Yes, he made some bad choices, but I'm pretty sure he admitted it! And parents make mistakes. That's when John did when he kicked Sam out. And we still have no clue what went down during the Stanford fight, so we can't take sides here.
Exactly. I think John had some major issues as a father, but for one, he didn't disown Sam. He told Sam not to come back in a fit of rage, but then he spent the next several years checking up on him and making sure he was okay and telling the people he saved all about how proud he was of his son. And the first time they saw each other after that, he owned up to having said things he'd regretted and gave his son a hug. Being disowned is more serious to me. *shrug*
Pretty sure he's in Heaven as well, or whatever counts as Heaven in that universe.
Mutual stubbornness, exactly! I put a bit more fault on John because he was the adult and should have been the one to make the first move, but it wasn't a onesided thing where Sam was tossed out into the rain against his will.
i guess i've just always seen it that way because the same thing happened in my family (fight between a mother and daughter, daughter left & cut off contact. 8 years later, there's still no resolution.)
but i know it only happened because they're both basically the same person, and neither one will back down or forgive. it sucks, but it happens.
I agree with you on the fact that John had major issues as a Father, but (playing the devil's advocate here a bit) Sam thought John had disowned him. Sam thought that John care about him anymore. He even outright said that he didn't think John would want to see him again.
I do put more blame with John than with Sam here. Sam is the one who was much more insecure about the situation and John was the adult. But that said, Sam was at least 18; he wasn't a child. John should have handled things better and I imagine the way Sam left was one of the biggest regrets of his life, but Sam wasn't fully innocent in it either.
I think part of this might be a difference in defining the word "disowned". To me, that implies something much more significant than what happened. Sam and John had a massive, blow out fight and it ended with Sam willingly leaving and John telling him not to come back. Plus the tone of the secret felt incredibly one sided, like John had tossed Sam out on the street against Sam's will. That it was mutual and Sam was content to leave things as they stood until Jessica died make all the difference to me.
Well, from what I saw in the show, Sam wanted to go to college, that's it. Nothing about leaving the family, nothing about not talking to them.
Sam: I was just going to college. It was Dad who said if I was gonna go, I should stay gone. And that’s what I’m doing. That's from the Pilot episode
( ... )
Right, that line is from the pilot but it always felt to me like Sam didn't want to call them, not that he didn't think he could. His reaction when Dean showed up in the pilot and how he couldn't seem to wait to show Dean the door at first made me think as much, especially when combined with the line of Dean's about how he hadn't asked for anything in two years. It sounded like a mutual sort of thing to me between Sam and John and I find it telling that while John checked up on Sam, we've had no indication of Sam checking up on them, not even via Bobby or Pastor Jim.
John had many, many issues as a father and I'd never claim otherwise. Plus I do consider him to be more at fault for the situation than Sam. I just don't think the Stanford argument was as entirely onesided as this secret implies.
I always read that line, along with all the other times Sam mentioned the fight in S1 as Sam thinking he couldn't.
Well, Dean had said that he hadn't contacted Sam in two years (and I hate that little plot problem there, btw). Would you want to see your estranged brother if he broke into your house after two years of no contact, asking you to help find your missing father, who you thought hated you?
I think that Sam thought his family had given up on him, why should he try to find out about them?
Now, I think we're just arguing in circles here. Clearly, I feel one way about the text, you feel another way. And, really, I'm enjoying the argument, but we're not going to resolve anything. And that's fine. It's fun, though.
It looks like we're interpreting the text differently, that's for sure. But you're right; it's a fun conversation, even if we won't convince each other of our respective POVs! :)
In Dean's case, it depends. I never got the impression that Sam blamed Dean for the fight or that Dean had been much more than a bystander during it. I'm guessing there were several incidents like in Dead Man's Blood where Sam and John were at each other's throats and Dean did what he could to keep the peace, at least until that final argument where Sam finally left. So if my interpretation is correct, then I would want to see my estranged brother because I wouldn't associate him with the negativity that happened with my dad, especially because this is almost years after the fact and the wounds have had a chance to heal.
The two/four year thing drives me batty too! The best way I can explain it is that the writers screwed the pooch Sam was gone for almost four years (he hadn't graduated yet but seemed to be in his senior year, so more than three
( ... )
I kind of agree, but kind of not. For one thing, I think immortal_jedi has a point. For another, he was a shitty father. And he mourned instead of raising his children for eighteen goddamn years. That's absurd.
Oh, he was a shitty father. I'm not gonna deny that. I just don't think that the Stanford argument is enough for this sort of ire. If the OP had put something in about how he'd apparently been drunk far too often, dragged his kids all over the place, kicked one out, abandoned another, and then lied to them about the third, let his rage and grief and sorrow overcome his ability to be a decent man, and allowed his quest for vengence to blind him to the damage he was causing to his kids, I'd understand where they were coming from.
It still wouldn't be enough for me to want to see him burn in Hell forever because John did try even when he failed, but I'd be able to understand their perspective. Limiting it solely to the Stanford argument just seems oddly petty to me.
I don't think they were intentionally limiting it, just calling it up as an example.
But no, I don't think he should go to Hell. In fact, my instinctive reaction to John is to hug him and wail "you were just doing the best you coulllllllld!"
Honestly, I very much got the impression that it was the Stanford argument that was their main beef with John:
"He disowned his own son, just because Sam didn't want to be a hunter...Nothing he can say can make up for that....Any man who'd disown his child just because his son didn't do exactly as he wanted deserves to rot in hell."
No mention of what John did to Dean or to Adam, nor even of the other things John did to Sam. It was all about him deserving to burn in Hell because he "disowned" Sam. And like others have mentioned, even that is an overly simplistic look at the situation because it was never just forcing Sam to be a hunter, it was also concern about Sam being in danger and what Sam was in danger of becoming.
In fact, my instinctive reaction to John is to hug him and wail "you were just doing the best you coulllllllld!"
I KNOW! He DID try, the poor guy. He certainly wasn't perfect and he made a lot of mistakes, but considering how damaged he was, I doubt he could have done much better.
Yes, he made some bad choices, but I'm pretty sure he admitted it! And parents make mistakes. That's when John did when he kicked Sam out. And we still have no clue what went down during the Stanford fight, so we can't take sides here.
Also, I'm definitely sure he's in Heaven.
Reply
Pretty sure he's in Heaven as well, or whatever counts as Heaven in that universe.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
i guess i've just always seen it that way because the same thing happened in my family (fight between a mother and daughter, daughter left & cut off contact. 8 years later, there's still no resolution.)
but i know it only happened because they're both basically the same person, and neither one will back down or forgive. it sucks, but it happens.
Reply
Reply
I think part of this might be a difference in defining the word "disowned". To me, that implies something much more significant than what happened. Sam and John had a massive, blow out fight and it ended with Sam willingly leaving and John telling him not to come back. Plus the tone of the secret felt incredibly one sided, like John had tossed Sam out on the street against Sam's will. That it was mutual and Sam was content to leave things as they stood until Jessica died make all the difference to me.
Reply
Sam: I was just going to college. It was Dad who said if I was gonna go, I should stay gone. And that’s what I’m doing. That's from the Pilot episode ( ... )
Reply
John had many, many issues as a father and I'd never claim otherwise. Plus I do consider him to be more at fault for the situation than Sam. I just don't think the Stanford argument was as entirely onesided as this secret implies.
Reply
Well, Dean had said that he hadn't contacted Sam in two years (and I hate that little plot problem there, btw). Would you want to see your estranged brother if he broke into your house after two years of no contact, asking you to help find your missing father, who you thought hated you?
I think that Sam thought his family had given up on him, why should he try to find out about them?
Now, I think we're just arguing in circles here. Clearly, I feel one way about the text, you feel another way. And, really, I'm enjoying the argument, but we're not going to resolve anything. And that's fine. It's fun, though.
Reply
In Dean's case, it depends. I never got the impression that Sam blamed Dean for the fight or that Dean had been much more than a bystander during it. I'm guessing there were several incidents like in Dead Man's Blood where Sam and John were at each other's throats and Dean did what he could to keep the peace, at least until that final argument where Sam finally left. So if my interpretation is correct, then I would want to see my estranged brother because I wouldn't associate him with the negativity that happened with my dad, especially because this is almost years after the fact and the wounds have had a chance to heal.
The two/four year thing drives me batty too! The best way I can explain it is that the writers screwed the pooch Sam was gone for almost four years (he hadn't graduated yet but seemed to be in his senior year, so more than three ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It still wouldn't be enough for me to want to see him burn in Hell forever because John did try even when he failed, but I'd be able to understand their perspective. Limiting it solely to the Stanford argument just seems oddly petty to me.
Reply
But no, I don't think he should go to Hell. In fact, my instinctive reaction to John is to hug him and wail "you were just doing the best you coulllllllld!"
Reply
"He disowned his own son, just because Sam didn't want to be a hunter...Nothing he can say can make up for that....Any man who'd disown his child just because his son didn't do exactly as he wanted deserves to rot in hell."
No mention of what John did to Dean or to Adam, nor even of the other things John did to Sam. It was all about him deserving to burn in Hell because he "disowned" Sam. And like others have mentioned, even that is an overly simplistic look at the situation because it was never just forcing Sam to be a hunter, it was also concern about Sam being in danger and what Sam was in danger of becoming.
In fact, my instinctive reaction to John is to hug him and wail "you were just doing the best you coulllllllld!"
I KNOW! He DID try, the poor guy. He certainly wasn't perfect and he made a lot of mistakes, but considering how damaged he was, I doubt he could have done much better.
Reply
Leave a comment