SPN: on John & Dean, choice & consequence
To give you fair warning: this is probably more of a rant than an objective meta, but I've tried to keep a clear view of the facts. Not that hard facts are entirely possible on a piece of fiction that depends too heavily on a number of variables open to interpretation and which fall apart under scrutiny. Bad day, weak line delivery, mangled timeline, contradicting points. In any case, call me on it if I get the "facts" wrong (but you must provide proof ;)).
This had been brewing for a while, after reading dodger_winslow's meta on John as a father, but my computer woes kept me from posting it when everyone was talking about it. So this is a day late and a dollar short, and quite a few of the points I had been pondering, astri13 has already addressed in her own John meta. What more can I say? I appreciate and agree with both metas in part, some parts more passionately than others. Disagree in part, too.
In any case, my full-length John meta that my computer ate a couple of weeks ago is gone with the wind, and until S2 gives us fresh meat to gnaw on and/or someone posts something that stirs this issue up again, I'm going to let it go and not analyze John point by nitpicky point.
Still. One point gets stuck in my brain. Justification under circumstances. I could never part with my cat. However, if I somehow became starving poor and could no longer take care of him, I'd find him a good home rather than watch him starve with me. That's a choice. Perhaps justified, as it's for his own good. Perhaps not, as family is forever. That's not the issue. What of my cat? New home or starvation, he's going to suffer the consequences of my decision. Either emotional or physical distress. All the good or poor intentions in the world, all the righteous or unrighteous choices, and all my love for or indifference to him, won't halt that natural flow of cause and effect. That's what I was thinking of, regarding John and his sons, particularly Dean. Not in the interests of vilifying one or victimizing the other. Not to question "why" but to ponder "how." So I thought I'd post a little on it. Just thinking out loud, nothing major.
First, a few "facts" that I think we can all agree on.
Something Wicked. Flashback.
John left Dean and Sam for 3 days.
He left them
1. armed
2. fed
3. clothed
4. with shelter
5. without direct adult supervision
(6. with toiletries - no clear proof, but it seems pretty basic)
He left a 9/10 year old with strict instructions:
1. stay inside
2. do not let anyone inside
3. shoot first, ask questions later
4. and Rule #1: keep a 5/6 year old safe
He left a 5/6 year old in the care of a 9/10 year old.
And now for the unclear "facts."
He ostensibly left them
1. alone, i.e. he was not keeping watch
2. to hunt the Shtriga elsewhere
3. out of the "hot" danger zone
Due to the lack of explanation, it is as likely that he left them
1. under surveillance
2. as bait to draw the Shtriga in
3. in the "hot" danger zone
We don't have his POV on the incident, so everything other than the cold hard "facts" are assumptions. One last fact is this:
His arrival on the scene was nearly perfectly timed.
It being the TV world, we have to take wonky plot contrivances into consideration, but we also have to go with what we're given on screen. This isn't a nuance in someone's performance, or a line that may be taken quite a few ways. It's a clear hard physical fact that could imply a number of different things, both positive and negative, but it's also there, plain Jane in your face. John arrives as Sam is being attacked, just moments after Dean's arrival on the scene. Make of it what you will; it could follow either assumption listed above.
Let's say he left them alone out of the Shtriga's danger zone. Somehow it found his kids, and he, following its trail, arrived on the scene in time to stop disaster. That's a possibility. The only problem with that is either 1) he misjudged the Shtriga's territory (not impossible) or he 2) left his kids within that territory.
…There is also the theory that the Shtirga either 1) targeted John's kids deliberately to get this hunter off its back (wha-? that one stumps me, but it's been suggested), or 2) was drawn to Sam somehow due to his psychic aura. In either case, it went out of its way and its current territory.
Or, let's say he left them inside the Shtriga's territory, deliberately to draw the Shtriga to a place within its current territory where he had maximum control. When it showed up, he was there. The only problem with this is that, if he'd been keeping surveillance, then he would have seen Dean leave. Which would nullify his shock over Dean's confession. On the other hand, it's possible that he kept surveillance, and the nearer the Shtriga drew towards the immediate area, the more his focus shifted onto it, rather than his children. That's possible, as it wasn't set in stone that it would attack his own children. That still leaves him bursting into the room after Dean, and a good minute at least after the Shtriga. It's possible his focus was on it, thus not seeing Dean leave. As he watched it enter, he waited for it to feed. Then as he saw Dean enter, he realized Sam was alone and unarmed, and it suddenly became a different ballgame. Perhaps.
We are left with fanwanking most of this. The truth could be one or the other, or anywhere in between.
A few random facts in the immediate aftermath:
1. he glared at Dean
2. he chastised Dean for disobeying his orders
3. he hugged Sam
The passion with which he did these three varies depending on interpretation. ...In fact, due to JDM's performance, I'm not even sure if Point.1 is deserved. The script says otherwise, though, so it's not something that can be ignored or willed away simply due to a soft (read: "feeble," not "gentle") performance. ...On the other hand, performance is just what percentage of how we view the characters? I hit this same quandary in Devil's Trap, where JDM plays John as if his own heart's ripping out when he regains control for an instant. It's a tricky thing. I tend to rely on the script more heavily overall, and especially when all but the performance keeps a scene or line from jelling. JA in The Benders (Dean, protective? bored to tears, more like). JP in Nightmare (Sam, afraid? constipated, more like). JDM here (John, pissed off? grumpy, more like).
In any case, he stared at Dean without affection. I think we can all agree on that. ...Yes?
Moving on.
After this, he:
1. dropped his children off at Pastor Jim's (3 hours away)
2. returned to hunt the Shtriga
3. was unsuccessful
We are also informed that he:
1. never spoke of this again (a statement supported by hard evidence: the lack of content in his journal and Sam's complete ignorance of Shtrigas)
2. looked at Dean "different" afterward (a subjective statement supported by soft evidence: JA and JDM's individual performances throughout the season)
Point.2 has some possible hard evidence via actual scripted lines (Sam's rant in Asylum, among others) but nothing in direct reference, and it all depends on interpretation. The issue over how much John did or did not do in assuaging Dean's feelings of guilt here and throughout the rest of his childhood, and why Dean developed such an enormous guilt complex, is for another meta. What is clear is that John never spoke of this particular event again. What is also clear is that this event marked Dean. Kripke has not given us a definite proof of how much one fed the other, but to me it seems all unavoidably wrapped up together into a messy knot. Cause & effect. We see the effect, we catch glimpses of the cause. [/tangent. Sorry]
In addition, Dean believes that John:
1. sent them here for Dean's "unfinished business"
2. rightly places the blame on Dean
...to which Sam protests:
1. that Dean was just a kid, thus not responsible (Dean: "Don't rain on my parade, Mr. You Are The Wind Beneath My Bangs.")
2. that this does not justify using Michael as bait (Dean: "You cannot grok this pain as I do, Mr. Method Acting 101 Taught Me A Soft Voice Conceals All Empty Arguments." See: below)
Now... I'm not going to go into the argument of whether or not John's choices here are justified, as I've already posted about that and my feelings have not changed. Nor am I going to go into the ramifications as I see them for present day Dean, being sent back to the scene of his mistake. I've also posted about that, and my feelings on it, now that we've seen all there is of canon in S1, have strengthened rather than lessened.
There are two things I'd like to point out.
1) Action feeds reaction, yeah?
Wherever he was during the course of the three days, whether watching over them as bait or hunting elsewhere or watching them while hunting nearby, John left his sons alone... in their POV. There is a very real indication that it was not for the first time, although it was for the longest time yet. You can justify this a hundred different ways, but that's now what this is about. Interpretation varies wildly on that, and until the show serves us fresh insight on the matter, this debate has become almost DOA, for both criticism and justification. This is simply a cause & effect observation here. And all of the talk that John couldn't have left them alone with someone else because of reason A, B or C serves to illustrate that in a world where they have few if any friends to turn to, he left them alone in their eyes without even that one constant: their father. It's not an injustice to John nor is it a victimization of Dean to acknowledge that the choices John has made have had negative effects on his children. Dean's fear of abandonment is caused by more than one thing, and Mary's death is surely a biggie. Yet with each of these trips away during his childhood, John reinforced that fear, and all the guns and powerful ammo and tough guy acts for little bro aren't going to erase that, or cure it. The effect on Sam? How much of this shaped his psyche, his need for "normal" and a solid, safe family? That he wanted children who wouldn't have to be afraid all the time is in part due to Mary's death. It's also in part due to John's decisions. He didn't intend to, but he fed his sons fears, each one distinctly and powerfully and enough for lifelong scars. That he's been scarred himself doesn't halt the process of cause & effect, or excuse it from being relevant.
2) This ain't no Babysitter's Club.
This was not a hunting gig, but neither was it a "babysitting" gig. Dean wasn't asked to actively seek & destroy anything evil, but neither was he asked to watch Cartoon Network for a few hours in Mayberry while his father went fishing with Andy Griffith, yeah? He was given a sentry's gig, and by extension, he was shouldering a parenting gig, at the same time. To say that he had TV, food, clothes, cooking, little brothers, guns, Shtrigas, and everything else a boy could want to keep his little brain occupied is seeing it through a pretty fine pair of rose-tinted glasses... IMO. This cannot be had both ways. On the one hand, granting John the danger of their world, thus absolving him of most wrongs and excusing him from having to live up to the standard most fathers would be bound to, and on the other hand, saying that all this 9/10 year old child was left to do was a babysitting gig with plenty of creature comforts to keep him satisfied. And the "you're not in those extreme circumstances" argument to people who would question John's acts seems unrealistic when coupled with the "well, I've been left to babysit, and I could have handled what Dean was given to do" argument. The theory that "(Concept A) applies to most parents, but not John," only works if it doesn't go hand-in-hand with "(Concept B) is a given for kids of Dean's age." Most men don't have to go through what John did, the supernatural nature of it as well as the loss itself. Most boys don't have to go through what Dean did, both his mother's death and the method of his upbringing. Both characters came out that stretch of time scarred, via outside influences and via decisions within their control. Make allowances for both... or neither... or both in part and in the same way, but to make allowances for one and not the other is having that cake and eating it, too.
And if we're going to bend the rules like that, then why question anything at all? We could all have two cakes to rationalize away things that make characters less than perfect examples of their role in the drama. They don't have to be the best the world has to offer of Dads, Brothers or Big Damn Heroes to be characters worthy of our affection and attention.
Both of John's children are in the same world as he is. He did not choose to be touched by that world, but he chose to touch back, and with that choice, he pulled his children into the same world. I believe that's a decision he made, and had he been someone else, Pastor Jim perhaps or Bobby, he might have holed up safely with his kids and became a recluse in a bomb shelter. That's an extreme. Or had he been someone else, he might have gone into heavy denial and/or committed suicide. Those are all extremes. I believe that circumstances with Mary's death did not change him, not a 180. The man he was before decided how he would react, and what measures he would take. War is a reality, and he went on the offensive, rather than the defensive. (Bush, not Liberal.) He's a Marine, and he wasn't going to take this lying down. It's a choice he made, influenced by the man he was and the way Mary died, and it was a choice made as a man and a husband, rather than as a father. The good intent, the warm father we saw in the pilot, was there, and I don't believe it was the initial burst of grief and shock that decided his course. It was after meeting Missouri, after he'd had time to absorb it all, and with a clear mind and set purpose that he made his decision. How much of that decision was based on helping others, and how much of it was based on obsessive revenge, fluctuates with how JDM plays him, so it's very hard to say for sure. But this is clear to me: he's a good man who can't turn his back on evil. Where I find it harmful to his children, is that he forcefully pulled them into this world. We don't have much evidence at all showing us that John reminded himself that these are children, not soldiers in the making, and we have some evidence to the contrary, indicating that John did lose touch with being a father. Understandable? Justified? This isn't about that. Again, it's cause & effect. His sons lost their father. Sam hates the drill sergeant. Dean rises and falls on his good opinion. Outside influences set the stage, but John wrote the plot. He penned a soldier's story, not a father's.
In SW, Dean was left on guard duty, complete with sawed-off shotgun (illegal much, and for a hell of a good reason?) and instructions to protect his baby brother above anything else. We all know he failed. Three days of sentry duty, three days of parenting, and this 9/10 year old got claustrophobic. He took a break to stretch his legs and play a game. In doing so, he left his charge unguarded. He failed in fulfilling his responsibility.
And now let me go off on a little tangent.
Has anyone reading this ever watched or read Dragonball Z? It's a masterpiece of action anime, but take that with a grain of salt. However there is a moment in that story which captures the heart of this issue fairly well, IMO. The main hero has trained his son (who is more powerful than he; an awesome and naturally gifted fighter) to a fine point; he's a lethal weapon, especially when angered. The son has been closely and sternly mentored by his father's peer since he was a toddler, and he finds himself battling the Biggest Bad Yet himself when his father yields unexpectedly in his favor. The boy is armed, and has more experience at his age than anyone else on the battlefield, yet the fight does not go well initially. He was brought up in this lifestyle without a choice, and though he fights hard, it is out of duty and loyalty. It's not until he's caught in a death grip, being crushed to death in front of their eyes with the mentor just barely holding himself back from intervening, that it all comes crashing home to his father. He's saying, proudly, "Just wait. He'll get angry soon, and then it'll all be over. Just wait." And this peer, his son's mentor who has become the boy's closest friend, turns to him and says, to paraphrase slightly: "That's your son out there. Did you ever stop to ask if he wanted this? He's an eight (nine?) year old child, and he's not thinking about machismo or pride or 'fair play.' He's waiting for his father to save him. He can't understand why you're not."
John had a moment like that, a slap in the face by reality. We saw it, stark and brief and painful, in Devil's Trap. Perhaps I'm projecting. But this look is hard to ignore, or to file away as physical stress.
Obviously the DBZ situation is more than a little different from the Something Wicked scenario. My point is this mentor's line. They live in a world where Big Bads come with a vengeance, and every good-side fighter is counted on to step up and fight the good fight. It's similar to Supernatural in that sense, that the adult hero chose to fight, and to enlist his son as a fellow soldier from the time he was a toddler because 1) there's a job to do specifically and 2) evil cannot be ignored as a rule. The DBZ character is a good man, and although he may fight for pride at times, he sacrifices a very great deal, and asking little in return, to save other people. He is also a loving father, but a neglectful one. A father who has made poor choices and assumptions, who is not as aware of his son as he should be, because he was too caught up in the moment, and also because his son trusts him blindly and hero-worships him to a fault.
So I think that Devil's Trap scene was John's wake-up call, regarding Dean. And I don't think he'd "looked" at Dean as his son for a long time, throughout Dean's childhood and into adulthood. He's addressed him as son, ordered him as son, in some part protected him as son, but that's not the same thing. That's not seeing, and hearing, and being aware. Sam forced him to be aware of him, by his rebellion, but Dean, through events such as the Shtriga, was too hungry for approval to risk disfavor by standing out. That allowed John not to see Dean the son, however much he leans on Dean the soldier. And even in that regard, of what we've seen, he hasn't even treated his sons with respect as fellow soldiers; he alternately orders them about as soldiers or sons, and shuts them out as leader or father, as his plans dictate. It's things like this which make it hard for me to accept that John was the best father he could possibly have been under those circumstances. The effect is too devastating (lingering still on his adult children), and the cause too deliberate, for me to give him anything near a free pass.
Good man? Yes. Loving father? Yes. Best father? No.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it, for whatever its worth...
And since it was brought up in relation to John's parenting skills, here are my thoughts on the idea of faulty female opinions of male characters, which is one of those things I agree with in theory for the most part but not always, in practice.
There's a truth to the theory that women are more concerned with and temperamental over emotional aesthetics than men are. Hugs, kisses, sympathetic tone of voice and gentle eyes. Men don't seem to put much weight in that, not the men I've known in my life, and not 90% of the men I've seen on-screen or read in novels.
But there's a difference here. Perhaps it's subtle, or perhaps it's not. There's the issue over emotional aesthetics, such as the machismo of Dean or the coldness of Sam or the harshness of John. That's the bark. That's how the tree looks on the outside. And there's the issue over emotional content, such as the weakness of Dean or the selfishness of Sam or the cruelty of John. That's the heartwood. That's what the tree is on the inside. Women may be more concerned with the bark, but that is not at all the same as saying men are indifferent to the heartwood, or aren't affected as powerfully by emotional matters which hit them deep inside the heartwood.
Back to Dragonball Z. Two of its central, defining relationships are between father & son. (Well, it being an action anime, that's almost a given.) Men making choices which scar and/or heal their sons or their fathers. It's all about the angst. It was also written by a man. How many works of literature, written by men, revolve around fathers & sons? It's not a free pass society, this Man-World these characters live in, where the emotional hangups of women make mountains out of molehills. It's very much about action and consequence, scarring and healing. As is Supernatural. This is a show written by men, directed by men, produced by men, performed by men (for the most part and the subject matter at hand, anyway). And these men? Don't seem to give much of a damn about emotional aesthetics. And when I stop to think of things like the melodramatic farewell in Shadow, I have to admit that my favorite brand of Emo By Winchester is that which comes dry-eyed and empty-armed (...with an emphasis on "dry," Sammy; Sensitive Guy ≠ the Tin Man, is all I'm sayin' here). Not to downplay the power of a good, solid hug (says the chronic hugger), but when we stop to consider that these people view a pat on an open wound as a gesture of love and prefer the hands-off approach to first aid... the bark ain't the point. It's the heartwood that matters. To women. To men. I think women just tend to get more distracted by the bark.
Take the put-down in DMB. John griping about the Impala to Dean. My reaction to that was, "How can he be so mean?" My male co-worker friend (to visualize: think Pa Bender + John Winchester, on a bad day) said, "Dean's clearly been emotionally abused; I'd have punched him [John]." It's too simple to say that my reaction was all female, and his all male (the "emotional abuse" was a stumper; I didn't think a man would see that), but that's a good part of it. I wanted Nice Dad Guy, and didn't think past that; I held John in the clear wrong and my judgment stopped with him. My friend wanted payback, and didn't think about Nice Dad Guy; he held John in the wrong but his judgment extended to Dean's passive inaction. I was caught up in the aesthetics; he went straight to the heartwood. Now, we could go into the whole deal of why a guy like Dean just wouldn't hit his father unless severely provoked (a dig at the car ain't it), but by the same token, I have to remind myself, a guy like Dean or Sam or John ain't gonna make nice in the same way I'm most comfortable with. Playing nice isn't the top priority with them, nor should I expect it to be. That doesn't mean it won't continue to bug me, but I have to remember about outdoor plumbing and such. It's a factor.
That said. Emotional aesthetics are to characterization like icing is to cake, and the bark isn't where the history is. The matter of cause & effect, of what damage a father can unintentionally do, of what binds a son to do what he does and how deeply it affects him to submit to his father, isn't something dreamed up or exaggerated by female fans of the show. I'd say it's a topic closer to home and more intimate to the men who write such stories, than any female fan can fully appreciate. And as such, I tend to watch the actors' choices, heed the writers' scripts, and trust the creator's words when he tell us of Dean's "screwed-to-hell" psyche, and John's part in it.
From the lips of men...
For rarely are sons similar to their fathers: most are worse, and a few are better than their fathers.
Homer, The Odyssey.
Oh, and one more thing
On Dean. Michael. Child endangerment.
I have a question, and I've seen it asked but never answered in any of the comment threads or message boards I've read. If I've missed something somewhere, point it out, because I'd love to see the reasoning. Here's the question:
What the hell else were they supposed to do?
This Shtriga:
1. hunts by family/siblings
2. had already targeted his brother
3. was coming for him regardless
Unfortunately:
1. the Shtriga is only vulnerable when feeding,
2. thus requiring the need for dangerous contact,
3. the only question being "who's game?"
4. to which Sam can reply "an adult, for pete's sake"
5. but this thing apparently operates with blinders on,
(6. which is questionable given how the kill went down)
7. so it all comes down to how to handle Michael.
They could:
1. stay and wait for it to show with him in the dark, then kill it
...a. which might have the effect of creeping him out, if he sees these weird armed men skulking about outside his window, and either locking them out or running away screaming into the night
...b. and which is still using him as bait, just uninformed bait
2. stay and wait for it to show with him informed, then kill it
3. taken him away somewhere to keep him safe, which could have resulted in:
...a. another child (name/address a guess at best) being attacked instead
...b. the Shtriga hunting Michael down regardless
...c. leaving because this town suddenly ain't no fun no more
...d. Amber Alert when/if Mom finds Michael missing
4. told the Shtriga "We're know what you did last night", which could have resulted in:
...a. the Shtriga attacking them in a fit of rage, thus a theoretically easy kill
...b. the Shtriga attacking another child (name/address a guess at best) instead
...c. the Shtriga leaving because this town suddenly ain't no fun no more
...d. the Shtriga attacking Michael regardless, because it really can't help it's one-track-mind, thus requiring them to wait and kill it, and the question remains "to warn/ask or not to warn/ask."
5. dress Sam or Dean up in Michael's clothes (assuming Michael's willing) to lure the Shtriga into a trap (hopefully whatever senses the Shtriga uses to identify siblings will be malfunctioning)
6. skip town, because this hunt ain't no fun no more
Because, how Kripke has set up the Shtriga's MO, it isn't a matter of use/do not use. It's a matter of bait via informed consent vs. bait via uninformed use. He's targeted, either way. What are they supposed to do? This is a genuine question. It's good that Sam brings up the kid's safety. That's what we want our heroes to remember. But just what the hell else were they supposed to do? Dean has the thankless job of voicing harsh logic. It's the same sort of harsh logic which is used to excuse John's behavior. So what's the difference?
Actually, the difference is: Dean did give Michael a choice. He told him the danger, he reassured him that there was an answer, he didn't lie about Asher being saved, he let him know protectors were ready in the room next door and Michael was not alone, and he gave him a choice. The fact that the choice itself was rather irrational in nature (see: above) is not the issue. The fact that he reminded Michael that he has a choice, is.
Dean wasn't offered that choice. And Sam created his own by force. But John never offered it to them, not in any scene that we saw or heard of. Perhaps that's the difference. Dean, for all his harsh logic, didn't lose sight of the fact that this kid is just a kid. John? Did.
This is a war. In John's POV. In Dean's POV.
Justify this: there's a difference between enlisting and being drafted.
That's all.
*shutting up now*
*is assigned to community service for abuse of dead horse*
This had been brewing for a while, after reading dodger_winslow's meta on John as a father, but my computer woes kept me from posting it when everyone was talking about it. So this is a day late and a dollar short, and quite a few of the points I had been pondering, astri13 has already addressed in her own John meta. What more can I say? I appreciate and agree with both metas in part, some parts more passionately than others. Disagree in part, too.
In any case, my full-length John meta that my computer ate a couple of weeks ago is gone with the wind, and until S2 gives us fresh meat to gnaw on and/or someone posts something that stirs this issue up again, I'm going to let it go and not analyze John point by nitpicky point.
Still. One point gets stuck in my brain. Justification under circumstances. I could never part with my cat. However, if I somehow became starving poor and could no longer take care of him, I'd find him a good home rather than watch him starve with me. That's a choice. Perhaps justified, as it's for his own good. Perhaps not, as family is forever. That's not the issue. What of my cat? New home or starvation, he's going to suffer the consequences of my decision. Either emotional or physical distress. All the good or poor intentions in the world, all the righteous or unrighteous choices, and all my love for or indifference to him, won't halt that natural flow of cause and effect. That's what I was thinking of, regarding John and his sons, particularly Dean. Not in the interests of vilifying one or victimizing the other. Not to question "why" but to ponder "how." So I thought I'd post a little on it. Just thinking out loud, nothing major.
First, a few "facts" that I think we can all agree on.
Something Wicked. Flashback.
John left Dean and Sam for 3 days.
He left them
1. armed
2. fed
3. clothed
4. with shelter
5. without direct adult supervision
(6. with toiletries - no clear proof, but it seems pretty basic)
He left a 9/10 year old with strict instructions:
1. stay inside
2. do not let anyone inside
3. shoot first, ask questions later
4. and Rule #1: keep a 5/6 year old safe
He left a 5/6 year old in the care of a 9/10 year old.
And now for the unclear "facts."
He ostensibly left them
1. alone, i.e. he was not keeping watch
2. to hunt the Shtriga elsewhere
3. out of the "hot" danger zone
Due to the lack of explanation, it is as likely that he left them
1. under surveillance
2. as bait to draw the Shtriga in
3. in the "hot" danger zone
We don't have his POV on the incident, so everything other than the cold hard "facts" are assumptions. One last fact is this:
His arrival on the scene was nearly perfectly timed.
It being the TV world, we have to take wonky plot contrivances into consideration, but we also have to go with what we're given on screen. This isn't a nuance in someone's performance, or a line that may be taken quite a few ways. It's a clear hard physical fact that could imply a number of different things, both positive and negative, but it's also there, plain Jane in your face. John arrives as Sam is being attacked, just moments after Dean's arrival on the scene. Make of it what you will; it could follow either assumption listed above.
Let's say he left them alone out of the Shtriga's danger zone. Somehow it found his kids, and he, following its trail, arrived on the scene in time to stop disaster. That's a possibility. The only problem with that is either 1) he misjudged the Shtriga's territory (not impossible) or he 2) left his kids within that territory.
…There is also the theory that the Shtirga either 1) targeted John's kids deliberately to get this hunter off its back (wha-? that one stumps me, but it's been suggested), or 2) was drawn to Sam somehow due to his psychic aura. In either case, it went out of its way and its current territory.
Or, let's say he left them inside the Shtriga's territory, deliberately to draw the Shtriga to a place within its current territory where he had maximum control. When it showed up, he was there. The only problem with this is that, if he'd been keeping surveillance, then he would have seen Dean leave. Which would nullify his shock over Dean's confession. On the other hand, it's possible that he kept surveillance, and the nearer the Shtriga drew towards the immediate area, the more his focus shifted onto it, rather than his children. That's possible, as it wasn't set in stone that it would attack his own children. That still leaves him bursting into the room after Dean, and a good minute at least after the Shtriga. It's possible his focus was on it, thus not seeing Dean leave. As he watched it enter, he waited for it to feed. Then as he saw Dean enter, he realized Sam was alone and unarmed, and it suddenly became a different ballgame. Perhaps.
We are left with fanwanking most of this. The truth could be one or the other, or anywhere in between.
A few random facts in the immediate aftermath:
1. he glared at Dean
2. he chastised Dean for disobeying his orders
3. he hugged Sam
The passion with which he did these three varies depending on interpretation. ...In fact, due to JDM's performance, I'm not even sure if Point.1 is deserved. The script says otherwise, though, so it's not something that can be ignored or willed away simply due to a soft (read: "feeble," not "gentle") performance. ...On the other hand, performance is just what percentage of how we view the characters? I hit this same quandary in Devil's Trap, where JDM plays John as if his own heart's ripping out when he regains control for an instant. It's a tricky thing. I tend to rely on the script more heavily overall, and especially when all but the performance keeps a scene or line from jelling. JA in The Benders (Dean, protective? bored to tears, more like). JP in Nightmare (Sam, afraid? constipated, more like). JDM here (John, pissed off? grumpy, more like).
In any case, he stared at Dean without affection. I think we can all agree on that. ...Yes?
Moving on.
After this, he:
1. dropped his children off at Pastor Jim's (3 hours away)
2. returned to hunt the Shtriga
3. was unsuccessful
We are also informed that he:
1. never spoke of this again (a statement supported by hard evidence: the lack of content in his journal and Sam's complete ignorance of Shtrigas)
2. looked at Dean "different" afterward (a subjective statement supported by soft evidence: JA and JDM's individual performances throughout the season)
Point.2 has some possible hard evidence via actual scripted lines (Sam's rant in Asylum, among others) but nothing in direct reference, and it all depends on interpretation. The issue over how much John did or did not do in assuaging Dean's feelings of guilt here and throughout the rest of his childhood, and why Dean developed such an enormous guilt complex, is for another meta. What is clear is that John never spoke of this particular event again. What is also clear is that this event marked Dean. Kripke has not given us a definite proof of how much one fed the other, but to me it seems all unavoidably wrapped up together into a messy knot. Cause & effect. We see the effect, we catch glimpses of the cause. [/tangent. Sorry]
In addition, Dean believes that John:
1. sent them here for Dean's "unfinished business"
2. rightly places the blame on Dean
...to which Sam protests:
1. that Dean was just a kid, thus not responsible (Dean: "Don't rain on my parade, Mr. You Are The Wind Beneath My Bangs.")
2. that this does not justify using Michael as bait (Dean: "You cannot grok this pain as I do, Mr. Method Acting 101 Taught Me A Soft Voice Conceals All Empty Arguments." See: below)
Now... I'm not going to go into the argument of whether or not John's choices here are justified, as I've already posted about that and my feelings have not changed. Nor am I going to go into the ramifications as I see them for present day Dean, being sent back to the scene of his mistake. I've also posted about that, and my feelings on it, now that we've seen all there is of canon in S1, have strengthened rather than lessened.
There are two things I'd like to point out.
1) Action feeds reaction, yeah?
Wherever he was during the course of the three days, whether watching over them as bait or hunting elsewhere or watching them while hunting nearby, John left his sons alone... in their POV. There is a very real indication that it was not for the first time, although it was for the longest time yet. You can justify this a hundred different ways, but that's now what this is about. Interpretation varies wildly on that, and until the show serves us fresh insight on the matter, this debate has become almost DOA, for both criticism and justification. This is simply a cause & effect observation here. And all of the talk that John couldn't have left them alone with someone else because of reason A, B or C serves to illustrate that in a world where they have few if any friends to turn to, he left them alone in their eyes without even that one constant: their father. It's not an injustice to John nor is it a victimization of Dean to acknowledge that the choices John has made have had negative effects on his children. Dean's fear of abandonment is caused by more than one thing, and Mary's death is surely a biggie. Yet with each of these trips away during his childhood, John reinforced that fear, and all the guns and powerful ammo and tough guy acts for little bro aren't going to erase that, or cure it. The effect on Sam? How much of this shaped his psyche, his need for "normal" and a solid, safe family? That he wanted children who wouldn't have to be afraid all the time is in part due to Mary's death. It's also in part due to John's decisions. He didn't intend to, but he fed his sons fears, each one distinctly and powerfully and enough for lifelong scars. That he's been scarred himself doesn't halt the process of cause & effect, or excuse it from being relevant.
2) This ain't no Babysitter's Club.
This was not a hunting gig, but neither was it a "babysitting" gig. Dean wasn't asked to actively seek & destroy anything evil, but neither was he asked to watch Cartoon Network for a few hours in Mayberry while his father went fishing with Andy Griffith, yeah? He was given a sentry's gig, and by extension, he was shouldering a parenting gig, at the same time. To say that he had TV, food, clothes, cooking, little brothers, guns, Shtrigas, and everything else a boy could want to keep his little brain occupied is seeing it through a pretty fine pair of rose-tinted glasses... IMO. This cannot be had both ways. On the one hand, granting John the danger of their world, thus absolving him of most wrongs and excusing him from having to live up to the standard most fathers would be bound to, and on the other hand, saying that all this 9/10 year old child was left to do was a babysitting gig with plenty of creature comforts to keep him satisfied. And the "you're not in those extreme circumstances" argument to people who would question John's acts seems unrealistic when coupled with the "well, I've been left to babysit, and I could have handled what Dean was given to do" argument. The theory that "(Concept A) applies to most parents, but not John," only works if it doesn't go hand-in-hand with "(Concept B) is a given for kids of Dean's age." Most men don't have to go through what John did, the supernatural nature of it as well as the loss itself. Most boys don't have to go through what Dean did, both his mother's death and the method of his upbringing. Both characters came out that stretch of time scarred, via outside influences and via decisions within their control. Make allowances for both... or neither... or both in part and in the same way, but to make allowances for one and not the other is having that cake and eating it, too.
And if we're going to bend the rules like that, then why question anything at all? We could all have two cakes to rationalize away things that make characters less than perfect examples of their role in the drama. They don't have to be the best the world has to offer of Dads, Brothers or Big Damn Heroes to be characters worthy of our affection and attention.
Both of John's children are in the same world as he is. He did not choose to be touched by that world, but he chose to touch back, and with that choice, he pulled his children into the same world. I believe that's a decision he made, and had he been someone else, Pastor Jim perhaps or Bobby, he might have holed up safely with his kids and became a recluse in a bomb shelter. That's an extreme. Or had he been someone else, he might have gone into heavy denial and/or committed suicide. Those are all extremes. I believe that circumstances with Mary's death did not change him, not a 180. The man he was before decided how he would react, and what measures he would take. War is a reality, and he went on the offensive, rather than the defensive. (Bush, not Liberal.) He's a Marine, and he wasn't going to take this lying down. It's a choice he made, influenced by the man he was and the way Mary died, and it was a choice made as a man and a husband, rather than as a father. The good intent, the warm father we saw in the pilot, was there, and I don't believe it was the initial burst of grief and shock that decided his course. It was after meeting Missouri, after he'd had time to absorb it all, and with a clear mind and set purpose that he made his decision. How much of that decision was based on helping others, and how much of it was based on obsessive revenge, fluctuates with how JDM plays him, so it's very hard to say for sure. But this is clear to me: he's a good man who can't turn his back on evil. Where I find it harmful to his children, is that he forcefully pulled them into this world. We don't have much evidence at all showing us that John reminded himself that these are children, not soldiers in the making, and we have some evidence to the contrary, indicating that John did lose touch with being a father. Understandable? Justified? This isn't about that. Again, it's cause & effect. His sons lost their father. Sam hates the drill sergeant. Dean rises and falls on his good opinion. Outside influences set the stage, but John wrote the plot. He penned a soldier's story, not a father's.
In SW, Dean was left on guard duty, complete with sawed-off shotgun (illegal much, and for a hell of a good reason?) and instructions to protect his baby brother above anything else. We all know he failed. Three days of sentry duty, three days of parenting, and this 9/10 year old got claustrophobic. He took a break to stretch his legs and play a game. In doing so, he left his charge unguarded. He failed in fulfilling his responsibility.
And now let me go off on a little tangent.
Has anyone reading this ever watched or read Dragonball Z? It's a masterpiece of action anime, but take that with a grain of salt. However there is a moment in that story which captures the heart of this issue fairly well, IMO. The main hero has trained his son (who is more powerful than he; an awesome and naturally gifted fighter) to a fine point; he's a lethal weapon, especially when angered. The son has been closely and sternly mentored by his father's peer since he was a toddler, and he finds himself battling the Biggest Bad Yet himself when his father yields unexpectedly in his favor. The boy is armed, and has more experience at his age than anyone else on the battlefield, yet the fight does not go well initially. He was brought up in this lifestyle without a choice, and though he fights hard, it is out of duty and loyalty. It's not until he's caught in a death grip, being crushed to death in front of their eyes with the mentor just barely holding himself back from intervening, that it all comes crashing home to his father. He's saying, proudly, "Just wait. He'll get angry soon, and then it'll all be over. Just wait." And this peer, his son's mentor who has become the boy's closest friend, turns to him and says, to paraphrase slightly: "That's your son out there. Did you ever stop to ask if he wanted this? He's an eight (nine?) year old child, and he's not thinking about machismo or pride or 'fair play.' He's waiting for his father to save him. He can't understand why you're not."
John had a moment like that, a slap in the face by reality. We saw it, stark and brief and painful, in Devil's Trap. Perhaps I'm projecting. But this look is hard to ignore, or to file away as physical stress.
Obviously the DBZ situation is more than a little different from the Something Wicked scenario. My point is this mentor's line. They live in a world where Big Bads come with a vengeance, and every good-side fighter is counted on to step up and fight the good fight. It's similar to Supernatural in that sense, that the adult hero chose to fight, and to enlist his son as a fellow soldier from the time he was a toddler because 1) there's a job to do specifically and 2) evil cannot be ignored as a rule. The DBZ character is a good man, and although he may fight for pride at times, he sacrifices a very great deal, and asking little in return, to save other people. He is also a loving father, but a neglectful one. A father who has made poor choices and assumptions, who is not as aware of his son as he should be, because he was too caught up in the moment, and also because his son trusts him blindly and hero-worships him to a fault.
So I think that Devil's Trap scene was John's wake-up call, regarding Dean. And I don't think he'd "looked" at Dean as his son for a long time, throughout Dean's childhood and into adulthood. He's addressed him as son, ordered him as son, in some part protected him as son, but that's not the same thing. That's not seeing, and hearing, and being aware. Sam forced him to be aware of him, by his rebellion, but Dean, through events such as the Shtriga, was too hungry for approval to risk disfavor by standing out. That allowed John not to see Dean the son, however much he leans on Dean the soldier. And even in that regard, of what we've seen, he hasn't even treated his sons with respect as fellow soldiers; he alternately orders them about as soldiers or sons, and shuts them out as leader or father, as his plans dictate. It's things like this which make it hard for me to accept that John was the best father he could possibly have been under those circumstances. The effect is too devastating (lingering still on his adult children), and the cause too deliberate, for me to give him anything near a free pass.
Good man? Yes. Loving father? Yes. Best father? No.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it, for whatever its worth...
And since it was brought up in relation to John's parenting skills, here are my thoughts on the idea of faulty female opinions of male characters, which is one of those things I agree with in theory for the most part but not always, in practice.
There's a truth to the theory that women are more concerned with and temperamental over emotional aesthetics than men are. Hugs, kisses, sympathetic tone of voice and gentle eyes. Men don't seem to put much weight in that, not the men I've known in my life, and not 90% of the men I've seen on-screen or read in novels.
But there's a difference here. Perhaps it's subtle, or perhaps it's not. There's the issue over emotional aesthetics, such as the machismo of Dean or the coldness of Sam or the harshness of John. That's the bark. That's how the tree looks on the outside. And there's the issue over emotional content, such as the weakness of Dean or the selfishness of Sam or the cruelty of John. That's the heartwood. That's what the tree is on the inside. Women may be more concerned with the bark, but that is not at all the same as saying men are indifferent to the heartwood, or aren't affected as powerfully by emotional matters which hit them deep inside the heartwood.
Back to Dragonball Z. Two of its central, defining relationships are between father & son. (Well, it being an action anime, that's almost a given.) Men making choices which scar and/or heal their sons or their fathers. It's all about the angst. It was also written by a man. How many works of literature, written by men, revolve around fathers & sons? It's not a free pass society, this Man-World these characters live in, where the emotional hangups of women make mountains out of molehills. It's very much about action and consequence, scarring and healing. As is Supernatural. This is a show written by men, directed by men, produced by men, performed by men (for the most part and the subject matter at hand, anyway). And these men? Don't seem to give much of a damn about emotional aesthetics. And when I stop to think of things like the melodramatic farewell in Shadow, I have to admit that my favorite brand of Emo By Winchester is that which comes dry-eyed and empty-armed (...with an emphasis on "dry," Sammy; Sensitive Guy ≠ the Tin Man, is all I'm sayin' here). Not to downplay the power of a good, solid hug (says the chronic hugger), but when we stop to consider that these people view a pat on an open wound as a gesture of love and prefer the hands-off approach to first aid... the bark ain't the point. It's the heartwood that matters. To women. To men. I think women just tend to get more distracted by the bark.
Take the put-down in DMB. John griping about the Impala to Dean. My reaction to that was, "How can he be so mean?" My male co-worker friend (to visualize: think Pa Bender + John Winchester, on a bad day) said, "Dean's clearly been emotionally abused; I'd have punched him [John]." It's too simple to say that my reaction was all female, and his all male (the "emotional abuse" was a stumper; I didn't think a man would see that), but that's a good part of it. I wanted Nice Dad Guy, and didn't think past that; I held John in the clear wrong and my judgment stopped with him. My friend wanted payback, and didn't think about Nice Dad Guy; he held John in the wrong but his judgment extended to Dean's passive inaction. I was caught up in the aesthetics; he went straight to the heartwood. Now, we could go into the whole deal of why a guy like Dean just wouldn't hit his father unless severely provoked (a dig at the car ain't it), but by the same token, I have to remind myself, a guy like Dean or Sam or John ain't gonna make nice in the same way I'm most comfortable with. Playing nice isn't the top priority with them, nor should I expect it to be. That doesn't mean it won't continue to bug me, but I have to remember about outdoor plumbing and such. It's a factor.
That said. Emotional aesthetics are to characterization like icing is to cake, and the bark isn't where the history is. The matter of cause & effect, of what damage a father can unintentionally do, of what binds a son to do what he does and how deeply it affects him to submit to his father, isn't something dreamed up or exaggerated by female fans of the show. I'd say it's a topic closer to home and more intimate to the men who write such stories, than any female fan can fully appreciate. And as such, I tend to watch the actors' choices, heed the writers' scripts, and trust the creator's words when he tell us of Dean's "screwed-to-hell" psyche, and John's part in it.
From the lips of men...
For rarely are sons similar to their fathers: most are worse, and a few are better than their fathers.
Homer, The Odyssey.
Oh, and one more thing
On Dean. Michael. Child endangerment.
I have a question, and I've seen it asked but never answered in any of the comment threads or message boards I've read. If I've missed something somewhere, point it out, because I'd love to see the reasoning. Here's the question:
What the hell else were they supposed to do?
This Shtriga:
1. hunts by family/siblings
2. had already targeted his brother
3. was coming for him regardless
Unfortunately:
1. the Shtriga is only vulnerable when feeding,
2. thus requiring the need for dangerous contact,
3. the only question being "who's game?"
4. to which Sam can reply "an adult, for pete's sake"
5. but this thing apparently operates with blinders on,
(6. which is questionable given how the kill went down)
7. so it all comes down to how to handle Michael.
They could:
1. stay and wait for it to show with him in the dark, then kill it
...a. which might have the effect of creeping him out, if he sees these weird armed men skulking about outside his window, and either locking them out or running away screaming into the night
...b. and which is still using him as bait, just uninformed bait
2. stay and wait for it to show with him informed, then kill it
3. taken him away somewhere to keep him safe, which could have resulted in:
...a. another child (name/address a guess at best) being attacked instead
...b. the Shtriga hunting Michael down regardless
...c. leaving because this town suddenly ain't no fun no more
...d. Amber Alert when/if Mom finds Michael missing
4. told the Shtriga "We're know what you did last night", which could have resulted in:
...a. the Shtriga attacking them in a fit of rage, thus a theoretically easy kill
...b. the Shtriga attacking another child (name/address a guess at best) instead
...c. the Shtriga leaving because this town suddenly ain't no fun no more
...d. the Shtriga attacking Michael regardless, because it really can't help it's one-track-mind, thus requiring them to wait and kill it, and the question remains "to warn/ask or not to warn/ask."
5. dress Sam or Dean up in Michael's clothes (assuming Michael's willing) to lure the Shtriga into a trap (hopefully whatever senses the Shtriga uses to identify siblings will be malfunctioning)
6. skip town, because this hunt ain't no fun no more
Because, how Kripke has set up the Shtriga's MO, it isn't a matter of use/do not use. It's a matter of bait via informed consent vs. bait via uninformed use. He's targeted, either way. What are they supposed to do? This is a genuine question. It's good that Sam brings up the kid's safety. That's what we want our heroes to remember. But just what the hell else were they supposed to do? Dean has the thankless job of voicing harsh logic. It's the same sort of harsh logic which is used to excuse John's behavior. So what's the difference?
Actually, the difference is: Dean did give Michael a choice. He told him the danger, he reassured him that there was an answer, he didn't lie about Asher being saved, he let him know protectors were ready in the room next door and Michael was not alone, and he gave him a choice. The fact that the choice itself was rather irrational in nature (see: above) is not the issue. The fact that he reminded Michael that he has a choice, is.
Dean wasn't offered that choice. And Sam created his own by force. But John never offered it to them, not in any scene that we saw or heard of. Perhaps that's the difference. Dean, for all his harsh logic, didn't lose sight of the fact that this kid is just a kid. John? Did.
This is a war. In John's POV. In Dean's POV.
Justify this: there's a difference between enlisting and being drafted.
That's all.
*shutting up now*
*is assigned to community service for abuse of dead horse*