The supernatural is magically different!auroramamaJune 28 2012, 03:19:11 UTC
All too true about glorifying the stupid man pain rampage of revenge. I never need to see that goddamned trope again.
I guess my interpretation of the "too alike" thing wasn't equivalency, just, "They're both ferociously stubborn, and John apparently doesn't know himself well enough to recognize it in his own son." One might then speculate where that ignorance comes from, namely the inability to cope with painful emotions, unless violence or pathology-level denial constitute 'coping'. Also, thanks for teaching Dean that this behavior is the only way to keep your family alive, John.
I agree about the unreasonable limitation of the possibilities to (1) training your young children to assist you in your incredibly dangerous job of killing bad things, or (2) clapping your hands over your ears and saying, "La la la, I can't hear you, monsters!" I think the show signed on for the false dichotomy in the pilot, though, as a way of getting the plot to work. Same for Sam's behavior at Stanford, which seemed to be fairly close to (2) in canon, but is all over the spectrum in fandom for good reason. I love this:
he could've handled it the way parents handle every other danger in the world, that is, to teach them how best to protect themselves and equip them to live their lives anyway.
Yes! Monsters are not the sole cause of death in children and adolescents. Even in SPN's crapsack world, it's usually going to be accidents or suicide, not supernatural beasties. For proof, here I am in a world with no evidence of monsters, and somehow I manage to find things to warn my kids about anyway.
Re: The supernatural is magically different!pocochinaJune 28 2012, 05:25:32 UTC
I guess my interpretation of the "too alike" thing wasn't equivalency, just, "They're both ferociously stubborn, and John apparently doesn't know himself well enough to recognize it in his own son."
That I could get behind, but I don't think it's always the story the show's trying to tell? There's a line (I think when they're burying Adam?) where Dean says "that's why you and Dad butted heads so much, you're so much alike" or words to that effect. And that is a false equivocation, one which I think the narrative means to endorse.
or like...teenagers can be reasonably expected to be ferociously stubborn? They are kind of known for it. John was the grown-up and the person in control of the relationship, so there's a higher standard for him; then there's the ways John's behavior could have caused Sam's propensity for the same, rather than just being this mysterious coincidence where they HAPPEN to be oh-so-similar.
so, I don't know. I agree with that analysis of both characters completely. But I'm not sure that's the intended takeaway.
I think the show signed on for the false dichotomy in the pilot, though, as a way of getting the plot to work.
Agreed. I do really think it works at least throughout S1. But once John disappears, there's just an awful lot of "he did the best he could," glossing over the truth which was no he did not.
Same for Sam's behavior at Stanford, which seemed to be fairly close to (2) in canon, but is all over the spectrum in fandom for good reason.
Yeah, he is pretty boneheaded about that. I do tend toward the most charitable interpretation of Sam, and so that scans to me as evidence of how thoroughly John's gaslighting distorted his thinking.
Re: The supernatural is magically different!auroramamaJune 29 2012, 02:15:51 UTC
That I could get behind, but I don't think it's always the story the show's trying to tell? There's a line (I think when they're burying Adam?) where Dean says "that's why you and Dad butted heads so much, you're so much alike" or words to that effect. And that is a false equivocation, one which I think the narrative means to endorse.
Yeah, you're right -- the show just loves this sort of trope. "Gee, Sam disagreed with John, but really (surprise twist!) they're practically the same person! O, the irony!" And Dean finding out that he doesn't like Sam being less morally squeamish as much as he thought he would. ("They can be the same person if they want to, but it's a terrible idea! Oooh, how will Dean stop Sam from imitating him?")
I think Show doesn't always know whether it's a smart show playing dumb or a dumb show taking itself too seriously. So how can we be sure?
teenagers can be reasonably expected to be ferociously stubborn?
So I've heard. But Dean wasn't. I've mentioned elsewhere my theory that Dean's uncanny obedience, enthusiasm, and reverence spoiled John for more normal adolescents. Your first child sets your expectations. It's the only way I can explain John's ridiculous astonishment and dismay when Sam started yearning for forbidden delights like college, a girlfriend, a career, and not dying bloody real soon. Dude, adolescents can and do rebel against being rich and pampered. Did you really think military discipline was enough to keep a teen from rebelling against being attacked by monsters? Yes, he did.
Re: The supernatural is magically different!obsessive_a101June 29 2012, 04:36:46 UTC
The older sibling and younger sibling dynamic/expectations you describe are definitely ringing true to me here. LOL! I'm the older sibling, and some times I look at my younger sister with her headphones plugged in and her chat box opened for friends while my parents are trying to talk to her, and wonder if I really was never quite a teenager as my aunts and uncles like to tease me and my parents about.
Re: The supernatural is magically different!pocochinaJune 29 2012, 05:01:51 UTC
the show just loves this sort of trope.
It really does! And I generally really like how the show plays it, if it's not a gloss over this sort of power discrepancy.
I think Show doesn't always know whether it's a smart show playing dumb or a dumb show taking itself too seriously. So how can we be sure?
this. Like Dean, Supernatural is happiest when it's sure people are underestimating it. Then it gets called out, tries to fight back, and starts stammering about how your face is ...moron...the stupid. I think it's a smart show that has a lot of potential if it would just apply itself and lose a little of the attitude, young man.
I've mentioned elsewhere my theory that Dean's uncanny obedience, enthusiasm, and reverence spoiled John for more normal adolescents. Your first child sets your expectations.
ooooh, I really like this insight. It does explain a lot.
Dude, adolescents can and do rebel against being rich and pampered. Did you really think military discipline was enough to keep a teen from rebelling against being attacked by monsters? Yes, he did.
ahahaha! He really did manage to convince himself of that, the poor schmuck.
I guess my interpretation of the "too alike" thing wasn't equivalency, just, "They're both ferociously stubborn, and John apparently doesn't know himself well enough to recognize it in his own son." One might then speculate where that ignorance comes from, namely the inability to cope with painful emotions, unless violence or pathology-level denial constitute 'coping'. Also, thanks for teaching Dean that this behavior is the only way to keep your family alive, John.
I agree about the unreasonable limitation of the possibilities to (1) training your young children to assist you in your incredibly dangerous job of killing bad things, or (2) clapping your hands over your ears and saying, "La la la, I can't hear you, monsters!" I think the show signed on for the false dichotomy in the pilot, though, as a way of getting the plot to work. Same for Sam's behavior at Stanford, which seemed to be fairly close to (2) in canon, but is all over the spectrum in fandom for good reason. I love this:
he could've handled it the way parents handle every other danger in the world, that is, to teach them how best to protect themselves and equip them to live their lives anyway.
Yes! Monsters are not the sole cause of death in children and adolescents. Even in SPN's crapsack world, it's usually going to be accidents or suicide, not supernatural beasties. For proof, here I am in a world with no evidence of monsters, and somehow I manage to find things to warn my kids about anyway.
Reply
That I could get behind, but I don't think it's always the story the show's trying to tell? There's a line (I think when they're burying Adam?) where Dean says "that's why you and Dad butted heads so much, you're so much alike" or words to that effect. And that is a false equivocation, one which I think the narrative means to endorse.
or like...teenagers can be reasonably expected to be ferociously stubborn? They are kind of known for it. John was the grown-up and the person in control of the relationship, so there's a higher standard for him; then there's the ways John's behavior could have caused Sam's propensity for the same, rather than just being this mysterious coincidence where they HAPPEN to be oh-so-similar.
so, I don't know. I agree with that analysis of both characters completely. But I'm not sure that's the intended takeaway.
I think the show signed on for the false dichotomy in the pilot, though, as a way of getting the plot to work.
Agreed. I do really think it works at least throughout S1. But once John disappears, there's just an awful lot of "he did the best he could," glossing over the truth which was no he did not.
Same for Sam's behavior at Stanford, which seemed to be fairly close to (2) in canon, but is all over the spectrum in fandom for good reason.
Yeah, he is pretty boneheaded about that. I do tend toward the most charitable interpretation of Sam, and so that scans to me as evidence of how thoroughly John's gaslighting distorted his thinking.
Reply
Yeah, you're right -- the show just loves this sort of trope. "Gee, Sam disagreed with John, but really (surprise twist!) they're practically the same person! O, the irony!" And Dean finding out that he doesn't like Sam being less morally squeamish as much as he thought he would. ("They can be the same person if they want to, but it's a terrible idea! Oooh, how will Dean stop Sam from imitating him?")
I think Show doesn't always know whether it's a smart show playing dumb or a dumb show taking itself too seriously. So how can we be sure?
teenagers can be reasonably expected to be ferociously stubborn?
So I've heard. But Dean wasn't. I've mentioned elsewhere my theory that Dean's uncanny obedience, enthusiasm, and reverence spoiled John for more normal adolescents. Your first child sets your expectations. It's the only way I can explain John's ridiculous astonishment and dismay when Sam started yearning for forbidden delights like college, a girlfriend, a career, and not dying bloody real soon. Dude, adolescents can and do rebel against being rich and pampered. Did you really think military discipline was enough to keep a teen from rebelling against being attacked by monsters? Yes, he did.
Reply
Reply
It really does! And I generally really like how the show plays it, if it's not a gloss over this sort of power discrepancy.
I think Show doesn't always know whether it's a smart show playing dumb or a dumb show taking itself too seriously. So how can we be sure?
this. Like Dean, Supernatural is happiest when it's sure people are underestimating it. Then it gets called out, tries to fight back, and starts stammering about how your face is ...moron...the stupid. I think it's a smart show that has a lot of potential if it would just apply itself and lose a little of the attitude, young man.
I've mentioned elsewhere my theory that Dean's uncanny obedience, enthusiasm, and reverence spoiled John for more normal adolescents. Your first child sets your expectations.
ooooh, I really like this insight. It does explain a lot.
Dude, adolescents can and do rebel against being rich and pampered. Did you really think military discipline was enough to keep a teen from rebelling against being attacked by monsters? Yes, he did.
ahahaha! He really did manage to convince himself of that, the poor schmuck.
Reply
Leave a comment