While I agree a great deal with your analysis of Sam, I do think that you do John and Dean a bit of discredit. One of the reasons I loved John Winchester's Journal was because it gave them valid motivation for wanting to keep Sam from college. Suddenly it wasn't just because Sam is supposed to be a hunter because that's the family business - Sam is supposed to be a hunter because things (and people) hunt Sam and he needs to be protected or be able to protect himself. I just finished recounting to a friend how Dean killed Anderson in 1991 for hunting Sam. As far as we know, Sam doesn't know any of this (which, imo, is a mistake - he might have been more amenable if he knew the whole picture), but that doesn't mean that John and Dean's hidden motivations are less valid for being hidden.
Do I think Sam should have gone to Stanford? Yes. Do I think that John and Dean had the right to freak out that he was not only leaving their protection but going to be living in one place for four years? Definitely.
I hope youj'll pardon the intrusion, but I think the point is that Sam *didn't* know. Dean wasn't in a position to tell Sam a lot of things, but John was. I think you're totally right that Sam would have been more amenable if he'd known everything. It's possible he might not have even gone to Stanford at all, and at least likely he would have bought into more of the training and hunting.
Which goes back to the disempowerment. We can give John credence, since we have all the info. But Sam couldn't, because John chose to conceal the truth or out-and-out lie. It doesn't mean John (and Dean) weren't entitled to their fears and freak outs or that their motivations weren't valid. But Sam wasn't able to see any of the above for what they were, like we can. Knowledge is a powerful thing.
I don't disagree with any of that. I do think that Sam was doing the best thing that he could. I do think it was a mistake for John not to share the information with Sam, although that action is integral to the formation of Sam's character.
However, I do think that we, as analysts, need to look at both sides of the coin. We do have the benefit of knowing both points of view and thus we can grant both side (Sam and John and Dean) leeway that they can't grant one another. It's a mistake to say that Sam is integrally selfish for leaving, but it's also a mistake for us to say that John and Dean are integrally selfish for not wanting him to go.
I never meant this to call John and Dean out for being selfish. As a viewer I understand each Winchester boy had his own good reasons for doing what they do; this was more to analyse the reasons behind why Sam does what he does, so I ccouldn't take what he didn't know into account.
Yes, exactly. A part of it was that John and Dean wanted to protect Sam, but I don't think they gave him enough credit as he got older. He would have freaked, yes, but Sam seems to value knowing all of what's going on even when it's not pleasant.
Do I think Sam should have gone to Stanford? Yes. Do I think that John and Dean had the right to freak out that he was not only leaving their protection but going to be living in one place for four years? Definitely.
Reply
Which goes back to the disempowerment. We can give John credence, since we have all the info. But Sam couldn't, because John chose to conceal the truth or out-and-out lie. It doesn't mean John (and Dean) weren't entitled to their fears and freak outs or that their motivations weren't valid. But Sam wasn't able to see any of the above for what they were, like we can. Knowledge is a powerful thing.
Reply
However, I do think that we, as analysts, need to look at both sides of the coin. We do have the benefit of knowing both points of view and thus we can grant both side (Sam and John and Dean) leeway that they can't grant one another. It's a mistake to say that Sam is integrally selfish for leaving, but it's also a mistake for us to say that John and Dean are integrally selfish for not wanting him to go.
Reply
Thanks for your reply!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment