have turned out pretty well for him. He mostly has good things to say about John now. Adam apparently didn't even know he had to try and appease/etc, and John was (relatively) good to him. So I think that maybe now, Dean feels like kind of a schmuck for doing all that. (And I do think he still has some ~feelings~ about John/his relationship with John. What ifs, resentment, etc). He also didn't have that much of a choice, because John genuinely needed him to be his rock (in a way that he didn't need his younger kids). So maybe Dean is resentful of how much John needed him, too.

I also agree that John was a control freak. But I think it's pretty common for someone with a lot of anxiety and fear (and control issues) to turn to drinking to cope. Self-medication. He had to have some way to calm down enough to sleep, or even just to think. He also didn't seem like someone who for even a second would wonder if his own (mental/emotional) problems were affecting his kids, or anybody else. He seemed very trapped in his own head (and self-involved). So I doubt that he would ever have considered that his "coping mechanism" (whatever it might have been), was too destructive to continue doing. Unless that coping mechanism had interfered with his PRIMARY coping mechanism, hunting. Of course.

But honestly, I'm frustrated by having this blaring alarm going off that he was an alcoholic, because it colors all of my perceptions of the character and of his relationships and even/especially of his kids' behavior (!), and yet I don't know if the show even means for it to have been the case. I don't want the show to spell it out and I don't think it ever will and it's more likely than not to be a misunderstanding on my part in any case.

My main issue is that there are lots of things that I write off as normal (for him, for Sam, for Dean) because I figure he was an alcoholic...but if he wasn't an alcoholic, those same things are actually pretty weird! Relevant example, given the current discussion: that he wasn't responsive to calls for help *AND* that Dean more-or-less just shrugged that off. I actually don't find that that weird (crappy and upsetting -- yes. But not that weird per se), but that's colored by my assumption that John was just fundamentally unreliable and self-involved (because he was kind of a drunk, I've been assuming) and they all knew it.

It seemed like sometimes John could come through like gangbusters! But other times he'd be completely unreachable and (seemingly) uncaring. And which John was going to show up at given time was really unpredictable. He seemed like he could turn on a dime, too, so even if he started out one way, he might switch to the other and blindside everybody (which I've been assuming is why Dean was always relatively subdued around him). (ETA: all behavior I consider normal for an alcoholic or someone with similar addiction/mental health problems, really fucking weird for a "regular" person). So it has seemed to me that Sam/Dean contacting John when they were in trouble (like in Home or even Faith) was basically just a shot in the dark. And when that shot didn't hit anything...well, it's disappointing, but not *weird.*

That said, I do genuinely like John! If I didn't, I wouldn't be interested in discussing him, tbh. I'm not trying to shit on him in the least. Just trying to find the right context for his decisions/behavior.

16 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Bottom line is, no matter what the reasons why he started, Dean truly *enjoyed* hunting in the early seasons, at least, and got major satisfaction from it. That's more than most people do from their everyday jobs.

Hunting has HUGE drawbacks, though, as a lifestyle. I think Dean loves the actual work of hunting, but it seems like he's become really conscious of the drawbacks of the lifestyle, too. Namely, that you're doomed to living a broke ass life, at odds with the rest of society (and virtually undatable!). That sucks. It sounds stressful and lonely. He can't even tell people what he does for a living, can't get that close to anybody, and has to be OK with everyone assuming he's some loser. And that's one thing when you're 26, but at 37....eh. That's gotta grind you down. After a while, you're going to want some stability, respect, a home and family: "The Good Life."

I think he's accepted his lot by now, but I don't blame him for finding that a bitter pill to swallow!

Edited October 2, 2016 by rue721
greater clarity? I hope?

ahrtee · October 2, 2016

49 minutes ago, rue721 said:

Actually, I think at this point, Dean is pretty disillusioned that all he got for appeasing John for years and years and years, and working his ass off to do his best by his dad, was some extra responsibility and heartache. I mean, Sam didn't bother and that seems to have turned out pretty well for him. He mostly has good things to say about John now. Adam apparently didn't even know he had to try and appease/etc, and John was (relatively) good to him. So I think that maybe now, Dean feels like kind of a schmuck for doing all that. (And I do think he still has some ~feelings~ about John/his relationship with John. What ifs, resentment, etc). He also didn't have that much of a choice, because John genuinely needed him to be his rock (in a way that he didn't need his younger kids). So maybe Dean is resentful of how much John needed him, too.

I think we agree on most of the basics (with a few minor viewpoint differences where we can just say YMMV.)

One of the things that has always annoyed/confused me is the way John has been treated over the years.

In season 1, Dean's hero-worship and Sam's rebelliousness were front and center, with John as the cardboard cutout hero/villain, depending on your perspective. There was no real sense of who he was/why he did things, except through the boys' eyes. However, when John actually showed up on screen, JDM (to me) made the character so real, showing him as deeply conflicted, one part protective dad, one part Commanding Office, and 2 parts asshole, that he became fascinating and a lot more sympathetic, even if you were angry at his actions.

However, the past 8 or 9 seasons haven't been kind to him at all. Without JDM to give the character depth, he's devolved into a cartoon, which, depending on the writer and what point he's trying to make, is either BDH or POS. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium in the show, and I regret it, and resent it on JDM's behalf (it also makes it harder for him to redeem himself if they *are* able to bring him back to the show!)

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

I also agree that John was a control freak. But I think it's pretty common for someone with a lot of anxiety and fear (and control issues) to turn to drinking to cope. Self-medication. He had to have some way to calm down enough to sleep, or even just to think. He also didn't seem like someone who for even a second would wonder if his own (mental/emotional) problems were affecting his kids, or anybody else. He seemed very trapped in his own head (and self-involved). So I doubt that he would ever have considered that his "coping mechanism" (whatever it might have been), was too destructive to continue doing. Unless that coping mechanism had interfered with his PRIMARY coping mechanism, hunting. Of course.

But honestly, I'm frustrated by having this blaring alarm going off that he was an alcoholic, because it colors all of my perceptions of the character and of his relationships and even/especially of his kids' behavior (!), and yet I don't know if the show even means for it to have been the case. I don't want the show to spell it out and I don't think it ever will and it's more likely than not to be a misunderstanding on my part in any case.

I don't actually think John was an alcoholic, though I'm pretty sure he did drink to excess in off-time (I'm guessing mostly to come down from hunts and *forget* rather than to think.) But hunting while drunk is just too dangerous--endangers not only yourself but everyone around you, and I think John is too good a commanding officer to ever forget that. (As my sister pointed out about her ex-husband, who was a contractor: "Alcohol and power tools? *NOT* a good mix!)

So the "dry drunk" theory is actually more reasonable. They can have the mood swings/unreasonable attitudes/fits of anger, but still be rational and able to take command. And you're right that he never took any of this into consideration in his dealings with the boys, so they had all the stress of dealing with the emotional swings without even being able to chalk it up to alcohol and assume it would get better once he was sober.

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

Hunting has HUGE drawbacks, though, as a lifestyle. I think Dean loves the actual work of hunting, but it seems like he's become really conscious of the drawbacks of the lifestyle, too. Namely, that you're doomed to living a broke ass life, at odds with the rest of society (and virtually undatable!). That sucks. It sounds stressful and lonely. He can't even tell people what he does for a living, can't get that close to anybody, and has to be OK with everyone assuming he's some loser. And that's one thing when you're 26, but at 37....eh. That's gotta grind you down. After a while, you're going to want some stability, respect, a home and family: "The Good Life."

I think he's accepted his lot by now, but I don't blame him for finding that a bitter pill to swallow!

I think when he was young, Dean didn't think about/mind the drawbacks (actually saw them as pluses--the steady stream of one-night stands with no emotional baggage, working (ie, hustling) only when he needed the money, and always moving on. ) It's only as he started getting older (specifically, I think, post-hell) that he started rethinking his life choices, got disillusioned with John and his upbringing (and even Sam), and started sinking into the depression he's been in ever since. So one thing I do wish for the new season is that he either learns to re-embrace the life, or comes up with another way to find joy, because it's just too hard to watch him spiraling.

YMMV, of course!

SueB · October 3, 2016

I think John was a functional alcoholic, just like Dean is. Just like Bobby was. Sam, OTOH, doesn't function all that well when he's had as much as John, Bobby or Dean. So Sam, IMO, doesn't drink as much. Beer is still "water" to Dean as of S11 -- when they had nothing no coffee so he drank beer for breakfast.

And yeah, I think John marched to the beat of his own drum and the boys were used to it. So if Sam and Dean wanted to get his attention and it wasn't a priority to John at that moment, then they didn't get attention. I think they were conditioned for that. With or without the alcohol.

And John not checking up on Dean when he was dying? TOTAL SHITHEAD. I'm going to blame it on him not checking his phone messages for a few days (because of some hunt, his drinking, or a combination thereof) and when he did, the drama was over.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

1 hour ago, SueB said:

And John not checking up on Dean when he was dying? TOTAL SHITHEAD. I'm going to blame it on him not checking his phone messages for a few days (because of some hunt, his drinking, or a combination thereof) and when he did, the drama was over.

You'd think that as a decent parent, or decent human being, if Sam left a message with John saying Dean was literally dying but then called back to say he had a miraculous recovery and escaped a reaper, he'd still call, make up some bullshit excuse and be happy as fuck that his son wasn't fucking dead.

So to me, there is just no acceptable excuse for John to ignore his dying child on any level at any point.

I put John into the anti-hero category. I think he was always an anti-hero.

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

Quote

So maybe Dean is resentful of how much John needed him, too.

I'd think that on one level he feels that he was as much used by John as he was loved by him, but his worst feelings are probably the ones of childhood emotional abuse and neglect-which is why he can say something like "He was always there for us."(and likely even believe it on a surface level), when we know that he wasn't.

rue721 · October 3, 2016

6 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Without JDM to give the character depth, he's devolved into a cartoon, which, depending on the writer and what point he's trying to make, is either BDH or POS. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium in the show, and I regret it, and resent it on JDM's behalf (it also makes it harder for him to redeem himself if they *are* able to bring him back to the show!)

I really doubt that JDM is ever coming back on the show, no matter how they write John. Tbh I don't think he likes the role, maybe he even regrets taking it. He doesn't even take advantage of the money he could get from cons! That's the nail in the coffin for me.

Anyway, I agree that the show has been all over the place with the character, but I think he was *always* a bit dark and contradictory. Dean has tried to sell John as a badass hero in the past, but I think that was always meant to be Dean's individual perspective -- which says something about Dean, but isn't really an objective/accurate take on John. Same for Sam. Although I think that Sam was always more focused on John as a father (rather than as a hero/villain) anyway, so his take on him might be even less salient. But in any case, I think Sam's attitude toward John (and how it has changed) is also more of a reflection of who Sam is as a character (and how he has changed), than of who John was as a character.

Also, when I think of cardboard cutout version of the "my father, my hero!" All-American Dad type of character, I think of Jonathan Kent on Smallville. But despite being sorta/kinda the same type, Jonathan was so squeaky clean compared to John that imo they ultimately seemed nothing much alike. (Thankfully. Jonathan Kent on Smallville makes my skin crawl *shudder*).

In terms of the show making John too dark...I don't know. I don't know how dark they initially wanted him to go, because a lot of the worst stuff he ever did was right on screen in S1 anyway. Flaking on his kids when they were in need, yelling at them for stupid shit and generally being a blowhard, acting super erratic, etc. That was all John as we saw him on screen, not coming from his kids' descriptions LOL. In fact, John's behavior on screen probably did as much as anything else to establish that Dean's descriptions of him and their family life were pretty much just a mishmash of wishful thinking and flat out lies, with MAYBE some nuggets of truth buried deep in there. And then a few seasons later, when the show brought in young!John, they hung a lantern on how sweet and naive he was -- to once again show that he wasn't really a badass hero or villain, I think. Just a regular person who got caught up in extraordinary events and tried his best to rise to the occasion.

Anyway, the stories that Sam and Dean tell about John always feel a little contrived to me, and sometimes I'm just like, "bullshit." Off the top of my head, the only story that felt even sort of genuine to me was in Dark Side of the Moon when Sam finds his old hideout from a time when he ran away, and Dean gets pissed off and is like I THOUGHT YOU WERE DEAD and talks about how devastated and angry John was and how John ripped him a new one. I could believe that Sam didn't understand what the reaction "back home" would be, either in terms of Dean and John assuming right away that he was dead and being devastated by it, or in terms of how John would react to Dean "losing track" of Sam. That's also interesting to me because it makes me think again that John and Dean maybe presented a united front with Sam, but had a pretty different dynamic when it was just them. Anyway, I thought that the set up was pretty melodramatic, but I actually did buy the story itself.

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

But hunting while drunk is just too dangerous--endangers not only yourself but everyone around you, and I think John is too good a commanding officer to ever forget that. (As my sister pointed out about her ex-husband, who was a contractor: "Alcohol and power tools? *NOT* a good mix!)

OK, so I'm not married to the idea of John being an alcoholic. My best guess for why he was so erratic, difficult, and flakey is booze, but eh. It's not like there will ever be a definitive ~canonical ruling~ so it's all idle speculation anyway.

But if the issue WERE drinking, I don't think that it would necessarily be possible for him to be so rational and careful about it that he would slow down or quit because of "the job." Possible justifications for "drinking on the job":

Maybe he would be drinking just to get back to "normal." Maybe sober was a shaky mess for him. Some people are actually more capable if they're drinking SOME. (Or at least think they are!)
Maybe he needed some dutch courage to go into a deadly fight or even just to get through a day. That's where "self-medicating" might come in, imo.
John slunk off on his own and wasn't even hunting with Dean for a long time there. He already didn't seem capable of working with anybody else, he had practically zero friends (who he was still on good terms with, anyway). (Also, maybe that's WHY he wasn't really capable of working with anybody else and wasn't on good terms with anybody else). Since he wasn't working with a partner, he was only risking endangering himself anyway.
An emergency can come up at any time, so if he was EVER going to drink, he was going to have to assume that he could get through an emergency drunk. And given how crazy their lives were, I'm going to go ahead and assume that he made it through at least one emergency not-sober.
If he wanted it, he wanted it! I mean really, who was going to stop him? This is actually where I think having kids to look after was really important, and kept him from really just falling to shit. And imo Dean seems like he was actually really conscious of that, both as a kid and an adult.

2 hours ago, SueB said:

And yeah, I think John marched to the beat of his own drum and the boys were used to it. So if Sam and Dean wanted to get his attention and it wasn't a priority to John at that moment, then they didn't get attention. I think they were conditioned for that. With or without the alcohol.

I dunno, I think Sam definitely knew how to get John's attention! Just pick a fight with him. He might be yelling in your face, but 100% of his focus will be on you ;)

Dean didn't seem to actually like being in John's crosshairs, though.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

I'd think that on one level he feels that he was as much used by John as he was loved by him

Yeah, I agree with that.

4 hours ago, SueB said:

And John not checking up on Dean when he was dying? TOTAL SHITHEAD. I'm going to blame it on him not checking his phone messages for a few days (because of some hunt, his drinking, or a combination thereof) and when he did, the drama was over.

This is the kind of behavior that makes me think John really, really didn't have his shit together.

Because I can imagine a lot of scenarios in which he couldn't manage his phone, but ALL of them involve him not having his shit together in one way or another.

4 hours ago, SueB said:

I think John was a functional alcoholic, just like Dean is. Just like Bobby was. Sam, OTOH, doesn't function all that well when he's had as much as John, Bobby or Dean. So Sam, IMO, doesn't drink as much. Beer is still "water" to Dean as of S11 -- when they had nothing no coffee so he drank beer for breakfast.

But see, the difference is that Dean is functional. So was Bobby. But John, meanwhile, was doing decidedly non-functional stuff like flaking out on going to his own son's deathbed. And estranging himself from everyone to the point that his only viable hunting partner was the one son still willing to speak to him (the same one whose deathbed he didn't show up to, natch). And John wasn't stupid or a lunatic or a sociopath who just didn't give a shit, so imo it seems like there was something else going on there! I really do assume that he loved his kids and wouldn't be an asshole or leave them if he could help it. So why couldn't he help it?

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

6 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I really doubt that JDM is ever coming back on the show, no matter how they write John. Tbh I don't think he likes the role, maybe he even regrets taking it. He doesn't even take advantage of the money he could get from cons! That's the nail in the coffin for me.

Anyway, I agree that the show has been all over the place

JDM started doing cons in the past couple of years. He just did one a couple of weeks ago. He has said he didn't like how John was written later on but IMO he loves the character. He sure as fuck loves Jensen and Jared. He said he'd love to come back and have Jensen direct him. His first tweet was a picture with him and the boys when it could have been the Walking Dead cast. I think he would come back if time allows and if they pay him what he's probably commanding.

rue721 · October 3, 2016

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

JDM started doing cons in the past couple of years. He just did one a couple of weeks ago. He has said he didn't like how John was written later on but IMO he loves the character. He sure as fuck loves Jensen and Jared. He said he'd love to come back and have Jensen direct him. His first tweet was a picture with him and the boys when it could have been the Walking Dead cast. I think he would come back if time allows and if they pay him what he's probably commanding.

Oh, cool! I remember him doing that one con in Vegas, but I figured that was just because it seemed like a good excuse for a Vegas trip, not because he was up for cons in general.

I would love it if John came on the show! For any length of time, a lot or a little. He's an interesting character in his own right, and imo could carry his own storyline. As much as Crowley or Cas can, for sure!

And I love @Bessie's "an episode from John's perspective" idea.

AwesomO4000 · October 3, 2016

Way late to the party here - no reliable internet for a few days - but...

On 9/29/2016 at 0:55 PM, catrox14 said:

Speaking of in 2.1, if John was able to sell his soul for Dean's life, that implies that Dean really did die at some point right? I mean a crossroads demon can't make a deal for an undead soul, can they?

My two cents... The crossroads demon in "Crossroads Blues" made a deal with the husband for the wife with cancer to live instead, so technically that's making a deal for someone who wasn't dead yet.

On 9/29/2016 at 9:02 PM, Partly said:

Of course not. In this case, I think John (much like Dean OFTEN does) sees himself as the expendable one. He wasn't necessary for Dean and Sam to survive if the demon was gone. He was willing to die as long as the he could take the Demon with him. His entire life after Mary's death -- well, once he discovered the "truth is out there" -- was to keep Dean and Sam safe.

Except when he's doing crap that doesn't keep Sam and Dean safe... like leaving Dean and Sam alone while he's hunting a striga - a monster that eats kids' life force - while not telling Dean what Dean's keeping Sam safe from or how to kill it. Sure, John, so Dean's in the hotel room when the striga comes for Sam, and he's supposed to have done what exactly to save Sam from the hugely strong monster that can't be killed with the normal shotgun Dean supposedly had and even then only when it was feeding? That striga would've just thrown Dean across the room if he fought - it had no problem overpowering adult Sam after getting shot - and eaten them both. John's logic is not earth logic - nor was it keeping Sam and Dean safe.

Nor was throwing Sam out of the family - rather than telling Sam why he didn't want Sam to go to college - keeping Sam safe. If he had a feeling that Sam was in danger at that point - tell Sam that. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with @rue721 that John was just as concerned about Sam screwing up in some way as he was "concerned" about Sam's safety. Because how is "driving by to check up on" Sam every now and then supposed to keep him safe from danger exactly? Danger isn't going to wait for a quarterly visit... however a check on the kid to make sure he's not calling up dark forces, behaving weirdly, etc. A visit now and then can check on that. Yeah, I'm a bit cynical. I wasn't even sure at first when Dean was relaying the story about John visiting to check on Sam's welfare if that was really even the case at first... Jensen seemed to play it slightly cagey for me. A little "yeah, sure Dad was totally checking up on your safety... whenever he had a chance in fact." I was actually surprised Sam so easily believed it, myself... As I said: I are skeptical (Mulder paraphrase) ...and cynical.

So, I'd like to see what you see, @Partly, but... not quite there for me.

On 10/1/2016 at 3:09 PM, Partly said:

While he's right that he never considered what Sam (or Dean) wanted, he's absolutely wrong about the last past. They're not different, they are remarkably the same. It's a blindspot a great deal of parents have -- the inability to deal with their child's personality traits that mirror their own (often negative) personality traits. Everyone said that you couldn't tell John Winchester anything and that is certainly mirrored in Sam's hatred of being told what to do. Both of them, when they are sure they were right, dug their heels in and entrenched themselves in their opinion.

I still disagree with this. I don't see Sam and John as remarkably the same. And I still maintain that Sam doesn't balk so much at being told what to do per se, even if he does sometimes fuss at Dean for such. In my opinion, Sam balks at being dismissed. There is a difference there. Sam is perfectly capable and comfortable with following Dean's lead. He often prefers it whereas this is something I couldn't see John ever being happy with doing. At all. John is too much of a control freak for that.

As for digging in heels and entrenching in an opinion, that isn't something only Sam does. Dean does that also. Dean doubled down on his deal-making decision... and on locking Sam in the panic room. And wanting to say "yes" to Michael. And on Castiel not being compromised - in season 6 and 8. And the Gadreel incident. And taking on the mark of Cain. I think both Winchester brothers inherited that trait... In my opinion, it doesn't make them like John, however. John was much more apt to blame his failures on others - especially Sam and Dean - when his pigheaded opinions and/or plans went awry than Sam and Dean ever were. Unfortunately for Sam, the narrative generally gives him a larger proportion of his opinions being wrong and/or ending really badly, so maybe it seems like he's more pigheaded.

Even the revenge trait was shared by both brothers. Dean's motivation for obsessively hunting Dick Roman was revenge. But again, Sam's revenge scenarios disproportionately turn out really bad, so it often seems worse.

I don't think Sam and John are that much alike. Maybe more than Dean and John, but still not all that much, in my opinion. Though other opinions are certainly valid.

On 10/2/2016 at 0:53 AM, ahrtee said:

IA that Sam was always left out of the bonding part of hunting--maybe because he started so long after the others, and did have a childhood without monsters till he was 8, maybe because the others still wanted (sort of) to keep him away from danger. In any event, he would have seen John and Dean working together on things they were keeping secret from him, leaving him out from the very beginning. Sam had the outsiders POV, not really buying in to the whole hunter mystique because he'd already had years of wanting to be/trying to be normal, without understanding why his family didn't want it.

I agree, and I think it also ties into what I said above about Sam not liking to feel dismissed. By trying to keep Sam "protected" from the hunting reality, I think it unintentionally made Sam feel like he was brushed aside as unimportant or incapable of being helpful. So as Rue? said, he sort of gave up after a while (as well as balking at the continued "no need for you to ask questions, Son" aspect of the relationship), and tried to make himself important in other ways, which sadly ended up badly (I see a Sam theme here) when his father appeared to be less than impressed with his getting into college accomplishments, and his family pretty much declared he was abandoning the family even when they hadn't really tried all that hard to make him feel included in the first place.

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as dismissing their opinion, though. I think Sam might have sometimes felt dismissed by Dean when Dean was just disagreeing with him or with his actions-and likely because he felt the same way about John.

Same with the blame-shifting, IMO. Sam does it to Dean because he saw John do it to Dean-and Dean still accepts the blame for some things that he shouldn't for the same reason. Releasing the Darkness being the most recent. It's conditioning from childhood.

IA that they can all be stubborn, but they've all been gifted with their share of wrong decision-making, according to the writing. It's just that from what I see often what the writers try to point out to us as Dean doing "wrong", Sam will also wind up doing, but no/little mention is ever made of that. The panic room is a good example. And many of the happenings in S8, 9, and 10, too. Talk about having one's thoughts and feelings and opinions dismissed. Sam certainly didn't corner the market on that in those seasons. And that precise complaint has actually always been a Deanfan complaint in this fandom for as long as I can remember. So Sam is not the only one who likely feels that his thoughts and feelings and opinions are dismissed because his father and brother did it to him. Dean is just not as vociferous about it.

The difference to me is still in how they've both always handled and reacted to it. Sam gets loud and angry and vociferous and still does whatever he thinks is right and best, while Dean compartmentalizes the anger and stifles any angry responses and words, if they're there, to keep the peace(most of the time, that is, because Sam is not John to Dean either, so sometimes when Sam pushes, Dean does push back-but not often, and usually only when he sees Sam headed down what he(Dean) thinks is a really terrible road-and not often again because of the whole abandonment thing), but Dean will still do what he thinks is the right thing to do also and if he can in spite of any opposition. And there have been so many times when I felt that Dean could have and should have stood up for himself and his decision-making more forcefully and in a better fashion, but the writing would never allow it. In fact, the conditioning from childhood is all that I can come up with as a storyline reason for their NOT allowing it. Well, that and I guess they want us to believe that Dean is not as gifted with words as Sam, but I have a tough time with believing that one, to be perfectly honest. And it wouldn't take that many, regardless.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Myrelle

DittyDotDot · October 3, 2016

9 hours ago, rue721 said:

I really doubt that JDM is ever coming back on the show, no matter how they write John. Tbh I don't think he likes the role, maybe he even regrets taking it. He doesn't even take advantage of the money he could get from cons! That's the nail in the coffin for me.

JDM is an extremely busy actor. They've tried to work the schedule to get him back on a few occasions, but he's just always working. When he came back at the end of S2, they had to shoot his stuff weeks before they shot the rest of it because of scheduling conflicts. He may feel like he's outgrown the show, but I've only heard JDM say he'd absolutely love to come back if they could work it out. There really is something special about working on Supernatural, it seems. And, as was mentioned, it appears JDM loves Jensen and Jared. I think the bigger problem is, he's probably too expensive for them now, though.

But, if they really wanted to delve into John more, they could use Matt Cohen. I think he could reasonably play an older John now. Not John when he died probably, but John when the boys were young. I actually wouldn't mind an episode of John's POV from when he first hit the road and was learning about monsters while trying to raise these two small kids. How did he meet Elkins and Pastor Jim and Bobby, even for that matter? It could not only inform on John, but also inform on Sam and Dean.

Which, I'm just gonna say it again, this is why I think the show shouldn't try to do a full spin-off series, but do a couple mini-series a year surrounding one of the characters we've lost. They could be 3-4 episodes long and air them during the various hiatuses.

9 hours ago, rue721 said:

Just a regular person who got caught up in extraordinary events and tried his best to rise to the occasion.

That's exactly who I think John was. That's why I was kinda annoyed with the introduction of Henry making it out that John was some lonely little kid; always had it rough, never caught a break. IMO, that's who John became after he lost Mary, but not who he was before. The reason Mary was interested in him in the first place was because he was hopeful and happy; untouched by all the ugliness. It's what makes him break so completely when the ugliness does touch him. He had no experience to deal with this sort of loss. It makes him unbalanced and a walking contradiction. Despite being smart and capable when it comes to working the job, he just doesn't have the skills to cope with any of the emotional crap.

7 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I don't see Sam and John as remarkably the same.

Oh, I do. Not in every way, of course. Like, I don't think Sam would flake out on his kids like John routinely did, but both Sam and John are narrow-focused individuals. They're destination drivers; set out to get somewhere and only stop for gas along the way--don't even read the signs for the sights for fear of getting distracted. That's not to say Dean hasn't gotten tunnel vision once or twice too--shutting the gates of Hell, for instance--but Dean's generally more of a let's-stop-and-see-the-sights-along-the-way sort of driver. And, IMO, both John and Sam seem to rely more on the research and facts than on their own instincts like Dean does. (It's essentially why Sam and Dean work so well together as a team; they're complementary colors.)

I'm not saying Sam isn't like Mary either. Other than the obvious wanting a "normal" life crap, Sam and Mary seem to both have a sense of faith--I don't mean in God, necessarily, but people--and hopefulness Dean and John don't seem to carry. And, I think they're both more ends-justify-the-means sort of thinkers. Whereas, John and Dean seem to be very staunch in what's wrong is wrong, no matter the means. Plus, I think Sam and Mary have a similar views on family which aren't necessarily the same as John and Dean's view of family.

So, yeah, I think Sam and John are very much alike in how they think, but Dean and John are much more alike in how they live...if that makes any sense at all.

Edited October 3, 2016 by DittyDotDot

ahrtee · October 3, 2016

11 hours ago, rue721 said:

Anyway, I agree that the show has been all over the place with the character, but I think he was *always* a bit dark and contradictory. Dean has tried to sell John as a badass hero in the past, but I think that was always meant to be Dean's individual perspective -- which says something about Dean, but isn't really an objective/accurate take on John. Same for Sam. Although I think that Sam was always more focused on John as a father (rather than as a hero/villain) anyway, so his take on him might be even less salient. But in any case, I think Sam's attitude toward John (and how it has changed) is also more of a reflection of who Sam is as a character (and how he has changed), than of who John was as a character.

As someone upthread mentioned (sorry, can't remember who)...the view of John has always been from the boys' perspective, mostly because we only heard about him instead of seeing it to make our own judgments. Although "dark and contradictory" seems the best description I've heard--which is what makes him interesting, to me. If he was just plain dark or just a genuine bastard all the time, no one would want to see more of him (and that would make Dean seem more of a chump/more damaged for defending him). When I said he was a cardboard cutout hero/villain, I meant as seen through Sam and Dean's descriptions of him, not the character itself.

11 hours ago, rue721 said:

In terms of the show making John too dark...I don't know. I don't know how dark they initially wanted him to go, because a lot of the worst stuff he ever did was right on screen in S1 anyway. Flaking on his kids when they were in need, yelling at them for stupid shit and generally being a blowhard, acting super erratic, etc. That was all John as we saw him on screen, not coming from his kids' descriptions LOL. In fact, John's behavior on screen probably did as much as anything else to establish that Dean's descriptions of him and their family life were pretty much just a mishmash of wishful thinking and flat out lies, with MAYBE some nuggets of truth buried deep in there. And then a few seasons later, when the show brought in young!John, they hung a lantern on how sweet and naive he was -- to once again show that he wasn't really a badass hero or villain, I think. Just a regular person who got caught up in extraordinary events and tried his best to rise to the occasion.

Anyway, the stories that Sam and Dean tell about John always feel a little contrived to me, and sometimes I'm just like, "bullshit." Off the top of my head, the only story that felt even sort of genuine to me was in Dark Side of the Moon when Sam finds his old hideout from a time when he ran away, and Dean gets pissed off and is like I THOUGHT YOU WERE DEAD and talks about how devastated and angry John was and how John ripped him a new one. I could believe that Sam didn't understand what the reaction "back home" would be, either in terms of Dean and John assuming right away that he was dead and being devastated by it, or in terms of how John would react to Dean "losing track" of Sam. That's also interesting to me because it makes me think again that John and Dean maybe presented a united front with Sam, but had a pretty different dynamic when it was just them. Anyway, I thought that the set up was pretty melodramatic, but I actually did buy the story itself.

I think this is a matter of interpretation and perspective. If you look back at his actual screen appearances (yeah, season 1 was on TNT last week so I rewatched a lot): flaking out on the kids was from Sam's perspective, mostly. But it was also implied that the kids spent quite a bit of time with Bobby and Pastor Jim, so that was making sure they were taken care of, at least, not just dumped on their own all the time. (Yes, they were alone sometimes...) I think the trope of the "boys alone and running out of food/money" was fanon, not canon. (In fact, in Bad Boys Dean specifically said he'd gambled away the food money and that's why he had to steal...and the implication was that it wasn't a usual thing, because he wasn't very good at it, or he wouldn't have gotten arrested for stealing a jar of peanut butter.)

I also didn't see John "yelling at them for stupid shit/being a blowhard/acting super erratic," either. I saw it as John being focused on his hunt and giving orders that *he* thought were the best, and Sam arguing with him. John always seemed absolutely set in his ways and unwilling to change/listen to others, which is the opposite of erratic. And, in his screen appearances, it was mostly Dead Man's Blood when they were fighting. (He did snap at them when he thought they did something wrong: (why did Dean leave the room against his orders when the shtriga was around, why didn't they tell him about Sam's visions, why didn't Sam shoot the demon when he had the chance) but he wasn't yelling, wasn't out of control, and, for the last two, he listened to their reasons and more or less accepted them).

My interpretation for the fight in Dead Man's Blood: he was on a hunt (specifically for something to do with the demon) and snapped into CO mode, giving orders while Sam sulked and complained to Dean that he was "treating them like children." That led to one of my favorite scenes, which is *my* interpretation of the family dynamic once Sam hit puberty: John giving orders, Sam questioning them; John getting angry and barking at him, Sam going ballastic and screaming about how badly he is/was treated/what a terrible father John is, John taking the bait and both of them nose-to-nose and screaming at each other, then Dean stepping between them to keep them from killing each other, ending with everyone stalking off into separate corners. The difference to me, I guess, is that I can understand *all* sides, and my sympathies are with Dean, not the others. I've been there myself in *my* family.

But by the end of that episode, and on into Salvation, John had accepted that they should hunt together, he listened to them when they talked back to him, he explained what he was doing and why, and he and Sam had that lovely scene where he expressed regret for the way they were raised. You may see that as contradictory, but I see it as him finally being willing to share some of his inner thoughts with his kids, because he *did* accept that they were grown up and good hunters.

About the Dark Side of the Moon scene you painted--that was your interpolation. IIRC, all Dean said was, "I looked everywhere for you. I thought you were dead. And when Dad came home..." and never completed the sentence. Maybe we can assume he "ripped him a new one" but it may well have been just like in the Shtriga incident, where Dean said, "Dad never spoke about it again. But he...looked at me differently," which was *Dean's* worst punishment--that he felt Dad couldn't trust him. Dean always punished himself more than anyone else ever did, IMO. And actually, that was the scene that honestly made me change my view of Sam from that point on: because he *had* to know that Dean was looking for him, and would be worried. Whether or not he cared about worrying dad, as a sympathetic/empathetic kid, he should have at least let Dean know he was all right. (When my sister was a teenager and had a big fight with our dad and ran away, she *did* call mom the next day to let her know that she was all right, even though she wasn't willing to come home yet. But she knew mom would be worried sick.) By saying "I never thought about it," it shows a selfish side that went against everything the show had been *trying* to say about Sam up to then, and I kept seeing that in Sam through the next seasons.

(ETA: I actually wrote a fanfic at the time about the Flagstaff incident, from John's perspective. Unfortunately, the site it was on disappeared a few years ago. I can send it to anyone who's interested...)

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

But, if they really wanted to delve into John more, they could use Matt Cohen. I think he could reasonably play an older John now. Not John when he died probably, but John when the boys were young. I actually wouldn't mind an episode of John's POV from when he first hit the road and was learning about monsters while trying to raise these two small kids. How did he meet Elkins and Pastor Jim and Bobby, even for that matter? It could not only inform on John, but also inform on Sam and Dean.

Yes! to this. I think it would help to put John's actions into perspective, take away the bastard/villain tag, and give him back his depth.

I just think, with Mary back in the picture, they're going to be bringing up John, maybe quite a bit, and I don't want him to be treated as just an asshole who ruined their lives. I've never liked one-dimensional (or even two-D) characters. It was these "contradictory" sides and depth to the characters that made me a SPN fan in the first place.

Edited October 3, 2016 by ahrtee
adding a few things

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Plus, I think Sam and Mary have a similar views on family which aren't necessarily the same as John and Dean's view of family.

I think this is more to be seen, at this point. I think Mary will be fiercely protective of both brothers, whereas I've always seen John as more interested in protecting Sam, first and foremost, with less regard for Dean's safety, his words to the contrary in one of those early episodes, notwithstanding his actions, even when Dean was only 9 years old. He treated Dean as an adult when Dean was a small child and more so and to a greater degree than Sam(the prime directive was never given to Sam by John-natural because Sam was the "baby"-but even more damaging to the parentified Dean precisely because Sam was the "baby", too) I can see Mary coming back with the feeling and the need to protect both of her grown children with equal ferocity(and even though they're grown)-especially if and/or when she hears about what happened to Dean after she died. And I'm pretty sure that it will be when and not if.

I think it's very difficult to make any broad type of generalizations such Sam is more like John and Dean is more like Mary; or that Sam is more like Mary and Dean is more like John. There are too many shared traits for those kind of generalizations to hold any real water. And I know that most here don't see them in those type of broad generalities either. But some shared traits have been highlighted more than others over the years, IMO, so much so that even I have had the thought that, IMO Sam shares more true personality traits with his father, while Dean shares more of John's general outlook on people(not so much life-because I don't think Dean obsesses about anything to the same degree that both John and Sam have been shown to; but yes, to how they both(John and Dean) view most people-the non-trusting issue epsecially).

As for the outlook on the hunt, I'm thinking that's the part that remains to be seen the most. If I had to guess, I would guess that Mary will not be as obsessive, but she likely will be one to go in first, guns blazing-especially if she feels that her family is in immediate danger. I'm not sure if she will be able to accept being asked to stay back for any reason and any better than Dean or Sam is or has been shown to us as being in that regard. I'm wondering if she will be shown to us as being more vocal and forthright when she disagrees or is angered or if she will take the more strategic and contemplative route, especially with her anger. I'm guessing she will be more forthright with both because I think that Dean has learned to be more contemplative and strategic through the childhood conditioning and it's more just human nature to voice disagreements and even anger especially when it's been allowed to happen naturally and in a healthier manner from childhood than that it was ever allowed under John's rule, and again, especially where that rule pertained to his eldest.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Myrelle

DittyDotDot · October 3, 2016

22 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I think this is more to be seen, at this point. I think Mary will be fiercely protective of both brothers

Actually, that's not what I meant. Of course Mary will be fiercely protective of both boys, and, IMO, John was too. I was more speaking to what family represents to them are different. IMO, Sam and Mary see family as hunting--the instability and the ugliness--because that's the only experience they had until they both found a way to get away from it. Whereas, I think John and Dean see family separate from the job. Family is the thing that provides the stability in their chaotic world, not the thing that's creating the instability.

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

IMO, Sam and Mary see family as hunting--the instability and the ugliness--because that's the only experience they had until they both found a way to get away from it. Whereas, I think John and Dean see family separate from the job. Family is the thing that provides the stability in their chaotic world, not the thing that's creating the instability.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. And IA with that thought.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

..the view of John has always been from the boys' perspective, mostly because we only heard about him instead of seeing it to make our own judgments. Although "dark and contradictory" seems the best description I've heard--which is what makes him interesting, to me. If he was just plain dark or just a genuine bastard all the time, no one would want to see more of him (and that would make Dean seem more of a chump/more damaged for defending him). When I said he was a cardboard cutout hero/villain, I meant as seen through Sam and Dean's descriptions of him, not the character itself.

John told his story with his behavior to a large extent and whilst I agree that the POV of John is mostly the boys, theirs was not the only POV offered.

There was Missouri's POV in Home when she chastised/questioned why he didn't talk to his own children, even as she was complicit in him hiding away from the boys. That was knowledge only Missouri, John and the audience had. I'm not sure the boys ever learned that John had been there at all.

There was Bobby's POV in s1 or s2 ( I can't remember which) with him saying that John rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and supported in s7 with the argument he had with John on the phone about Dean.

To me those coupled with the boys views on John post Mary's death, is that I think John was more or less intended to be a complicated jerk at that point of his life. To me that is a totally valid way for a character to be written because he can love his children whilst still being an unlikeable, unreliable asshat who failed them. It might be sad or upsetting but there are fathers out there that are like that.

Edited October 3, 2016 by catrox14

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

45 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

About the Dark Side of the Moon scene you painted--that was your interpolation. IIRC, all Dean said was, "I looked everywhere for you. I thought you were dead. And when Dad came home..." and never completed the sentence. Maybe we can assume he "ripped him a new one" but it may well have been just like in the Shtriga incident, where Dean said, "Dad never spoke about it again. But he...looked at me differently," which was *Dean's* worst punishment--that he felt Dad couldn't trust him. Dean always punished himself more than anyone else ever did, IMO.

That's the guilt card. That's the emotional abuse that John used on Dean. He made ChildDean feel completely responsible for anything that happened to Sam. That's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin and it's stunted Dean in so many ways-for years he felt that his life wasn't as important as Sam's; that if someone had to go it should be him and not Sam; that there was nothing more important in his life than keeping Sam safe and alive; and for that reason, among others, there could never be room for any other relationships of real importance in his life, and so on and so forth.

FWIW, I think that most of Sam's present-day guilt concerning his brother could stem more from what John did to Dean as a child in the name of "protecting Sam". I think it's been a slow unfolding for him, but I think since Something Wicked that he sometimes understands that thought. Other times he just falls back on the same old, deeply-ingrained-from-childhood roles; as does Dean.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

ETA: I think Dean still loves John very much because he probably remembers his 4 year old self being swooped up and cuddled and kissed by John after Dean gave baby!Sam a good night kiss. I think that is the part that loves John with everything he has/had. IMO, I think that feeling is probably what allowed Dean to forgive John a great many things even as he got older. I think what changed for Dean in the worst way, is when John berated him for letting Sam almost be harmed when he was 9 which of course was John blame shifting on to Dean what was his failure to protect Sam or even worse he was using them as bait. But a 9 year old child doesn't understand that so Dean internalized all that and it became the Dean that put himself in the middle of John and Sam was they grew up. He wanted to protect Sam and not fail John again.

rue721 · October 3, 2016

On 10/2/2016 at 9:36 AM, Myrelle said:

Regarding John, I think that Dean has made peace with the thought that his father felt that he did the best he could for them, but Dean, at times, inside himself(and like many of us), still questions whether John did actually do the best that could have for them, and truly, what any good parent would have tried to do for their kids.

I think there are two separate issues:

1. Childhood issues that you can/should/will make peace with.

2. How your childhood/family formed your idea of what "normal" life/people/behavior/etc is or even what it should be, which is going to come up constantly throughout your life (by necessity).

Imo, Sam's MO is to pick an option, stick with it, and not waste time looking back. I think he's made peace with his dad, his past, everything, by simply deciding on what his take on it is, sticking with that, and moving on. Sam seems like he's someone who's genuinely good at letting go.

Imo, Dean's MO is to turn things over in his mind looking for every angle, and making incremental decisions as necessary (rather than making One Big Decision right off the bat that closes the subject). I think that as new information or new perspectives come to light, he will also use that new context to go back and look at past experiences/thoughts/etc again and try to find MORE angles on them and look for even MORE meaning. So I think that he's more or less made peace with his childhood issues, but I think that the past also isn't ever entirely a closed book to him.

I also think Dean has struggled a lot more than Sam on issue #2, and while he has *sort of* made peace with his life as it is and his version of "normal" as it is -- to me, it seems more like a detente than a real peace. I think that Sam was at somewhat of an advantage in forming an idea of what he thought "normal" was and what he wanted his life to be because he wasn't as invested as Dean in pretending that their lives as they were were anything near normal, he cared much less about other people's opinions than Dean and was apparently not all that eager to please, and then he had his horizons legitimately broadened when he went to college. I think Dean was messed up as a kid and way too invested in selling himself on the normalcy and rightness of their life with John, way too eager to stuff down his own opinions in favor of John's and just generally willing to say/do whatever he thought was necessary or what he thought other people wanted, and on top of that, has had a pretty isolated life in general, which has made it especially difficult for him to gain perspective.

When Dean gets bitter about the past imo it's because of his struggles with issue #2. I think it's not so much that he's carrying grudges from his childhood or anything, I think it's more that he feels blindsided and maybe even tricked. I think that as he's grown up and gained perspective, he's realized that things are actually very different from how he was brought up to believe they were, and he's still trying to get a handle on that. And imo it seems like for every one thing about his past or worldview that he had assumed was ordinary/normal/fine but that is now being revealed to him as bizarre or horrifying or a lie, there are like ten more things still just waiting in the wings to blindside him, too.

I don't think that he entirely blames John for it, either. I do think that he is disillusioned toward John now and feels a bit like he was used or manipulated by him. But I think a lot of his issues are actually with his past self. Like, I think a lot of his bitterness is toward himself for being so "naive," or being so "out of touch," etc. For example, I think he has a lot of regret over teaching Sam to hunt and encouraging him to hunt. Sam has said about a million times that it is his choice, he wants to do it, etc. But it has also come up again and again that Dean feels a lot of guilt over it.

15 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I think when he was young, Dean didn't think about/mind the drawbacks (actually saw them as pluses--the steady stream of one-night stands with no emotional baggage, working (ie, hustling) only when he needed the money, and always moving on. ) It's only as he started getting older (specifically, I think, post-hell) that he started rethinking his life choices, got disillusioned with John and his upbringing (and even Sam), and started sinking into the depression he's been in ever since.

Not to be flippant but I worked in bars and restaurants for a looooooong time and yeah, a lot of the same upsides (lots of hooking up (if you want it), lots of partying/drinking/etc (if you want it), very little commitment or even a set schedule, you work when you need money and not when you don't, can pick up a job/life anywhere, etc). Those upsides quickly became the downsides once I hit 29/30 years old, though. Ime, you just outgrow it. Or at least, get too old for it.

And also, I started REALLY REALLY wanting the perks you get from a 9-to-5 life. Obviously, stuff like stability, respectability, etc. But also, the ability to date or even just maintain friendships with people outside the industry! The ability to have ANY outside interests, because god forbid you want to volunteer or take guitar lessons or something when you're working pretty much every night, pretty much all weekend, and your schedule changes every week. Also, being able to wake up in the morning and go to bed at night, like a human, is awesome! It's one thing living on the fringes of society when you're essentially a kid, but a very, very different thing when you're older.

Of course, the BIG HUGE ENORMOUS difference is that I wasn't saving the world, I was just making sure nobody got too thirsty ;) So no reason to feel guilty leaving it behind. (Although tbh it's been 3~ mo since I stopped doing bar/restaurant work and I kind of miss it, to the point that I'm getting itchy to take a side job bartending or something. But my ~upwardly mobile~ friends are like DON'T DO THAT IT'S WEIRD (I'm doing accounting now), so I haven't).

Anyway, that's my context for Dean seeming to shift from seeing the lifestyle that goes along with hunting as a perk to seeing it as a drawback. Ime that shift is actually very true to life, and when it happened for him is pretty true to life, too.

8 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

Way late to the party here - no reliable internet for a few days - but...

[...]

@PartlyI wasn't even sure at first when Dean was relaying the story about John visiting to check on Sam's welfare if that was really even the case at first... Jensen seemed to play it slightly cagey for me. A little "yeah, sure Dad was totally checking up on your safety... whenever he had a chance in fact." I was actually surprised Sam so easily believed it, myself... As I said: I are skeptical (Mulder paraphrase) ...and cynical.

Glad to see you back! :)

Yeah, I doubted that that was true. Dean was always trying to sell Sam on John at that time (I assume so that Sam would stay with him while they were looking for John. Dean flat out said he didn't want to do that alone and John had just run off on him without a word, so...). So anything that Dean said that put John in an OK-to-good light was suspect imo.

And even if Dean was telling the truth to Sam, who's to say that John told the truth to Dean? Maybe John was really running around after the YED or something and just didn't want Dean around, and when Dean asked where he was, John was like uhhhhh "skulking around Stanford. Dad stuff."

I don't know if we were meant to take it as the actual truth or not -- but since the consensus is pretty clearly that it was the truth, I figure I might as well treat it as true, too.

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Same with the blame-shifting, IMO. Sam does it to Dean because he saw John do it to Dean-and Dean still accepts the blame for some things that he shouldn't for the same reason.

I don't think that Sam tries to shift blame onto Dean, but I do think that Dean does try to shift blame onto himself so he can "take his licks" and everyone can move on. I think that's his way of trying to calm people down. For someone who shoots/stabs/beheads/whatever for a living, he's kind of conflict averse. ;)

Anyway, that's one of the reasons I thought that that "apologies can be lies" bullshit that Dean was talking about when he was trying to get God to apologize to Lucifer was actually kinda funny, though. I mean, I don't think that Dean's apologies are lies or there was any truth to that bit, it was dumb as hell. But I thought it was funny to think of Dean just reflexively apologizing and then thinking to himself "lies, all lies." LOL.

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

So, yeah, I think Sam and John are very much alike in how they think, but Dean and John are much more alike in how they live...if that makes any sense at all.

I think Sam and John have similar personalities, and Dean and John have similar values.

It's funny to me that they kind of play hot potato as to who was more similar to John. When Sam lumps Dean in with John, like when he talked about leaving home in Dark Side of the Moon, Dean gets all offended. Then Dean used "you're just like Dad" as an insult to Sam later on when they're talking about Adam.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

12 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

About the Dark Side of the Moon scene you painted--that was your interpolation. IIRC, all Dean said was, "I looked everywhere for you. I thought you were dead. And when Dad came home..." and never completed the sentence. Maybe we can assume he "ripped him a new one" but it may well have been just like in the Shtriga incident, where Dean said, "Dad never spoke about it again. But he...looked at me differently," which was *Dean's* worst punishment--that he felt Dad couldn't trust him. Dean always punished himself more than anyone else ever did, IMO.

Even as I quote a crapton of dialogue here myself for reference, the acting matters as much as the dialogue in how things are intended to be seen/perceived/interpolated by the audience, IMO. And with Jensen that is even more the case. I don't think a scene is going to be left in if it doesn't on some level meet the requirements of the story we see on screen.

For me that particular scene is punctuated by Jensen's acting. I can find little reason for Jensen to play it in such a way that strongly implied on screen that John severely punished Dean for Sam running away if that was not the intention of the scene. I sincerely doubt Dean was recollecting a severe scolding or grounding or revocation of privileges. Dean has been tortured in Hell and I've never seen him look more sickeningly terrified than at this memory of John's punishment. YMMV

I couldn't readily find a gif of Dean's face but I thought I'd bring the scene here for discussion.

I marked the video to start when Sam remembers his dog.

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

54 minutes ago, rue721 said:

When Dean gets bitter about the past imo it's because of his struggles with issue #2. I think it's not so much that he's carrying grudges from his childhood or anything, I think it's more that he feels blindsided and maybe even tricked. I think that as he's grown up and gained perspective, he's realized that things are actually very different from how he was brought up to believe they were, and he's still trying to get a handle on that. And imo it seems like for every one thing about his past or worldview that he had assumed was ordinary/normal/fine but that is now being revealed to him as bizarre or horrifying or a lie, there are like ten more things still just waiting in the wings to blindside him, too.

I don't think that he entirely blames John for it, either. I do think that he is disillusioned toward John now and feels a bit like he was used or manipulated by him. But I think a lot of his issues are actually with his past self. Like, I think a lot of his bitterness is toward himself for being so "naive," or being so "out of touch," etc. For example, I think he has a lot of regret over teaching Sam to hunt and encouraging him to hunt. Sam has said about a million times that it is his choice, he wants to do it, etc. But it has also come up again and again that Dean feels a lot of guilt over it.

When Dean gets bitter about the past we only know it because we're given a glimpse deep down inside usually through a SPN influence. He keeps everything locked up pretty tight, otherwise-and again, likely because he truly believes all the good stuff that he says, too. I'd like to see the bad stuff addressed in amore thorough manner and in real life with someone whom he can get some resolution from/through. Do I wish it was John? Absolutely. But I think Mary could help a great deal. That's what I'd like to see from the Resurrecting Mary storyline more than anything else because I can't agree with the bolded part above. I think Dean has conquered that kind of guilt-his own, that is and as regards Sam, at least. His "I'm proud of us." in the s9 finale was proof of that to me. Now maybe it will come up again, but I don't think so. I think that both have now accepted that they are hunters, for better or worse, but better seems to be on the up swing at the moment.

Dean's anger from his childhood trauma is personal and with his father and maybe he will never get resolution, but as I said, I think Mary could help with that and I hope she will.

I think that Dean's guilt now stems more from the knowledge of the darkness that lies within himself and that he first learned of when he went to Hell. Carrying the Mark and becoming a demon likely brought a lot of bad stuff up and yet, perhaps God's words in s11 helped; those comparing him to the firewall between darkness and the light. This I'm hoping to see in S12, too.

Geez, lots of hope in my posts lately concerning this show. *Hope* it's not misplaced. LOL

Edited October 3, 2016 by Myrelle

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

7 minutes ago, rue721 said:

mo, Sam's MO is to pick an option, stick with it, and not waste time looking back. I think he's made peace with his dad, his past, everything, by simply deciding on what his take on it is, sticking with that, and moving on. Sam seems like he's someone who's genuinely good at letting go.

I'm not so sure Sam is that good at letting go. If Sam was good at letting go he would not have sacrificed the world to save Dean from the Mark in s10. He would not have tried to make a deal for Dean which ended up with him drinking demon blood. He would have let go of his need for vengeance. I don't think he would have still complained about Dean asking him to stop the ceremony to close the gates of Hell in s9. The only time Sam seemed to be good at letting go was when he didn't look for Dean or Kevin in s8. I think that is where is his like John. John wouldn't let go of his vengeance quest either.

Myrelle · October 3, 2016

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

I couldn't readily find a gif of Dean's face but I thought I'd bring the scene here for discussion.

Man, I haven't watched that episode in a long time, but FWIW, I too think Jensen's acting there had me believing that John beat the crap out of Dean. Most of the time, I think that John probably wasn't physically abusive, but yeah, Jensen's face and Dean's whole demeanor had me wondering if maybe that time he might have been.

DittyDotDot · October 3, 2016

I've never gotten the idea that John beat Dean. Ever. I think John emotionally manipulated and probably verbally berated Dean--much like he did in Something Wicked--and Dean beat himself up about it. I just think he looks back on it as one of his worst memories and apparently all that guilt was for nothing because Sam was having the time of his life. That's what I got from the performance anyway. But, never once thought John ever gave either of them a beating.

Also doesn't really make sense to me that John physically beat Dean at that age. If Sam was 12, that would mean Dean was 16. Not that that sort of thing doesn't happen, but I have a hard time believing Dean say to Sam that John never treated them "that way" in Bugs if John was physically abusive to them. To me, it's always been classic verbal/mental abuse from John. Which, isn't any better or worse than physical abuse, IMO.

ahrtee · October 3, 2016

34 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I've never gotten the idea that John beat Dean. Ever. I think John emotionally manipulated and probably verbally berated Dean--much like he did in Something Wicked--and Dean beat himself up about it. I just think he looks back on it as one of his worst memories and apparently all that guilt was for nothing because Sam was having the time of his life. That's what I got from the performance anyway. But, never once thought John ever gave either of them a beating.

Also doesn't really make sense to me that John physically beat Dean at that age. If Sam was 12, that would mean Dean was 16. Not that that sort of thing doesn't happen, but I have a hard time believing Dean say to Sam that John never treated them "that way" in Bugs if John was physically abusive to them. To me, it's always been classic verbal/mental abuse from John. Which, isn't any better or worse than physical abuse, IMO.

This has always been my theory too. IA that John did the emotional manipulation thing very well with Dean (that is, Dean did it to himself with just a few cues from John) but not physical abuse.

I don't think they ever said how old Sam/Dean were at that time, but I think that Sam wouldn't have it as one of his best memories if Dean had been beaten because of it. (Even if it was hidden/Dean said nothing, Sam was supposed to be so sensitive, and any real damage couldn't have been hidden for a few days at least.) The fact that Sam knew nothing about Dad's reaction seems to me to be that it was mostly emotional and not physical.

Bessie · October 3, 2016

That would be an interesting convention question. I never once thought John was physically abusive toward Dean. But I don't doubt that viewers saw it differently.

I'd love Ackles take on his performance in that episode and whether he wanted people to take away from it that John hit Dean.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

49 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

lso doesn't really make sense to me that John physically beat Dean at that age. If Sam was 12, that would mean Dean was 16. Not that that sort of thing doesn't happen, but I have a hard time believing Dean say to Sam that John never treated them "that way" in Bugs if John was physically abusive to them. To me, it's always been classic verbal/mental abuse from John. Which, isn't any better or worse than physical abuse, IMO.

Sure, Dean has his own guilt over the incident and he expressed that he was worried to death about where Sam had been because he thought Sam was dead. But his demeanor changed completely when he recalled John's reaction. I don't think Dean would have a look of sheer terror and revulsion because John verbally abused him. Look at how he treated Dean in Something Wicked when he was nine with a withering look and shaming him.

I don't think John beat the boys on the regular but I think it's reasonable to think John dished out a few spankings over the years as discipline. But once Dean turned 15 or 16, John couldn't very well spank him. Given the seriousness of Sam going missing, I think it's entirely likely that John lost his temper and smacked Dean around.

Dean could still say that John didn't treat them "that way" as a regular occurance and maybe even just pushed that incident to the side as a one off thing especially if John apologized for it and to minimize it.

Edited October 3, 2016 by catrox14

DittyDotDot · October 3, 2016

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Sure, Dean has his own guilt over the incident and he expressed that he was worried to death about where Sam had been because he thought Sam was dead. But his demeanor changed completely when he recalled John's reaction.

Sorry, just not what I see. Not that it makes it any better, IMO, mental abuse can be far damaging that physical abuse. I just don't see what you see in that performance. Sorry.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

Sorry, just not what I see. Not that it makes it any better, IMO, mental abuse can be far damaging that physical abuse. I just don't see what you see in that performance. Sorry.

That's fine. I'm not attempting to make anyone see it my way. I'm merely explaining why I see it that way. Presenting my case, so to speak.

FTR, I'm a survivor of both mental and physical abuse so I don't come at these discussions with no insight into how damaging mental abuse can be. I am not dismissing that in Dean's life because I think John did mentally and verbally abuse him. I'm saying I think Dean is recalling an episode of physical abuse in this particular scene.

catrox14 · October 3, 2016

19 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

I don't think they ever said how old Sam/Dean were at that time, but I think that Sam wouldn't have it as one of his best memories if Dean had been beaten because of it. (Even if it was hidden/Dean said nothing, Sam was supposed to be so sensitive, and any real damage couldn't have been hidden for a few days at least.) The fact that Sam knew nothing about Dad's reaction seems to me to be that it was mostly emotional and not physical.

Those who have been abused can be pretty good at hiding it out of shame etc. John might have not left a mark on Dean's face. He could have thrown him to the floor, kicked him, punched him in the gut. Who knows. But just because Sam didn't know about doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sam didn't seem aware that Dean had been punished at all at the time so I suspect neither Dean nor John spoke of that incident again regardless of whether John physically abused Dean or not.

rue721 · October 3, 2016

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I think this is a matter of interpretation and perspective. If you look back at his actual screen appearances (yeah, season 1 was on TNT last week so I rewatched a lot): flaking out on the kids was from Sam's perspective, mostly. But it was also implied that the kids spent quite a bit of time with Bobby and Pastor Jim, so that was making sure they were taken care of, at least, not just dumped on their own all the time. (Yes, they were alone sometimes...)

I was thinking about "flaking out" as stuff that was happening in the present day during S1, like John not showing up in Faith. Same for all my "John complaints," really -- I was talking about stuff that John was doing in the present day, on screen. Like when I was talking about John being a blowhard and yelling about every damn thing, I was thinking of how Dean knew John was possessed because YED played John as too NICE. I mean, that's gotta give you pause. Your kid knew it wasn't you because the DEMON wasn't being enough of a petty asshole. LOL OK.

Not that the flashbacks don't matter, it just didn't occur to me to include them. And also, we saw very little of John in flashbacks, even though a lot of them involved Sam and Dean talking about John. So a lot of the info from them about John is second hand and maybe not that useful anyway.

Quote

About the Dark Side of the Moon scene you painted--that was your interpolation. IIRC, all Dean said was, "I looked everywhere for you. I thought you were dead. And when Dad came home..." and never completed the sentence.

OK fair enough. I just watched the scene because @catrox14 linked to it (thanks!) and it's WAY more low key than I remembered. Like, hilariously so. Why was my memory of it so melodramatic? LOL.

But anyway, I still think that it's pretty clear that Dean is talking about John being angry and punishing him when he got home, though. And that Dean finds the memory pretty upsetting. Albeit maybe that's coming more from the acting than the dialogue -- although I think it's not entirely the acting alone, because I think that the scenes that follow also make it clear that Dean was getting pretty upset. (And Sam was not making it better. The thing about not getting his crusts cut off, etc. SAM. MISTAKE. TURN BACKKKKKKK).

That said, I don't really think that what exactly the punishment that Dean got was is that important. So what if it was a dirty look v. getting hit? I would think that the memory was bad because Dean thought his brother was dead and his father was blaming him for it. Whether he got hit or not seems beside the point. I mean, unless John really beat the shit out of him, but personally, I didn't get the sense that that's something John did?

That's interesting. I do hope that someone gives that as a convention question, what Jensen was alluding to in that scene. When people have been saying "Dean probably got a beating," I always thought, "well yeah, of course he got a beating." This was in 1994 or '95 and he'd just LOST HIS BROTHER. My parents are artsy fartsy bohemian types and I ran pretty wild as a kid, but even I got hit for things less serious than that. But I was thinking "a beating" as in a whipping or a spanking or whatever you want to call it. Corporal punishment. Or like, getting hit with an open hand or whatever. Not just getting the shit knocked out of him with closed fists and kicking and stuff. I'm naive and that just didn't even occur to me tbh. That's what people have been picturing?!

Anyway, realistically, wouldn't John have not wanted to bother much with Dean at the moment? Wouldn't his focus have been on Sam? I honestly would expect John to have more or less been like, "Go away. I will deal with you later." Maybe even send him away if he was really disgusted. (And if I were Dean, I would have been avoiding John like a motherfucker, too, have to say).

Imo what was important/interesting about that scene is that they apparently BOTH kept all that from Sam. NEITHER of them had apparently talked to Sam about how they had reacted to him going missing. Even in the present day, Sam had no idea. It makes me curious about the difference between John and Dean's relationship in front of Sam and their relationship away from Sam. It seems like on the one hand they actually spent more time together away from Sam than with him, but because on the show John is virtually always either interacting with both together or Sam and Dean are talking about John to/in front of each other, on the other hand, the relationship that John and Dean had away from Sam (aka their working relationship?) is more mysterious.

It would be interesting to see a flashback to a hunt that John and Dean went on their own, away from Sam, from their perspective or even mostly from John's perspective. Might as well make use of Dylan Evrett while they can, because he does such a good job! ;) I know we've gotten a couple episodes with that kind of set up (John/Dean on the road and Sam back "home"), but they've both been from Sam's POV so far.

ahrtee · October 3, 2016

56 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

That's fine. I'm not attempting to make anyone see it my way. I'm merely explaining why I see it that way. Presenting my case, so to speak.

FTR, I'm a survivor of both mental and physical abuse so I don't come at these discussions with no insight into how damaging mental abuse can be. I am not dismissing that in Dean's life because I think John did mentally and verbally abuse him. I'm saying I think Dean is recalling an episode of physical abuse in this particular scene.

I can understand your interpretations on John's actions because of your history (and I'm sorry you had to go through that). One of the things I like most about SPN is that the audience does take the stories so personally, and can relate to them. (I used examples from SPN with my shrink to explain things that I couldn't verbalize clearly enough, and got her hooked on the show, too!)

Without meaning to sound glib or downplay your experiences at all, I think maybe you tend to be harder on John because you relate his actions to your history and still have some hot-button reactions. I tend to be a little easier on him because I may have a somewhat different perspective. I can see a lot of my dad in him (many of the bad parts, including the orders/emotional abuse/manipulation (which wasn't even recognized as anything real back in those days), the sudden rages and battles with my sister the rebellious one); and, while it took a long time (and much resentment and some therapy), my sister and I gradually came to understand most of the reasons why; and, more importantly, to accept and even forgive. Of course, we knew he wasn't deliberately intending to hurt us, so that's different from someone who *wants* to cause damage to their kids.

I do have to say it took many, many years for us to get to the point of forgiveness, and I'm still working through my own issues of self-worth and guilt. Luckily, we had the time to process and grow up ourselves, and he got to watch us and see that we didn't turn out so bad after all.

I think a major problem with the Winchesters is that they *didn't* have that time to gain perspective and work their way through the stages, and so are cycling between anger, frustration, love and hate without being able to settle on any one in particular; and where they are in any particular episode depends on what the writers want to convey, which is why John seems so inconsistent.

Bottom line, I guess is--there's no one interpretation to anything. Fans will see what they want to see, or what they recognize from their own lives. I'm still willing to give John the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that others won't or can't.

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I can understand your interpretations on John's actions because of your history (and I'm sorry you had to go through that). One of the things I like most about SPN is that the audience does take the stories so personally, and can relate to them. (I used examples from SPN with my shrink to explain things that I couldn't verbalize clearly enough, and got her hooked on the show, too!)

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

ithout meaning to sound glib or downplay your experiences at all, I think maybe you tend to be harder on John because you relate his actions to your history and still have some hot-button reactions. I tend to be a little easier on him because I may have a somewhat different perspective. I can see a lot of my dad in him (many of the bad parts, including the orders/emotional abuse/manipulation (which wasn't even recognized as anything real back in those days), the sudden rages and battles with my sister the rebellious one); and, while it took a long time (and much resentment and some therapy), my sister and I gradually came to understand most of the reasons why; and, more importantly, to accept and even forgive. Of course, we knew he wasn't deliberately intending to hurt us, so that's different from someone who *wants* to cause damage to their kids.

? My opinion of John does not come from my personal experience as an abused child because I was not an abused child. I mentioned my life experience merely to point out that I understand the nuances of abuse be it mental, emotional or physical. If John abused Mary, you might have a better argument for any potential "hot button" issues that might arise. It is possible for someone to form an opinion of show or character through more than a personal lens. And a personal lens does not invalidate any critical analysis.

My assessment of John is from what I've seen on screen. My opinion of Dean's reaction to that memory come from how I think Jensen played it and tied to how I think John has treated Dean in the past. I can also see why others do not see it that way, no matter their personal experiences.

Edited October 4, 2016 by catrox14

ahrtee · October 4, 2016

3 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

? My opinion of John does not come from my personal experience as an abused child because I was not an abused child. I mentioned my life experience merely to point out that I understand the nuances of abuse be it mental, emotional or physical. If John abused Mary, you might have a better argument for any potential "hot button" issues that might arise. It is possible for someone to form an opinion of show or character through more than a personal lens. And a personal lens does not invalidate any critical analysis.

My assessment of John is from what I've seen on screen. My opinion of Dean's reaction to that memory come from how I think Jensen played it and tied to how I think John has treated Dean in the past. I can also see why others do not see it that way, no matter their personal experiences.

Sorry if I misunderstood...we were talking about John and you said you were an abuse survivor, so I jumped to a wrong conclusion. But hot buttons from abuse don't have to come from parents...my main ones come from an incident with a neighbor when I was still pre-school...but the damage (and my reactions to it) still affect my viewpoint.

Again, I meant no offense.

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

Just now, ahrtee said:

Sorry if I misunderstood...we were talking about John and you said you were an abuse survivor, so I jumped to a wrong conclusion. But hot buttons from abuse don't have to come from parents...my main ones come from an incident with a neighbor when I was still pre-school...but the damage (and my reactions to it) still affect my viewpoint.

Again, I meant no offense.

I'm sorry that you experienced what you did as well. I was not offended. I just wanted to clarify.

I try to be cautious in discussion of sensitive topics that arise from the show. Opinions/analyses are informed IMO by many things, personal experience is but one aspect.

Partly · October 4, 2016

3 hours ago, ahrtee said:

Bottom line, I guess is--there's no one interpretation to anything. Fans will see what they want to see, or what they recognize from their own lives. I'm still willing to give John the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that others won't or can't.

I completely agree with this.

I willingly admit that a large part of the reason I view John the way I do is because it so directly informs who Sam and Dean are. If John was a right bastard with varying degrees of psycophathy and/or addiction, if he was physically and emotionally abusive and unloving towards his boys, so much of what we saw of their current day interactions would have been a lie and I'm not sure I can reconcile my views of the boys with that level of self-deception.

For example, in Shadow the boys and John share several very emotional hugs. The exchange between Dean and John, then John and Sam, I want them to be real. Because if the relationship is built on actual love and caring then all the other conflicts are made that much more complex and complicated. When Henriksen (or a demon or an angel or any number of manipulative bastards) accuse John of not loving his children or abusing them on some level and Dean denies that, if it's TRUE than that denial reaches a level of self-delusion that I can't reconcile with the character I see.

If there's a true feeling of caring, people trying to find their way through a very flawed past, struggling to reconcile failures and betrayals with the love they all feel, I want to watch that story. If it all a lie, a cover story that abuse has forced them to pretend is real -- well that isn't a story I'm interested in watching.

That said I do enjoy reading other people's views on the characters.

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

I feel like there is a tendency to put John into never abusive to only abusive. I think he falls in the middle somewhere. I think John is an asshole for abandoning Dean when Dean was on his deathbed. He'll not get a pass from me and it colors how I view him. At the same time, I don't think John is a psychopath or sociopath. Neither are regular!Sam and regular!Dean. They live in fucked up world filled with violence and death.

I sometimes think about Dean reacting violently to Sam's comments about Mary in the pilot. He shoved him against the railing and grabbed him by his shirt and intimidated him. I've often asked myself did Dean just become this violent young man who would shove his brother and later punch him outright because Dean has some kind of violent gene that no one else in family had? I don't find that particularly likely.

Did John have occasion to shove Dean around? Did Dean model that behavior from anyone else as a kid?Is ti just something that arises from 3 Alpha Males being around each other all the time? Do they settle matters wit fisticuffs as a matter of course? John was a broken man after Mary died. I think he could have slipped into ugly, violent behavior occasionally, much like Dean and Sam have on occasion.

SueB · October 4, 2016

2 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Is ti just something that arises from 3 Alpha Males being around each other all the time? Do they settle matters wit fisticuffs as a matter of course?

I think this is what was intended. 'Only I can legitimately beat you up 'cause I'm your brother' (or thereabouts) is something Dean has said. I don't think John crossed what John/Dean/Sam thought was a line of physical abuse. And they don't acknowledge emotional abuse as even part of the equation**. They've gotten a little better in the last couple of years on the emotional side IMO.

But if John took a switch (small thin piece of branch, common form of punishment in US a few decades ago; "go cut me a switch" was almost enough punishment ... and if it was brittle, that would get you in worse trouble... thin and flexible is the goal for a 'good' switch) to them, I wouldn't be surprised. A belt or fists WOULD surprise me. Spanking when young, absolutely. But Dean didn't need spanking because he was so obedient. Classic first child combined with abandonment issues. Sam, OTOH, probably got more spankings due to being the second child and naturally more rebellious. Today's standards? You even mention spanking and people are thinking about calling Child Protective Services. But Kripke showed a parent that was from the 70's (even though technically it was the 80's/90's). Judging John by 2016 standards he seems far more abusive than by 1989 standards IMO.

As for boys rough-housing and punching each other. I think the answer is "yes"... based on observance of my husband and two brothers -- they would wrestle when younger with more physicality than I thought would be normal (I grew up with only a sister). And it was "normal". Just look at J2M and the "wrestling match" from S8, and Master Chau taking out Jared's should (unintentionally! poor guy). The actors themselves "roughhouse" and think it's normal. If I came across grown men wrestling I would probably step back and look at them like they grew a second head or something but I've come to accept that my "normal" is not everyone else's "normal".

** Dead Man's Blood was an emotional sucking chest wound for me when John bitched at Dean about not taking care of the car! And then having Sam/John square off against each other! I was traumatized FOR Dean. But I think this was considered 3-alpha-males-in-close-proximity-behavior by both Kripke and J3.

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

26 minutes ago, SueB said:

ut Dean didn't need spanking because he was so obedient. Classic first child combined with abandonment issues. Sam, OTOH, probably got more spankings due to being the second child and naturally more rebellious.

I have the opposite notion. There is no indication that Sam rec'd any punishment for running away but we know Dean was punished for Sam's behavior because it was on Dean's watch and given the withering looks John directed at Dean in Something Wicked for not obeying, I think Dean rec'd more severe punishments than Sam. I didn't get the sense that Sam was a rebellious kid until he decided he wanted to go to college, which John took as rebellion. I never had the impression that John punished Sam all that often or that Sam required it either necessarily.

Edited October 4, 2016 by catrox14

AwesomO4000 · October 4, 2016

My damn internet connection ate my post... Again. (and my control C trying to save it apparently didn't work). It's kind of a sad state of affairs here that when I was in Guatemala, the internet connection was much better than the one I have here - even on a bus! The bus had WiFi... and I could tap into that bus WiFi even when I was in the building at least 100 feet away. And the hotel WiFi was fast also.

So I'm going to summarize - hopefully it'll still make sense. And please pretend that this is a longer and somewhat well written post. Thanks.

15 hours ago, Myrelle said:

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as dismissing their opinion, though. I think Sam might have sometimes felt dismissed by Dean when Dean was just disagreeing with him or with his actions-and likely because he felt the same way about John.

I agree that disagreeing is not the same as dismissing. I was specifically referring to Sam balking at being told what to do though. He tends to get most stubborn when Dean says something like "because I said so" rather than Dean giving a real explanation with some reasoning.

In the second part, I was referring to how John generally dismissed both Sam and Dean when they were growing up and even in season 1. Dean often accepted that kind of treatment, because he thought that John was doing it as part of keeping them safe or because it helped with hunting (though Dean questioned that later), but Sam didn't think John's "need to know only" policy was all that helpful and it likely reminded him of his early childhood when John - and reluctantly Dean - didn't tell him anything, but he was still living with the consequences while not understanding why. And likely feeling left out.

16 hours ago, Myrelle said:

It's just that from what I see often what the writers try to point out to us as Dean doing "wrong", Sam will also wind up doing, but no/little mention is ever made of that. The panic room is a good example. And many of the happenings in S8, 9, and 10, too.

Warning: My opinion below...

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Dean putting Sam in the panic room was shown by the narrative to be the correct course of action to take, not the "wrong" thing to do. Both Bobby and Sam were proven wrong when Sam raised Lucifer. And Sam putting Dean in the panic room wasn't entirely his decision, so I'm not sure how Sam was supposedly right when Dean was wrong there.

Similarly in season 8-10 - especially 9 and 10 - when Dean and Sam did similar things, it was usually Sam who ended up being shown as wrong. Example: Gadreel vs getting rid of the mark of Cain. Sam even got dressed down - making sure to mention Sam's past "misdeeds" - and shot by a snotty British woman as punishment. The one thing Sam did during that time that maybe wasn't addressed later on was the Benny/Martin incident, but that was an unusual exception. The show was still pointing out that "Sam hit a dog" two seasons later, and Sam had to learn his lesson - from Lucifer of all "people" - and apologize to Dean. (Don't get me wrong, I liked the episode and the scene, but why make Sam's character have to go through that character damage in the first place.)

So miles definitely vary here.

16 hours ago, Myrelle said:

The difference to me is still in how they've both always handled and reacted to it. Sam gets loud and angry and vociferous and still does whatever he thinks is right and best, while Dean compartmentalizes the anger and stifles any angry responses and words, if they're there, to keep the peace

I don't agree with this generalization either, but it would go too off topic to continue.

13 hours ago, ahrtee said:

And actually, that was the scene that honestly made me change my view of Sam from that point on: because he *had* to know that Dean was looking for him, and would be worried. Whether or not he cared about worrying dad, as a sympathetic/empathetic kid, he should have at least let Dean know he was all right. (When my sister was a teenager and had a big fight with our dad and ran away, she *did* call mom the next day to let her know that she was all right, even though she wasn't willing to come home yet. But she knew mom would be worried sick.) By saying "I never thought about it," it shows a selfish side that went against everything the show had been *trying* to say about Sam up to then, and I kept seeing that in Sam through the next seasons.

Not trying to change your opinion here really - not much anyway - but Sam was young, and maybe in his damaged teenagish brain he might not have thought Dean would care/be worried all that much. This likely was around the time that Dean was ditching Sam at Plucky's to go chase girls after all... A behavior which while also not very thoughtful - since Dean didn't seem to consider or realize that Sam hated it either then or later - was also very normal for a teenager. So Sam might've thought that Dean wouldn't even miss him all that much.

As for the "I never thought about it that way," if as you theorized above (and which I think is a good theory) that Dean and John never mentioned the incident in front of Sam, Sam might not have realized it was that big a deal for Dean - at least not enough to override the excitement of all of that momentary freedom from Drill Sargent John. And enough stuff - both dramatic and traumatic - has happened in their lives since then, I'm not going to hold it against Sam for letting the consequences slip his mind. Now if Sam had run away again or gotten into some other bad trouble, I might've thought differently, but I'm not going to hold one selfish teen age incident or his lack of incite into Dean's feelings against Sam.

11 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not so sure Sam is that good at letting go. If Sam was good at letting go he would not have sacrificed the world to save Dean from the Mark in s10

Sam used to be good at "letting go" in the forgiving sense at least. He even forgave Castiel rather quickly for breaking his wall. Season 8 and 9 somewhat retconned Sam's forgiving easily, unfortunately.

For me, I doubt John was that forgiving.

11 hours ago, rue721 said:

I think Sam and John have similar personalities, and Dean and John have similar values.

Hee. I think I disagree with you there, since I love Sam, but I find John to be pretty much a jerk.

For the most part also, I think from what I've seen at least, that Sam generally at least plays better with others than John does, and as I mentioned is not against following someone else's lead (as long as he trusts them). I also agree with whoever it was above who said that Sam is generally more hopeful than John is.

And unless he's season 8 Sam (screw you, Carver), I couldn't see Sam ignoring a family member's plea to help a potentially dying other family member.

13 hours ago, ahrtee said:

([John] did snap at them when he thought they did something wrong: (why did Dean leave the room against his orders when the shtriga was around, why didn't they tell him about Sam's visions, why didn't Sam shoot the demon when he had the chance) but he wasn't yelling, wasn't out of control, and, for the last two, he listened to their reasons and more or less accepted them).

I'll give you the not telling Sam about his visions one, but not Sam not shooting the demon. John didn't really accept Sam's reasoning there, at least not for long. John pretty much blamed Sam for that one, even yelling at Sam in the hospital that it was Sam's fault that Dean was dying. Dean had to Swayze a drinking glass on the floor to stop them from yelling at each other

DittyDotDot · October 4, 2016

8 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I have the opposite notion. There is no indication that Sam rec'd any punishment for running away but we know Dean was punished for Sam's behavior because it was on Dean's watch and given the withering looks John directed at Dean in Something Wicked for not obeying, I think Dean rec'd more severe punishments than Sam. I didn't get the sense that Sam was a rebellious kid until he decided he wanted to go to college, which John took as rebellion. I never had the impression that John punished Sam all that often or that Sam required it either necessarily.

Back in S1 both Sam and Dean talk about how John and Sam butted heads all the time. And looking at episodes like After School Special and The Girl Next Door, that appears to have happened long before Sam decided to go to college. It seems to me, Sam always felt left out, so he begged to be brought in, but once brought in and learning first-hand what hunting was really about, wanted back out again. So, even before Sam decided to rebel against daddy's plan, he was rebellious of daddy's plans. And, it appears Dean just tried not to rock Daddy's boat, so punishment was rare for Dean, but since it didn't happen very often, it would've been a memorable experience.

However, I think it's an optical illusion that John treated Sam and Dean differently. They may have had different responsibilities within the family unit, but I think they both got the same hugs and spankings, it's just that they internalized the treatment differently.

In the case of punishment, I think Dean felt like he deserved whatever punishment John doled out so he'd shoulder it and unless Sam was present for the punishment, Sam was probably unaware that Dean was even punished. Whereas Sam generally felt the punishment was unjust so would lash back at John and turn it into a big fight. A perfect example of this is in Dead Man's Blood. John tells Dean to touch up his car, for no other reason than to issue an order and feel like he's top dog. While visibly hurt, Dean shoulders the comment and continues on; probably thinking Dad is right even though he didn't need to be such an ass about it. Whereas when John lashes out at Sam for not following his orders, Sam lashes back telling John he's a crappy leader and it turns into a shouting match between them. To me, John was treating Sam and Dean the same--issuing orders to maintain his commander status--it's just Dean internalizes the treatment and Sam turns it outward.

So, from Sam's POV, Dean was the perfect son who John never lashed out at. And from Dean's POV, Sam was the favored son because he would get upset about all-things Sam. It's very normal for siblings to feel like they're not the favored child, but it doesn't make it true that there is a favorite child.

Sure, John worried about Sam more, but I think that's probably more due to the whole touched-by-evil thing and John didn't know what it meant. And, I think John had an easier relationship with Dean because Dean rarely openly defied him. But I don't think he was actually any closer to Sam vs Dean nor do I think he was harder on either of them, is an optical illusion based on whichever POV you identify with more. IMO, John had the same relationship with Sam he did with Dean--he was dad and commander of the family--it's just that each saw John's relationship with the other through different eyes.

BTW, my personal assessment of John is through what I saw of John on-screen. Granted there wasn't much of it, but episodes like Something Wicked, Dead Man's Blood, Devil's Trap and In My Time of Dying tell me he was a broken man who didn't know how to put himself back together again. IMO, John never considered he was damaging Sam and Dean, but was foremost trying to protect them in his own fucked-up way. He just seemed to go about it wrong more often than not. I think the reason he ultimately sacrificed himself was that he saw--while being possessed by Yellow Eyes--how much he had damaged them and decided they were better without him.

Edited October 4, 2016 by DittyDotDot

AwesomO4000 · October 4, 2016

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

In the case of punishment, I think Dean felt like he deserved whatever punishment John doled out so he'd shoulder it and unless Sam was present for the punishment, Sam was probably unaware that Dean was even punished.

I agree, and it likely worked the other way, also. When Sam sympathized with the teen kid in "Bugs" when his dad was yelling at him (and not listening to him) and mentioned how the situation all looked familiar, Dean seemed completely confused. Sam said (paraphrase) "really? Dad and I were like this a lot," showing that Sam and John but heads regularly and John yelled, but Dean didn't seem to be aware that John yelled at Sam that way.

As you said, different points of view between the brothers. And interestingly - and it's interesting how the show did this - neither view was wrong. Both were valid ways of looking at their lives growing up. As Dean said, Sam likely would have had an easier time and got the "extra cookie" if he just had done what John said, but at the same time, Sam likely sometimes had legitimate reasons for balking at John's treatment, and maybe sometimes when Sam complained John did, at the least unconsciously, think about what Sam said and made some adjustments that may have made their lives better - even if John wouldn't necessarily admit it.* While Dean was the calming influence that kept John and Sam from really harming each other / driving each other crazy / etc. while they worked those kinks and changes out.

* (I was the older sibling, but also the rebellious one - and even though I got flack for it, often when I rebelled, some things did ultimately change and get a bit better, whereas if I had accepted status quo, it might not have.)

Myrelle · October 4, 2016

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sure, John worried about Sam more, but I think that's probably more due to the whole touched-by-evil thing and John didn't know what it meant. And, I think John had an easier relationship with Dean because Dean rarely openly defied him. But I don't think he was actually any closer to Sam vs Dean nor do I think he was harder on either of them, is an optical illusion based on whichever POV you identify with more. IMO, John had the same relationship with Sam he did with Dean--he was dad and commander of the family--it's just that each saw John's relationship with the other through different eyes.

But John didn't know about the whole touched-by-evil thing until much later; but Sam was an infant and John was a lone adult, so for me, John worrying more over the infant than over his toddler also makes sense, and even at that age Dean could likely help with his brother even if it was just holding a bottle or checking on Sam while he slept.

I can't really agree with the rest of your post either and mainly because I don't think that he had the same relationship with each child-not in the least, because from the get-go he expected more from Dean and that informed his parenting style(and I think he was tougher on Dean in the expectations dept. even as they grew into adulthood(John expected Dean to call him when Sam started exhibiting powers-and he never even considered chastising Sam over it-he went right to Dean as his scapegoat) , whereas with Sam he expected little to begin with, and while that did change over time, some things had already pretty much been set in stone for these two; and, as a child, Sam never knew the responsibility of being a caretaker for a helpless and dependent-upon-him-for-many- things younger sibling-which informed the kind of child/teenager that Sam would turn out to be; same with Dean. And because of all these things John's handling of the two, out of necessity, would have to be different. And as a parent/authority figure John would always be looking for what worked to keep each child/teenager in line. Where guilt would always work like a charm on Dean, it would never work on Sam. But what probably did work on Sam some was letting him yell and rant and then John would likely just lock him down with the because I'm-your-father card leading Sam to sulk when he was a child and to eventually plot his way out as he became a teen.

I also think that John and Dean genuinely liked each other, too. Complementary personalities often do, even if they are polar opposites in that way-sometimes it's even precisely because they are polar opposites that they can be complementary/like each other. I honestly feel that this was the case with Dean and John and I even think that that same kind of complementing has carried over into the brothers' relationship, somewhat. I also think that John WAS closer to Dean than he was to Sam because they got along, although IA that from John's perspective, there was no favorite and he likely felt that he loved them equally; but from each other's perspective, favoritism was sometimes involved and maybe they still each feel that the other was John's favorite-because that's a tough one for siblings to let go of sometimes.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Myrelle

DittyDotDot · October 4, 2016

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

I also think that John WAS closer to Dean than he was to Sam because they got along

That was basically my point. I don't think John actually knew Dean any better or was truly any closer to Dean, but Dean didn't rock the boat and made it easier to be around him on a daily basis. IMO, John didn't approach them differently or expect anything different from either of them--he expected them both to follow his orders--but each of them responded to John giving orders differently is all. Just because Dean's orders were to take care of Sammy, and Sam's orders were to behave, doesn't mean the expectations were any different.

So, yeah, John and Dean were closer, on the surface, simply because they got on better than Sam and John, but I don't think they were actually any closer. I mean, John didn't confide in Dean and/or do things with Dean other than the job. They were basically compatible co-workers more than anything, IMO. It was Dean who was invested in knowing who John was, but I don't think John was invested in know who either of his kids where. So, IMO, Dean had a different relationship than Sam had with John, but John had the same relationship with Sam he had with Dean.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

But John didn't know about the whole touched-by-evil thing until much later

Oh, I disagree. I think he knew something had come for Sam that night He may not have known what that meant, but IMO that's what John was so paranoid about and why he took the boys and ran in the first place.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

and I think he was tougher on Dean in the expectations dept. even as they grew into adulthood

Personally, I think he was very tough on both of them and would've been tough to live in either one's skin. Perhaps it's because I I see a lot of my oldest sister in Dean and a lot of my middle sister in Sam that I just don't see that John was harder on one than the other? I think they both had tough roles to play even though I'm sure my oldest sister would say my middle sister had it easy in comparison and vice versa. Everyone always thinks their lot in life is worse than someone else until they have to live inside their skin.

Edited October 4, 2016 by DittyDotDot

rue721 · October 4, 2016

13 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I sometimes think about Dean reacting violently to Sam's comments about Mary in the pilot. He shoved him against the railing and grabbed him by his shirt and intimidated him.

I think that's different, because they're brothers. I.e., equals. There's no power differential there. They're not even outmatched, size wise. And Sam clearly has and has had no fear of Dean. I don't think it's an analogous situation.

Imo it was only notable because his strong reaction showed he was still pretty messed up over his mother's death. Shoving your brother is no big deal in terms of violent behavior, I don't think?

11 hours ago, SueB said:

But if John took a switch (small thin piece of branch, common form of punishment in US a few decades ago; "go cut me a switch" was almost enough punishment ... and if it was brittle, that would get you in worse trouble... thin and flexible is the goal for a 'good' switch) to them, I wouldn't be surprised. A belt or fists WOULD surprise me. Spanking when young, absolutely. But Dean didn't need spanking because he was so obedient. Classic first child combined with abandonment issues. Sam, OTOH, probably got more spankings due to being the second child and naturally more rebellious.

A switch over a belt? I dunno. Hardass parents still used the switch when/where I was a kid (I'm 30, grew up in the 90s). My best friends got it when we were growing up (northern VA), my boyfriend got it when he was growing up (central/southern VA). From what I remember, the switch was like a boogeyman. Kids were terrified of it. OTOH it was normal for parents to use the belt. Mine didn't, though -- I just got an open hand, and even then, only if I was being spectacularly irritating. Or if I did something really bad, like, you know, RUNNING OFF ;)

Even then, fists were considered out of line by everybody, though. Like I said, my best friends' father used the switch on all the kids and their mom was OK with it -- but she threatened to leave him when he punched his son. The switch might very well have hurt more than the punch tbh but the difference between corporal punishment and abuse was considered a difference between kinds of violence even more than severity of violence. (That said, of course I don't believe in corporal punishment at all, now, as an adult. But it was the norm at the time).

That's where I can see things going awry with the Winchesters btw. They didn't have a mom to mediate or give their dad a reality check if/when he went too far or screwed up. Although I'm also thinking of "screwing up" as impulsively slapping a kid upside the head when he misbehaves, not beating the shit out of him! So I'm not saying they were in more danger per se without a mom. Just that the relationship was bound to be more volatile/difficult, because there was no other adult to give John a reality check when needed.

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

However, I think it's an optical illusion that John treated Sam and Dean differently. They may have had different responsibilities within the family unit, but I think they both got the same hugs and spankings, it's just that they internalized the treatment differently.

I think Dean actually did believe that he himself was closer to his dad than Sam was. (Or at least, I think he believed that while John was alive, maybe not in retrospect). I think that's why Dean was always trying to advise Sam on how to behave with John, and acting as their go-between.

Dean also worked really hard on staying on good terms with John. He invested a lot in that relationship. I mean, he was willing to forgive John doing his disappearing act (in S1), and he more-or-less kept his mouth shut when John got on his case about stuff, and he tried to follow John's orders/advice. When John went missing, it was also Dean who raised the alarm and insisted on looking for him. Dean really prioritized his dad.

I think that John loved them both the same. But I think Dean also invested way more into that relationship than Sam did, and wanted/needed more out of it than Sam did, and I think that, through some combination of circumstance and personality, Dean also ended up essentially being John's support system. Imo those factors led to Dean and John's relationship being pretty different from Sam and John's. Not necessarily better, for sure. But different.

Also, because Dean was in charge of Sam a lot of the time, I do think that John needed to make sure not to undermine Dean in front of Sam (to keep from undermining his authority with Sam). I think their dynamic when it was just John and Dean would likely have been very different from when it was all three of them. I don't even mean that it was bad per se. I'm thinking maybe just more businesslike and blunter.

rue721 · October 4, 2016

16 hours ago, Partly said:

I willingly admit that a large part of the reason I view John the way I do is because it so directly informs who Sam and Dean are. If John was a right bastard with varying degrees of psycophathy and/or addiction, if he was physically and emotionally abusive and unloving towards his boys, so much of what we saw of their current day interactions would have been a lie and I'm not sure I can reconcile my views of the boys with that level of self-deception.

Oh jeez, I'm the one who brought up addiction and now I regret it. I don't mean it as some kind of "John was a horrible person!" thing AT ALL.

I was bringing up the possibility more as a way of reconciling his obvious love for his kids with the ways he kept letting them down. As in, maybe he genuinely wanted to be there for them, but drink/whatever kept getting in his way? I find that much easier to understand and even empathize with than the idea of him having nothing stopping him from being there for them than his own indifference or cowardice or whatever. YMMV, of course.

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Back in S1 both Sam and Dean talk about how John and Sam butted heads all the time. And looking at episodes like After School Special and The Girl Next Door, that appears to have happened long before Sam decided to go to college. It seems to me, Sam always felt left out, so he begged to be brought in, but once brought in and learning first-hand what hunting was really about, wanted back out again. So, even before Sam decided to rebel against daddy's plan, he was rebellious of daddy's plans. And, it appears Dean just tried not to rock Daddy's boat, so punishment was rare for Dean, but since it didn't happen very often, it would've been a memorable experience.

I know John and Sam argued a lot but doesn't mean that Sam was spanked more often than Dean solely because of that. That was what I was attempting to address. I think of a rebellious child as one who won't do chores; who is disrespectful to everyone; gets into trouble at school; not doing homework, cutting class; getting into fights with other kids because that is what IMO "normal rebellion" would be for "normal" kid.

There is no normal for Dean and Sam.

Running away from home could be either rebellious or an act of self-preservation depending on why Sam did it. I only remember that Sam seemed to be pretty happy with a dog, living on funyons and Mr. Pibb. Sidebar: Sam was talking about running away with Sully when he was 9 but he didn't do it in that moment. It seems to me he sat on that for at least another year or more and then did it.

IMO if Sam had been punished in the same way as Dean, it wouldn't be a happy memory for Sam, unless his running away was attention seeking behavior, and he got the attention he craved. But I don't really think that's the case.

I'm not sure how it's an optical illusion that John treated Dean and Sam differently. It happened the moment John put baby!Sam in wee!Dean's arms and told him to take care of his brother and never backed off that requirement and expectation of Dean. Dean made meals for Sam (101 different ways to make mac and cheese). Dean was told to protect Sam from monsters. I can't recall any moments where Sam had any similar expectations placed him as a child.

DittyDotDot · October 4, 2016

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I'm not sure how it's an optical illusion that John treated Dean and Sam differently. It happened the moment John put baby!Sam in wee!Dean's arms and told him to take care of his brother and never backed off that requirement and expectation of Dean. Dean made meals for Sam (101 different ways to make mac and cheese). Dean was told to protect Sam from monsters. I can't recall any moments where Sam had any similar expectations placed him as a child.

Like I said, John gave them different orders, but his expectations were exactly the same. So, IMO, it only appears that he treated them differently, but in reality he treated them the same: as soldiers expected follow orders no matter what those orders were. And, when they didn't follow orders they were treated exactly the same way, verbally berated.

Edited October 4, 2016 by DittyDotDot

catrox14 · October 4, 2016

46 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

ike I said, John gave them different orders, but his expectations were exactly the same. So, IMO, it only appears that he treated them differently, but in reality he treated them the same: as soldiers expected follow orders no matter what those orders were. And, when they didn't follow orders they were treated exactly the same way, verbally berated.

That seems like the how of John's discipline; the form of punishment.

I'm including the WHY of the punishment/discipline when I say he treated them differently. (In the case of Sam running away, I think John did beat Dean, I know you don't)

Dean could not control Sam's behavior when Sam ran away. What should Dean have done to stop Sam running away? Essentially, he punished Dean for not controlling Sam. I can't think of a situation in which John punished Sam for Dean's behavior.

Edited October 4, 2016 by catrox14

Sign In

John Winchester: Daddy Dearest

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bergamot

BabySpinach

catrox14

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment